Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by marcinzm 2292 days ago
>and that's what they actually cost

They cost $40k, you can try to do whatever random math magic you want to make your argument but that generally won't fly well on this forum.

2 comments

But 40k is still unaffordable for a non small amount of people. And buying "old" ones cheap has problems "because batteries" (and Tesla might just recently have found a way to solve that).

To take over they would need to:

- Release a sub 10k car which is focused on in-City only use case but can also handle your grocery shopping and pre-planned inter City treveling to close by cities.

- Solve the logistic problem that everyone wants to charge theire car. (Note: I don't mean the whole bs. about power grid crashing, all this are technically problems with existing solutions).

- One way to solve that would be batteries with a capacity so large that you only charge once in four days _for the cheap sub 10k version_.

- Another would be batteries so small that they are easily exchanged instead of charging. (Tesla did implement that but the way it currently is, is just to unpractical. It would need a industry wide standard solution and a really easy to maintain exchange station.)

So could Tesla take over: yes.

Will Tesla take over: most likely not, they will just probably become well established for the mid/upper marked segment.

Will battery powered electric cars take over: likely but not necessarily. The often overlooked truth is the race is still on and the winner not yet clear as neither batteries not full cells have yet reached a level at which they can widespread replace fossil fueled cars.

Also let's not speak about current battery tech and fire...

>But 40k is still unaffordable for a non small amount of people.

The average price of a new car in the US is $37k which gives Tesla access to half the new car market. Used car buyers are meaningless in the metrics as they make car companies no money. Tesla is far far from saturating that part of the market so there's little incentive for them to move to cheaper cars (and dilute the brand in the process). In fact, it's probably better economically for Tesla to let other brands make cheaper electrics, annoy customers due to shortcomings and then swoop in with a superior product down the line (having learned from the mistakes of other companies).

Sure, with no options. I’d like to hear your response to the $8500 used car comment.
How on earth can you possibly compare a new Tesla to a used cheap electric go-kart?
A new Leaf is $30k base. A car which depreciates that much is going to look really bad to new buyers versus one that doesn't. And without new buyers there are no used cars to sell at $8500. Tesla is affordable to something like 50% of new car buyers and if it sells for $20k more used then paying $10k more is an easy decision if you can afford it.

edit: Or in other words, used cars are irrelevant in terms of market adoption since their supply is limited by the supply of new cars. So you need to look at the demand and sales of new cars.

The cheapest LEAF (don't ask me why they capitalize it) base MSRP is $31,600 vs a Tesla SR+ Model 3 at $39,900.

The LEAF S and SV with a 40kWh battery have 149mi range up to a $34,190 base price.

The cheapest 226mi range LEAF is $38,200.

Nissan offers a cheaper base price for a market segment Tesla is not playing in, which is great.

But if you want to compare apples to apples, the pricing is basically the same.

And then there's depreciation..........

There aren't really any options to select anyway, aside from a few extra bucks for non-white paint.
New cars don't compete with used cars.