Ja ist schon klar, ist korrekt aber als Leser muss man sich über die Datenermittlung bewusst machen: die Daten der ADAC stimmen nur bei 15000km/Jahr bei einem Neukauf jede 5 Jahre, was mir persönlich extrem unrealistisch klingt für Leute die aufs Geld schauen. Der ganze Punkt ist wie viel die Person angeblich gespart hat und mMn ist der größte Posten ziemlich realitätsfremd einkalkuliert.

In München völlig machbar, wenn man nicht als Familie regelmäßig zur Verwandten fährt (was mein Fall ist). Auch nur im S-Bahn Gebiet geht das nicht mehr: wenn die Mietpreisunterschiede mitrechnet, ich frage mich ob die Rechnung doch wieder kippt.

Die Autokosten scheinen aber alles andere als realistisch zu sein, vor allem der Wertverlust rechnet der ADAC nur für Neuwagen mit 15kkm/Jahr über 5 Jahre, die das Großteil des Wertverlustes beinhalteten. Lass ein Auto gebraucht kaufen und 10 Jahre halten, wird der Wertverlust kaum spürbar.

Autofrei bleibt leider ein Traum für viele…

Möglicher Grund: Preis

Ich habe mich vor kurzem ziemlich tief mit dem Thema befasst und hätte gerne diesen Artikel früher lesen können: alles ziemlich gut zusammengefasst!

Kernpunkte für mich aus meinem Deep Dive:

1. Eigener Eigenschutzzeit bestimmen/abschätzen
2. 60% der verlängerten Zeit dank Eincremen in prallen Sonne berechnen (UV Index 7-8, Eigenschutzzeit x LSF x 0,6)
3. Nachcremen zur Erhalt des Schutzes jede 2-3 Stunden und Aufenthalt im Wasser
4. Dünne Kleidung und Schatten nicht überschätzen und mittels Creme sich auch bedeckte Körperteile schützen

Das einzige was mir noch fehlt ist eine praktische Anpassung des notwendigen Schutzfaktor/der Zeit unter Bestrahlung je nach UV Index. Jede Skala (LSF, Hauttyp, UV Index) ist auf unterschiedliche Faktoren basiert und erschwert eine gute Einschätzung (ab UV Index 3 soll schon Schutz notwendig sein, aber wie verändert sich die Eigenschutzzeit, die sich auf Mittagssonne bezieht?)

Sure :) many like that channel and I also used it as a source, it is a valid choice! It is a valuable list, it just needs to be read with the proper context.

Lance Hedrick is awesome, so entertaining!

Agreed, that list doesn’t help much because there is no indication of price points and the grinders are already the good picks among the available pool. I don’t know how good the video is, but I don’t like that channel much.

This might help: https://coffeegeek.com/guides/feature-guides/best-budget-coffee-grinders-for-2026/

I strongly advise against cheap ceramic burrs, with Chinese steel burr grinders being so approachable in price

I use a Timemore C2 since years for AeroPress, neat cheap and reliable: I believe a C2S or C3 would be also a good choice while saving a good chunk of money, but the S3 looks really nice, a really solid option!

Yep, this sad narcissism is exactly what I’m talking about 😆 and probably mostly shared by people not having access to such luxury.

In any case, the awkward or ugly turns heads too, so this car will dutifully accomplish that.

Lol quoting Salvini is like reporting on Rohan quoting Wormtongue.

Ferrari know well what they do, they probably didn’t want a direct competition of the first EV with their ICE cars and opened up another category in their offering. In the meantime, they sold each Luce on display in Italy and the 8% stock drop is mainly due to known investor behavior more than anything else.

I find amusing how much people care about exterior design in terms of known patterns and nostalgia: no interest in the very impressive tech in this car and just shows how badly superficial nowadays internet commenters are.

I think Ferrari is the type of brand where what you see and feel behind the wheel trumps any other feature, including design: exterior of a car are just like 20% of the story, how it moves and how it feels inside is much more important, and the interior looks like nothing else ever before.

Design wise, I only really have problems with the back half side, with big plain surfaces without bite. The view from above is interesting and all design features serve a purpose. There’s beauty in that (but I agree it doesn’t look that attractive).

Price is crazy but whatever, for the target clientele a high price just means more bragging rights…

The Taycan isn’t a SUV though

Ok, less efficient for sure, as an EV carries its own energy storage around for its entire life. Gas is pumped out of the earth, refined, carried all over the world, put into the Ford and then farted out in the atmosphere, each engine revolution. With 7 gas fillings you burn the same weight as 1 EV battery, which lasts around half a million miles (give or take…). Sure the weight an EV carries everywhere is as you say a big (big) hurdle, but with low center of gravity, acceptable range and fast charging when needed, I think is a very good tradeoff.

Furthermore, adding cells doesn’t always mean increase frontal surface area: you can make a car longer or stack modules under the back seats like this Ferrari does.

I agree that EVs tend to be much simpler than combustion engine cars and thus the differentiation potential is more limited or better said technically involved: you cannot just dumbly count the cylinders and get a feeling of a cars “status” (this stopped to be true decades ago, but car enthusiasts are very nostalgic and - at times - irrationally skeptical towards technical progress).

Plus, EVs mostly cancel out the need for pure performance oriented cars vs practical cars: even SUVs have a low center of gravity, high power with torque for days, efficient packaging ensuring large interior volume and weight distribution.

Battery density and extreme weather performance are not yet where they would need to be for a no compromise sports car that screams Ferrari, so they went with something more disruptive - although GT cruisers are as much a Ferrari DNA as any other sports car type.

Do you find the Taycan boring? And based on the reactions, this Luce is everything but 😉

Well, they surely didn’t stop making ICE engines. I encourage you to look more into the motor tech, to see how varied it is and what the potential of different approaches is. It has nothing to do with how the e-bike industry works.

The point of a Ferrari is to go fast and electric vehicles will at some point be much faster than piston engines (they are already, but thermal management, weight and sheer range are holding EVs back.

Constraints are package and cost, you are saying that adding battery cells decreases range, which is mental. EVs can cope very well with weight, but as you say if you want to move through air fast, you need low drag.

I like the design principles, the design in itself works just barely. Ferrari is all form follows function, though, and this has been accomplished. Very bold step and it makes a lot of sense.

They need them so big, to balance out the big flat side surfaces. They look almost too small still to me :D