Strange charge port placement… aka exactly where the gas tank is on half of normal ICE vehicles. They then try to justify it being strange because Americans don’t back into parking spots most of the time, which is of debatable importance to start with. Then try to say it’s just because it fit Elon’s garage better… But never point out that it’s also where 50% of people are used to their gas cap being already.
People constantly complain online that EVs do things different just because. Tesla doesn’t make a change and leaves things familiar and people also complain. The only possible objectively better placement is which side would be street side parking. But even then that would change depending on which side of the road you drive on still, so people would still complain.
For Tesla, until 2024, charging infrastructure was something Tesla built out on their own with the Supercharger network, not something they relied on third parties for. So it didn’t matter where it was placed since they controlled 99.9% of the charging anyway. They built the chargers with the port location already in mind, and that infrastructure didn’t need to consider anyone else because no one else was using Tesla’s connector despite it being openly available. Now that it’s a standard everyone else is adopting they’re having to update the existing locations to better support other car designs, that has nothing to do with where the port is on Tesla vehicles.
If you believe people online my car would constantly be falling apart and in and out of the shop. In reality I’ve only had to take it in twice, once for new tires, and once for a new AC compressor after Tesla detected was bad before it failed (covered under warranty).
I would not rebuy my car today because there are many more options on the market now, but 5 years ago no other EV could compete. If I needed a new car and I could buy a Tesla from an identical company with a different CEO I would probably consider it…
I have heard entirely opposite experiences from other people - one had to take his car in 40 (!!) times in the span of four or five years.
I think there’s a serious QA issue if some are getting good cars and others are getting garbage that keeps falling apart.
Yeah that sounds like a terrible experience, let’s not pretend it only affects Tesla though. Lemon laws exist because all auto manufacturers run into issues like this (at different rates, Tesla may be worse then others)
The Tesla connector was NOT openly available until late 2022, and wasn’t a fully published standard until 2024. They originally wanted a hefty licensing concession from other vendors. Specifically, they would only license it if they joined a patent pool.
In fact, the current NACS connector isn’t even electrically the same as the one Tesla used in 2021. Superchargers are backwards compatible, but they have to support multiple standards. It also means that older Teslas can’t use the growing network of NACS chargers without an upgrade.
Other companies being unwilling to accept the licensing terms doesn’t mean the option was unavailable.
Either way though, none of that has anything to do with port placement, which is what the article is trying to claim is strange for whatever reason.
You could put a price tag of eleventy billion dollars on something and say it isn’t unavailable. When you’re effectively handing over your business for it, it practically is.
tldr
musk rented some place. the location on the car was most convenient to him.
tltldr
muski is a narcissist asshole
Without even reading, I thought, “on a whim?” The answer, unsurprisingly, is yes.
He told his SpaceX engineers to base it’s rocket design from the movie the dictator.
“It should be pointy.”
What’s wrong with reverse parking?
- Backwards parking is actually easier because your front wheels turn.
- It’s better for your future self. Backing out of a parking spot with reduced visibility is harder and can be dangerous.
- Overall safety. I used to work in a company where reverse parking was mandatory because in case of an emergency the parking lot could be evacuated faster.
- Better visibility when leaving the parking spot is safer for other traffic participants
Nothing is wrong with reverse parking, just like nothing is wrong with front parking.
Personally I front park because I feel it’s safer pulling in, so I can ensure I have the space I need to back out. It’s the routine I have, that works for me. I know lots of people who have their backing in routine and it works for them.
We’re all wired differently, we might get there on a different path, but we’re all headed in the same direction.
You flow as you flow :-) Happy cruising!
Very valid points and I park reversed most of the time as well. However slanted parking is quite common in store fronts.
I saw slanted parking for the first time in an underground garage. It was so much easier to park and get out. I guess they probably lose one parking spot on each row with it, but technically the rows can be narrower.
I’m on this level about it: https://matthewdicks.com/2016-8-1-backing-into-a-parking-spot/
I have to mention I have a reverse camera with guidance lines. I can back into a parking spot nearly as fast and swift as I do forward parking.
I’m interested in knowing more about where you worked that had that detailed of an evacuation plan. I know that emergency services (police, etc) do that in case a call comes in, but that’s not exactly an evacuation.
I used to be an automation engineer. The specific plant that had these evacuation instructions processes petrochemical products.
If you don’t have to do it for a valid reason (safety), I’d say you are pretty much just inconveniencing everyone around you.
How? If you’re not backing into your spot when parking, you’ll be backing out when leaving the spot.
Because it takes longer to back in than to back out? Read the article that someone else linked
That’s a skill issue?
Backing in implies the spot is behind you. If there is someone following you and you decided to drive past a parking spot, stop, switch to reverse, then maybe park in one smooth motion (but also maybe not), they are going to have to back up to get out of your way, then wait while you definitely park slower than someone who is driving forward.
So… no, not a skill issue.
charge ports should always be on the right, because it allows street side charging. VW is the only one who’s got this right.
And what about countries that drive on the left?
get with the times. /s
More seriously, most parts of the car already need to be changed for the RHD market. punching a hole in the front left fender instead of the front right is not a big problem, and the cable is easy enough to reroute.
get with the times. /s
The collapsed British times or the currently collapsing US times?
if there’s an XO mandating right-hand drive in the next few weeks, you’ll know which.
This is really the only valid argument for moving it. But even then, it would depend on what side of the street you drive on, albeit that would be a smaller issue since you’d only have the British and a few other former colonies that still drive on the wrong side to worry about.
The simpler answer is just that street side parking and charging wasn’t really a factor when this was being determined. Hell, third party charging at all wasn’t really a thing.
The expectation was you’d have a garage at home and you’d install a charger, or the Superchargers which were designed for the charger location. One of the primary advantages of an EV is always having a full charge when you need it, not having to stop to charge unless you’re on a trip. Tesla built their charging infrastructure themselves, so they had complete control over that, and none of them use on street parking. The expectation was people buying $80k+ vehicles will probably have a garage and can install a home charger. The cheaper models came way after that.
I’m actually disappointed its not frat-boy humor. Just more of, even when he’s actually pragmatic, its in a way that everyone else has to live with.
We’ve always got his model names for the juvenile humor.
Nah. It was juvenile of them to insist the E had to be a 3, as if children would be the ones buying the cars.
That’s because Ford would have sued the dogshit out them.
Wow, such a bold claim when you don’t know what you’re talking about about.
Ford already had the rights to a vehicle named “Model E”. So the closest way to achieve the similar design language they wanted was a stylized 3… Which also worked since it was their third model (excluding the roadster which was no longer made).
