I want to buy a new car

[ddrueding]

It is my understanding that even Tesla recommends that super-chargers be only used occasionally for fear of damaging the batteries if used excessively.

According to their site:

[h=4]How often can I Supercharge, is it bad for my battery?[/h] Supercharging does not alter the new vehicle warranty. Customers are free to use the network as much as they like.

It also says that it can be added later, so I wouldn't worry about it to start.

 

[ddrueding]

No adaptive cruise? That is a deal-breaker to me

 

[jtr1962]

Electric cars are in a state of rapid flux, similar to LEDs a few years back. I suspect in a few years time when you're ready to make the purchase the options and issues you mention will be completely different. For one thing, better batteries may well increase range substantially. There will also be a much larger installed base of quick chargers, probably obviating the need for quick charging at home.

I wouldn't worry about lack of adaptive cruise. Electric cars should be a lot more amenable to hacking than their gas counterparts. If it doesn't exist but enough people want it, you'll probably be able to buy any features you want on the aftermarket. As electric cars increasingly go mainstream, undoubtedly they will have features people want and are used to, such as adaptive cruise control.

 

[ddrueding]

I have no doubt that this glaring oversight will be resolved very quickly. In fact, Elon Musk has already said that he'll have self-driving cars within 3 years. I was planning on taking advantage of his resale price guarantee and get in on some of that action as well. This time around I was hoping to place the order within the next month, but I'll be waiting until this feature becomes available.

 

[Chewy509]

For one thing, better batteries may well increase range substantially.

I personally think this is a major issue that still needs to be addressed, since there hasn't been a major break through in battery technology in a number of years. Whilst electric cars are suitable for short trips and highly populated areas, in countries like Australia and Canada where you have a more sparse and spread out population it starts to become an issue. (Australian State Capital Cities are typically between 500 and 1000km apart on the East Coast, and current fossil based engines can do those trips on either a single tank or two tanks of fuel, making these trips possible in a single day. Whilst the Telsa Roadster can reach 390km on a single charge, with a recharge of just over 3 hours, puts a downer on the long interstate trips).

In regards to batteries, is there anything on the horizon that may offer a higher energy density that what is currently available and is suitable and safe for cars? (Other than a Mr Fusion Home Energy Reactor).

 

[ddrueding]

No new battery tech in the near future (anyone with a tech "3-5 years away") is vapo(u)rware.

The Tesla battery swap is an interesting idea. Tediously slow video here, but it does prove a point.

 

[jtr1962]

I personally think this is a major issue that still needs to be addressed, since there hasn't been a major break through in battery technology in a number of years. Whilst electric cars are suitable for short trips and highly populated areas, in countries like Australia and Canada where you have a more sparse and spread out population it starts to become an issue. (Australian State Capital Cities are typically between 500 and 1000km apart on the East Coast, and current fossil based engines can do those trips on either a single tank or two tanks of fuel, making these trips possible in a single day. Whilst the Telsa Roadster can reach 390km on a single charge, with a recharge of just over 3 hours, puts a downer on the long interstate trips).

The point of fast-charge stations is to mitigate the range issues. For what it's worth, the vast majority of car trips are well within the range of present batteries. Batteries with greater range would be a welcome development, but in the end we could use electric cars for 99% of trips right now. The vast majority of people are going to fly or take the train if they're going 500 or 1000 km anyway.

In regards to batteries, is there anything on the horizon that may offer a higher energy density that what is currently available and is suitable and safe for cars? (Other than a Mr Fusion Home Energy Reactor).

Lithium-air looks promising. There are also batteries based on carbon or iron which could potentially greatly increase energy density. Personally, I see more value here in using higher energy density to reduce the size/weight of the battery pack rather than increasing range. Once you get range up to about 200 miles, that's good enough for nearly everyone all of the time. You can always have extended-range battery packs for the outliers but I can't see adding weight/cost to a vehicle unless the customer really needs the extra range. That's especially true with fast-charge capability. On a long trip, you'll probably be stopping every 200 or so miles for bathroom/rest/food anyway. If you can recharge your car in 15 minutes or less, then needing more range is moot.

 

[P5-133XL]

I thought that Tesla was charging $60 per battery swap: More expensive than a gasoline fill-up for many newer efficient cars. On the other hand much cheaper than replacing batteries (off warranty) when they inevitably start get weak and you can keep trying till you get a good set.

 

[ddrueding]

The thought is that if you aren't in a hurry you can use the supercharger for free, but if you are in a rush $60 isn't bad. I was even hearing talk of them tracking the remaining life of each battery backing and offering credits/debits on the one you get vs. the one you gave.

 

[Chewy509]

On a long trip, you'll probably be stopping every 200 or so miles for bathroom/rest/food anyway. If you can recharge your car in 15 minutes or less, then needing more range is moot.

Totally agree there. (most of my long range trips in the past always had a break every 200-300km for either bathroom/food/drinks). If they can get the charge fast enough, eg the typical time for a 15min reset stop, then the range becomes less an issue... but that relies on two things: The charging station offering enough energy in the desired timeframe, and the batteries being able to handle the charge rate... The former is easily handled, the latter unfortunately comes back to the battery technology...

 

[Chewy509]

Mind you a Mr Fusion Home Energy Reactor would be awesome to have!

 

[CougTek]

The vast majority of people are going to fly or take the train if they're going 500 or 1000 km anyway.

I'd love to see where you've picked those statistics. I know that in Québec, this is absolutely false. For instance, most people going from either Québec city of Montréal to towns like Rimouski (600Km from Montréal), Matane (at least 500Km from Québec city) or even Gaspé do it by car. My proof is simple, there's so much people on the highway and major roads leading there and no major airport in the entire Gaspesia that it's absolutely impossible that more people go there by airplane or even train (one railway, three or four passenger trains per day) than there are that do the trip by car. Same is true for the North shore of the St-Laurent river for towns like Baie Comeau or even Sept-Îles.

There's also a lot more people driving to Abiti-Témiscaming (probably ~600Km from Montréal) and places like Chibougamau (far, just fucking far) than people going there by plane.

I'm almost certain the same is true for Australia. I'd really like to compare the highway traffic from Adelaïde to Perth to either the railway tickets or plane passengers between those cities. And it's a whole lot more than a puny 500Km trip.

Don't throw blind stats by mistaking your logistic logic with the way most other people act. The very vast majority of people aren't car sick and don't live in a 9 million people city. In most suburbs and rural area, trains and planes or not even on the table and most people living in those area are used to travel by car. Most of them own one too. It's not a matter of debate or an opinion. It's a fact. I don't need to search for statistics about it on the Net. Anyone who lives elsewhere than inside a major city knows that. And for those people, being limited to a ~300Km trip is an important limitation. Not because of their daily commute, but because of the week-end trips they plan a few times per year.

 

[ddrueding]

...Not because of their daily commute, but because of the week-end trips they plan a few times per year.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, but I will point out the sillyness here. Allowing a maybe-couple-times-a-year event control your decision is a really bad idea. It is the same reasoning that causes millions of people to drive trucks and SUVs alone and empty 99% of the time. Even if the Tesla wasn't enough for a drive, renting a C63 isn't that hard.

For me, San Francisco is 100 miles away with 2 supercharger stations en route. Not a big deal with a small top-up somewhere. Lake Tahoe is 275 miles away with 3 on the way. Farther than that and you can bet I'd fly. Vegas? 485 Miles. LA? 300miles. Both drives I'd much rather avoid.

 

[jtr1962]

I just ended up losing a long post I started typing in response to Coug's rant. I'm too busy to bother retyping it, but look at this link. BTW, a lot of traffic on intercity highways is freight and business travelers, so crowded highways don't mean a lot of people are driving long distances. The stats say otherwise.

The very vast majority of people aren't car sick and don't live in a 9 million people city.

Actually, the majority of the US population now lives in areas which could be considered urban. And regardless of whether or not someone gets car sick, I can't see why anyone would want to be cooped up in a car for hundreds of miles unless they're being paid, or have no choice. The fact is you can take a train or a plane to most places which people go to. If no train or plane goes there, it's probably because it's not a popular destination, and not a whole lot of people drive there, either.

 

[Chewy509]

I'm almost certain the same is true for Australia. I'd really like to compare the highway traffic from Adelaide to Perth to either the railway tickets or plane passengers between those cities. And it's a whole lot more than a puny 500Km trip.

For families travelling up/down the East Coast of Australia (between Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane), a lot of people drive, as unless you're travelling by yourself it's cheaper to drive.

Example, An airline ticket between state capitals will cost about AU$200-400 return per person, and unleaded 91 octane is currently AU$1.56/l in Brisbane, (I'll let you do the maths). Flights to Perth from the East coast return are about AU$600 per person. Add in care hire or taxis at the the other end, and it adds up very quickly, so a lot of people drive.

I personally know a lot of people who drive from Gold Coast to Brisbane each day for work (approx 75-100km ea way depending on where you live). Also the areas in which state capitals have spread/expanded could mean a 100km trip to get from one side to another. For example, in Melbourne, to get from Werribee (far western side) to Frankston (far eastern side) is a 90km trip... Brisbane; Beenleigh to Northlakes is just under 80km, Sydney: Liverpool to French's Forest, 60km. People do these sorts of drives daily... All these examples while demonstrate that current electric vehicles could be used, a lot of people would find inconvenience in doing so. Also, having grown up in Melbourne, my family would do day trips out to different places each weekend, eg Bell's Beach from our home was 100km each way, Venus Bay** (we stayed a lot at a friends beach house over summer holidays) was 180km each way. **Venus Bay 30 years ago was a small holiday location with small beach houses that really catered for people who wanted to go to the beach, go fishing, etc over the summer break for a few weeks at a time. And on comparison to most of my friends from school, most other families did similar... (trips to coast from Melbourne).

PS. Adelaide to Perth according to Google Maps is 2,693km (1,673miles), and not to mention a big f&*king desert between them. The best US orientated example would be Los Angeles, CA to Kansas City, MO. with no cities between...

 

[jtr1962]

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, but I will point out the sillyness here. Allowing a maybe-couple-times-a-year event control your decision is a really bad idea. It is the same reasoning that causes millions of people to drive trucks and SUVs alone and empty 99% of the time. Even if the Tesla wasn't enough for a drive, renting a C63 isn't that hard.

That's actually part of my point. Even people who love EVs admit they aren't suitable for all trips. However, if they're suitable for the vast majority of trips, it makes more sense to just rent a gas car when you need more range.

For me, San Francisco is 100 miles away with 2 supercharger stations en route. Not a big deal with a small top-up somewhere. Lake Tahoe is 275 miles away with 3 on the way. Farther than that and you can bet I'd fly. Vegas? 485 Miles. LA? 300miles. Both drives I'd much rather avoid.

And that's the situation where much of the US population resides. On both coasts, driving is neither fast nor pleasant, and there are enough people going places for there to be train, plane, or bus service to most destinations. In the places where plane or train travel might be off the radar, it's because there's not much there. Think of the US midwest, or perhaps rural Canada. Sure, you're going to take a car on long trips because you have no choice, and also because driving is reasonably fast. On most car trips here in the Northeast, you're lucky to average 30 mph. NYC to Washington will take you 6 hours on a good day, probably 10 or 12 on a bad one. If you look at mode share, you find most travel between city pairs more than 100 miles apart isn't done by car.

 

[jtr1962]

PS. Adelaide to Perth according to Google Maps is 2,693km (1,673miles), and not to mention a big f&*king desert between them. The best US orientated example would be Los Angeles, CA to Kansas City, MO. with no cities between...

There's no good analogy to Australia in terms of population density in the US other than remote midwestern states like Montana or Nebraska. You have same number of people in the entire continent of Australia as you do in the NYC metro area. It's no surprise that most forms of public transit aren't viable, and the distances people travel are huge. By the same token, car travel is more viable because the roads are less congested. A 100 km car trip in the NYC metro area typically takes 2 to 4 hours. I guess you could do it in 45 minutes or less most times in Australia.

 

[Chewy509]

A 100 km car trip in the NYC metro area typically takes 2 to 4 hours.

That sounds like peak hour in most Australian cities!

I guess you could do it in 45 minutes or less most times in Australia.

If you did that, you'll end up getting a speeding ticket. (Most freeway/motorway speed limits are 100km/h (60mi/h) or 110km/h (68mi/h) depending on the location**). Even though I ride on the motorway from Northern Gold Coast to Brisbane each day during peak hour, a 50km ride still takes 50-55min... (quickest run was just on 35min).

** While the outback does have "no limit" zones/roads, very few Australians have ever driven on them...

 

[jtr1962]

If you did that, you'll end up getting a speeding ticket. (Most freeway/motorway speed limits are 100km/h (60mi/h) or 110km/h (68mi/h) depending on the location**). Even though I ride on the motorway from Northern Gold Coast to Brisbane each day during peak hour, a 50km ride still takes 50-55min... (quickest run was just on 35min).

I'm surprised here given the size and low population density. Are the limits strictly enforced? Here in the US you can generally go 10 mph over the limit without worrying about a ticket. At least you have the good sense to have "no limit" zones out in the open country. The distances in a lot of midwestern US states are insane but they still have speed limits ( 70 to 75 mph IIRC ).

 

[time]

Er, no. Apart from the Northern Territory (speed limit 130km/h, used to be unlimited), we're universally limited to a ridiculous 100km/h, or an insulting 110km/h for Really Good Freeways (2 in this state).

And 10mph = 16km/h = already into second level of points loss on license. The amazingly brilliant state government that currently afflicts us has reduced speed limit tolerance from 10% to some secret, unknown amount, but probably 5% (which is half the 10% speedometer accuracy required by law). So yeah, I'm saying 2mph will get you an (expensive) ticket.

If you want to experience a country fixated on anally retentive obsessions, come to Australia.

 

[Chewy509]

Er, no. Apart from the Northern Territory (speed limit 130km/h, used to be unlimited),

Damn, should've been keeping up the the news... (I see the 4 main routes that used to unlimited are now 130km/h).

FYI. An news article from a few days ago does indicate the NT government will reintroduce unlimited areas for a trial period...

Also, in Victoria the allowance is 3km/h over the limit (for fixed speed cameras), and many suspect QLD is the same even though there is no official statement on the matter.

 

[ddrueding]

If you want to experience a country fixated on anally retentive obsessions, come to Australia.

But look on the bright side; the internet connections suck and there are tons of deadly animals

I only tease on the internet because you are the only one with worse or more expensive connections than us.

 

[timwhit]

I'm sure there are plenty of countries with worse internet connectivity options than the US.

 

[timwhit]

I don't know how accurate this is, but the US isn't even close to being near the bottom.

 

[Chewy509]

I don't know how accurate this is, but the US isn't even close to being near the bottom.

Not surprised with the Australian results. (Most households are typically on ADSL1 or ADSL2+, with some on cable).

 

[jtr1962]

Not surprised with the Australian results. (Most households are typically on ADSL1 or ADSL2+, with some on cable).

Don't feel bad. I know some people who are still on 56K. In NYC. Either they can't get anything else, or the machines they're using can't be upgraded to use anything faster than 56K (i.e. no ethernet cards which fit in ISA slots)

 

[timwhit]

Don't feel bad. I know some people who are still on 56K. In NYC. Either they can't get anything else, or the machines they're using can't be upgraded to use anything faster than 56K (i.e. no ethernet cards which fit in ISA slots)

You could find computers in the trash that have PCI slots and onboard NICs.

 

[fb]

We have 80 km/h speed limits on many roads, it's doesn't feel very constructive when someone has to drive hundreds of kilometres to get somewhere.

 

[P5-133XL]

I must be abnormal. I actually enjoy driving long distances slowly. I put on some good music, set cruise control at 55-60 MPH and with someone to talk to or with some nice scenery it is nice a relaxing change of pace. As a side benefit gas mileage improves so cost goes down somewhat.

 

[Stereodude]

As a side benefit gas mileage improves so cost goes down somewhat.

Your time isn't worth anything?

 

[Stereodude]

... or the machines they're using can't be upgraded to use anything faster than 56K (i.e. no ethernet cards which fit in ISA slots)

Oh cry me a river...

1) You can easily find ISA Ethernet cards on ebay.
2) Who is still using a 486 and trying to get online with it?
3) If you're really still using a 486, as timwhit points out, you can easily find a PC in the trash that would be a HUGE upgrade that has PCI (or better) slots.

 

[P5-133XL]

Your time isn't worth anything?

Yes, but not at the expense of enjoying life. A slow leisurely trip is worth the additional time it takes. A world where everything is rushed, and where people are always annoyed and angry is not worth the cost.

 

[ddrueding]

Yes, but not at the expense of enjoying life. A slow leisurely trip is worth the additional time it takes. A world where everything is rushed, and where people are always annoyed and angry is not worth the cost.

I can dig this. Were I to have the time and not feel rushed I would love to drive across the country in something luxurious and comfortable. A Model S, perhaps

I've driven across twice, when I was in high school, and it was a nice adventure.

 

[jtr1962]

You could find computers in the trash that have PCI slots and onboard NICs.

Oh cry me a river...

1) You can easily find ISA Ethernet cards on ebay.
2) Who is still using a 486 and trying to get online with it?
3) If you're really still using a 486, as timwhit points out, you can easily find a PC in the trash that would be a HUGE upgrade that has PCI (or better) slots.

Umm, the problem here isn't that these people can't upgrade to a more modern machine. Heck, I have better machines I'm not using which I can give them. Rather, it's that they don't want to. I'm serious. In one case, I know someone still using a 386 and Windows 3.1, and struggling just to read emails. The rational here is that they have their machine set up the way the want, don't want to learn a new O/S, are worried that some archiac accounting software dating from the late 1980s won't work on new machine. They also have some peripherals which may or may not have drivers for new OSes. Yes, there really are people this time-warped. I used to know someone who was still using an 8086 with 512K of RAM a few years ago. Granted, they only used it for word processing but at some point it makes no sense to try and keep old hardware going. Again, the rationale was all their documents were in some arcane format using whatever DOS-based word processing software they were using, so they were worried about not being able to access them. And all of these were stored on 5.25" floppies, so good luck even transferring them to a newer machine.

 

[jtr1962]

I must be abnormal. I actually enjoy driving long distances slowly. I put on some good music, set cruise control at 55-60 MPH and with someone to talk to or with some nice scenery it is nice a relaxing change of pace. As a side benefit gas mileage improves so cost goes down somewhat.

My own personal feelings on this is that I generally don't find much interesting on any long trip which involves passing through rural or suburban areas. To me they all look pretty much the same. As such, I just want to pass through them as fast as possible. 90 mph in a car is good. 200 mph in a high-speed train would be even better. I'm hardly a rushed type of person, but by the same token I don't like to linger in areas where I find nothing of interest. The generic trees, grass, single family homes, malls, and other stuff you typically pass by on long trips just isn't terribly interesting to me. I'm sure there are little differences here or there which I might notice, but chances are good I'll still miss them even going 55 or 60 mph. If you really want to see the sights, stop and smell the roses, then you probably shouldn't be going any faster than you can go under your own power (i.e. walking or biking).

 

[jtr1962]

I can dig this. Were I to have the time and not feel rushed I would love to drive across the country in something luxurious and comfortable. A Model S, perhaps

I've driven across twice, when I was in high school, and it was a nice adventure.

If I had the time and a significant other to join me, I'd like to bike across the US. I wouldn't be in any big hurry, either. If I cover 40 or 50 miles a day that's good enough. Two months to get cross country, probably a lifetime of memories.

 

[ddrueding]

If I had the time and a significant other to join me, I'd like to bike across the US. I wouldn't be in any big hurry, either. If I cover 40 or 50 miles a day that's good enough. Two months to get cross country, probably a lifetime of memories.

Indeed. I could probably even get my wife and kid to join if I ever finish building the semi-recumbant tandem-with-trailer that I'm designing. Oh, and have a warm hotel room every night.

 

[CougTek]

A world where everything is rushed, and where people are always annoyed and angry is not worth the cost.

Being annoyed and angry is pretty much a permanent state for me. I'm fine with people driving slowly on the highway, as long as they stay in the right lane. I would rip the flesh off their face with my bare hands when they drive slowly in front of me on single lane roads where I can't overtake them without provoking an accident. You can drive as slowly as you wish as long as you don't block my way.

 

[CougTek]

Not surprised with the Australian results. (Most households are typically on ADSL1 or ADSL2+, with some on cable).

Wow. When you're behind Nigeria and Kazakstan, you have a problem. Australia is a networking third-world country.

 

[ddrueding]

The forums are pretty busy with commenters wanting ACC. While the company itself is mute, the most interesting bit is in this article. I like the diagnostic screen that shows all the temp and status of the drivetrain and associated bits near the end.