Tesla Motors May Be Having an iPhone Moment 452
pacopico writes "Telsa Motors has started churning out 500 of its all electric Model S sedans per week. Bloomberg Businessweek just did a cover story about the company, suggesting that Tesla is becoming more than just a fad of rich folks in California. According to the story, 75 percent of Tesla's sales now come from outside of California, and the company appears poised to raise its sales forecasts for the year. There's a lot of talk about Tesla's history and why it survived when Fisker and Better Place failed too."
Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, I love iPhones and I love the entire Tesla story but what was the point of dropping "iPhone" into the title of this post?
Oh. That's right. Page views.
meh...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
At least they didn't mention Travon.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon driving a Tesla.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if it was a hoodie...er...convertable.
Wait?? Did I just hear something backfire.?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Really? (Score:3)
I would gladly pay you Tuesday, for a hamburger today.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I got the impression "iPhone" was used deliberately. He's making a comparison to another product where others already existed in the space, but where some company managed to package it in a way that somehow caught the imagination of non-technical users and became wildly popular.
It's as if that New York Times hit-job on the Tesla had read:
"No instant refueling. Less range than a Ford Focus. Lame."
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Don't blame the reporter, blame the Tesla chief designer:
Re: (Score:3)
When I was at the Tesla service center one of the engineers there basically told me the same thing. From what I have been able to find, the batteries should be good for 3000 charge/discharge cycles, over 600,000 miles. At that point they will still have 70% of their capacity and by then new batteries should be a lot cheaper and have higher capacity.
Rich People's Fads (Score:5, Interesting)
For all the whining and moaning about rich people, that seems to be how society advances often. A rich person's fad then becomes a commodity.
MSRP of $62,400 Though? (Score:5, Insightful)
For all the whining and moaning about rich people, that seems to be how society advances often. A rich person's fad then becomes a commodity.
Yeah ... but I mean to call the Model S no longer a rich person's fad is stretching it. Their MSRPs [teslamotors.com] for a 60 kWh car is $62,400. $72,400 for an 85 kWh and $87,400 for the 85 kWh with upgraded features. Is this really affordable? I thought I was living a pretty average lifestyle but I spent $6,600 on my current car ... Of course, if you're calling it the iPhone in that everyone else is buying it and I'm laughing at how much money they're spending on phones then, yes, it could be called the iPhone. Still very much a rich person's car though.
Re:MSRP of $62,400 Though? (Score:5, Interesting)
According to this article from 2012 [autoblog.com], the average purchase price of a new car was $30,748 and increasing.
Seeing as that's about half the MSRP, I suppose it's not totally out of reach.
Personally I have no idea why people spend this kind of money on a car. My last brand new car (I don't usually buy brand new, but they had a lot of incentives) was about $16k (cdn), and I considered that a lot. A car is not an investment.....
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I have no idea why people spend this kind of money on a car.
It's like the difference between cafeteria food and a nice restaurant. Sure, both get the job done, but spending more buys you a better experience (okay, not always, but let's not get nit-picky). Some people want a little more luxury, more features, etc, and if they can afford it, then why not? Leather heated seats sure are nice in the winter :)
Re: (Score:2)
The $16k car I bought included heated seats..
And I'm not arguing "if you can afford it", but the majority of people cannot, and when they look at their "needed $500/mo car expense" and then wonder why they are having trouble making ends meet, it's ridiculous.
Re:MSRP of $62,400 Though? (Score:4, Insightful)
"At introduction, a PC with 64 kB of RAM and a single 5.25-inch floppy drive and monitor sold for US $3,005 ($ 7,588 in today's dollars)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC [wikipedia.org]
Clearly it was far too expensive for most consumers people to afford. But it led to an industry in which ever better PCs became ever cheaper.
Whilst that won't be as dramatic with electric cars, they will certainly reduce in price over the years to become comparable with ICE. And as the price of fossil fuels continues to rise, EVs will become better value over their whole lifetimes even quicker.
Re: (Score:2)
That's great, the net >$500/mo... what about rent/mortgage + food + disposable income + savings for retirement + bills? Oh wait, who saves for retirement anymore.
A $500/mo car payment is not a requirement, that is all I'm getting at. If you can afford a $60k car, then you should be able to afford to pay for it with cash. And, you should have enough money that you don't care if the car gets scratched, or otherwise damaged, because you can easily replace it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I bought a 2012 VW Jetta TDI brand new off the showroom floor last year; every option except the nav system ('cuz I'm not stupid) - leather, heated seats, premium Fender stereo system, the works. The damn thing gets 40-60 MPG, has mountains of torque (handy here on the Ozark Plateau, which isn't very plateau at all), and is generally a damn nice way to get around.
All for less than $30K.
Personally I have no idea why people spend this kind of money on a car.
Some people want a little more luxury, more features, etc, and if they can afford it, then why not?
Some people are suckers.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people are suckers.
People have different tastes from you. That doesn't make them suckers.
Re:MSRP of $62,400 Though? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I have no idea why people spend this kind of money on a car. My last brand new car (I don't usually buy brand new, but they had a lot of incentives) was about $16k (cdn), and I considered that a lot. A car is not an investment.....
Neither is a computer, but if you count the total I've used without any significant ROI to show for it, well... it basically depends how much you need and want to use it. I have a friend who spent quite a lot of money on his car, but he also has a fairly long daily commute (and most of it driving not just limping in a queue), the family has two cabins who are both a few hours away, the car is the de facto way to visit friends and family and in general he likes to drive and can go on road trips and such. If
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not arguing against using money to enjoy life; I am a strong supporter of dying with $0 to your name.
That said, it's become common in North American lifestyle that a $500/mo car expense is both expected, and normal, and people take it on in lieu of saving for retirement, or having a disposable income for things they want (and then use credit to get those things anyways).
As I said in an above post, if you truly can afford a $60k car, then you can afford to pay cash for it upfront, and not care about it,
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not, it's a social statement. Which is why you get certain types of people driving BMWs and Mercedes (and other expensive cars.)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it is. Only the idiots that only count the sell price as the return on that investment say this. It is a tool that you use to get from place to place often in order to make or save more money that you possibly could without it. A car gives me the flexibility to generate large amounts of income that would not be possible otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I was living a pretty average lifestyle but I spent $6,600 on my current ca
Your current car was not bought new. Either that, or your current car is a motor scooter or a low end motorcycle.
My current car was bought new, and while it wasn't $60,000, it is a model whose top trim level is not far from that new. Most people don't have $60,000 cash lying about, but they use credit to buy stuff like that. Believe it or not, despite the banking crash in the US some of us still have good credit.
Re:MSRP of $62,400 Though? (Score:5, Informative)
60 kWh car is $62,400. $72,400 for an 85 kWh and $87,400 with upgraded features
Have you seen what a Lexus LS Hybrid costs? It's easy to walk out of an Acura dealer with a mass produced gasoline vehicle for $60K. Tesla is right in there at a reasonable price (US wages relative to the international market are a separate issue). Consider some places in the US you can buy a tiny ranch for $600K and average annual salaries are $130K or so, and a $60K car isn't outside of the realm of typical.
I thought I was living a pretty average lifestyle but I spent $6,600 on my current car
Nah, you're pretty far to the low side there. 75% of car sales are used, at about $9K on average. 25% of car sales are new, with the latest average at $31K. That puts the overall average at $14.5K, which puts you at, what, the 20th percentile or so?
Re: (Score:2)
and average annual salaries are $130K
That number is optimistic.....Even in Santa Clara median pay is $93k [forbes.com].
Re: (Score:3)
When considered against the cars the Model S is competing with-- Porsche Panamera; BMW M5, Audi A7 (all of which are $70K+ cars)... it's absolutely affordable.
Tesla is planning a higher volume, lower priced car code named "BlueStar", which is to be similar in size as a BMW 3-series and should start around $35K, but it's going to take a few years for them to tool up the production scale.
Define "Rich" (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you define "Rich" though? Something like 90% of Americans define themselves as middle class, so it really covers a wide amount of territory.
So what's your definition? $1M+ in assets? $5M+? $100k in income/year? $250k? More?
Let's look at the basic 85 kWh model, which comes with free charging and such. $72,400. That works out to $1,207/month over 5 years. Ouch, no kidding. Let's say that our theoretical 'middle class' person is:
A: Car focused; they're going to be driving the 'best' car they can get no matter what, even if it impacts their savings/housing. Nobody ever said everybody 'middle class' is 100% financially logical/responsible.
B: Has access to free electricity for charging(work, supercharger stations, whatever)
C: Itemizes on taxes already.
D: Drives an average amount of distance per year, but no trips outside of a Tesla's range.
Please note that I'm trying to be favorable to Tesla in this case, in order to see how low it could realistically go.
1. $72,400 minus the federal rebate of 7,500 becomes $64,900
2. 15k miles/year@20mpg(nasty city driver, best case for electric, worst for gasoline), 750 gallons@$4 = $3k/year. $15k in fuel savings. $49.9k left
Picking on GM, the Cadillac CTS-V Sedan is more expensive(3.9 v 4.2 for 0-60), and the XTS and CTS Sport are close. BMW 7 Series are uniformly $25k+ more expensive. You need to drop to the 5 series to reach that price point.
It's not even to middle-middle class yet, but I'd say it's moved from 'rich' people to 'upper-middle'.
Re: (Score:3)
Let run those numbers.
7 years * 15K miles/year = 10500miles./ 30 MPG = 3500 gallons * $5/gallon (inflation) = $17500 fuel.
If you pay $20K to maintain a $30K car for seven (less the warranty period) years you are buying an English or Italian car. Don't do that.
How much is the replacement battery pack for the Tesla?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless jealous but lazy types manage to stall adoption by the rich. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The problem I find with this analogy is that you're comparing a generic technology to a specific company.
Yes, but it's a specific company that has already announced plans to target cheaper market segments.
Re:Rich People's Fads (Score:5, Informative)
You do know that a Model T cost $850 in 1909 which for an average worker was around 2 to 4 times their average income. Even at 60k the Model S is around 4x that of a non-tipped worker making no more than Federal minimum wage (and more than 86% of people are at or above this income level). So a Model S is really no more expensive for a minimum wage worker than a Model T was for the low-end average income of a 1909 worker.. Prices came down on the Model T with increased sales volume just as prices will go down on Tesla cars if growth continues and they sell more volume.
Duurr (Score:3, Interesting)
California isn't the only place where rich people buy toys. I see plenty of bald law/finance people in Chicago with them. Porsche should be getting nervous.
Ummm ... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, it's not just a fad for rich folks in California, it's becoming a fad for rich folks in other places too.
Right.
The best thing about Tesla so far (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I might love one also if it did not involve the reality that what I would be doing is paying for fuel for the life of the car up front including interest.
Re:The best thing about Tesla so far (Score:4, Insightful)
Two Drive Around My Florida Town (Score:5, Insightful)
Just about every morning on my way to work, I see two of the Tesla Model S on the road. I commute between Palm Beach Gardens and Jupiter, Florida. That's less than a 20-minute commute.
If you're looking for a conversation starter at the country club or marina, a BMW, Mercedes or even a Bentley isn't going to work nearly as well as a Tesla.
While $65,000 to $75,000 seems like a lot for a car (I cringe at paying half that), there are just as many cars in that price range rolling in Palm Beach County that aren't nearly as exotic or as head-turning as the Tesla. I pass dozens of $65k+ cars on the way to work and it isn't unusual to see $100k+ cars either. Those are mostly background noise because they are so common.
Cheers,
Matt
The Touch Screen (Score:5, Insightful)
"...Franz von Holzhausen, can barely contain himself as he talks about the design of the Model S. “It’s like the leap of faith Apple (AAPL) took with the iPhone,” he says, explaining why the car has a touchscreen instead of the usual physical buttons."
This is monumentally wrong. Touch screens succeed on a phone because a phone is a portable device and the touch screen is lighter and smaller. Physical controls are preferable for humans because they model the physical world to which we've adapted. In a car, you need to use the controls without taking your eyes off the road. This means location by feel is important. A touch screen can't provide that.
It seems the entire design world has this backwards, include appliance manufacturers. I hate the buttons on my oven.
Re: (Score:2)
the real reason tesla has a touchscreen is... it's cheaper and it was faster for them to develop.
using it as a control device while driving should be illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you actually seen the Tesla dashboard? It has physical controls as well. You don't have to take your eyes off the road to operate it. The touchscreen is in addition to physical controls, not instead of.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the picture in the Businessweek article, there appears to be one small button on either side of the screen (the left one is for hazard lights, I can't tell what the right one is) and nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
What you say about taking your eyes off the road is correct. However,
Physical controls are preferable for humans because they model the physical world to which we've adapted.
For the younger generations, this isn't true anymore. People who've had a smartphone since their youth are more used to touchscreens. Going back to buttons is about as difficult as the transition to touchscreens was.
Re: (Score:3)
What he says about taking your eyes off the road is not correct. When driving, the key thing is to not be focused on anything. That includes the road, the car in front of you, your phone, controls, etc. Instead, you want to be alert, which is the opposite of focused. Your eyes should be constantly moving - look at the road, the car in front of you, traffic in front of that car, your mirrors, your gauges, off into the distance, etc.
As long as the touch screen interface is well designed it will be no more
De Lorian (Score:3, Funny)
Fisker .vs. Tesla (Score:3)
Both cars. One chose Karma. One chose Roadster.
One executed conventional engineering with battery backup. One executed an allegory to automotive history wrapped around all electric engineering.
One's backup systems turned and committed car suicide in a NJ puddle. One executed a stanch defense in word and deed against NY media assassins delivering charging stations and more cars.
Except for the few incredible cars it produced, Fisker is no more. To the victor the spoils. Tesla won
So, you can't replace the battery? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why not Windows Phone 8? (Score:5, Funny)
See folks, this is how you troll.
Watch closely, and learn.
Re: (Score:3)
After a couple of years of using OS/2 computers, I finally got a Windows 3.1 computer. And oh lord I'm mildly amused! It is single handedly not quite the worst OS there has ever been so far. Far less troubles with fragmentation and, well, most just fragmentation and not lagging in the same areas. Windows 3.1 will somewhat at the medium-high end of this generation, any day now.
That's hard. I'm thoroughly impressed by happyurine's abilities.
Re: (Score:3)
Ha ha, that's awesome.
I live in Redmond, and I see more Tesla Ses driving around than people holding a Windows Phone 8... even with MS giving WP8 to all its employees for free. Do see a fair number of their tablet thing, though.
The (too few) WP8 product demos I've seen did look pretty good, though. Things could have been different had it come out a few years ago back when WebOS / Maemo were contenders.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why not Windows Phone 8? (Score:4, Informative)
The next generation of social marketing maybe.
Re:Why not Windows Phone 8? (Score:4, Informative)
Because at one point in the history of technology there came a point when the sales of the iPhone absolutely skyrocketed and changed Apple as a company and it's position in the Consumer Electronics Industry, as well as the industry and customer expectations to a large degree.
By drawing an analogy to that moment, the author is suggesting that Tesla Motors is about to have an equally significant effect on the motoring industry as a whole, and people's expectations of cars.
Re:Why not Windows Phone 8? (Score:5, Funny)
Because Tesla is supposedly becoming successful.
If the iPhone is like Tesla, then the new Windows smartphones would be like a Yugo.
Re: (Score:3)
Because Tesla is supposedly becoming successful.
If the iPhone is like Tesla, then the new Windows smartphones would be like a Yugo.
Well, that would work, except for the fact that more Yugos were sold each year in the 1980s than Tesla has yet to sell in its history.
The idea of comparing Tesla to the Iphone at this point is ridiculous. Mostly because it is an apples to hamburgers comparison.
Re:Why not Windows Phone 8? (Score:4, Funny)
I thought it was an apples to electric cars comparison?
Re: (Score:2)
And without a glove compartment.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Better profit margin.
Re:Testla is good... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you saying that Tesla was some campaigner for green energy? I don't think so. He would however think electric cars are pretty cool.
Re:Testla is good... (Score:5, Funny)
No Tesla car is worthy of his name without it being able to generate 5 meter long arcs of electricity on demand.
Re:Testla is good... (Score:5, Funny)
No Tesla car is worthy of his name without it being able to generate 5 meter long arcs of electricity on demand.
Think if it ... as a project.
Get one of these cars, wire a transformer into it and place a couple electrodes on the hood. While you are waiting at lights you could press a button and make arcs dance across the hood of your car and impress the homeboys with their pitiful flatulent exhausts and audio with something massively cool.
You could also work it into vehicle protection. (Please be neat and carry a whisk broom to sweep away the dust of those who attempted to break in.)
Re: (Score:3)
Their next model can be called the Tesla Highlander. :)
Yeah, but they wouldn't be able to make very much on it, since there can be only one.
Re: (Score:2)
However, I'd be VERY interested if they could somehow start making the Tesla Roadster again, but this time at a price-point nearer that of a Corvette. I'd be ALL over that....a performance electric car that isn't fugly.
Re:Testla is good... (Score:4, Insightful)
Totally false.
Go read a damn book.
Gasoline does not appear as if by magic at your local station. It gets trucked there, after being refined, after being pumped out of the ground, after being fought over in wars.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect.
Go learn some math. That fails even a basic sanity check, electricity is not moved around by trucks burning fuel.
Re:Testla is good... (Score:5, Informative)
Citation needed. Desperately. This doesn't jive with basic math.
What basic math are you using then?
A truck carrying 10,000 gallons of gasoline uses about 14.28 gallons to go 100 miles.
Transport loss is 0.14%
An electrical transmission line will lose about 0.75% over 100 miles at 1000MW (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses [wikipedia.org])
The energy density of gasoline is a huge factor when considering the cost of transport. The IT equivalent is the old story about the bandwidth of a stationwagon of data tapes travelling down the highway.
When dealing with transport of energy, the density matters, and chemical energy density is hard to beat.
Re:Testla is good... (Score:4, Informative)
The World Bank lists it by country. [worldbank.org]
Re:Testla is good... (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's make up an example. Let's say you have a source of fuel, a power plant that can burn that fuel, a testing ground that's 100 miles further away from the fuel source than the power plant, and two vehicles that can utilize the fuel. Internal combustion cars are generally about 15% efficient. Electric engine cars are 85-90% efficient. Fossil fuel power plants are about 33% efficient. Your transmission numbers are 99.86% for gasoline and 99.25% for electricity over 100 miles.
So overall efficiencies are:
Gas: 1 * 0.9986 * 0.15 = 0.14979
Electrical = 1 * 0.33 * 0.9925 * 0.88 =
So over a distance of 100 miles Electric cars are still almost twice as efficient, even with the extra losses in transmission. (Admittedly this is for "normal" internal combustion cars, i don't have the figures to hand for the average efficiency of hybrid cars.)
Doing a little quick math (it's been forever since i've had to solve for a variable, so i'm just plugging it into a spreadsheet) it looks like the break-even point is about 10,700 miles. So if the distance from the fuel source was over 10,700 miles, you'd be better shipping the fuel to the car rather than converting it to electricity on-site and transmitting it to the destination. Though obviously over such an extreme distance a lot of other factors would come into play and overwhelm the simple equation.
Sources:
http://consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/vehicle_energy_losses.html [consumerenergycenter.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station [wikipedia.org]
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1273932 [eetimes.com]
There may be more accurate numbers out there, so the exact outcome might differ, it's clear that better efficiency in just a single stage of the operation does not dictate an overall higher efficiency.
Logistics (Score:4, Informative)
If the truck is driving back empty, they should fire their logistics guy.
The problem with this is that because it's a hazardous flammable and fairly poisonous liquid substance you're transporting it in a tanker designed for hydrocarbon fuel, not a general transport vehicle. You still need to get the trailer back to the refinery/distribution point to move more gasoline, but the selection of items that can go into the trailer is extremely limited - can't put food products in there, can't put potable water or drinking alcohol, etc... That's assuming any of this is produced at your distribution point.
Longer ranges it's piped or transported by railroad, but for ~100 mile final transport, they are stuck driving back with an empty trailer.
Re:Testla is good... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla wanted to pump electricity into the atmosphere and harvest it with antennas on our homes. No way that could have led to any trouble, and of course it is an extremely efficient way to transmit electricity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, you're only half right. Tesla wanted to pump electricity into the ground, not the air.
Tesla thought electricity was a transverse wave (think: sound wave) not a sinusoidal wave (think: light). It's why his project didn't work.
Not to be too unfair, at the time it was hotly debated which kind of wave it was and nobody really knew for sure.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think its an insult to call this Tesla motors. An insult to his once great name. These electric cars are just as poisonous to the environment as anything else but liberal idiots keep on keepin on.
I guess you are thinking about the electricity coming from dirty coal power plants or similar, but it doesn't have to. Electric cars are one part of the puzzle, cleaning up electric power generation at source another, it isn't either or, you should do both. This is absolutely possible at large scale with today's technology (see fx Germany). And as an added benefit you avoid the local pollution, big city smog is a significant health risk many places.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that using the term "liberal idiots" undermines the credibility of your technical argument. But I'll also invite you to post or cite actual data here rather than just ranting.
Re: (Score:3)
But Darth - the question still stands - are you all liberal idiots? It seems to me that you've self identified by responding to this quip. ;-)
Re:Testla is good... (Score:4, Interesting)
These electric cars are just as poisonous to the environment as anything else but liberal idiots keep on keepin on.
Really depends on when your power comes from. I live in British Columbia, where the majority of our electricity comes from Hydroelectricity - So the electric cars here have a very, very low carbon footprint. Ditto jurisdictions where power comes from wind, solar and fission.
Re: (Score:2)
"This doesn't solve all our problems all at once, therefore it's a pile of crap!" There is no magic bullet.
As a side note, I am getting a bit sick and tired of the abuse of the words liberal and conservative and the totally wacko connotations they now posses thanks to people like you.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, and oil is totally free for the state; excpet for some extremely expensive wars, and subsidies for petrol cars. and health costs ...
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that the only reason they are selling is that it's a $7500 tax write off for the rich.
Right, because the number one criterion rich people use when deciding which car to buy is price.
Have you actually driven a Model S? I have (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, I just don't care for battery cars, just like I don't care for iDevices -- perhaps the (dumb) analogy is more accurate than the author intended.
I've actually sat in a Tesla Model S at a electric vehicle show. I defy anyone to actually test drive one and claim that they "don't like battery cars". The Model S is obviously too pricey for most folks but it is an awesome car almost any way you care to measure it. It's fast, handles great, has range comparable to gas cars, looks nice, doesn't need gasoline, has a terrific interior and can even be recharged relatively quickly given the state of the art in recharge technology. Given it's range the recharge time problem is significantly mitigated. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if I had the money.
If the technology can be developed to get recharge times down to 5-10 minutes you had better start learning to like "battery cars" because that is really the only serious problem holding them back. Until we get to that point I think we're going to see a slow but steady migration through plug in hybrids. I've driven the Volt and the Ford Fusion Energi and I'm seriously considering buying one or the other. They're both genuinely good cars for reasonable prices (not cheap but competitive) and I can do much of my daily driving without needing to use gas.
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla demoed battery swapping technology recently. Takes 90 seconds, no need to get out of the car. Faster than filling up with liquid fuel.
Another advantage of the Tesla is the space. Flat floor and no engine do you have front and rear boots (er, what do Americans call them, trunks...)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Where do used batteries go?
Tyrion? Is that you -- given up on your wife and getting into the Green Movement?
Re: (Score:3)
For the most part, they don't go anywhere - just about every battery put into a hybrid or an all electric in the last decade is still out there in service.
As for what happens at their eventual end of life... these batteries are eminently recyclable. The nickel in a Prius battery is valuable, as is the cobalt and manganese in li-ion powered cars (chemistries vary). The lithium content itself isn't terribly valuable, but
Re: (Score:2)
The only real problem with battery cars is the battery. Where do used batteries go?
Used batteries are recycled [teslamotors.com] by KBI/Toxco [toxco.com]...
Re: (Score:2)
Recycled, like the vast majority of batteries currently used in cars, hybrid or not.
Re: (Score:3)
What are you talking about? If you're talking about lead-acid batteries, they're plastic, lead + lead oxide and sulfuric acid. If you're talking about lithium-ion, there's plastic, lithium + whatever the particular chemistry uses and perhaps some electrolyte.
All of those components are recyclable or reusable in some way.
Emmissions (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, I don't doubt that it's a fine electric automobile, based on a Lotus Elise,
The Model S is not based on the Elise. The Tesla Roadster was but that no longer is in production. Try going to Tesla's web site before posting next time.
Personal prejudices and preferences aside, my biggest issue with electric cars is that you're really just shuffling the emissions around.
You're forgetting several important details. First is that you can power an electric vehicle with power from non-fossil fuel sources. Hydro, wind, solar, nuclear etc. You can actually reduce the emissions to a good approximation of zero. Second is that it is MUCH easier to control emission at the generating station than it is to try to do it on every tailpipe out there. Would you rather have one big filter or millions of small ones? Third is that the power efficiency of electric motors is significantly higher than for internal combustion engines. ICEs waste a huge amount of power in the form of heat. Fourth is that you have the option of powering an electric vehicle with fossil fuels that are potentially less polluting. Instead of coal you can power it with natural gas or even oil.
Until we get a point of 100% clean renewable energy, I'm not sure the trade-off is worth it.
So nothing is worth doing until it is perfect? That's a pretty tragically stupid argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My latest copy of BBW...
Huh, didn't know Big Beautiful Women had their own publication.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how electric cars compare to gasoline/diesel powered cars in terms of total energy consumption when you factor in the materials.
An example would be a Prius vs. Corolla. It seems to me that a lot more energy -- and other environmental impact -- goes into making a Prius due to the battery (lithium mining and battery manufacturing), more elaborate computers/controls (everything to do with chipmaking) electric motors (rare earth mining and processing).
Re: (Score:2)
Guess your not an engineer. Internal combustion engines are 30% efficient, Large power plant including transmission are are about 80% efficient, so even if the power plant burned gasoline, which they do not, a car running off the grid would be more then 2x as efficient.
Your also assuming that in the US we have not reached peak car. The industry is currently concerned we have. The amount of cars on the road is beginning to plateau.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I find it hilarious... (Score:4, Insightful)
In ten years, can you convert your gasoline car to run on solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear power? You can with an electric car. They are not a panacea, but they do allow us to move away from a specific fuel dependency (and one which also doesn't compete with food).
Re:Tesla Model S (Score:4, Interesting)
I am looking at an Audi also; I find the A6 perfectly droolworthy. I did drive a Telsa yesterday which is now easily my favorite car after only 20 minutes (my boss has one). He points out that if you get the high-end, there is a 8 year warranty on the car, and all he has done so far (7,000 miles in) is rotate the tires. Cost? $10.
They provided a garage charger and installed it at his house for free)
By the time you figure in 6 or 7 years of maintenance, gas, etc. on your Audi in Cali, you are not that far from what he paid upfront. Have the car charge automatically after midnight when the electric rates are low, and you begin to see the value. Over 8-10 years, buying a $60,000 car with gas prices shooting upwards, and replacing a zillion parts as they wear out, I will spend close to $87,000 on my car; my boss will only buy tires. It seems to boil down to whether you have the money upfront or not, the cars cost about the same.
You do not "need" a loud car (Score:2)
No you don't. Just like the asshats who ride harley davidson motorcycles don't "need" to hear their motorcycles violating local noise ordinances. You might like it (no idea why) but you certainly don't need it. Speaking for myself I don't really want to hear your car go vroom either.
I'm somewhat mystified why people would a car that is any louder than it absolutely has to be. It's noise pollution, nothing more. Noise from a car is a by-product. People expect it because it has always been there but it does not make the vehicle perform any better. Personally I want a car that is absolutely silent and goes like stink. (and no there are no blind people crossing the road anywhere I drive)
Re: (Score:2)
Me too. You should wave next time. :)
[John]
Re: (Score:3)
As an owner of both a Toyota and a Tesla there is really no comparison at all. My toyota has sat in my driveway with a battery minder on it since I got my Tesla some months back and I'll likely add the fuel stabilizer additive soon. I don't forsee any major issues with my Tesla, especially since the drive train is much simpler with only a fraction of the moving parts. I also worked out the lifetime of the battery given my normal driving habits. It will outlast the life of the car by many years. While my Toy