Slashdot Mirror

More Volts on the road than Teslas?

In 2018, 18306 Volts were sold vs. 139782 Model 3s
In the first three months of 2019, 2520 Volts vs 22425 Model 3s

Even just the Model S or Model X outsell the Volt, in number of cars sold, while being a LOT more expensive.

https://insideevs.com/monthly-...

"Everyone" is not moving to EVs. The top 3 selling vehicles in the US are pickup trucks.

What's the connection? Electric works just as well for pickups as anything else. Lots of electric pickups are due to come out in the next year or two.

Of course, pre-heating an ICE will not affect the range of the car, but managing the temperature of an EV's battery pack will. Charging an EV from a simple block heater pole can be done if you have plenty of time, doesn't trip a fuse (especially if you are not the only one) and doesn't piss off the parking lot owner for upping his electricity bill :-D Though some have converted them to charge electric cars, see for instance this example from Finland: https://insideevs.com/finland-... Anyway, modern EV's do have sophisticated thermal management systems available, which eliminates the use of said block heater poles. https://insideevs.com/hyundai-...

Of course, pre-heating an ICE will not affect the range of the car, but managing the temperature of an EV's battery pack will. Charging an EV from a simple block heater pole can be done if you have plenty of time, doesn't trip a fuse (especially if you are not the only one) and doesn't piss off the parking lot owner for upping his electricity bill :-D Though some have converted them to charge electric cars, see for instance this example from Finland: https://insideevs.com/finland-... Anyway, modern EV's do have sophisticated thermal management systems available, which eliminates the use of said block heater poles. https://insideevs.com/hyundai-...

More efficient? That's a lie. Flat out. They are not even as efficient. Even your own numbers say so.

Then cite them. Prove your assertion with evidence. At this point you're committing the fallacy of "proof by assertion". IE that you'll prove your argument right if you merely say it enough times.

Meanwhile, well:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vi...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
https://insideevs.com/momentum...
https://www.businesswire.com/n...

And I don't think you realize that the losses of the inductive charging portion is in addition to the losses of the charger in the first place. It's an additional loss...

Prove it. Everything I've seen shows that they're looking at "wall to battery" efficiency. Wired chargers have losses as well. It could very well be that inductie chargers are covering up, efficiency wise, by being substantially more expensive, but I've done the research.

Inductive chargers are integrated. It isn't charger + inductive coil, it's an inductive charger. It's a complete integrated charging system(assuming it is efficiently designed).

Though it is good that we've identified where the difference in thought comes from. Problem is, I believe you're wrong because you haven't actually cited any evidence.

Let me guess, you're not an electrical engineer, are you?

Back to ad hominem attacks are we?

Let me guess, you're not an electrical engineer either, and as you apparently aren't willing to do research, like what I actually DID, I may not be an electrical engineer, but I've taken classes in electronics and I'm perfectly able to read and interpret studies and technical documents, you're talking out of your ass?

Stop and think: what is more efficient - power via high-tension line, or power via broadcast energy?

Red herring fallacy. What is efficient for transporting electricity over hundreds of miles in the hundreds of kV isn't necessarily efficient for transporting electricity over something like 6".

In addition, because we are looking at chargers, which have to alter and maintain specific voltages, amperages, not to mention converting AC into DC, there's quite a bit of electronics involved. That is where the savings are seen.

Plus, consider, the inductive element is like 6" of travel. How many feet of power power cord are we typically looking at? Probably 9 feet or more?

Finally, consider that I'm showing citations of 90% or more efficiency. The difference between 90% and 92% isn't all that great, and can be justified through things like system convenience and life. If you end up having to replace the power cable more often than the inductive unit, whether due to wear, weathering, accident, theft*, or vandalism**, you may find yourself having to do a cost analysis to determine which is more economical. Well, you need to do that anyways, but that comes down to having to bust out the spreadsheets on specific proposals that are deeper than we're going here anyways.

TLDR: Stop attempting argumentative fallacies on me and debate properly and we might get somewhere.

*Damn copper thieves feeding their meth habits....
**A properly buried inductive unit should experience less vandalism than an open air cable.

Basically you're switching from a 100% efficient cable to 80% efficient wireless.

Problem:
1. As LynnwoodRooster identified, cables aren't 100% efficient themselves.
2. The 80% efficiency is for the entire charging circuit, and is a false number. I'm seeing numerous examples around 90%.

Of course, the ideal isn't to just look at the "wireless link" and assume all other parts are still present and the same loss. It's better to look at the loss from the input on the charging 'station' to what the vehicle receives. Most charging stations have extensive electronics, after all. Inductive chargers allow some of the loss to be "shifted" to the inductive link, as the link itself remains ~90% efficient.

Sales are always low in January, Tesla made a huge pre-tax credit phasedown push (although they've almost completely compensated for the credit reduction via cost savings since then), and they're focusing production on European and Chinese models - not simply for the ability to sell with a much higher ASP (very high take rates on M3P, for example), but because it's quite time critical due to the trade wars (March deadline for the renewal of tariffs against China, and next week a new ruling about whether to start a 90 day countdown to impose tariffs against Europe, which would also meet with retaliatory tariffs on the auto industry). There's now 7 RORO ships out there full of Model 3s, not counting the Glovis Captain which recently unloaded at Zeebrugge.

Tesla always focuses on what's time critical. Before the US credit phasedown, that was the US. Now that it's 6 months until the next, smaller phasedown, the focus is on China and Europe.

The 350kW chargers exist, but the cars do not.

12 minutes to do an 80% charge is ~3C, which no automotive EV batteries are capable of right now. The ideal charge rate for LiPO batteries is 1C. Higher charge rates reduce battery lifespan for most chemistries. In fact, Tesla, which has remarkably reliable battery packs, has seen premature failures in some cars due to high use of supercharging [1]. Tesla superchargers max out at 120kW and typically are around 70-90kW. 350kW chargers are 3-5x that rate.

It's good they're installing future-proof chargers... batteries are getting bigger and handling higher charge rates as they improve. Tesla Semis will likely require even more than 350kW to charge at an optimal rate. But the 12 minute charge for 3 hours of driving is still a long way off.

[1] https://insideevs.com/ruin-tes...

Now in the case of these chargers, you would also want energy going into the batteries.

Oooooh you're talking about wanting to not make heat and instead put more energy into the cables. Man are you good at this. First you suggest that the simple solution is to do the one thing they couldn't do (bigger cables), then you go and harp on about some completely insignificant inefficiency in a 350kW charging system like it's some kind of problem.

A liquid cooling system would be indicated if you were using cables too small for the purpose.

Nope, A liquid cooling system would indicate that the cables designed for the purpose needed cooling given other engineering restrictions.

Some further research shows https://insideevs.com/vw-elect... [insideevs.com] Yup, those cables are way too small to be passing 350 KW through them.

That isn't research. It's a statement from one manufacturer that their cables have a problem. It is a straw-man and not a good one. What next, Infinity cable recalling it's 2.5mm TPS is indicative that we shouldn't be using 2.5mm copper TPS to wire our houses? Shit man, someone had a problem! Change everything before we all die!

Yup, those cables are way too small to be passing 350 KW through them.

Actually they have been passing 350kW through them just fine.

You run coolant through the cables to cool them and keep them from vaporizing.

No you run coolant through the cables to cool them and keep the insulation from getting soft and degrading.

The coolant makes it possible to use that small of a cable, the cost is a lot of the energy being dissapated as heat.

Nope. The cost is a bit of energy being dissipated as heat.

And if the coolant fails? so will the cable - probably very quickly.

If the coolant fails the system shuts down. What is this amateur hour here on Slashdot? Even the non liquid cooled charging systems have safety systems built into them.

Could be a thousand amperes flowing through those cables.

1000A would be a problem given the cables are rated for 700A and the chargers just a tad north of 500A.

That is a dangerous design. Marketing tried to over-rule physics with the usual results.

It's a perfectly normal design required thanks to those pesky laws of physics.

This isn't rocket Surgery - so what do I not understand?

I don't understand rocket surgery. This however, I'm all over it. You on the other hand seem to have no idea why liquid cooling was chosen in the first place. Maybe go read up on it so we can start talking about this on the same level.

Using the electricity to heat whatever liquid they are using isn't terribly efficient.

Using electricity to heat is 100% efficient. Heat transfer from the cable to the water jacket is a different question, but still incredibly efficient. I'm not sure you actually understand what it is that is being done here.

Reminds me of the Ham Radio operator who was bragging to me about how efficient his antenna was, because he put toroids on it and they got hot. This means energy wasted heating up toroids that would otherwise be readiated from the antenna. In his case, his setup had feedline radiation that he was choking off. But it was still energy spent heating those chokes.

Now in the case of these chargers, you would also want energy going into the batteries. So unless heating is an integral part of the process, any energy transferred to the cooling fluid is simply not going to the batteries. It is going into the cooling fluid. True efficiency would be the cabled not increasing in temperature because they were robust enough that they would have very little resistance. This liquid cooling is just saving the cables.

A liquid cooling system would be indicated if you were using cables too small for the purpose. Being too small, they would be shedding heat based on simple Ohm's Law. power dissipation . Their resistance would cause them to heat up. Some further research shows https://insideevs.com/vw-elect... Yup, those cables are way too small to be passing 350 KW through them. You run coolant through the cables to cool them and keep them from vaporizing. The coolant makes it possible to use that small of a cable, the cost is a lot of the energy being dissapated as heat. And if the coolant fails? so will the cable - probably very quickly. Could be a thousand amperes flowing through those cables. That is a dangerous design. Marketing tried to over-rule physics with the usual results.

This isn't rocket Surgery - so what do I not understand?

Does anybody seriously think the Tesla Model 3 will be competitive with anything from Mercedes, Audi and BMW?

What do you mean 'will be'? No need for the future tense.

Tesla has a niche, because it currently is the only brand offering cars with such large batteries.

Hey, remember how the Bolt was supposed to blow away Tesla sales because of its large battery? Funny thing...

Moreover, since the Big Three will offer premium EVs very soon

Yes, same "Tesla Killer" story we've been hearing for the past decade. Meanwhile, Tesla's lead only continues to grow.

https://insideevs.com/tesla-mo...

https://insideevs.com/tesla-mo...

the base spec 64kWh Kona

How is the long-range model "base spec"?

is cheaper than the $35k Model 3

How is 39k Euro cheaper than $35k?

And you can order a Kona now, with delivery around late January/February

I hope I'd be luckier than Canadians.

EV sales are now over 2.5% of car sales in America. [insideevs.com] I will guess that EVs are over 3% for Dec.

Still less than half China's 6% market share.

First, as to your last paragraph, I have no doubt that EVs will be more than 50% of new passenger vehicles (minus trucks) by end of 2022/3. We will see more EVs sold in America/Europe, than ICE (again, minus trucks). Ppl can see this coming a mile away. EVs are cheaper to own, lower maintenance, faster, more room in same volume, etc. etc. Tesla is the only EV that is actually cheaper than its competition, but, they will force legacy car makers to follow. Even now, the luxury car makers are moving to decent luxury EVs because they are losing huge numbers of sales to Tesla (according to Porsche, BMW, Audi, Volvo, Caddy). Interestingly, Lexus and infiniti have dropped sales a great deal over the last 2 years, but, they are not saying anything, except still focusing on H2 cars.

Range anxiety. Ok. Where do you live? I am going to assume that you are American. There are a FEW spots left in America that does not have decent coverage, but will be covered before end of next year. Here is what is being looked at for Tesla over the next month or so

As to paying more for the larger battery, it gives us the ability to driver further on occasion when needed, but otherwise, it makes sure that my battery will outlast me and my kids. But if you think that gas is cheaper than electricity, you have to be kidding. Here, lets get a perspective. Our car does 250 MPC when full. That is 85 KWH, but we are going to assume 100 kWh (easier calcs). Now, we pay $.08/kWh in the summer and $.0459/kWh for winter (xcel TOU). We will simply use $.08. So, that means to drive 250 miles, we will pay $8.00 or .032 / mile.
In a comparable car, say a class S, the owner will get 15-20 MPG. Let say that gas is at $2.00 / gal (in Denver, it is $2.5-2.80, but we will go your way). To drive 250 miles, you will have 12.5-16 gal. Lets assume 14 gals, so, $28 to drive 250 miles. That makes it $.112 / mile. Now, I have been weighed all of this your way, and it still turns out that gas will be 4x what electricity will costs. And notice that the MB's Class S that competes against our Model S, are slow, high maintenance, and will actually costs a great deal more to get less luxury in the car.
In addition, resale values on Luxury ICE vehicles are plummeting. OTOH Tesla are holding their values (note that most EVS drop at same rate as ICE, but the Tesla does not).
This page is Oct, but in Nov, EV sales are now over 2.5% of car sales in America. I will guess that EVs are over 3% for Dec.

Note that next year, a number of REAL EVs will be released. Rivian has a truck and SUV coming. Porsche has Taycon. There are decent EVs coming from MB, Audi, Jag, volvo, etc. And these EVs will be cheaper than the competing ICE vehicles.

Musk failed so miserably with Tesla.
I mean Tesla loses even against "domestic" competition like the Chevrolet Bolt which beat the snot out of Tesla Model 3 by 20% price-wise.

LOL. The Chevy Bolt sold 3,949 cars in the third quarter of 2018; at the same time, Tesla was making and selling more Model 3 cars per week than that. For the whole quarter Tesla sold 55,840 Model 3 cars. That's over 14 times the sales.

The Model 3 costs more, but it's also a better car than the Bolt, and it appears that customers are willing to pay the premium.

https://electrek.co/2018/10/03/chevy-bolt-ev-sales-slumping-us/

In November 2018, the Tesla Model 3 was the 6th highest selling car on the market, period. The Model 3 outsold the Ford Fusion and the Nissan Sentra. It sold about double compared to Volkswagen Jetta and about triple compared to the Toyota Prius.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/12/08/tesla-model-3-completely-crushing-us-luxury-car-competition-10-cleantechnica-charts/

In fairness, the above is with a $7,500 tax credit. That credit will be reducing soon and then will go away. But by then, Tesla should have their $35,000 model available to sell.

Elon Musk had hoped to have the $35K car available by the end of 2018. That's not happening but it looks like it will happen in the first half of 2019.

https://insideevs.com/base-35000-tesla-model-3-production-8-months/

Another fun fact: the Honda Civic and the Honda Accord are two of the top five trade-ins of Model 3 customers.

https://electrek.co/2018/08/01/tesla-model-3-top-5-trade-in-cars/

I don't think the word "failure" is the right word to describe Tesla or the Model 3. I expected it to beat the stuffing out of the BMW 3-series and other luxury cars; I didn't expect it to be competitive with the Honda Civic or the Nissan Sentra.

Also, for your prediction about Japanese car makers beating Tesla to come true, the Japanese car makers are going to need a guaranteed source of batteries. Tesla spent the big money to build their own battery factory, which at the same time gives them the lowest cost on batteries and a guaranteed supply of batteries. There will be millions of Tesla cars on the road before any other company can even begin to compete with them.

they are talking about the EV called the Leaf, not one of those things that fall off a tree
https://insideevs.com/watch-20...

My Tesla Model S, on the other hand, loses very little range at highway speeds.

Unless you have highways with low speed limits, that isn't true. Highway speeds where I live are between 70-80mph and that has a notable effect on fuel economy even for Tesla. You are correct that the Tesla is more streamlined so the effect is smaller but the effect is still there and still notable.

It's there, but it's quite small. Highways near me have 75-80 mph limits so I drive 80-85.

Having more gears wouldn't change the efficiency of the electric motor, unlike an ICEV.

That's not true at all. EVs have motors that are relatively efficient across a broad RPM range (up to 20,000) so engineers can pick a gear that works well for most day to day driving. But make no mistake that this gear choice is a compromise. They do not have perfect efficiency across the whole band and there are limits to how fast you can spin them. My Bolt EV has a max speed of 91mph largely thanks to choice of gears and this does play a role in it's (relatively) crappy fuel economy at speeds above 70mph. At higher speeds they do use more energy spinning faster, especially towards the top end. It's why most EVs are electronically limited at the top end. There are EVs that have gear boxes and while they don't need 8 gears, 2 or 3 can have actual utility. Right now they don't use them because the added cost result in enough performance improvement to be worth the bother.

The original Tesla Roadster was designed to have a two speed gearbox. The Bolt EV I have probably would see a 10-20% gain in fuel economy at highway speeds with a 2 speed gearbox. Multiple gears will eventually be a thing for EVs, albeit far less important than for ICEs. A lot of EVs will probably stick with the single gear option because it works fine and is cheaper and more reliable.

My Tesla Model S, on the other hand, loses very little range at highway speeds.

Unless you have highways with low speed limits, that isn't true. Highway speeds where I live are between 70-80mph and that has a notable effect on fuel economy even for Tesla. You are correct that the Tesla is more streamlined so the effect is smaller but the effect is still there and still notable.

It also has only one "gear".

You don't need the quotes. It does have a single gear so that statement is quite correct.

Having more gears wouldn't change the efficiency of the electric motor, unlike an ICEV.

That's not true at all. EVs have motors that are relatively efficient across a broad RPM range (up to 20,000) so engineers can pick a gear that works well for most day to day driving. But make no mistake that this gear choice is a compromise. They do not have perfect efficiency across the whole band and there are limits to how fast you can spin them. My Bolt EV has a max speed of 91mph largely thanks to choice of gears and this does play a role in it's (relatively) crappy fuel economy at speeds above 70mph. At higher speeds they do use more energy spinning faster, especially towards the top end. It's why most EVs are electronically limited at the top end. There are EVs that have gear boxes and while they don't need 8 gears, 2 or 3 can have actual utility. Right now they don't use them because the added cost result in enough performance improvement to be worth the bother.

The original Tesla Roadster was designed to have a two speed gearbox. The Bolt EV I have probably would see a 10-20% gain in fuel economy at highway speeds with a 2 speed gearbox. Multiple gears will eventually be a thing for EVs, albeit far less important than for ICEs. A lot of EVs will probably stick with the single gear option because it works fine and is cheaper and more reliable.

My Tesla Model S, on the other hand, loses very little range at highway speeds.

Unless you have highways with low speed limits, that isn't true. Highway speeds where I live are between 70-80mph and that has a notable effect on fuel economy even for Tesla. You are correct that the Tesla is more streamlined so the effect is smaller but the effect is still there and still notable.

It also has only one "gear".

You don't need the quotes. It does have a single gear so that statement is quite correct.

GM’s National EV Proposal Hides Call To Roll Back Vehicle Efficiency

A great example of the above was the attack series launched by UAW-tied organization "Reveal". First they alleged a high injury rate (with a bunch of BS about beeping forklifts and yellow caution tape being banned) - but Tesla rebutted it by pointing out that they're using old data, that they're around the industry average now, and that the plant used to be the highest injury-rate plant in the US before they bought it. So Reveal switched gears to arguing that they were "hiding" injuries off the books. They even got CAL-OSHA to investigate, and the latter's investigation concluded just recently: the biggest problem they found was an extension cord to a fan that could pose a trip hazard, and one injury whose date was wrong. Vs. its competitors which actually have been found to be hiding injuries off the books, and fined.

Each time the Reveal reports came out, the news was picked up widely. The actual facts? Crickets. Scandal sells. "Wait, there wasn't actually a scandal" doesn't.

The complete reversal and over the top priase, doesn't at all smell like money changed hands.

Oh, money changed hands all right. But it didn't involve Tesla.

UBS (an investment company that has been consistently anti-Tesla) paid Munro Associates to perform the Model 3 teardown. Munro's initial impression of the Model 3 was prior to the teardown, and they rightfully focused on the car's poor fit and finish. But after completing the teardown and realizing just how inexpensive the car would be to manufacture, Munro had to "eat crow", and publicly, otherwise his company would look foolish and it would hurt his business in the long run.

But then some "unknown entity" sued Munro over his latest "Model 3 is insanely profitable" pronouncement. It's pretty clear to everybody that the unknown entity is UBS. This didn't fit in with their narrative on the Tesla Model 3. Shortly afterwards, UBS put out their own hastily-organized teardown analysis of the Tesla Model 3, stating that it is unprofitable. By that point, a second teardown analysis by a German firm confirmed Munro's finding that the Model 3 will be profitable.

The complete reversal and over the top priase, doesn't at all smell like money changed hands.

Oh, money changed hands all right. But it didn't involve Tesla.

UBS (an investment company that has been consistently anti-Tesla) paid Munro Associates to perform the Model 3 teardown. Munro's initial impression of the Model 3 was prior to the teardown, and they rightfully focused on the car's poor fit and finish. But after completing the teardown and realizing just how inexpensive the car would be to manufacture, Munro had to "eat crow", and publicly, otherwise his company would look foolish and it would hurt his business in the long run.

But then some "unknown entity" sued Munro over his latest "Model 3 is insanely profitable" pronouncement. It's pretty clear to everybody that the unknown entity is UBS. This didn't fit in with their narrative on the Tesla Model 3. Shortly afterwards, UBS put out their own hastily-organized teardown analysis of the Tesla Model 3, stating that it is unprofitable. By that point, a second teardown analysis by a German firm confirmed Munro's finding that the Model 3 will be profitable.

The complete reversal and over the top priase, doesn't at all smell like money changed hands.

Oh, money changed hands all right. But it didn't involve Tesla.

UBS (an investment company that has been consistently anti-Tesla) paid Munro Associates to perform the Model 3 teardown. Munro's initial impression of the Model 3 was prior to the teardown, and they rightfully focused on the car's poor fit and finish. But after completing the teardown and realizing just how inexpensive the car would be to manufacture, Munro had to "eat crow", and publicly, otherwise his company would look foolish and it would hurt his business in the long run.

But then some "unknown entity" sued Munro over his latest "Model 3 is insanely profitable" pronouncement. It's pretty clear to everybody that the unknown entity is UBS. This didn't fit in with their narrative on the Tesla Model 3. Shortly afterwards, UBS put out their own hastily-organized teardown analysis of the Tesla Model 3, stating that it is unprofitable. By that point, a second teardown analysis by a German firm confirmed Munro's finding that the Model 3 will be profitable.

By now we should all be familiar with the Hockey Stick Controversy

Under the "Continuing research" section of the above link, emphasis mine:

Marcott et al. 2013 used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, the last 1,000 years of which confirmed the original MBH99 hockey stick graph.

In cartoon format:
https://rationalwiki.org/w/ima...

And a free-market reaction to the above, with other considerations: an alternative energy consumption and production paradigm seems to be gaining traction, which seems to be related in some way to recent discussions about melting glaciers and sea level rise.

You realize that Sandy Munroe, the guy you're citing, later changed his mind and called the vehicle a symphony of engineering, among other high praise? Literally stated "I have to eat crow" concerning his earlier analysis (aka what you linked)

Case in point: https://insideevs.com/bombardi...

Tesla still doesn't know how to build cars. As in, in volume

Can you build 8000 cars a month? Because Tesla is almost there.

You see, once they figured out how to actually produce in volume, from there it's very easy to scale up (as long as you are not constrained by suppliers).

Building them for sale without going broke is what is hard, and what Tesla cannot do.

That sounds scary! Lucky for Tesla what you are saying is a bald-faced lie. But then you are an AC so I'm sure no-one believed what you were saying anyway.

Oh, they should have more room for cost now in 2016 than they did in 2011. Their battery costs should be much lower, but they haven't redesigned the car yet and they just sold the battery manufacturer[1], so their costs may actually be higher. There's no way to really know, but they did up the replacement pack cost from $5,500 to $8,000[2]. Either way, adding active thermal management requires a redesign of the car and the pack, which hasn't happened yet.

And yes, it appears that the 30 kWh packs are degrading faster than the 24kWh packs[3]. The cause is unknown--there's less metal casing around the cells, so they could be heating more, there appears to be a software issue with the battery capacity calculation[4], and there's a different chemistry. I'm sure Nissan knows how much each of these is the cause, but they're not saying. There's not really enough data on the 40kWh packs (2018) yet to determine how they'll behave.

I too am interested in what Nissan comes up with in 2019, but their poor support of existing models will strongly discourage me from buying a future Leaf unless there's a big reason to do so. That opinion would instantly change if they stop serial code locking batteries (preventing 3rd party replacement) and sell the newer high capacity packs for the existing Leafs.

Sources:
[1] https://insideevs.com/nissan-c...
[2] http://www.mynissanleaf.com/vi...
[3] https://insideevs.com/nissan-l...
[4] http://www.mynissanleaf.com/vi...

Oh, they should have more room for cost now in 2016 than they did in 2011. Their battery costs should be much lower, but they haven't redesigned the car yet and they just sold the battery manufacturer[1], so their costs may actually be higher. There's no way to really know, but they did up the replacement pack cost from $5,500 to $8,000[2]. Either way, adding active thermal management requires a redesign of the car and the pack, which hasn't happened yet.

And yes, it appears that the 30 kWh packs are degrading faster than the 24kWh packs[3]. The cause is unknown--there's less metal casing around the cells, so they could be heating more, there appears to be a software issue with the battery capacity calculation[4], and there's a different chemistry. I'm sure Nissan knows how much each of these is the cause, but they're not saying. There's not really enough data on the 40kWh packs (2018) yet to determine how they'll behave.

I too am interested in what Nissan comes up with in 2019, but their poor support of existing models will strongly discourage me from buying a future Leaf unless there's a big reason to do so. That opinion would instantly change if they stop serial code locking batteries (preventing 3rd party replacement) and sell the newer high capacity packs for the existing Leafs.

Sources:
[1] https://insideevs.com/nissan-c...
[2] http://www.mynissanleaf.com/vi...
[3] https://insideevs.com/nissan-l...
[4] http://www.mynissanleaf.com/vi...

Meanwhile, back in reality, Tesla is on a roll. They now make over half the world's EV battery capacity. Model 3 margins were positive in Q2 even without AWD and P, which are high-margin options. And despite the hype about "6000 per week", Tesla's actual production goal for this quarter is 50-55k, which is 4k per week average, which they're well on track for.

But on the other hand, the CEO took a half-arsed puff on a joint when offered, shook his head no, and talked about how he doesn't like pot because it hinders productivity. So I guess there's a balance, right?

That's an odd thing to say. Are you implying that Tesla cars do not actually provide their intended function? I see a lot of them on the road, and they've all been carrying people and moving rather quickly.

Or, are you saying their numbers are a charade and they don't really exist as a viable product?

Here's what I've found:

As far as U.S. Model S and Model X sales are concerned, Tesla has been able to keep numbers close to flat or even increasing, despite the impact of Model 3 production. The automaker shattered all previous records and also sold more EVs than all other automakers combined by a long shot! Additionally, Tesla’s delivery numbers alone (23,175) surpassed all monthly U.S. EV deliveries from all automakers ever, historically.

Based on our detailed estimates, Tesla delivered 17,800 Model 3 sedans in August and was still able to surpass last year’s Model S and X deliveries, at 2,625 and 2,750, respectively.

Or, maybe you meant this as an attack on Elon Musk's character, and that the imminent love child of Holmes & Musk will be the Antichrist.

The latter is a distinct possibility - I can't wait to see the company logo.

The sun provides about 1 kilowatt per square meter.

https://ag.tennessee.edu/solar...

A Chevy Bolt, as an example vehicle, gets "over 200 miles" from 60 kWh.

https://insideevs.com/deep-div...

Let's assume batteries get better, and it could get 500 miles from the same 60 kWh. So you would need another 60 kWh from the solar cells to go 1000 miles. At an average of 60 mph, that's almost 17 hours. 60 kWh in that time means 3.5 kW of power from the solar cells, so 3.5 square meters if the cells are 100% efficient. That's an array 1.8 meters on a side.

If this is happening in the next 10 years, you're right it will be way closer than I think.

https://insideevs.com/expected-tesla-model-s-fails...

Yeah. The same company that is one of a number that CONTINUES to cheat at CO2, is supposed to be believed that they will take on Tesla. Anybody believing that, is kidding themselves.

The sad thing here, is that Europe, esp. Germany, love to scream about cutting CO2, but, like China, they are lying through their teeth. Sad really. We need all nations to quit trying to cheat the corners and just keep dropping their CO2. UK did a good job of dropping theirs. That is a good model to follow.

As to this model, I give it little chance. In particular, they do not have good enough electric network to succeed.

Disregard the linear trend. That assumes that everything remains the same, which will NOT be the case

The problem is that this would make things even worse for the US. If the trend isn't linear, it's going to get slowed down. All the following units of emission reduction are harder than the first one, that's what basic economic principles tell us. So the linear trend has been remarkable so far for having happened despite this problem.

No, it does not mean that at all. I said disregard it, because that was nearly 100% based on moving coal to nat gas/wind. The linear portion will continue for a time, but we will run out of coal plants. However, The next trend is going to add to it and will force things down faster. A LOT faster once it gets going.
Look, for the last 10 years, America has poured a load of money into R&D. Most of the tech dealing with LED, Solar, Wind, EVs, etc comes from America. Though to be fair, the most EV, esp the battery, R&D comes from Tesla, not so much America. But the single most important thing will be that Tesla is forcing other car and truck makers to move to EVs. Sales are picking up EVERYWHERE. Not just in passenger vehicles, but in Commercial vehicles.

In America and Europe, with EVs being bought, the older vehicles will drop off the grid. So, America has fairly clean electricity AND will see lots of OLD 1990s-2000s vehicles drop. Keep in mind that those OLDER vehicles are actually low MPGs. So, their dropping off will really drop our CO2.
BTW, compare that to Europe and China. Europe, like AMerica, has loads of old vehicles that will drop. BUT, most of those are higher MPG than America's. As such, not so much drop. OTOH, Europe has cleaner electricity, esp in the netherlands and France. Germany, along with eastern europe, will not. Far too dirty on their electricity.
Then we have China. In general, they cars are NEW, but more importanly, ppl are buying new cars, not just replacing them. So, China is going to add a bunch more, while the majority of their ICE vehicles remain on the road. Than we have the issue that their electricity is FILTHY. They still have 80+% coming from Coal. Worst yet, they have ZERO slack in their AE and continue to add more COal than AE. As such, all of their new electricity for charging EVs is going to come from coal.

So, yeah, my predictions remain:
America is going to continue dropping CO2, only faster.
Western Europe will go down
Eastern Europe will go up, some.
And China will go climb massively. What really bothers me is that I believe China will likely hit 50% more CO2 by 2030 at the latest, and possibly 2025. And I do not believe that it is possible to stop that, unless China quits adding coal plants. So far, they have not stopped.

Did Musk make a statement about taking Tesla private without the approval of the Board of Directors,

Nobody knows.

Especially the board, who created a committee to look into going private about 2 weeks after his tweet. I guess the board found out when the rest of the world did - when Musk tweeted his fraud.

Those roads would have been bid at 2 years, and at $100 million per mile, but he'd get them done in 4 years, at $200 million per mile

Only if the normal cost and time for said roads would be 8 years and $1B per mile.

As a general rule, Musk sets "ridiculously aggressive" targets for his companies, but only hits "quite aggressive" ones. But better to shoot for the stars and miss than shoot for the gutter and hit it. As a reminder: even with the half-year delay** on the Model 3 production scaleup, they still scaled up faster than the Bolt, which was built on an existing line with an existing workforce. And now Tesla's volumes now make everyone else look like they're missing a zero.

** Then again, the *original* schedule for the Model 3 wasn't to start production until the end of 2017 anyway; they only missed the *moved up* schedule, not the original one.

Those roads would have been bid at 2 years, and at $100 million per mile, but he'd get them done in 4 years, at $200 million per mile

Only if the normal cost and time for said roads would be 8 years and $1B per mile.

As a general rule, Musk sets "ridiculously aggressive" targets for his companies, but only hits "quite aggressive" ones. But better to shoot for the stars and miss than shoot for the gutter and hit it. As a reminder: even with the half-year delay** on the Model 3 production scaleup, they still scaled up faster than the Bolt, which was built on an existing line with an existing workforce. And now Tesla's volumes now make everyone else look like they're missing a zero.

** Then again, the *original* schedule for the Model 3 wasn't to start production until the end of 2017 anyway; they only missed the *moved up* schedule, not the original one.

Having not produced an $35k car, fElon Musk is about to not produce $25k car. In three years.

1) Is your view that companies should offer lower-margin variants of their vehicles while they're still scaling production to meet the demand for their higher margin vehicles?
2) You do realize that most EV manufacturers are doing this right? I-Pace is doing this, Taycan is doing this, Kona is doing this, etc.
3) Nice distortion of Musk's statements on the interview. He was very careful to repeatedly express the caveats that 3 years would be in an ideal scenario only.

Having not secured funding, fElon Musk is desperate to find investors

Again, you keep using the word "investors" without clarifying what you mean. Tesla has investors holding all of their stock. And is not seeking further investment for fundraising. I think you're using vague terms while talking about privatization, but that's an entirely different story. Tesla has been quite clear that they're seeking a larger pool of investors to dilute the Saudi investment.

And while this is a bit of an aside, but as a retail investor, I'm very glad that Tesla saw fit to let all investors know about their privatization plans, rather than what many companies do which is only negotiate with their large retail investors behind the curtain, often leading to retail investors getting screwed over.

.) Having not fixed manufacturing problems,

Keep telling yourself that.

Tesla will most likely bankrupt by the beginning of next year.

And this is where a figurative LOL turns literal ;)

Right now, Tesla appears to be on track to beat, not simply meet, their Q3 projections (which were only for an average of 4k per week across the quarter). They have a very straightforward path to profitability ahead of them - production volumes are being sustained at far higher levels than in Q2, margins were already positive in Q2 without AWD and P, which are now 50% of the take, so even if you assume no process improvements whatsoever (which are the primary focus at present), that alone is going to generate sizeable margins.

But by all means - please short, short, short! Come on, how much interest will you pay on your credit cards or home mortgage versus how much you'd make when Tesla "goes bankrupt", right? Get those shorts in!

1) Tesla is on a roll. Their production rates make everyone else look like they're missing a zero. They're well en route to being sustainably profitable starting this quarter.

2) I have no clue what you mean by "lack of investors". Obviously, all of Tesla's stock is owned. Actually in a way well more than "all of Tesla's stock", as people who've shorted the stock have put other people's borrowed stock back on the market, and people have bought *that* as well. If you mean "lack of interest in a capital round", Tesla has no interest whatsoever in another capital round; they plan to fund their expansion internally. If you mean for going private, however, they would like more to water down Saudi interests - although that means paying a premium over market prices.

3) SEC investigations are rarely fast, and can take years. By far the most likely result, if they find against Musk, would be a fine ranging from hundreds of thousands to tens of millions. Against him personally, not against Tesla (the SEC has generally taken on the view that it's not right to punish shareholders for an individual's actions that may have worked against them).

Meanwhile...
In other news...

$0.7B per quarter, that's about $3B per year, is it not

You got your losses of "billions/year" by taking 2018Q2 (last available reporting period) and multiplying by 4. This is a simple run rate approach to forecasting. If you are comparing your derived loss number to units produced, you need to use a similar methodology:
(14570 + 1984 + 1200) * 12 months = 213,048 = "hundreds of thousands of cars"
(Please note, I was able to make my point with U.S. sales, alone. . . .)

Now take a step back and reflect if you really think Tesla is failing based on sound reasonable financial analysis, or you want Tesla to fail and you are just making up silly reasons that do not make financial sense? . . . 'cause that is would it appears you are doing here. . .

Please stop. Just come out and say the real reason why you hate Tesla and move on with life. . . Why add to the stupidity that gets posted to Slashdot everyday?

Where does it say Neighborhood Electric Vehicle? A Neighborhood Electric Vehicle is basically a golf cart, capable of up to 25mph. Article says up to 90km/h (55mph) and 90km (75 mile) range so I don't know where this "Neighborhood Electric Vehicle" suggestion in the description came from.

12,000 euros is only $13,700 which is a great price point, $10,000 less than the next cheapest electric car, the smart fortwo ED, but I really think it needs at least a 70mph top speed so it can attempt to drive safely on US highways. Even if the range decreases some, the greatly increased usability is worth it.

Also, after seeing that the smart fortwo ED has a 80hp electric motor, are they sure that 20hp electric motor they're planning on using can reach 55mph? They look roughly the same size and that's 1/4th the power, 55mph might be optimistic, or it might take a very long time to reach 55.

And maybe $13,700 isn't that great, considering you can get a 4 door Fiesta for the same price, but it's nice seeing EVs drop to the prices of the cheapest ICE vehicles even if they aren't quite as practical.

You "keeps" refer/infer to Consumer Reports "subscriber/owner" survey, which is easily corruptible bullshit that any loser

It's funny how you guys only criticize Consumer Reports' work when it says something you don't like. If anonymous surveys aren't good enough for you, then what exactly is?

But I am impressed that the Tesla Model 3 is garnering praise comparable to Kia automobiles of the 1990s (fast forward to 6:55).

Hahaha... your source is Randy Munro? Um, you might want to look at what Munro has been saying recently about the Model 3. It's a "symphony of engineering", he has to "eat crow", etc, etc. He now goes on and on about its brilliant design decisions, about how the guy who designed the suspension should be a Formula 1 prince, and on and on.

I see the Bolt is Motor Trend's car of the year. I also notice it's currently outselling Tesla. I think this article is about autonomous vehicles, though.

I like the Bolt, but it's not even close to outselling Tesla. They are selling around 1000-1500 a month since January - Tesla sold 1800 Model 3s alone in January, and they'd ramped up to over 6000 in both May and June. Plus in June they also sold ~5000 Model S & Xs. In June Volt and Bolt sales combined were under 2500.

https://insideevs.com/june-201...

10:43: 18 miles remaining 11:13: 217 miles remaining. 199 miles in half an hour. You were saying? That's hardly even the fastest Model 3 charging experience. Model 3 tops out at a nearly 500mph charge rate.

2013 P85 is an old car, of a different, less efficient model, driven back at a time four years when Superchargers were spaced further apart, and a larger percentage of them were lower power. You're comparing apples with oranges.

There's no way any Tesla will even go near 336 miles range of a BMW 340

Take it up with the EPA drivecycle test designers.

A Tesla Model S P100 can only muster 170 miles real world range.

If you're driving >200 kph on the Autobahn all the time, sure. Don't expect a gasoline car to go as far on the Autobahn, either.

You're right that Model 3 didn't go 310 miles when Consumer Reports tested it. It went 350 miles.

Lastly: 100 kWh is not 50% larger than 75 kWh. And Model S is a much less efficient vehicle; it needs a much larger battery to go the same distance.

Tesla consistently shows increase in unit costs with increased production volume

Flatly contradicted by the quarterly reports, but hey, this is Slashdot, make up whatever you want. :)

And there is no "momentum" either

Yeah, about that...
About that...

Tesla has repeatedly failed their promises, for example that of 6000 model 3 cars/weekly by end of June,

Do you not even read what you link? Literally, the very first sentence:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) is aiming to ramp up production to 6,000 Model 3 cars per week by the end of June to reach its weekly goal of 5,000 and allow for a margin of error