Semi OT: Tesla Model 3

bitrex wrote on 8/18/2017 7:37 PM:

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!

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

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.

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

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?

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?

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

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

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

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).

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.

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.

Holders are pretty cheap.

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.

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.

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.

Including cost.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

...

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 (s uitably anonymized) to crowdsource the road traffic conditions.

kevin

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.

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.

We are talking about using car features.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Ain't nothing for nothing.

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.

Talking from ignorance, again.

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.

Irrelevant.

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.

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."

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

..

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

Color = significantly more??? Really?

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