Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnnewguy | Hacker News Reader

Is this what passes for clever? It's hardly a "tech" article, that's for sure.

>The engine was also extremely hot, we burned ourselves when we touched it.

Electric motors run cold, I guess?

>We started calculating price versus consumption and came to the shocking conclusion that a petrol car costs unimaginable €12 per 100km! Sure, electric cars could also theoretically come up to these amounts if they quick charged at one of the most expensive charging stations in the country – but for petrol cars there are no cheaper alternatives!

You can buy a $12,000 gas car, but for electric cars there are no cheaper alternatives. Work that into the cost vs a $100,000 Tesla. The 99% of the world are not complete idiots; electric cars aren't mainstream yet.

View on HN

> for electric cars there are no cheaper alternatives

Not true at all. I traded in a Subaru WRX and pay less for my Leaf every month than I did for the Subaru. Not to mention the savings on the costs of driving it around.

> The 99% of the world are not complete idiots; electric cars aren't mainstream yet.

These two phrases don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

It's true, there are good reasons why EVs aren't mainstream. One is that if you're in an apartment or condominium EV ownership is pretty much out the window unless you can get your property managers to install charging stations.

Another is that you can't get one with 200 mile range for under $60k right now, and that's a big hurdle for most people to get over mentally. Even though most people don't drive more than 80 miles in a day, and a Leaf WOULD do just fine for them, they can't bring themselves to act rationally about it. Being that close to their limit is a mental block. That's why it's important that Tesla delivers on the promise to offer a $30k 200 mile range car in 2017.

Now, all of that has nothing to do with the original article. The point of which is really that EVs are way, way nicer than petrol cars, for a variety of reasons. Which is something that most people just don't get yet.

"Which is something that most people just don't get yet."

Yes, yes, and more yes.

People still don't really understand electric cars yet. They see an EV as a sacrifice. They think that you buy an EV either to save money on gas or out of some vague sense of environmental responsibility. They don't understand that they are just plain better.

Right now, gas cars offer three advantages over EVs: there's more variety in the market, they're cheaper, and they go farther. These are not insignificant advantages, of course, but people don't realize that EVs are equal or better in all other respects.

It's coming around now that EVs are getting more exposure, and especially since Tesla keeps getting so much attention for producing a car that's good on its own merits, and not merely good "for an EV."

The other side of this is that people are blind to the problems of gas cars, because they've grown up with them. One of the biggest problems people see with EVs is charging. But if you hadn't grown up with gas vehicles, the idea of seeking out a specialized filling station once every week or two and then dispensing dangerous, toxic liquid fuel from an apparatus that doesn't even seal it off from the outside would seem completely mad. You have to do a complete change of the engine lubricant how often? The windshield wiper fluid cap is in the same compartment as components that get hot enough to cause serious burns? Every time you slow down you just throw away all your kinetic energy, and grind down your brake pads while you're doing it? This is clearly not a viable technology.

>These are not insignificant advantages, of course, but people don't realize that EVs are equal or better in all other respects.

With regards to going farther...um, no? Not only can I hop on the highway with a full tank of gas and head out to a rural area a couple hundred miles away for camping/whatever, I have no need to worry about whether or not I'll run out of gas because of the gas station's ubiquity. It's going to be a long time before the same can be said for EVs. Being tethered to a Tesla-approved route isn't an viable excuse either.

Why do you reply with "um, no?" and then go off talking about the EV's range troubles when my post clearly stated that range is an aspect of EVs that's still inferior...?

>You have to do a complete change of the engine lubricant how often?

Usually not very often. I only need to do it once every 10,000 miles. There is a widely held myth that you must do it more often but its just that - a myth. Modern cars can go very long time without an oil change, check the owner's manual for your car to know how long.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4209/is-it-neces...

I'm well aware. That's still pretty often compared to an EV.

I don't believe you are painting a clear picture of the average person's "mental block." Most people I know would love to own a EV but they "aren't there yet" for most people I know.

I drive very little on a day to day basis. Very very little. That's great for someone who only needs to drive to work and run errands in town. (Me). I pretty much never leave town day-to-day. The big issue is I make a lot of road trips around the East Coast on the weekends - so I need my car to have a very long range once in a while and I make enough road trips were it isn't economically feasible to rent a long range car once a month (or so) for that. It also isn't economically feasible to buy a second vehicle and pay all the ownership costs of that. My spouse and I carpool, we both work in town and it makes sense economically and ecologically to only own one car. The minor inconvenience of it is more than worth it. If I were to get an EV I'd have to also buy a second car.

Seriously, I would love to own an EV - absolutely love to.

Plus many people live in apartments and park on public streets.

Range is why we don't have an electric car yet. They are great for urban dwellers but for people that live out 'in the country' range is a serious issue. We only go in to town once a week or so and that is a 50 mile round trip if we make no extra stops. To go to the 'city' which happens once a month or so a round trip easily crosses the 100 mile range and can top 150 miles with dinner added in. A trip to a real metro area would easily cross the 250 mile mark.

If Tesla can deliver a 'real' 200 mile car for a reasonable price it would be worth considering. But for a significant percentage of the rural population EVs are simply not an option at this point.

Rural population is <20% of the total population of the US, so in the scheme of things I don't think this matters much. It sucks to be on the wrong side of that, but Tesla doesn't have to cater to every market.

You don't need to be truly rural for EV range to be an issue. While I couldn't use one as my only vehicle, Tesla's range would work pretty well for me although it's a ~$100K car when all is said and done--which is what I think the parent meant when he referred to "affordable." The options that are relatively affordable today only get about 80 miles on a charge which really isn't a lot unless you're driving around a pretty local area.

I live about an hour outside the local metropolis which is close enough to go in routinely for the evening and I couldn't take an 80 mile range car in.

> It's true, there are good reasons why EVs aren't mainstream. One is that if you're in an apartment or condominium EV ownership is pretty much out the window unless you can get your property managers to install charging stations.

State laws are coming online that require property managers to install charging stations if they're above a certain size. California's law is already in effect with regard to this.

I guarantee the leaf isn't a tenth as fun as the WRX. If Nissan would import the micra into America then you could pay even less for a small Nissan.

Electric motors don't need much service (and when they do, it's highly complicated) so there's no need to provide access to it. People occasionally ask to see the motor in my Model S, and the best I can do is point to the rear seats and say "it's under there." There's nothing on the car that you can burn yourself on that you can get to without tools.

And did you really say that there are no cheaper alternatives for an electric car than a $100,000 Tesla? You might want to have a look at what's actually available, if that's what you actually meant to say.

>And did you really say that there are no cheaper alternatives for an electric car than a $100,000 Tesla? You might want to have a look at what's actually available, if that's what you actually meant to say.

If you want an electric car with 200+ mile range, what are the alternatives?

You didn't specify that. :P

You can buy a 2013 used Nissan Leafs with under 10k miles for under $12k. That is comparable to a gas car. The low range on the Leaf really affects their value.

I drive a Leaf. It's actually a really great city car. I use it for all my driving (commute, shopping, exploring the city) except for one trip a month I make in my old gas car. The car basically pays for itself compared to what I paid in gas in my old car. It's also almost zero maintenance, which is a huge plus coming from my old under 12k gas car which needed oil, random part replacements, cooling system issues, etc. Worth considering if you drive less than 60 miles a day, imo.

Same here. We've had a leaf for about 8 months now and love it. We're in a suburban setting where most of our mileage is shuttling teenage kids to/from school and other activities. If your range needs are a match, it's a fantastic run-around car. With a 240V/30A charger in the garage, we can get much more than 100 miles out of it on busy days.

If you need more range, there's a pricier BMW that get's almost twice as far on a charge.

Once a week we go somewhere which is a 50 mile round trip. I thought the 70 mile range was cutting it too close. Otherwise the price is very attractive now that I will move to a place with an actual garage so I can charge it.

He was talking about new, so that's apples and oranges.

You can buy a used beater petrol car (but still working) for under $1,000.

Wait, you're comparing a NEW ICE car with 200+ range, warranty, etc to a tiny ~40 mile range USED EV with a battery pack on its last legs (battery pack capacity drops begin at around 10 to 15k and continue from there). Real world range in traffic, climate control on, etc is not the advertised number. Its not even close. Search the Leaf forums if you don't believe me.

Not to mention, after Fed and State rebates, there's $10,000 off the cost, which is affecting its resale value. Give me $10,000 for an ICE car and I'll show you a near free car with 4x the range, a warranty, etc.

Come on.

Where are you getting this information? A 15K mile Leaf would typically have lost at most 5-10% of its original capacity (one "pip" on the health meter), and have a 70-90 mile range. My daily driver is a 2012 Leaf -- over 3 years old and I can still get over 100 miles between charges. I paid about $12K for it, fully loaded SL trim.

Nissan's battery comes with two warranties: an 8-year 100K mile warranty against defects, and a 5-year 60K mile warranty against capacity loss. Even a 2011 Leaf with 50K miles on it will have at least 70% of its original range, but most have much more. Batteries don't degrade nearly as fast as you think they do.

Tesla put out information about the original Roadster battery health a while back. That's a car that's been on the road long enough that owners have put a lot of miles (and charge cycles) on them. They averaged only 15% capacity loss after 100,000 miles. That was with even older battery tech. A couple year old EV is not "on its last legs".

It's pretty amazing how much disinformation is out there with regards to EV batteries. There are a lot of misconceptions about degradation, environmental impact of manufacturing, and toxicity. I think there must be a concerted effort going on to deliberately misinform people, as is the case with e.g. climate change. (Not blaming anyone here for being part of that effort to deliberately misinform people, but there are probably victims of it here.)

Real world facts:

The results of an Idaho National Laboratory study released in March found that the test LEAFs lost 22-26% of their initial capacity after just 40,000 miles.

http://www.torquenews.com/2250/how-long-will-electric-vehicl...

Frankly, I'm burned out by the bullshit EV enthusiasts push out on these forums. EVs suck now and there's nothing on the horizon to say otherwise. Tesla is losing money hand over foot and no one is buying EVs. Sorry guys, time to call a spade a spade here. Building our non-ICE dreams on Lithium-Ion just doesn't make sense. We need a better fuel/storage source to compete with ICE.

I like how I have to provide sources yet the people making EXTRAORDINARY claims like "omg affordable EVs will be here in 12-24 months" are never, ever called out on their bullshit. Its been 12-24 months out for years. The sad fact that I provide real proof and skepticism leads to -5 downvotes shows you how immature and silly HN forums on are many hot topic issues, which EV seems to be here.

edit: to the guy below me who wrote ""EVs suck now" not even close. Full disclosure: I own a Model S. It is the envy of everyone I show it to."

Yeah, $100,000 cars tend to be impressive, but why am I paying for YOUR car via increasing my tax load? Take away the tax breaks and lets see Elon try to compete.

> The results of an Idaho National Laboratory study released in March found that the test LEAFs lost 22-26% of their initial capacity after just 40,000 miles...Frankly, I'm burned out by the bullshit EV enthusiasts push out on these forums.

From your link:

> One of the most important variables in battery longevity is temperature. In general, temperatures above 86 degrees F place great stress on the battery and speed up capacity loss. Vehicles that have a liquid-cooled battery, like the Chevrolet Volt or Tesla Model S, are less vulnerable to high-temperature effects as long as they are not parked in the blazing sun. However, the Nissan LEAF may be notably susceptible to rapid degradation in extremely hot climates. The results of an Idaho National Laboratory study released in March found that the test LEAFs lost 22-26% of their initial capacity after just 40,000 miles. This is most attributable to two factors: the vehicles were tested in Pheonix, where the hot climate accelerated capacity decline; and the vehicles were discharged to less than 5% capacity twice per day.

I'm not seeing how a number derived from deliberately-abusive worst-case scenario of a known-inferior approach is relevant to discussions of future EVs.

(If anything, that sounds pretty good - the worst-case scenario for one of the cheapest ones out on the market right this second is only 1/5th capacity loss? I would have expected it to be much worse.)

30% capacity loss is generally considered EOL for battery packs. (And that typically happens at 1000 complete charge-discharge cycles.) The Volt should have gone 1000 * 380 miles = 380K miles before hitting that.

On paper, I wanted a Leaf over a Volt, but the real world difference shows that differing battery technology still matters a lot. I dunno how Nissan built such a bad pack but there you go.

> The Volt should have gone 1000 * 380 miles = 380K miles before hitting that.

And might have if not subjected to worst-case conditions which EV drivers do not subject their cars to. What are the real-world results in terms of battery capacity declining? They don't seem to be anywhere near that.

So again, as I already said in my first comment, I'm not seeing how this is really relevant - much less some sort of fatal proof.

stupid edit: The second sentence of the first graf should say:

"""The Leaf should have gone 84 x 1000 = 84K miles before hitting that."""

40K miles to 22% loss is about 50% faster than it should die.

Real world facts: LEAFs tested in Phoenix and discharged to under 5% capacity twice a day lost 22-26% of their initial capacity after just 40,000 miles.

That's basically the worst case scenario and it still doesn't come anywhere close to supporting your claim of "on its last legs" at only 10,000 miles on the clock.

Personally I think the LEAF's lack of active thermal management for the battery is a serious mistake, and your link reflects that. But even then it's not nearly as bad as you said. With more normal use in a more normal climate it'll be vastly better still.

"EVs suck now" not even close. Full disclosure: I own a Model S. It is the envy of everyone I show it to. There are a lot of articles out there talking about how it's an awesome car. Those articles are wrong: it's far better than they say. The only objections people can come up with to it are based in fiction. "What if you want to do a road trip?" Well, I take advantage of the vast supercharger network. "What about battery degradation?" The battery was engineered to last 10 years and reports from the fleet so far is that they're doing better than expected. "Is it hard to find places to charge it?" No, it's really easy, because I charge it in my garage every day and never have to charge anywhere else in normal driving.

"Tesla is losing money hand over foot" is another example of this concerted campaign of anti-EV disinformation. They make a healthy profit selling cars. (Average profit per car is something like 28%.) That profit just gets poured into capital expenditures rather than being returned to the shareholders at the moment, because they're trying to expand at a rapid pace.

There are a variety of sources of lithium wear, cherry picking the most attractive is just disingenious.

The results of an Idaho National Laboratory study released in March found that the test LEAFs lost 22-26% of their initial capacity after just 40,000 miles.

http://www.torquenews.com/2250/how-long-will-electric-vehicl...

Real world wear is pretty bad, especially in places with hot summers, which is most of the US.

What are these brand new ICE cars for $10k - $12k? Even a new cheap car like a Yaris would be $15k.

"Is this what passes for clever?"

Swedish humor is no laughing matter.

> Is this what passes for clever? It's hardly a "tech" article, that's for sure.

I read it with a smirk, I thought it was a nicely done parody. In a few decades when your average 25 year old has never known a petrol driven car (yes yes this might not happen) it is a believable experience.

Is it even a parody? It's written from the perspective of somebody who doesn't yet exist: a person who has only known electric cars for their whole life. But aside from that, it does a pretty good job of imagining what that person would think the first time they're exposed to a "normal" car.

It's both parody and satire isn't it really. It's a deliberately absurd take on a car review so I feel both are appropriate.

remember -around here(Norway, next to Sweden) taxes on gas and gas cars make Tesla prices look very reasonable.

A brand new Tesla is about half the price of a similar (>400hp) car I guess.

That's what happens when externalities are properly priced into vehicles using taxes. Nicely done Norway/Sweden.

That's a pretty huge assertion you are throwing in there.

I think there is a fair chance that some of the tax there is just a simple luxury tax, with accidental relief on the Tesla side (as opposed to a proper pricing of externalities).

The tax incentives in question the remove a fair portion of the tax penalty apply to all electric vehicles, not just Tesla. The "relief" for Tesla isn't accidental.

I would say you'd be correct if the benefits applied solely to Tesla vehicles, but not in this case.

My meaning was more that it depends on how well the laws captured the intent of the societies.

The nice subsidies on expensive electric vehicles may or may not leave a bad taste in the mouth of voters there (I haven't tried to figure out what public sentiment is).

> The nice subsidies on expensive electric vehicles may or may not leave a bad taste in the mouth of voters there (I haven't tried to figure out what public sentiment is)

I could not find the answer to this with some quick googling. I too would be interested in the answer.

When you just set a bunch of taxes to zero for a few years, it's hard to argue that is "proper pricing."

If the externalities they're pricing in are oil consumption in the vehicle, and the vehicle doesn't burn oil, setting the taxes to zero is "proper pricing".

That's not the only externality; another one is wear-and-tear on roads. In most countries, fuel taxes are used in part to pay for road and highway maintenance [1]. Certainly Norway's extensive, mountainous highway system is not free to build and maintain, and imo all road users should pay their share to fund it. You could have a direct per-km tax enforced via some kind of GPS unit, but that has privacy implications. Traditionally the fuel tax was a reasonable proxy, since vehicles used fuel in rough proportion to the amount of road traversed.

[1] In the U.S. the link is explicit: almost the entirety of the fuel tax is earmarked for highway construction and maintenance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund

The vast majority of road wear and tear is caused by trucks, not cars:

"Heavy trucks obviously cause more road damage than cars, but how much more? According to a GAO study, Excessive Truck Weight: An Expensive Burden We Can No Longer Afford, road damage from one 18-wheeler is equivalent to 9600 cars (p.23 of study, p.36 of PDF)."

http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf

http://facweb.knowlton.ohio-state.edu/pviton/courses2/crp776...

With regards to your point to taxes, remove the per-milage tax and charge a flat per-vehicle rate based on vehicle class, distributing the cost to trucks more than to passenger vehicles.

Seems like that would only apply to highways. The average neighborhood road sees zero truck traffic, so 100% of the road wear is done by cars.

Which is why the average neighborhood road is overhauled far less frequently than highways.

Costs aren't being added to the gas cars, which would make sense. Instead, normal people are subsidizing luxury cars. That's stupid.

The costs are added to all gas cars, and "normal people" are subsidizing all electric cars. The cars that are selling just happen to be the most expensive electric car.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com