Tesla - why don’t I want one?

[delta0]

GroundZero said:

?
That doesn't exactly explain why 'high performance EVs" are being built. It still remains an oxymoron.

High power output motors still give the same or better efficiency than lower powered ones. It’s clear when energy consumption of Teslas or other high performance EVs is much less than other lower performance ones. Plus it’s also a USP for EVs over ICE. I actually enjoy that it riles ICE owners.

[kurokawa]

GroundZero said:

?
That doesn't exactly explain why 'high performance EVs" are being built. It still remains an oxymoron.

why not, there are people who want it
Like ICE we have Golf 1.4, we got Golf GTi, we got Golf R
some might buy EV for green, some might buy it for cheaper running cost, some might bought it just because the smooth power delivery or able to charge at home/at work without needing to fill in petrol station

[anonymous-user]

GroundZero said:

?
That doesn't exactly explain why 'high performance EVs" are being built. It still remains an oxymoron.

The same reason high performance ICE are made. Because they are fun and people buy them. I bought a Taycan because it's a brilliant car in it's own right the only real alternative was an M5 or Panamera but neither are as good IMO. I'm under no illusion that 2 tonnes of highly processed metal and oil is green and 97% of my electricity comes from diesel generators. You need to get over it. EVs are here and in many ways some of them are far better than all but the very best ICE cars for sale and for the rapidly narrowing window of competence they are not there's still older ICE cars.

[GroundZero]

otolith said:

They are being built because you can have high performance without having high emissions. You can have your cake and eat it. Why would you wear a hair shirt for no reason?

So, you increase energy usage for the purpose of performance, whilst virtue signaling for less energy usage? (not aimed at 'you', but the premise of the situation).
More energy usage means, simply, that you either obtain it from gas fired power stations or you require more and more wind turbines and solar panels to feed more energy in to the network. Those wind turbines and solar panels are not manufactured nor maintained with zero CO2s, and gas fired power stations use the very fossil fuels that an EV is supposed to 'expire'.

Whilst I agree that some buyers will want high performance, it simply is an exercise of a two-finger salute to yourself if you bought one on the premise of zero emissions.

[anonymous-user]

GroundZero said:

So, you increase energy usage for the purpose of performance, whilst virtue signaling for less energy usage? (not aimed at 'you', but the premise of the situation).
More energy usage means, simply, that you either obtain it from gas fired power stations or you require more and more wind turbines and solar panels to feed more energy in to the network. Those wind turbines and solar panels are not manufactured nor maintained with zero CO2s, and gas fired power stations use the very fossil fuels that an EV is supposed to 'expire'.

Whilst I agree that some buyers will want high performance, it simply is an exercise of a two-finger salute to yourself if you bought one on the premise of zero emissions.

However you choose to add it up an EV uses less energy than an ICE of equivalent performance to achieve the same thing even using the least efficient method of generating electricity to charge it up like a diesel generator.

[CrgT16]

I think I will get one for everyday use once I change my daily which will be a few years still. EVs certainly make an argument to having a 2 car garage. Something ICE for fun and something EV for daily use. That’s my future garage right there.

[GroundZero]

fblm said:

However you choose to add it up an EV uses less energy than an ICE of equivalent performance to achieve the same thing even using the least efficient method of generating electricity to charge it up like a diesel generator.

Of course, that is accepted, and that is not my point to be fair.
My point is that similar to an SUV having a 'sport' badge, it is a strange situation that there are high performance EVs on the market when the whole premise of them is to save as much CO2s as possible. Using more energy for the sake of performance rather than range is an oxymoron.

[anonymous-user]

page3 said:

How’s this for a whopper of a panel gap. They never managed to fix it.
...

That's just American cars generally. The wifes old Ford Edge (built in Canada) had panel gaps ranging from rubbing metal to being able to get your thumb in from new. Proper 1970's BL quality.

[otolith]

GroundZero said:

otolith said:

They are being built because you can have high performance without having high emissions. You can have your cake and eat it. Why would you wear a hair shirt for no reason?

So, you increase energy usage for the purpose of performance, whilst virtue signaling for less energy usage? (not aimed at 'you', but the premise of the situation).

Eh?

https://ev-database.uk/compare/efficiency-electric...

It's not like ICE. The fast ones do not necessarily use more energy than the slow ones.

[GroundZero]

otolith said:

Eh?

https://ev-database.uk/compare/efficiency-electric...

It's not like ICE. The fast ones do not necessarily use more energy than the slow ones.

Are you trying to convey that battery range is not affected by fast acceleration, or by higher speeds with more air resistance?

[otolith]

GroundZero said:

otolith said:

Eh?

https://ev-database.uk/compare/efficiency-electric...

It's not like ICE. The fast ones do not necessarily use more energy than the slow ones.

Are you trying to convey that battery range is not affected by fast acceleration, or by higher speeds with more air resistance?

Are you suggesting that people with fast petrol cars use their performance all the time?

Having an EV which can, when the mood takes you, hit 60 in well under five seconds and do 145 flat out doesn't mean that you can't drive it economically most of the time.

It's not like ICE where if you buy the quick one instead of the diesel you average 20mpg instead of 40mpg whether you drive it hard or not.

It's also not like the ICE in that you get a big chunk of the energy back under braking.

It's also not like the ICE in that efficiency is much less variable with load.

[a_dreamer]

GroundZero said:

Of course, that is accepted, and that is not my point to be fair.
My point is that similar to an SUV having a 'sport' badge, it is a strange situation that there are high performance EVs on the market when the whole premise of them is to save as much CO2s as possible. Using more energy for the sake of performance rather than range is an oxymoron.

No different to when companies started making fast diesels or AMG/m/rs versions of their luxury tractors and barges.

They do it because they can and people will buy them.

If you want a fast car you can get an ev or a petrol or a diesel.

[anonymous-user]

GroundZero said:

Of course, that is accepted, and that is not my point to be fair.
My point is that similar to an SUV having a 'sport' badge, it is a strange situation that there are high performance EVs on the market when the whole premise of them is to save as much CO2s as possible. Using more energy for the sake of performance rather than range is an oxymoron.

I think your point is fatuous. If an EV generates less CO2 than it's equivalent ICE vehicle (and it does by a country mile even, absurdly, when you use ICE generation to charge it) then it's fulfilling the purpose of switching to EV. Every car manufacturer has been trying to get fuel consumption down for decades but you're not insisting Ferrari build nothing but superminis. Are you? Once again this is this bizarre argument that unless we do something 100% then it's not worth doing anything at all.

[GroundZero]

otolith said:

GroundZero said:

otolith said:

Eh?

https://ev-database.uk/compare/efficiency-electric...

It's not like ICE. The fast ones do not necessarily use more energy than the slow ones.

Are you trying to convey that battery range is not affected by fast acceleration, or by higher speeds with more air resistance?

Are you suggesting that people with fast petrol cars use their performance all the time?

Having an EV which can, when the mood takes you, hit 60 in well under five seconds and do 145 flat out doesn't mean that you can't drive it economically most of the time.

It's not like ICE where if you buy the quick one instead of the diesel you average 20mpg instead of 40mpg whether you drive it hard or not.

It's also not like the ICE in that you get a big chunk of the energy back under braking.

It's also not like the ICE in that efficiency is much less variable with load.

First lets answer the question I posed to you, are you suggesting that faster acceleration and higher speeds are not sacrificed for the sake of range when it comes to a high performance EV?

All the rest of your post is all very good, however if the premise of a milk float is to save CO2s then it strikes me as contradiction.
I've no problem about it being the case, as I'll never own a milk float and I don't follow the religion that the climate is in 'crisis', and as you correctly point out a similar oxymoron exists for those who buy diseasals for the purpose of extended range, only to burn it away either by excessive weight in the case of SUVs or via performance which lowers MPG.

Its a simple thing to accept, that by upping performance then you eat in to range.
Your further point that if you buy a performance vehicle and choose not to use that performance, then why bother spending the extra money on a performance vehicle? Even if you only use the performance a few times, then by the very fact that you are opting for performance over range is the oxymoron over performance EVs.

[GroundZero]

fblm said:

I think your point is fatuous. If an EV generates less CO2 than it's equivalent ICE vehicle (and it does by a country mile even, absurdly, when you use ICE generation to charge it) then it's fulfilling the purpose of switching to EV. Every car manufacturer has been trying to get fuel consumption down for decades but you're not insisting Ferrari build nothing but superminis. Are you? Once again this is this bizarre argument that unless we do something 100% then it's not worth doing anything at all.

All I'm saying is that the whole premise of an EV, on the political angle, the science angle and the finance angle, is that the aim is for range and to use as little CO2s as possible. If you dispute that premise then so be it.

But if that premise is accepted, then to sacrifice range for performance goes against all that.
And as mentioned, I personally have no problem with that, as I'll never own a milk float, but there is no grand argument to support a performance EV if the aim of them is for zero CO2s.

Edit to add : I do accept that personal choice will see some wanting a performance EV, and again no problems with that. But it all returns to the point that a performance EV on the footing of the premise set out above becomes an oxymoron.

Edited by GroundZero on Tuesday 15th March 15:44

[otolith]

Completely binary thinking which doesn't reflect reality. The world isn't divided into people who only care about the environment and people who only care about performance. Although if you only cared about performance and not about subjective things like noise, you'd buy a Tesla anyway and if you only cared about the environment you'd cycle.

[otolith]

GroundZero said:

All I'm saying is that the whole premise of an EV, on the political angle, the science angle and the finance angle, is that the aim is for range and to use as little CO2s as possible. If you dispute that premise then so be it.

Are you sure? Are you sure that the aim is not actually to use less? Since if the aim was to use as little as possible, they wouldn't have a car at all.

[GroundZero]

otolith said:

Completely binary thinking which doesn't reflect reality. The world isn't divided into people who only care about the environment and people who only care about performance. Although if you only cared about performance and not about subjective things like noise, you'd buy a Tesla anyway and if you only cared about the environment you'd cycle.

Agree.
Personal choice is not really part of the issue though.
I'm solely arguing on a basic isolated point about the concept of EVs replacing ICE for the purpose of zero emissions.

[GroundZero]

otolith said:

GroundZero said:

All I'm saying is that the whole premise of an EV, on the political angle, the science angle and the finance angle, is that the aim is for range and to use as little CO2s as possible. If you dispute that premise then so be it.

Are you sure? Are you sure that the aim is not actually to use less? Since if the aim was to use as little as possible, they wouldn't have a car at all.

Well aren't they advertised as "zero emissions" ?

[otolith]

GroundZero said:

otolith said:

GroundZero said:

All I'm saying is that the whole premise of an EV, on the political angle, the science angle and the finance angle, is that the aim is for range and to use as little CO2s as possible. If you dispute that premise then so be it.

Are you sure? Are you sure that the aim is not actually to use less? Since if the aim was to use as little as possible, they wouldn't have a car at all.

Well aren't they advertised as "zero emissions" ?

That relates to urban air quality issues, not CO2 emissions from electricity generation. Zero (tailpipe) emissions is an objective for improving the health of people living in areas affected by traffic pollution. In that respect, a Model X performance or a Taycan or Audi e tron RS performs just as well on tailpipe emissions as an electric Mini or Corsa or Leaf, even if you drive it round town like an absolute weapons grade bellend.