vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"The system of comparison and calculation of insurance rates seems completely and utterly flawed to me. Why would you group cars from different manufacturers together by arbitrarily defined factors such as weight and size? It is perfectly possible to have a big, heavy car with very low claims, while a small car can have a lot more claims.   The response provided by Tesla seems similarly moronic. They claim that their car is being compared to the wrong types of car, but even if that were the case - *so what*? If the other cars you are being compared to are too cheap/slow/small, then you have obviously been assigned to the wrong group, and should be in another group with the bigger, more expensive cars, which I would gather are even more expensive to insure, and thus your car should be more expensive to insure.   If an insurance company is providing insurance to 1000 Volvo XC 90 drivers and 1000 Tesla Model S drivers and they get 100 claims from the Volvo drivers costing them a total of $ 200,000, while they get 150 claims from the Tesla drivers totaling $ 300,000 during the same time period, obviously the Tesla should be 50 % more expensive to insure. That is literally how car insurance works.   Here in Germany, every model of car is assigned a unique identifier (""Typschlüsselnummer"", roughly translates as ""type number"" or ""type identifier""). Insurance companies track which cars their clients own, and report condensed claims statistics for each model back to a central service provider, which then assigns an insurance group (Typklasse) to each car for each type of insurance (there are distinct, independent groups for liability, partial and comprehensive coverage) depending on the actual, measured per-car expenditures experienced by the insurance companies over the previous year. The insurance companies then feed that data back into their systems for their rate calculations."
This is great news.  EVs are growing so fast.  Their reduced fuel and maintenance costs will be a great boon to the economy.  I wouldn't be surprising to see EVs take a significant share of the auto market in the coming years (they were ~1% in 2016).  Innovation drives economic growth.  It's also good for the environment (the electricity used is much cleaner than gasoline/diesel) and electrical grid (increased demand that's potentially responsive to system load helps finance smart grid improvements).
Negative. I'm selecting all available historical data... to only focus on this last year is not relevant to which American car company has sold the most electric cars in the US. It doesn't mean it will last forever, but those are currently the numbers.
I'm not debating that, I'm saying early adopters should be upgrading from a beater that's about to die, not throw their 2-4 year old cars away to get a new EV. Volume will come and people do need to buy, but you can't environmentally justify replacing a lease with a shiny new Tesla.
"But you also can't use a comparison to a cell phone battery; they are not the same chemistry either despite both having ""lithium"" in the name, and EVs limit themselves to a far narrower range of charge than a cell phone does.  My point was that Toyota, didn't base their longevity claims on nothing; they did a shitload of testing of their battery before putting it out, and the ""you'll need a new pack after five years"" crowd was ultimately proved wrong.  GM has made similar claims about the longevity of their packs, based on similar shitloads of research and testing, and I see no reason why they won't ultimately enjoy the same vindication.  As for Nissan, they are reaping the effects of cheaping out and omitting a liquid cooling system from their cars battery packs. Heat kills batteries of any chemistry!"
Price range compared to the Model 3?  Here in Germany we always get the same yada yada about batteries not sufficient, grid not evolved enough, Tesla going down soon.  But Benz is actually preparing, also gigafactorywise. You are right.  The bigger question is when they will realize that they can't maintain just selling cars to the end user. Owning a car at some point will be a thing of the past. You will pay a monthly fee and always have a car in front of your house when you need it.
&gt;You know how your cell phone battery gets shittier and shittier over time until you either get a new phone or buy a new battery? Well the same thing will happen to your car.  Uh, a lot has changed since the 90s, buddy. Batteries last many times longer than they used to.   &gt;And what will we do with the old one that's full of toxic chemicals?  Like we do with all batteries? Recycle? Since they're something like +90% recyclable?
I don't think you can make that comparison at all. The '02 prius isn't using the same battery type as a new hybrid or EV and the charge/discharge and usage cycles are different between EV's and hybrids. There hasn't been enough EV's on the market to get good data as of yet, but the Leaf has had issues with failing batteries in warm climates. Nissan also claims that the battery should lose about 20% of it's performance over 60k miles (a far cry from negligible).
The issue is production volume.   No other manufacturer had the foresight to build a gigafactory.   Therefore no other manufacturer can source enough batteries for hundreds of thousands of cars per year.   Tesla will ruler the EV market for years - until legacy makers catch up in terms of battery sources.
You buy a 60kwh car you get a 60kwh car not a 60kwh car that after 3 years is a 45kwh car.  Which do you think people would be more upset at.  Which looks worse for electric cars. Elon needs to make electric cars viable to the average consumer. This helps electric cars marketability. Range degredation is a legitimate problem for every electric car and this is the best current way to handle it.
As an electric vehicle engineer... I can say that shitty 18650 batteries are not the only bottleneck in vehicle production. If your supply chain is completely dependant on out of date battery technolgy, one small part of an EV,  the vehicle will be postponed a great deal. There are many many facets to vehicle production than 1/5 of the powertrain.
There are some who argue that you should lease an electric car. These factors are in addition to all the normal pros and cons of leasing vs. buying. The technology is still new and is advancing rapidly. In 2-3 years, the newer model may have significantly improved features, range, and efficiency, as well as lower prices. If you are the type of person to upgrade regularly to the latest and greatest, leasing can make it a smoother transition. It is hard to predict the depreciation of the vehicles. This is both because of the above factors, but also because these kinds of cars are newer and so the statistical models used to predict their future values are less refined. The models for predicting gas car prices have been honed for decades. EV Manufacturers have in the past made some mistakes in their residual value estimations. When you lease a car, you get essentially an option to buy the car at the future predicted residual value. If, at the end of the lease, the market value of the car is higher than the residual value, you can purchase the car at the predetermined price, making yourself some extra money. If the value is lower than the residual, you can return the car or renegotiate. I know a relatively large number of electric vehicle owners. Most or all of the ones who got the vehicle new leased it. The rest bought used vehicles coming off lease, which can also be a good deal.
"Hi there, I'm a Tesla owner. I think, for the Model S and X segment currently buying cars, you're right. Environmentalism isn't the first and foremost thing in their mind. However, that isn't to say being environmentally conscious isn't a credit they should receive for their purchase, because other informing factors, like charging at home instead of needing to refuel, is a perk AND it reduces oil/gas usage. I didn't buy my car to ""lower my carbon footprint"", as buying an EV doesn't necessarily do so in the big picture. I do, however, LOVE the fact I can charge my car at home and never visit a gas station. Every day, I get in my car with a ""full tank"", and I'm one less paying customer at the pump. As far as a status symbol, for me, it's the opposite. I don't want a showy, iconic vehicle that people will gawk at me over. I'm fairly low key, I'd rather not have the attention. I just needed/wanted a car with great interior cargo space, but was an electric vehicle I could charge at home. The Chevy Bolt, VW eGolf, Fiat 500e, and other EV options didn't fit the bill for me. Also, and most importantly, I wanted a vehicle that's future proofed (at least for a few years) to offer full self driving capability the moment it was allowed. Tesla became the icon for offering attractive electric vehicles at a time when most available options looked phoned in. Remember what you said in your first post: ""$500,000,000 loan for a car they've never seen and many won't receive for well over a year?"" A lot of people, myself included, never saw the ""official prototype"" until after we made our reservations on March 31, 2016. So the notion that it's purely an icon seems incomplete. I will say this, though: as soon as other auto makers take the EV market seriously, and design cars that actually look attractive, I think you'll see the Tesla demand drop for those who are looking for EV options pure and simple.
I dunno what the replacement rate is for cars, but there were 230M cars registered in the US in 2015. There were 17.5M cars sold in 2015. If you assume that full production capacity for cars is about 20M then (assuming 100% of production is switched to EV) it will take 11.5 years at full tilt to just replace the ones on the road.   But of course there will be a ramp and a tail meaning cars will be sold in 2024 that are not electric only and they will be on the road for 15 years.   Also the market will grow to say 25M but instead of adding 5M capacity, we would really have to add 25M capacity b.c EV is currently 0.   Thats all assuming there isnt a recession/depression and ignores trucks and ships and all the other uses for oil.   I thought this article was posted to /r/badeconomics
Tesla has been pushing for mass market EV adoption since the beginning and they have clearly communicated their strategy as such.  Being a niche company in an ICE dominated automotive market is not a desirable position for Tesla. They want the market to move towards EVs as having even a small chunk of a market like that is worth a ton of revenue.
Literally not a single word of your comment is true.  1) They just posted 26.9% gross margins, up 1.4% since last quarter, with zero ZEV revenue.  2) Your 11,000 number is completely made up, particularly given that they had zero ZEV revenue.  3) What competition?  Name a car.  There's nothing.  Nothing out and nothing on the horizon.  4) Again, literally on that very same call, they said they've shaved hundreds of pounds off of the Model S since it started production due to improvements in battery technology.  Batteries improve 8-10% every year.  Everyone knows this.
"&gt; Plus, there are already so many other options. Chevy Bolt, BMW i3, Focus Electric, Hyundai IONIQ, Soul EV, Mitsubishi i-MiEV, Nissan Leaf, VW e-Golf to name a few.  Only one of those vehicles have a range above 150mi.   How environmentally unfriendly do you think making batteries is? Versus environmentally unfriendly oil production? Also, do you factor in the fact that batteries, though not environmentally ""perfect"", can be recharged with renewable methods like solar power? Oil production is ongoing."
The Model 3 will probably be a great car but there are other options. I think most people are buying this for the name since we really don't even know how good it's going to be. I mean, they are making a really cheap Tesla S, where are they cutting costs?  The Chevy Bolt has a ~~50%~~ 38km larger battery for practically the same price.
Remember what you said in your first post: ""$500,000,000 loan for a car they've never seen and many won't receive for well over a year?"" A lot of people, myself included, never saw the ""official prototype"" until after we made our reservations on March 31, 2016. So the notion that it's purely an icon seems incomplete. I will say this, though: as soon as other auto makers take the EV market seriously, and design cars that actually look attractive, I think you'll see the Tesla demand drop for those who are looking for EV options pure and simple. I think, in the next few years, as more EV makers step up, what will differentiate the vehicles is the underlying tech in the car first and foremost, closely followed by design aesthetic. Tesla will retain buyers if they beat everyone to market with an available, fully self-driving capable vehicle, but they'll see some of that market shift away if other makers break in."
I've put 75K miles on my 2013 Volt and it's holding up great.  Solid car.  I've got a pre-reveal Model 3 reservation, and I'm reluctant to trade the Volt in.  Looks like I'll have to make that decision pretty soon.
Agreed, it'll be faster.  Let's do a little math.  Tesla is trying to hit 500k units in 2018.  They want 1m in 2020.  If Tesla can do 1m in 2020, how many EVs can *ALL* other western auto manufacturers build in 2020 (GM + Nissan + VW + Daimler + etc)?  I'd take a swing at 2-3m.  What about Chinese auto manufacturers?  Probably 3m more, since EVs are a focus there?  So if you count that up, it's 7-8m EVs in 2020, which is 10% of worldwide new car sales.  This can all be accomplished in the $35k+ market.  This also provides the volume to drive down battery and electronics costs to hit $30k and then $25k price points later in the 2020's.  So if we're at 10% by 2020, I'd be shocked if we didn't have 50-75% EVs of new car sales by 2030.  20-50% growth over 10 years adds up quickly.  The oil price crash of 2014 was caused by a 2% imbalance between supply and demand.  So this predicts crashes in the price of oil and oil company stocks in the early 2020's.  There's likely also political unrest in oil producing countries, as their economies start having revenue shortfalls.  Given the friendliness of EVs to demand response, I'd think we'd just keep building intermittent renewables.  When the wind blows and sun shines, EVs charge (and turn off otherwise)  This will increase electricity demand, but put pressure on expensive and dirty coal and natural gas.  All of this drives down the cost of electric driving, and CO2 emissions.
&gt; Hybrids &amp; electrics are not quite ready for the prime time.  I mostly agree.  But I know a couple Prius owners and they love their cars.   &gt; without a massive and permanent increase in oil prices, widespread adoption is unlikely.  I believe the increase is inevitable.    You mention 20 to 30 years out.  Thirty years back, my car still had  a carburetor.  We've come light-years since then.  I suspect the time frame for being ready for prime time is more like ten years.  The Chevy Volt just got a 10% bump in electric-only range.
The momentum is there and seems unstoppable with the Europeans, US and Asian car makers going all electric and a stop to gasoline &amp; diesel fuel on the horizon.  Might be some fuel cell use (hydrogen) but generally electric is the way to go.  Enhanced battery tech investment needed badly.  Range is critical and removable and replaceable batteries the way to go too.  Pull into a garage and have your spent battery pack removed and replaced by a fully-charged pack.  Pay $3 and go on your way.  It's the way of the future.
That's a pretty good writeup. The conclusion is worth noting here:  &gt;He believes that when you add all the environmental impacts, they still come out in favor of electric vehicles. (The Union of Concerned Scientists agrees; it found that even when you add in emissions from battery manufacturing, EVs generate half the emissions of a conventional car over the course of its life.) Still, consumers and investors should understand what it takes to make the materials that enable their green choices.   Electric cars still seem to come out on top, though they could get better. We need to be aware of the issues, so we can hopefully push for better mining practices, for greener energy, and for awareness of potential trouble points such as recycling.
I don't understand why that's a rip off, it was cheaper to have one less battery design and they were able to get cars to more customers because of that. Obviously they have a nice profit margin that they cut into to offer it, but based on the market size it made more sense to do that, customers are happy too because they get to defer cost for a nicer car, or get more life out of the one they bought?
It could, in 100 years or so, but not any time soon, electric vehicles only in USA at 2016 sold 159,333 and non electric vehicles sold over 17m. Electric cars take much less than 1%. Plus its only In USA in other countries ratio is much lower.
The credits go to the buyers.  TSLA's profit margin does not take into account any emissions credits.  They did receive a nice big loan, and then they paid it back years early + interest.  Currently their sales per square foot is twice of apple, and can increase demand at will.  The federal tax credit to buyers being phased out will most likely be offset by reductions in battery cost when the time comes anyway.  Do you also feel that the Model 3 will not happen?   That car is the reason for the battery factory 'side show'.
From a macro standpoint - innovation and regulation have major benefits to an economy and society. In the case of greenwashing by understating the impact of electric cars; sure, that's a problem now, but as they innovate further to invent newer, cheaper, more efficient batteries, it will hopefully sort itself out. No matter what, it's a heck of a lot better then spewing crap into the air (and personally, they're a ton more fun to driver).
That's because Priuses don't let the battery charge fall outside of a contained range of roughly 40-80%. Degradation is reduced to almost nothing if you keep Li-ions in a partial charge state, too high or too low and you damage the battery ever so slightly.  Plug in hybrids use a wider range of the battery's potential. The Nissan dealer near me is the #1 Leaf dealer in the country and their techs have told me that battery life is already becoming an issue. I believe there's even a class action suit that just started over it, I'm on my phone so I'll try to find a source for that later.
I agree. China is implementing much harsher emissions standards that will push everyone to make  and sell electric cars. Tessa would be foolish to miss out on that market. As for the US, Tesla always misses deadlines. They'll eventually make enough cars, even if they need another factory to do it.
"I agree.  The question I want to know is, how will this effect Tesla and their bottom line?    Does the market see that view point ""save the planet"" as one that will lead to sustainability and profit?  So far it seems like yes.  Everything is under the scope and being dissected for future projections.  Edit: a word"
"I took a chance on a 2015 Volt after swearing off American cars back in the 90's. It's a great car. The reason I took the chance was that the Volt was a project that was supposed to ""save GM"" back when American auto makers were about to go under a while back. They poured a ton of R&amp;D money into it, and it paid off. I'm very satisfied with mine."
&gt; That means people don't buy cars as often  True.  &gt; as they are not as financially able to anymore.  How do we know that's the reason?  There's also more used cars in the wild now, and cars tend to last a lot longer than they used to.
A few things. First, in order for Tesla to succeed there needs to be a market for electric cars, Tesla alone cannot create a market for electric cars. They could have the best battery design in the world and nobody will care if nobody wants electric vehicles. The next is Tesla got a head start, and is a darling company in the public eye. People love Elon, and Tesla is portrayed as a very cool company in the public eye. The last thing that I think is important is that I don't believe Tesla released anything about their manufacturing techniques. Knowing how a battery is made is cool, but if you can't build it efficiently and affordable t doesn't matter if you know how it's built.
It's all just speculation. The competition is waiting for the first big mover to do just what TSLA is going.. being the first mover, then coming in and wiping the floor with them. &gt;Companies will be loathe to release compelling EVs because they will compete against themselves, they will have to advertise the EVs as if they are better than their gas offerings which still make up 99% of their sales. This puts them in a sort of paralysis and they can't do anything about it. Someone is going to take bites out of their market share, and it's either going to be them or it's going to be Tesla. That's just silly. Car companies are in the market to sell cars. Every new car model competes with an existing model. &gt; In the real world there is specialization. Some companies design cars, others design batteries. &gt; Have you seriously never heard of vertical integration? My previous paragraph talks about the perils of the sort of specialization you're talking about. Because automakers have spun off all their expertise, they are not nimble enough to compete in a changing market. Vertical integration is not the answer to everything, but it is a very good way to make your company nimble and keep costs down if you can do it. That's what Tesla is aiming for. It's not a new concept...and the fact that you've never heard of it ""confirms my view that you don't understand the issues."" If you want to argue that all of the last 30 years of free markets and the value of specialization is wrong, go ahead. &gt; THE ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANIES wouldn't do it. But you think Musk knows more about batteries than the actual battery companies. &gt; Tesla has particular expertise about automotive batteries, yes. They do their own battery research and have their own IP and patents (which they've opened) related to it. And they have a partner, Panasonic, who is the leader in batteries. Did you know that? Did you know that Panasonic is partnering in the battery factory?
I’m not sure what you want a source for. I’m not making a specific claim. Generally, however manufacturing leaders such as Tesla are now operating closed loop battery recycling systems.  https://www.tesla.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery-recycling-program  Ceramic batteries are coming along.  https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/05/ceramic-battery-fraunhofer-shows-promise-increasing-ev-range-maybe/  https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2017-07-route-rechargeable-lithium-batteries.amp  These are problems with solutions far less daunting than fixing the issues with fossil fuel extraction and consumption.
They don't mention it here, but the crash was due to a 2% imbalance between supply and demand.  It doesn't take much to affect prices.  Given that EVs were 1% of global sales in 2016, and have been growing at 50-100% annually, it shouldn't be too long until electrification knocks 2% off total oil demand.  Will that cause another oil price crash?  Last year's Bloomberg article projected 2023...
I'll believe it when I see it. They've been talking big about hybrids and electrics for 10 years, yet have only managed to sell super crappy compliance vehicles in the US. My guess is they'll invest a billion in marketing budget talking about how awesome they are.
"I'm just wondering how you would go from buying a 60k car knowing that it had a software limited battery to ""I'd be pissed"" when that is activated for you for free during a hurricane evacuation. Now obviously you wouldn't buy a Tesla in the first place, and I have no problem with you generally disliking them, but if you did, you probably wouldn't be pissed because you already knew about it."