Semi OT: Tesla Model 3

[bitrex]

Ugliest Apple iPad interior ever:

<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8INTSnHaEd0/maxresdefault.jpg>

Volt has a console that looks like something you'd want to drive, and
not a smartphone. Guess GM engineers never told them that one of the
biggest complaints about the 1st generation Volt was the
no-tactile-feedback capacitive "buttons" on the control panel, customers
complained so much that they put real buttons and knobs back for the 2nd
gen.

<http://www.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/348/514/6/S3485146/slug/l/u20161rg680002lz00ing-5-1.jpg>

Not having a real knob to adjust say climate control settings or tune
the radio while you're driving is annoying as anything, I've had the
experience. I guess I'm just supposed to talk to it nowadays like saying
"Dear Model 3, could you please increase cabin temperature to 75
degrees?" is anything anyone wants to spend their time doing.

I'M SORRY I DIDN'T GET THAT

[rickman]

If I owned a Chevy I wouldn't be complaining about the look of other cars.
I think the last time Chevy made a good looking car inside or out, was in
the 50's. That said, I'm not at all crazy about the dash on the model 3
either. The model X had a great dash with a portrait screen that was easy
to reach and a smaller display right in front of the driver. Not sure why
they deviated other than that Musk dictated it.

I think the functionality of the Volt dash is as good as the Teslas. When I
am driving with a GPS I want to be able to see the damn map! The big screen
will do that very well. It was good in the model X. I don't recall seeing
a map in the Bolt I drove. Maybe that wasn't standard and the car I drove
didn't have it. Or maybe it was just too small.

As to the standard controls, what's wrong with voice activated? That would
be GREAT!

--

Rick C

[bitrex]

"I'm sorry officer, the reason I was speeding is because I couldn't find
the speedometer in the menu!"

> I think the functionality of the Volt dash is as good as the Teslas.
> When I am driving with a GPS I want to be able to see the damn map! The
> big screen will do that very well. It was good in the model X. I don't
> recall seeing a map in the Bolt I drove. Maybe that wasn't standard and
> the car I drove didn't have it. Or maybe it was just too small.

They offloaded it to your phone (at least in the base model, I don't
know whether built-in nav is available as an option.) You plug in your
phone to the USB port and Android Auto or whatever the Apple equivalent
comes up and you pick the navigation app you want to use to be displayed
on the screen, right now I use either Google Maps or Waze.

It works well enough at the moment, who knows about 10 years from now,
though. And without a solid cellular connection you're hosed, and the
app sucks so much power that my phone barely charges when it's running.

The premium Gen 1 I used to have had a built-in nav system, it wasn't
nearly as slick-looking or clever at route-finding as Waze, but was
extremely reliable.

> As to the standard controls, what's wrong with voice activated? That
> would be GREAT!

Get used to hearing "I'm sorry, I didn't get that!" a lot.

[rickman]

So I have to buy a smart phone to use GPS in the Bolt??? Boy, is that ever
cheap! One of the reasons I haven't gotten a smart phone is because it is
too small to be useful for any sort of computer functionality and is bigger
than I'd like for a phone. Now I'll have to buy a phone and pay for a data
plan to use a damn car? What happens when I lend my car to someone?

> It works well enough at the moment, who knows about 10 years from now,
> though. And without a solid cellular connection you're hosed, and the app
> sucks so much power that my phone barely charges when it's running.

I think the charging problem is the norm for cell phones. That's why you
shouldn't use one in the car. In fact, it is illegal to use one in Maryland
where I do a lot of driving. It's ok if it is mounted somewhere and you
don't need to do more than press a button, but holding it in your hand is
illegal. Does the car come with a holder?

> The premium Gen 1 I used to have had a built-in nav system, it wasn't nearly
> as slick-looking or clever at route-finding as Waze, but was extremely
> reliable.
>
>> As to the standard controls, what's wrong with voice activated? That
>> would be GREAT!
>
> Get used to hearing "I'm sorry, I didn't get that!" a lot.

Maybe in your noisy bucket of volts. The Tesla I drove worked pretty
flawlessly.

--

Rick C

[k...@notreal.com]

HUDs are the way to go for driving cues. AR HUDs will be a great
advancement, if we're still driving.

>
>As to the standard controls, what's wrong with voice activated? That would
>be GREAT!

Like the dueling iPhone navigation and Sirius/XM. Every time
Sirius/XM plays a jingle, it whacks out the iPhone.

[k...@notreal.com]

I never have those problems with my Note-5. It charges fine when it's
navigating. I don't use Android Auto but that shouldn't take much
juice (it's just USB).

>
>It works well enough at the moment, who knows about 10 years from now,
>though. And without a solid cellular connection you're hosed, and the
>app sucks so much power that my phone barely charges when it's running.

Why do you need a solid cellular connection? You must be doing
something wrong. The only thing the cell connection is used for is
setting up the route and en-route traffic. It's not needed for nav
otherwise.

[k...@notreal.com]

They use their phone. I think Android Auto/Carplay is a great idea.
The smart phone navi apps are far better than the stand-alone units
and the UI in the car is better (better placement and bigger buttons).
Choice is good, too.

>> It works well enough at the moment, who knows about 10 years from now,
>> though. And without a solid cellular connection you're hosed, and the app
>> sucks so much power that my phone barely charges when it's running.
>
>I think the charging problem is the norm for cell phones. That's why you
>shouldn't use one in the car. In fact, it is illegal to use one in Maryland
>where I do a lot of driving. It's ok if it is mounted somewhere and you
>don't need to do more than press a button, but holding it in your hand is
>illegal. Does the car come with a holder?

Holders are pretty cheap.

[rickman]

Why squint at a tiny screen for things that are essential functions in cars
now? It's the sort of limited thinking Detroit had done forever.

>>> It works well enough at the moment, who knows about 10 years from now,
>>> though. And without a solid cellular connection you're hosed, and the app
>>> sucks so much power that my phone barely charges when it's running.
>>
>> I think the charging problem is the norm for cell phones. That's why you
>> shouldn't use one in the car. In fact, it is illegal to use one in Maryland
>> where I do a lot of driving. It's ok if it is mounted somewhere and you
>> don't need to do more than press a button, but holding it in your hand is
>> illegal. Does the car come with a holder?
>
> Holders are pretty cheap.

Yeah, and they pretty well suck. If the phone is essential in the car, the
holder should be built in and optimized for the car. Again, limited Detroit
thinking. Tesla outdoes Detroit in every way.

--

Rick C

[k...@notreal.com]

You misunderstand incorrectly. The phone's screen is projected (hence
also called "projection mode") onto the car's display and controls
move to the car, as well. It really works well. It is the best of
both worlds.

>>>> It works well enough at the moment, who knows about 10 years from now,
>>>> though. And without a solid cellular connection you're hosed, and the app
>>>> sucks so much power that my phone barely charges when it's running.
>>>
>>> I think the charging problem is the norm for cell phones. That's why you
>>> shouldn't use one in the car. In fact, it is illegal to use one in Maryland
>>> where I do a lot of driving. It's ok if it is mounted somewhere and you
>>> don't need to do more than press a button, but holding it in your hand is
>>> illegal. Does the car come with a holder?
>>
>> Holders are pretty cheap.
>
>Yeah, and they pretty well suck. If the phone is essential in the car, the
>holder should be built in and optimized for the car. Again, limited Detroit
>thinking. Tesla outdoes Detroit in every way.

Including cost.

[kevin93]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 8:06:19 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
..

> > They use their phone. I think Android Auto/Carplay is a great idea.
> > The smart phone navi apps are far better than the stand-alone units
> > and the UI in the car is better (better placement and bigger buttons).
> > Choice is good, too.
>
> Why squint at a tiny screen for things that are essential functions in cars
> now? It's the sort of limited thinking Detroit had done forever.

With Android Auto or Apple CarPlay the phone screen is put on the car's display and you control it from the car as well. You don't need to look at or touch the phone.

> >>> It works well enough at the moment, who knows about 10 years from now,
> >>> though. And without a solid cellular connection you're hosed, and the app
> >>> sucks so much power that my phone barely charges when it's running.
> >>
> >> I think the charging problem is the norm for cell phones. That's why you
> >> shouldn't use one in the car. In fact, it is illegal to use one in Maryland
> >> where I do a lot of driving. It's ok if it is mounted somewhere and you
> >> don't need to do more than press a button, but holding it in your hand is
> >> illegal. Does the car come with a holder?
> >
> > Holders are pretty cheap.

The Bolt comes with a place to put the phone and I think it also has a wireless charger.

The majority of cars these days can use a bluetooth connection between the car and the phone so again you don't need to touch the phone - you use the car's UI.

It's illegal in Ca as well to use a hand-held phone.

> Yeah, and they pretty well suck. If the phone is essential in the car, the
> holder should be built in and optimized for the car. Again, limited Detroit
> thinking. Tesla outdoes Detroit in every way.

Most people think it is better to use the phone's capabilities rather than pay ~$2,000 for the typical navigation system in cars that don't work very well and cost hundred's of dollars to get map updates.

> Rick C

[kevin93]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 7:48:21 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
..

> >They offloaded it to your phone (at least in the base model, I don't
> >know whether built-in nav is available as an option.) You plug in your
> >phone to the USB port and Android Auto or whatever the Apple equivalent
> >comes up and you pick the navigation app you want to use to be displayed
> >on the screen, right now I use either Google Maps or Waze.
>
> I never have those problems with my Note-5. It charges fine when it's
> navigating. I don't use Android Auto but that shouldn't take much
> juice (it's just USB).
> >
> >It works well enough at the moment, who knows about 10 years from now,
> >though. And without a solid cellular connection you're hosed, and the
> >app sucks so much power that my phone barely charges when it's running.

Unfortunately there
is not a standard way for the charger to advertise its capabilities to the phone so in some cases the phone will limit its charge rate.

> Why do you need a solid cellular connection? You must be doing
> something wrong. The only thing the cell connection is used for is
> setting up the route and en-route traffic. It's not needed for nav
> otherwise.

...

Applications like Google Maps, Waze and Apple Maps need to continually get traffic information and the map for the current location (they do cache the map information). These Apps also send back vehicle speed and location (suitably anonymized) to crowdsource the road traffic conditions.

kevin

[rickman]

kevin93 wrote on 8/18/2017 11:18 PM:
> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 8:06:19 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:

> ...

>>> They use their phone. I think Android Auto/Carplay is a great idea.
>>> The smart phone navi apps are far better than the stand-alone units
>>> and the UI in the car is better (better placement and bigger buttons).
>>> Choice is good, too.
>>
>> Why squint at a tiny screen for things that are essential functions in cars
>> now? It's the sort of limited thinking Detroit had done forever.
>
> With Android Auto or Apple CarPlay the phone screen is put on the car's display and you control it from the car as well. You don't need to look at or touch the phone.

Now I'm confused. This sounds circular. "They offloaded it to your phone"
is where we started, now we are back to it being on the car screen which
seems to be not so big in the Volt compared to the Tesla.

>>>>> It works well enough at the moment, who knows about 10 years from now,
>>>>> though. And without a solid cellular connection you're hosed, and the app
>>>>> sucks so much power that my phone barely charges when it's running.
>>>>
>>>> I think the charging problem is the norm for cell phones. That's why you
>>>> shouldn't use one in the car. In fact, it is illegal to use one in Maryland
>>>> where I do a lot of driving. It's ok if it is mounted somewhere and you
>>>> don't need to do more than press a button, but holding it in your hand is
>>>> illegal. Does the car come with a holder?
>>>
>>> Holders are pretty cheap.
>
> The Bolt comes with a place to put the phone and I think it also has a wireless charger.

I don't recall that being mentioned by the salesman. But then I don't have
a smart phone, so maybe this just flew by me. I think I would have noticed
if he had said I needed a smart phone to use car features.

> The majority of cars these days can use a bluetooth connection between the car and the phone so again you don't need to touch the phone - you use the car's UI.

We are talking about using car features.

> It's illegal in Ca as well to use a hand-held phone.
>
>> Yeah, and they pretty well suck. If the phone is essential in the car, the
>> holder should be built in and optimized for the car. Again, limited Detroit
>> thinking. Tesla outdoes Detroit in every way.
>
> Most people think it is better to use the phone's capabilities rather than pay ~$2,000 for the typical navigation system in cars that don't work very well and cost hundred's of dollars to get map updates.

Maybe that's the way Detroit does it. The updates are free in the Tesla.

Garmin used to charge for map updates. Now it's free because that's a more
profitable business model.

--

Rick C

[kevin93]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 8:30:29 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
> kevin93 wrote on 8/18/2017 11:18 PM:
> > On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 8:06:19 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
> > ...
> >>> They use their phone. I think Android Auto/Carplay is a great idea.
> >>> The smart phone navi apps are far better than the stand-alone units
> >>> and the UI in the car is better (better placement and bigger buttons).
> >>> Choice is good, too.
> >>
> >> Why squint at a tiny screen for things that are essential functions in cars
> >> now? It's the sort of limited thinking Detroit had done forever.
> >
> > With Android Auto or Apple CarPlay the phone screen is put on the car's display and you control it from the car as well. You don't need to look at or touch the phone.
>
> Now I'm confused. This sounds circular. "They offloaded it to your phone"
> is where we started, now we are back to it being on the car screen which
> seems to be not so big in the Volt compared to the Tesla.

The only things that are offloaded to the phone are the navigation, entertainment and telephone. Although other apps like facebook, or checking the weather, stock prices etc can also run.

None of the core car functions require the phone.

The Tesla has the largest screen but I find the others in the 7-11" range quite usable.

> > The majority of cars these days can use a bluetooth connection between the car and the phone so again you don't need to touch the phone - you use the car's UI.
>
> We are talking about using car features.

You mentioned not being able to use a hand-held phone in the car - the car helps out to avoid that need.

> > It's illegal in Ca as well to use a hand-held phone.
> >
> >> Yeah, and they pretty well suck. If the phone is essential in the car, the
> >> holder should be built in and optimized for the car. Again, limited Detroit
> >> thinking. Tesla outdoes Detroit in every way.

The phone is not necessary to use the car. You don't need a smart-phone to use the bluetooth calling features.

> > Most people think it is better to use the phone's capabilities rather than pay ~$2,000 for the typical navigation system in cars that don't work very well and cost hundred's of dollars to get map updates.
>
> Maybe that's the way Detroit does it. The updates are free in the Tesla.

But you pay $50-100K for the privilege.

I agree that Tesla is doing a good job but Detroit, Japan and Germany are all pretty similar in the way they do things.

kevin

[rickman]

kevin93 wrote on 8/18/2017 11:43 PM:
> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 8:30:29 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
>> kevin93 wrote on 8/18/2017 11:18 PM:
>>> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 8:06:19 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> They use their phone. I think Android Auto/Carplay is a great idea.
>>>>> The smart phone navi apps are far better than the stand-alone units
>>>>> and the UI in the car is better (better placement and bigger buttons).
>>>>> Choice is good, too.
>>>>
>>>> Why squint at a tiny screen for things that are essential functions in cars
>>>> now? It's the sort of limited thinking Detroit had done forever.
>>>
>>> With Android Auto or Apple CarPlay the phone screen is put on the car's display and you control it from the car as well. You don't need to look at or touch the phone.
>>
>> Now I'm confused. This sounds circular. "They offloaded it to your phone"
>> is where we started, now we are back to it being on the car screen which
>> seems to be not so big in the Volt compared to the Tesla.
>
> The only things that are offloaded to the phone are the navigation, entertainment and telephone. Although other apps like facebook, or checking the weather, stock prices etc can also run.
>
> None of the core car functions require the phone.

The GPS needs to be on a large screen. A friend uses his iPhone in the car
and it is a bit... sub-optimal. The Tesla has a large screen, it would be
criminal to not use it. Chevy can do what they want.

> The Tesla has the largest screen but I find the others in the 7-11" range quite usable.
>
>>> The majority of cars these days can use a bluetooth connection between the car and the phone so again you don't need to touch the phone - you use the car's UI.
>>
>> We are talking about using car features.
>
> You mentioned not being able to use a hand-held phone in the car - the car helps out to avoid that need.

The only thing I need to use a phone for is talking. Sure, if the car can
help me dial that's great. Otherwise the function should be in the car.

>>> It's illegal in Ca as well to use a hand-held phone.
>>>
>>>> Yeah, and they pretty well suck. If the phone is essential in the car, the
>>>> holder should be built in and optimized for the car. Again, limited Detroit
>>>> thinking. Tesla outdoes Detroit in every way.
>
> The phone is not necessary to use the car. You don't need a smart-phone to use the bluetooth calling features.

If I need the GPS in a Volt, I need the phone. That just shouldn't be.
This is the 21st century and GPS is a part of using a car just like the
radio or heater, both of which were optional back in the dark ages when I
started to drive.

>>> Most people think it is better to use the phone's capabilities rather than pay ~$2,000 for the typical navigation system in cars that don't work very well and cost hundred's of dollars to get map updates.
>>
>> Maybe that's the way Detroit does it. The updates are free in the Tesla.
>
> But you pay $50-100K for the privilege.

You are smoking dope. The model 3 is cheaper than the Bolt.

> I agree that Tesla is doing a good job but Detroit, Japan and Germany are all pretty similar in the way they do things.

I think you will find things will change now that they have some competition
who is doing things differently. The world make poor quality cars until the
Japanese started making higher quality cars in the 70's. Then everyone else
had to fall in line and try to keep up.

--

Rick C

[k...@notreal.com]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:43:14 -0700 (PDT), kevin93
<ke...@whitedigs.com> wrote:

>On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 8:30:29 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
>> kevin93 wrote on 8/18/2017 11:18 PM:
>> > On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 8:06:19 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
>> > ...
>> >>> They use their phone. I think Android Auto/Carplay is a great idea.
>> >>> The smart phone navi apps are far better than the stand-alone units
>> >>> and the UI in the car is better (better placement and bigger buttons).
>> >>> Choice is good, too.
>> >>
>> >> Why squint at a tiny screen for things that are essential functions in cars
>> >> now? It's the sort of limited thinking Detroit had done forever.
>> >
>> > With Android Auto or Apple CarPlay the phone screen is put on the car's display and you control it from the car as well. You don't need to look at or touch the phone.
>>
>> Now I'm confused. This sounds circular. "They offloaded it to your phone"
>> is where we started, now we are back to it being on the car screen which
>> seems to be not so big in the Volt compared to the Tesla.
>
>The only things that are offloaded to the phone are the navigation, entertainment and telephone. Although other apps like facebook, or checking the weather, stock prices etc can also run.

Many apps are blocked, for safety reasons. I don't know the
particulars (have never used AA or CP).

>None of the core car functions require the phone.
>
>The Tesla has the largest screen but I find the others in the 7-11" range quite usable.

Even a four or five inch phone display is quite usable. Most cars
have 8" or 10" displays. Tesla has a 17", portrait mode display, so
it is an outlier. At $100K it is an outlier.

>> > The majority of cars these days can use a bluetooth connection between the car and the phone so again you don't need to touch the phone - you use the car's UI.
>>
>> We are talking about using car features.
>
>You mentioned not being able to use a hand-held phone in the car - the car helps out to avoid that need.
>
>> > It's illegal in Ca as well to use a hand-held phone.
>> >
>> >> Yeah, and they pretty well suck. If the phone is essential in the car, the
>> >> holder should be built in and optimized for the car. Again, limited Detroit
>> >> thinking. Tesla outdoes Detroit in every way.
>
>The phone is not necessary to use the car. You don't need a smart-phone to use the bluetooth calling features.
>
>> > Most people think it is better to use the phone's capabilities rather than pay ~$2,000 for the typical navigation system in cars that don't work very well and cost hundred's of dollars to get map updates.
>>
>> Maybe that's the way Detroit does it. The updates are free in the Tesla.
>
>But you pay $50-100K for the privilege.

Yup. Nothing is "free". Navi apps on smart phones are far superior
to any dedicated navi systems. CarPlay and Android Auto are huge
steps in the right direction. My phone is with me everywhere (oddly,
except at home) but I don't take my car with me everywhere. My phone
is on business trips with me, too, where I need the navigation
features.

>
>I agree that Tesla is doing a good job but Detroit, Japan and Germany are all pretty similar in the way they do things.

Ain't nothing for nothing.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:39:53 -0400, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>kevin93 wrote on 8/18/2017 11:43 PM:
>> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 8:30:29 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
>>> kevin93 wrote on 8/18/2017 11:18 PM:
>>>> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 8:06:19 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> They use their phone. I think Android Auto/Carplay is a great idea.
>>>>>> The smart phone navi apps are far better than the stand-alone units
>>>>>> and the UI in the car is better (better placement and bigger buttons).
>>>>>> Choice is good, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why squint at a tiny screen for things that are essential functions in cars
>>>>> now? It's the sort of limited thinking Detroit had done forever.
>>>>
>>>> With Android Auto or Apple CarPlay the phone screen is put on the car's display and you control it from the car as well. You don't need to look at or touch the phone.
>>>
>>> Now I'm confused. This sounds circular. "They offloaded it to your phone"
>>> is where we started, now we are back to it being on the car screen which
>>> seems to be not so big in the Volt compared to the Tesla.
>>
>> The only things that are offloaded to the phone are the navigation, entertainment and telephone. Although other apps like facebook, or checking the weather, stock prices etc can also run.
>>
>> None of the core car functions require the phone.
>
>The GPS needs to be on a large screen. A friend uses his iPhone in the car
>and it is a bit... sub-optimal. The Tesla has a large screen, it would be
>criminal to not use it. Chevy can do what they want.

You're talking from ignorance. Small screens work fine. Larger
screens are slightly better but navigation would work without a
screen. You're supposed to be looking up, not down into the
instrument panel. In this, a phone is even better, since it can be
mounted on the dash, rather than down in the console.

>
>> The Tesla has the largest screen but I find the others in the 7-11" range quite usable.
>>
>>>> The majority of cars these days can use a bluetooth connection between the car and the phone so again you don't need to touch the phone - you use the car's UI.
>>>
>>> We are talking about using car features.
>>
>> You mentioned not being able to use a hand-held phone in the car - the car helps out to avoid that need.
>
>The only thing I need to use a phone for is talking. Sure, if the car can
>help me dial that's great. Otherwise the function should be in the car.

Talking from ignorance, again.

>
>>>> It's illegal in Ca as well to use a hand-held phone.
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, and they pretty well suck. If the phone is essential in the car, the
>>>>> holder should be built in and optimized for the car. Again, limited Detroit
>>>>> thinking. Tesla outdoes Detroit in every way.
>>
>> The phone is not necessary to use the car. You don't need a smart-phone to use the bluetooth calling features.
>
>If I need the GPS in a Volt, I need the phone. That just shouldn't be.
>This is the 21st century and GPS is a part of using a car just like the
>radio or heater, both of which were optional back in the dark ages when I
>started to drive.

A navigation system raises the cost of the car about $2500. Using a
phone avoids most, or all, of that cost. A pretty good deal, IMO.

>>>> Most people think it is better to use the phone's capabilities rather than pay ~$2,000 for the typical navigation system in cars that don't work very well and cost hundred's of dollars to get map updates.
>>>
>>> Maybe that's the way Detroit does it. The updates are free in the Tesla.
>>
>> But you pay $50-100K for the privilege.
>
>You are smoking dope. The model 3 is cheaper than the Bolt.
>
>
>> I agree that Tesla is doing a good job but Detroit, Japan and Germany are all pretty similar in the way they do things.
>
>I think you will find things will change now that they have some competition
>who is doing things differently. The world make poor quality cars until the
>Japanese started making higher quality cars in the 70's. Then everyone else
>had to fall in line and try to keep up.

Irrelevant.

[k...@notreal.com]

That's what I said but that information is not necessary for
navigation. Stand-alone navi systems don't have that information
(unless supplied by a cell or HD receiver). Without a constant cell
connection, cell phone navigation is on exactly the same foot. The
only difference is that the cell phone requires an Internet connection
to set up the route.

[bitrex]

On 08/19/2017 11:04 AM, k...@notreal.com wrote:

>>> None of the core car functions require the phone.
>>
>> The GPS needs to be on a large screen. A friend uses his iPhone in the car
>> and it is a bit... sub-optimal. The Tesla has a large screen, it would be
>> criminal to not use it. Chevy can do what they want.
>
> You're talking from ignorance. Small screens work fine. Larger
> screens are slightly better but navigation would work without a
> screen. You're supposed to be looking up, not down into the
> instrument panel. In this, a phone is even better, since it can be
> mounted on the dash, rather than down in the console.

Yeah, it calls out the turns over the car audio system anyway. There's
basically no need to look at the map except occasionally out of
curiosity when parked or at a red light.

Waze calls out traffic conditions, road hazards, speed traps, red light
cameras, etc. as well as reported by other users. "Watch out! Car
stopped on shoulder ahead."

[kevin93]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:39:59 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
...

> >> Maybe that's the way Detroit does it. The updates are free in the Tesla.
> >
> > But you pay $50-100K for the privilege.
>
> You are smoking dope. The model 3 is cheaper than the Bolt.
>

..

No, realistic. The federal tax credit will have expired by the time the "$35,000" Model 3's are available and if you want a color other than black, want the long range version or any of the other options it will be significantly more.

I've put down my deposit for a model 3 but it will cost ~$58,000 for the one I'll want. I could get a Bolt for ~$35,000 ($42,000 including the options I want with a federal tax credit of $7,500).

kevin

[rickman]

kevin93 wrote on 8/19/2017 11:45 AM:
> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:39:59 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:

> ....

>>>> Maybe that's the way Detroit does it. The updates are free in the Tesla.
>>>
>>> But you pay $50-100K for the privilege.
>>
>> You are smoking dope. The model 3 is cheaper than the Bolt.
>>

> ...

>
> No, realistic. The federal tax credit will have expired by the time the "$35,000" Model 3's are available and if you want a color other than black, want the long range version or any of the other options it will be significantly more.
>
> I've put down my deposit for a model 3 but it will cost ~$58,000 for the one I'll want. I could get a Bolt for ~$35,000 ($42,000 including the options I want with a federal tax credit of $7,500).

Color = significantly more??? Really?

How much more is the long range option? Where are you seeing prices?

--

Rick C

[rickman]

For YOU! You aren't me and I have MY preferences.

> Larger
> screens are slightly better but navigation would work without a
> screen. You're supposed to be looking up, not down into the
> instrument panel. In this, a phone is even better, since it can be
> mounted on the dash, rather than down in the console.

If I'm not supposed to look down at the instrument panel I guess it doesn't
matter how it looks or even where they put it! Don't be absurd.

It's illegal to have your GPS on the dash in many states. The screen in the
model 3 *is* in the dash.

>>> The Tesla has the largest screen but I find the others in the 7-11" range quite usable.
>>>
>>>>> The majority of cars these days can use a bluetooth connection between the car and the phone so again you don't need to touch the phone - you use the car's UI.
>>>>
>>>> We are talking about using car features.
>>>
>>> You mentioned not being able to use a hand-held phone in the car - the car helps out to avoid that need.
>>
>> The only thing I need to use a phone for is talking. Sure, if the car can
>> help me dial that's great. Otherwise the function should be in the car.
>
> Talking from ignorance, again.

Which seems to be all you can say. Clearly you have nothing of value to say
on the matter.

>>>>> It's illegal in Ca as well to use a hand-held phone.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, and they pretty well suck. If the phone is essential in the car, the
>>>>>> holder should be built in and optimized for the car. Again, limited Detroit
>>>>>> thinking. Tesla outdoes Detroit in every way.
>>>
>>> The phone is not necessary to use the car. You don't need a smart-phone to use the bluetooth calling features.
>>
>> If I need the GPS in a Volt, I need the phone. That just shouldn't be.
>> This is the 21st century and GPS is a part of using a car just like the
>> radio or heater, both of which were optional back in the dark ages when I
>> started to drive.
>
> A navigation system raises the cost of the car about $2500. Using a
> phone avoids most, or all, of that cost. A pretty good deal, IMO.

YOUR car. It comes with the model 3 so doesn't raise the cost at all.
Trying to say the cost is built in may be true, but it isn't $2,500 anymore.
It costs under $100 to include a GPS or you wouldn't be able to buy them
for that... *with* free updates.

>>>>> Most people think it is better to use the phone's capabilities rather than pay ~$2,000 for the typical navigation system in cars that don't work very well and cost hundred's of dollars to get map updates.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe that's the way Detroit does it. The updates are free in the Tesla.
>>>
>>> But you pay $50-100K for the privilege.
>>
>> You are smoking dope. The model 3 is cheaper than the Bolt.
>>
>>
>>> I agree that Tesla is doing a good job but Detroit, Japan and Germany are all pretty similar in the way they do things.
>>
>> I think you will find things will change now that they have some competition
>> who is doing things differently. The world make poor quality cars until the
>> Japanese started making higher quality cars in the 70's. Then everyone else
>> had to fall in line and try to keep up.
>
> Irrelevant.

It's exactly the point, just not in line with your views. Detroit is being
challenged again, this time from within the US. The very fact that Tesla
will be losing the rebate while Detroit can't give away their EVs is a clear
indication.

--

Rick C

[rickman]

bitrex wrote on 8/19/2017 11:28 AM:
> On 08/19/2017 11:04 AM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>
>>>> None of the core car functions require the phone.
>>>
>>> The GPS needs to be on a large screen. A friend uses his iPhone in the car
>>> and it is a bit... sub-optimal. The Tesla has a large screen, it would be
>>> criminal to not use it. Chevy can do what they want.
>>
>> You're talking from ignorance. Small screens work fine. Larger
>> screens are slightly better but navigation would work without a
>> screen. You're supposed to be looking up, not down into the
>> instrument panel. In this, a phone is even better, since it can be
>> mounted on the dash, rather than down in the console.
>
> Yeah, it calls out the turns over the car audio system anyway. There's
> basically no need to look at the map except occasionally out of curiosity
> when parked or at a red light.

Which is the way *you* use a GPS. I want to see the bloody map and have
some idea of where I'm going. I'd be happy with Google maps printouts if I
could juggle the paper in the car. I don't like or use the voice most of
the time.

> Waze calls out traffic conditions, road hazards, speed traps, red light
> cameras, etc. as well as reported by other users. "Watch out! Car stopped on
> shoulder ahead."

Wonderful. I don't have a smart phone.

--

Rick C

[k...@notreal.com]

Clearly you haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about. It's
amazing to see even shortbit demonstrating your stupidity.

>
>
>> Small screens work fine.
>
>For YOU! You aren't me and I have MY preferences.

You haven't even tried! You haven't a clue what you're talking about
and insist on demonstrating it at every turn.

>> Larger
>> screens are slightly better but navigation would work without a
>> screen. You're supposed to be looking up, not down into the
>> instrument panel. In this, a phone is even better, since it can be
>> mounted on the dash, rather than down in the console.
>
>If I'm not supposed to look down at the instrument panel I guess it doesn't
>matter how it looks or even where they put it! Don't be absurd.

The display is *NOT* in the instrument panel. It's in the center
stack. There are no critical controls there. The instrument panel is
just under your line of sight. You don't have to remove your eyes
from the road to see it.

>It's illegal to have your GPS on the dash in many states. The screen in the
>model 3 *is* in the dash.

Sure, as it is in most cars. Did you have a point or are you just
whining like the little leftist snowflake you are?

>>>> The Tesla has the largest screen but I find the others in the 7-11" range quite usable.
>>>>
>>>>>> The majority of cars these days can use a bluetooth connection between the car and the phone so again you don't need to touch the phone - you use the car's UI.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about using car features.
>>>>
>>>> You mentioned not being able to use a hand-held phone in the car - the car helps out to avoid that need.
>>>
>>> The only thing I need to use a phone for is talking. Sure, if the car can
>>> help me dial that's great. Otherwise the function should be in the car.
>>
>> Talking from ignorance, again.
>
>Which seems to be all you can say. Clearly you have nothing of value to say
>on the matter.

It is the fact of the matter. You haven't a clue what you're talking
about. You're just blathering along.

>
>>>>>> It's illegal in Ca as well to use a hand-held phone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, and they pretty well suck. If the phone is essential in the car, the
>>>>>>> holder should be built in and optimized for the car. Again, limited Detroit
>>>>>>> thinking. Tesla outdoes Detroit in every way.
>>>>
>>>> The phone is not necessary to use the car. You don't need a smart-phone to use the bluetooth calling features.
>>>
>>> If I need the GPS in a Volt, I need the phone. That just shouldn't be.
>>> This is the 21st century and GPS is a part of using a car just like the
>>> radio or heater, both of which were optional back in the dark ages when I
>>> started to drive.
>>
>> A navigation system raises the cost of the car about $2500. Using a
>> phone avoids most, or all, of that cost. A pretty good deal, IMO.
>
>YOUR car. It comes with the model 3 so doesn't raise the cost at all.
>Trying to say the cost is built in may be true, but it isn't $2,500 anymore.
> It costs under $100 to include a GPS or you wouldn't be able to buy them
>for that... *with* free updates.

No, that's the normal cost of the feature. Learn something instead of
showing that not only are you incredibly ignorant but willfully so.

>>>>>> Most people think it is better to use the phone's capabilities rather than pay ~$2,000 for the typical navigation system in cars that don't work very well and cost hundred's of dollars to get map updates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe that's the way Detroit does it. The updates are free in the Tesla.
>>>>
>>>> But you pay $50-100K for the privilege.
>>>
>>> You are smoking dope. The model 3 is cheaper than the Bolt.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I agree that Tesla is doing a good job but Detroit, Japan and Germany are all pretty similar in the way they do things.
>>>
>>> I think you will find things will change now that they have some competition
>>> who is doing things differently. The world make poor quality cars until the
>>> Japanese started making higher quality cars in the 70's. Then everyone else
>>> had to fall in line and try to keep up.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
>It's exactly the point, just not in line with your views. Detroit is being
>challenged again, this time from within the US. The very fact that Tesla
>will be losing the rebate while Detroit can't give away their EVs is a clear
>indication.

It is absolutely irrelevant to the thread. It's just another strawman
for you to whine about. Go tale a Midol.

[bitrex]

Many car manufacturers charge extra for "premium" colors nowadays so
unless you want matte white, black, or some fashion of grey you'll be
paying extra. The Siren Red Volt is an extra $400, the "Iridescent Pearl
Tricoat" is an extra $1k.

Aquamarine is a base color on the 2018 Volt though and I think it looks
pretty nice!

[kevin93]

...

The long-range battery is $9,000 extra. Colour other than black is $1,000 extra.

Unless you already have a reservation you probably couldn't get the 220 mile version until 2019. For my place in line the delivery estimate is between March and May 2018 for the long range version and December for the short range.

Tesla gave the pricing in their press releases - it doesn't seem to be on their web site.

This site gives a rundown on the pricing - http://www.leftlanenews.com/tesla-model-3-prices-and-option-packages-announced-97182.html

You will need to have a smartphone to get into the car as the model 3 does not use a key fob. It uses an app on the phone.

There is an emergency contactless card for access if your phone dies or for valet parking but you lose the walk-up features.

kevin

[k...@notreal.com]

That's *really* dumb. I use my smart phone for a lot of things but as
a key fob, it would suck. Having to get out my phone, get through the
security, and find the app, while I have an arm full of groceries
would not be fun. Digging out the keys (my fob is the key) is bad
enough.

[bitrex]

On 08/20/2017 11:00 AM, kevin93 wrote:

> The long-range battery is $9,000 extra. Colour other than black is $1,000 extra.
>
> Unless you already have a reservation you probably couldn't get the 220 mile version until 2019. For my place in line the delivery estimate is between March and May 2018 for the long range version and December for the short range.

9 grand extra for the long-range version is a silly price, at that point
you're pushing into the price range of the electric models that will be
on sale late 2018 from BMW and Jag, which are significantly nicer cars.

[kevin93]

On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 3:00:06 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
...

> That's *really* dumb. I use my smart phone for a lot of things but as
> a key fob, it would suck. Having to get out my phone, get through the
> security, and find the app, while I have an arm full of groceries
> would not be fun. Digging out the keys (my fob is the key) is bad
> enough.
>

You don't have to get your phone out or touch it - it just has to be active and on your person.

The doors will unlock when you walk up to the car - it uses Bluetooth.

Many cars these days have a similar functionality using the fob - my Toyota does and it is very convenient.

The car continually transmits a low frequency beacon (~125kHz). When the fob detects that beacon it transmits its unique ID over the 433MHz RF link. If the car recognizes that ID it will either unlock or at least ready the car for opening so all you do is grab the door handle.

kevin

[kevin93]

We'll see - I am skeptical that the other makes will be comparable price or "nicer", or available in 2018.

BMW charges ~$42,000 for a ~100 mile range i3.

kevin

[bitrex]

I'd speculate that BMW is trying to boost the stock range of the i3 up
to ~150 and drop the base price under 40 for the 2018 to remain competitive.

I think around 150 is the "sweet spot" where most drivers would start to
feel comfortable owning the car as their main ride without a range
extender engine and there's probably diminishing returns in what kind of
bang for the buck you feel you're getting once you start pushing the
range up above 200.

A 310 mile range vs 220 doesn't seem at all worth an extra 9 grand, at
least for me. And I think many younger car buyers don't use their car
for long trips much anyway so enormous ranges without recharge isn't as
big a decision-making factor; what is often a decision making factor is
that few want to pay a premium price for a "budget" model. You can spend
45 grand on a swish blinged-out Volt if you really want to but I'm
guessing few buyers do that.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 15:40:24 -0700 (PDT), kevin93
<ke...@whitedigs.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 3:00:06 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>...
>> That's *really* dumb. I use my smart phone for a lot of things but as
>> a key fob, it would suck. Having to get out my phone, get through the
>> security, and find the app, while I have an arm full of groceries
>> would not be fun. Digging out the keys (my fob is the key) is bad
>> enough.
>>
>
>You don't have to get your phone out or touch it - it just has to be active and on your person.

>The doors will unlock when you walk up to the car - it uses Bluetooth.

Yet another bluetooth app to screw up.

>Many cars these days have a similar functionality using the fob - my Toyota does and it is very convenient.

Give me the fob. As I said, smart phones are great for a lot of
things but this isn't one of them.

>The car continually transmits a low frequency beacon (~125kHz). When the fob detects that beacon it transmits its unique ID over the 433MHz RF link. If the car recognizes that ID it will either unlock or at least ready the car for opening so all you do is grab the door handle.

I didn't know phones had a 125kHz receiver. Nah, I'll take the fob
(or a fob/key).

[kevin93]

On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 4:19:29 PM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
..

> > We'll see - I am skeptical that the other makes will be comparable price or "nicer", or available in 2018.
> >
> > BMW charges ~$42,000 for a ~100 mile range i3.

I fudged it a bit when I said ~100 mile. Last years model used a 60Ah battery to give about 80 miles range.

They have recently upgraded the battery to 94Ah (at 350V) to give 114miles EPA range with no other significant changes in the spec although price change of ~$2,000. It will probably be a couple of years before they upgrade again.

> I'd speculate that BMW is trying to boost the stock range of the i3 up
> to ~150 and drop the base price under 40 for the 2018 to remain competitive.

Probably not till 2019 or 2020.

> I think around 150 is the "sweet spot" where most drivers would start to
> feel comfortable owning the car as their main ride without a range
> extender engine and there's probably diminishing returns in what kind of
> bang for the buck you feel you're getting once you start pushing the
> range up above 200.

I agree - 150 mile range is probably a significant milestone.

> A 310 mile range vs 220 doesn't seem at all worth an extra 9 grand, at
> least for me. And I think many younger car buyers don't use their car
> for long trips much anyway so enormous ranges without recharge isn't as
> big a decision-making factor; what is often a decision making factor is
> that few want to pay a premium price for a "budget" model. You can spend
> 45 grand on a swish blinged-out Volt if you really want to but I'm
> guessing few buyers do that.

I'll probably get the 310 mile range version - it will be available about 9 months earlier anyway.

I looked at the Volt and although I liked the technology and driving - the inaccessible back seat and nonexistent cargo space stopped me buying one (also the incompetence of the salesmen and unavailability of desired features). It would have been about $42k list for the features I wanted. (probably negotiable).

kevin

[kevin93]

On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 5:13:45 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
...

> Give me the fob. As I said, smart phones are great for a lot of
> things but this isn't one of them.
>
> >The car continually transmits a low frequency beacon (~125kHz). When the fob detects that beacon it transmits its unique ID over the 433MHz RF link. If the car recognizes that ID it will either unlock or at least ready the car for opening so all you do is grab the door handle.
>
> I didn't know phones had a 125kHz receiver. Nah, I'll take the fob
> (or a fob/key).

Sorry - that was me causing confusion. The 125kHz is for the normal keyless entry using a fob. The phone approach uses BT on 2.4GHz for both directions. (probably BT LE).

The phone approach is fine for me and I'm sure many people - I always have my phone on me, one less thing to carry if I don't need the car key.

When I get a model 3 I'll probably get one of the house lock devices that also use the phone - then I won't need to carry any keys.

kevin

[bitrex]

On 08/20/2017 08:39 PM, kevin93 wrote:

>> A 310 mile range vs 220 doesn't seem at all worth an extra 9 grand, at
>> least for me. And I think many younger car buyers don't use their car
>> for long trips much anyway so enormous ranges without recharge isn't as
>> big a decision-making factor; what is often a decision making factor is
>> that few want to pay a premium price for a "budget" model. You can spend
>> 45 grand on a swish blinged-out Volt if you really want to but I'm
>> guessing few buyers do that.
>
> I'll probably get the 310 mile range version - it will be available about 9 months earlier anyway.
>
> I looked at the Volt and although I liked the technology and driving - the inaccessible back seat and nonexistent cargo space stopped me buying one (also the incompetence of the salesmen and unavailability of desired features). It would have been about $42k list for the features I wanted. (probably negotiable).
>
> kevin
>

Frustratingly they just started offering some of the safety features
from the Premium trimline on the 2018 LT Volt, including the rear cross
traffic alert and the blind spot monitors for around $500 extra. Which
are exactly the ones I would've got for such a modest option price.

Cargo space is fine for a bachelor but yeah I could see it as being
frustratingly small to use as a car for family trips. And yeah most of
the Chevy dealer salesmen I talked to didn't know much more than I did.
The first one I had I just got at a mega-dealership from a pleasant but
know-nothing salesman just because they could offer me a stupidly low
price on the "dent and ding" floor model of the outgoing year. Second
time I went to another dealership that had a couple older salesmen who
really knew the car well and had many Volts in stock, even a custom
solar charging bay to park them.

He seemed like a happy guy as in New England area both the Volt and Bolt
are good sellers. They got one of the largest shipments of Bolts when it
was first released and they sold out in a couple weeks; he told me a few
customers came in from Illinois and Minnesota to pick them up and drive
home.

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 17:44:59 -0700 (PDT), kevin93
<ke...@whitedigs.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 5:13:45 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>...
>> Give me the fob. As I said, smart phones are great for a lot of
>> things but this isn't one of them.
>>
>> >The car continually transmits a low frequency beacon (~125kHz). When the fob detects that beacon it transmits its unique ID over the 433MHz RF link. If the car recognizes that ID it will either unlock or at least ready the car for opening so all you do is grab the door handle.
>>
>> I didn't know phones had a 125kHz receiver. Nah, I'll take the fob
>> (or a fob/key).
>
>Sorry - that was me causing confusion. The 125kHz is for the normal keyless entry using a fob. The phone approach uses BT on 2.4GHz for both directions. (probably BT LE).

It did sound strange. ;-)

>The phone approach is fine for me and I'm sure many people - I always have my phone on me, one less thing to carry if I don't need the car key.

I have a dozen or so bluetooth devices paired on my phone, with
probably half that many apps that use them. It's not at all unusual
for the device to be disconnected when I want to use it, sometimes
requiring an un-pair/pair cycle. Having to do that to get into my
car, with an armload of stuff, or in the rain, would piss me off no
end. No thanks.

>When I get a model 3 I'll probably get one of the house lock devices that also use the phone - then I won't need to carry any keys.

You don't work? ;-) I only carry three keys. House, car , and work
desk (all the other work keys get left in the desk). Oh, I also have
a USB stick that looks like a key.

[kevin93]

On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 5:59:49 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
...

> I have a dozen or so bluetooth devices paired on my phone, with
> probably half that many apps that use them. It's not at all unusual
> for the device to be disconnected when I want to use it, sometimes
> requiring an un-pair/pair cycle. Having to do that to get into my
> car, with an armload of stuff, or in the rain, would piss me off no
> end. No thanks.

I only have 2 or 3 paired devices and haven't had a problem - is that on iOS or Android?

> >When I get a model 3 I'll probably get one of the house lock devices that also use the phone - then I won't need to carry any keys.
>
> You don't work? ;-) I only carry three keys. House, car , and work
> desk (all the other work keys get left in the desk). Oh, I also have
> a USB stick that looks like a key.

I do need a key card for work but no keys.

kevin

[kevin93]

On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 5:52:00 PM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
...

> Frustratingly they just started offering some of the safety features
> from the Premium trimline on the 2018 LT Volt, including the rear cross
> traffic alert and the blind spot monitors for around $500 extra. Which
> are exactly the ones I would've got for such a modest option price.

Those are the sorts of things I wanted and full range adaptive cruise control.

Although Chevy said they were available back in January - the dealer said they wouldn't have any for a few months.

I ended up getting a Prius (hybrid only as the plug-in also had limited cargo space). It did have the ADAS features I wanted (BSM, rear cross traffic alert, automatic emergency braking, lane keeping alert, full speed adaptive cruise control and a couple of others) - they have helped avoided an accident (or at least a very close call) two or three times in the six months I've had it as well as being convenient.

kevin

[k...@notreal.com]

On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:35:14 -0700 (PDT), kevin93
<ke...@whitedigs.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 5:59:49 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>...
>> I have a dozen or so bluetooth devices paired on my phone, with
>> probably half that many apps that use them. It's not at all unusual
>> for the device to be disconnected when I want to use it, sometimes
>> requiring an un-pair/pair cycle. Having to do that to get into my
>> car, with an armload of stuff, or in the rain, would piss me off no
>> end. No thanks.
>
>I only have 2 or 3 paired devices and haven't had a problem - is that on iOS or Android?

Android. Samsung Note-5.

>> >When I get a model 3 I'll probably get one of the house lock devices that also use the phone - then I won't need to carry any keys.
>>
>> You don't work? ;-) I only carry three keys. House, car , and work
>> desk (all the other work keys get left in the desk). Oh, I also have
>> a USB stick that looks like a key.
>
>I do need a key card for work but no keys.

We have RFID badges for access (inside and out) but keys for
furniture. I keep all parts and most tools locked up so they don't
evaporate. I don't mind giving stuff to others but it does piss me
off if people take things without asking, or at least telling, me.

[rickman]

With shorter ranges. Who said they will be available in 2018? I've heard
2020.

--

Rick C

Presently at Wintercrest Farms
On the centerline of totality since 1998
:)

[rickman]

bitrex wrote on 8/20/2017 7:19 PM:
> On 08/20/2017 06:43 PM, kevin93 wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 3:17:44 PM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
>>> On 08/20/2017 11:00 AM, kevin93 wrote:
>>>
>>>> The long-range battery is $9,000 extra. Colour other than black is
>>>> $1,000 extra.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you already have a reservation you probably couldn't get the 220
>>>> mile version until 2019. For my place in line the delivery estimate is
>>>> between March and May 2018 for the long range version and December for
>>>> the short range.
>>>
>>> 9 grand extra for the long-range version is a silly price, at that point
>>> you're pushing into the price range of the electric models that will be
>>> on sale late 2018 from BMW and Jag, which are significantly nicer cars.
>>
>> We'll see - I am skeptical that the other makes will be comparable price
>> or "nicer", or available in 2018.
>>
>> BMW charges ~$42,000 for a ~100 mile range i3.
>>
>> kevin
>>
>
>
> I'd speculate that BMW is trying to boost the stock range of the i3 up to
> ~150 and drop the base price under 40 for the 2018 to remain competitive.
>
> I think around 150 is the "sweet spot" where most drivers would start to
> feel comfortable owning the car as their main ride without a range extender
> engine and there's probably diminishing returns in what kind of bang for the
> buck you feel you're getting once you start pushing the range up above 200.

I don't think you understand electric cars at all. The price per mile of
range is *less* for the model 3 when you add the extra range. There is no
basis for saying 150 is the sweet spot if it still costs *more* than the
200+ mile range of the model 3.

What are you thinking?

> A 310 mile range vs 220 doesn't seem at all worth an extra 9 grand, at least
> for me. And I think many younger car buyers don't use their car for long
> trips much anyway so enormous ranges without recharge isn't as big a
> decision-making factor; what is often a decision making factor is that few
> want to pay a premium price for a "budget" model. You can spend 45 grand on
> a swish blinged-out Volt if you really want to but I'm guessing few buyers
> do that.

I am in Tennessee at the moment where I came for the eclipse. I drove 400
miles and was thinking I would need to stop twice if I was driving an EV
with a 200+ mile range. But it turns out there is a Supercharger *exactly*
at the half way point in Wyethville, VA where I stopped to eat anyway.
There are several others on the path as well, but they are very conveniently
located and charge *much* faster than any other chargers available for EVs
today or any announced. That's a *huge* advantage over the other EVs.

--

Rick C

From Wintercrest Farms

[rickman]

kevin93 wrote on 8/20/2017 11:00 AM:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 9:29:31 AM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
>> kevin93 wrote on 8/19/2017 11:45 AM:
>>> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:39:59 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
>>> ....
>>>>>> Maybe that's the way Detroit does it. The updates are free in the Tesla.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you pay $50-100K for the privilege.
>>>>
>>>> You are smoking dope. The model 3 is cheaper than the Bolt.
>>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> No, realistic. The federal tax credit will have expired by the time the "$35,000" Model 3's are available and if you want a color other than black, want the long range version or any of the other options it will be significantly more.
>>>
>>> I've put down my deposit for a model 3 but it will cost ~$58,000 for the one I'll want. I could get a Bolt for ~$35,000 ($42,000 including the options I want with a federal tax credit of $7,500).
>>
>> Color = significantly more??? Really?
>>
>> How much more is the long range option? Where are you seeing prices?
>>

> ....

>
> The long-range battery is $9,000 extra. Colour other than black is $1,000 extra.
>
> Unless you already have a reservation you probably couldn't get the 220 mile version until 2019. For my place in line the delivery estimate is between March and May 2018 for the long range version and December for the short range.

So why aren't you reserved??? I am. I've got two reservations. Want one
of mine?

--

Rick C

Presently at Wintercrest Farms

[kevin93]

On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 8:11:49 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
...

> > Unless you already have a reservation you probably couldn't get the 220 mile version until 2019. For my place in line the delivery estimate is between March and May 2018 for the long range version and December for the short range.
>
> So why aren't you reserved??? I am. I've got two reservations. Want one
> of mine?

...
I already have one - as I stated for my reservation Tesla has given me an estimated delivery time of Mar - May of 2018 if I want a long range version but Dec 2018 for a short range version.

kevin

[rickman]

GM is not serious about EVs. They leave you to your own devices when it
comes to the most important aspect of driving an EV, charging... at home or
on the road. Dealers just aren't prepared to sell and likely aren't
prepared to repair the Bolt.

> He seemed like a happy guy as in New England area both the Volt and Bolt are
> good sellers. They got one of the largest shipments of Bolts when it was
> first released and they sold out in a couple weeks; he told me a few
> customers came in from Illinois and Minnesota to pick them up and drive home.

That's because they didn't sell them in Illinois or Minnesota. Still don't
I believe. They ramped up production very slowly and ramped up dealerships
very slowly only in certain areas first. This makes the Bolt a very poor
choice for driving cross country.

[rickman]

kevin93 wrote on 8/20/2017 6:40 PM:
> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 3:00:06 PM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:

> ....

>> That's *really* dumb. I use my smart phone for a lot of things but as
>> a key fob, it would suck. Having to get out my phone, get through the
>> security, and find the app, while I have an arm full of groceries
>> would not be fun. Digging out the keys (my fob is the key) is bad
>> enough.
>>
>
> You don't have to get your phone out or touch it - it just has to be active and on your person.

Silly to require me to buy a cell phone to drive a car.

> The doors will unlock when you walk up to the car - it uses Bluetooth.
>
> Many cars these days have a similar functionality using the fob - my Toyota does and it is very convenient.
>
> The car continually transmits a low frequency beacon (~125kHz). When the fob detects that beacon it transmits its unique ID over the 433MHz RF link. If the car recognizes that ID it will either unlock or at least ready the car for opening so all you do is grab the door handle.

Using a cell phone is silly. What if the phone can't see the cell tower?

--

Rick C

From Wintercrest Farms

[kevin93]

On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 8:20:36 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
...

> Silly to require me to buy a cell phone to drive a car.

Presumably Tesla expects that all their target demographic already has a smart phone.
...

> Using a cell phone is silly. What if the phone can't see the cell tower?

I don't see why the phone would need a cellular link for vehicle access - shouldn't be an issue. It is a direct BT link to the car.

Even if the phone doesn't work they provide a contactless card either for emergency use or for valet parking.

Probably the valet parking one restricts the driving ability of the car in some way - distance, speed etc.

kevin

[mike]

How many hoses were available at the charging station?
How many would have been needed if everybody had an electric car?
What do you do when the sign says, "closed for maintenance, sorry for
any inconvenience...next charging station 100 miles thataway...?"
What's the range when you're averaging 5 MPH with the air conditioner
on?

The model doesn't work when a significant percentage have an electric
car or when traveling on roads that don't have the traffic to support
charging stations.

[rickman]

kevin93 wrote on 8/21/2017 11:29 PM:
> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 8:20:36 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:

> ....

>> Silly to require me to buy a cell phone to drive a car.
>
> Presumably Tesla expects that all their target demographic already has a smart phone.

> ....

>
>> Using a cell phone is silly. What if the phone can't see the cell tower?
>
> I don't see why the phone would need a cellular link for vehicle access - shouldn't be an issue. It is a direct BT link to the car.

That's not the point. If I have to download an app to drive my car and my
phone battery runs down or it gets dropped or lost or stolen, I now can't
drive the car! Very bad idea! A key doesn't run down it's battery.

> Even if the phone doesn't work they provide a contactless card either for emergency use or for valet parking.

If you use the phone all the time, what are the chances the card is at home
when you need it?

> Probably the valet parking one restricts the driving ability of the car in some way - distance, speed etc.

So there's different cards? Even more complicated. I don't recall a card
being used when I test drove the Tesla. Maybe the salesman used his phone.

--

Rick C

Presently at Wintercrest Farms

[rickman]

Six.

> How many would have been needed if everybody had an electric car?

Huh? When ifs and ands are pots and pans there'll be no need for tinkers.

> What do you do when the sign says, "closed for maintenance, sorry for
> any inconvenience...next charging station 100 miles thataway...?"

Status is available online before and during any trip you would be on. No
different than if I planned to get gas at that exit where there is *one* gas
station.

> What's the range when you're averaging 5 MPH with the air conditioner
> on?

Why do you ask silly questions?

> The model doesn't work when a significant percentage have an electric car or
> when traveling on roads that don't have the traffic to support
> charging stations.

You seem to be full of applesauce trying to argue both sides of a
conversation at once. If more people have electric cars there will be more
chargers. If I am driving a long distance so I need to consider charging it
will always be on roads that have chargers. So far I have not taken any
trips that would not be well accommodated.

--

Rick C

Presently at Wintercrest Farms

[Jim Thompson]

But it's *green* >:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I'm looking for work... see my website.

Thinking outside the box...producing elegant & economic solutions.

[bitrex]

Enormous battery capacities and extra-long ranges without recharge
aren't prime motivating factors for most younger urban car buyers (the
main demographic that will be interested in the vehicles.) We don't use
our cars that way.

>> A 310 mile range vs 220 doesn't seem at all worth an extra 9 grand, at
>> least
>> for me. And I think many younger car buyers don't use their car for long
>> trips much anyway so enormous ranges without recharge isn't as big a
>> decision-making factor; what is often a decision making factor is that
>> few
>> want to pay a premium price for a "budget" model. You can spend 45
>> grand on
>> a swish blinged-out Volt if you really want to but I'm guessing few
>> buyers
>> do that.
>
> I am in Tennessee at the moment where I came for the eclipse. I drove
> 400 miles and was thinking I would need to stop twice if I was driving
> an EV with a 200+ mile range. But it turns out there is a Supercharger
> *exactly* at the half way point in Wyethville, VA where I stopped to eat
> anyway. There are several others on the path as well, but they are very
> conveniently located and charge *much* faster than any other chargers
> available for EVs today or any announced. That's a *huge* advantage
> over the other EVs.
>

Nobody my age drives 400 miles on a whim. We're too busy working, no
time for it.

[rickman]

So your car only has a 3 gallon fuel tank? Lol

--

Rick C

Presently at Wintercrest Farms

[mike]

Interesting how we want other people to sacrifice to save the planet
while we think nothing about driving 400 miles for two minutes
of self-gratification.

>>>
>> How many hoses were available at the charging station?
>
> Six.
>
>
>> How many would have been needed if everybody had an electric car?
>
> Huh? When ifs and ands are pots and pans there'll be no need for tinkers.

Yep, close your eyes and hummmmm.
No need for math here.

>
>
>> What do you do when the sign says, "closed for maintenance, sorry for
>> any inconvenience...next charging station 100 miles thataway...?"
>
> Status is available online before and during any trip you would be on.
> No different than if I planned to get gas at that exit where there is
> *one* gas station.

Let's talk about failures. Something works. Next instant it's broke.
If that instant happens after you checked the status before you started
out, you will encounter a broken station.? Or maybe an alternate station
failed forcing everybody to your chosen station and there's a 4 hour
waiting line.

How about a traffic accident that forces people around the path to
the charging station? Or when everybody decides to pass the time
by charging their car

>
>
>> What's the range when you're averaging 5 MPH with the air conditioner
>> on?
>
> Why do you ask silly questions?

To encourage you to think beyond the simplistic and do a lot of math.

>
>
>> The model doesn't work when a significant percentage have an electric
>> car or
>> when traveling on roads that don't have the traffic to support
>> charging stations.
>
> You seem to be full of applesauce trying to argue both sides of a
> conversation at once. If more people have electric cars there will be
> more chargers. If I am driving a long distance so I need to consider
> charging it will always be on roads that have chargers. So far I have
> not taken any trips that would not be well accommodated.

"SO FAR!"
The gasoline infrastructure exists.
You are never very far from a gas station.
It takes you 5 minutes to fill up.
It's not unusual to find all the pumps busy.
What if it's rush hour and all those pumps are
busy for 45 minutes? What's an extra hour and a half?
Unless you are late for the airplane...or you have to pee.
Yes, bathroom facilities are part of the solution.

Where are you gonna get and store all those electrons?
Gas is delivered to the middle of nowhere in a truck.
You may not be able to get a reliable source electrons out there.

What do you do in an emergency when a wildfire forces evacuation?
Or a hurricane?

This whole electric fiasco is not based on math. It's wishful
thinking based on everything else being perfect.
We legislate/mandate electric cars. We stifle the only
reliable source of electrons we have, NUCLEAR! We attempt to do it
on a timescale that the infrastructure cannot tolerate.
The infrastructure can't handle 100% of the city getting home
from work and plugging in their electric car. Wishing will not
make it so.

Somebody needs to give the legislature a calculator and a calendar...
and teach them how to use them. And realize that it's gonna cost
FAR MORE money and resources to make it happen than they let on.
And that money will come from something else that we want.

One way to do that is to let the people vote on the real issues
as a package.
Option 1) electric cars AND nuclear power and increased distribution
infrastructure and higher electric rates and higher transportation
costs reflected in everything we buy and higher taxes and inadequate
global participation to significantly affect global warming and no money
to save the whales.

Option 2) gas cars and fracking and local air pollution and let the
marketplace determine where we go from here, AKA status quo.

Option 3) ???? reduced consumption??? Like that's gonna happen.

If you concentrate on building the supply of electrons, you help
EVERYTHING, not just electric cars. The marketplace will make
the electric cars happen. Unfortunately, that requires cooperation
among many factions and will never happen.

If you force the cars, the infrastructure will break down and
be gradually fixed out of necessity. A very painful and expensive
process, but it will happen because of the pain it causes.
What a strange society we live in...

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have electric cars.
I'm saying that we need an infrastructure that can supply the fuel
for them. You can't have one without the other.
Solar and wind are NOT the answer. We're gonna have to quit
bitching and build a bunch of reliable energy sources like
nuclear or equivalent, always-on, sources.
And we're gonna have to subsidize the conversion of petrol stations
to electric charging stations...while maintaining the petrol
supply for many years until old technology is purged.

The electric car fantasy needs more calculators and less wishing.
We need leaders who can see past the end of their noses, AKA
the next election cycle.

We're so selfish that we're gonna murder the planet for instant
gratification. Get used to it.
It ain't gonna change, no matter how many Teslas you buy.

[rickman]

Interesting how we can trivialize other people's lives. You know nothing
about me and you know nothing about my trip. It was more than *just* the
eclipse.

>>> How many hoses were available at the charging station?
>>
>> Six.
>>
>>
>>> How many would have been needed if everybody had an electric car?
>>
>> Huh? When ifs and ands are pots and pans there'll be no need for tinkers.
> Yep, close your eyes and hummmmm.
> No need for math here.

No need for math when you ask "if" type questions.

>>> What do you do when the sign says, "closed for maintenance, sorry for
>>> any inconvenience...next charging station 100 miles thataway...?"
>>
>> Status is available online before and during any trip you would be on.
>> No different than if I planned to get gas at that exit where there is
>> *one* gas station.
>
> Let's talk about failures. Something works. Next instant it's broke.
> If that instant happens after you checked the status before you started out,
> you will encounter a broken station.? Or maybe an alternate station
> failed forcing everybody to your chosen station and there's a 4 hour
> waiting line.
>
> How about a traffic accident that forces people around the path to
> the charging station? Or when everybody decides to pass the time
> by charging their car

The vehicle is just as likely to break. In fact, with many times more
moving parts, an ICE vehicle is *much* more likely to fail on the trip.
Then you are totally stuck until the vehicle is repaired. An EV can always
motor on to the next charging station even if it's not a Supercharger. The
Tesla will simply charge at the same rate as a Bolt or Leaf.

>>> What's the range when you're averaging 5 MPH with the air conditioner
>>> on?
>>
>> Why do you ask silly questions?
>
> To encourage you to think beyond the simplistic and do a lot of math.

Asking silly questions just encourages people to ignore you.

>>> The model doesn't work when a significant percentage have an electric
>>> car or
>>> when traveling on roads that don't have the traffic to support
>>> charging stations.
>>
>> You seem to be full of applesauce trying to argue both sides of a
>> conversation at once. If more people have electric cars there will be
>> more chargers. If I am driving a long distance so I need to consider
>> charging it will always be on roads that have chargers. So far I have
>> not taken any trips that would not be well accommodated.
>
> "SO FAR!"
> The gasoline infrastructure exists.
> You are never very far from a gas station.
> It takes you 5 minutes to fill up.
> It's not unusual to find all the pumps busy.
> What if it's rush hour and all those pumps are
> busy for 45 minutes? What's an extra hour and a half?
> Unless you are late for the airplane...or you have to pee.
> Yes, bathroom facilities are part of the solution.

IN MY LIFE, I have not taken a trip that would not be viable today with a
Tesla EV. I have driven to Texas, New England and Nova Scotia. All these
trips would have been simple in an EV with today's available charging network.

> Where are you gonna get and store all those electrons?
> Gas is delivered to the middle of nowhere in a truck.
> You may not be able to get a reliable source electrons out there.
>
> What do you do in an emergency when a wildfire forces evacuation?
> Or a hurricane?

Drive away...

> This whole electric fiasco is not based on math. It's wishful
> thinking based on everything else being perfect.
> We legislate/mandate electric cars. We stifle the only
> reliable source of electrons we have, NUCLEAR! We attempt to do it
> on a timescale that the infrastructure cannot tolerate.
> The infrastructure can't handle 100% of the city getting home
> from work and plugging in their electric car. Wishing will not
> make it so.

If nuclear were so good, why didn't we build more of it in the heyday?
Today it is far too expensive to build. North Anna received approval for a
new reactor, but it will likely never be built because the generated
electricity will cost at least double what we are paying today. But that's
another conversation, let's stay on topic.

> Somebody needs to give the legislature a calculator and a calendar...
> and teach them how to use them. And realize that it's gonna cost
> FAR MORE money and resources to make it happen than they let on.
> And that money will come from something else that we want.

I've lost track of what "it" is.

> One way to do that is to let the people vote on the real issues
> as a package.
> Option 1) electric cars AND nuclear power and increased distribution
> infrastructure and higher electric rates and higher transportation
> costs reflected in everything we buy and higher taxes and inadequate
> global participation to significantly affect global warming and no money to
> save the whales.
>
> Option 2) gas cars and fracking and local air pollution and let the
> marketplace determine where we go from here, AKA status quo.
>
> Option 3) ???? reduced consumption??? Like that's gonna happen.

Option 4) Let the market place determine where we go with incentives to get
new technologies off the ground.

Oh, wait, that's the status quo!

> If you concentrate on building the supply of electrons, you help
> EVERYTHING, not just electric cars. The marketplace will make
> the electric cars happen. Unfortunately, that requires cooperation
> among many factions and will never happen.

I think *you* have not looked very hard at how EVs can be accommodated
within the existing system. Electrical demand is not even so nuclear can't
supply all our power as it is not suitably dispatchable. Our peak power
generation is summer late afternoon in the US. EVs can be charged at
off-peak times which will not require a single power plant to be built and
will allow the use of *more* non-dispatchable power generation. Win-win.

> If you force the cars, the infrastructure will break down and
> be gradually fixed out of necessity. A very painful and expensive process,
> but it will happen because of the pain it causes.
> What a strange society we live in...

I don't think you understand necessity. Necessity provokes *rapid* change
rather than slow change which happens *without* necessity.

> I'm not saying that we shouldn't have electric cars.
> I'm saying that we need an infrastructure that can supply the fuel
> for them. You can't have one without the other.
> Solar and wind are NOT the answer. We're gonna have to quit
> bitching and build a bunch of reliable energy sources like
> nuclear or equivalent, always-on, sources.
> And we're gonna have to subsidize the conversion of petrol stations
> to electric charging stations...while maintaining the petrol
> supply for many years until old technology is purged.

Actually, alternative power sources are *ideal* for powering battery EVs
because they *store* the power generated opportunistically.

> The electric car fantasy needs more calculators and less wishing.
> We need leaders who can see past the end of their noses, AKA
> the next election cycle.

Ok, show us some *valid* calculations rather than waving your arms in the air.

> We're so selfish that we're gonna murder the planet for instant
> gratification. Get used to it.
> It ain't gonna change, no matter how many Teslas you buy.

Each of us make our own decisions, so no, none of us can change the planet
alone. You are amazingly observant of unimportant details.

[kevin93]

On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 9:29:32 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
..

> That's not the point. If I have to download an app to drive my car and my
> phone battery runs down or it gets dropped or lost or stolen, I now can't
> drive the car! Very bad idea! A key doesn't run down it's battery.
>
>
> > Even if the phone doesn't work they provide a contactless card either for emergency use or for valet parking.
>
> If you use the phone all the time, what are the chances the card is at home
> when you need it?

It's credit card sized so the expectation is that you will have it in your wallet.

What happens if you lose your conventional car key?

> > Probably the valet parking one restricts the driving ability of the car in some way - distance, speed etc.
>
> So there's different cards? Even more complicated. I don't recall a card
> being used when I test drove the Tesla. Maybe the salesman used his phone.

I'm speculating but it's an obvious extension that there will be different cards or you can restrict capabilities of a specific card in some way.

There will probably also be ways of loaning an electronic key with defined restrictions in use - you will be able to allow your teenage son to drive the car but with limitations on acceleration, speed, distance etc.

You may also be able to call up Tesla and after proving identity they will remotely unlock the car without a key at all.

I've had cars with special valet keys - with conventional cars they usually restrict access so they don't unlock the trunk and glove compartment.

> --
>
> Rick C

kevin

[kevin93]

On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 9:17:19 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:
...

> >
> How many hoses were available at the charging station?
> How many would have been needed if everybody had an electric car?
> What do you do when the sign says, "closed for maintenance, sorry for
> any inconvenience...next charging station 100 miles thataway...?"
> What's the range when you're averaging 5 MPH with the air conditioner
> on?

Obviously it will hurt consumption and range but the A/C will probably consume about 1-2kW in hot weather. With the larger capacity vehicles (Bolt or Model 3) it would take days to deplete the battery form full. If you are in a traffic jam with a conventional vehicle you can easily use a gallon of gas per hour.

> The model doesn't work when a significant percentage have an electric
> car or when traveling on roads that don't have the traffic to support
> charging stations.

Nobody is forcing you to have an electric vehicle, it will be many, many decades before they become rare or difficult to get. In the meanwhile range will increase and the infrastructure will improve. Just over 100 years ago driving an automobile had similar difficulties; nowhere to get fuel, reliability problems, you had to repair it yourself and cost - why not just have a horse?

I have owned an EV before and will get a Model 3 when they are available. I like the driving experience of electric cars and for most of my driving they work better than conventional vehicles even with existing infrastructure.

kevin

[kevin93]

On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 9:17:19 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:
...

> How many hoses were available at the charging station?
> How many would have been needed if everybody had an electric car?
> What do you do when the sign says, "closed for maintenance, sorry for
> any inconvenience...next charging station 100 miles thataway...?"
> What's the range when you're averaging 5 MPH with the air conditioner
> on?

A stationery car with A/C running will probably consume 1-2kW. With the large batteries in cars such as the Bolt or Model 3 you can sit in traffic for days from a full charge.

A conventional car will probably consume about 1 gal/hr under similar conditions - I have seen cars run out of gas.

> The model doesn't work when a significant percentage have an electric
> car or when traveling on roads that don't have the traffic to support
> charging stations.

You are assuming that the infrastructure won't improve along with the population of electric vehicles. It will probably get better than we have now.

Just over 100 years ago a similar war was occurring between horses and automobiles; there were not gas stations, you had to get fuel at the pharmacists, you had to repair the unreliable car yourself and they were more costly.

kevin

[kevin93]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 8:09:09 AM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:
...
>
> That's what I said but that information is not necessary for
> navigation. Stand-alone navi systems don't have that information
> (unless supplied by a cell or HD receiver). Without a constant cell
> connection, cell phone navigation is on exactly the same foot. The
> only difference is that the cell phone requires an Internet connection
> to set up the route.

You can use an application that uses locally stored data and not rely upon the data connection - I have done that while traveling abroad where data costs 10 cents a kilobyte.

kevin

[bitrex]

On 08/22/2017 11:13 AM, rickman wrote:

>> Nobody my age drives 400 miles on a whim. We're too busy working, no time
>> for it.
>
> So your car only has a 3 gallon fuel tank? Lol
>

If you sold a Toyota Prius variant with a 3 gallon fuel tank and a
lifetime deal that your fuel cost would always be under $1/gallon you'd
have a line of buyers out the door.

[rickman]

kevin93 wrote on 8/22/2017 1:21 PM:
> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 9:29:32 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:

> ...

>> That's not the point. If I have to download an app to drive my car and my
>> phone battery runs down or it gets dropped or lost or stolen, I now can't
>> drive the car! Very bad idea! A key doesn't run down it's battery.
>>
>>
>>> Even if the phone doesn't work they provide a contactless card either for emergency use or for valet parking.
>>
>> If you use the phone all the time, what are the chances the card is at home
>> when you need it?
>
> It's credit card sized so the expectation is that you will have it in your wallet.
>
> What happens if you lose your conventional car key?

I pull the spare out of my wallet or get another spare from my house. But
I've never lost my *keys* since they are large and heavy enough so I always
know if they are in my pocket. If the card does not need to be removed from
the wallet, I guess that's ok. I wonder how many you get and how much a
replacement costs.

>>> Probably the valet parking one restricts the driving ability of the car in some way - distance, speed etc.
>>
>> So there's different cards? Even more complicated. I don't recall a card
>> being used when I test drove the Tesla. Maybe the salesman used his phone.
>
> I'm speculating but it's an obvious extension that there will be different cards or you can restrict capabilities of a specific card in some way.

Yes, you are speculating.

> There will probably also be ways of loaning an electronic key with defined restrictions in use - you will be able to allow your teenage son to drive the car but with limitations on acceleration, speed, distance etc.

More speculation....

> You may also be able to call up Tesla and after proving identity they will remotely unlock the car without a key at all.

"Call"? If you have a smart phone you can unlock the car. If you don't
have a phone how can you call? I recall hearing of someone who drove
outside cell coverage and couldn't get back into his car.

> I've had cars with special valet keys - with conventional cars they usually restrict access so they don't unlock the trunk and glove compartment.

So have I, but without any electronics.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms

On the centerline of totality since 1998

O)

[rickman]

kevin93 wrote on 8/22/2017 1:55 PM:
> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 8:09:09 AM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:

> ....

>>
>> That's what I said but that information is not necessary for
>> navigation. Stand-alone navi systems don't have that information
>> (unless supplied by a cell or HD receiver). Without a constant cell
>> connection, cell phone navigation is on exactly the same foot. The
>> only difference is that the cell phone requires an Internet connection
>> to set up the route.
>
> You can use an application that uses locally stored data and not rely upon the data connection - I have done that while traveling abroad where data costs 10 cents a kilobyte.

That's great until you have to alter your route. I hit traffic coming home
yesterday and had to take side roads. With the large storage available and
the size of maps, there is no reason why a GPS can't contain its own
database of roads. That's what hand held GPS receivers do. That's what I
used yesterday to get me home. The only downside was the batteries didn't
last the whole 11 hour trip.

One of the "proper" navigators might have been better if it could have shown
me details of the jams. It was very strange for being "congestion". We
would sit for 15 minutes or more, several times I turned off my engine and
got out of the car. Then it would start moving again and we'd do 60 MPH for
a couple, three miles until we sat again. I've never encountered traffic
conditions with such extreme variations. If I could tell where the
compression waves were occurring, I would have gotten off the highway to get
around them. But I've never seen a GPS with good real time info.

[kevin93]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:13:52 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
..

> > I'm speculating but it's an obvious extension that there will be different cards or you can restrict capabilities of a specific card in some way.
>
> Yes, you are speculating.

Maybe, but I reckon that those features are highly likely - Tesla already has similar features in the Model S.

> There will probably also be ways of loaning an electronic key with defined restrictions in use - you will be able to allow your teenage son to drive the car but with limitations on acceleration, speed, distance etc.
>
> More speculation....
>

Again I 'm extrapolating form existing features in Tesla's or their competitors

> > You may also be able to call up Tesla and after proving identity they will remotely unlock the car without a key at all.
>
> "Call"? If you have a smart phone you can unlock the car. If you don't
> have a phone how can you call? I recall hearing of someone who drove
> outside cell coverage and couldn't get back into his car.

You can borrow a phone? Or call from a landline.

>
> > I've had cars with special valet keys - with conventional cars they usually restrict access so they don't unlock the trunk and glove compartment.
>
> So have I, but without any electronics.

That's not necessary just to restrict access to trunk/glovebox but most keys these days have electronics in them, even though it may not be obvious.

The standard way for the immobilizer to work is to use short range RFID techniques to validate that a valid key is present. The electronics are usually in the head of the key so is unobtrusive and doesn't require a battery.

kevin

[kevin93]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:23:03 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
..

> > You can use an application that uses locally stored data and not rely upon the data connection - I have done that while traveling abroad where data costs 10 cents a kilobyte.
>
> That's great until you have to alter your route. I hit traffic coming home
> yesterday and had to take side roads. With the large storage available and
> the size of maps, there is no reason why a GPS can't contain its own
> database of roads. That's what hand held GPS receivers do. That's what I
> used yesterday to get me home. The only downside was the batteries didn't
> last the whole 11 hour trip.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I stated you could use an app on your phone that uses locally stored data - how is that a problem if you change routes?

The app I used required something like 4GB to store the map for England but that's not a problem these days, my phone has 64GB of storage.

> One of the "proper" navigators might have been better if it could have shown
> me details of the jams. It was very strange for being "congestion". We
> would sit for 15 minutes or more, several times I turned off my engine and
> got out of the car. Then it would start moving again and we'd do 60 MPH for
> a couple, three miles until we sat again. I've never encountered traffic
> conditions with such extreme variations. If I could tell where the
> compression waves were occurring, I would have gotten off the highway to get
> around them. But I've never seen a GPS with good real time info.
>

...

The one in my Toyota does reasonably with data over FM radio. The traffic info seems reasonably up to date but not as good as Apple Maps.

kevin

[rickman]

kevin93 wrote on 8/23/2017 4:46 PM:
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:23:03 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:

> ...

>>> You can use an application that uses locally stored data and not rely upon the data connection - I have done that while traveling abroad where data costs 10 cents a kilobyte.
>>
>> That's great until you have to alter your route. I hit traffic coming home
>> yesterday and had to take side roads. With the large storage available and
>> the size of maps, there is no reason why a GPS can't contain its own
>> database of roads. That's what hand held GPS receivers do. That's what I
>> used yesterday to get me home. The only downside was the batteries didn't
>> last the whole 11 hour trip.
>
> I'm not sure what you're saying here. I stated you could use an app on your phone that uses locally stored data - how is that a problem if you change routes?
>
> The app I used required something like 4GB to store the map for England but that's not a problem these days, my phone has 64GB of storage.

I've not seen an app that downloads the map data for the entire country. I
guess that would be a bit harder for the US although my outdoor GPS has a
base map of the entire country, it isn't very detailed with no info on
smaller roads. My friend used a program that would download the maps for a
route. We had to go off the route because of traffic and without the cell
connection it didn't have map info for that route.

>> One of the "proper" navigators might have been better if it could have shown
>> me details of the jams. It was very strange for being "congestion". We
>> would sit for 15 minutes or more, several times I turned off my engine and
>> got out of the car. Then it would start moving again and we'd do 60 MPH for
>> a couple, three miles until we sat again. I've never encountered traffic
>> conditions with such extreme variations. If I could tell where the
>> compression waves were occurring, I would have gotten off the highway to get
>> around them. But I've never seen a GPS with good real time info.
>>

> ....

>
> The one in my Toyota does reasonably with data over FM radio. The traffic info seems reasonably up to date but not as good as Apple Maps.

I've always wondered how that get that info. I've seen that they have an
antenna in the power cord, now I know why, it's FM band. Still, the Garmin
didn't give you much info on the nature of the congestion and the times I've
seen that in use it didn't warn you until you were on top of the jam. It
didn't seem to have a map display where you could see the congestion like
Google shows.

Most GPS devices are instruction oriented which is what most people want. I
do *much* better with maps and will find the maps provided in the large
Tesla display to be far superior to any GPS in a car or phone I have ever seen.

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

[Clive Arthur]

On 23/08/2017 22:58, rickman wrote:

<snip>

> I've not seen an app that downloads the map data for the entire
> country.  I guess that would be a bit harder for the US although my
> outdoor GPS has a base map of the entire country, it isn't very detailed
> with no info on smaller roads.  My friend used a program that would
> download the maps for a route.  We had to go off the route because of
> traffic and without the cell connection it didn't have map info for that
> route.

I have a Nokia/Windows 32GB Lumia 'phone bought cheap on ebay because
the sim slot is damaged. Works great as a sat-nav and music store, all
the maps are free to download via wi-fi. The USA maps tend to be split
up into states, and larger European countries might have separate
north/south maps etc but it's seamless. Even tiny roads on Greek
islands are shown.

It's fun on a 'plane too, if you have a window seat.

Cheers
--
Clive

[mike]

Mapfactor navigator free is pretty good. Maps are crowd sourced,
so missing stuff off the beaten path.
Actual GPS units with maps are dirt cheap at garage/estate/goodwill sales.

[Dave Platt]

In article <onkti8$f5a$1...@dont-email.me>, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>kevin93 wrote on 8/23/2017 4:46 PM:

>I've not seen an app that downloads the map data for the entire country. I
>guess that would be a bit harder for the US although my outdoor GPS has a
>base map of the entire country, it isn't very detailed with no info on
>smaller roads. My friend used a program that would download the maps for a
>route. We had to go off the route because of traffic and without the cell
>connection it didn't have map info for that route.

Check out OSMAnd, which runs on Android and on iPhones. It downloads
vector versions of the OpenStreetMap data (organized by individual
state or region), and its trip planner can run effectively on the
Android device and will figure, and recalculate routes without needing
any on-line access at all.

There are both "major roads only" and "detailed" maps available for
the U.S. The detailed maps (which are what you'd want for serious
driving-around) are not small... the one for California is around 600
megabytes. You might be able to fit the whole country's detailed maps
onto a 32-gig SD card, if your device can take one.

The route planner isn't perfect, but I've found it to be quite
acceptable. I used it to get my wife and me through southern France a
couple of years ago, and I just used it again on my drive from
California up to Oregon for the eclipse - both in areas where there
was no cell service, and no hope of using an online-only device.