It's not as as one sided as I picture, it's worse.
Just because someone saves $10,000 in gas doesn't mean they're sitting on that $10,000.
Daily supercharging kills Model 3 battery in 120,000 miles
- Thread starter OVERKILL
- Start date
Just because someone saves $10,000 in gas doesn't mean they're sitting on that $10,000.
That begs the question though, did they actually save $10k in gas or did they buy more car because they didn't have to pay for gas? Still though this is an extreme example and isn't the norm for these cars.
My budget for transportation is $X. An Ev allowed me to get a much better performing vehicle for that $x.
Other than recharging their batteries, there aren't a lot of similarities between I-Phones and Tesla's. Or cell phones in general for that matter. Other than several of both customers love the latest and greatest available in high tech style gadgetry and toys.
Since the first I-Phone was introduced back in 2007, there have been 42 different I-Phone models to come down the pike up to today. Every one of them has sold like hotcakes.
Tesla, has pretty much for the most part remain unchanged in comparison. New editions are slow to come. Where as in spite of much competition, people line up to buy every single new edition of the I-Phone.
Cost doesn't seem to be a factor to them. They simply want what they think is the best and latest phone on the market. To most of them its, "So much more than just a phone".
Want replaces need. While Tesla is considered by a few to be somewhat similar, they are far less practical for many people. As are EV's in general. Especially those who need to drive long distances on a regular basis through rural areas. Which, as anyone who has flown cross country can attest to, there is a lot of in this country.
At first cell phones had a similar problem with reception in some rural areas. But today with the exception of a few small unpopulated areas, that problem is long behind them.
The Apple I-Phone can go head to head, and beat most any other cell phone in the marketplace today. EV's cannot make that claim against ICE. And, like the I-Phone, they are are more expensive than their ICE competition.
Where as with cell phones, there are substantially cheaper phones that will fit the need of most out there. And the only real "competition" they have are land lines, which are slowly going the way of breaker points and carburetors.
There really isn't a much cheaper alternative to Tesla's. You can spend less than $100.00 today for a perfectly acceptable cell phone. There really isn't a cheap way to go about EV ownership.
And things that are considered necessary for EV's, like charging at home is going to cost extra. A lot extra if your panel is maxed out, and it requires you to up your service. Point being in all of this, is both manage to attract customers... But in Apple's case its over 2.3 billion of them since day 1.
And Apple didn't need government cash to get it going. They could barely make them fast enough, and people were throwing money at them ever since they were first introduced.
The entire EV market is considered to have a very questionable financial future, by many knowledgeable people at the moment. In spite of the government pushing them to the max. The cell phone market, and in particular the I-Phone, has nowhere to go but up..... All on it's own.
I recall reading here and at many other forums, you pay for the study get the results you're looking for. That can be said for just about anything these days. In this case rapid charging batteries isn't the best thing in the world for extending their life, it shortens it. I believe the science backs that.
Noone wants to talk about the fact that gas would cost $15/gal without subsidy.
EV isn't for everyone, but for plenty of people its awesome. It put me back in truly performance oriented vehicles. Something Ive missed for years. And its cheap. Win win.
Okay...so how are EVs being subsidized?
https://www.google.com/search?q=how...2i29i30l5.10956j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
"Average direct subsidies from federal and state governments amount to almost $9,000 per vehicle over 10 years while direct subsidies from utilities push the amount over $10,000. But manufacturers receive subsidies too, and regulations force them to produce more and more EVs, even if the vehicles aren't profitable".
So the $7500 tax credit? Thats my money to begin with (also, I didnt get it for my last EV).
Sure you did. It was reflected in the overall purchase price. You would have paid an extra $10K without it. This regardless of who's money you think it is.
You are trying to compare the oil companies subsidies to that of the EV market. That's not apples and oranges, it's apples and bowling balls.
The fact is without subsidies, the EV market would have fallen flat on its face years ago. Much the same with home solar if the consumer had to bear the total cost of the installation.
In comparison oil subsidies are a fart in a hurricane. Biden is crowing about how he is going to save $31 billion in oil subsidies in over a decade.
That is nothing. In the year 2022 alone, the total revenue of the United States' oil and gas industry came to 332.9 billion U.S. dollars. The global oil and gas industry's profits in 2022 jumped to some $4 trillion.
While the average EV unit had close to $10,000.00 of its purchase price subsidized by our government. The cheapest Tesla has a base price of $42,990 in 2023. Some can be well over double that.
With a $10,000.00 government subsidy, that amounts to over 20% of every vehicle in that price range that is government subsidized.
Car&Driver did a 40k mile long term road test and had battery degradation also from fast charging
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a30209598/2019-tesla-model-3-reliability-maintenance/
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a30209598/2019-tesla-model-3-reliability-maintenance/
Good article. Low temperature performance, (or the lack of it), is rarely talked about in EV circles.
"An electric vehicle's efficiency varies dramatically with outside temperature (internal-combustion efficiency also varies but to a much smaller degree). For example, in our best month, August 2020, we averaged 107 MPGe over 1812 miles. Our worst was February 2021, when we averaged 55 MPGe, almost 50 percent worse, over 1182 miles.
The difference? The average temperature in February was 27 degrees, while in August it was a balmy 79. Cold temperatures obviously work the cabin heater more and also make charging less efficient.
Even parking outside in wintry weather uses energy to keep the pack from getting too frigid. On one bitterly cold night when the mercury dipped down to 5 below zero, the Model 3 consumed 5 percent of its battery capacity just sitting overnight trying not to freeze."
That’s all anyone brings up. What?
Everyone has battery degradation. It’s rarely linear as they suggest here. Teslas in particular tend to see most of their degradation in the first 20k miles and see little change for a very long time after that.
I haven’t seen any noticeable dip in 6,500 miles but I don’t try to range monster the hell out of it and I rarely run it low on battery so what the car claims and what it actually does may be two different things. Then again my other car claims 450 miles on a full tank on my screen and we know that isn’t happening.
The results of the study I posted are certainly surprising. For example, the 1st gen Nissan Leaf batteries quickly degraded regardless of charging speed. Tesla uses a thermal management system to pre-cool or heat the battery to accept a higher charge rate. In my experience preconditioning allows for quick supercharging ramp; it's pretty cool. I supercharge once or twice a month on longer drives, but only for 5 to 10 minutes max.
If you have other studies please post them as I am interested in how the technology evolves. The one thing I believe is important is that is is misleading to lump all EVs into one category. Like most things, some are better than others.
Not the pro EV'ers. You would think they all have nothing but Polo shirts and cargo shorts in their closets, and live in San Diego.
Similar threads
