SpaceX uses fossil fuels.
Tesla is attempting to show that their vehicles can be affordable. One of the main reasons for this comparison was showing that 35,000$.... is not affordable. Not even close. They are dealing with a market that can produce affordable vehicles at less than half the price.
If tesla didn't claim this was affordable , I wouldn't bother comparing them. But when you claim you are a viable option to a gasoline vehicle , you lump yourself in with every single one.
As soon as tesla makes a 14,000$ car , I'll compare those two instead. Till then , their cheap car , isn't good enough.
Affordability is relative... For the target market of the Tesla $35,000 is certainly affordable (especially when you compare it to other Tesla models). You would also need to compare a car with the same (or near equivalent) features rather than the barebones budget car from Ford. I don't disagree that it is still cheaper to drive a $14,000 fiesta than the Tesla, but, you need to compare cars in the same class... this is like comparing an r9 270x to a Fury x, they both do the same thing but they are intended for different markets. I do understand where you're coming from in that both are claiming to be affordable, but they are affordable for their respective target markets.
4 Likes
Buying car is like politics. Like asians buys toyotas and honda cuz they shaming the high failure rate of american domestic cards. Same thing with people who make a political move and buy a Toyota Prius and make it a plugin/all electric model, they don't care if the GREEN is actually less green than petro, it's a statement.
Basically this. The Model S isn't reasonable for my family, but the Model 3 isn't unrealistic in comparison with what we have right now. Yeah if your prospective is a lower income dude that is shopping for a $14k fiesta, the $35k Model S seems completely unreasonable. But if you were looking at a Volvo or a low end BWM, the Model 3 starts to become more competitive. Just to kind of expand on ThatBootsGuy's analogy, its not even like comparing a 270x to a Fury X. It's like comparing a R7 260x to a Gtx 970. The 970 isn't the highest end thing out there, but its got some features and can do all the basic tasks very well. The 260x outputs video. Both serve the same basic purpose, but they're from different manufactures, in different price brackets, and cater to a different segment of the market.
Both vehicles in this comparison are bought an run in the 35,000$ , the point of picking a lower end car is the remaining money can be used to fuel and repair the vehicle. The tesla under the same budget has no money left to maintain or fuel the vehicle. This is more about how far 35,000$ can actually go.
Plain and simple , for 35,000 , the smartest car to buy is the fiesta. It will drive farther daily , and over it's lifetime within the same budget.
If I sold you a phone that lasted only 215 minutes before you had to start paying money to keep it alive , vs a phone that would that lasted 195,000 minutes for the same amount of money , you'd wonder why anyone would bother with the first. For a handful of gimmick features? well if the market they're aiming for is dumb people they surely hit the nail on the head.
See and that's coming from your perspective which clearly isn't one that's shopping for a $35k car. If your looking for a $35k car your alternative is usually a BMW, and if you buy a $35k BMW your not going into it expecting to be running without paying out for maintenance. You also have to factor in that electric cars have a lot less parts in comparison to a gas car, so there is a lot less of things that need maintenance. Looking at it as, 'I have $35k to spend and not a penny more ever,' is just stupid. Nobody actually operates like that. Electricity is cheaper for me then gas. So fueling the Tesla is going to be cheaper then buying gas for an equivalent gas car for me.
How the fuck does that make sense? A Tesla gets 215 miles per charge. OK. The fiesta will get 43 highway MPG * 12.4 = 533.2 miles per tank. So best case scenario, you'll get 533.2 miles between fill-ups. You never actually get that, because that highway MPG. So lets go 400, which is still about 15 miles more then what you'd get with its projected city MPG. Any way you project the numbers, maybe you say the tesla only gets 180 when you factor in real road conditions and the benefits of regenerative breaking. That's still a completely different comparison to 215 and 195,000. That's ridiculous.
Yes I would wonder if I was to use your bat shit crazy numbers.
Here's what really reinforces the point of perspective. If your coming at this when your yearly salary is $40k, your going to say that its ridiculous. If your looking at this where your yearly salary is $100k, then your going to look at this with your different perspective and its going to not be as big of a deal. Say you pay that car off in 5 years like most people do. Say you end up paying $40k for the car after banks and loans in 5 years. Paying $8k over the span of a year isn't that big of a deal if your bringing in $100k over the span of that year, that's 8% of your salary. If your bringing in 40k a year, then that $8k is really a lot larger hit to you. 8% of all the money you bring in vs 20% is huge, and if that's your situation then your going to view this as dumb. So you viewthe features as unnecessary, but only because in your grand financial scheme its a lot bigger deal to pay for those features. But for someone with a better financial situation, its really not a huge hit to the overall pie for creature comforts.
See this really just goes to show how you're simply skimming what is written. There's no point in me arguing with you because you won't read it. Don't bother replying anymore as you're simply here to create confrontation.
Please explain to me how this makes sense. Your comparing 215 miles of range of the tesla to 195,000. Where the hell does 195,000 come from?
I'm sure you'll simply skim this too. In any case be confrontational elsewhere.
Ok, fair point. But what about my first and last points?
I get the argument, but you can make it with any inexpensive car compared to a more expensive car. One car isn't inherently better than another car, they both drive places, right?
Everyone already knows this, but people still buy more expensive cars. Not everyone does, but lots do.
1 Like
Are you high?
The cheapest BMW sedan starts at $41k but none of this determines what quality of car your going to get.
@emosun by your logic I can argue that the ford ka is the better car, its obvious, better mpg and its far cheaper than both a fiesta and model 3. It's the clear winner.
But obviously it's not because that logic doesn't work.
I take it you own a android one phone? Since they are only $50 its clearly the better phone? Because it will last you longer on $1000...
Of producing energy, yes. But electric drive trains convert more energy to kinetic energy than IC vehicles, by around 10%.
But yeah then when you factor in that only ~35% of the energy produced by coal turns into electricity, electric cars are even less efficient than IC.
Neither are very clean. The optimal real world solution would be nuclear powering electric cars.
While true if you're running off coal powered electricity, If you're like me and live near a hydro plant then it is much cleaner and more efficient to run electricity instead. But, i do understand most ppl in the us don't have that option.
In terms of efficiency and renewable energy, hydro electric plants are great. 90% - 95% energy efficiency from the turbines, no requirement for steam, etc. It's great. I totally agree, I personally love them.
But that being said, are they environmentally friendly? In terms of emissions, yeah, but they could be just as bad for the environment, if that's your concern. Most dams increase water temperatures, decrease oxygen levels, hold back silt which accumulates heavy metals, ruining the soil in the area, hurt natural animal populations, and overall mess with the entire ecosystem of an area. Do that on a large enough scale, and that can be a real problem. Ultimately it damages the environment, just in a different way than coal.
Something like tidal energy generation might work better, or again, nuclear is a fantastic and mostly untapped resource. Geothermal isn't very efficient (10%-20% energy transfer) but is completely clean. It's a balancing act, but in terms of renewable AND clean energy, geothermal may be the only way.
I don't like testla cars because they use lithium ion batteries, which A, are awful for the environment and B degrade rather quickly.
until we get new battery tech, electric cars will never be practical.
This is true, places like Scotland and Norway dont have coal power plants. And Norway is a very Tesla happy place.
One thing I like about the Fiesta even though I choose the Versa is that it is a FLEET vehicle. Fleet vehicles are driven by morons. The ability to pick up a 500 dollar part at a junkyard for 5 bucks cannot be over stated. My company had both and it was nice to talk to the guys who had to drive them. Everyone loved the way the Fiesta drove. They preferred the Versa for the room. Another thing is that a Versa with a standard transmission is theft proof. I can leave it unlocked almost anywhere.