The SUV is the perfect "form factor" for an electric vehicle because they are typically large and heavy so the big battery pack will not hurt so much in the weight budget. The Model S weighs in at around 2100kg, when similarly sized cars with internal combustion engines are around 1400-1700kg.
The Model 3 has potential to shift the whole market if they can provide a practical electric family car for the average people living in suburban areas.
I completely disagree on the SUV being the perfect "form factor" for electric. At least if the SUV is being used for things like carrying gear for an excursion or off-roading. In those cases, it is a terrible form factor (especially with the gull-wing doors that prevent you from using a roof rack). Off-roading isn't as efficient at regenerative braking compared to stop and go traffic in an urban area. They go to areas not at all served by charging facilities let alone superchargers. They generally need even greater range than urban only cars. All of these things make an electric SUV not the SUV for me.
If you just mean the silly way Americans use SUV's (to simply be taller than the other cars on the road) then maybe it is a decent form factor.
No, most Tesla SUV drivers will not go off road. The Model X is a "crossover" SUV with very limited off-road capability. You can tell in photos: its ground clearance is low and it doesn't have large suspension travel. It's going to take sales from the Lexus RX, Mercedes M-Class, BMW X series, etc. Nobody takes those cars off-road.
I used to share your disdain for SUVs until I dated someone who drove one. They can be really useful for carrying cargo and the smaller ones get decent fuel economy.
That said, I think a lot of SUV buyers are motivated by fear. They feel that collisions are inevitable so they want to drive a big armored box. They want 4WD even here in the Southern USA where it snows 2 days per year. I think a lot of them have kids and it's one more part of the protective worrying parent mentality.
Personally I can't stand the handling of tall vehicles.
> Personally I can't stand the handling of tall vehicles.
There was a time when I loved the handling of my 3-series with sport suspension. Now, I just want something that makes my toddler less pukey on these shitty northeastern roads.
The smaller ones may get decent fuel economy but they can't carry much cargo.
To take two examples I shopped for last year, the cargo space for a Ford Escape is equal to that of a Prius v, but the Escape costs significantly more for equivalent features and even with "decent" fuel economy it burns twice as much gas. I wanted something that could tow a trailer but ended up not going with any of the small SUVs I looked at, because they just couldn't hold a whole lot, and they weren't worth the premium.
I think people may overestimate the cargo space of small SUVs, partly because the shape hits our volume-estimation biases, and partly because people "know" that SUV means large cargo capacity. Big ones will haul a lot, but small ones are mostly just funny-shaped cars.
Your speculation about fear is spot on. I've lost count of how many times I've heard people say that they want an SUV because it's safer and because they can see better, even though the first is typically untrue and the second is a pretty small effect (not to mention that they're basically ruining it for everybody else).
Whether it's a crossover based on a truck or car platform makes a difference. My girlfriend's crossover is on a truck platform, and handles like one. We recently test drove a newer crossover built on a sedan platform, and it drives more like a sedan.
That's probably right. In which case it's comparison between "small SUV" and "crossover". I think the Lexus RX may be the former, unless they changed the platform from her 1st gen RX.
The RX is based on the Camry. AFAIK, the only small SUVs based on truck frames are the Xterra (Nissan Frontier frame) and the FJCruiser (toyota Tacoma)
Or you use the SUV to carry your kids and stuff around. An SUV is bigger and more comfortable than most cars.
- Easier to fit car seats and people in
- Seats 8 (as opposed to 5) on the rare occasion that you want to
- Has four wheel drive, so handles better in the snow
- Has a trailer hitch for your bike rack, which is more convenient than trunk mounted ones.
- A roof rack for sheet goods
- Enough cargo space for suitcases, moving, or a trip to the home center
You can get by with a smaller car, but the SUV form factor provides lots of capability, which is nice to have whenever you want it.
I've got one sedan (an Accord) and an SUV (a Pilot), both have their place.
> Or you use the SUV to carry your kids and stuff around. An SUV is bigger and more comfortable than most cars. - Easier to fit car seats and people in - Seats 8 (as opposed to 5) on the rare occasion that you want to - Has four wheel drive, so handles better in the snow - Has a trailer hitch for your bike rack, which is more convenient than trunk mounted ones. - A roof rack for sheet goods - Enough cargo space for suitcases, moving, or a trip to the home center
IOW, its a station wagon -- but with a light truck frame to fall into what was (at the time the class was introduced) a regulatory loophole of being a "light truck" rather than a "passenger auto", and therby exempt from certain safety and efficiency regulations -- accompanied by enormous blitz of marketing propaganda to shift consumer demand from "passenger autos" to the various new classes that fell into the "light truck" loophole (minivans and SUVs.)
The safety regulation loophole was closed, IIRC, in the late 1990s, and the efficiency loophole was changed in 2007 (though there still is one for very large vehicles), which is why "crossovers" -- that is, vehicles that still target the demanded created by the SUV marketing blitz, but no longer have the costs associated with the features required to hit the regulatory loopholes SUVs were originally aimed at -- became a thing.
The main need the SUV form factor fills is an emotional need created by a marketing blitz designed to enable the auto industry to take advantage of regulatory loopholes that largely don't even exist any more.
A cross-over SUV like a Ford Edge gets similar gas mileage to a Minivan (say a Honda Odyssey), is easier to park (a foot and a half shorter), and the higher ride-height makes it much easier to wrestle squirming toddlers into their car seats.
Yeah, but then I can fit a kayak and two bicycles inside it. And still get more than 20MPG. Which isn't near as much as I'd like, but for when I can't bike to somewhere (not going to tow a kayak on a bike) it gets the job done.
Oddly, the only cars I've ever had were minivans. Got them off-lease from a family member.
Which really isn't that bad. Slightly less ride comfort than some SUVs, but better interior luxuries for the price and much more versatile in an urban environment, with better gas mileage.
Really, the worst thing about driving a minivan is other drivers. People have such a perception of minivans being slow and pokey that people will attempt to pass you on the freeway regardless of the speed you are travelling. If you drive a minivan and another vehicle on a regular basis, how other cars treat you is very noticeable.
Never had a problem in my area with that. I will say a minivan far surpasses an SUV in usefulness though. I liken a minvan to a pickup truck that you can actually seat people inside of. It's great, you can haul anything you can imagine, beds, freezers, couches, and if you're not busy hauling giant appliances around, you can put the seats in and haul around a bunch of people. The gas mileage is on par with an SUV, and you never get any flack from the police. Who's gonna bother a someone in a minivan? Nobody that's who.
I've never noticed that. But I've got a pretty heavy foot. More often than not, I'm the one passing people. We have a Honda Odyssey, which is peppy as far as minivans go, so maybe that makes a difference.
Same here, on all counts, but that's what makes it noticeable to me. When I'm already over the speed limit by 5-10 on the freeway, aggressive passing, like I'm holding up traffic, is very noticeable.
This seems very unlikely. If they were annoyed at you for driving a minivan, it's an awful lot of annoyance to pass you and then continue speeding. I suspect it's only your perception; perhaps you're being self-concious.
That's just it, the reason I noticed it was because they didn't continue at that speed. They pass, then they slow down to slower than my original speed (I'm also careful not to speed up at all if someone is passing me, that's stupid and reckless). I had thought about it being my own perception, but the fact is that I didn't first assume it was because I was driving a minivan. For the first few months I was just sort of annoyed that people seemed to be driving stupid, but mostly when I drove the minivan. Then when thinking about it it occurred to me that it was likely the minivan and perceptions that surround it that cause the problem.
My working theory is that people have bad experiences being stuck behind a slow minivan (which I'll admit, happens), and those experiences can be particularly annoying because it's hard to see past minivans. As people find themselves behind a minivan in a situation where their speed isn't quite yet stabilized (such as shortly after entering the freeway), they either assume it's going slow or just decide they want to not be behind a minivan, so pass.
I have had corroboration from other minivan owners I know, but I am open to being wrong or misinterpreting the information. I suspect it's less to do with that and more to do with specific traffic patterns that make it more or less likely (such as light traffic allowing easy passing), which may be more or less prevalent in certain areas.
Huh. I went from a bmw 3 series, to a motorcycle, to a nissan maxima with unrepaired body damage to a minivan, and just recently got a motorcycle again.
I haven't gotten a ticket in anything but the 3 series... but I don't think that is entirely perception. I drove a lot faster in the 3 series than I did in any other vehicle; The thing feels as stable at 90 as the maxima or the minivan feels at 70. (Now, I don't know how much "feel" has to do with safety, if anything. But my gut was comfortable going a lot faster in the 3-series than in anything else.)
But... yeah, my experience was that people expected a lot more aggression out of me in the 3 series. Wait a microsecond after the light turns green? that's a honk and the finger. In the minivan, from what I've seen, the expectation is that you are a slow driver that is distracted by kids. People go around, but they aren't angry at you like they are when you are in a bmw.
Then I had a Suzuki SV650. Now, sometimes people didn't see me, and once someone practically ran it over when I parked too close to a car, but the overall experience was reasonable. People were even mostly tolerant of, you know, going too slow in turns and stuff.
I probably got the widest berth in the maxima. It was like that old Saturday night live commercial where they were selling a luxury car that looked like garbage on the outside so that it wouldn't get stolen. The inside was all leather and heated seats. But on the outside, the paint was degraded, and the rear passenger door was caved in. It also had a bunch of smaller scars from my brothers learning how to drive, and because I'm terrible at parking. But yeah, the car was big and said "watch out, I might not have very good insurance" so people kind of got out of my way.
Really, the most aggression I have ever experienced was on the motorcycle. I recently got myself another motorcycle (after being minivan-only for several years. This one is an older oilhead; a '96 R850R) - and the other day? An old lady actually got out of her car and started yelling at me because she felt that I took a parking spot she was waiting for. I was... speechless. It was one of those 'what the fuck' moments where you literally have no words. She ended up dumping a soda all over my bike and me.
I'm pretty sure that'd get you towed around here. (silicon valley, specifically, this was the rivermark shopping center in santa clara) I mean, I'd probably get away with it for the time I was in the grocery store, but why should I play towing roulette?
Last time I tried to not take up a parking spot, I got towed. I was outside my girlfriend's apartment; there was a bit that was paved, but too small to be a parking spot for a car. It had a bollard in it; No firehydrant or anything, though. I wasn't blocking access to anything.
But I come out the next morning, and I've been towed. Since then, eh, I generally take up a parking spot, because getting towed is like $300, even if your time is free.
Most SUVs will never see a day of offroad driving in their lives. That's good because most of them aren't suited for it in a stock configuration anyway.
> I completely disagree on the SUV being the perfect "form factor" for electric. At least if the SUV is being used for things like carrying gear for an excursion or off-roading.
Most SUVs are driven by soccer moms taking their kids to school. That's the "form factor" I intended in GP.
If we would be talking about an off road vehicle, I'd agree with you.
The reaction to this comment is really depressing. Obviously exDM69 means 'perfect' in a certain context. IE, does being electric make an SUV better at being an SUV and doing the things that the people who own SUVs, own them for. The comments and voting can't help but be all about how people feel about SUVs in general.
Though, I think we're starting to see a lot more crossovers appear in the US (as opposed to full-sized SUVs). A crossover doesn't imply off-roading prowess, as one of the common characteristics of a crossover is being built on a car platform.
I'm hearing the term more in everyday discussion, and I'm seeing as many or more crossovers than SUVs these days in the US southeast.
> If you just mean the silly way Americans use SUV's (to simply be taller than the other cars on the road) then maybe it is a decent form factor.
Americans don't really buy SUVs for any rational reason, there was just a period of very intense propaganda directed at creating the idea that they needed SUVs as an attempt by the auto industry to get around US government safety and efficiency regulations from which "light trucks", which SUVs were carefully designed to qualify as, were exempted (Minivans where an earlier focus of the same PR effort, for the same reason.)
("Crossovers" are basically what happened when the original motivation was gone but the industry had already created the demand, so they went back to making passenger autos that weren't built on truck frames, but still had to make them styled like SUVs to sell in the market conditions their own intense marketing efforts had created -- since that was cheaper than doing another marketing blitz to get people to stop wanting things that look like SUVs.)
Lots of SUV's are bound to the concrete jungle, I doubt it is an american phenomenon. I see loads of SUV's incapable of going off-road here in Denmark, and I doubt the more southern parts of Europe are different.
I don't consider the Model X a true SUV. Tesla calls it a "crossover" which I suppose is the industry lingo for fake SUV's like the Model X.
I can see how it would be a good alternative to a minivan, though. So maybe they should call it a "crossover" minivan? (I suppose calling it a minivan wouldn't be as attractive as SUV.)
A "crossover" is the industry term for what amounts to a station wagon with SUV-like styling.
"Minivan" and (non-"crossover") "SUV" are two names for what amounts to a station wagon built on light-truck frames -- with originally somewhat different demographic targeting in the marketing, but eventually the "SUV" class's marketing broadened to subsume the target that minivan marketing had been focussed on -- originally to fit loopholes in passenger safety and efficiency regulations (which have since largely been closed, hence, the emergence of the "crossover", which was a reversion since the expense of the regulatory dodge was no longer particularly useful.)
the silly way Americans use SUV's (to simply be taller than the other cars on the road)
Everyone I know who owns an SUV has multiple children. I have four children, and with that a minivan and an SUV. Kids come with a lot of accessories, especially with modern safety requirements of car seats and so on.
It is really unfortunate that every discussion about SUVs turns into some sort of oddball moralizing (especially bizarre when they're contrast with minivans, also 5000lb+ vehicles with largely the same fuel economy). SUVs actually have a very practical purpose. They of course use more fuel, generally, though on the flip side that awareness of fuel makes me less likely to take flippant drives (all things tend to equalize, generally).
I'm sure weight matters a little but torque is what gets the vehicle moving and regenerative breaking puts more back into the batteries with more weight.
Aerodynamics seem to be a more critical factor for electric vehicles. You want the vehicle to be able to cruise while using as little energy as possible, and weight doesn't matter as much for maintaining speed.
It's the same reason that most modern trains are electric or diesel-electric rather than pure diesel.
Many aircraft tow tractors are also electric these days, and they haul some fairly heavy loads.
You realize of course that regenerative braking puts more* back into the batteries for heavier vehicles only because a lot more was necessary to speed them up in the first place?
I do realize that regenerative breaking does not 100% cancel out the energy required to accelerate the vehicle.
The Model X will be ~10% heavier and Musk has stated recently that the range is expected to be ~10% less than that of the Model S.
In other words, obviously a heavier vehicle will use more power than a lighter vehicle, that's true with any fuel source, but it's a small difference in this case. They could put a battery pack with 15% more capacity in it and the range would be about the same as the Model S, but they're probably going to use the same battery as the Model S for compatibility and manufacturing reasons.
Electric vehicles aren't rockets; much of the energy expended to accelerate can be recovered through braking.
The energy required to maintain a given speed is almost independent of weight. Most energy loss at speed is from wind resistance. Rolling resistance will be affected some by weight, but it's not the dominant factor at speed.
Its unfortunate that the liquid fuels are so energy dense compared to present battery tech. Adding 1L of gasoline gives a very large marginal gain in range, but adding 1 battery has rapidly diminishing returns. As batteries become more energy dense, we'll probably see people doing silly crap like VW did, big fuel tank and "Look! It goes 1000KM between fuel ups"
> The Model 3 has potential to shift the whole market if they can provide a practical electric family car for the average people living in suburban areas.
I actually don't think the target audience is families living in suburban areas. That's not the target audience of the BMW 3 series or Benz C class. I think their target audience is young professionals who can't afford a car that quickly costs over $100k but care about driving a practical, electric, professional car.
Even though I could (barely) afford a Model S, I don't want one due to size. I think that is a market; people who like small, sporty, luxury cars, are relatively price insensitive ($40k vs. $60k for the Model III is insignificant to me; I'll keep it for 5-10y and drive 150-200k miles, so fuel/maintenance/etc. savings dominate purchase price), etc.
Not just young professionals but technology lovers who are not millionaires. The car has it's own API and the cost savings verses a normal ICE vehicle could really add up in this newer low cost vehicle. No oil, gasoline, etc.
The weight of the model S is pretty much irrelevant in day to day driving. Handling is fantastic. SUVs are more challenging as electric vehicles because for most families they are the default road-trip vehicles and, at least for now, long road trips, as opposed to daily commutes, are a little more inconvenient for electric cars.
"The SUV is the perfect "form factor" for an electric vehicle because"
Don't agree. SUV has big wind drag (not sure if that is the right word for it) which reducing efficiency in gas powered vehicles. I can't imagine that it isn't the same effect in electric powered. (I mean that's obvious, right or am I missing something?)
>In terms of real usefulness, it is a horrid "form factor" that wastes fuel and space
I never understood this. I used to drive a Land Rover Discovery 3, which is a SUV. And then I had a rental Open(or Vauxhall, for UK folk) Insignia for two weeks - your typical 5 door sedan, a typical "car" which does not invoke hate in most people. And I could not possibly understand how such a "large" car, with footprint as large as my Land Rover, could be so small inside! It took as much space on the road as my "horrid waste of space" Land Rover, yet it could only take 5 people instead of 7, and probably half the luggage. But if you put these two next two each other, you would be a lot more quickly criticized for driving the SUV, purely because it's an SUV. But both cars had nearly identical length and width - so how is the SUV taking more space? If anything, the Insignia was half as practical as the land rover.
So what is the solution? Have one small car when you are driving alone,and one huge for driving with family? That works somewhat - but I am fairly certain that the ecological impact of producing two cars is larger than that of driving one oversized one.
Lets be honest here, if we are having to stay so large to get any real range from batteries then the tech truly isn't ready yet.
One reason I haven't been all that impressed with the S is because even as large as it is its only 250 or so miles per charge. Some of the elements in its design are really good, but battery storage isn't prime time when it takes the majority of the car to get so little range.
Call me when the tech will take a Focus/Leaf sized EV near 300 miles for around 30k, then I will listen. Right now the only good bet is a range extender, fortunately the two big ones; i3 and Leaf, are affordable by a great many more drivers.
Not to be a contrarian, but there isn't really any reason to believe that the Model 3 will be any better than the already-on-the-market Nissan Leaf. Tesla hasn't really invented any new technology here that would be a game changer. The vague claim of a "closer alliance of Tesla and its battery supplier" isn't going to suddenly double the mileage when compared to the Lead- and it's not like Nissan hasn't been streamlining their production process for the past few years either.
The Model S is exceptional in that you can pay a ton of money and get an electric car with a very respectable range. But that doesn't really scale down when - like the article points out - most of the cost is in the battery.
On a technical note, you mean range, not mileage. I don't think that anyone is claiming that the Model 3 will have electrical motors that are twice as efficient as the Leaf's motors or anything -- the claim is that it will have batteries that hold more energy than the Leaf's.
I think you're right to be at least a little skeptical of the Model 3. For one, it seems like something of a stretch to say that they'll be on-the-market in 3.5 years with a vehicle that will feature batteries from a factory that hasn't even found a site yet.
That said, I imagine that the Leaf will have a better range in 2017 as well. It seems clear at this point that better battery tech is the final hurdle for electric vehicles. It doesn't seem completely implausible that with a lot of resources thrown at the problem, they'll be able to lower the cost of increasing the energy capacity of batteries in the next few years.
People who would buy a Model 3 would never buy a Leaf because it performs like a Leaf. The target market is BMW 3 series buyers who buy the car because it looks nice, has tons of power, and handles well.
They're going after the guy who wants a 3 series with instant torque. Range is a secondary consideration as long as it gets over 200.
If in 2017 Nissan will have a cheaper, less powerful car with a 200+ range that will also be cheaper than the Model3 - then I think Tesla will be left in the dust.
The Model3 is their chance to break out of the luxury market and the Leaf is going to squeeze them really hard from the low end.
I think at the point, the main thing setting them apart is the Supercharger network. The financial viability of that endeavor is a bit unknown.. but if it translates into significant car sales, then it may pay off.
I don’t think you understand the point I was trying to make. I could be wrong, but I don’t think Tesla intends mass-market to mean targeted at the Camry buyer. The person who is looking at a Tesla isn’t looking at a Nissan Leaf as a fungible product, similar to how an iPhone 3G or 4 buyer didn’t really see Android as a viable alternative in 2008-2009 or even now. To a large extent, the target customer is price insensitive within the 35-45k price range and is an enthusiast looking at entry level luxury alternatives like the BMW 3 series, Audi A4, Mercedes C class, etc.
As someone who has driven a Model S, the experience is so much better than an ICE vehicle (acceleration, technology, not having to go to a gas station), that the other entry level luxury vehicles, while very nice, feel very obsolete and uninspiring.
I do, however, that the market will be much bigger than anyone anticipates because many will realize the cost is similar to a Camry after gas savings. I also think they’ll drive one of these vehicles and realize that it’s a much better experience than other vehicles.
Luxury car manufacturers are very good projecting who their customers aren't. To a certain extent, a car purchase says something about who you are not as well as who you are. A lot of iPhone buyers are saying I'm not an Android as much as they're saying I'm an iPhone user. A lot of Tesla's target customers for the Model 3 fall into the same category.
I disagree with your assessment that Tesla doesn't have any new technology that will improve their efficiency over Nissan.
Tesla builds their own powertrains and battery management systems, which are good enough that other automakers license or purchase these components from them.
I also believe that Tesla has efficiency advantages due to the high degree of automation they've built into their factories, as well as the lack of dealership markups. Tesla's profit margin on the Model S is excellent compared to many other automakers, which leads me to believe that they will also be able to offer more for less with the Model 3.
I think the fact that Tesla "gave away" all their patents is a sign that this isn't a battle over technology, but a game of marketing, branding, and efficient manufacturing. I seriously doubt Tesla has some secret factory sauce that Nissan (who's been building cars for decades) doesn't have access to.
I disagree with this. The key isn't the technology but building the better driving experience.
If someone comes out with a vehicle with on demand torque, a 0-60 time under 5.5s, excellent handling, and most importantly, great styling and interior, I'd consider it. Tesla vehicles are able to stand on the merits of the driving experience, EV or not. That's not something no other EV manufacturer can currently say.
To drive my point home a little more, this car's sweet spot isn't really the Prius owner or someone who would consider the Leaf.
It's the guy who won't buy a car with a > 6 second 0-60 time. The guy who wants to step on it and be put in the back of their seat but for whom 50-60k is a little bit too much to spend. They can't afford an M3 but want an M3 performance so they buy a 335, a G37 / Q50, or an IS350. I've personally discounted the IS250 because the acceleration is too slow for me.
If the Model 3 gets 5.3 0-60 or better, it's a no-brainer.
I drive a CTS (3.6l is slow in that heavy vehicle). I want a Model 3. I think I fit this stereotype. I drive 120+ miles round trip. If I could do that paying $.07kwh vs $3-$4 per gallon I would do it. Also I'd buy a Model S if I could afford one right now. The only thing I'd like to see if an AWD system in a Tesla but I'm not sure it makes sense from an efficiency standpoint.
There's also the different, not better concept. The Model 3 will be a sedan, the leaf is a hatchback. Etc. All the same reasons there is a market for the many kinds of ICE vehicles we see today.
"the car was going to be called the Model E, until Ford said it already had that name trademarked" (...) "We'll have three bars to represent it and it'll be S III X!"
3 also happens to be the '1337' slang variant of E.
I get that it might be, but if I subscribed to all these news sites, the nytimes, the wsj, the economist, the information, the financial times, I'd be out a lot of money each month for what is basically an "I don't know how to use the icognito tab on my browser"-tax. I want to support these sites but they are too expensive, and it's too easy to circumvent their paywall. I actually subscribed to the nytimes for a month and I felt stupid for it, which is a weird feeling to have about it.
The Information has a real pay wall, and it's actually the most expensive out of this list, but if I subscribed to it, at least I wouldn't feel like a jackass for doing so. These companies want the Google crawling and the subscription fees, but it seems like you can only have one.
So, you are saying, if the NYT did not allow casual use, then you would be fine paying for it, but the fact that it allows you to check out the site 5-10 times/month for free, means that you are not okay paying for it.
Have you considered that if you are reading the site so often that you need to keep killing your cookies, that you perhaps might be getting some value from the site, and it wouldn't be unreasonable for you to to reward the creators of such great content?
> So, you are saying, if the NYT did not allow casual use
The NyTimes is not doing that for "casual use" they are doing it to allow Google's crawler access to the site so it can be indexed and show up on search engine result pages. This is why the incognito trick works on so many news websites.
> that you need to keep killing your cookies
I don't kill my cookies, I just cmd+shift+n to open incognito.
As for supporting sites I value, I visit so many of these sites, and read them, that I would potentially face financial ruin if I had to pay for them all. I get it, I want to support them, but I cannot, not at those prices, not when I can just open my incognito window, and not when even though I pay for the site I still have to deal with ads that roll down content as I'm trying to read it.
And I imagine you might have adblock enabled while you're sitting there judging me about not giving them cash for accessing the site. ;)
The incognito trick has nothing to do with the Googlebot. Sites can definitively know the Googlebot by its IP, and Google doesn't care about if other visitors with no referrer see a paywall. The probably reason the New York Times doesn't use a more comprehensive paywall is that those generally have failure modes like accidentally blocking humans who haven't been on your site before. Sites like the New York Times have weak paywalls to be user-friendly, not because it's required by Google.
It doesn't have anything to do with Googlebot, it has to do with Google's "ghosting" rules: You can't have inaccessible pages be indexed, you need to permit visitors X views free per day/month.
NYTimes has a leaky paywall to allow people to try their site, become interested, and then become subscribers. It has nothing to do with Google. Google only requires that a search result allows a person to click on results. WSJ has a stronger paywall that allows clicks through Google. That's why with the WSJ you have to do a search on a story headline, and then click on the results - you can't go directly through WSJ.
Re: Incognito Mode - the reason that works is it starts you out without any cookies. You've effectively cleared "all" your coookies.
Re: Supporting these sites - if you would really potentially face financial ruin, then that's a much different reason than you originally gave, which was that you felt like you would be a jackass for reading a site that you could hack into for free. The "I can't afford it" at least makes sense. I've personally decided that $3.75/week is worth it for me , but your financial situation may be different than mine, and I can at least appreciate that logic.
Re: Adblock - don't use it - though, not for any desire to support the sites, just isn't a big enough deal for me to worry about it.
>> "I want to support these sites but they are too expensive"
I've been thinking about this a bit recently. Back before these sites were free online we picked the publication we liked and purchased it. We didn't need to read every publication and someone who chose to read the NYT was informed on the same world events as someone who read the WSJ. Then the internet came along and we read bits of everything for free. Now we have to go back to the old model it feels strange - but it shouldn't. Whether you chose to subscribe to and read the NYT or WSJ doesn't matter. You'll get the same information each with it's own slant. Same as before. You aren't going to miss anything. The publications need to convince consumers that this is ok and they don't need to be checking 10 different publications each day. Whether they can do that or not is another thing (short attention spans appear to be a big and growing problem) but I've definitely tried to pare down the number of sites I read and subscribe to and I've tried to focus on the best sources rather than 10 almost identical stories with slight variations. I've found it freeing.
What we need is like a spotify for news. Anybody can put their news in and if a reader reads an article that news company gets part of the subscription fees.
I don't know if that would be better or worse though!
I like that idea. Although I have to say switching from lots of sources to a few good ones has increased my productivity (less time wasted reading similar articles). There are some things that I think people like NYT need to sort out with their subscriptions. Charging for web access separate from mobile access is a joke. Charge one fee ($20 per month) to read on any electronic device. I can't see how their current fragmented pricing model doesn't seriously hurt their conversion rate.
Well users could sort out by publisher so they can read news only from their local newspaper and/or the NYT or something else or if they'd rather read all tech news, a place like HN can be integrated somehow to allow for the dynamic community sorted news.
I think your argument fails to account for sites like Hacker News. Yeah, sure you'll get the more or less same information if only read one news site or the other, but if HN links to (say) the Economist, but you can't read it because you're only subscribed to the NYT, whilst others only have WSJ, then you're not reading and discussing the same article as everyone else.
I did exactly this... for a while. It just ends up being a huge pain in the ass. It's fine if you only ever go to the same sites, but it really becomes onerous when you use sites like, well, HN, which has you clicking on links to addresses that you've never visited before. Not worth the hassle imo.
The $35,000 will be starting after rebate, so $42,500 out the door with zero upgrades. I'm pessimistic they can get that low of a price with 300 mile range, so I'm predicting that is an optional battery upgrade from the base price. There are options you will want like the tech package which is $3k+ on the S.
I snagged a 40kwh S before they discontinued it. Had it for a year, never needed to charge anywhere but my home. I get about 135 miles on a charge and it has been more then enough for commutes around the metro.
Source? This is what they said during one of their earnings calls:
Barclays Capital – Question about $35,000 price point – before or after tax credits?
Deepak Ahuja (CFO): The $35,000 does not assume that the $7,500 federal tax credit is no longer available, but that the 35,000 Tesla Gen 3 pricing is without any subsidy.
Elon Musk: Helpful to have credits, but Tesla is not counting on them.
The tax credit applies for the first 250,000 (domestic?) units per manufacturer though, so if you pre-order a Model 三 you might be able to get it for $27,500.
This was said over a year ago in an earnings call. I hope he is correct. It's a detail that is regularly omitted, wonder why. That tax credit will be available for the gen 3 based off of S sales. There are also phase out periods for the credit when the sales target has hit for 50% and 25% of tax credit. Telsa will want to have optimal production capabilities when that time comes.
Citation? You might be right, but I thought I read that 35k was before the tax credit.
For that matter, I believe the current EV tax credit is only available for the first X number of EVs produced by a given manufacturer. It's possible the same credit won't be available anymore by the time the 3 comes out. Or on the other hand, there have been talks of raising the credit to 10k and making it permanent. Hard to know what will happen in the next few years.
Tesla always advertises the after rebate price. Nothing makes me think they would change that now. You are right that it is possible the rebate won't be available when this launches. I also doubt they can hit 2017 but we will see I guess.
If they could do come close to launch, actually hit that price with no rebate, and hit the 300 mile claim I would be very impressed (and in line to buy) but I think all of that is not adding up.
edit: according to a post above Tesla said they were not including the tax rebates. So that means you could get into a Model 3 for $27k. I really don't see how they can do that and 300mile range. That's a huge price cut from a model s. Makes me think it's not going to be up to the same quality/luxury feel that the model S has.
Which battery option do you have. 135 miles out of what is supposed to be 200 mile range doesn't seem so great. I need at the very least 120mile guaranteed to make my commute.
It's a 60kwh battery software limited to 40kwh. In other words, it allows me to charge to 66% on a 60kwh battery. I could pay $10k to unlock the extra 60 miles of charge, but not worth it to me.
The Model 3 has potential to shift the whole market if they can provide a practical electric family car for the average people living in suburban areas.