Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Factory Racing To Retool For New Models
An anonymous reader notes this story about what Tesla will have to do in order to double production every year for the next several years as Elon Musk intends. "Having just reported a $107.6-million fourth-quarter loss that sent its stock tumbling, Tesla Motors Inc. intends to double vehicle production in the next year as it finally introduces its Model X sport utility vehicle — after about two years of delays. Meanwhile, Tesla is racing to finish the design of its Model 3, the "affordable" Tesla, expected to sell in the $30,000 range after government subsidies. Musk's company is chasing General Motors Co., which plans a 2017 release of its all-electric Bolt, with a similar price and 200-mile driving range between charges."
Especially when the "affordable" version (which is not really that affordable) is only "affordable" via government subsidies. Why don't you tell us what the real price is, Elon?
It's an error in the summary and/or article. Elon still claims that the Model 3 will sell for 30k before subsidies.
No, Elon says it's $35,000 before subsidies.
Elon still falsely claims that the Model 3 will sell for 30k before subsidies.
Fixed that for you.
Either way, when you factor in the cost of fuel, the TCO still works out to be competitive with an average mid-range family sedan, even at the current low price of gas. This advantage is bound to grow over time as the price of oil inevitably rebounds.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
This is the second "article" in one day about Elon Musk.
Maybe some of you should read this.
And I am now thinking that Slashdot has been bombarded or even maybe paid to feature Elon Musk promoting articles.
It's not just Cramer. See, Wall Street has a much different opinion on Tesla and Musk than Silicon Valley's misguided hero worship.
Say what you want about Wall Street - and I'll be right there to join in - but they do know bullshitters and bullshit.
Just because its cost-competitive doesn't mean people will buy it. Who has $35k to shell out for a car?
45 mpg 4 passenger cars sell for $10k new. During the high gas prices in Canada last year, I'd pump $200 a month into mine. Now it's more like $110.
Let's assume $250 a month, and that electricity is free, just to give Tesla the best advantage, even if unrealistic. In 8.3 years the Tesla would save me money. Factor in interest and realistic electricity prices, make it 10-12 years.
Sorry, still not doing it for me.
Nonsense, not cost-competitive at all. $22K gets you a sedan, 27 MPG in the city, for $1700 yearly gasoline bill at $3 a gallon and 15,000 miles. Burning hydrocarbons is clearly the superior choice for the family on a budget
The tesla is only competitive to people that can perform simple math.
Yes, because every other characteristic in that $10k is the exact same as Tesla's $35k. No way in hell they may also add other things, just like how the Model S is basically wheels and a frame, right?
There will be a surge and resulting peak in demand for their expensive cars and then demand will fall off a cliff and the company will eventually disappear. Maybe then we'll finally stop seeing the endless supply of pump and dump stock articles that appear on /., esp positive-spin articles like this one that magically appear whenever there is negative news about the company.
Niche vehicles is easy.
Scaling production to 100K units/year is hugely capital-intensive and Tesla still has to find out what the old-school automakers have already learned.
Just wait for the Apple electrical car!
That's what Steve Jobs would have wanted.
Price of cheap car is about the same as price of insurance and price of gas over the time of the car. At least around here, where small cars get penalized for with insurance fees.
Cheap car, about $15k. So $15 for fuel. And $15k for insurance over 10 years.
$35k cars, well, kind of competitive with this. Certainly depends on future fuel costs. Your car is also worth hell of a lot more at end of its life - the lithium in the batteries doesn't disappear!
"factory"? Only Luddites still use old ideas like factories. What's next? A supply chain?
Everyone knows we can 3D print cars, people must be 3D printing their cars at home now, Elon. Your old factory ideas are obsolete.
Don't for get to factor in the cost of replacing that piece of shit battery when it can no longer hold a charge.
22k gets you a fucking corolla. Whoopdeedoo. Tesla's models will be more in line with a mid-level family sedan; perhaps even as good as an avalon.
And let's compare houses like you're comparing cars. Since you need luxury, a house costs $1 million, needs $10k in taxes a year, and $25k in operating expenses.
For others, a house costs $150k, needs $1k in taxes, and $2k in operating expenses.
If you're you, then yes, you'll "have to have" that luxury car. If you're me and just about every other schmoe that's in the 99%, you'll be very happy in the regular house, and the regular car.
Whoever thinks a 416lb 4650lb car is "efficient" or "green" missed high school physics.
And whoever thinks weight is the only factor in calculating efficiency clearly didn't go any further than high school physics....
And peddling too... ;-)
Seriously, we've heard this gripe before, and gotten over it just fine. They used to complain that it couldn't be done. Then the Roadster proved them wrong. Then they said it couldn't be repackaged for the "mainstream" luxury market, until Tesla started shipping the Model S. Then they said Tesla would never be able to ramp up Model S production to meet demand, until... well, they're still trying to catch up with the backlog of orders, but they are making progress.
And simultaneously they are also (finally) bringing the Model X to market and investing heavily in the Giga Factory to enable high-volume production of ALL electric vehicles, especially their own Model 3.
FTFA: "Tesla has lost its luster, he said, and could soon lose credibility."
Any investor who is so short-sighted as to sell off Tesla shares based on the incidental losses last quarter had no business buying those shares in the first place. Elon has been crystal clear about his plans for Tesla's development right from the beginning. If you're freaked out about strict GAAP losses at such an early stage of growth, then you don't have a realistic understanding of how such large (huge) capital-intensive enterprises bootstrap themselves. Such investors were just looking for a short-term capital gain, and wet their pants at the first sign of slow-down in Tesla's meteoric rise. Good riddance to them.
Bottom line: Tesla has a multi-thousand-customer waiting list for the Model S, and 20K reservations for the Model X... If you do the math, that's a couple BILLION in pent-up demand for a product that only Tesla currently provides. And lucky for them, they haven't even built those factories yet. So unlike the "major players" in the market, they don't have to "re-tool"... they're building from scratch, which gives them an advantage at least as big as the disadvantage you claim.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Arguably, pushing electric vehicles now will help prepare infrastructure. That's a noble goal even if it is hidden behind a marketing trick.
What cars are you looking at that cost 10k new? Low end cars cost closer to 15k on average,and you're getting a base model. 35k isn't a crazy amount to spend on a good, reliable car with a few features. If you're looking for a car that's in the 15k range, then a majority of new cars available are already out of your range, thus you're not a target audience. Mercedes just brought a car down to the 30k range, I expect they see a market. People want nice cars but don't feel like paying 40-65k which is the current going rate. Specifically compare the affordable Tesla with the current Model S which starts at 69k. So cutting costs in half, then add government subsidies, you're an idiot if you think that this car isn't actually affordable.
If you think burning fossil fuels in an ICE at 25% efficiency is green, then keep on sending your money to the terrorists.... EVs emit less CO2 than ICE cars even if the electricity comes from dirty coal because there is much higher efficiency at all stages. Coal is on it's way out for electricity generation, BTW, in case you haven't heard. Worldwide coal consumption has decreased for the past few years and the "war on coal" is just getting started. Wind and solar electricity are now cost competitive with coal and much cheaper than nuclear.
EV cars are much cheaper than gas... even the cheap gas we have today. Gas would have to go below $0.50 a gallon to be cheaper than electricity for cars.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Your electric bill for the same 15,000 miles would be about $400. The extra $1300 a year can go a long way to buy a nice electric car rather than a POS bottom of the line econobox oil burner.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Very little of America's oil comes from the terrorists. We import very little Middle Eastern oil.
Europe would be fucked if ME oil was cut off, though.
Average sales price of a new car in 2013 was $31,762. Apparently a lot of people have that kind of money to buy a car.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Why do you think we are in an endless war in the Middle East? Why do you think Obama rushed to kiss the ring of the new Saudi king? Oil is fungible and the US has put itself in charge of ensuring there is plenty to go around. We all would be fucked it ME oil was cut off.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
> electric cars like the tesla actually pollute more than regular economy cars
You have no idea what you're talking about. Electricity generation from burning fossil fuels at a power station is significantly more efficient than a regular car's combustion process. Do you need some links or can you do some research yourself?
Oh, yeah, because he's hurt so many people with his ambition and ego. He's practically Stalin.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I am currently working as a skilled tradesman in the fremont tesla plant. installing a massive body line that will be able to manufacture 3 body styles. Tesla is paying upwards of 12 million to get this line finished by fall. So they can ramp up production. Anyone that says it won't happen should take a tour of the plant on Wednesdays. The new line is massive and we are doing our best to finish it.
That's not what average means. The median sale price will tell you what people can or cannot afford.
You should consider the business model of slashdot. How does slashdot make money? I suspect page views are part of it.
If i were running slashdot, I'd be able to tell you, based on over a decade of historical data, which types of articles generate the highest ad revenues. I'd make sure those articles appeared as often as possible, and I'd look for feedback effects to make sure I wasn't over doing it.
If you want to know why slashdot has lots of articles in Elon Musk, Tesla, Gender in CS, and Microsoft, it's because those stories bring the clicks, commenters, and critically, page views.
(I'm assuming)
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
This has been debunked numerous times. EVs have less CO2 emission than gasoline cars even when the electricity comes from dirty coal.
Here's one good article with references:
http://www.greencarreports.com...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
And let's compare houses like you're comparing cars. Since you need luxury, a house costs $1 million, needs $10k in taxes a year, and $25k in operating expenses.
For others, a house costs $150k, needs $1k in taxes, and $2k in operating expenses.
You obviously don't live in New Jersey. The taxes on my middle-class colonial are around 16,500. You couldn't get an empty lot for $150k.
Did anyone else read that head line and think "hey, I didn't realize that Tesla had a Factory Racing team, those races would be fun to watch"....
so the short term rats dont like that i'll take time for this comapny top be succesfull. Why the fuck didn you buy into the stock in the first place. If I had the $$$$ i'd be into Tesla now and hopefully the new model shoiuld come out as the same time as my current car is paid off. Nice trade in towards the Model 3.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Ha. I love Tesla, but if that happens I'll eat my hat.
That said, after finishing said hat I'll drive up to the local store and place an order on one since that'd be within my price range unlike a Model S.
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
Teslas are for rich people. Why is the government giving subsidies to people for buying these cars? That means middle class people like me have to pay more in taxes so we continue to not be able to afford an expensive car like a Tesla and so that the rich can afford to buy a Tesla for less than the true cost.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
You can get a better performing car for less than a tesla if you forgo electric.
Obviously you have never actually looked at the Model S specifications. The performance edition of the all wheel drive version has 691 horsepower. The rear motor alone has 443 ft lb of torque at zero RPMs. Can you get a more powerful internal combustion engine? Sure. But where? The 2015 Corvette tops out at 650 horsepower. The 2015 Mustang tops out at 435. The 2015 Camero tops out at 580. And none of those seat 7. The 2015 Cadillac XTS tops out at 410 horsepower. The 2015 Cadillac CTS tops out at 420. The 2015 Audi S8 tops out at 520 horsepower and it is NOT cheaper than a Model S.
And then in the same paragraph, you start talking about efficiency. You do realize that high performance and high efficiency simultaneously is ONLY possible in electric vehicles? Internal combustion can't do it. When you punch an electric motor, it stay 98% efficient. When you punch an internal combustion engine, its already miserable efficiency drops into the single digits. When an electric vehicle recharges, it's power source is NOT being pushed to the performance limit. It continues to operate at its best efficiency.
Most importantly, the energy source to recharge an electric vehicle is 100% fungible. If you live near a nuclear power plant, recharging your car is already producing 0 CO2. Zero. None. That is never possible for your fossil fuel car no matter how efficient your car gets. It will ALWAYS produce more than zero CO2. Build more nuclear power plants, or solar plants, or windmills, or all of the above, and the more electric cars there are, the less CO2 is produced by transportation. That's physically impossible with a fossil fuel fleet.
You must try really hard to be wrong about literally everything you said.
$30k for an electric car doesn't sound too bad. Now drop the weight by half and double the range and count me in.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Do we have to call everything Americans think of doing as a war on something? Is that really all Americans think are important? More wars? Even if it's metaphorical, it says something about a society that can't go a year without declaring war on something or other.
Well, you know, for all the success it brings (with all loses and public subsidies, hey, what? is this socialism or capitalism?) I would love to hear Elon Musk's opinion on sustainability (http://science.slashdot.org/story/15/02/15/1253255/elon-musk-to-write-a-book-about-earth-sustainability-and-mars-colonization) especially now that we are past peak oil, about 80% of transport world wide energy is fossil, and electric cars still have a huge fossil bill (try to make a car with just renewable energies), or charging your battery fast.
Seriously, Musk (and Tesla) are not a win for the world.
mid-range BMW, Audi, Volvo, Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, and top trim Ford, Chevy, Buick, Chrysler, Toyota etc. sedans. I believe I've seen a few of those around. Wait, I've seen lots.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
The Challenger SRT Hellcat claims 707 hp. Got schooled at the dragstrip by a Model S P85D, but the driver was inexperienced and running stock rear tires. Still, that’s a lot of horses for some $60K.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/mo...
Teslas are for rich people.
This year. Unlike certain whiners, the government is thinking long-term.
Why is the government giving subsidies to people for buying these cars?
Because the government has a long-term goal of reducing carbon emissions and reducing America's reliance on oil. Subsidies for electric cars help develop battery technology and other infrastructure necessary for making that transition, sooner and less disruptively than the market would manage on its own.
That means middle class people like me have to pay more in taxes so we continue to not be able to afford an expensive car like a Tesla and so that the rich can afford to buy a Tesla for less than the true cost.
The upside for you is that when the shit finally hits the fan regarding oil consumption (either due to geopolitical problems, peak oil, or the effects of global warming becoming intolerable), you will be much more likely at that point to have the option of buying an affordably priced electric car to serve your transportation needs. That will be less painful for you than paying $20/gallon for gas, or going without a car -- your other two options in a scenario where the electric cars market was not well developed in advance of our need for it.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
If you think burning fossil fuels in an ICE at 25% efficiency is green, then keep on sending your money to the terrorists.... EVs emit less CO2 than ICE cars even if the electricity comes from dirty coal because there is much higher efficiency at all stages.
if by "much higher efficiency" you mean 40% vs 25%
then yes.
factor in transmission line losses (6%) and charging losses (10-20%)
and it's not so much more efficient.
I've been a TSLA stock holder long enough to be extremely happy with my stock purchase. And you're right anyone who is just buying it for short term I think is terribly misguided. When I bought it, I bought it both for ideological statement of supporting a technology I want to see change the market and also because this is was one of those rare opportunities to buy a stock like Microsoft or Ford when their future was still uncertain.
That being said I can see why people would be worried about TSLA. I'm going to hold it until they go bankrupt but there is a pretty sizable risk that the entire automotive industry isn't going to just be disrupted by going electric, it's going to be disrupted by driver-less technology. I have no idea how Tesla is going to respond to that challenge. Apple has a market cap of $750Billion. They had a 4th QUARTER profit of $18Billion. TSLA has a market cap of $25B. Apple could buy a controlling share of Tesla with their profit from just a single quarter. Or they could take $18B from one quarter and start a car company. Microsoft has $92 Billion in cash.
Ford's market cap is $63B. If Microsoft or Apple were so inclined they could buy Ford and have a worldwide manufacturing infrastructure to build self-driving cars. There is actually a pretty long list of companies who if they really put their mind to it could enter the market at nearly a moment's notice. Then again supposedly someone could barge into the smartphone market at any moment but it doesn't seem to happen.
The way the factory is set up one line of robots builds all models, so all they have to do is stretch the line or create a new one from scratch in the same factory...a lot easier than a traditional factory could be tooled up. The cars being built are on carts that follow a magnetic strip on the ground through the line of robots. Its essentially built to be expanded upon and improved as they go. Genius really.
You should know better than to claim something is "impossible". A fossil fuel fleet doesn't have to run on fossil fuel. It could run on manufactured gas that was made in part by pulling CO2 from the atmosphere or by using carbon-neutral fuels such as Ethanol.
http://www.nj.com/essex/index....
Well, since the warranty is 8 years, assuming it costs the same $12k that it does today, that's $1,500 year- IF it fails or capacity has significantly diminished by 8 years and 1 day. But you don't have to factor in are: transmission replacements/rebuilds, timing belt replacement, etc.
and now trying to make it up on volume? I'll pass on that business plan.
22k gets you a fucking corolla.
A tesla is nothing more than a fucking corolla that they charge you $100,000 for.
I'd like to see the average income for a Tesla owner, I imagine it is relatively high. I also imagine most would have bought a Tesla regardless of the tax break, so I agree we should not be subsidizing the sales of cars for higher income individuals.
That money should go into R&D and infrastructure where eventually a larger percentage of the people can benefit.
While this is true if it wasn't for the ME pushing down the oil prices that oil would be a lot more expensive.
It's true that Europe and China would be the first to suffer though.
Giving a few wealthy folks money to buy high cost EV's that often aren't even their primary vehicle isn't going to do much to help the global warming situation.
Our upside might be much greater if that money were used for development and improvement of solutions.
You have a lot more energy security with electric vehicles though. If for whatever reason the market changes you can switch the generators without replacing all the cars on the road.
Not that far. Admittedly the Tesla's are nice cars but the thing is the other manufacturers are not standing still. A lot of the traditional manufactures will have their own, lower cost, electrics with similar ranges. Sure the Tesla might be a nicer car but most people cannot afford high end or even midrange luxury sedans. They need something serviceable and ideally at least somewhat nice, but not necessarily the top of the line. This could bite them if their margins are not similar to a company like BMW. If they cannot corner the market then 10 years from now they are just another luxury car manufacturer and might even struggle under their costs. They could find them selves being bought up by someone like VW. Not the worst fate but not the success that i suspect they want.
Just because they are cool does not mean they will prevail.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Your insurance is insane and in a 40 MPG car that is 250K miles worth of travel at the current cost of gas.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Have you considered that one day the electric power to fuel these cars may not be coming from "dirty sources". If we have a chain like this "dirty -> clean" which enables the possibility of " clean -> clean", isn't that better than a chain which leads from " [clean|dirty] -> no change dirty"? Supposing we do wean ourselves off of the fossil fuel industry as you may envision. Do you think that involves have "dirty" cars and "clean" supply chains? Converting electricity and hydrogen [ yes electricity can be collected directly from "clean sources" and hydrogen can be formed from H20 using electricity] to carbon may be feasible one day, but there is no reason do that if we have electric or hydrogen powered cars which use this clean energy. Of course electric cars cost more to produce now, blah blah blah, more pollution goes into their production, blah blah blah, but the first problem is a problem of scale, and the second problem can be eliminated by using "clean" energy sources in their production.[ another part of the clean supply chain ]. We are going to have to make a serious commitment. Or is that the point "we will have little need for carbon once we switch" is the part that is bothering the "sceptics"? Even if you don't care where we get our energy from, it still has to be there.
Society use your Sciences
Wrong, wrong. Tesla's current market cap (valuation) is a little over $25B. Thus in terms of size they're about 40% as big as Ford, who no doubt sells millions of vehicles per year, pays a dividend, has huge product lines and a wide dealer base.
So, if Tesla's sales were to double along with their market cap, they would be a size roughly comparable to Ford, but their business is nowhere near as brisk as Ford's. What I'm trying to say is current investors have priced in perfection in reaching the company's goals of being a major auto player. A report like this is definitely justification to sell, because what do you know, reality is not as easy and rosy as investors had thought.
Or if you live in Canada. Price of gas before this whole dip was almost $6 a gallon up here. 35K for a sedan that will save an average Canadian commuter almost 2K a year in fuel costs is a total no brainer if they were already shopping in a similar market segment.
I'd like to see the average income for a Tesla owner, I imagine it is relatively high. I also imagine most would have bought a Tesla regardless of the tax break, so I agree we should not be subsidizing the sales of cars for higher income individuals.
I'm still in favor of the professionals making laws and public policy, rather than leaving decisions to *your* imagination.
But still... let me give it a try - "I imagine that Assad and the Syrian rebels would come to some accord if the U.S. threatened to nuke the entire country, so let's start with one of their smaller cities, and see if they take the hint."
Hey, I like this!
Right, because "zomg, we can't build cars fast enough" is such a horrible problem for him to have.
If you're gonna factor in transmission line losses and charging loss, then you also have to factor in idling and drivetrain losses, which brings the fuel efficiency of an ICE down to about 15%. Not counting the energy required to actually make the fuel in the first place (which is also not zero). More importantly, though, electric cars are source-neutral: they don't give a shit if their electricity comes from coal, nuclear, or solar.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
It is just a figure of speech, and if you have any understanding of the market you would feel pretty confident that the assumption is accurate. I don't see you denying that it is probable, so you resort to a petty smart ass response that adds nothing to the conversation.
And GMAFB about "professionals making the law". You must live under a rock if you think these laws are not as much political/lobby driven as they are substantiated.
So, if you don't believe most Tesla owners are relatively wealthy, please say so, otherwise you really have not point other than to show us you are mad.
Hm.. well... you pretty-much validate my point here. If you are buying TSLA as a "hot stock" investment, then you deserve to take your short-term loss. But if you instead had the "vision" to see this as a long-term opportunity, you might understand why we are still YEARS away from knowing how the TSLA gamble will play out. And you would not be perturbed by random fluctuations in the market.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
1) You missed out the "transmission" losses for the fuel (it takes roughly 1.2 gallons of fuel on average to transport 5 gallons of fuel to the petrol station)
2) You missed out the transmission losses for a mechanical car (around 30% of your energy is lost in the gearbox/diff/...)
3) EVs are actually about 90% efficient, not 40%.
4) Power plants are roughly 50-60% efficient even if you assume you use fossil fuels to generate the power.
What this adds up to:
Fuel powered car = 80% (fuel tanker efficiency) * 26% (engine efficiency) * 70% (transmission efficiency) = roughly 15% efficient total system (ignoring the amount of energy it takes to dig up the fuel and carry it to shore)
Electrically powered car = 60% (power plant efficiency) * 94% (power grid efficiency) * 85% (charging efficiency) * 90% (engine efficiency) = roughly 43% efficient total system.
Add to that that you hypothetically in the future can then replace the fossil fuel burning power plant with a {nuclear | wind | solar | ... } one, and you get a rather huge win. You're literally using one third the power to drive your vehicle.
My friend got a nice surprise from his insurance company. Until last year the insurance for electric cars was subsidized by the government, but this year he had to pay full price for his 482 HP Tesla: a whopping 3890 euro (was 750 euro with subsidy) for a year. That's 38900 euro over 10 years! You have to save a lot a fuel that earn this sum of money back. For my friend it means the Tesla is a lot more expensive then the car it replaces: a BMW 525D with only 540 euro insurance premium ( and 715,70 euro tax). Currently he doesn't pay tax on a Tesla (the only form of subsidy left for electric car owners), but that might (probably) change in the near future.
I don't know if Tesla has thought about the countries with high insurance premiums for cars with lots of horse power, but they should certainly think about it when they try to make an affordable electric car for the world.
The current Tesla cars with the high horse power are in the same class as BMW 7 series (or M5), Mercedes S (or AMG), Audi A8,.... And when you are shopping in that range, money and fuel economy might matter, but the inner fan boy probably takes over.
I would happily shell out $30K for an electric car that can deliver 200+ miles of range. I cannot shell out $40, $50, or $90K though.
I look forward to the day I can stop visiting the gas station and breathing in gas fumes, while listening to ads being played at my back, while I zone out for the 5mins waiting while the tanks fills up. Sometimes, I get a little distraction while waiting; like staring at crackheads who size me up for my suitability for theft/assault, random poor folks who would like for fill up my car in exchange for cash I don' want to spend, full service stations where the attendant ALWAYS tops off the tank even thought there's a sticker saying don't do it at the risk of emissions control system damage, or just the pure insult of seeing the price change for apparently little or no reason, but predictably always up.
I think I'm average for an urban dweller. I use my car to go to work, then home, with maybe a stop or two one or two days a week. I rarely leave the metropolitan area, and even then, RARELY more than 100 miles -- gas costs too much for that, flying is cheaper at that point. I commute less than 2mile each way. When I worked further away, my commute was a mind numbing 10miles each way in horrible traffic -- that made me drive even less when I didn't have to.
So, yeah, I look forward to an "affordable" electric car, that is inherently more reliable (I know a little something something about IC engines, and gasoline is the MOST maintenance intensive of all the fuels), can be "fueled" when I'm not using it, especially at home, and won't need a new belt, adjustment, filter, fluid change at least every 2 years. Tesla has also managed to not make them look like spaceships -- looking at you GM. 200 miles range sounds good to me, and under $35K is looking even better; I'm not in the market for a econo-box anymore, but not in the Caddy market either. Just comfortably transportation.
Just because its cost-competitive doesn't mean people will buy it. Who has $35k to shell out for a car?
Cars don't have to be affordable for people to buy them. A family that needs two cars should have a household income of well over $100k per year before they should be buying $30k+ new cars (IHMO, and based on the 20/4/10 rule). But they probably only have to make median income to qualify for the loans.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Power plant 'systemic' efficiency varies widely based on the generating technology.
I am curious that you say fuel tanker efficiency is 80%, that would indicate that a tanker uses 20% of the energy contained in the fuel it transports. I don't know what the right number is, but I would be very surprised if it used that much energy.
But, with that said, I'm not sure that is the right way to compare overall energy benefit anyhow. If you were burning oil for electrical generation vs burning gas in a car, the car would likely show a greater systemic energy efficiency. What would be more interesting is total energy put into the system vs total mileage extracted. Calculating that would be quite challenging, IMO.
Whoever thinks the average American, or for that matter, car consumer only shops for fuel efficiency is deluded. High MPG is nice, but it is a distant 4th maybe 5th on my list. Many will trade looks for MPG readily. Space for MPG, comforts for MPG, etc. In general, those shopping for 40+ MPG are NOT the average. Lets not fool ourselves into thinking this issue of "green" or efficient is in the forefront. Moreover, the emissions controls on a billion $ powerplant are more effective, reliable and less DEFEATABLE than on a $20K econobox.
Even the Sun goes down.
It doesn't matter where your oil comes from. The oil market is global and the price of oil is more or less the same everywhere. You money still fund terrorists and bloody dictators when you pay for oil and increase world oil demand.
...and yet we still import from nations who publicly dislike/criticize us. Sometimes with good reason, but still. How about we move toward a 0 emissions future?
Even the Sun goes down.
Giving a few wealthy folks money to buy high cost EV's that often aren't even their primary vehicle isn't going to do much to help the global warming situation.
I think it already has -- the model S showed the auto industry that there is a market for electric cars, if those cars provide a good customer experience. Before Tesla, the general thought in the car industry was that electric cars would have to be cheaper than gasoline cars in order to sell, but that idea never worked -- because it was impossible to price an electric car that cheap without stripping it down into an unsellable golf-cart. Tesla demonstrated that the way to sell electric cars wasn't to make them cheaper than gasoline cars, but rather to make them better. Now we have other manufacturers (BMW, Nissan, GM) competing to get into that market, and the development-and-competition ball is rolling. The next step is for competition and volume production to bring prices down, just like they did for gasoline cars in the early 20th century.
Our upside might be much greater if that money were used for development and improvement of solutions.
Perhaps, if you knew which companies to throw the development money at. But that's a hard thing to predict reliably (witness the long succession of "visionary" electric car companies whose products went nowhere, despite significant investment). This way, the customers decide which electric car designs are worth supporting and which are not.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
You are defending the continued use of petroleum byproducts in the powering of inefficient IC engines for personal transport. Please, lets not. If they can somehow cut out the necessary transportation for the raw material from the source to the refining plant by way of IC engine, and the refining process fueled by electricity (produced by said petroleum byproducts), then transported to the distribution stations by IC powered transports, and stations powered by electricity (produced by said petroleum byproducts), then the fuel spillage, waste, etc. that happens at gas stations, then I can maybe get behind it, maybe. But I have trouble ignoring the inane daily price hikes and that $0.009. Do you really have to show my that hundredth of a cent? Its a f***ed up system all the way around. Lets trade it in for something I already have available at my home, at my convenience.
Even the Sun goes down.
You clearly don't live in Camden. I believe they are still giving away homes with $1000yr taxes there.
Even the Sun goes down.
I know quite a few Gen II Prius owners that are the 2nd, or 3rd owner, and are NOT replacing battery packs; but still driving and still getting 40+MPG. I guess the sky didn't fall like the naysayers claimed. Perhaps it suddenly will in 7yrs for Teslas. Probably not though. But I DO know a LOT of used car owners including myself who were stuck with replacing the timing belt, transmission filters, coilpacks and other assorted expensive service parts on 2nd or 3rd hand used cars. Even worse, foregoing regular maintenance with modern cars almost ensure catastrophic/unrecoverable failure.
Even the Sun goes down.
I think it already has -- the model S showed the auto industry that there is a market for electric cars, if those cars provide a good customer experience
Tesla was not first to market with an EV. They did move first into the high end market, but what will matter is the lower end mass market where existing EVs are trying to sell. And, Tesla has yet to make money even though they are selling high end and have subsidies working in their favor, so that's not exactly the model that others will rush to.
The EV market would evolve, with or without subsidies, and with or without Tesla. That some wealthy folks that don't need the money are getting it isn't really helping anybody expect them and Tesla.
That sounds like poorly written or out of date laws. Electric motors have trouble producing low torque/HP. Anything low powered enough to move a car at anything approaching acceptable velocities would alsways be on the wrong side of said law. Good luck with that. Sounds like your country and insurance writers don't want anyone driving period. What are you gas prices BTW?
Even the Sun goes down.
So a 60% jump in efficiency is "not so much" in your opinion? (15% is 60% of 25% after all)
At least in the U.S. it has been proven time and again that its better to let the market drive innovation than for Uncle Sam to toss money into a crowd of "innovators" and hope they develop something innovative. iPhone's were only for the rich years back, now market pressure has pushed innovation and we have phablets with 3-sided screens. Moreover, I believe the typical luxury car consumer often has multiple vehicles.
Even the Sun goes down.
I don't know, Apple and Google did a pretty thorough job of barging into that exact market.
You think the only people buying $67K cars are rich? Umm, wow.
Even the Sun goes down.
In order to have a Tesla Model S in hand as of December 2014, you would have had to plunk down a decent sized deposit more than a year ago. I do not have the resources to tie up that amount of cash for a year for a car that hasn't been built yet, hoping it will be built on time. Do you? Typically only those for whom money is not a pressing issue have the flexibility to do so. Hence the majority of Model S owners we see today are the well heeled (Them that Got's are Those who Gets -R. Charles).
Even the Sun goes down.
OMG we can't turn a profit is a horrible problem.
Exactly. It didn't take subsidies for the Iphone to sell like mad, it won't for EV's either. Once the product capabilities and mass market needs match. And when the market gets big enough, there will be many products and suppliers bringing the price down through competition.
Sorry but you have been misled.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/01/20150128-corsa.html
With common fossil fuel cars getting 150-200g/km co2. There are thousands of credible sources just look. My opinion means nothing the facts are facts.
Also comparing anything supposedly "green" to a SUV is pretty laughable.
No, I don't even have the resources to buy a $35K car, and I make a decent living. I buy used cars in cash. We need 2 cars, I paid less for both together and they are very good cars. I also have an old truck that I used occasionally. Buying a $35K EV would be a huge financial mistake for me.
An affordable vehicle is one that actually is about the same price as any other kind of vehicle that is physically comparable to it.
Last I heard, the model was expected to cost no less than about $45k CDN... which is more than double what my wife and I spent our current automobile.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Leave it to the trolls of Slashdot to trash anyone successful... Even an Engineer with a vision of a better tomorrow.
Minor correction: It isn't zero CO2 from a nuclear power plant, you have to add in mining and transportation. Still far less than coal.
You think the only people buying $67K cars are rich? Umm, wow.
No, I am well aware that the lower middle class also buy cars like that. However, only the rich can AFFORD cars like that. Back when I had a job, my household income was just about $110k, and I considered an affordable car for my income to be about $25k. People shouldn't be buying cars that cost more than their yearly income. They really shouldn't be buying cars that are even 1/4 of their yearly income.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Rich or very stupid.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Your electric bill for the same 15,000 miles would be about $400. The extra $1300 a year can go a long way to buy a nice electric car rather than a POS bottom of the line econobox oil burner.
Until Mr. Musk - or the stockholders/board of Tesla - decide it's time to start making a profit and not giving away tens of thousands of dollars on each car in order to gain customers... Then the price of the car will necessarily increase well beyond the "break even" cost versus an ICE powered vehicle.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Is $7500 the difference between affordable and unaffordable to you? In your universe, are government incentives that might help us soon get off of polluting, non-renewable resources akin to acts of the devil or are you just one of those who has inexplicable contempt for anyone or anything successful?
The cost of the car is the combination of the purchase price, and the price of fuel, maintenance over the life of the car.
The "average American" spends $3,000 per year on gas. That is $30,000 over ten years. Tesla supercharger stations are free. And, electricity is cheaper than gas.
That Tesla will never need an oil change.
Interestingly, ignoring the recommended maintenance does NOT void your Tesla warrantee.
Just something to think about.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
I do and I don't really care if you think the whole idea of trying to build an electric car company is a waste of time to you. Don't buy one.
You miss his point. The current price of Tesla prices in more or less perfect execution. There is only downside, no upside.
Like buying/staying in Krispy Cream donuts when they were worth as much as the rest of the baking/donut industry. Take your profits.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You can get a better performing car for less than a tesla if you forgo electric.
Obviously you have never actually looked at the Model S specifications. The performance edition of the all wheel drive version has 691 horsepower. The rear motor alone has 443 ft lb of torque at zero RPMs. Can you get a more powerful internal combustion engine? Sure. But where? The 2015 Corvette tops out at 650 horsepower. The 2015 Mustang tops out at 435. The 2015 Camero tops out at 580. And none of those seat 7. The 2015 Cadillac XTS tops out at 410 horsepower. The 2015 Cadillac CTS tops out at 420. The 2015 Audi S8 tops out at 520 horsepower and it is NOT cheaper than a Model S.
And then in the same paragraph, you start talking about efficiency. You do realize that high performance and high efficiency simultaneously is ONLY possible in electric vehicles? Internal combustion can't do it. When you punch an electric motor, it stay 98% efficient. When you punch an internal combustion engine, its already miserable efficiency drops into the single digits. When an electric vehicle recharges, it's power source is NOT being pushed to the performance limit. It continues to operate at its best efficiency.
Most importantly, the energy source to recharge an electric vehicle is 100% fungible. If you live near a nuclear power plant, recharging your car is already producing 0 CO2. Zero. None. That is never possible for your fossil fuel car no matter how efficient your car gets. It will ALWAYS produce more than zero CO2. Build more nuclear power plants, or solar plants, or windmills, or all of the above, and the more electric cars there are, the less CO2 is produced by transportation. That's physically impossible with a fossil fuel fleet.
You must try really hard to be wrong about literally everything you said.
I did look at the specifications. Its misleading to specify torque at zero rpm, your power is zero because there is no movement. lithium batteries are heavy and electric motors aren't any more powerful per unit mass than gas. The model S is under 420 hp no matter the model and weighs 4700 lbs, that's not really very good for the environment or performance. The tesla s is a good car, yes. But its not the panacea for all people lie and say it is. All of the above cars you mention can beat the tesla in some or many of what people would call performance specifications, such as acceleration, top speed, range, handling, braking, etc...
Efficency isn't hard to see - in the case of pollution its co2/distance. coal power to charge your battery isn't going to be any better for the environment than economy fossil fuel cars. Its not my opinion, a simple google search would show you this if you took off your fanbois goggles. Also you are highly misinformed with electric motors, they are often 80-95% efficient when very lightly loaded and are near 50% efficient at peak power at half the no load speed - these are basic facts even a high school student should know.
Yes if you live next to a solar or nuclear plant it is a better co2 option. However the majority of people in the world, including the USA, Europe and china do not. In the vast majority of electric markets diesel and gas powered economy cars not only get less co2/distance (such as 80-200 g/km) but cost 1/2 to 1/3 or even less than electrics (200-300 g co2/mile in usa, china, india) when you consider subsidies come from somewhere.
and yes 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now we will replace our industrial electrical power production with better sources, but cars last 10 years at best. So right now the wrong thing to do is buy electric if you care about pollution. Hybrids are still too expensive for the money to do the most good. Our best bet is still clean diesel. Then again I don't suppose facts are your thing.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com... So explain to me why electric cars get 25-30mpg in co2 emissions when many economy cars to better for half or one third the cost? The FACT is electric cars are bad for the environment. Further, if you mean http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/... Canada, yes I always suspected them of being turrest's. It dosent make sense to buy electric today when 10 years from now things will be marginally different - major power plant installations take decades. cars last less than 10 years on average - replacing those tesla -s batteries is gona be a 20k paycheck before subsidy. Then again you must care more about dogma than actual impartial facts.
How are you thinking about the capital cost of a car? While there is depreciation a car still retains some of its capital value. I buy cars that are 2 years old and sell them after a 3 or 6 year cycle. Across a 3 year period I have never sold a car at less than 60% of what I originally paid for it, and usually it is a higher percentage than that.
Financially I treat my vehicles as a rental. I structure my income so that I pay my fuel, financing, servicing and insurance from my gross income. This means that for my $55,000 car I spend a total of $235 per week pre tax. This is for a budget of 25,000 km per year and an average fuel price of $1.55 per litre (yeah I'm not in the states)
Given that the vehicle is fully financed and that weekly cost includes the finance cost based on the sale value at 3 years I have a TCO of $12,220 per year. That figure would not be significantly lower if I reduced the capital cost of the car.
Tesla was not first to market with an EV.
No, but they were the first to sell an EV that made non-geeks' pulses quicken. The vehicles sold before that were more of the "eat your vegetables" variety, and thus doomed to be money-losing niche vehicles, useful only as arguments against the viability of the electric vehicle market.
They did move first into the high end market, but what will matter is the lower end mass market where existing EVs are trying to sell.
Sure, but you can't get to the mass market without starting somewhere viable. Previous attempts to start at the low end failed (see: EV-1, RAV4 EV), and failures don't help the EV market grow.
The EV market would evolve, with or without subsidies, and with or without Tesla.
That's an assertion only -- I don't see any evidence to back it up. Before Tesla's successes, no other companies were marketing a desirable electric car, and there was little evidence that any of them had much interest in doing so in the future.
Sure, the EV market would have caught on anyway, decades from now, after gas prices rose high enough that almost nobody could to afford to drive a traditional car anymore; but that's a rather grim scenario that I think we are well-served to avoid.
That some wealthy folks that don't need the money are getting it isn't really helping anybody expect them and Tesla.
Them, and Tesla, and everyone else who will buy an electric car that wouldn't have existed without Tesla's demonstration of how to profitably sell EVs, and all the other car companies that can now take advantage of the technology Tesla developed.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Erm... whaa....? I'm not sure... was there a verb in your second sentence there?
Imagine for a sec that I'm not high on cocaine... how would you explain your point now?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
A fat lot of good all the money it can save on gas in the long run will do if the car is so expensive to begin with that the difference between the monthly payments on it versus a gasoline vehicle is more than double what you'd be ordinarily pay for gas anyways in the interim. Of course you could reduce the monthly payments by stretching out the loan over a longer period, but then you are paying even more money for the car, causing it to take even longer to pay for itself with the gasoline that you aren't buying, and running the risk of the car never being cost effective before its battery dies and needs to be replaced.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
, and everyone else who will buy an electric car that wouldn't have existed without Tesla's demonstration of how to profitably sell EVs
A very speculative statement, not to mention the fact that Tesla has been losing money.
The performance edition of the all wheel drive version has 691 horsepower.
It can only sustain this for a few minutes at most which is why it's top speed is slower than a 4-cylinder Honda Accord.
When you punch an electric motor, it stay 98% efficient
No. I can tell just by looking at it that the Model S radiator can reject much more than 14hp.
Tesla has some self-driving attributes, and is likely capable of switching to full autonomy well before Ford could produce 50k cars per year with the technology. What Tesla can't do is handle things that would require 5-10 different models to be in parallel development. They don't do "platforms" that let you cheat that development and just make a new body and interior for each version.
Tesla has not seen saturation levels yet for their $100k automobile; their very real challenge is in sustaining that production while rolling out the Model X and ramping up production there. Frankly, I am significantly more worried about the longshoremen and ports impacting Tesla than Ford, Apple, Google, or Microsoft.
A very speculative statement, not to mention the fact that Tesla has been losing money.
I don't think I can convince you with further argument, so I'll just leave you with this paragraph from the "History of Electric Vehicles" page on Wikipedia (see the page itself for citations):
Senior leaders at several large automakers, including Nissan and General Motors, have stated that the [Tesla] Roadster was a catalyst which demonstrated that there is pent-up consumer demand for more efficient vehicles. GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz said in 2007 that the Tesla Roadster inspired him to push GM to develop the Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid sedan prototype that aims to reverse years of dwindling market share and massive financial losses for America's largest automaker.[79] In an August 2009 edition of The New Yorker, Lutz was quoted as saying, "All the geniuses here at General Motors kept saying lithium-ion technology is 10 years away, and Toyota agreed with us -- and boom, along comes Tesla. So I said, 'How come some tiny little California startup, run by guys who know nothing about the car business, can do this, and we can't?' That was the crowbar that helped break up the log jam."
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
It does not matter who we are getting the oil from - if we don't than someone else has to. It's like saying that you don't contribute to global warming because your electricity comes from nuclear.
True, but there are a couple substantial differences: Ford has thin gross profit margins and lacks the vertical integration between manufacturing, sales, and service. It also has substantial legacy costs which limit its flexibility.
Long term, Tesla's P/E should be closer to 15, not the 20 that Musk seems to think. They have a future, but there is plenty of risk.
Interesting paragraph. Thanks. It does back your point, but also note that was 6 years ago and though the market is there, it still hasn't proven to be profitable yet and that is was really gets things moving. The Volt hasn't exactly "reversed years of dwindling market share" for GM, and other industry execs have had less enthusiastic takes.
I think the biggest impact Tesla will have is in mass battery production as they plan, but that is in the future, not the present.
Holy crap. Sockpuppet?
Elon has ALWAYS argued for publicizing the pre-subsidy price of $35k.
It's GM who is always saying "$30k", which actually means $38k minus subsidies.
The author of this article was just being a tool in not actually reporting that.
How do you assume that it's not their primary vehicle?
I only know two people with a Model S, but for both of them it's a primary vehicle (here in a snowy northern climate).
Unless you regularly need to drive for 6 hours into the wilderness, or be on the road 8-10 hours per day, there's nothing it does worse than a gasoline car, as far as I'm aware. The range is reduced by the cold, however, so I guess maybe "4 hours into the wilderness" is more reasonable.
What the hell are you talking about?
The Model S was the highest rated car *Ever tested* by both Consumer Reports and JD Power.
It won car & driver's "best car" of 2014.
Are you also calling for Mercedes to go out of business?
I think you COMPLETELY MADE UP this whole comment.
The Tesla Model S is only surpassed in performance by 1-3 supercars. The Bugatti Veyron, Maybe the new Corvette ZX10. It is comparable to the McLaren F1.
The efficiency of the car... 4700 lbs with over 90% efficiency at transforming power to torque (as opposed to about 38% in a combusion engine). Also, electric motors get full torque at all RPMs, reducing the loss from gearing and low-RPM torque loss.
Are you seriously joking? Or are you a shill for GM?
yawn.
No way could Apple (or other rich company) just jump in and start cranking out cars at any reasonable volume.
Having done the factory tour (and, also, I one a P85D) I can assure you that it isn't just having the cash... they have a LOT of very specialized robots and stamping presses that I can't fathom are available to the general public with 2 day shipping. The Gigafactory helps address one of the main limitations- lack of battery availability.
The entire process- from design, to car, to supercharger, to OTA updates to firmware... TSLA gets it. Detroit does not. Japan might - the Leaf is a nice car for a certain market segment- but it is still a LOT of work to get right.
Tesla is building out a high-speed charging network and funding R&D for a mass-market $35k electric car.
So there's a good example of a vehicle costing more than the vehicle it replaces.
There are a lot of different market segments in the auto industry. The Model S is extremely competitive in the high-end luxury sedan segment where cars regularly sell for $80K+. The Model 3 will be targeted at the $35-40K midrange sedan segment, a segment in which hundreds of thousands of cars are sold right now (BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, etc.)--the Model 3 will be sold at a similar price-point as those other cars.
Eventually electric car technology will ripple down into economy segments. That's how new technology works. In the mean time maybe you can try to wrap your head around the fact that your needs are not everyone's needs--i.e., not everyone is in the market for a 1999 honda civic.
Current prices are 1.25 euro / liter for diesel and 1.45 euro / liter for petrol.
And we have free market in the financial sector over here. There is no law on how much insurance companies are allowed to ask.
The insurance premium is based on 353 kw (that's not battery power, but the motor power) that's a lot, especially in Europe, and I'm told that high torque is one of the big advantages of an electric car. The fact that the insurance is a full coverage (including theft, self caused damage to your car, insurance against uninsured drivers) adds up to the price. It's an expensive car to replace when it gets stolen or you crash it into a tree.
About the high prices, I think they are justifiable. We have very dense traffic over here, and many people who like to race to work. In the last decade there were many accidents with young people and drivers of fast cars. The government doesn’t really tax fast cars, they just ask a flat tax depending on fiscal horse power which is based on the size of the cylinders and doesn’t look at the real horse power. It's only a difference of a few hundreds euros between a 1000 cc and a 5000 cc car.
Many people could afford a fast car like a second hand BMW M5, Porche Carrera, etc, but they often couldn’t handle that amount of power with many crashes as a result.
Your also have to think about our streets here in Europe. I live in an ancient village that existed long before the Romans invaded our teritories (the remains of a farm have been dated to be between 6000 and 10000 years old, if the dating techinique can be trusted). The main road in our village existed and was used by Celts and Germans, but also by people that came before these people. The Romans just paved the main road and put mile stone along the side (some are still visible), but the rest of the ancient streets became sunken lanes after millenia of use by farmers and traders. That's were cars are racings, out of sight of police, even more dangerous to slip into a tree, wall or an ancient heathen stone artifact. The ancient people didn't think about making a straight road so cars would have an easy ride, they just twisted and turned the road around hills, big trees, swamps etc. It's very unlike the streets in the US.
To give you an idea, in my village with a population of 1600 people, 68 young people died in a car crash since 2000 caused by speeding. That’s 1 in 24. When you limit it to the age group of 18-25 it’s 1 in 3! I personally lost a nephew (18 years old) who crashed his brand new BMW 8 into a house. The car was a gift from the top football team after signing a prof contract, he was a promising young football talent. I also lost 2 ex class mates (and we were only with 10 in our class) and 6 good friends in a several car crashes (this was all in the 90’s, people in their teens or early twenties).
The amount of crashes with disabled people as a result is even higher, and thus more expensive for insurance companies. I personally have a good friend whose skull was fractured resulting in a hemorrhage when he was run over by a 20 year old kid 'enjoying' his dream car: a tuned Ford Escort RS Cosworth. I still see him weekly and 16 years after the accident he is still recovering, he is still trying to learn to speak normal (he now speaks like a 6 year old drug addict), he is dragging one leg and is paralyzed in his left arm. He is blind in one eye, and deaf in one ear, and since he was an STEM student, the insurance not only has to pay for his treatments but also the loss in the potential high income.
After some Hollywood films promoted street races as a cool thing to do, the amount of car crashes with young people increased dramatically, hence why 1 in 3 people died in the age range of 18-25 during the last decade, there was one tragic day when three cars crashed with 5 people in them while racing, all died (ages ranging from 18 - 21), statistics are skewed for my village by this single event. It's a bit ironic that they all
$16.5k gets you a fucking corolla, $26k gets you a high end camry, $12k used to be able to get a low end, new Nissan. A base Prius costs $24.5k, with 48 mpg city, so it will use 40% less gas. We have not brought up using natural gas instead of gasoline, or hydrogen produced from coal gasification for cheaper fossil fuels.
The average american family will probably just use smaller cars, drive less, and more carpooling. Less driving favors fossil fuel cars.
Speaking as someone who owns a lexus, has owned two corollas and has sat in a tesla, a tesla is NOT a fucking corolla.
Whoever thinks a 416lb 4650lb car is "efficient" or "green" missed high school physics.
Meh, it's more efficient than my 420hp, 3950lb sedan. I think mine has more luxury features, and it was considerably cheaper, but 19MPH is plenty brown (not that I care about this eco-shit, but relative to that you can't really fault the Model S).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The main difference is people are led to believe the tesla is environmentally friendly. Everyone knows SUVs aren't. In reality, depending on where you live, the tesla gets 25-40 mpg co2 equivalent. A modern diesel can do much lower co2 in the vast majority of electrical markets.
Its misleading to specify torque at zero rpm, your power is zero because there is no movement.
What does movement have to do with anything? Do you even know what torque is? Here, let me help you with that. In a nutshell, it's force. There's all kinds of forces in the world that don't result in movement. Lucky for you. You're sitting in a chair, aren't you? Demonstrating an instance of force without movement all by yourself. Amazing, isn't it. Forces get applied before movement starts.
All of the above cars you mention can beat the tesla in some or many of what people would call performance specifications, such as acceleration...
Tesla P85D 0-60 mph 3.2 s
Audi S8 0-60 mph 3.9 s
Yes, the sports cars can beat it. It's a SEDAN. A five door liftback sedan. For crying out loud... And for the record, the curb weight of the Audi is 4685 lbs. The curb weight of the Model S is 4647 lbs. The Model S is lighter than the gasoline car in the same class and price bracket.
Efficency isn't hard to see - in the case of pollution its co2/distance. coal power to charge your battery isn't going to be any better for the environment than economy fossil fuel cars. Its not my opinion, a simple google search would show you this if you took off your fanbois goggles.
Really? Truly? Sorry, those links are probably too hard for you. They require you to calculate the efficiencies yourself by dividing. Here, let me help you.
2012 Coal 33.8%
2012 Internal Combustion 32.8%
Coal is more efficient. Not a lot, but it is. It's definitely not radically worse, or even slightly worse. So shifting from petroleum to coal for transportation is a gain, made better by the fact below about the efficiency of electric motors in transportation applications.
Also you are highly misinformed with electric motors, they are often 80-95% efficient when very lightly loaded and are near 50% efficient at peak power at half the no load speed - these are basic facts even a high school student should know.
Really? I guess you haven't made it to high school yet. I'll just describe the graph for those who won't follow the link. At 10% load the tested 25 horse power premium efficiency motor hits 80% efficiency. At 40% load, it hits 97% efficiency and it never drops below that, all the way out to 160% of its rated load.
and yes 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now we will replace our industrial electrical power production with better sources, but cars last 10 years at best. So right now the wrong thing to do is buy electric if you care about pollution.
My infernal combustion car is 14 years old, thanks. Right now, if you care about pollution, and can afford the gasoline-competitive electric cars (either of them), you can also afford to cover your roof in solar panels from one end to the other. I can't, just yet, but someday I will. At which point I won't care what "industrial power production" is doing.
Then again I don't suppose facts are your thing.
I replied with links. With numbers. You didn't. You should stop typing now.
[[That's physically impossible with a fossil fuel fleet.]]
Te-e-e-echnically, if you synthesize hydrocarbon fuel yourself using CO2 and H2O as feedstocks, and an electric process, and are near a nuclear power plant, you can run a fossil fuel fleet at zero CO2 production. So it's physically *possible*, it's just super duper unlikely.
As 2-ton, 400+ HP sedans go, "25-40" is pretty darn good. Of course, it all depends on what your priorities are - you might be surprised how many Tesla owners rank CO2 fairly low on the list.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
War and Peace. With less content. That is what your post is.
I am curious that you say fuel tanker efficiency is 80%
I took it to mean the "last mile" road transportation of fuel to gas stations. That's going to be less efficient than supertankers on the high seas.
Or a few people buy ridiculous cars.
If you had 49% of people buying 1k junkers, 48% of people buying 2.5k junkers and 3% of people buying $1,000,000 super cars your mean average would be around 31.7k too.
31k mean.
2.5k median
and 1k modal average...
Lies, damn lies and statistics - the mean and the median together is much more informative than one or the other, on their own it usually means someone is trying to sell you something.
Affordable is a relative term. Affordable to whom? Everyone in the world, or people in the segment where the vehicle is targeted?
And what does "physically comparable" mean? Same rough size and door count or do you get down to powertrain specifics, interiors, etc?
And I would argue whatever Tesla's affordable model is it will not be physically comparable to what you can buy for $18K USD. It will very likely have a far more luxurious trim, more bells and whistles and better performance.
Thank you for writing "FACT" in capital letters, it's a dead giveaway for people making bogus claims.
I know there are still some backward parts of the world (the US, for example) where the vast majority of electricity is coming from CO2-producing plants. In Europe, a significant and growing percentage of electricity is coming from renewable energy, and there's a lot of nuclear power too. If I charge an electric car in my garage, it produces no CO2 at all since I live near a nuclear plant (that's where the electrons are actually coming from) and my electricity contract is with a provider that only uses renewables (which is where my money is going). The percentage of electricity produced by burning fossil fuels is shrinking, and the added demand from electric cars will only speed up the construction of new, clean plants.
Also, CO2 is not the only problem. When I take my children to school on a foggy morning (walking), I get sick of the stench of all the cars dropping children off. I can't wait for the day that all those cars are electric so that I can smell some clean air instead. I know, some old electricity production is still blowing out smoke, but at least they are rarely in the middle of cities.
What makes you think they are giving away tens of thousands of dollars on each cars? The way I understood it, they could actually be profitable if they weren't pooring all their profit into R&D and increasing capacity at an insane rate.
They are "losing" money because they are pooring all their profits into R&D and expansion. Next year, they plan to produce twice as many cars as this year. Kind of hard to grow that quickly while paying dividends. If they decided to just keep selling Teslas at the current rate without doing any new development, they would be very profitable.
That money is going into R&D. At Tesla.
Waiting time for the model S is around 4 months if I'm not mistaken. Definitely not more than a year.
The model X is a different matter of course. No way you're getting one in 2015 if you order today.
They could. But it's kind of hard to issue dividends while doubling capacity in one year, developing new models and constructing a battery plant that will double world production of lithium batteries, all at the same time. It's amazing that they're so close to break even at all.
Looks like he's disagreeing, and saying that Tesla stock is currently at its high point, and can only go down from here.
To be fair, torque in the Model S does decrease at higher rpm. Power = torque x rpm, and the inverter can only deliver so many kW. It does deliver full torque from standstill.
They are re-tooling to keep up with the market. If you have to keep doing that and don't make money, then it really doesn't matter. You can't just sit on one product in the car market, it requires constant development.
For Tesla's own IP, no doubt.
No, but they were the first to sell an EV that made non-geeks' pulses quicken. The vehicles sold before that were more of the "eat your vegetables" variety, and thus doomed to be money-losing niche vehicles, useful only as arguments against the viability of the electric vehicle market.
Personally I think this is the key. They were the first manufacture of EVs to make one that young boys would want a poster of to put on their wall, or would want a Hot Wheels car of. Seriously my oldest child really wanted the poster of the Tesla roadster at his school's book fair and my youngest though the Tesla roadster Hot Wheels car was really cool looking.
Also I would say most of the previous EVs were less "eat your vegetables" and more 1970s space cadet category (who wants to buy a strange looking little car), but the Nissan Leaf I would put in eat your veggies category.
Time to offend someone
Which they've opened up for free.
So doing a little math, I may be corrected by someone, but here goes. $35000 - $7000 tax refund = $28000. 72 months at 3.7% (wife just got that, some people get better) is $434 per month, -$75 per month for gas (most people I know spend $100 or more on gas per month, and that's at current rates). That's $359 per month, after gas savings. That doesn't account for oil changes, or other normal servicing for internal combustion engines, so I'm giving it some leeway.
once more into the breach
Hey don't give away the secrete to becoming wealthy. Don't you know that to sustain the economy we need to spend every dime we make and then some.
In all seriousness I see way too many people buying vehicles that they really can't afford and even at my fairly well paying job am an oddity in that I drive a vehicle until it isn't worth repairing and then go pay cash for a different used one in good condition. I seem to spend between 1-10% of my income on a vehicle when I buy one with the lower percentage being spent on a beater truck/SUV for bad weather and doing truck things with. I have always been the last owner of every vehicle I have ever purchased and after I am done they get hauled off to the scrap yard and I get $200-$300 for it.
Time to offend someone
What are the details of that? "Applying the open source philosophy" doesn't necessarily mean "free". Is that all their patents or just a selection? But it is a good move, I agree.
Anybody could use all of their patents in good faith (e.g. if they wanted to sue Tesla over their own patents, Tesla could revoke their right to use the Tesla patents). At least that's how I understood it.
It sounds like you live somewhere where people struggle to drive sensibly and safely. No wonder insurance rates are high.
Its misleading to specify torque at zero rpm, your power is zero because there is no movement.
What does movement have to do with anything? Do you even know what torque is? Here, let me help you with that. In a nutshell, it's force. There's all kinds of forces in the world that don't result in movement. Lucky for you. You're sitting in a chair, aren't you? Demonstrating an instance of force without movement all by yourself. Amazing, isn't it. Forces get applied before movement starts.
nice try lol. You must be homeschooled or something. With no movement the static force gives no acceleration - might as well say a section of a tree trunk is providing thousands of pounds of thrust and make a free energy machine. Or gear down a hobby servo motor ten billion times and 'prove' you can generate more torque than any tesla with a 1.5V AAA battery. Or you may realize you lack a basic grasp of physics. Electric motors have higher torque than internal combustion motors of a similar size only at lower speeds.
All of the above cars you mention can beat the tesla in some or many of what people would call performance specifications, such as acceleration...
Tesla P85D 0-60 mph 3.2 s Audi S8 0-60 mph 3.9 s Yes, the sports cars can beat it. It's a SEDAN. A five door liftback sedan. For crying out loud... And for the record, the curb weight of the Audi is 4685 lbs. The curb weight of the Model S is 4647 lbs. The Model S is lighter than the gasoline car in the same class and price bracket.
The tesla 60 gets a 0-60 of 5.9 seconds but acceleration isn't the only performance metric. The 208 (60) to 270 (85D) mile range puts it at the bottom of the list. Handling and braking are also important - its a fact you can get a comparable performing vehicle for less money if you forgo electric.
Efficency isn't hard to see - in the case of pollution its co2/distance. coal power to charge your battery isn't going to be any better for the environment than economy fossil fuel cars. Its not my opinion, a simple google search would show you this if you took off your fanbois goggles.
Really? Truly? Sorry, those links are probably too hard for you. They require you to calculate the efficiencies yourself by dividing. Here, let me help you.
2012 Coal 33.8% 2012 Internal Combustion 32.8%
Coal is more efficient. Not a lot, but it is. It's definitely not radically worse, or even slightly worse. So shifting from petroleum to coal for transportation is a gain, made better by the fact below about the efficiency of electric motors in transportation applications.
Lmao you have no idea - your link shows the power plant effciency, not the transmission losses, charging losses or the efficiency of the electric vehicle. By that logic gas vehicles are 100% efficient as they require no power plant for recharging. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com... you can get the same or better emissions with a economy gas car and far better co2/mile emissions from a modern diesel vehicle, in the vast majority of locations that people live around the entire planet, and at less than half the cost. Not to mention that site is highly biased toward electric cars and if anything have overestimated things. People would buy them if they got the crazy subsidy electric vehicles get, if you could get one new for 5-10k usd instead of 15-20k usd people would line up around the block.
http://my.teslamotors.com/it_I... don't forget a 12 thousand dollar battery pack every 8 years. That may throw a damper in your napkin calculations.
a 12,000 USD battery every 8 years may throw off your napkin calculation. You are probably spending more on the electric even with oil changes.
It is an interesting move. I suppose now that they made that statement, they would really have a hard time stopping anyone for using the patents for just about anything. The definition of "good faith" seems like it would be difficult to legally use as a basis to stop someone. In the patent world, once you open the door it is really hard to close.
I know some 'open source' licensing says you can use it for free as long as you don't sell it, I doesn't sound like that is what Tesla is doing, but surely they've drafted up some legal boundaries.
I imagine you still need to enter a contract with them which will spell out exactly what they mean by good faith.
I agree. Good discussion, and it was a very good counterpoint to my R&D argument. Thanks.
I am curious that you say fuel tanker efficiency is 80%, that would indicate that a tanker uses 20% of the energy contained in the fuel it transports. I don't know what the right number is, but I would be very surprised if it used that much energy.
That got me curious so I looked up some numbers. Using Swedish figures (i.e. 50 kubic meters, i.e. 13k gallons, load for tanker, 0.020 litres/tonkilometer, that's for a milk tanker, doing long haul, which is the closest I could find), I get a fully laden tanker doing about 2.35 miles/gal (US).
So to burn 20% of it's load the shortest it could travel would be 6k miles (a bit longer as it would burn its own fuel during that time, and even more if it would offload part of its haul during the trip). I don't know how that would measure up to how they actually drive to their delivery point, but it seems on the long side.
P.S. I didn't check my calculations so feel free to do that, before betting any money.
Stefan Axelsson
When you punch an electric motor, it stay 98% efficient. When you punch an internal combustion engine, its already miserable efficiency drops into the single digits.
I'm not sure where you're getting your data for this, but I don't think this is typically true. If you look at specific fuel consumption curves (which are inversely proportional to efficiency), most internal combustion engines seem to lose maybe 20% of their efficiency (e.g., from 28% efficient* to 22% efficient) from their peak to "punching" - certainly not dropping into the single digits.
Also, if you're going to make a fair comparison to an electric motor in this context, you need to account for the battery efficiency, which is maybe 85% - gasoline doesn't lose any significant energy on its way from the gas station pump to the car's gas tank to the engine, but an electric car will experience some energy loss from the plug to the battery to the motor (e.g., the batteries heat up under charge and discharge, which is an energy loss, and more energy may be required to cool them back down to keep them comfortable).
*I'm estimating the efficiency of the uninstalled engine, not including drivetrain losses, accessory losses, etc.
electric is only performant for the first couple of miles at full throttle. After the battery heats up from the discharge, it must limit the power draw to allow cooling. Which means gas cars still wins out for any race of any distance.
pity that EV's are fucking useless, and don't really reduce Co2, pretty much the same shit as the windmills
Interesting. I don't think I'll spend too much time checking, so I'll just go with this.
nope, some of us just live in the real world, not the stupid fucking dream world eco-loons are trying to make us live in, hard to live in a dream world that doesn't fucking work or exist!.
From reading your comments, I am about 50% sure that you are a troll, but I can't let a comment with such terrible physics interpretation stand without a response. Torque is a force. Force is not energy. Energy comes from work. Work is force times distance. So, you can have as much torque as you want, but if it is not moving no energy is being expended. To follow your tree example, the branches on the tree support enormous torque. But, they are not moving so do not produce energy. I would respond to your other points, but honestly didn't think it would be worthwhile trying to understand what you were saying after I realized you have zero grasp of physics.
gasoline doesn't lose any significant energy on its way from the gas station pump to the car's gas tank to the engine
(Actually, there is energy required for the car's gas pump, but that's still pretty insignificant compared to the charging and discharging losses from a battery.)
Good job posting that your own claim of stall torque is irrelevant. Most people wouldn't prove themselves wrong and admit it. I'm changing my mind and commend you on your honesty.
Well, it's your funeral... :-)
Stefan Axelsson
People definitely seem more willing to go into debt than they did in the past.
Why are you having such a hard time following the argument?
What reality distortion ?
Tesla is already tooled for 100k cars / yr (2k cars / wk).
The retooling was done already to handle the model X.
Tesla has managed to reach current production levels with zero paid advertisement.
That's Tesla's biggest enemy. Since the paid media isn't getting a penny from Tesla, they have every interest to smear tesla continously.
By end of 2015 Tesla will have a formidable operational supercharger network, which will enable people to drive between every metro area of at least 2 million people in North America in a fairly direct way. Coverage in Europe is already a little better than North America.
I suggest you take a look.
http://supercharge.info/
Interactive realtime super charger tool. Only superchargers already operating, in construction or already licensed are shown. China superchargers only show up after they are online. Plenty of European superchargers also show up when ready or nearly so.
I predict around 6 billion USD in 2015 total revenues. Being conservative.
Not bad for a "reality distorted" company.
You can buy a Tesla for US$ 20k more than a regular car, at the same real total cost of ownership.
Except if you drive very little.
Even at today's cheap gas, a Tesla costs less than half per mile to fuel and maintain. If you put solar panels to offset that electricity, then even considering the solar PV costs, that goes down to 75% cheaper or better (was 90% cheaper with expensive gas).
Gasoline would have to be below US$ 1 / gallon to negate the Tesla cost advantage.
And the USA is one of the few countries in the world that sells cheap gas.
In Europe the advantage is huge.
VW sells cars for $35K+ (their CC line, for example). Now I'm going to talk really slowly so you can try to keep up. Imagine if the people who already buy those cars instead start to purchase Model 3's for about the same price. Is your mind blown?
That's exactly what happened with the Model S. It's not that people who were in the market for a $35K car and instead bought an $80K car--it's that people were in market for an $80K car chose the Tesla over other $80K cars.
It is irrelevant that there are other cars that are much cheaper--Tesla isn't selling into that segment yet. They will get there, just not in the next couple years.
Tesla only needs to capture 0.01% of total car shipments worldwide to be established.
Or 100 thousand cars / year. Realisticly Tesla will get there in 2016 or 2017.
I expect Tesla Model S + Model X sales (its high end luxury models) will eventually reach 200k cars / yr, or US$ 20 billion in sales !
At that point Tesla will start accumulating billions in the bank.
Tesla isn't making a profit cause they are innovating and growing at stellar pace.
What matters is you are an anonymous coward, which suggests you have a vested interest against Tesla.
All you show is you don't understand the Tesla model.
Tesla's goal isn't to take over Toyota or GM.
So they don't need to sell cheap cars.
Their goal is to prove that EVs aren't glorified golf carts. They they can have style, performance, range, comfort.
Its better exemplified by Musk's statement that Tesla is going to make the best car in the world, which happens to be electric.
I'm far more interested in seeing Tesla quick BMW, Mercedez, Porsche, Audi, and other brands selling cars at the US$ 100k price point and higher.
You probably will ignore the fact that a Tesla Model S is so safe it destroyed the machine used in some safety tests. Normally the machine destroys the car, and how much force the machine applied to the car grades how safe it is. Tesla is so safe, its built like a tank.
That's a huge selling point which attracts millions of rich enough mommies which value their children above all the money in the world.
And the P85D, or the insane performance Tesla, with a supercar performance (half a million car) for 1/3rd the price.
Its what happens when the company is run by people like Elon instead of lawyers and accountants like detroit and germany.
I also don't have enough money to buy any Tesla right now. But I'm selfless enough to understand the goal isn't making me buy a Tesla, but rather threaten the high end manufacturers enough they will be force to go electric, with cars that can actually compete with Tesla. Then after the high end has gone electric, the tech trickles down to more affordable car. Like it happens in every industry. VHS once were too expensive, DVDs too, same for BluRays. The challenges to make cheap EVs are resolved in the high end.
I support them for this reason, even though we'll never go to nuclear.
drivetrain losses, that's a damn good point.
I support them because nuclear, even though it'll never happen
those are really good points
I was just commenting on your incorrect view on physics. Yes, torque alone does not matter. The number that does matter is the 0-60, which was 3.2 seconds (for the P85D), 5.9 seconds (for 2012 base) or 5.4 (for the 2013 base). But, according to you that also does not matter. That the only thing that matters is the range. You move from one argument to another, and whenever one argument gets shot down you try another. You are biased against the car (or, more likely, electrics in general) and no matter what I say you will find something else to hate. I could bring up the supercharger network which is being constantly expanded. Or that most people drive less than 30 miles per day. But, you would just move on to your next argument, probably saying that they rank at the bottom because they don't have a trailer hitch. I am done feeding the trolls.
yes i freely admit I am biased against electrics. It's because people, the media, poorly informed enviornmentalists, etc, have been lying for years. No one seems to want to talk about co2/distance and the fact in the majority of population centers electrics are nearly as bad at polluting as gas cars and underperform economy cars especially diesels. This misinformation hurts the environment by people thinking they are doing the most good when they are not. Note I said nothing about the charging network, but yes the recharge time also hurts performance.
while the tesla is a good car, what gets me is saying it is good for the environment. Just like the SUV that tesla is going to make. It's not, it will likely also underperform an economy gas car.
Average sales price of a new car in 2013 was $31,762. Apparently a lot of people have that kind of money to buy a car.
Cars are manufactured today with some very good reliability. Instead of a 3 year lease, where you are also putting money up-front, one buys the car with a car loan. The cost of ownership is much lower than the lease cost. Most car loans are around 7% or less. Instead of 3 years, the car can be kept for 10. My car, for example, is a 2000 model. It is fuel economic, has A/C and has not cost me more than $1000 per year in maintenance (batteries, oil changes, tires, and repairs). Furthermore, my insurance is way way lower than what it would be if I had to add that fee to protect the lease vehicle.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Average sales price of a new car in 2013 was $31,762. Apparently a lot of people have that kind of money to buy a car.
Cars are manufactured today with some very good reliability. Instead of a 3 year lease, where you are also putting money up-front, one buys the car with a car loan. The cost of ownership is much lower than the lease cost. Most car loans are around 7% or less. Instead of 3 years, the car can be kept for 10. My car, for example, is a 2000 model. It is fuel economic, has A/C and has not cost me more than $1000 per year in maintenance (batteries, oil changes, tires, and repairs). Furthermore, my insurance is way way lower than what it would be if I had to add that fee to protect the lease vehicle.
Further to the above, we often are able to rent a new vehicle for the weekend from any of the big 3 car rental agencies at under $50.00 per weekend. We take this rental vehicle to enjoy the new car ride, and to drive some long distances. We have had one week deals for as low as $16.00 per day on a 10day rental.
So why lease? I am waiting for the all electric car to be fully debugged and that means 2 years after market introduction. Still, I will weekend lease a car for the reasons described previously
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Obviously Tesla is not competing directly with $15K cars.
The Model S competes against other $80K cars. They didn't invent that market segment--they are competing within it. Yes, that is a premium luxury segment.
By all accounts, the Model 3 will be somewhere in the $35-45K range. There are already cars selling for that price--that segment already exists, and it is much larger than the $80K+ segment. Again, Tesla will compete more or less head-on against similarly priced vehicles that already exist. You can call that a luxury segment if you want, but the average price of a new car is $32K so there are a lot of people buying cars for that price.
When competing against cars that are approximately the same price (within 20% or so), one could make an argument about the long-term savings of energy costs and maintenance for an ICE vs. EV.
Literally no one on the entire fucking planet is arguing that you can save money with a Model 3 vs. the cheapest gas car you can find. That is an entirely fictional argument that you've constructed inside your delusional little mind. It's completely absurd on its face, since by that logic there should be noone purchasing *any* car over $15K and yet the average price of a new car is $32K.
Aside from the fact you are an idiot (hopefully a paid astroturfer), the one reference you provide is stuck in 2009 (that's a few years ago). Also, you reference disagrees with you: "Based on data from 2009 the US petrol emissions equivalence is 40 MPGUS (9 L/100 km), similar to a modern petrol hybrid. But at the speed US electricity is decarbonizing this figure is rising quickly."
:)
Nobody can change your mind, that's fine, reading the blatherings of an anti EV loon made me smile today.
Sigs are bad for you...
for all the tax dollars that you are giving them in subsidies and fighting wars in the middle east?
Wrong. With electric cars costing $10,000 more it's a no-brainer. The $400 for electricity is of no import. Electric cars are feel-good toys that are a waste of mony for people with budgetary constraints.
You are right no one can change my mind, only facts can. And 40 mpg is efficient fossil fuel equivalent not hybrid - i can't take you seriously when you fail to read at a 3rd grade level. I used that study because it is highly biased toward electric vehicles, if they admit it it is quite likely true, if not overinflated. The reality is modern diesels far outperform electrics in 80% of the worlds population. Not everyone lives in Finland. Just keep closing your mind to facts and you can continue be part of the problem with global warming and this planet in general.
Will it still be competitive when you start getting taxed per kilometre driven?
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
How about I just pretend you know how to read?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Maybe you haven't noticed, but the dollar is not worth nearly as much as it was a "few years ago". Inflation has been running fast for a long time. This is a suprise to us who bought their current car for $12K new, but that was not last year!
I think $35K is not really as high as it sounds to us... 8-)
I'm done with this conversation. My conclusion is that you are mentally incapable of understanding why anyone pays more than $25K for a car to the point that you refuse to acknowledge that millions of people do.
It may or may not need that new battery after 8 years. I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the electrics and hybrids out there that have been on the road for a decade now still mostly haven't had to get a new battery. It is also very likely that by the time you do need a new battery it won't cost as much as it does today. The new battery pack will probably be cheaper, store a lot more energy, and possibly be more efficient making for an actual upgrade. Given that electric cars have relatively few moving and wearing parts a Tesla Model M might be perfectly road worthy for 40+ years, only haveing to replace the battery pack a couple times.
Regardless, arguing economics for luxury cars is a bit silly. Anyone who's buying a Model S today and claiming that they are doing it because gas is too expensive is delusional. If they can afford $60k plus for a car the price of gas is trivial. The Model M, when it's finally ready will have to answer to questions of actual economy. But then again it probably won't be a big deal because it still won't be in the real economy section of the market.
Those are some valid points. I really hope the giant battery factory in the works brings down the price on all lithium batteries. However, even economy electric cars have 10k usd battery packs - for the low end cars it's a major percentage of the vehicle. Additionally while you may not 'need' one your already low end range will be reduced by a significant amount. It's pretty amazing they get nearly the same technology that lasts 3-5 years in a phone or laptop and extend it to 8 but honestly it's pretty likely people will abandon perfectly good older economy electrics due to the massive battery replacement costs.
When we get down to the really cheap economy level I'm thinking we might see options for purchasing lower capacity battery packs and such as replacements. That could result in the batteries being a quarter of the price for a full size pack if you are willing to go with a quarter of the capacity, which would still far exceed the average daily mileage for most people. And that is without any increase in battery performance or decrease in cost. If batteries improve significantly we could get to the point that the cost of replacing the battery pack in a 20 year old electric with something adequate for your daily needs would displace the vehicles currently populating the $500 junker market, where you get a rust bucket that you hope to drive for a year before replacing.
sadly we don't see subsidy for vehicles based on co2 per distance in each region, 10k usd modern economy diesels (with a 7-10k subsidy to get them there) would do the most good for the most people until the electrics and hybrids make more sense. If you live in a few select places in Europe, have a 50-100k usd solar installation (which subsidy for is great) that's great electrics are the best choice for the enviornment. Sadly when science is overridden by media and manufacturer hype, even people who don't think critically here on /. we all seem to lose.
http://my.teslamotors.com/models/design
Unfortunately, when you get past a certain price point, the monthly payment is just not possible for most people. Model S is 972 dollars per month for a 5 year loan at 3%.
If more people saved money and could buy it outright, it would make more sense. But that will always be the minority of people. Electric won't go mainstream until you see leases/loans on the order of a Camry (200-300 a month).
My point was obviously that I was tweaking you for throwing in a casual edict based on whatever bias is dangling in front of your nose at the moment.
My conclusion was also obviously that I'm glad you don't get a say in public policy. Sorry to put your knickers in a twist.