NotMyOldRedditName

I can’t remember the exact number but only 5 to 7 need to flip right?

Are there 5 -7 non crazy GOP house members who aren’t up for re-election as they are stepping aside/down anyway?

Energy density on these are woefully inadequate for cars, but that doesn’t matter for stationary storage which is what this is for.

You also gotta remember things also get more complicated when it gets cold. Suddenly that 40mile commute can become problematic in sub zero temperatures. Maybe you could make the trip but now you can’t do those after work errands or whatnot.

A commuter car with 125-150mile range might be more practical as a 2nd car.

Unless it’s an LFP car you’re not supposed to consistently use top/bottom 10-20% either reducing range if you dont want to shortern its lifespan, but LFP perform worse in cold weather so again, 100miles probably isn’t enough for that use case for a substantial amount of people in colder climates

Edit: I checked a random website and it had 25 US states with a average winter temperature below freezing temperatures. Not considering other places like Canada or Europe either.

FWIW I also own a long range EV, but I would definitely consider a shorter range one for 2nd vehicle, and use the long range one for our trips. We wouldn’t have a use for 2 long range ones.

Okay so my comment was about the EPA stuff and SK stuff NOT tesla fudging the numbers.

Is that hard to understand?

The article also talks about that.

You have to plan your trips like that?

The tesla navigation systems just plans it for you and takes that all into account. Unless you’re excessively speeding it’s almost always within 1% or 2% (over or under), and that takes elevation, speed limits above optimal efficiency, heating, cooling, I believe even ambient temperature into account.

I’ve never ever had to think about it.

Now, if I didn’t use the trip planner and relied solely on the displayed KM I’d never trust it, because there are so many variables to take into account. The car can legitimately get the EPA rated range in the EPA test conditions, but those conditions aren’t every day driving conditions. I would never trust if it says 400km that I’d be able to do 390km trip. There’s too many things to consider and the software does it all automatically.

The whole making more exaggerated numbers at full vs 50% is sketchy if true, but people really should be using % vs km. Km are always going to have problems. And people should be using the trip planner for any lengthy trip.

Some people would probably complain if they had a 100mile trip up a mountain pass and it took more than 100 miles of energy.

At least when you plan a route the % indicator takes that into account vs a plain estimation.

My best trip once going up a pass was around 70km of the reading staying within 1 or 2km the entire time when going down it.

But ya there’s so many variables. But if they were fudging calculations that’d be bad.

That’s only what part of the article is about.

My comment was very specific

This is really the EPAs fault for real world numbers.

Real world driving conditions especially on highways where people want to get the stated range have higher speeds than what the test tests.

If you want the EPA number to match real world speeds make the test run at real world speeds.

If you want the population to know EVs run worse in the cold, have a cold weather test be part of the test and require reporting the number. It’d showcase how good the cars heating system is and help people make a decision.

The EPA probably wanted auto manufacturers to be able to report higher numbers and incorrectly chose a lower speed. WLPT numbers are even worse for being wrong (but if I recall, the wrong is more consistent)

Somewhere in the 60-70k range is probably where it’ll land ya.

That’d be 15-25k more after inflation (instead of 20-30k more)

Edit: at least it should fully qualify for the 7500 federal rebate since it uses the 4680 cells. Was reading the m3 might lose the full rebate in 2024

It wouldn’t be reasonable to expect the 40k price after the crazy inflation we’ve seen

What I want to know is how much higher is it after taking inflation into account…

Edit: looked it up. 40k in 2019 is 47.7k today. 40k in 2021 the planned release day/price, in 2023 is 45k. The 45k number probably makes the most sense. That’s assuming the random site I used is anywhere near correct.

Elon didn’t want the government to in his mind waste money building the train system which would go over cost and not even be state of the art by the time it was built.

He wanted them to do something substantially more innovative. He never wanted to build the hyperloop, it was meant to try and get others to see if they could make it work, but also as an example of how California should be looking to lead and do something really next level.

Hyperloop wasn’t meant to stop it so they’d build it instead. It was there to try and foster any kind of innovation rather than have the existing plan go forward.

So out of context, the thread title can be seen as true, but it’s not the whole story, and not what he meant.

inserts coin