Tesla Motors - 100% Electric Vehicle

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Electric Infrastructure isn't impossible...it would require replaceable batteries...think...flashlights. When the light dies, you put in a new battery -- but if you have rechargeable batteries, they can sit on the counter till you need them.


I'm not going to respond point by point...but I will say you strike me as intent on believing what you WANT to believe...rather than what's actually true. All your "proof" is debatable at best...and I have to agree with DGthe3's assessment of the situation.

Battery technology has developed exponentially over the past decade...since the EV1. None of the cars today could have existed back then...the EV1 proved that...it was impractical, expensive, and underperforming...so it isn't very fair to start drawing a timeline and attach any sort of pioneer label on one company...

Wait, what? 0 - 60 in under 8 seconds? A tested 130 mile range (albeit flat, no wind, no cold) range?

This is a very interesting conversation. I've stayed pretty much out of it. But you have to understand that the practicality of any pure EV is dependant on two things: the battery and infrastructure.

The current battery technology will result in "about" 100 mile range in a purpose built EV. Regardless of what Tesla claims (230 miles I think), I haven't seen a verified test from an independant source that verifies that.

Also, batteries are VERY finicky. They don't like cold and they don't like hot and LiION batteries don't like to be deep drawn or overcharged. Wait for someone to start testing EVs in International Falls, MN in the dead of winter. There is where the Volt will shine.

And LiION batteries cost far more than an IC engine. And, although everyone seems to have an answer, I have no idea where you are going to put 400 to 500 pounds of LiION battery when they give up the ghost. Yes, some say that when a battery can no longer power the car you can use it to store energy from the grid and give it back, but again that is the infrastructure issue. Everything I've read says it costs more to recover the materials from a LiION battery than you can sell the material for. Not a good business proposition.

So considering the cradle to grave proposition, I'm still not convinced about the total benefits or any vehicle with 100 or more pouds of batteries. But, like this thread, that's only my opinion.

And by the way, the Volt is not considered a Hybrid, at least by GM. A Hybrid implies two (or more?) methods of propelling the vehicle. The Volt can only be powered one way....electrically. The IC engine is merely a portable generator capable of producing electricity that powers the electric motors. The IC engine does not power the vehicle, it merely provides an on board source of electricity.

What happens in the future is very unclear. Today batteries are a very limited alternative. Would you want a battery if someday biofuels are cheap and easy to obtain and make the U.S. engergy independant??? or do you require ZEV vs. PZEV??? The cost of Fuel Cells, now relegated to Sci Fi discussions apparently are coming down drastically. Their size, mass and cost are orders of magnitude lower with each generation. But they too have huge infrastructure issues.

My guess is until the winner becomes apparent, business on it's own won't supply the infrastructure required. That means out tax dollars will go to multiple solutions.

But today, nothing beats the ICE. It's a hands down winner if you exclude the politics of global warming and oil.

But again, just my opinion.........except about the Volt being a Hybrid.

[LOWDOWN]

Market-driven...NO pun intended...

If Tesla can sell more than a few sports cars, and they have, then it only stands to reason that, at HALF the price with TWICE the passenger capacity, there's a likely market for MORE...

How many, the market will say...

So, along comes Nissan, a "known" entity, with THEIR version... SAME passenger capacity as the Tesla S, but HALF as much again, net price...LESS curb weight...

Can they sell some, particularly in Metro areas? The MARKET will decide...but I'm betting Nissan, and Tesla, WILL find buyers...

[DGthe3]

Number 3, I hate having to disagree with you but I would have thought you were aware of the fact that there are two forms of gas electric hybrid: series and parallel. With a parallel, the two systems can operate either independently or co-operatively. With a series hybrid, there is only one method of propelling a car but the secondary system is still there when needed. Volt is a series hybrid, while all other current automotive hybrids are parallel. Even though the Volt isn't a parallel hybrid, its still a hybrid. To call it an electric vehicle would mean that all the parallel hybrids capable of going up to X miles or Y speed without the gas engine turning on should also be called EV's.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Number 3, I hate having to disagree with you but I would have thought you were aware of the fact that there are two forms of gas electric hybrid: series and parallel. With a parallel, the two systems can operate either independently or co-operatively. With a series hybrid, there is only one method of propelling a car but the secondary system is still there when needed. Volt is a series hybrid, while all other current automotive hybrids are parallel. Even though the Volt isn't a parallel hybrid, its still a hybrid. To call it an electric vehicle would mean that all the parallel hybrids capable of going up to X miles or Y speed without the gas engine turning on should also be called EV's.

I understand yourpoint and fundamentally you are correct. GMs point is that the engine never propels the vehicle, it only supplies electricity. So if you had a solar cell on the roof of the car that supplied electricity (a bogus proposition today) would you still call it a hybrid because it had two sources of electricity?

A lot of "marketing" lingo for sure. But GM does not consider it a hybrid, which was my point and makes you no less correct.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Wait, what? 0 - 60 in under 8 seconds? A tested 130 mile range (albeit flat, no wind, no cold) range?

That's what I was alluding to...in terms of overall range, the car didn't deliver to the levels that would have been necessary to really have it make sense for people...today's levels. The battery technology just wasn't there back then.

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

So, along comes Nissan, a "known" entity, with THEIR version... SAME passenger capacity as the Tesla S, but HALF as much again, net price...LESS curb weight...

And HALF the practicality...hehehe

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Number 3, I hate having to disagree with you but I would have thought you were aware of the fact that there are two forms of gas electric hybrid: series and parallel. With a parallel, the two systems can operate either independently or co-operatively. With a series hybrid, there is only one method of propelling a car but the secondary system is still there when needed. Volt is a series hybrid, while all other current automotive hybrids are parallel. Even though the Volt isn't a parallel hybrid, its still a hybrid. To call it an electric vehicle would mean that all the parallel hybrids capable of going up to X miles or Y speed without the gas engine turning on should also be called EV's.

Series and Range-Extended Electric Vehicle will...if they haven't already...come to mean the same thing. The Volt is both an electric vehicle with combustion assist AND a series-parallel hybrid vehicle. Both arguments could be defended fiercely...because they're the same thing. hehe

[LOWDOWN]

BTW, "Performance" means 12 different things to a dozen different people/prospects.

Kinda like accurately describing "Ride", "Handling", "Style", "Comfort", "Power" to suitably answer EVERYONE...each means something different to individuals...

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

And HALF the practicality...hehehe

To you, and perhaps manymany more, BUT, and it's a not-so-insignificant "but", it WILL make great sense to SOME...and they'll vote with their wallets! And apparently Nissan thinks "some" = 150,000/annum...

They'd be the ones who think we're fools when we subscribe to the old "hot rodder's axiom": "If some is GOOD, and more is BETTER, then TOO MUCH is JUST RIGHT"...

hehehe...

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Number 3

I understand yourpoint and fundamentally you are correct. GMs point is that the engine never propels the vehicle, it only supplies electricity. So if you had a solar cell on the roof of the car that supplied electricity (a bogus proposition today) would you still call it a hybrid because it had two sources of electricity?

Well, I was thinking of another example after I wrote that reply: a fuel cell vehicle. They're electrically driven, and have an on board device to generate electricity from another energy source, in this case a hydrogen fuel cell. I would consider them to be a hybrid, so I must therefore also consider a solar car a hybrid as well since it follows the exact same line of thinking, just with another energy source being substituted. A solar-electric hyrid, vs a gas-electric or hydrogen-electric.

Originally Posted by Number 3

A lot of "marketing" lingo for sure.

Ah ... marketing. No wonder I don't understand.

[HeHasReturned]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

See, Tesla makes electric sports cars. For the entire industry to be motivated by them, the entire industry has to be making, or planning on making, cars to compete directly with the offerings from Tesla. And that has no chance of happening for the foreseeable future.

Well, that's a difference of opinion between us. You seem to think that because Tesla builds electric sports cars, then they can only motivate people to build electric sports cars. I, on the other hand think that they can motivate people to build electric cars in general, not just electric sports cars.
Here's an example: If you've read Mountains beyond Mountains, you might know about the story of Paul Farmer spending most of his time in Haiti helping the poor at absolutely no cost and no profit to himself. He might motivate people to go out and commit to various humanitarian activities, like volunteer for Habit for Humanity a few times a year. Just because they didn't go as far as to dedicate their entire lives to opening up a clinic in a third world country doesn't mean they weren't motivated by Paul Farmer. In other words, if something motivates you, it doesn't mean you have to reach as far as your motivating source to be truly motivated by it.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by SuperFly03

You can drive around all day in the city and still have a charge at the end of the night.

Not really. Most of the electric gris in cities is quite old and taxed to the limit. What do you think is going to happen when 10,000 people plug their ecomobiles into the grid at bedtime in a small city?

It's going to take years and trillions of dollars to fix the grid.

Until then, Volt has the right idea: Charge the battery with dead dinosaurs.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Not really. Most of the electric gris in cities is quite old and taxed to the limit. What do you think is going to happen when 10,000 people plug their ecomobiles into the grid at bedtime in a small city?

It's going to take years and trillions of dollars to fix the grid.

Until then, Volt has the right idea: Charge the battery with dead dinosaurs.

Two points, when those 10,000 go on the grid at night, it is off peak hours. So shouldn't the grid be more than capable of handling that?

The Volt does NOT charge the batteries with the ICE. It sustains the charge at the minimum level. The expectation is that it is far cheaper for the customer to charge the battery on the grid at night than by using gasoline. This is called "charge sustaining mode" on the Volt. So the electricty to run the Volt comes from the ICE, but it does not supply surplus power to recharge the battery.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by HeHasReturned

Well, that's a difference of opinion between us. You seem to think that because Tesla builds electric sports cars, then they can only motivate people to build electric sports cars. I, on the other hand think that they can motivate people to build electric cars in general, not just electric sports cars.
Here's an example: If you've read Mountains beyond Mountains, you might know about the story of Paul Farmer spending most of his time in Haiti helping the poor at absolutely no cost and no profit to himself. He might motivate people to go out and commit to various humanitarian activities, like volunteer for Habit for Humanity a few times a year. Just because they didn't go as far as to dedicate their entire lives to opening up a clinic in a third world country doesn't mean they weren't motivated by Paul Farmer. In other words, if something motivates you, it doesn't mean you have to reach as far as your motivating source to be truly motivated by it.

Does the 911 motivate Chevrolet to build the Cobalt?

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Not really. Most of the electric gris in cities is quite old and taxed to the limit. What do you think is going to happen when 10,000 people plug their ecomobiles into the grid at bedtime in a small city?

It's going to take years and trillions of dollars to fix the grid.

Until then, Volt has the right idea: Charge the battery with dead dinosaurs.

There won't be 10,000 Volts in a small city for quite some time, production is said to be 10k units for the first year, in select markets. Followed by 20k after that. But anyway, I believe the Volt will have a smart charging system so that it doesn't start charging immediately after plugging it in unless you want it to. Demand over night half what it is during the late afternoon/early evening so the added load is at the best possible time.

[SuperFly03]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

There won't be 10,000 Volts in a small city for quite some time, production is said to be 10k units for the first year, in select markets. Followed by 20k after that. But anyway, I believe the Volt will have a smart charging system so that it doesn't start charging immediately after plugging it in unless you want it to. Demand over night half what it is during the late afternoon/early evening so the added load is at the best possible time.

^^^^ This.

Severely off-peak hours (night vs. business hours) should allow for the adoption of EV's without any significant impact to the infrastructure. Over time it will build up but I would bet that the load during peak hours will require an infrastructure upgrade before overnight EV charging will.

[alrox]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Two points, when those 10,000 go on the grid at night, it is off peak hours. So shouldn't the grid be more than capable of handling that?

Who says they had to charge at night? What if I need to charge my car during peak usage hours in the summer? There will be even more rolling blackouts then.

Yet another situation where the impracticality of electric cars shines through.