SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the my-whoosh-is-bigger-than-yours dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
FRANKFURT -- The gleaming white Porsche with menacing black trim took less than 8 minutes to complete the Nurburgring's demanding Nordschleife circuit. The result was respectable but not spectacular for a 600-hp beast that sprints from 0 to 62 mph in a little more than 3 seconds.
Unlike the Panamera production car, which can easily beat its lap time, the Mission E concept doesn't have camshafts, pistons or valves to mix air and fuel in a combustion chamber or a spark plug to ignite it. It runs on a current of pure electrons supplied by a lithium ion battery, and it can almost fully recharge itself within 15 minutes.
The Tesla Model S doesn't come anywhere close to those specs -- which is the point.
Porsche's 1 billion euro ($1.12 billion) gamble to lure Tesla owners from their beloved electric car is just one example of how much premium European automakers are investing to try and match their Silicon Valley-based rival. Tesla's zero-emissions sports sedan has made Europe's finest automakers look woefully behind the times in an area they typically dominate: technology. The question is whether established brands can win back the hearts and minds of car buyers seeking the next big thing.
Germany's best known sports car maker promises its Mission E, which was teased at last year's Frankfurt auto show, will be "an electric Porsche that deserves the name." That means it will be consistently fast over an extended period with no loss of performance despite repeated accelerating and braking. It is supposed to be the first zero-emissions car worthy of being taken to the racetrack.
Porsche, however, will need years before it can mass produce and sell its electric sports car at a decent profit. Meanwhile, Tesla will continue to deliver tens of thousands of its vaunted sedans and SUVs every year to wealthy progressives around the world, most likely at a loss. "I wish we had put that car on the road and not Tesla," confided a senior engineer at Porsche, not a brand typically prone to technological envy. "We have to earn money at the end of the day though."
[...] Moreover, reputational problems may catch up to it. Allegations have been leveled that Tesla tried to hide suspension flaws in the Model S from the public by forcing customers to sign nondisclosure agreements. More recently, a fatal accident has put its Autopilot in a negative spotlight. Also, when the Model 3 eventually debuts, Tesla will target more demanding consumers, who are not likely to be as forgiving when it comes to the inherent trade-offs of an electric car.
A senior automotive executive at Bosch is convinced that sooner or later Musk will not be able to maintain this startup style showmanship over substance: "At some point as they grow customers won't accept this and Tesla will have to adopt a zero-tolerance approach."
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Thursday September 08 2016, @09:58AM
This, to be quite honest, is why electric cars have never caught on. The vast majority of trips in my car are no more than 10 or 20 miles (~30km) ("perfect for an electric car!" I hear a few of you cry...)
But the thing is, they aren't the story of why I own a car. I also make trips of a few hundred miles/km several times a year. *That's* why I have a car. Most electric cars can't make it that far, and even if they could, here on the east coast of the U.S., there's no charging infrastructure to get back home again.
"Just have two cars, an electric with poor range, and a real one with real range!"
No, I don't want to maintain two cars. That's not sensible nor sustainable. Plus I don't want two sets of taxes and tag fees. I want one car that's usable for transportation. If the best thing you can say about your car is "well, you actually also need another car whose range does *not* suck" then you are doing it wrong.
There are now electric cars with 200+ mile/ 300+ km range (Tesla Model S), and the infrastructure is growing by inches, so maybe there's hope.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 08 2016, @01:01PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday September 09 2016, @02:10PM
This is not a bad guess, but I usually stay with friends or family. However, for my 200 mile/320 km trip coming up in a few weeks, I will be staying in a motel, so I'll run the (estimated) numbers. Figures in $US.
With my car: Motel, two nights, ~$95; Food and Fuel budget for trip $125 + $30. Total $250 (~ €225).
With rented car: Motel, two nights, ~$95; Food and Fuel budget for trip $125 + $30; Enterprise.com rental car for trip ~$141*. Total $391 (~ €349).
(*This is the absolute lowest price I could find on enterprise.com for my travel dates. I chose enterprise because they have an office very near my home, and I have rented from them before.)
So I guess the answer to "why not" is that it turns a US$250 trip into a US$400 trip. Had I an electric car with sufficient range (it's at the far reaches of the model S) + charging infrastructure to charge while at my destination, it goes back to a US$250 trip, or perhaps less depending on fuel cost vs. cost to recharge.
A problem I have is that I live in a country that is, well, large. For example, were I to drive to visit a friend's daughter (and deliver to her many of her belongings left here, the purpose of the trip), I would be in for a drive of 2982 miles (4799 km) [google.com], requiring many refills/recharges pretty much regardless of power plant. But the longer on a fill/charge the better. Making range both culturally and practically important.