I agree with this. It was unlikely the apocalypse would have occurred due to Y2K, but it would be naive to think there wasn't the possibility for quite significant impact to a very technologically reliant civilization such as ours. I have read plenty of reports of Y2K bugs that DID cause minor problems (power outages, ticketing systems unable to create tickets and so on) but precisely because of the herculean effort to fix things they were the exceptions rather than the rule. The thought of a near global power outage would have been very impactful on our civilization. An inconvenience at the end of the day because people WILL tend to adapt... but many people with electric heat could have died. We are so reliant on technology that while the hand-waving about the end of the world was a bit much, it did help to bring some attention to the matter.
Right, because most of the companies that did nothing to prepare were running off-the-shelf software that had already been patched.
As a general rule, Y2K was mitigated as much by Microsoft, IBM et al as it was by the actual end user corporations that put effort into fixing their issues. I was a consultant during the 1996-2003 timeframe, and Y2K definitely gave my business a boost because we did Y2K analysis. Believe me, there WERE problems and there WERE pieces of code that would bring the system to its knees when tested. Yes, we actually tested on systems that were isolated, had the software and applications installed and had the date changed on boot to sometime in 2000. They broke... almost without exception. Some of them just ended up with weird data bugs that were primarily visual... but many of the programs that had good data integrity checks would crash horribly... in some instances taking entire databases with them.
Believe me, from someone who was in the trenches at the time Y2K could have been a much bigger deal. And even if Joe Blow's Carpet Cleaning didn't do anything to prepare for Y2K, their upgrading their software to Office 98, Windows 98 (or 2000 if they were really radical) fixed a large number of Y2K bugs. And yes, there was code in NT 3.5 (and 4 as I recall) that would have broken on Y2K day... a lot of it API's that other applications used. Many of these were patched later, but they were there.
This is a cool demo and all, but I find it highly unlikely any travelers will ever set foot on a plane where the pilot isn't also on-board. Simply put; radio tech is not perfect and in the event of a systems failure of some description you need a decision-making human being to make the final decision about a resolution. There's also the point of "accepted risk", where the pilot has just as much "skin in the game" as you do as a traveler.
The worst flight I have ever been on was one where the pilot made a pretty lousy decision to proceed into a line of thunderstorms... to the extent that after a forced return to St. Louis due to the stresses the plane had encountered, it was grounded. I don't know how bad it actually was, but I swear the plane was sideways a few times. Anyway, the only thing that kept my mind focused on something other than the potential for a rather untimely demise was the thought that the pilot had as little desire to die as I did and would be doing every damned thing he could to put the plane down in as close to one piece as possible... even if rather hard.
Had I been in the same situation in a plane with no on-board pilot you'd better believe that they'd need to hose out the seat before using it again.
2. Google Voice transcribes voicemails so that they are delivered as E-mails, so that I don't have to listen to them. This is worth actual money to me. I hate voice mail with a passion.
And believe me, the hilarity that ensues from reading some of these transcriptions is better than paying to go to a comedy club once a week. Some of this stuff is absolute gold!
Instead of me having to use real SMS for company pages, an email to Google Voice messaging would be a very handy replacement. Instead of being tied to a single device I could get alerts on all my google voice outlets and not worry about SMS overages
So get your company to pay for unlimited texts... that's what I did. And if they don't, then refuse to receive SMS message on your personal device. If they then say they'll give you a company device, point out that it'd be a lot cheaper for them to just pay for the SMS messages. Again, what I did.
Google hasn't found a way to monetize it in any meaningful way.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Inbound and outbound calls, frequency and to whom are a great way to gather data about your relationships with people. They connect this with your profile and use that data to add to their database-of-creepiness so that they can effectively target ads much better at you. If you ONLY use GVoice then no, it's not something they can monetize, but if you use a web browser to read your messages, or log into GMail... whatever.... that data becomes "you".
And this is from someone who's used GVoice for over a year now as my primary voice and messaging service. While it's imperfect (no MMS) and as I said adds to the "creepybase" I like it. Privacy be damned...
Anyway, aren't the batteries under the trunk liner? So, in order to swap your battery during a shopping/camping/golf trip, wouldn't you need to empty your trunk first, then wrench out your back pulling out the used batteries (probably leaving a grease mark on your pants in the process), then wrench it again putting in the new ones? Sounds like fun...
Nope, the Tesla Model S's battery pretty much is the entire bottom of the car (with a metal shell over it). This will be an automated system because the battery pack is one single unit. This article is old but has a good picture of the battery pack giving you an idea of the size of the thing. It also weighs a lot... so you won't be doing any wrenching yourself.
Basically the way this will work is that you'll drive up onto a ramp and then a robot will drop the battery pack out and swap it for a new one from underneath. You won't even need to get out of the car.
It takes an awfully long time to go from prototype to production... particularly since anything using this tech in a car would have to go through the NHTSA hoopla.
Actually, they tend to break even or even make a profit over relatively short periods of time. Maintenance is rather low, typically... and the solar panels on the roof feed back into the grid. Even if they build it and no-one comes, the cost of putting it up will pay for itself in less than 10 years just by standing there and gathering solar power.
They're really rather cheaply built; they're big concrete covered parking with solar panels all over the roof. Sounds like a good idea to me:)
At the moment, yes. They're proprietary. However, that doesn't have to mean it'll always be the way.
Tesla are building the SC network in part because they were tired of the constant difficulty getting a standardized connector and charging standard that everyone will agree to. Because of constant squabbling over design decisions and committee decisions on the charging itself, Tesla decided it was going to be easier to just invent their own standard and build it.
How does that help in future? Well, Tesla is already licensing its drivetrain tech to other companies (notably Toyota; their RAV4e is all Tesla under the skin) and there's no reason to assume they won't license the charging tech to third parties when they're ready to. At the moment they're using the SC stations to sell Model S's, and using the money from the Model S's to build charging stations... until the network is significantly expanded it doesn't make sense to let everyone use the tech because your precious stations will be full of everyone else's cars... and the profits from the Model S will naturally not be quite so high and thus unable to fund network expansion. I think what they're doing makes great sense, and in the future definitely feel it's probable that we'll see Tesla turn more into a car manufacturer that makes as much money off their intellectual property (SC standards) as they do the cars they build.
Electric vehicles have languished for years (actually, more because they predated ICE's) partly because of the slow movement of committees of people deciding what the standards should look like. Me, I like a maverick in this sort of thing who decides that the rest of the world can just damned well catch up with him rather than him put his plans on hold for others.
Couldn't agree more as an ex-pat of the UK (and by extension Europe).
The problem with the train here is that all of the rail lines are laid for cargo, not passengers. And cargo gets priority because that's what makes money. These big two-mile-long freight trains are the main paying customer, not the passenger trains. It also means the lines are often pretty beaten up by the heavy loads they're carrying, and quite often you will stop for an hour on a supposedly 4 hour train ride because some freight train has priority to the line ahead.
Unfortunately rail would require a lot of infrastructure to make usable in the US. We have huge spaces between major cities; the nearest major cities to St. Louis where I live are Chicago (about 5 hours drive) and Kansas City (about 4). Considering that's like the distance between London and Manchester in the UK isn't too telling until you consider that to do the latter drive you would also pass through Coventry and Birmingham (both large cities in their own right)... and pass pretty close to Northampton and Stoke on Trent (again, pretty big cities) that's telling.
It'd take a massive investment in time and money to build out a truly usable network in the main part of the US. On the East Coast it might be easier... but the East Coast is a very small part of the US (though densely populated). At the moment it's unlikely to get off the ground any time soon... even if I for one would far prefer it.
As I understand it, the supercharger stations are in fact grid-connected. Some have on-site storage (though not many so far) and most have solar panels.
This means that the SC stations are all feeding into the grid when not "filling" a car. This is how they can get away with the no-charge (uhhh... punny!) top-ups at the SC stations because at the moment at least the usage of the SC is a net zero or even possibly making a profit.
As I understand it, the goal right now is to get the stations built, then add solar as the build-out progresses (the solar is lagging the construction of new SC stations by a bit), then add storage either as needed or as desired. I think they all have SOME storage built in so they can provide the peak load that a charging car requires, but it tapers off relatively quickly.
All in all I think it's brilliant; people have been wondering how to get a useful buildout of solar panels in the US... well now Elon Musk is doing that. He just happens to be doing it to charge the cars he builds.
And what's to bet the reason he's doing it is because he has his own personal itch to scratch; that he wants to drive his Model S from California to New York. Just because. That's how progress is made; people with an itch they need to scratch.
I live in St. Louis. That means that on a long road trip the supercharger stations I am most likely to use are in Bloomington, IL... Columbia, MO... and Springfield, MO. That'll get me as far as Kansas City, Tulsa or Chicago at which point I can charge again.
Quite frankly, when I drive to Chicago (about once a year), I typically stop in Bloomington for about half an hour to an hour anyway. It's a nice break point in the drive, and they have a lovely downtown. I know exactly where the Supercharger station is going in and it's within walking distance to some great restaurants and cafes.
Columbia, MO is a similar story... I don't know where the SC will go in but it's a college town with some fabulous eateries and cafes. No complaints there.
Springfield... ditto. I don't drive down that way as often as the other two, but again there are some nice places in Springfield. Nice area of the state.
All three of these places are often where I stop for gas, too. Even though I don't need it, I like to stop and fill her up. While doing so I tend to park the car and wander around a bit to keep blood flowing and stop being such a damned couch potato. Sitting still for 6 hours with only a 5 minute break doesn't sound like fun to me.
If I were to own a Tesla Model S, I would have to change precisely nothing about my lifestyle in terms of driving today. I would not have to particularly put any great planning into it, and in fact I might find myself with more time to myself because I don't have to detour a mile out of my way on the way to work in order to make sure I hit a gas station. Believe it or not on my daily commute there are ZERO gas stations by the side of the road... they're all quite a ways off. Minimum detour is just under a mile by the time you get off the highway, get gas and get back on. If my car is "fueled" in my garage every night then I'll never have to do this detour again. My life would be made better by a Model S or similar vehicle even without the SC stations... the SC stations just mean that I can take trips in that vehicle that I currently can't. Having said that, I don't often take my car to KC or Chicago, either... Chicago is the more frequent of the two but even then I usually fly.
Tesla Model S and it's ilk will most likely be charged at night when demand is low, anyway. Few people will charge during the day unless they're on a road trip... and for that they have the Supercharger stations (which long term it's intended that they all run solar and some will have local storage to feed back into the grid).
Interesting. It seems like they're solving the range problem, but not necessarily the convenience problem. There's about 20 fields within 5 miles of where I live where I can feed my horse, but there won't even be 1 of these gas stations. That's not really a problem being at home, but I think it's probably going to be a problem for some people. Not to mention, with 1 to 2 pumps and the filling time, there's a good chance that people are going to be stuck waiting once they get a lot more of these on the road like I hope they do.
What subsidies? If you're talking about the tax payer loan from the DOE to Tesla, in case you've been living under a rock they paid that back... with interest. The model S isn't subsidized by anyone; it's making a profit. A good one, apparently.
Right... and it shows what happens when you assume. Steam runs as a regular application... the DRM is checked by the application since each game and sub-app is launched by the Steam client itself.
It's probably one of the best-behaved apps I've seen on my Mac, Windows box or Linux box:)
Oh I definitely get what you're trying to say; the current Model S and infrastructure don't work for you. There's nothing wrong with any of that... but for a lot of people it does work, and work well.
For my part, I do drive a gasoline powered car today and my next car is probably also going to be gasoline powered because the Model S is just too big for my needs. I love it in concept, and the execution is great (the car is gorgeous despite its size) but like you the current car doesn't suit my needs. Today. Tomorrow is a different matter entirely, and there is always the possibility that I may decide in the next year or two that I actually do need a bigger car. If I do that, the Model S is in the short-list of possibilities.
But if I need to travel more than 200 miles or so I'll typically fly (because it's for business) or ride my motorbike (a big sport-tourer)... I don't typically take my car because honestly I don't much want to rack up the miles or the gas expense. My bike gets me 44mpg, and the plane... well, honestly the cost of domestic flights is almost ridiculously low. I don't like airport security much, either... but if you fly enough you sign up for the programs that will expedite you through security. Plus I rack up frequent flier miles that I then use to take vacations for basically free every couple of years. Definitely makes up for dealing with the security theater.
The last time I drove more than 200 miles in a day was six years ago... I drove to Chicago to fly to Belfast for my grandmother's funeral because it was much cheaper than flying from St. Louis. These days to do the same trip I'd cash in some of my FF miles to buy the flight rather than drive... but if I took the hankering to drive that new supercharger station in Bloomington is a perfect place to stop en-route for an hour. It's right in a main shopping district with some great restaurants... a more leisurely way of life to be sure:)
What about solar panels in the roof? Seems to me that could provide a nice (though slow) "trickle charge" into the batteries while it's parked or provide a bit of juice to pre-heat or pre-cool the car through your smartphone app (which the Tesla already does BTW). Might not be a huge range extender, but PV efficiency is at the point where the roof surface area of the Model S could provide a not-insignificant amount of power.
Today... but what about tomorrow when apartments start advertising "Covered parking with electric car outlet installed"? It'll happen... sooner rather than later. I've been seriously considering buying an apartment building myself as an investment... and I have seriously thought about doing exactly this. Obviously you need to be very aware of your market... but that might actually be a great selling point.
Your concern is certainly valid; but not everyone lives in an apartment. Certainly, the Model S and the next two models (the X and the "Gen3") are probably not going to be targeted at apartment dwellers anyway.
For myself, I'm closing on a condo in two weeks with a parking garage. I have talked to the building management about the possibility of running a charging connection to my assigned parking space and they're open to it so long as I am the one covering the cost.
Perhaps, but Tesla also doesn't seem to be having any trouble selling as many Model S's as they can build.
I know a couple of Tesla owners already, and though you're right that they're not concerned about affording gasoline, they're also not significantly better off than I am. They are just interested in the technology, interesting in the car itself (it IS gorgeous), interested in having a large car (just a bit bigger than a 5 series) that can actually carry 7 people in comfort and has more storage space than any SUV on the market... or just mortified by just how close they were reaching to triple digits when filling up their previous cars (which were often Lexus, BMW or Mercedes). While they aren't concerned about the amount of money, they are usually smart enough to realize that significant rises in gas prices are going to be very hard to swallow. The price, not the gasoline:D
Typically they also tend to be college-educated professionals... managers and IT guys typically.
Which is exactly the right way to do it. Start with the expensive, higher-margin cars and then put the money you make from sale of the cars into (a) paying off the government loan and (b) R&D on battery technology and future products that will trickle down to the "masses".
I am a firm believer in what Tesla is doing... and frankly they're already producing the ONLY American car I would buy, today.
While I admit I don't drive the most conservative car around, gas still costs me about $150 a month... hell it costs me $50 to fill the tank once any more! And I am actually below the US average in the amount I drive per day. For your needs today, a Tesla Model S may not be cost effective... come back in 15 years when they're actually producing a car for the masses and let me know if that works for you.
If you're only driving so little that you spend $30 a month in fuel, then may I suggest you get a bicycle?
But who really buys a base Camry? And besides, Tesla isn't yet targeting the person who walks into a Kia dealership and tries to talk them down in price. Maybe they will in time, but that day is not today. They made the very sensible decision to create a halo car first (the Roadster) then work their way down the "price ladder" from there. The Model S while expensive is honestly no more expensive at the end of the day than a BMW 7 Series or Mercedes S Class... both of which I see a LOT of on the roads.
I figured that in the course of three to four years a Tesla pays for itself in fuel and maintenance savings over a BMW 535i. That's not bad and worth investing in because by the time you've paid off the car (presuming a 5 year loan) you're actually making money back on savings over a similar vehicle. Yes, I realize the S is 7-series size rather than 5 series... but it just shows how close we are to a mid-market vehicle from Tesla... there are a LOT of 5-series out on the road. The Gen 3 is supposed to be a 3-series competitor... that's going to be VERY interesting since the 3-series is sometimes referred to as the California Cockroach because there are so many of them in that state.
And just because you're happy in your base Camry that'll last you a decade, not everyone is. I drive a BMW today (a 1-series actually) because I love to drive and your basic Camry drives nothing like a BMW no matter how many options you load onto it. Maybe I'm spoiled... so shoot me; I'm middle class. I'm not going to drive your $20K Camry because from my perspective it's crap. I happen to have a car that I can enjoy every day and take to track days on the weekend and blow the doors off Porsche's (just the base Carrera... the S is another matter)... that to me is worth the extra money.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with this. It was unlikely the apocalypse would have occurred due to Y2K, but it would be naive to think there wasn't the possibility for quite significant impact to a very technologically reliant civilization such as ours. I have read plenty of reports of Y2K bugs that DID cause minor problems (power outages, ticketing systems unable to create tickets and so on) but precisely because of the herculean effort to fix things they were the exceptions rather than the rule. The thought of a near global power outage would have been very impactful on our civilization. An inconvenience at the end of the day because people WILL tend to adapt... but many people with electric heat could have died. We are so reliant on technology that while the hand-waving about the end of the world was a bit much, it did help to bring some attention to the matter.
Right, because most of the companies that did nothing to prepare were running off-the-shelf software that had already been patched.
As a general rule, Y2K was mitigated as much by Microsoft, IBM et al as it was by the actual end user corporations that put effort into fixing their issues. I was a consultant during the 1996-2003 timeframe, and Y2K definitely gave my business a boost because we did Y2K analysis. Believe me, there WERE problems and there WERE pieces of code that would bring the system to its knees when tested. Yes, we actually tested on systems that were isolated, had the software and applications installed and had the date changed on boot to sometime in 2000. They broke... almost without exception. Some of them just ended up with weird data bugs that were primarily visual... but many of the programs that had good data integrity checks would crash horribly... in some instances taking entire databases with them.
Believe me, from someone who was in the trenches at the time Y2K could have been a much bigger deal. And even if Joe Blow's Carpet Cleaning didn't do anything to prepare for Y2K, their upgrading their software to Office 98, Windows 98 (or 2000 if they were really radical) fixed a large number of Y2K bugs. And yes, there was code in NT 3.5 (and 4 as I recall) that would have broken on Y2K day... a lot of it API's that other applications used. Many of these were patched later, but they were there.
This is a cool demo and all, but I find it highly unlikely any travelers will ever set foot on a plane where the pilot isn't also on-board. Simply put; radio tech is not perfect and in the event of a systems failure of some description you need a decision-making human being to make the final decision about a resolution. There's also the point of "accepted risk", where the pilot has just as much "skin in the game" as you do as a traveler.
The worst flight I have ever been on was one where the pilot made a pretty lousy decision to proceed into a line of thunderstorms... to the extent that after a forced return to St. Louis due to the stresses the plane had encountered, it was grounded. I don't know how bad it actually was, but I swear the plane was sideways a few times. Anyway, the only thing that kept my mind focused on something other than the potential for a rather untimely demise was the thought that the pilot had as little desire to die as I did and would be doing every damned thing he could to put the plane down in as close to one piece as possible... even if rather hard.
Had I been in the same situation in a plane with no on-board pilot you'd better believe that they'd need to hose out the seat before using it again.
2. Google Voice transcribes voicemails so that they are delivered as E-mails, so that I don't have to listen to them. This is worth actual money to me. I hate voice mail with a passion.
And believe me, the hilarity that ensues from reading some of these transcriptions is better than paying to go to a comedy club once a week. Some of this stuff is absolute gold!
Instead of me having to use real SMS for company pages, an email to Google Voice messaging would be a very handy replacement. Instead of being tied to a single device I could get alerts on all my google voice outlets and not worry about SMS overages
So get your company to pay for unlimited texts... that's what I did. And if they don't, then refuse to receive SMS message on your personal device. If they then say they'll give you a company device, point out that it'd be a lot cheaper for them to just pay for the SMS messages. Again, what I did.
and if google weren't idiots they would integrate the Voice to android so the messages from it would appear as normal messages.. it's not that hard.
Which sounds fantastic.... until you realize the GVoice Android app is so much better than the built-in messaging app...
Google hasn't found a way to monetize it in any meaningful way.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Inbound and outbound calls, frequency and to whom are a great way to gather data about your relationships with people. They connect this with your profile and use that data to add to their database-of-creepiness so that they can effectively target ads much better at you. If you ONLY use GVoice then no, it's not something they can monetize, but if you use a web browser to read your messages, or log into GMail... whatever.... that data becomes "you".
And this is from someone who's used GVoice for over a year now as my primary voice and messaging service. While it's imperfect (no MMS) and as I said adds to the "creepybase" I like it. Privacy be damned...
Anyway, aren't the batteries under the trunk liner? So, in order to swap your battery during a shopping/camping/golf trip, wouldn't you need to empty your trunk first, then wrench out your back pulling out the used batteries (probably leaving a grease mark on your pants in the process), then wrench it again putting in the new ones? Sounds like fun...
Nope, the Tesla Model S's battery pretty much is the entire bottom of the car (with a metal shell over it). This will be an automated system because the battery pack is one single unit. This article is old but has a good picture of the battery pack giving you an idea of the size of the thing. It also weighs a lot... so you won't be doing any wrenching yourself.
Basically the way this will work is that you'll drive up onto a ramp and then a robot will drop the battery pack out and swap it for a new one from underneath. You won't even need to get out of the car.
It takes an awfully long time to go from prototype to production... particularly since anything using this tech in a car would have to go through the NHTSA hoopla.
Actually, they tend to break even or even make a profit over relatively short periods of time. Maintenance is rather low, typically... and the solar panels on the roof feed back into the grid. Even if they build it and no-one comes, the cost of putting it up will pay for itself in less than 10 years just by standing there and gathering solar power.
They're really rather cheaply built; they're big concrete covered parking with solar panels all over the roof. Sounds like a good idea to me :)
At the moment, yes. They're proprietary. However, that doesn't have to mean it'll always be the way.
Tesla are building the SC network in part because they were tired of the constant difficulty getting a standardized connector and charging standard that everyone will agree to. Because of constant squabbling over design decisions and committee decisions on the charging itself, Tesla decided it was going to be easier to just invent their own standard and build it.
How does that help in future? Well, Tesla is already licensing its drivetrain tech to other companies (notably Toyota; their RAV4e is all Tesla under the skin) and there's no reason to assume they won't license the charging tech to third parties when they're ready to. At the moment they're using the SC stations to sell Model S's, and using the money from the Model S's to build charging stations... until the network is significantly expanded it doesn't make sense to let everyone use the tech because your precious stations will be full of everyone else's cars... and the profits from the Model S will naturally not be quite so high and thus unable to fund network expansion. I think what they're doing makes great sense, and in the future definitely feel it's probable that we'll see Tesla turn more into a car manufacturer that makes as much money off their intellectual property (SC standards) as they do the cars they build.
Electric vehicles have languished for years (actually, more because they predated ICE's) partly because of the slow movement of committees of people deciding what the standards should look like. Me, I like a maverick in this sort of thing who decides that the rest of the world can just damned well catch up with him rather than him put his plans on hold for others.
Couldn't agree more as an ex-pat of the UK (and by extension Europe).
The problem with the train here is that all of the rail lines are laid for cargo, not passengers. And cargo gets priority because that's what makes money. These big two-mile-long freight trains are the main paying customer, not the passenger trains. It also means the lines are often pretty beaten up by the heavy loads they're carrying, and quite often you will stop for an hour on a supposedly 4 hour train ride because some freight train has priority to the line ahead.
Unfortunately rail would require a lot of infrastructure to make usable in the US. We have huge spaces between major cities; the nearest major cities to St. Louis where I live are Chicago (about 5 hours drive) and Kansas City (about 4). Considering that's like the distance between London and Manchester in the UK isn't too telling until you consider that to do the latter drive you would also pass through Coventry and Birmingham (both large cities in their own right)... and pass pretty close to Northampton and Stoke on Trent (again, pretty big cities) that's telling.
It'd take a massive investment in time and money to build out a truly usable network in the main part of the US. On the East Coast it might be easier... but the East Coast is a very small part of the US (though densely populated). At the moment it's unlikely to get off the ground any time soon... even if I for one would far prefer it.
As I understand it, the supercharger stations are in fact grid-connected. Some have on-site storage (though not many so far) and most have solar panels.
This means that the SC stations are all feeding into the grid when not "filling" a car. This is how they can get away with the no-charge (uhhh... punny!) top-ups at the SC stations because at the moment at least the usage of the SC is a net zero or even possibly making a profit.
As I understand it, the goal right now is to get the stations built, then add solar as the build-out progresses (the solar is lagging the construction of new SC stations by a bit), then add storage either as needed or as desired. I think they all have SOME storage built in so they can provide the peak load that a charging car requires, but it tapers off relatively quickly.
All in all I think it's brilliant; people have been wondering how to get a useful buildout of solar panels in the US... well now Elon Musk is doing that. He just happens to be doing it to charge the cars he builds.
And what's to bet the reason he's doing it is because he has his own personal itch to scratch; that he wants to drive his Model S from California to New York. Just because. That's how progress is made; people with an itch they need to scratch.
I live in St. Louis. That means that on a long road trip the supercharger stations I am most likely to use are in Bloomington, IL... Columbia, MO... and Springfield, MO. That'll get me as far as Kansas City, Tulsa or Chicago at which point I can charge again.
Quite frankly, when I drive to Chicago (about once a year), I typically stop in Bloomington for about half an hour to an hour anyway. It's a nice break point in the drive, and they have a lovely downtown. I know exactly where the Supercharger station is going in and it's within walking distance to some great restaurants and cafes.
Columbia, MO is a similar story... I don't know where the SC will go in but it's a college town with some fabulous eateries and cafes. No complaints there.
Springfield... ditto. I don't drive down that way as often as the other two, but again there are some nice places in Springfield. Nice area of the state.
All three of these places are often where I stop for gas, too. Even though I don't need it, I like to stop and fill her up. While doing so I tend to park the car and wander around a bit to keep blood flowing and stop being such a damned couch potato. Sitting still for 6 hours with only a 5 minute break doesn't sound like fun to me.
If I were to own a Tesla Model S, I would have to change precisely nothing about my lifestyle in terms of driving today. I would not have to particularly put any great planning into it, and in fact I might find myself with more time to myself because I don't have to detour a mile out of my way on the way to work in order to make sure I hit a gas station. Believe it or not on my daily commute there are ZERO gas stations by the side of the road... they're all quite a ways off. Minimum detour is just under a mile by the time you get off the highway, get gas and get back on. If my car is "fueled" in my garage every night then I'll never have to do this detour again. My life would be made better by a Model S or similar vehicle even without the SC stations... the SC stations just mean that I can take trips in that vehicle that I currently can't. Having said that, I don't often take my car to KC or Chicago, either... Chicago is the more frequent of the two but even then I usually fly.
Bingo... if I had mod points, I'd mod you up.
Tesla Model S and it's ilk will most likely be charged at night when demand is low, anyway. Few people will charge during the day unless they're on a road trip... and for that they have the Supercharger stations (which long term it's intended that they all run solar and some will have local storage to feed back into the grid).
Interesting. It seems like they're solving the range problem, but not necessarily the convenience problem. There's about 20 fields within 5 miles of where I live where I can feed my horse, but there won't even be 1 of these gas stations. That's not really a problem being at home, but I think it's probably going to be a problem for some people. Not to mention, with 1 to 2 pumps and the filling time, there's a good chance that people are going to be stuck waiting once they get a lot more of these on the road like I hope they do.
blackraven14250, circa 1903. :-)
Couldn't resist. Sorry...
What subsidies? If you're talking about the tax payer loan from the DOE to Tesla, in case you've been living under a rock they paid that back... with interest. The model S isn't subsidized by anyone; it's making a profit. A good one, apparently.
Right... and it shows what happens when you assume. Steam runs as a regular application... the DRM is checked by the application since each game and sub-app is launched by the Steam client itself.
It's probably one of the best-behaved apps I've seen on my Mac, Windows box or Linux box :)
Oh I definitely get what you're trying to say; the current Model S and infrastructure don't work for you. There's nothing wrong with any of that... but for a lot of people it does work, and work well.
For my part, I do drive a gasoline powered car today and my next car is probably also going to be gasoline powered because the Model S is just too big for my needs. I love it in concept, and the execution is great (the car is gorgeous despite its size) but like you the current car doesn't suit my needs. Today. Tomorrow is a different matter entirely, and there is always the possibility that I may decide in the next year or two that I actually do need a bigger car. If I do that, the Model S is in the short-list of possibilities.
But if I need to travel more than 200 miles or so I'll typically fly (because it's for business) or ride my motorbike (a big sport-tourer)... I don't typically take my car because honestly I don't much want to rack up the miles or the gas expense. My bike gets me 44mpg, and the plane... well, honestly the cost of domestic flights is almost ridiculously low. I don't like airport security much, either... but if you fly enough you sign up for the programs that will expedite you through security. Plus I rack up frequent flier miles that I then use to take vacations for basically free every couple of years. Definitely makes up for dealing with the security theater.
The last time I drove more than 200 miles in a day was six years ago... I drove to Chicago to fly to Belfast for my grandmother's funeral because it was much cheaper than flying from St. Louis. These days to do the same trip I'd cash in some of my FF miles to buy the flight rather than drive... but if I took the hankering to drive that new supercharger station in Bloomington is a perfect place to stop en-route for an hour. It's right in a main shopping district with some great restaurants... a more leisurely way of life to be sure :)
What about solar panels in the roof? Seems to me that could provide a nice (though slow) "trickle charge" into the batteries while it's parked or provide a bit of juice to pre-heat or pre-cool the car through your smartphone app (which the Tesla already does BTW). Might not be a huge range extender, but PV efficiency is at the point where the roof surface area of the Model S could provide a not-insignificant amount of power.
Today... but what about tomorrow when apartments start advertising "Covered parking with electric car outlet installed"? It'll happen... sooner rather than later. I've been seriously considering buying an apartment building myself as an investment... and I have seriously thought about doing exactly this. Obviously you need to be very aware of your market... but that might actually be a great selling point.
Your concern is certainly valid; but not everyone lives in an apartment. Certainly, the Model S and the next two models (the X and the "Gen3") are probably not going to be targeted at apartment dwellers anyway.
For myself, I'm closing on a condo in two weeks with a parking garage. I have talked to the building management about the possibility of running a charging connection to my assigned parking space and they're open to it so long as I am the one covering the cost.
Perhaps, but Tesla also doesn't seem to be having any trouble selling as many Model S's as they can build.
I know a couple of Tesla owners already, and though you're right that they're not concerned about affording gasoline, they're also not significantly better off than I am. They are just interested in the technology, interesting in the car itself (it IS gorgeous), interested in having a large car (just a bit bigger than a 5 series) that can actually carry 7 people in comfort and has more storage space than any SUV on the market... or just mortified by just how close they were reaching to triple digits when filling up their previous cars (which were often Lexus, BMW or Mercedes). While they aren't concerned about the amount of money, they are usually smart enough to realize that significant rises in gas prices are going to be very hard to swallow. The price, not the gasoline :D
Typically they also tend to be college-educated professionals... managers and IT guys typically.
Which is exactly the right way to do it. Start with the expensive, higher-margin cars and then put the money you make from sale of the cars into (a) paying off the government loan and (b) R&D on battery technology and future products that will trickle down to the "masses".
I am a firm believer in what Tesla is doing... and frankly they're already producing the ONLY American car I would buy, today.
While I admit I don't drive the most conservative car around, gas still costs me about $150 a month... hell it costs me $50 to fill the tank once any more! And I am actually below the US average in the amount I drive per day. For your needs today, a Tesla Model S may not be cost effective... come back in 15 years when they're actually producing a car for the masses and let me know if that works for you.
If you're only driving so little that you spend $30 a month in fuel, then may I suggest you get a bicycle?
But who really buys a base Camry? And besides, Tesla isn't yet targeting the person who walks into a Kia dealership and tries to talk them down in price. Maybe they will in time, but that day is not today. They made the very sensible decision to create a halo car first (the Roadster) then work their way down the "price ladder" from there. The Model S while expensive is honestly no more expensive at the end of the day than a BMW 7 Series or Mercedes S Class... both of which I see a LOT of on the roads.
I figured that in the course of three to four years a Tesla pays for itself in fuel and maintenance savings over a BMW 535i. That's not bad and worth investing in because by the time you've paid off the car (presuming a 5 year loan) you're actually making money back on savings over a similar vehicle. Yes, I realize the S is 7-series size rather than 5 series... but it just shows how close we are to a mid-market vehicle from Tesla... there are a LOT of 5-series out on the road. The Gen 3 is supposed to be a 3-series competitor... that's going to be VERY interesting since the 3-series is sometimes referred to as the California Cockroach because there are so many of them in that state.
And just because you're happy in your base Camry that'll last you a decade, not everyone is. I drive a BMW today (a 1-series actually) because I love to drive and your basic Camry drives nothing like a BMW no matter how many options you load onto it. Maybe I'm spoiled... so shoot me; I'm middle class. I'm not going to drive your $20K Camry because from my perspective it's crap. I happen to have a car that I can enjoy every day and take to track days on the weekend and blow the doors off Porsche's (just the base Carrera... the S is another matter)... that to me is worth the extra money.