Official Tesla Model S thread

[GRA]

I think this article at GCR is a very balanced look at Tesla's accomplishments as well as the issues they face in the future: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098564_tesla-model-s-three-years-later-what-electric-car-taught-us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I especially agree with the second part [my emphasis]:

(2) Tesla proved (once again) that cars must offer something better than their competitors, regardless of powertrain.

"It's always all about the product" is a truism in the auto business, but it's something than electric-car advocates and early adopters frequently forget--or ignore.

Those who are enamored of electric cars--for a variety of reasons--are willing to make sacrifices to drive them.

Regular buyers aren't.

But with ranges of 208 and 265 miles--three years later, 240 and 270 miles--the Tesla Model S can provide several days of driving without requiring a recharge to move.

It holds four people comfortably, five people acceptably, and a fair quantity of cargo as well.

And it is not only good-looking and (somewhat) luxurious, but the low-end models perform well and the high-end models blow the doors off some much pricier conveyances.

That's a combination of attributes that no other electric car comes close to offering today, fully seven years after the first Tesla Roadster struggled into production.

 

[lorenfb]

That's a combination of attributes that no other electric car comes close to offering today, fully seven years after the first Tesla Roadster struggled into production.

Most/all could have produced an equivalent product, but most/all don't presently consider that product
and market segment as profitable, which to date Tesla has proven to be case, i.e. not profitable. A seven
year old car company which has produced less than 100K units is hardly one to 'write-home-about'.
The 'acid test' for Tesla will be whether it can actually produce the Model 3 and be profitable.

 

[Rebel44]

What is the actual real world mileage on the Model S at highway speeds; e.g., at 70-75 MPH?

There are several speed vs. range graphs available for the Model S.

Here's one

Of course, many drivers exceed the 80 mph maximum speed on that chart.

The range limitations of any BEV are more dramatically illustrated by energy use at higher speeds.

Looks like a 85 kWh S starting out with maximum charge, would run out of kWh in only ~45 minutes (on what looks to be a fairly warm day) if driven at Autobahn speed:

...A Model S owner posted this video of him driving 125 MPH on the Autobahn for about 12 minutes. Musk promised more speed for German drivers, and he seems to have delivered. As you might imagine, this consumed a whole lotta power, 840 Wh/mi...

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/15/tesla-model-s-lasts-for-just-12-minutes-at-125-mph-video/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And?

Everyone driving that fast knows, that there is a price for that - our company cars normally consume 6l/100km, but on Autobahn, its around 20l/100km

 

[Zythryn]

That's a combination of attributes that no other electric car comes close to offering today, fully seven years after the first Tesla Roadster struggled into production.

Most/all could have produced an equivalent product, but most/all don't presently consider that product
and market segment as profitable, which to date Tesla has proven to be case, i.e. not profitable. A seven
year old car company which has produced less than 100K units is hardly one to 'write-home-about'.
The 'acid test' for Tesla will be whether it can actually produce the Model 3 and be profitable.

That is simply incorrect.

The product is profitable (25% profit margin). The luxury car market is also very profitable.
Tesla as a company is not, but that isn't due to the product or market.
That is because they are expanding aggressively, pouring all the profits from the car into expansion.

 

[lorenfb]

The product is profitable (25% profit margin). The luxury car market is also very profitable.
Tesla as a company is not, but that isn't due to the product or market.
That is because they are expanding aggressively, pouring all the profits from the car into expansion.

In the long term, serving just the luxury car market is not profitable without the volume
from the other market segments. Both BMW & M/B depend on their volume lower-end
products to support the overall G&A (overhead). Yes, one can be profitable in the very high
end luxury car market, e.g. Ferrari, Rolls/Bentley, Maserati, etc., but the volumes are low.
Tesla's present GP (gross profit) of 25% is not viable long term for a low volume luxury car
manufacturer.

As I said, Tesla's long term, as an automotive producer, is totally dependent upon the Model 3,
i.e. if it really happens.

 

[freeewilly]

As I said, Tesla's long term, as an automotive producer, is totally dependent upon the Model 3,
i.e. if it really happens.

Tesla is an energy (battery) company, Model S, X, III, and power wall are tools for them to sell more batteries.
They need to sell as many batteries as possible to increase the demand for the gigafactory, when the cost of battery comes down and Tesla has bigger edge of producing lower cost/high energy battery, they are in a better position to take over the world.

 

[edatoakrun]

edatoakrun:...The range limitations of any BEV are more dramatically illustrated by energy use at higher speeds.

Looks like a 85 kWh S starting out with maximum charge, would run out of kWh in only ~45 minutes (on what looks to be a fairly warm day) if driven at Autobahn speed...

Rebel44: And?...

Sorry, I thought the conclusion was clear.
Even an 85 kW battery is inadequate for taking a long trip at very high speeds in a BEV.

off-topic reply

Rebel44: ...our company cars normally consume 6l/100km, but on Autobahn, its around 20l/100km

What kind of ICEV?

I'd expect the efficiency loss for any ICEV designed to be driven at high speed would be far less than that.

Since ICEVs are so inefficient at lower speeds, the range loss from the increased aero resistance at higher speeds should (at least in theory) be much smaller than for a BEV, as long as the ICE vehicle is within its efficient engine RPM range.

And of course, I'd expect ICEVs designed for autobahn use would have relatively large fuel tanks, adequate for several hours of driving.

BTW, If you drive mostly at low speeds, much smaller batteries are adequate for BEVs.

Since I do most of my driving at ~25 to 45 mph, I'm often ready for a break from driving before I use a full charge, since it takes several hours, even with only the ~18 kWh now available from "100%" to turtle.

Now if there was just a dependable DC charger, everywhere I wanted to take a break...

 

[eloder]

Sorry, I thought the conclusion was clear.
Even an 85 kW battery is inadequate for taking a long trip at very high speeds in a BEV.

Not really an issue for most of the world where such speeds are illegal.

Driving fast on the Autobahn burns quite a bit of dollars in your pocket. Your $300 gas bill for your trip suddenly becomes $900. In a Tesla, all you lose is time, but not money.

So even where it does matter on the Autobahn, only the very wealthy are going to continously drive at super-high speeds and waste so much money driving inefficiently.

 

[abasile]

For those who haven't seen it yet, this Wait But Why article is worth sharing. It lays out the case for Tesla Motors' mission, with background, in a very clear, approachable manner. The only caveat is its repeated use of "adult" aka. foul language. (Disclosure: I do own some shares of TSLA and am unabashedly pro-Tesla.)

The bottom line is, we all need to stop "smoking"!

 

[GRA]

That's a combination of attributes that no other electric car comes close to offering today, fully seven years after the first Tesla Roadster struggled into production.

Most/all could have produced an equivalent product, but most/all don't presently consider that product
and market segment as profitable, which to date Tesla has proven to be case, i.e. not profitable. A seven
year old car company which has produced less than 100K units is hardly one to 'write-home-about'.
The 'acid test' for Tesla will be whether it can actually produce the Model 3 and be profitable.

Which is pretty much exactly what the article states.

 

[lorenfb]

Tesla is an energy (battery) company, Model S, X, III, and power wall are tools for them to sell more batteries.
They need to sell as many batteries as possible to increase the demand for the gigafactory, when the cost of battery comes down and Tesla has bigger edge of producing lower cost/high energy battery, they are in a better position to take over the world.

Economy-of-scale only 'buys' so much in cost reductions, i.e. without other factors such as product innovations product costs reach
an exponentially declining delta per a delta increase in volume. At a very very high volume, i.e. > 10X Tesla's present volume,
battery costs may be reduced by 25-30%.

 

[mjblazin]

At one point, TX was in the running for the battery factory. While detailed processes are proprietary, the manufacturer has to brief the state on anything dramatically different for handling the toxic components like those parts of a battery. Here we have some very bad experiences with battery plants. The word was the initial processes and materials were going to be very similar to those used by Panasonic elsewhere.

While some economies can come from massive production runs, the first iteration did not seem to have groundbreaking technology. That view was 18 months old so perhaps Tesla has had breakthroughs in the interim that it will incorporate in the NV plant.

 

[eloder]

Tesla is an energy (battery) company, Model S, X, III, and power wall are tools for them to sell more batteries.
They need to sell as many batteries as possible to increase the demand for the gigafactory, when the cost of battery comes down and Tesla has bigger edge of producing lower cost/high energy battery, they are in a better position to take over the world.

Economy-of-scale only 'buys' so much in cost reductions, i.e. without other factors such as product innovations product costs reach
an exponentially declining delta per a delta increase in volume. At a very very high volume, i.e. > 10X Tesla's present volume,
battery costs may be reduced by 25-30%.

Doubling the world's production of batteries from 2013 levels sounds like "economy of scale" to me.

They don't need 10x cars sold. They can take advantage of the hundreds of gwh that have already been ordered by companies.

Not to mention that Tesla will be selling at $250 per kwh at the utility scale per Musk. That's already 30% better than suspected numbers for Nissan's batteries.

 

[evnow]

They can take advantage of the hundreds of gwh that have already been ordered by companies.

Really ? Link to where you got this information from ? Gigafactory is supposed to be 50gWh / year. If they have "orders" - not just enquiries - for 100s of GWhs - that is sold out for several years of future claimed production.

Not to mention that Tesla will be selling at $250 per kwh at the utility scale per Musk. That's already 30% better than suspected numbers for Nissan's batteries.

Nissan doesn't sell utility scale. So, where is the question of suspected cost ?

 

[GRA]

They can take advantage of the hundreds of gwh that have already been ordered by companies.

Really ? Link to where you got this information from ? Gigafactory is supposed to be 50gWh / year. If they have "orders" - not just enquiries - for 100s of GWhs - that is sold out for several years of future claimed production.

Not to mention that Tesla will be selling at $250 per kwh at the utility scale per Musk. That's already 30% better than suspected numbers for Nissan's batteries.

Nissan doesn't sell utility scale. So, where is the question of suspected cost ?

MWh not GWh, but it IS utility-scale energy storage:

Advanced Microgrid Solutions picks Tesla for stationary energy storage projects; up to 500 MWh total

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/06/20150605-ams.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Part:

Advanced Microgrid Solutions (AMS) has selected Tesla as the primary technology provider for its utility-scale energy storage projects. Under the agreement, AMS will install up to 500 MWh of Tesla batteries in its energy storage projects. AMS has also signed a master agreement with global firm Black & Veatch for engineering and construction services.

AMS will install and operate Tesla’s Powerpack energy storage systems in commercial and industrial facilities to provide grid support to utilities using customer load. Last fall, AMS secured 50-MWs of contracts to build grid-scale energy storage projects for Southern California Edison, including the creation of the first fleet of “Hybrid-Electric Buildings”. . . .

AMS’ first 10-megawatt Hybrid-Electric Building Project will be installed in Irvine, California in 2016. AMS will also sign battery supply agreements with additional technology providers.

 

[edatoakrun]

="GRA"

Advanced Microgrid Solutions picks Tesla for stationary energy storage projects; up to 500 MWh total...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/06/20150605-ams.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...Advanced Microgrid Solutions (AMS) has selected Tesla as the primary technology provider for its utility-scale energy storage projects. Under the agreement, AMS will install up to 500 MWh of Tesla batteries in its energy storage projects. AMS has also signed a master agreement with global firm Black & Veatch for engineering and construction services...

The revolving door is open to incompetent former government bureaucrats in energy policy, just as it always has been for other big-bucks government programs.

No matter how incompetent you were, you can still be assured of cashing in on the idiotic programs and policies you helped top put in place.

From the AMS site, more prominent disasters (IMO) highlighted:

Susan Kennedy

CEO & Board Member

Susan served for two decades at the highest levels of state and federal government, most recently as chief of staff to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, cabinet secretary and deputy chief of staff to Governor Gray Davis and communications director for U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein. She served from 2003-2006 on California's Public Utilities Commission, regulating the state's investor-owned electric utilities, telecommunications providers and private water companies.

Susan was at the center of many of California's groundbreaking environmental policies, including the carbon reduction mandate and cap-and-trade program under AB 32, the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, auto emission standards and Renewable Portfolio Standard. She coordinated the State's emergency demand response efforts during the energy crisis of 2000-2001 and as a member of the PUC she authored what was then the largest energy efficiency program in utility history. She holds a B.A. in Management from Saint Mary's College of California

http://advmicrogrid.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[eloder]

The revolving door is open to incompetent former government bureaucrats in energy policy, just as it always has been for other big-bucks government programs.

No matter how incompetent you were, you can still be assured of cashing in on the idiotic programs and policies you helped top put in place.

From the AMS site, more prominent disasters (IMO) highlighted:

Oh no! Renewable support receives a tiny, tiny fraction of the level of subsidy given to the fossil fuel industry, and unlike fossil fuels does not pollute your world! The tragedy of the government doing something good!

If you don't like government and subsidies, put your money where your mouth is: campaign against the trillion-dollar subsidy hog by far, the fossil fuel industry. Cut fossil fuel subsidies and see how much you enjoy $8 a gallon gas like the rest of the world.

The fact is that if you took every single subsidy away, renewables would come out much farther ahead than fossil fuels in the year 2015. Tesla has publicly stated the income from subsidies, and it's under 2% a year for their car business. I highly doubt that their sales would suffer much if the wealthy people buying their cars did not have a $7500 tax credit either.

 

[dgpcolorado]

A Road and Track writer plays with a P85D in this amusing article:

Climate Change: 2014 Tesla Model S P85D Connecticut is a long way from Silicon Valley. Can Elon Musk's California dream survive Lime Rock on ice?

When the light turns green, the P85D bursts forward with a violence you'd have to see to believe. It's already 20 mph over the speed limit by the time it crosses the intersection. The ordinary-looking four-door rips to 60 mph before it has traveled 200 feet, something few gas-burning automobiles can do, and in a way no gas-burning car has ever done: silently. Not a single pedestrian shoots a dirty look. No one grabs their children and runs. The cop eating a sandwich across the street doesn't turn around. Seeing may be believing, but hearing gets you noticed in the first place. And since no one notices the Tesla or its ludicrous acceleration, you can use all of its 691 hp with impunity from every stoplight. The P85D is the quickest car in the world.

 

[edatoakrun]

The crash likely killed the driver, before the fire started.

Sooner or later though, an attorney suing Tesla following a fatal crash, will probably argue otherwise.

It sounds like there's not much left of an S's aluminum body-and-frame, when the entire battery pack skateboard underpinning it, catches fire.

Fatal Fire Closes Malibu Canyon Road Monday

...The accident occurred just after 11 a.m. on Monday, June 21, when a 2013 Tesla registered to a 53-year-old male from Calabasas went over the edge of the canyon, falling an estimated 500 feet. The car then caught fire, quickly engulfing the surrounding dry brush in flames.

The Tesla had one occupant, an unidentified driver, who died at the scene.

"We can’t confirm the identity yet," California Highway Patrol spokesperson Leland Tang told The Malibu Times Tuesday afternoon. "His body was so badly burned that we couldn’t even tell gender; we couldn’t tell if it was a human being."...

The Los Angeles County Fire Department classified the blaze as a two-alarm fire, with 180 firefighters on scene throughout the early afternoon working to extinguish the blaze...

"The car is not even there, the fire melted the car down to nothing — there’s like nothing there,"...

"If the fire department didn’t get there, it would have cremated him too. There wouldn’t have even been a body there"...

http://www.malibutimes.com/news/article_139ce09e-1ab6-11e5-8e41-f3d1c0951008.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

C&D blog:

http://blog.caranddriver.com/alexander-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-tesla-model-s-p85d-road-trip/

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/posting.php?mode=reply&f=10&t=2429

Basically a combination of just how bad the current iteration of Tesla's trip planning software is (owners have been even more scathing on TMC), combined with some ignorance of a driver taking his first long-distance road-trip in the car. I think it does show well the sort of adjustments that new owners have to make, at least the ones who haven't been reading TMC for a month or more before they got their car. The main point I take away from the trip planning software errors is that no matter how good you may think a technology is, you should never rely on it exclusively, and still need to keep your brain engaged enough to spot obvious errors. That's pretty much how I treat all such new technologies, because the number of people who get into problems because they were 'relying on the tech to keep them out of trouble' is legion. Course, I still have a couple dozen paper maps in my car, and prefer to do my route planning on them - google maps or what have you is a nice to have backup.