Hacker News Reader

Comment by Shivetya | Hacker News Reader

Last I checked the residuals on S class Mercendes were in the low forty percent. Throw in the funny math needed to get your drive costs down to the five hundred dollar amount and I get less impressed by the minute.

Then to top it off, all with my money too boot! So for everyone who can afford a one thousand dollar monthly lease; before taxes; they get my help to pay for it.

Sorry, he is all in with our help. That isn't exactly courageous. He wants to capitalize on that tax credit before the money ends up elsewhere.

Look, I am all for having an electric car do well, but I would much rather finance the world of Leafs and similar affordable cars than a luxury vehicle to people who could make the payment regardless. People on sites like this bitch up a storm all the time about subsidies to various businesses but somehow this one gets a pass.

View on HN

The model S has captured people's mindshare and has increased publicly perceived legitimacy of electric vehicles in ways that the Leaf or Volt weren't able to. Its success and continued success is important in promoting and achieving the kind of infrastructure support and economies of scale needed to take EVs to the next stage and beyond.

To that end, even though the current state of Tesla and Model S may not be picture perfect, its success is certainly more desirable than its failure, particularly given that both its Nissan and GM counterparts have basically flopped in people's minds.

Whatever the hell it is you're talking about with mindshare and flops in peoples minds, I'm pretty sure GM and Nissan have sold a lot more electric cars than Tesla.

But they're not desirable in the same manner. You need desire when it comes to lifestyle objects like cars. It's what keeps people interested.

The Carolla and Camry are successful only for their intense desirability, it's true.

You might need desire. What I (and millions of ordinary people) need when it comes to cars is a cost-effective solution, which means resale value, parts, cost, petrol etc. Desire comes last.

Agree - Tesla taps the passion of the die hard enthusiasts. The range and performance of the Model S is comparatively exceptional to that of the Volt and Leaf. Model S is sexy and exciting and I WANT to drive it, I don't simply concede to drive it as a best option.

> Look, I am all for having an electric car do well, but I would much rather finance the world of Leafs and similar affordable cars than a luxury vehicle to people who could make the payment regardless.

Nissan Leaf, average owner income: $125,000 http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1049202_just-who-is-a-ty...

Chevy Volt, average owner income: $175,000 http://autos.aol.com/article/why-the-chevy-volt-is-attractin...

Tesla S, average owner income >$200K. http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/7238-Model-S-B...

So what? The Leaf is still about 1/3 the price of the Tesla car, so it's inarguably more affordable. Pointing out that the average buyer is reasonably well off is beside the point.

From an environmental standpoint it's going to lead to a greater reduction in fossil fuel use in the aggregate, assuming it sees the same pattern of takeup as the Prius did.

The simplest way to make electric cars more successful is to increase the artificially low price of gasoline, e.g. By factoring in the costs of our mid-east foreign policy and a good deal of our navy since both are driven in large part by our need for oil.

I agree. But don't expect any magic.

Europe has much higher costs of gasoline than the USA. They still don't have roads full of electric cars.

We do have a lot fewer SUVs and other gas guzzlers, though.

> They still don't have roads full of electric cars.

yet. Government subsidizes 100% electrical cars heavily in the form of low / no road taxes or lease tax, and with a high amount of <100 km commuter traffic, electrical cars with their limited range make sense.

There aren't many Hummers either.

Americans drive a lot more than Europeans. I'm not sure if it's a totally fair comparison, but still a good point.

Yes. And driving less is one of the predictable reactions to higher petrol prices.

It's also a space thing. As a Brit the thing I didn't get so well before going there is how sodding big the US is, and how normal it's citizens think it is to drive to the next town over which just happens to be an hour or so away.

I was doing just this with a German foreign exchange student in Missouri once. He commented about halfway there that, if he were at home, we'd be in Poland already.

Americans will continue to drive automobiles more than Europeans if gas prices were to go to parity. Our mass transit infrastructure is laughable by comparison. Also, we're way more spread out than Europe is.

Electricity costs are significantly higher than in the USA as well.

It might be a simple solution, but that doesn't make it a good solution. The number of unintended consequences will be enormous.

For example: Will you tax diesel as well? If not, then people will switch to that, with poor results for our air quality.

If yes, then suddenly every since thing you buy will be more expensive, since it's all shipped.

And those are just the first two things that popped into mind - there will be a LOT more consequences.

So you are fine subsidizing oil companies by allowing them to externalize their costs?

Also shipping is starting to switch to natural gas; you may think this a good or a bad thing, but a tax on diesel would increase that.

No, you do it by taxing gasoline and diesel

You can discriminate between uses in a way similar to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_diesel#reddiesel

Taxing fuel is very much solved problem elsewhere.

You just tax the carbon emissions.

Exactly. Tax the negative externality [1]. Let people make decisions factoring in more of the costs.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

Taxing carbon emissions is a fine idea, but gasoline (and other petroleum products such as diesel) also need to pay for the costs of US mid-east policy. We've never had terrorists blow up buildings or a marine barracks because of our coal mining activity.

The costs of Middle East policy doesnt need factoring in, they are there already. And the cost of petrol isn't the same everywhere as it is in the US, and is significantly inflated by taxes in many places. Over 50% of what I pay is tax.

Tesla has openly stated their end goal is to sell an EV in the mass-market price range. The Roadster and model S are steps towards that goal.

The best place to invest your money including tax dollars is in the company with the highest chance of success. For many reasons I believe Tesla will disrupt the car industry and lead the transition to making the electric car the new standard : amazing founder, 100% focused on the electrical car, the best technology (with a true viable range),a good financial situation, good early traction and a sexy car!

Electric cars are an order or magnitude simpler mechanical devices as compared to IC engine cars. Once an affordable battery chemistry (or any other cheap energy storage mechanism) is figured out, a lot more electric car companies will get started (I am hoping for a healthy 'car-kit' market). Tesla is the 'best' in the sense that it has the best technology to handle the idiosyncrasies of Li-ion battery (they like to burn themselves the first opportunity they get!).

Is the government going to see a return on those? Or is it an investment because you think they are going to be a net improvement for society? To be honest if I had a choice I would give most tax dollars to the EFF and ACLU, but if Tesla can improve battery technology and adoption of electric cars I would consider it a win.

I think they have already improved battery technology and adoption of electric cars.

That's true. I should have wrote "continue to improve".

http://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the_mind_behind_tesla_spa...

Here Elon speaks at TED. Somewhere in the talk he explains the reasoning behind the more expensive vehicles at this moment. (spoiler: He plans on getting less expensive, less elegant versions on the market, with the help of these more expensive versions.)

Claiming that getting a tax credit is equivalent to taking "your" money is a totally absurd notion. Neither it is your money, because you didn't earn it in the first place (the person receiving the credit did), nor would eliminating the tax credit lead to you having to pay less taxes - the government would just be spent the money for other useless crap instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com