Slashdot Mirror

From Tesla's website, the actual claim:

NHTSA does not publish a star rating above 5, however safety levels better than 5 stars are captured in the overall Vehicle Safety Score (VSS) provided to manufacturers, where the Model S achieved a new combined record of 5.4 stars

--Source

I can understand the NHTSA complaint (Tesla's claims could be misleading out of context), but its not like Tesla is making any false claims.

Also, I recall this claim / story being about 3 months old at this point, and I believe NHTSA complained around the same time. Is slashdot seriously that far behind, or (as I suspect) is this an attempt to generate additional controversy and angst due to the other Tesla stories in the news?

LOLOLOL, Musk is playing it fast and loose. He knows NHTSA never granted a score of 5.4 *stars* but they put that on the website anyways? Again. LOLOLOLOL

Thats possible, but Tesla indicates that 5.4 is a new record, and it does seem that 5-star ratings in every category is unusual.

They also provide this handy graphic, but being a complete failure at statistics I cant confirm that it supports their claim.
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/model-s-five-star-safety-rating.jpg

From Tesla's website, the actual claim:

NHTSA does not publish a star rating above 5, however safety levels better than 5 stars are captured in the overall Vehicle Safety Score (VSS) provided to manufacturers, where the Model S achieved a new combined record of 5.4 stars

--Source

I can understand the NHTSA complaint (Tesla's claims could be misleading out of context), but its not like Tesla is making any false claims.

Also, I recall this claim / story being about 3 months old at this point, and I believe NHTSA complained around the same time. Is slashdot seriously that far behind, or (as I suspect) is this an attempt to generate additional controversy and angst due to the other Tesla stories in the news?

Third, to reinforce how strongly we feel about the low risk of fire in our cars, we will be amending our warranty policy to cover damage due to a fire, even if due to driver error. Unless a Model S owner actively tries to destroy the car, they are covered. Our goal here is to eliminate any concern about the cost of such an event and ensure that over time the Model S has the lowest insurance cost of any car at our price point. Either our belief in the safety of our car is correct and this is a minor cost or we are wrong, in which case the right thing is for Tesla to bear the cost rather than the car buyer.

I think it is clear that the Tesla is more likely to have a fire if you hit something hard enough to puncture the vehicle's armor plating and pierce the battery pack. It's a specific mode of failure and I don't know how common of an event this will be in the long run. I also don't think it's as big of a deal as the media is making. It doesn't "explode" or unexpectedly burst into flames that engulf the passenger compartment. A cluster of events does not define a trend in my mind.

I really like the low center of gravity, the balanced fore-aft weight distribution and the ridiculous amounts of trunk space the "skateboard" design allows. It makes for a great handling car, which improves safety. It also means huge crumble zones to absorb kinetic energy in a crash, which also improves safety. To me, it's a design trade-off. The real measure of the trade off will be whether people are safer, on average, or not. So far there have been no deaths or serious injuries, but the sample size and time frame is small for that to be really meaningful. But I'm hopeful, and if I could afford one, I'd buy one.

Yes.... but typically a Tesla has no gasoline on board. You'd think that a lack of chance of fire would be a Tesla selling point.

I'm not sure about Musk's statement that the fies "only occurred after very high-speed collisions". Doing 70 on the freeway and running over some debris is neither high speed, nor a collision.

Also people don't seek principle sources. An account from the owner of the third Tesla fire incident.

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/model-s-owner-tennessee (I think this was on slashdot a couple weeks ago...)

"This experience does not in any way make me think that the Tesla Model S is an unsafe car. I would buy another one in a heartbeat."

I expect that the current NHTSA probe is going to end up a huge win for Tesla and Musk.

Sure, the R&D payoff could be worth a fortune - but why bother when you can stick today's batteries in a fancy package and milk the rich now? Investors generally want a clear path towards profit and a business plan of "our scientists will dick around until they make a breakthrough at some indeterminate point in the future" doesn't inspire much confidence.

Tesla, itslef states that battery life is dependent on the number of charge/discharge cycles and reccommends against frequent charging when the battery is relatively "full."

Citation please, because the Model S Owner's Manual says the exact opposite:

The most important way to preserve the Battery is to LEAVE YOUR MODEL S PLUGGED IN when you’re not using it. This is particularly important if you are not planning to drive your Model S for several weeks. When plugged in, Model S wakes up when needed to automatically maintain a charge level that maximizes the lifetime of the Battery.

There is no advantage to waiting until the Battery’s level is low before charging. In fact, the Battery performs best when charged regularly. Never allow the Battery to fully discharge

Maybe the confusing is with the MAX charging option. As part of its battery management, Tesla intentionally does not charge to 100% unless you explicitly request it on the charging menu. People on the forums are still getting over 200 miles on the standard charge. With the MAX charge they're getting over 250 miles and the common practice is to use MAX for road trips. As long as you are using the standard charge settings, you can plug it in all the time and not worry about it killing the battery.

That is going to depend on whether or not the job site has a high amp charging station. One of the problems plaguing current EVs is that multiple partial charges shorten battery life. So, unless your EV truck is close to needing a full charge and you actually have the equipment and/or time to give it a full charge, charging it at the worksite could very well be reducing the uselife of the truck.

I don't remember the details, but Tesla did a lot of fine tuning of the battery management system that leverages having around 8000 cells. On the Model S they worked with Panasonic to tweak the battery chemistry and internals of the cells. Anyway, according to the Model S Owner's Manual:

The most important way to preserve the Battery is to LEAVE YOUR MODEL S PLUGGED IN when you’re not using it. This is particularly important if you are not planning to drive your Model S for several weeks. When plugged in, Model S wakes up when needed to automatically maintain a charge level that maximizes the lifetime of the Battery.

There is no advantage to waiting until the Battery’s level is low before charging. In fact, the Battery performs best when charged regularly.

The Roadster uses standard Panasonic 18650s and it's manual also suggests leaving the car plugged in. I don't think charging frequently is as much of an issue for Tesla as it is for other EVs.

No, not quite. Instead, they pick up your car and leave you with a 'loaded' loaner (or a Roadster, if you prefer). See:

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/creating-world%E2%80%99s-best-service-and-warranty-program-0

From the Tesla website:
Model S is designed to allow a fast battery swap, exchanging your battery for a fully charged battery in less than half the time it takes to refill a gas tank. This offers Model S drivers another, even faster option when recharging while driving long distances.

You can watch a demo video, doing two battery swaps in the time it takes to fill up one car's gas tank, here:
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_BE/batteryswap

You can probably find various overall safety record stats via Google, but in the meantime you might be interested in the NHTSA safety rating for the Model S. If you don't believe the five-star rating merely because the link I've provided happens to be a (rather detailed) Tesla press release, you're welcome to contact the NHTSA and verify the claim yourself.

I've seen relatively new cars catch fire while parked. It happens more often than most people think. A quick google image search for "car fire" will show a bunch of cars either parked or sitting on the side of the road without any visible damage (aside from the fire of course). My fire dept has gotten called out a few times for a "car fire extending to the house" because a parked car burst into flames for whatever reason.

However, my experience doesn't mean that there isn't something wrong with the Tesla, just that I wouldn't be surprised if an investigation didn't find anything.

Also, Tesla does have an emergency response guide and Fire Dept's need to start reading up on these cars. It even has a nice little note at the bottom of the pages reminding us to wear our goddamned SCBA at a car fire.

It doesn't make sense that city driving in a car with the Model S' strong regen braking would be lower than motorway driving at 55 mph, for which the estimate is 301 miles.
So the difference must be because you don't normally charge to the full 81 kWh if you're not going on a long trip aka "range charge"

If you look at the range vs speed curve at http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#range , you'll see that a speed of 30 mph gets you approx. 400 miles which is borne out by the real-world testing of teams in Florida & Holland

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/tesla-model-s-goes-388-miles-in-the-netherlands/

So it's about 500 kJ/km.
That difference gets swallowed up by the other factors, assuming they are accurate and you don't say how you derived the numbers for battery manufacturing.

You're also assuming that no energy is used in getting the diesel from well to vehicle tank? According to the DOE, the efficiency of refining and distribution is 83%.
And your number for MPG seems too high but leaving that aside and assuming all other numbers are correct we get 1552 kJ/km for the Tesla and 1690 * 1.17 or 1977 kJ/km for the diesel which is a difference of 22%
Clearly nothing to sneeze at.

Hydrogen may not be the answer, but neither is electricity. The 'answer' will probably be a combination of fuels and vehicles depending on requirements.

The problem with electric cars will always be the range/refuel problem. While it's true around town traffic isn't too much of an issue, corridors like I10 and I8 between Phoenix/Tucson and the San Diego/LA need at least one central station between them for people to fill up.

The Nissan Leaf has a 24kWh electric battery that advertises 75miles range. That's IF you don't use the heater or A/C, which in Phoenix means the actual amount is much lower 6 months out of the year. But I'm not stopping every 75 miles for 30 minutes, I want to stop every 300 miles for 30 minutes. So we need to be able to pass almost 100KwH into the car in 30 minutes. I could probably do every 200 miles traveling to LA since it's less than 400 miles. And 200 miles would be acceptable for cross country trips, as my wife and I get older, driving 5 hours between stops isn't as tolerable as it used to be. And I'll bet that we spend 30 minutes at a stop, getting gas, using the restroom, looking at souvenirs.

So doing the math, we need to pump the equivalent of 64KwH in 30 minutes (assuming 24KwH/75 miles). That means the pipe going into the car needs to be able to pump 128KwH in an hour. Most homes have a 200amp service, which is about 44KwH. Each gas station needs to be able to be feed three times what a house is fed in order to charge 1 car in 30 minutes, or a 600amp service for each simultaneous recharge.

The Tesla, with it's 245 mile range, states that each 56 miles requires 16.8KwH to charge. The home charger requires a 90amp 240V circuit and draws 70amps for complete charging in 4 hours. That's 15.4KwH, so the math checks out above. It would require a 560amp service JUST to charge one Tesla in 30 minutes. I guess we will need to site each cross-country refueling station next to a power facility in order to keep the size of the transmission lines in check. Or they will also need huge batteries to store power sent off-hours. That $0.12/KwH is going to start to go up with that type of infrastructure.

Electric cars have a place, but they are not long-distance travel cars and never will be. And the last time I checked, there are no electric-powered jet aircraft. So fossil fuels will remain in place for a long time. We can reduce their use, but never eliminate them. I'm sure a world without fossil fuels is fine with the eco-nuts out there. But I'm not giving up my cross-country motorcycle trips because a few tree-huggers don't mind not doing it.

There's a bit more to it than that, jackass.

a Model S traveling at highway speed struck a large metal object, causing significant damage to the vehicle. A curved section that fell off a semi-trailer was recovered from the roadway near where the accident occurred and, according to the road crew that was on the scene, appears to be the culprit. The geometry of the object caused a powerful lever action as it went under the car, punching upward and impaling the Model S with a peak force on the order of 25 tons. Only a force of this magnitude would be strong enough to punch a 3 inch diameter hole through the quarter inch armor plate protecting the base of the vehicle.

As well, the firefighters made it worse before they made it better:

"When the fire department arrived, they observed standard procedure, which was to gain access to the source of the fire by puncturing holes in the top of the battery's protective metal plate and applying water. For the Model S lithium-ion battery, it was correct to apply water (vs. dry chemical extinguisher), but not to puncture the metal firewall, as the newly created holes allowed the flames to then vent upwards into the front trunk section of the Model S. Nonetheless, a combination of water followed by dry chemical extinguisher quickly brought the fire to an end."

It looks like they have plans to build out there eventually from their map at http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger. In-town chargers are not needed as much generally since usually you can charge at home and hopefully more and more hotels will start offering places to charge.

The nice thing with the charging stations is usually I just avoid them with my model S. It's cheaper to charge at home. For driving around the Bay Area it's been great. I've used a few of the supercharger stations which have also been great. My only complaint is that they need more of them in more places. There aren't any heading north from the Bay Area and they need them in some more out of the way places like on the way to Yosemite or near Big Sur. The public charging stations are not all that useful when they only charge at 30 amps. That adds only about 18 miles of range per hour. Plus it seems all of the public spots are taken up by Leafs or Volts. The one time I really needed a public charger due to using a bit more energy on a camping trip I ended up having to unplug a Volt so I could charge in Monterey to reach the Gilroy supercharger. The funny thing is that with the Volt it was more expensive to charge at the public charging station than to use gasoline.

For driving around the Bay Area and where Superchargers are available it has been great. I just wish they would build more of them faster.

http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger shows where they plan to install them.

The S model is just a spec bump?

That's the great thing about electric motors: max torque is at zero Km/h.

Then drops off like a cliff so it has no top end.

Like to see your figures behind that. Car and Driver says:

We measured 0-to-60 mph in 4.6 seconds, a quarter-mile of 13.3 seconds at 104 mph, and a governed top speed of 134 mph. That’s similar to the performance of the V-8 German sedans.

and from what I have read, that's typical. The electric motor keeps up the torque across a much wider band, negating the need for a complex multi-speed transmission. Yeah, the torque drops off, but not until you've blown the doors off most ICE-powered cars simply by flooring the pedal (no clutching, no shifting, just go).
Sure sounds fun to me.

1. If you're in a crash or just dent a body panel with this crap in it how much is that going to cost?

2. What happens when you need to replace the batteries because they don't hold a charge? You replace all the body panels?

I totally understand the "problems" with batteries in EVs. As the summary states "they're big, heavy, and expensive", but they also need to be serviceable, easily swapped or replaced, and then made smaller, lighter, cheaper over time. The barriers to EVs are gas/petrol stations. There's a lot of them! Sure, some have chargers now, but what EVs need are battery swap stations. Of course, this would also require a standard for battery placement, shape and technology to work, but the battery swapping (like propane tanks a la Blue Rhino) I feel is the best solution for competing with internal combustion based cars and the multitude of fueling stations available. Range issues all but disappear if I can pull over just about anywhere and swap out the battery for a fully charged new one in two minutes or less. Integrating batteries into other parts of the car seems dumb to me. Sure, something that makes electricity to help charge the battery pack would be nice, but batteries in body panels for a vehicle that runs on them? Don't see that as a good idea. Standardization of a battery pack and mass deployment of swap stations would be the big win for EVs. Going to be a while yet. Lots could happen.

How would online options really help with determining what has good feel/performance for a customer.

Depends on how much the customer cares about feel/performance. There are people out there who want basic transportation and aren't all that concerned with the other stuff. When I had a short commute, I didn't really care. When I had a long commute, I bought a new car because if I was going to spend an hour-and-a-half somewhere, I was going to enjoy it.

That said, I agree. However, look at Tesla--they have showrooms where you can check out the cars. They do test drives, though you might have to arrange it in advance--I'm not sure you can just walk in and say, "Hey'd I'd like to test drive a roadster!" So they keep a model or two around for the test drive. You don't need acres and acres of land to park a bunch of cars that you hope to sell.

Is wannabe chemist Elon Musk out to lunch?

For the Model S lithium-ion battery, it was correct to apply water (vs. dry chemical extinguisher)

LI-ion safety

Extinguishing this fire is dangerous as lithium burns violently when it comes in contact with water or moisture in the air; a suitable waterless fire extinguisher is recommended

Tesla provides information for first responders on the site.

I recommend the videos, since they are applicable to any electric or hybrid vehicle. There are special considerations for the electrified elements of these cars, which everyone should know about. You may very well be a first responder, so check out the documents and videos.

But only the exposed lithium can do that. Also we are not dealing with pure lithium nor pure water.

Read this:
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/downloads/20130214_ModelS_Emergency_Response_Guide.pdf

Tesla disagrees with you.
http://www.teslamotors.com/firstresponders

Lots of water is a good way to cool the battery and end the fire. The fire triangle exists in battery fires as well.

No, you just are ill informed.

educate yourself:
http://www.teslamotors.com/firstresponders

Look at the firefighting section and you will find that large amount of water will cool the battery and stop the fire. Remember the fire triangle.

SpaceX counts a "launch" on the manifest for when the hardware gets delivered to the launch pad, not for when they actually go up. It seems very likely there will only be one more launch of the Falcon 9 this year, but I might be mistaken.

Still, I agree with you that SpaceX has gone into actual mass production with the Merlin engines with a permanent assembly line that continuously produces these engines... being made at the rate of about one every week or two at the moment and as you are pointing out ramping up production to about two per week. That indeed is a big deal and something that hasn't been done in America since the original ICBMs were built during the Cold War. When you have people who are making the same thing over and over again that quickly, they get very good at what they are doing.

Besides, Elon Musk also has some experience with mass production and what it takes to keep such a production line going.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20130917/CARNEWS/130919842

More then 9 superchargers have been opened in the past two weeks. Total is 21 right now, but many more are coming for fall.

http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger

Here's what the Tesla site says:
http://www.teslamotors.com/advocacy_texas

Here's the Dallas Observer's discussion:
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/tesla_crushed_by_car_dealer_lo.php

And Auto News:
http://www.autonews.com/article/20130909/RETAIL07/130909878/how-texas-dealers-slammed-the-door-on-tesla

Could you put that into a car analogy for us?

...

( ducks and runs for cover )

How about this: Anyone who can afford one of these will simply go to another state to pick up the keys.

Here's what the Tesla site says: http://www.teslamotors.com/advocacy_texas

Here's the Dallas Observer's discussion: http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/tesla_crushed_by_car_dealer_lo.php

And Auto News: http://www.autonews.com/article/20130909/RETAIL07/130909878/how-texas-dealers-slammed-the-door-on-tesla

Could you put that into a car analogy for us?

...

( ducks and runs for cover )

Here's what the Tesla site says:
http://www.teslamotors.com/advocacy_texas

Here's the Dallas Observer's discussion:
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/tesla_crushed_by_car_dealer_lo.php

And Auto News:
http://www.autonews.com/article/20130909/RETAIL07/130909878/how-texas-dealers-slammed-the-door-on-tesla

You can be wary all you like and speculate all you like, but we have real-world collisions to look at already including ones with fatalities (not the Model S' passengers - they're all fine).

http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-safe

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-BoVsb74ZVTU/Ueo211zIQ0I/AAAAAAAAAHA/57Td1d4rr0I/w927-h522-no/TeslaHeadOnCollision-k-bigpic.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-rlB359m59V8/Ueo2xioWUBI/AAAAAAAAAGw/ETAizn3DfnQ/w465-h586-no/TeslaHeadOnCollision-Front.png
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/--CoWlEVV2ro/Ueo2FZEw-nI/AAAAAAAAAEo/hqraTBRsqog/w854-h475-no/HeadOnCollisionCabinIntact.jpg

Scroll down just a bit and you'll see a Honda and BMW that were obliterated and a couple Teslas looking a bit banged up. The drivers have posted on various forums about their experiences. Honda generally makes some pretty safe cars, but you won't be able to find out about the experience of the people in the accident with the Model S because the Honda failed to save their lives. The Model S driver walked away with minor injuries and that was a 1/4 head-on.

Got any other theories about how the Model S will perform?

That's the projected 2015 map. This is the map now. That means the Tesla is not a "drive across the continent" car yet. But it doesn't need to be to be feasible. A charger at home and a charger at work is sufficient, assuming you work within approx 150 miles from your home, as most people do.

No, it really isn't more like $80,000. Please at least do the most basic of research prior to spewing bullshit.

At the base price of $62,400, including the $7,500 Federal Tax Credit, Model S comes equipped with a 60 kWh battery, 19” wheels, black textile and synthetic leather interior, 17” touchscreen, seven speaker sound system with AM/FM/HD radio, mobile connector, and a J1772 charging adapter.

You can pack on all the upgrades, options, and features you want to try and claim it costs tens of thousands more than it does, but that doesn't change the fact that you're spewing bullshit because you don't have a logical leg to stand on. The base price is what the base price is. You don't compare upgraded version to base price competition; you compare base price to base price. It's a $60,000 car, not an $80,000 car or a $100,000 car or a $500,000 car. The fact that you can get a Honda Accord gold plated and bullet-proofed for $1.3 Million doesn't suddenly make Honda Accords cost the same as a Bugatti Veyron.

The Honda Accord base price is $21,680
The BMW 528i base price is $47,500
The Tesla Model S base price is $62,400
The Audi A8 base price is $72,200
The Jaguar XK base price is $79,000
The Porsche 911 Carrera base prise is $84,300

So stop lying to try and prove your point. All it does is prove you have no point to prove.

Tesla has a lot of cross bracing in the front that normally would not be possible in a front engine car. There's a massive pillar that goes between the top of the front suspension. Since the battery pack is under the entire passenger compartment and has steel plates it helps further strengthen the passenger compartment.

The front bumper is connected to two hexagonal extruded aluminum bars designed to absorb the impact.

I have seen some pictures of Teslas that have been in some very bad accidents. In one, a BMW M5 ran a stop sign at 60MPH and hit the front quarter panel of the Tesla. All occupants were OK though.

Pictures: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/17190-Major-accident-for-me-tonight-(5-26)-(New-P85-arrives-7-8)?p=348987&viewfull=1#post348987

Tesla head-on with a Honda Accord: (sadly the accord occupants did not survive) http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-safe

Earlier this year, there was a bad accident where a Tesla Model S hit a 90 Honda Accord head-on: Tesla vs Honda Head-on Collision. The two people in the Accord were killed immediately. The Accord was a crumpled mess, as you can see from the photo in the article. The Tesla driver had only minor injuries. He was able to simply open his door and exit the vehicle. The accident itself is a terrible tragedy, but seeing a real-world example helps you to see just how safe the vehicle is.

The Model X.

You invent a cheaper rechargeable battery that matches LiIon on energy density, and congratulations, you've reduced the price of a model S.

If the battery was free, it would still cost twice what I paid for a decent car. This is a top end luxury vehicle, not a green vehicle.

But this isn't what you would call a "decent car", its a luxury performance electric.
It starts in the same price range as a Cacillac CTS-V Coupe. (67K). Where as Cadillac (perversely) proudly displays the $2600 gas guzzler line item on their website, the Model S lists a $7,500 tax credit.

That you wouldn't consider paying that much for a decent car is not germane. It is still comparable to vehicles in its class. And contrary to your assertion, it is a GREEN vehicle, using the standards of "Green" that are commonly applied to cars.
But there are other models in the pipeline, at cheaper price points. And if the same frame construction is used for these, and they could earn the same safety ratings, it will clearly be a good thing.

They will always cost more than your ricer. But that's hardly the market segment this car is aiming for.

Speaking of lithium car batteries... according to the following, it looks like the Tesla will be running on about 8,000 18650 cells...

http://www.teslamotors.com/it_IT/forum/forums/model-s-going-use-new-version-panasonic-18650-series-battery

This is the same cell that my HP/Compaq CQ56-WalMart uses. My packs use 12 of 'em. I have noted I get a couple of years out ot them before they begin dropping off, then I end up cannibalizing the battery pack for its cells which I then use in projects and flashlights.

When I buy power tools, which lithium cells they use is of much interest to me. So far, I have bought ONLY tools that incorporate the 18650 cell, as I know that in a pinch, I may have to fabricate a battery pack for them, or cannibalize spent packs for usable cells for other things.

I have been very irritated that manufacturers make the battery packs in such a manner the cells are not individually serviceable. One cell goes out of balance and the whole pack is rendered inoperable.

However, the 18650 cells I have experience with are not Panasonics. Apparently many companies manufacture these. They are found in a lot of consumer stuff like power tools.

10 years? What do they consider end of life? I have to admit I have been using these cells for quite some time now and have yet to toss one because it was completely unusable, however I have noted they do indeed lose capacity as they are cycled, and I have developed charge balancers to help me keep these in service.

Read the paper [PDF] not the article. There are no magnetic fields impinging on the cabin space. The proposal is to use pressurized air as the suspension medium, not magnetic levitation. The turbine used to pressurize enough air fast enough is electric, but it keeps its fields tightly inside itself, as with all good electric motors.

If your daughter could write a 57 page document with detailed engineering and financial data supporting her proposal, then she'd get an article too.

You have to follow two layers of links to find out that this isn't just dreaming. It's a real proposal, with detailed research and analysis, informed by a mind that has been associating with rocket scientists every day for 11 years. He's been asking and getting answers to questions about supersonic travel through air for quite a long time now. He's not exactly spitballing.

And if you follow those links and read, you'll discover that he thinks the $50 billion price tag that California is currently proposing to spend is just as stupid as you think it is. He thinks Hyperloop could be built for less than $6 billion. And he's probably right.

I don't recommend the article. It's as useless as any other click-bait. The paper [PDF] is worth a read.

It's one of Elon's worst-kept secrets - dating back to 2006

He did miss the $45k price point goal by a wide margin, however

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-between-you-and-me

What will be interesting is when their $$30-40K car comes out in a few years. And Teslas start at $62,400 before the tax credit.

In their class and price range they are outselling the other cars. In Q1 they outsold Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, Porsche and Jaguar. They also outsold the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf, considerably less expensive cars not in their class and that's before they started shipping to Europe which is starting now.

http://www.teslamotors.com/models/options

The article says 4.2 sec 0-60 for a Model S, whereas a TDI is 8.7 according to zeroto60times.com.

How does that kind of acceleration affect total range? Valid concern with electrics, not so important with decently-powered IC engines.

A vehicle that runs 150,000 miles at 40mpg will burn 3750 gals. Assuming a $4/gal average that is $15,000.

Over the course of how many years? We'll use me as an example - my VW is driven about 30,000 mi/yr, so I'll spend that over about 5 years. The car cost $28,000 as equipped, so TCO over 5 years including fuel and excluding maintenance comes to $43,000, still much, much cheaper than the low end S (Plus, I can go almost 500 miles on a single "charge"), and mine is a top-of-the-line model, save the satnav system. It's less than half the cost of the comparable S model.

The batteries in the Telsa have to be swapped what, every decade? Per the Tesla Motors forum:

Tesla has said that the replacement cost is about $30,000. That being said, you can buy the pre-paid replacement option for $12,000. The reason for the discrepency is due to the fact that the expected life of the battery is about 10 years at which the future value of the $12,000 upfront is closer to $15,000.

Granted, that's for the Roadster, but we can assume a similar cost in the S for discussion's sake.

OK, so we take the base cost of ~$87,000 for the top-end S (since my Jetta is top-end as well, it would be intellectually dishonest to compare it to the base model S), plus another $15,000 for batteries, TCO over 10 years including fuel and excluding maintenance comes out to just over $100,000. The Jetta TDI over the same period costs about $58,000, or almost half as much.

Hell, I could buy a decked-out Tiguan with the savings alone!

The Model S includes free lifetime use of their supercharger network, otherwise admittedly you will be paying for electricity.

Which is nice, if those superchargers are ubiquitous where you live. I live in MO, on the Ozark Plateau... never even seen a supercharger, and even if I do, they'll be in the major cities (STL, KC, Springfield, maybe Rolla); fine for urban dwellers, not so convenient for we rural folks.

For the record, I looked it up on the Tesla website, and the charging time on standard 120v for someone that drives a mere 60 miles a day comes out to over 10 hours of charging time. Jump to 240v and the charging time drops to less than 2 hours (really? double the power and take 75% off the time? How does that work?), but that also means paying for someone to install a new outlet, any legal requirements like permits, etc, that I can't or just don't want to figure right now.

I think a Jetta is a good car.

I think the Tesla is an OK car, and I have nothing against electrics in general. I just don't buy into the OMFGLECTRICS hype, and especially considering Mr. Musk's well-publicized inability to handle criticism, I question the veracity of their claims. Oh, and spending almost a hundred grand on a vehicle that is easily surpassed by one that costs almost a quarter as much.

Of course, I never bought an iPhone either.

I am simply pointing out that sticker price is not the whole story, particularly for electric cars.

Now there is an understatement if I ever saw one.

Side note: I got a real kick out of their "How Do I Take A Road Trip?" point on the Top 5 Questions page (keep in mind, my natural state of being essentially boils down to 'cynical asshole who thinks he's funny'):

After an exhilarating few hours on the road, you’ll be READY FOR A PIT STOP

?

You don't know me, bitch. I once drove from STL to PHX non-stop, save for fueling up (which took all of 5 minutes each time, BTW

The only real problem with battery cars is the battery. Where do used batteries go?

Used batteries are recycled by KBI/Toxco...

For all the whining and moaning about rich people, that seems to be how society advances often. A rich person's fad then becomes a commodity.

Yeah ... but I mean to call the Model S no longer a rich person's fad is stretching it. Their MSRPs for a 60 kWh car is $62,400. $72,400 for an 85 kWh and $87,400 for the 85 kWh with upgraded features. Is this really affordable? I thought I was living a pretty average lifestyle but I spent $6,600 on my current car ... Of course, if you're calling it the iPhone in that everyone else is buying it and I'm laughing at how much money they're spending on phones then, yes, it could be called the iPhone. Still very much a rich person's car though.

Tesla can be recharged to 50% in 20 minutes if you are using their supercharger.

Looking up the site's claims, it's '50% in 20 minutes', I'm taking that as +50%, not TO 50%. IE if you start at 20%, you'll be 70% when you're done. If you're really close to 0% you might get a touch more, if you're close to 50% you might get a bit less. Given that Tesla sets their battery's '100%' to more like 80% of true capacity for longevity purposes, you shouldn't run into the problem where the last 5% takes as long as the first 50%.

Stopping for 20-30 minutes every 100-150 miles is not practical.

Well, it's a good thing that the range is 265 for a model S. You might be able to Ironman driving, but I like to sit down and have a good meal every so often. That's without getting into a number of different possibilities:
1. The proposed on-road charging, which should enable you to finish a drive with most of the charge you left with, even if it doesn't enable charging the battery at all.
2. Even more increased battery capacity - we saw an article about lithium-sulfur batteries not long ago. Even if it only 'doubles' the range - that's 530 miles of range, or 8 hours of driving at 65 mph. You want lunch, right? If you utilize a high speed charger for an hour during that, you should be able to hit 14-16 hours of driving easy.
3. Generator trailer: I LOVE this concept. When people are on long trips is generally when they want to haul the most stuff. Make a small trailer incorporating a 5 gallon tank and a 15-20 kw generator in addition to some extra storage. The Tesla model S should use ~21kw@65, but if you're supplying 75% of the energy, you should be able to travel 1k miles before exhausting the battery, and just let it keep running for a bit if you're camping to charge the batteries back up. A 20kw version shouldn't cost more than $13k. See #4 for the idea of simply renting the trailer when you need it. If it runs the full size price, you're still looking at 65 weeks of renting it to make it cheaper to buy.
4. Week long rental costing 10% of the cost of a car? What kind of cheap-ass cars are you looking at? I see $45-65/day, $315-455, $3-4.5k doesn't generally get you a car I'd trust on a highway. Heck, Enterprise, checking a non-airport location, gives me a rental price for a full size at $200 for a week. You can get a 'intermediate SUV' for $320.

I didn't realize that solar power contributed to pollution, guess we should turn off the sun?. If I remember correctly with Tesla S there is the ability to use the their charging stations which are 100% solar powered. of course if you're not near one then plugging in would be the next best thing. I'm also guessing that as Tesla motors grow there will be more of these stations scattered through out the US
http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger

now initially the price of the S seems steep, but if you take into consideration that you are no longer paying for Fuel/ oil and the never ending tune up of an older technology then the price doesn't seem that unreasonable
I'm wondering who financed this study/report

Given the cost of batteries, I too would be somewhat dubious unless the car came with a warranty offering free (or extremely reduced cost) battery replacements for the first 10-15 years.

The Tesla Model S includes free battery replacements under warranty for the first 8 years or 125,000 miles for the 65 kWh battery (the 85 kWh battery warranty has no mileage limit). After 8 years, you can extend the warranty period for $7,500 for 3 years or 36,000 miles, which is ~10% of the Model S (85 kWh) purchase price.

(An average car does 12,000 miles per year, so one is unlikely to hit the 125,000 miles limit on the 65 kWh model. People who drive a lot will probably want the 85 kWh model anyway.)