←back to thread

1321 points kwindla | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.555s | source
Show context
guywithahat ◴[] No.43798166[source]
The issue with this is they claim the cost savings came from not having a screen and other silly features, but that’s not where money is spent.

The real cost savings came a tiny, 150 mile battery. It could easily be <100 miles loaded up after a few years of use, which means there are very few use cases for this truck, and it certainly doesn’t make sense without the tax credit. Cool idea, but there’s no getting around the price of batteries

replies(4): >>43798328 #>>43798336 #>>43798650 #>>43801549 #
ceejayoz ◴[] No.43798328[source]
There are plenty of use cases for a ~100 mile truck.
replies(3): >>43798532 #>>43798579 #>>43798972 #
1. aksss ◴[] No.43798532[source]
There are plenty of use cases in the narrow band that it can operate, but it is a pretty narrow band. Around town commuter in climate that doesn't need AWD/4WD, like great for shopping, commuting, or for small contractors doing jobs. Two people in the vehicle plus luggage, it will be interesting to see what happens to range. Love the concept.
replies(1): >>43799859 #
2. ceejayoz ◴[] No.43799859[source]
That “narrow” band is the vast majority of American driving. People drastically overestimate their needs in this regard.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/07/07/...

> According to data from the U.S. Department of Transportation, 95.1 percent of trips taken in personal vehicles are less than 31 miles; almost 60 percent of all trips are less than 6 miles. In total, the average U.S. driver only covers about 37 miles per day.

> In a study published in 2016, researchers at MIT found that a car with a 73-mile range (like an early version of the Nissan Leaf), charged only at night, could satisfy 87 percent of all driving days in the United States.