Comment by lotharbot | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lotharbot | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I live in a major metro area and use major interstates for most of my long trips. But the network is still a long way from where it would need to be to support all of my trips.

Here's an example that I've actually done twice in the last two years: Denver, CO to Austin, TX. That's about a 900 mile trip, and a long but tolerable day -- from Denver south to Raton, NM and then southeast through Amarillo, south to Lubbock, and then southeast again. To stay on the supercharger network I'd have to go all the way over to Oklahoma City (on either I-40 or I-70 to I-35), adding 150+ miles to the trip, not to mention longer and more frequent stops that would likely necessitate adding an extra half-day of travel time each way.

My brother lives in Chicago. His trips to Indianapolis would be covered, but not his trips to Denver.

Dallas-Fort Worth is a huge population center, with great supercharger coverage leaving north or south, but not east or west. If you're heading to Atlanta, Memphis, or St. Louis the supercharger network is going to be really inconvenient.

And while the majority of the US population does live in major cities connected by interstates, the majority of the US population has at least one close friend or family member they'd like to visit, who isn't connected by one of the supercharger-served routes. If you made graphs not just of population centers, but of close personal connections, your "graph of graphs" would have quite a few connections that aren't covered by the network. (While truck traffic and passenger traffic are not identical, figure 2.8 of https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/bottlenecks/chap2.cfm suggests quite a few heavily-trafficked routes that aren't covered by the supercharger network.)

It's not my intent to be overly negative. I'm just being realistic, presenting the analysis I did myself about 6 months ago after my old car got wrecked in a hit-and-run. The majority of the time, I'd be happy with a Tesla and the supercharger network, but a couple times a year it would be a massive inconvenience. This is an area where the difference between 95% and 100% is huge. Tesla/superchargers are getting there, but it'll be several years before the infrastructure is in place for a pure electric plugin with a 200 mile range becomes a truly viable vehicle for the majority of people.

"the majority of the US population has at least one close friend or family member they'd like to visit, who isn't connected by one of the supercharger-served routes."

What's the basis for this statement? I mean, sure, if you live in a poorly covered area like Texas, or in an area that has good coverage but is near the edge like Chicago, you're likely to have places to go that aren't covered. But that's not where most people live.

Freight and car traffic are so different that I really see no point in even bringing up that map.

Note that I'm not in any way disbelieving your personal situation. If you live in Dallas and you ever go anywhere that isn't north or south then clearly the network is not suitable for you. I'm not trying to argue otherwise. I'm just arguing that most of the country isn't like Texas.

> "What's the basis for this statement?"

I know people who live all over the country. I see their vacation photos on facebook. And even those who live in pretty well-served areas (like NYC or Boston) don't make 100% of their out-of-town trips along the covered interstates -- sometimes they go visit a cousin in Cleveland, and NYC to Cleveland via I-80 isn't covered by the network. Even NYC to Buffalo is questionably covered.

> "that's not where most people live"

The Metro Statistical Areas of NYC, LA, DC, Philly, Miami, and Boston account for about 56 million people combined. Dallas, Chicago, Houston, and Atlanta are poorly covered and account for 29m. Of the next 10 MSAs on the list (populations in the 3m-4m range), 5 of them are pretty well covered in all directions and 5 have significant gaps. If you account for the whole top 50 MSAs, I only see another 6 that are well-covered along all major travel routes -- bringing the total population in those well-covered areas to around 85m. The US population is around 320m total.

My contention is that the majority of the US population lives in areas that are not well covered, and that even those who live in well-covered areas will on average have at least one trip they'd like to take that isn't served by the network.

Now, don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying the network "sucks" or is "useless" like a previous poster. I'm saying that it's not yet built out to the point where it's suitable for the majority of the population for 100% of trips. It's suitable for the majority of the population for 80-90% of trips, maybe, but not 100%. Those who live in well-covered cities and make all of their trips on well-covered routes are actually in a distinct minority, perhaps one that is well represented on Hacker News, but a minority nonetheless. Which means there will be some market penetration by the Model 3, and other pure-electric vehicles with a ~200 mile range and the ability to recharge quickly, but we're still several years away from the transition from "this is a good solution for some people" to "this is a good solution for almost everyone". Right now, plug-in hybrids are a viable solution for a much larger slice of the population.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com