Support NeoGAF

[Enron]

Gotta do what you gotta do, I get that. But for such an anti-tax part of the country, it just seems a little crazy that the state would TAX EV buyers on top of removing the credit.

yeah well. It's anti-tax when it suits. When the state govt desperately needs money though, whether its a R or D, taxes are going to go up.

 

[Warm Machine]

Will never work unless fuel cell.
Not meant for young urbanites who live in condos.

There is some really good money in a business that does all the strata shit for you and gets a charger in your parking stall.

 

[duderon]

Ok yes, fine, great, the Model S is the most critically acclaimed car on the road. However, this thread is about the model 3. I somehow doubt the model 3 is going to have the same sheer power that the performance model S does, considering it is about 50k cheaper.

Also, for those of us who prefer shifting transmissions and more control over the car, it doesn't matter what acclaim a consumer publication heaps on it. I've got a pretty good idea what it is capable of. Remember that m5 vs. Tesla thread from a couple years back? We argued stats in that one - its got a monster 0-60 thanks to instant torque but in many other performance measures its not all that different from comparable sedans and in some cases, worse. Performance (not fuel economy), control, and physics are what make cars "fun" to drive for most people that care about this sort of thing. Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys have both received accolades in the past as family sedans - that doesn't mean they are all of a sudden fun to drive. Just because a car is reviewed well doesn't mean its automatically all things to all people. Replying with "you dont know what you are talking about, its critically acclaimed!" to a question of whether something is fun to drive or not is not a very good argument to make.


As far as the tax credit goes, people like buying EVs because they like not having to fill up. The state is willing to bet that the tax credit isn't going to deter an EV buyer who likely already has their mind set on one.

And I seriously doubt anyone is going to move out of state simply because of an EV tax. That's kind of crazy.

It is actually similar to a manual transmission, as I drive a manual, and have driven a Model S. No gear shifting in the Model S, but regenerative breaking on the accelerator gives nice feedback when you lift off so you essentially can drive with one foot most of the time.

The Model 3 will have good performance for the sole reason that Tesla wants to make cars that are desirable to drive. The fastest Model 3 will no doubt be more expensive, but I would imagine it competes with the M3 in acceleration and price.

 

[Ty4on]

Also, for those of us who prefer shifting transmissions and more control over the car, it doesn't matter what acclaim a consumer publication heaps on it. I've got a pretty good idea what it is capable of. Remember that m5 vs. Tesla thread from a couple years back? We argued stats in that one - its got a monster 0-60 thanks to instant torque but in many other performance measures its not all that different from comparable sedans and in some cases, worse. Performance (not fuel economy), control, and physics are what make cars "fun" to drive for most people that care about this sort of thing. Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys have both received accolades in the past as family sedans - that doesn't mean they are all of a sudden fun to drive. Just because a car is reviewed well doesn't mean its automatically all things to all people. Replying with "you dont know what you are talking about, its critically acclaimed!" to a question of whether something is fun to drive or not is not a very good argument to make.

You don't have that much control over a modern fossil fueled car. The throttle is controlled by the computer which is why it lags and doesn't behave linearly. Electric cars aren't immediately better in this regard, but the path is a lot shorter and none of them (so far) have gearboxes.

 

[Duracelllll]

Because the money for repairing roads comes from tax on gasoline, so owners of EVs were not paying their share of the maintenance costs.

I think you mean the owners of semis are not paying the share of the maintenance costs.

http://truecostblog.com/2009/06/02/the-hidden-trucking-industry-subsidy/

Freight trucks cause 99% of wear-and-tear on US roads, but only pay for 35% of the maintenance. This $60B subsidy causes extra congestion and pollution, and taxpayers pay the bill.

It seems obvious that the heavier the vehicle, the more damage it does to roads over time. A 40,000 pound big rig probably does a bit more damage than your average 3500 pound consumer vehicle, right? It turns out that vehicle road damage doesn’t rise linearly with weight. Road damage rises with the fourth power of weight, and this means that a 40,000 pound truck does roughly 10,000 times more damage to roadways than the average car.

So really the registration costs for large trucks should be increased astronomically. However, trucking lobby and all that...

 

[HarryKS]

There is some really good money in a business that does all the strata shit for you and gets a charger in your parking stall.

Who is going to pay to remodel and work on the parking places? It won't work for people who want a cheaper car. They don't want to dish out that sort of money.

Fuel cell/ Hydrogen seems like the perfect solution honestly.

Still lots of work to be done though.

 

[aeolustl]

Isn't hydrogen/ fuel cell not as green as using electricity because of the way it extracted?

 

[duderon]

Isn't hydrogen/ fuel cell not as green as using electricity because of the way it extracted?

The majority of hydrogen comes as a byproduct from natural gas currently. So it is not a green fuel in any sense.

This is the reason hydrogen fuel cells will fail against EVs in a nutshell.

They are a fraction as efficient as EVs in the best case scenario.

 

[HarryKS]

The majority of hydrogen comes as a byproduct from natural gas currently. So it is not a green fuel in any sense.

This is the reason hydrogen fuel cells will fail against EVs in a nutshell.

They are a fraction as efficient as EVs in the best case scenario.

But it has one enormous advantage: it is potentially far more convenient. The potential aspect of it based on how many refueling checkpoints can be implemented. Then comes the time factor which the EV will never be able to match.

 

[Compsiox]

yeah well. It's anti-tax when it suits. When the state govt desperately needs money though, whether its a R or D, taxes are going to go up.

Enron talking about taxes and government.

Checks out.

 

[DOWN]

I'm definitely interested in this, as long as it doesn't end up looking like the Chevy Bolt.

Hatchbacks look like baby shoes and I will never buy one. None of them have the sex appeal of a traditional car silhouette.

 

[neorej]

You don't have that much control over a modern fossil fueled car. The throttle is controlled by the computer which is why it lags and doesn't behave linearly. Electric cars aren't immediately better in this regard, but the path is a lot shorter and none of them (so far) have gearboxes.

Even the RPM is limited in some consumer cars, so you don't get all the joys of manual shifting either.