Tesla doomed

[fb]

"MafiosoItaliano4584 months ago (edited)
In a few words, ADAC wanted to show just how safe are small cars and how safe are large cars. Specifically, when the 500 and Q7 were put to the test, the spokesman and mr.Ambos said that the Q7's crash structure penetrated the 500's passenger cell (''die Fahrgastzelle'') and shove all of the 500's available legroom (''Fußraum''), leading to the driver's deadly injury! And the 500's passenger cell and knee-airbag weren't able to handle this much speed and fury (56km/h or ''sechs-und-fünfzig km/h''! They also said that the forces the 500 received are more like 80km/h or ''achtzig km/h!'').
So the 500's 5-star safety rating (''fünf Sterne!'') is simply a marketing trick!"

I would agree with you that a light and nimble car is more fun to drive. KTM X-bow would be perfect for me for days when it's too slippery for the motorcycle. However if my wife and kids are travelling, I would rather they be in the Suburban. Not because I drive recklessly. But because there is no telling what the next impaired/drunk/distracted driver will be driving when he plows into you.

Oops, I missed that part. Another challenge is that the customers im the US have beem accustomed to (in my eyes) huge vehicles since the 1950's. And we Swedes love our large station wagons, and in Italy they wonder why Swedes need to drive such huge cars, and so on. Maybe we have to have some respect for that too and create solutions that work for everybody.

 

[jtr1962]

We should make the oboes ride bicycles until they lose weight or drop dead.

Don't they already do that on The Biggest Loser?

 

[LunarMist]

Don't they already do that on The Biggest Loser?

A horde of the Losers started climbing into our photo landscapes early one morning in Nevada or maybe it was Utah.
They all had the T-shirts and there was a big van with the logos on it. The Losers climbed pretty well on the rock paths, but they were not hugely overweight.
By the time they reached near our position it was getting late anyway and time to escape in the Tahoe.

 

[ddrueding]

I was figuring we got through $4+ per gallon gas once, so we're not jacking the price to levels which never existed before. Note here I mean the total of gas price plus the tax would equal $5, not that the tax itself would be $5. At current gas prices, a $2/gallon tax like you propose would probably more or less be the same thing I propose, except my tax would vary. It would fall to zero if gas prices hit $5 per gallon.

This wouldn't work. The price of gas would just reach $5 and never move.

 

[mubs]

If the dipshit in the Miata drives negligently and smashes into a lawful, safely driving Suburban, the Miata may be 100% at fault. ... Another example would be if the Mitata driver drove 20 feet off the road edge and smashed into a homeowner's concrete block wall on their property. It's not the wall's fault if the occupants die, although they might have lived if the homeowner had a chain link fence.

Amen.

Here, two-wheelers outnumber 4-wheelers, and they drive like they're invincible. I tell my family everyday that I'm a hero because I saved 8 lives or 10 lives because these shits zoom past on the side and cut in front as though laws of physics don't apply to them or my vehicle. When I'm able to, I tell them if they have a death wish, I'll be happy to run over them. They don't get it when I tell them I'm in a 1250 kg steel cage, and they're fully exposed. Nothing untoward has happened so far because of anticipation and preparedness on my part. Still, these idiots get run over on a regular basis, but neither they nor anybody cares. They also regularly run into medians and kill themselves.

The arguments reg. heavy vs. light vehicles apply equally to 2-wheelers vs 4-wheelers. The onus is on the smaller, lighter vehicle to be careful. Getting hit by a driver who's out of control (like a drunk driver) is a different matter, of course.

 

[fb]

I think we pay around $6 per gallon here, an we're not the most expensive country in Europe. The car tax also correlates to the CO2 emission levels. I don't think it's perfect, but it's something.

I agree with mubs on the two-wheelers (with or without engines), many seem to be in full-on-attack mode. That's also true for pedestrians here that jumps out in the street in front of cars (because our traffic rules say the cars have to stop). I guess it's just the process of natural selection in action.

 

[mubs]

Unfortunately, fb, natural selection doesn't work here. My daughter and I often joke that Darwin's laws don;t apply here. The idiots are breeding faster than they're dying.

 

[Chewy509]

Unfortunately, fb, natural selection doesn't work here. My daughter and I often joke that Darwin's laws don;t apply here. The idiots are breeding faster than they're dying.

This has been studied quite a bit recently...

Here's a blog post about this very issue. http://www.rooshv.com/the-theory-of-evolution-does-not-apply-to-modern-human-beings

 

[fb]

Maybe we should start a different thread on the subject of evolution? But I wonder if the blogger would have time/inspiration to write that post if he had reproduced?

 

[DrunkenBastard]

I think we pay around $6 per gallon here, an we're not the most expensive country in Europe. The car tax also correlates to the CO2 emission levels. I don't think it's perfect, but it's something.

I agree with mubs on the two-wheelers (with or without engines), many seem to be in full-on-attack mode. That's also true for pedestrians here that jumps out in the street in front of cars (because our traffic rules say the cars have to stop). I guess it's just the process of natural selection in action.

In the US the onus is on the pedestrian to use crosswalks provided at intersections. There are uncontrolled crosswalks where the driver should give way, however if a pedestrian randomly walks out on to a road at a random spot and gets run over they are judged responsible for their actions.

Back to Tesla, they announced the Model S and X P100D powered models with the S delivering 0-60 in 2.5 seconds:

http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/08...-0-to-60-in-2-5-seconds-has-a-315-mile-range/

 

[ddrueding]

Stoked about that. Hoping the bonkers drivetrain is an option in the Model 3.

 

[fb]

Oh no, insane mode is not insane:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ian-customers-seek-money-Tesla-cars-slow.html

 

[fb]

It wasn't explained in the article above, but apparently you need to be connect to a power outlet to get "700 hp" worth of acceleration if I understand everything right?

 

[LunarMist]

It wasn't explained in the article above, but apparently you need to be connect to a power outlet to get "700 hp" worth of acceleration if I understand everything right?

Don't they have attorneys making sure that BS from Marketing doesn't run amok in the advertising? Normally there are sufficient disclaimers in the fine print.

 

[time]

Don't worry, Tesla doesn't do risk management. That's the secret of their success.

 

[ddrueding]

Interesting considering the performance has been benchmarked a number of times by press and private owners, and the performance was as advertised. Did they have to change something for the cold weather?

 

[LunarMist]

There is always somebody trying to get something for nothing.

 

[fb]

It only outputs an equivalent of 469 hp in insane, not 700 hp according to the news. They didn't say anything about it being any slower?

Tesla have measured according to the standards set by the authoroties, and the owners have measured the "real" power output?

 

[Chewy509]

Tesla have measured according to the standards set by the authoroties, and the owners have measured the "real" power output?

My thoughts as well. A number of years ago here in Oz, a few manufacturers got pulled up on the same sort of issue, and apparently standards dictate power output is measured at the flywheel, and not what is actually driven through to the wheels.

 

[fb]

But the Tesla is slower (or should I say, not as fast?) 0-200 km/h than my dream car of all times, the Ferrari F40, and the F40 only had a measly 478 hp. Shouldn't a 700 hp car with optimized aero and no transmission loss be able to beat that without a problem?

I would also be upset too if I've spent a fortune to own a "700 hp" car and only have 469 at my disposal, as the real world measurements indicate.

 

[CougTek]

The Tesla weights a lot more than a Ferrari F40. Weight is a big factor too.

That's like Lotus cars. They are not very powerful compared to other sport cars, but they are so light that they end up being pretty fast anyway.

 

[time]

This has been brewing for a while: http://www.hybridcars.com/what-is-the-actual-overall-horsepower-rating-for-the-tesla-p85d/

You can calculate a reasonable estimate of power from the terminal speed of a 1/4 mile run, as opposed to the time, which is subject to gearing and torque variations. The P85D reportedly has a terminal speed of 116mph. There's a calculator here.

If you compare the P85D (4936 lb) with the F40 (~3000 lb), you can see that the Tesla shows the equivalent of about 600 hp at the flywheel - except of course it doesn't have transmission losses, so more likely a bit over 500 hp if you want to compare it to the way Tesla represents it. F40 terminal speed is a little over 125mph.

 

[fb]

And the Tesla has a Cd of 0,24 vs the Ferraris 0.34.

With that said, I would be happy even with the most basic Tesla model with only Granny- and Adequate mode. And I would be happy to not have payed extra for the 700 hps.

 

[snowhiker]

 

[LunarMist]

Those wheels look huge. It must be a summertime, no snow, no potholes car.

 

[DrunkenBastard]

http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/22/13019276/tesla-solarcity-solar-roof-battery-powerwall-charger

Apparently will be officially launched on Friday. Makes sense to have a panel+battery turn key package available for Tesla owners. I'm curious what kind of charge rate the battery will be delivering to the car, as I believe the power wall 1.0 could only handle a 2 kw sustained load.

 

[LunarMist]

http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/22/13019276/tesla-solarcity-solar-roof-battery-powerwall-charger

Apparently will be officially launched on Friday. Makes sense to have a panel+battery turn key package available for Tesla owners. I'm curious what kind of charge rate the battery will be delivering to the car, as I believe the power wall 1.0 could only handle a 2 kw sustained load.

Does that also work with other brands of cars? If the user had a Tesla and bought something better 4-5 years later for example.

 

[ddrueding]

Tesla quarterly net profit.

 

[DrunkenBastard]

Does that also work with other brands of cars? If the user had a Tesla and bought something better 4-5 years later for example.

You should be able to attach any charger to the output from the powerwall, and the Tesla charger itself is compatible with other cars AFAIK.

So the announcement of the power roof happened yesterday. Four different solar "tile" patterns to cover your roof, using 3M tech to make the tiles appear opaque from ground level, and a significantly upgraded power wall unit:

http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-solar-roof-photos-features-2016-10

"Musk also showed off the new version of its at-home battery, Powerwall 2.0, that will sell for $5,500. The first version of Tesla's Powerwall stored 6.4 kWh worth of energy and was priced at $3,500.

The new Powerwall will have twice the storage and twice the energy, Musk said, 14 kWh of energy and 5 kWh of continuous power, but improved to 7 kWh at peak. "

 

[time]

You could say that the profit figure represents a margin of less than 1%. But the penny dropped for me when I finally understood Tesla's business model.

Telsa was able to sell $139 million of California zero emission vehicle credits, which turned an operating loss into a $22 million profit. I thought that these were supposed to stop once a car maker had accumulated a certain amount of them, but then I read about the byzantine complexity of the system. So this is effectively a tax on other carmakers that flows directly to Tesla in the main. I now see that the point in a 100kWh version of a Model S is the 5 or more credits that accrue to Tesla. On that basis, rather than the target of 4.5% of vehicles being electric by 2018, you only need less than 1%.

Apparently, this is not enough, because Musk complained about Tesla not getting enough subsidy. One week later, a politician popped up with a plan to prop up the market for Tesla's credits.

If other carmakers can be pressured into paying Tesla the ever-increasing amounts that Musk is counting on from the ZEV program, Tesla's financial success is assured.

 

[LunarMist]

Is that viable 5-10 years from now?

 

[time]

From the first link: "The credit requirement is 4.5 percent of sales in 2018, rising to 22 percent in 2025."

And here are the clauses designed to penalize Toyota and GM (and even Nissan), so they have to buy more credits from Tesla:

"In 2018, plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) can only account for 55 percent of credits, meaning at least 45 percent must originate from battery electric vehicles (BEVs) or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCEVs)."

"From 2018 onwards, plug-in hybrids receive between 0.4 and 1.3 credits per vehicle sold. Battery electric and fuel cell vehicles receive between 1 and 4 credits, based on range. For example: the Tesla Model S, which boasts a range of more than 200 miles, is eligible for 3.3 credits, while the 84-mile range Nissan Leaf is credited at 1.8 ZEV credits per car sold."

 

[sechs]

You have to realize that these other manufacturers must still be making money by paying Tesla to sell the electric cars that they aren't.

I just see this as government-facilitated outsourcing of pollution reduction.

 

[LunarMist]

Whatever schemes exist now, I don't expect that will be the same in 5-40 years.

 

[Howell]

The manufactures buying credits from Tesla have additional options to meet the CA laws. They could make more and longer distance electric cars. Or they could sell fewer non-electric cars in CA.

It's not just government-facilitated, it's government mandated.

 

[sechs]

I don't see a clean environment as a mandate so much as a requirement for living.

 

[LunarMist]

I don't see a clean environment as a mandate so much as a requirement for living.

Some life forms can survive in rather inhospitable conditions. Humans are pretty weak.

 

[sechs]

Some life forms can survive in rather inhospitable conditions. Humans are pretty weak.

I'm thinking of myself.

Bacteria like you can make it either way

 

[DrunkenBastard]

So Trump has put into place a 30% tariff on imported solar panels and cells that will be in effect for 4 years. One would think that would be bad news for Tesla, but the first 2.5GW of imported cells each year are exempt from the tariff, and apparently only about 500MW of cells were imported in 2017.

 

[LunarMist]

So Trump has put into place a 30% tariff on imported solar panels and cells that will be in effect for 4 years. One would think that would be bad news for Tesla, but the first 2.5GW of imported cells each year are exempt from the tariff, and apparently only about 500MW of cells were imported in 2017.

Does Tesla sell solar cars? You hardly see any of their cars. A few years ago they were supposed to be the next big thing.