[pootytang]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Wait, find a part of the country that won't have supercharging stations try like 95% of the roads won't be covered, ever. 85% of all car purchases are made for sensible reasons. 15% is not many people.

The Tesla would be ideal for my 160-mile round trip commute, except my priority is to maintain a low cost of ownership commensurate with a quality driving experience. The Tesla cost $20K more to own for my commute than most all other ICE cars that provide a quality driving experience.

I'm not exactly following this debate closely, but you can't consider your 160 Mi daily commute even remotely close to normal? You are probably like 3 deviations off the mean. You would obviously not be a candidate for an EV, even an extended range one like the Model S 85 kwhr.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Wait, find a part of the country that won't have supercharging stations try like 95% of the roads won't be covered, ever. 85% of all car purchases are made for sensible reasons. 15% is not many people.

The Tesla would be ideal for my 160-mile round trip commute, except my priority is to maintain a low cost of ownership commensurate with a quality driving experience. The Tesla cost $20K more to own for my commute than most all other ICE cars that provide a quality driving experience.

99% of Tesla owners will be sleeping in their own home when they park the car each night. That is the main charging station for these vehicles! You're repeating over and over that not all roads are going to be covered by the supercharger network but ignoring the fact that they simply don't need to be. You charge it at home, drive it to work, drive it home. Repeat. After a few days of a normal length commute, you'll plug it in overnight. If you need to take a long trip, the overwhelming majority of your long distance travel will be done via interstates which will be covered by the supercharger network.

Also, luxury brands would not exist if 85% of car purchases were made for sensible reasons.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by drob23

I'm not exactly following this debate closely, but you can't consider your 160 Mi daily commute even remotely close to normal? You are probably like 3 deviations off the mean. You would obviously not be a candidate for an EV, even an extended range one like the Model S 85 kwhr.

I don't consider my commute normal by any strech, but 60KWHr Tesla S (lowest priced model) according to Tesla's website has a range for my type of commute (average speed of 50 MPH and 60% highway and 40% city) at just over 200 miles, so it fits with 40 miles reserve, which I can live with. I drive my car Monday - Friday and park it on the weekends. The Tesla recharges at home in about 5 hours for 200 miles of range; it would fit nicely as a DD except it is just too exepensive when compared to a comparable car to serve my function (my E90) and a lot less convenient for unplanned driving range above 200 miles/day. I have several other ICE cars to drive long distance; hence my issue that the Tesla S is not an ideal one-car family vehicle (almost any ICE sedan fills that requirement).

[pootytang]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I don't consider my commute normal by any strech, but 60KWHr Tesla S (lowest priced model) according to Tesla's website has a range for my type of commute (average speed of 50 MPH and 60% highway and 40% city) at just over 200 miles, so it fits with 40 miles reserve, which I can live with. I drive my car Monday - Friday and park it on the weekends. The Tesla recharges at home in about 5 hours for 200 miles of range; it would fit nicely as a DD except it is just too exepensive when compared to a comparable car to serve my function (my E90) and a lot less convenient for unplanned driving range above 200 miles/day. I have several other ICE cars to drive long distance; hence my issue that the Tesla S is not an ideal one-car family vehicle (almost any ICE sedan fills that requirement).

From my experience, using the 200 mi tesla for a 160 mi commute would be more stressful than needed (i.e. uh oh, need to turn off AC and hypermile these final 40 miles). Plus, you don't want to regularly deplete the battery to such a low level.

From first hand experience, it will take about 13 hr to charge the 200 mile battery on 240V (max you could have at home) if going from 0% to 100%. More realistic is 20% - 100% which would be about 10 hr. So forgetting to set this or some user/hardware failure would mean you're working from home that day

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

hence my issue that the Tesla S is not an ideal one-car family vehicle (almost any ICE sedan fills that requirement).

All the people buying them seem to disagree. For my family, we drive an average of about 80-120 miles a week with two cars, so a Tesla would work great, as would an i3, especially with REX.

Comparing an older E90 to a Tesla is sort of like comparing an M5 to an IS250 though, of course it's more expensive. It's much bigger, has a ton more power and is better finished with more technology. Whether you feel like bridging that gap is up to you. A more comparable BMW is a current F10 550i, which in terms of price isn't any cheaper than the 60kw Tesla.

[KingOfJericho]

Efthreeoh, wouldn't an Accord or Camry suit your commute better than your E90? I mean, since we're on the subject of sensible...

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

Efthreeoh, wouldn't an Accord or Camry suit your commute better than your E90? I mean, since we're on the subject of sensible...

No:
1) Camry/Accord cost about the same as my base 325i w/sport package- Around $32K
2) I bought the E90 17 months before my commute changed. It wasn't a planned purchase for the long commute. The sensible thing was to not lose on the depreciation of a 17-month car just toswitch to something more economical. Sensible was to drive the wheels off it (under way at 226,000 miles)
3) I fix my own cars, so my BMW ownership experience costs less than most other people.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by drob23

From my experience, using the 200 mi tesla for a 160 mi commute would be more stressful than needed (i.e. uh oh, need to turn off AC and hypermile these final 40 miles). Plus, you don't want to regularly deplete the battery to such a low level.

From first hand experience, it will take about 13 hr to charge the 200 mile battery on 240V (max you could have at home) if going from 0% to 100%. More realistic is 20% - 100% which would be about 10 hr. So forgetting to set this or some user/hardware failure would mean you're working from home that day

Then what Tesla has on their website is completely wrong. I believe the fastest home charge rate is around 32 miles/hour. The 200 mile range is based on the vehicle already programmed to not take the battery below 20% and not charge it above 80%. I know my commute to a T (after 200,000 miles I should). I used my commute data in Tesla's range and charging estimators on their website.

It's not the voltage available but rather the amperage. I have 400 amp service in my garage so I can use the biggest charger Tesla offers. The transformer to drop the voltage from street level to 240V is about 60 feet from my garage so not much line loss going in either.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

All the people buying them seem to disagree. For my family, we drive an average of about 80-120 miles a week with two cars, so a Tesla would work great, as would an i3, especially with REX.

Comparing an older E90 to a Tesla is sort of like comparing an M5 to an IS250 though, of course it's more expensive. It's much bigger, has a ton more power and is better finished with more technology. Whether you feel like bridging that gap is up to you. A more comparable BMW is a current F10 550i, which in terms of price isn't any cheaper than the 60kw Tesla.

I sort of agree that it's not an exact fair comparison, however performance and size aside, it's the only car Tesla offers at the moment. I've stated elsewhere on the Forum that comparing the Tesla to a S-class, 7-Series, and an A8 (S8) is pricewise more consistant and the total ownership cost scenario changes more in Tesla's favor. If Tesla comes out with a C-class sized car for $45K then the equation totally changes.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

99% of Tesla owners will be sleeping in their own home when they park the car each night. That is the main charging station for these vehicles! You're repeating over and over that not all roads are going to be covered by the supercharger network but ignoring the fact that they simply don't need to be. You charge it at home, drive it to work, drive it home. Repeat. After a few days of a normal length commute, you'll plug it in overnight. If you need to take a long trip, the overwhelming majority of your long distance travel will be done via interstates which will be covered by the supercharger network.

Also, luxury brands would not exist if 85% of car purchases were made for sensible reasons.

I'd bet that "Luxury" brands make up about 15% in total in the US market, MB is 1.9% (2012) BMW 2.1% (2012) Audi/lexus/Infinity all similar, so...

[pootytang]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Then what Tesla has on their website is completely wrong. I believe the fastest home charge rate is around 32 miles/hour. The 200 mile range is based on the vehicle already programmed to not take the battery below 20% and not charge it above 80%. I know my commute to a T (after 200,000 miles I should). I used my commute data in Tesla's range and charging estimators on their website.

It's not the voltage available but rather the amperage. I have 400 amp service in my garage so I can use the biggest charger Tesla offers. The transformer to drop the voltage from street level to 240V is about 60 feet from my garage so not much line loss going in either.

Just relaying what I observed on the dedicated 240V EV charger at our proving grounds. I'm not saying this is the best or even inline with what you could get in your high wattage garage. Sometimes real world data is useful though, if you were plugging into a wall 120V plug while on a road trip, simply

The point about range though, I found that when driving the car very hard, the range was almost cut in half, when driven decently hard it was about 2/3. I know the same could be said for a regular gas car, point is you can always just find the closest gas station. In my world view, I could never rely on any other charging source than work/home (I think the S/C option has a long way to go before this is a realistic solution).

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by drob23

Just relaying what I observed on the dedicated 240V EV charger at our proving grounds. I'm not saying this is the best or even inline with what you could get in your high wattage garage. Sometimes real world data is useful though, if you were plugging into a wall 120V plug while on a road trip, simply

The point about range though, I found that when driving the car very hard, the range was almost cut in half, when driven decently hard it was about 2/3. I know the same could be said for a regular gas car, point is you can always just find the closest gas station. In my world view, I could never rely on any other charging source than work/home (I think the S/C option has a long way to go before this is a realistic solution).

I have no intention on getting a Tesla S. I appreciate the input about the charging though. I'm not even home for 13 hours sometimes! I agree with you 100% the S/C network is not a realistic alternative. The electric car will not become mainstream until it can match the range and refill convenience of a gasoline/diesel car. That happens one of two ways; gasoline gets really really expensive (and therefore people change their driving habits) or there is a quantum leap in battery technology that allows comparable range and refill to gasoline. Cool that you got to drive it in an evaluation environment.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'd bet that "Luxury" brands make up about 15% in total in the US market, MB is 1.9% (2012) BMW 2.1% (2012) Audi/lexus/Infinity all similar, so...

Add SUVs and pickups to that as well since very few are used for their intended purpose and waste billions of gallons of fuel in the process. Either way, it doesn't change the story.

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

No:
1) Camry/Accord cost about the same as my base 325i w/sport package- Around $32K
2) I bought the E90 17 months before my commute changed. It wasn't a planned purchase for the long commute. The sensible thing was to not lose on the depreciation of a 17-month car just toswitch to something more economical. Sensible was to drive the wheels off it (under way at 226,000 miles)
3) I fix my own cars, so my BMW ownership experience costs less than most other people.

Wrong. Your car was not as sensible from the get-go as a Camry which starts in the $22s or the Accord which starts in the $21s.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

Add SUVs and pickups to that as well since very few are used for their intended purpose and waste billions of gallons of fuel in the process. Either way, it doesn't change the story.


Wrong. Your car was not as sensible from the get-go as a Camry which starts in the $22s or the Accord which starts in the $21s.

Not sure why you think you get to determine what was sensible or not for my commute and financial situation. You have no facts to substantiate your position or opinion.

Had I had the choice to buy a different car for my commute (remember I bought the E90 BEFORE I changed commutes) I would have selected a different car, but at the point of being 17 months in on a new car purchase and then changed commutes, the depreciation on the E90 would not have been recovered by use of a different car.

Learn to read and comprehend.

[KingOfJericho]

I comprehend perfectly and my point is that you said the economics of the Tesla do not make sense because you can get an ICE car that does the same thing for cheaper. I am simply saying that you are being hypocritical since you bought a car that does the same thing as a Camry for a significant premium which is exactly what most Tesla owners are doing and you fault them for. You paid a premium and so have they.

[b0bab0i]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

I comprehend perfectly and my point is that you said the economics of the Tesla do not make sense because you can get an ICE car that does the same thing for cheaper. I am simply saying that you are being hypocritical since you bought a car that does the same thing as a Camry for a significant premium which is exactly what most Tesla owners are doing and you fault them for. You paid a premium and so have they.

KoJ just owned Efthreeoh.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

I comprehend perfectly and my point is that you said the economics of the Tesla do not make sense because you can get an ICE car that does the same thing for cheaper. I am simply saying that you are being hypocritical since you bought a car that does the same thing as a Camry for a significant premium which is exactly what most Tesla owners are doing and you fault them for. You paid a premium and so have they.

No the Tesla does not do the same thing as an ICE car does regardless of its price. And I don't fault the owners for anything; they are free to buy any car they want (just like you and just like me). The Tesla can not be driven outside the confines of 200 - 300 miles of its home-base charger (per your assumptions) and then rapidly recharged and go another 300 miles (most ICE cars have a fuel tank mileage nearly 400 miles) and recharged rapidly again and go another 300 miles. The Tesla can only be driven a certain distance until a minimum of 6 hours is taken to totally refill it. If the Tesla is taken on some sort of "road trip" it is regulated to certain highways in certain areas of the country and can only then be recharged halfway in a period of 30 minutes (only if the Tesla is properly equipped to take advantage of the super charger station). A person with an ICE car is free to travel almost anywhere he chooses in any direction he chooses without a range restriction; a Tesla owner is not. The ICE car can provide better service at a lower total operating cost than the Tesla; that's what I've been saying.

You try to point out that I'm a hypocrite because I choose to drive a BMW E90 rather than a less expensive Camry while saying the Tesla is a worst choice compared to an ICE car because in both instances all the vehicles can do the same thing, but its quite clear the Tesla cannot do the same thing as an ICE powered automobile; so your determination regarding my hypocrisy is flawed. Even if ICE cars came with super efficient drive trains and had a 2 gallon gas tank and got 150 MPG they still would be the better choice than the Tesla just for the mere fact in today's automotive environment you could still drive the ICE car anywhere in any direction and fill it up for another 300 miles of range in under 90 seconds (for 7 dollars or so). The Tesla is a marvel in drive train efficiency (electric motors are very efficient converters of energy), however the downside is the battery used as the fuel storage device has the equivalency in energy units of just 2 gallons of gasoline; that is the crux of the issue.

[KingOfJericho]

I said good day, sir.

[b0bab0i]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

No the Tesla does not do the same thing as an ICE car does regardless of its price. And I don't fault the owners for anything; they are free to buy any car they want (just like you and just like me). The Tesla can not be driven outside the confines of 200 - 300 miles of its home-base charger (per your assumptions) and then rapidly recharged and go another 300 miles (most ICE cars have a fuel tank mileage nearly 400 miles) and recharged rapidly again and go another 300 miles. The Tesla can only be driven a certain distance until a minimum of 6 hours is taken to totally refill it. If the Tesla is taken on some sort of "road trip" it is regulated to certain highways in certain areas of the country and can only then be recharged halfway in a period of 30 minutes (only if the Tesla is properly equipped to take advantage of the super charger station). A person with an ICE car is free to travel almost anywhere he chooses in any direction he chooses without a range restriction; a Tesla owner is not. The ICE car can provide better service at a lower total operating cost than the Tesla; that's what I've been saying.

You try to point out that I'm a hypocrite because I choose to drive a BMW E90 rather than a less expensive Camry while saying the Tesla is a worst choice compared to an ICE car because in both instances all the vehicles can do the same thing, but its quite clear the Tesla cannot do the same thing as an ICE powered automobile; so your determination regarding my hypocrisy is flawed. Even if ICE cars came with super efficient drive trains and had a 2 gallon gas tank and got 150 MPG they still would be the better choice than the Tesla just for the mere fact in today's automotive environment you could still drive the ICE car anywhere in any direction and fill it up for another 300 miles of range in under 90 seconds (for 7 dollars or so). The Tesla is a marvel in drive train efficiency (electric motors are very efficient converters of energy), however the downside is the battery used as the fuel storage device has the equivalency in energy units of just 2 gallons of gasoline; that is the crux of the issue.

A Camry/accord can provide better service at a lower operating cost than an e90. Stop being a hypocrite.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by b0bab0i

A Camry/accord can provide better service at a lower operating cost than an e90. Stop being a hypocrite.

But a Tesla can't, which is my point; it provides less service (range and re-fill convenience) at a higher total cost of ownership. You can make the Accord/Camry vs. E90 argument about any lower-priced car compared to the next lowest priced car and get down to the lowest priced car in the market provides the same service at a lower total operating cost. And if you hypocrisy for such thought, it means there should only be one car on the market for everyone to drive.

You are making a fictitious point that doesn't prove anything.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

But a Tesla can't, which is my point; it provides less service (range and re-fill convenience) at a higher total cost of ownership. You can make the Accord/Camry vs. E90 argument about any lower-priced car compared to the next lowest priced car and get down to the lowest priced car in the market provides the same service at a lower total operating cost. And if you hypocrisy for such thought, it means there should only be one car on the market for everyone to drive.

You are making a fictitious point that doesn't prove anything.

You really like to make funny arguments. The Tesla is a great car, full stop.

An E90 is fine for what you do, it's not like you're driving a Viper ACR or something. Now just move along, stop trying to make an argument about a car that really doesn't apply to your needs. Or branch out at least, bring in the Ariel Atom and the Caterham 7 and their lack of rain protection, or a Jeep Wrangler and it's poor high speed stability. Spread your nonsensical wrath, jeesh...