Hacker News Reader

So, I drive a Leaf (with DC fast charge) and a Volt (the latter every day). Tesla is STILL ahead dramatically. Model 3 is the most efficient electric car you can buy in spite of having a long range. The other electric cars have large buffers in part because their chemistry is not as mature. The charging network is still vastly different in availability, speed, and especially price (Electrify America is often much more expensive than gas), although thankfully it has improved a lot.

Most other electric cars are made as a kind of electrified conventional vehicle still. Tesla is the only one that isn't. Rivian is coming, which will change that. They GET electric vehicles the way Tesla does, and I think that will change things.

Porsche DOES seem to "get" electric (I like they're going for 800 Volts), but Taycan is still incredibly limited in availability, and their efficiency is so low that the effective charge rate is actually lower (plus network isn't built out).

Tesla is still years ahead of everyone. Model S still doesn't have effective competition (Taycan isn't it due to price, availability, efficiency).

I hope this changes. Rivian has a chance of making a mark. Taycan is a Porsche, so is going to be limited to Porsche's. GM has squandered their good entrance of the Chevy Volt (and to a lesser degree the Bolt) by not supporting electrification. I think if we had a much better incentive system and if we had updated and enforced the Gas Guzzler Tax on SUVs and trucks, we'd have more than just Tesla.

What's really amazing to me is how much Toyota has squandered the enormous advantage in electrification they had when the Prius first came out. Literally 15 years ahead of Model S, they had a half-electrified, modern, mass-produced electric car... they could've easily upgraded it a bit and swapped in a full lithium battery, but they didn't and haven't since it came out in 1997. 23 years ago!!! Toyota is to electric cars what Nokia was to smartphones.

Toyota is definitely an interesting case. They clearly think BEVs aren’t fit because batteries slowly charge a fixed capacity. They think hydrogen fuel cells are a better drop in replacement. In that sense, they’re in a better position to replace ICEs with hydrogen FCs in their hybrids. They could side step the whole BEV generation that way. Or, BEVs could fall in price so dramatically that a full charge is more range than any driver wants to drive in a day - say measured in MW of capacity instead of KW.

Interesting times for sure.

Unfortunately, hydrogen is just fundamentally not as compelling. Fundamentally much less efficient (round-trip), volumetric energy density basically identical with state of the art batteries (which are improving), much more complexity, greater safety concerns (really high pressure plus the most flammable gas there is), material constraints... You still need a lithium battery. You cannot charge at home. The fueling infrastructure is more expensive than gasoline pumps or electric charging stations (and sometimes not even faster than Tesla's 250kW v3 charging... i.e. if you have two cars fueling, often the second car takes much longer as the station's buffer tank is emptied... to get the 5 minute fueling speeds, the hydrogen must be compressed to extremely high pressure... 5000psi... and cooled to cryogenic temperatures otherwise it will heat up the existing hydrogen gas inside the car's tank). The fuel is more expensive than gasoline.

In fact, a high end long range Model 3 has more range (322miles) than the Toyota Mirai (312mi) but costs less ($49k vs $59k). Is dramatically faster (4.4 seconds 0-60mph vs 9 seconds). Also has vastly greater number of charging stations (and can slow charge from any 120V outlet).

Fuel cells themselves are expensive. Estimates are about $11,000 or so for the Mirai fuel cell stack (not counting the secondary systems like the lithium battery or even the hydrogen tank), or about the same as what the 75kWh Tesla Model 3 Long Range's pack which has greater range. So fuel cell cars will be fundamentally more expensive up front, more expensive to run, more maintenance, with less convenient charging.

To me, a plug-in hybrid (even if using synthesized carbon-neutral hydrocarbon fuel) is much more compelling if you wanted a technological alternative to pure electric. You're not going to be stranded due to lack of charging infrastructure, can charge at home, don't require super high pressure tanks, can fuel fast, etc. At least they have that going with the plug-in version of the Prius.

But hydrogen just doesn't make sense for cars. Maybe on very large vehicles (ships, maybe airplanes) that can use liquid hydrogen (much denser than compressed hydrogen and doesn't require ultra-heavy high pressure tanks).

I think hydrogen starts to make sense if we ever live in a world where energy becomes free. You can replace the dino oil with hydrogen, since you can create hydrogen for 'free' using electrolysis. Then it becomes a way to store gasoline-like energy... but I still think all your points are valid for cars. Maybe, but batteries definitely seem better near-term.

Given we've got quite a few other hurdles before the utopia of free energy... well, batteries are for sure the better option now.

Electrolytically produced hydrogen is super expensive... not because the energy is expensive but because the electrolysis equipment is expensive (particularly if you decide to run it only when there's "free" electricity). Hopefully that changes, but it'll ironically probably require batteries to get super cheap so you can run the electrolysis equipment 24/7.

I think Toyota is right, but they would need to take the lead and build a hydrogen refill network and stop relying on others for it.

Similarly BEVs other than Tesla make the drive between Sf and LA impractical at best, because refueling is difficult.

The real genius of Tesla is the vertical integration of the super charger.

They might have reason to suspect governmental support to deploy hydrogen infrastructure. It might be there following the Fukushima disaster.

>Taycan is a Porsche, so is going to be limited to Porsche's.

Porsche is owned by Volkswagen, who seem committed to catch up to Tesla. At least some of the expertise and lessons learned are likely to be used across Volkswagen

I definitely hope so. We need all the players we can get.

If you think the eTron competes with a Tesla you haven’t really looked into them. The range in the eTron is pathetic, it’s tiny, a lot less efficient and slower. The 20% battery is guarded because their chemistry sucks, not because of any reliability advantage.

The iPace on the other hand, would have made a wonderful gas car, it’s poor electric drivetrain is a setback.

Isn't that just the F-Pace?

Engineering Explained did a good piece on the Taycan, and at the end, they cover the difference between the Porsche and Tesla philosophy on battery; and how the Porsche philosophy gives them a consistent throttle feel, a 'held back' battery buffer so regen ability is not inconsistent, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYMRXlRoHyQ

But, at the end of the day, the Taycan is still just breathtakingly inefficient compared to the Tesla.

It's all fine and good that other manufacturers are "holding back" capacity, but all that means is you're hauling around battery weight you can't use, and won't use until you've burned through a certain % of battery longevity. If you do at all.

It's not "helping" anyone, it's just giving them bragging rights about effectively, fake degredation numbers.

Here's some great data on how Tesla batteries degrade:

https://electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-dat...

I guess the question is, would you rather see that a smaller number that never goes down? Or be able to use more of the capacity?

I'm playing with the idea of buying an electric car as my next car. Due to that I'm following quite bit what's happening, sites like Electrek and Teslarati, and a Finnish youtuber called "Tesla Joni" who make sort of "every day" videos about living with Tesla Model 3.

So yeah, there starts to be competition. VAG is bringing ID.3, Polestar will start selling their 2, Ford is bringing the so-called Mustang and even BMW will have EVs that look more or less normal cars. Still all of those are not as interesting as Tesla. I now drive a SEAT Leon which I bought as new 3 years ago. It has been in normal service twice and zero updates to software. Nothing to infotainment, nothing to engine, nothing to electronics. And when buying the car I didn't even think things like that. But now when following what Tesla does, it's a completely different way of owning a car. Like xvector wrote here already getting a new software upgrade is super nice for the car owner. The same is visible in fore mentioned Tesla Joni's videos. Now when thinking about the "real" car manufacturers like VAG, BMW, Mercedes and Polestar, I'm pretty sure they will sell you the car and that's it. I'm especially concerned with Polestar as the software is coming from Google - 5 years and it will be listed in killedbygoogle.com.

And that's why the Apple analogy is so fitting. No matter what you think about iPhone, iPad or Macs, they are being supported much longer than any other manufacturer does. My 2013 iPad Air is still getting regular OTA updates, even though it will not get the new iPadOS.

Rivian and Taycan are both interesting like a Tesla. But neither Rivian nor Taycan are going to be as affordable as the Model 3 is today and the Y and Cybertruck will be in the future. Rivian is like Model S and X pricing. Taycan is above that, on the same order as Tesla's next gen roadster for their top end version.

Model 3 really is a masterpiece, IMHO. Affordable, more efficient than any other car, fantastic electric range and the fastest charging speed you can get, and as cutting edge autopilot/assist tech (not to mention infotainment) as you can get in any production car.

I wish someone would try to one-up the Model 3.

im waiting for a polestar 2, personally.

Cybertruck and Rivian are both very interesting, but pick-ups are not that common in northern Europe. I wonder if those will even be available here. Taycan obviously is interesting too, but like you said, it's quite expensive. And with a quick googling, Porsche doesn't seem to be updating the software that much.

I know this starts to sound like I'm obsessing about the software but the thing is that I'm very much intrigued by the idea that a car manufacturer would actually continue developing features to a car you already own. There's even rumors about an SDK being released by Tesla at some point of application developers. I'm using Android Auto daily and I quite like it, but I live as I live in Finland it's not even officially released here so I need to side-load the app to get it installed and upgraded. Android 10 changes that as it's built-in, though. Still there are not that many applications that support Android Auto. I'm using Spotify, Google Music, Google Podcasts, TuneIn and Waze. All of those are usable, but for example starting a navigation with Waze means I need to stop to do so remember to start navigation before leaving. Yes, it supports voice commands, but pronouncing Finnish street names in English is quite challenging. And yes, it supports Finnish for voice commands too and navigation would be easier, but then I lose the possibility use Spotify with voice commands as artist/band names are not understood if I have Finnish as the language (#FirstWorldProblems).

Anyway based on Tesla's record so far, if they would release an SDK and build up an ecosystem for it, I'm pretty sure they would succeed with it too.

>Sometimes people Smart Summon their cars into posts. Sometimes people on AP smash into fire trucks. "Well, you're holding it wrong" is Tesla's answer when that happens

This morning I was driving my car at 65 miles per hour in a straight line. I could have killed anyone around me with nothing more than a turn of the steering wheel. For better or worse, society has accepted that when you're in control of a vehicle, you better hold it right.

Tesla also used to say that "hey, you only really need to touch the steering wheel every 15 minutes", before they were coerced into something more realistic. So, there are nuances.

You're fighting FUD with FUD.

> In 2019 Electrify America has averaged a new site a day. Non-Tesla EVs can now use that charging network to get pretty much anywhere a Tesla EV can get using their proprietary supercharging network.

This is laughably wrong and misleading. In fact, most of the implications in your comment are. (eg, that Tesla only has more range because they're playing russian roulette with battery packs).

Raw range is one of the biggest reasons holding most people back from buying an EV. And Tesla's 'exposing full battery capacity' seems to be working quite well. Battery degradation isn't actually an issue despite what you say. Sure if you supercharge the batteries constantly and go 0-100% charge all the time, then yeah they'll degrade, but so would ANY other battery exposed to those conditions. Very rare to actually have people drive that way.

Taycan is slower in a 0-60 than the Model S, and at a $50k+ price premium... sure it corners better and likely has more repeatability, but I'd hope you'd get something for the huge loss of range. It's a specialty product though, since noone drives their cars like that on the street (for long, anyways).

Jaguar I-PACE, although comparably priced to the older Model X base model (which by the way they discontinued), is exactly the same range as the old Model X 75D (238 vs 234). And it's WAY less efficient (80MPGe for the Jag vs 93MPGe for the Tesla).

Comparing the e-tron as if the battery buffer doesn't exist is disingenuous. Unless Audi decides to unlock that for free (ha, good luck), you need to compare apples to apples. You can't just add the buffer back in to up your efficiency since you still need to charge the buffer. The rated efficiency would be just as bad if they unlocked the whole battery. Also, a reminder, the e-tron is a tiny car compared to the Model X. The efficiency on that thing is just laughable.

I'll agree that the European competitors are definitely offering a better interior quality, fit-finish, etc, but you're paying a pretty heavy cost for that. Tesla's fit and finish isn't that bad these days, and it's only been getting better.

All of these issues I noted above though lead to one problem: the cost to charge the car is awful. This is exacerbated by the outrageously expensive fast chargers by Electrify America et al. It's significantly more expensive to use one of those fast chargers than it is to charge at home. The Tesla network is more expensive than home, but not that much.

For comparison (using 50kWh as a baseline, and my power cost in Texas): * Charging at home: 50kWh @ $0.12/kWh = $6 * Charging at a Tesla Supercharger: A recent fast charge I did that was ~45kWh (not exactly comparable, but close) = $8.57 * Charging at an Electrify America station: $1 session fee... plus $0.58/min @ 125kW (assuming I get that full 125kW, which is unlikely) = $14.92

And I'm being generous to the EA station. My understanding of how they work is you get locked in at the max pricing the station offers. If it was a 350kW station (which most cars can't use, and DEFINITELY can't use for the full charging period), the price per minute is $0.89. So that real fee would be closer to $20 (assuming you can take some advantage of the faster charging).

I can say with confidence that although there are more fast charging stations coming, they are horrible to use. It's a mishmash of different apps, poor reliability, and overpriced fees. I've used some of them with my other EV car and the experience is horrible.

Please, get your facts straight. Most of them are outright wrong.

Exposing the raw battery capacity? I guess all these people who are having their 2012-2017 Model S' range reduced and charging speed cut in half or worse are just delusional: https://floridanewswire.com/battery-gate-warranty-gate-charg...

As for your speculation on EA's pricing, have you ever visited let alone used a station? You seem unaware of their membership program which offers $0 session fees and reduced prices per kWh. Given how new their network is, pricing seems completely fair.

I'm aware of the reduced fees with membership pricing. Problem is, unless you're using them constantly, it's a huge waste. I don't roadtrip all the time, so a $4/month fee eating away at that will erode every benefit I get from the cheaper fees.

Per the 85 and 90 pack issues, sure there seems to be some problem with them... especially when supercharged repeatedly. Unclear what the actual issue is though. Doesn't seem to impact every other line they offer though (70, 100, and all other variants). Might just be the actual degradation though.

It's funny, because I haven't seen huge news about the Nissan Leaf problems. They have garbage degradation curves and haven't fixed it after many battery iterations... besides the lawsuit for 2011-2012 model years, it seems everything else is considered 'OK'.