I don't get it--really. I know there is a lot of interest in these high priced versions, but why can't they make a 200+ mile range vehicle, affordably targeted toward the everyday buyer as well? I don't call $45-$90K 'affordable' even with the federal rebate. Model X is interesting, and this guy Elon Musk seems to have lots of $$ making ideas, but it would seem a better aproach, (to me) to first make an "all electric for the masses" , then expand into the higher end vehicles. Model X is supposed to be in the same price range of Model S--which isn't inexpensive either.
quote
The most expensive version of the Model S sedan, capable of going 300 miles on lithium-ion battery power per charge, cost at least $92,400, Tesla said late last year. The base model of the sedan starts at $57,400 and will run 160 miles per charge.
Tesla's stock tho, is beating both Ford and GM's by a wide margin. Tesla=$32.58/share.
I saw one in the city at an alternative energy conference in STL. There was a green car show and it was there. Owned and drove there by a civilian that I talked to.
IP: Logged
12:29 PM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
There is a 3800 mile tesla on eBay right now for $85,500 or best offer. I think that they are going to be an investment opportunity. Limited production and breakthrough engineering. This seller will lose about $35,000 for just 3800 miles. About $10 a mile. His loss. Someone elses gain.
IP: Logged
01:31 PM
TheDigitalAlchemist Member
Posts: 12772 From: Long Island, NY Registered: Jan 2012
I've seen 'em a few times, they ARE nice, but as mentioned above, these are 'high-end' vehicles... imo, to 'get serious' about switching to electric, they should make a 15k(or less) electric "beetle".
its not enough to have an efficient e vehicle if they cost as much (or more) then a comparable gas car...
There needs to be a HUGE, blatant, reason why people would want to get one.
IP: Logged
01:40 PM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
Not being in the market for an expensive sports car, I did not enquire. But I would anticipate that customers would order cars to be built to order. But they are building cars for the road. Obviously not at the volume of major manufacturers, but give them time.
IP: Logged
04:48 PM
naskie18 Member
Posts: 6258 From: Commerce Twp, MI, USA Registered: Jun 2002
Originally posted by maryjane: why can't they make a 200+ mile range vehicle, affordably targeted toward the everyday buyer as well?
Because details like performance and price aren't based simply on what you want it to be.
Just because you want certain technology at a certain price, doesn't make it feasible to actually build and sell it at that price.
As the products are produced and refined more, price will come down, and performance improvements will be made, and I'm sure eventually someone will produce an electric car with similar performance, range, and cost to a vehicle with an internal combustion engine....but it isn't going to happen quickly just because you want it to. Heck, I'm not convinced it'll happen in my lifetime.
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder: A lot of talk about Tesla vehicles, but we have yet to see one on the road, is that correct?
They initially went on sale in limited markets, and probably still are. This is one of the problems with trying to start a car company from scratch, you have to set up the dealer network as well. I don't think they have a dealer in Michigan, I think they're limited to the West Coast, or at least they were initially, I'm not sure about the details with their expansion plans.
------------------ Nick www.naskie18.com GoogleTalk: naskie18 AIM: naskie18
I know there is a lot of interest in these high priced versions, but why can't they make a 200+ mile range vehicle, affordably targeted toward the everyday buyer as well?
because batteries are not cheap.
IP: Logged
05:15 PM
84fiero123 Member
Posts: 29950 From: farmington, maine usa Registered: Oct 2004
I’ve explained this before, not that anyone believes me. The first cars in a new model run at GM cost many thousands of dollars over what they sell them for. Maybe twice what they sell them for or more, until a manufacturer can start producing them in quantity they don’t really make any profit. At GM, Ford and Chrysler it can take the first years model run before the company actually makes a profit per car. Then the cost goes down big time but then some here will say it is the unions fault. No it isn’t it is a fact of manufacturing a product, the first few cost many times more then they sell them at, union or otherwise. So a company like Tesla is at a huge disadvantage compared to the big three or any other established car manufacturer. But go ahead trolls rip me a new one and blame it on the unions.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
This. And everything else involved in building an electric car is NOT cheap. They have to mask that issue by adding "High-end" to the label and charging what it actually costs to build an "affordable" electric car. The "luxury" stuff is actually cheap.
Mass production economy of scale won't help. How many laptop and cell phone batteries are made every day? Billions.
Electric cars are not ready for prime time. More's the pity. Tesla is actually producing cars for anyone to buy. The Roadster is out there, and I've seen them. You can buy one any day, if you've got the cash. And a place to charge it.
IP: Logged
05:33 PM
chester Member
Posts: 4063 From: State of insanity...moved in and comfortably numb... Registered: Jun 2001
I'd have to agree, R&D and tooling costs get absorbed during the first year of sales...
quote
Originally posted by 84fiero123:
I’ve explained this before, not that anyone believes me. The first cars in a new model run at GM cost many thousands of dollars over what they sell them for. Maybe twice what they sell them for or more, until a manufacturer can start producing them in quantity they don’t really make any profit. At GM, Ford and Chrysler it can take the first years model run before the company actually makes a profit per car. Then the cost goes down big time but then some here will say it is the unions fault. No it isn’t it is a fact of manufacturing a product, the first few cost many times more then they sell them at, union or otherwise. So a company like Tesla is at a huge disadvantage compared to the big three or any other established car manufacturer. But go ahead trolls rip me a new one and blame it on the unions.
Steve
IP: Logged
05:34 PM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
The tesla roadster is no longer manufactured . They only made about 2000. That and the revolutionary nature of the car is why I think that they are good collector investments. I feel sure that it is the battery that makes it so expensive. Nano technology is aimed directly at batteries and solar cells. I fully expect breakthroughs in my lifetime and I'm an old guy.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 02-10-2012).]
im pretty impressed with what they have been able to do with electric technology, if this company can turn a profit and develope more i think they can grow to be at least a thorn in the big 3's sides within the next decade.
I’ve explained this before, not that anyone believes me. The first cars in a new model run at GM cost many thousands of dollars over what they sell them for. Maybe twice what they sell them for or more, until a manufacturer can start producing them in quantity they don’t really make any profit. At GM, Ford and Chrysler it can take the first years model run before the company actually makes a profit per car. Then the cost goes down big time but then some here will say it is the unions fault. No it isn’t it is a fact of manufacturing a product, the first few cost many times more then they sell them at, union or otherwise. So a company like Tesla is at a huge disadvantage compared to the big three or any other established car manufacturer. But go ahead trolls rip me a new one and blame it on the unions.
Steve
Of course it works that way, for most all manufacturing and not just cars.. But i do think in the case of electrics there are still the 'hard' costs that drive it up to the level it is, and its not just the need to recoup R&D and tooling. The raw technology is still expensive.
Eventually it will get better but someone has to start the train moving or we never get anywhere.
I also didn't see anyone in this thread blaming anyone .. union or otherwise.. Not sure where you last comment came from..
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 02-10-2012).]
IP: Logged
08:59 PM
Feb 11th, 2012
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
A model was in the way and couldn't get good frontal pics. Sorry guys.
That's a Fisker, not a Tesla, and they're in much more serious financial trouble than Tesla is. Musk at least has billions to sink into keeping Tesla afloat until they can start making money...a significant portion of Fisker's capitol was supposed to come on the form of government loans....but a company that took a lot from those loans and promptly went bankrupt (can't remember who, but I want to say it was a solar something or other) made the government much more stingy about giving out the rest, and I think Fisker has only received about 30% of what they were originally promised.
[EDIT] Solyndra was the name of the company, I remembered after seeing thread on here about them still giving out their bonuses.. [/EDIT]
I read the article about tesla batteries failing completely if allowed to discharge completely. Can someone explain to me why this would be a problem in a car when it's not a problem in a laptop?
quote
Originally posted by naskie18:
That's a Fisker, not a Tesla, and they're in much more serious financial trouble than Tesla is. Musk at least has billions to sink into keeping Tesla afloat until they can start making money...a significant portion of Fisker's capitol was supposed to come on the form of government loans....but a company that took a lot from those loans and promptly went bankrupt (can't remember who, but I want to say it was a solar something or other) made the government much more stingy about giving out the rest, and I think Fisker has only received about 30% of what they were originally promised.
I read the article about tesla batteries failing completely if allowed to discharge completely. Can someone explain to me why this would be a problem in a car when it's not a problem in a laptop?
My guess would be that in your laptop, the computer shuts down before the battery "completely" discharges.....so while the computer is telling you that you have 0% of battery life left, or refusing to boot due to a low battery, it isn't actually completely discharged.
But on a laptop, when you shut it down (or it shuts itself down, in the instance of a dead battery), there should be no more drain on the battery. In a car, however, this isn't the case. When you turn it off, there is still drain on the electrical system from some of the subsystems that stay running. My guess is that this difference is why other electronics (say, laptop batteries, for example) don't exhibit the same behavior. But, as I said, that's just a guess.
IP: Logged
04:55 PM
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
Say you're right, then wouldn't it make sense for the tesla to have the same shutdown system as the laptop in order to save it's $40,000 battery? You would lose your backup information anyway if you kill the battery. I don't know how you would solve the long term situation though. Even if you shut it down with say 5% of the battery left. The battery will eventually die.
quote
Originally posted by naskie18:
My guess would be that in your laptop, the computer shuts down before the battery "completely" discharges.....so while the computer is telling you that you have 0% of battery life left, or refusing to boot due to a low battery, it isn't actually completely discharged.
But on a laptop, when you shut it down (or it shuts itself down, in the instance of a dead battery), there should be no more drain on the battery. In a car, however, this isn't the case. When you turn it off, there is still drain on the electrical system from some of the subsystems that stay running. My guess is that this difference is why other electronics (say, laptop batteries, for example) don't exhibit the same behavior. But, as I said, that's just a guess.
IP: Logged
08:27 PM
Feb 23rd, 2012
Shill Member
Posts: 2166 From: Spokane, WA Registered: Apr 2009
It depends on how the battery is made, if you pay attention to your batteries, you will notice all sorts of elements that they are made from. Such as lithium-ion, nickle cadmium
Some types of batteries have a "memory" where the elements inside will lose their electrical properties when not charged/discharged properly.
I can assume that they used a battery known to create higher currents and be much more stable when deploying these currents, but will react when there is no charge at all.
I don't know which specific type of battery they chose for this car, but that is my logical explanation for the issue.
[This message has been edited by Shill (edited 02-23-2012).]
IP: Logged
04:16 AM
Shill Member
Posts: 2166 From: Spokane, WA Registered: Apr 2009
The battery pack in the Tesla Roadster is the result of innovative systems engineering and 20 years of advances in Lithium-ion cell technology. Tesla's ingenious battery pack architecture enables world-class acceleration, safety, range, and reliability. The non-toxic pack is built at Tesla’s Headquarters in Northern California.
The pack weighs 990 pounds, stores 56 kWh of electric energy, and delivers up to 215 kW of electric power. Tesla battery packs have the highest energy density in the industry. To achieve this energy density, Tesla starts with thousands of best-in-class Lithium-ion cells and assembles them into a liquid-cooled battery pack, wrapped in a strong metal enclosure. The battery is optimized for performance, safety, longevity, and cost.
Looks to be a lithium ion. Complete discharge in these batteries will short circuit the cells. With that, I assume it is not the battery itself with the issues of nto being able to be charged, but rather a failsafe that tesla implemented to keep a potentially hazardous battery from being charged
Here is a quote from the wiki on Lithium-Ion Batteries.
Deep discharge may short-circuit the cell, in which case recharging would be unsafe.[55] To reduce these risks, Lithium-ion battery packs contain fail-safe circuitry that shuts down the battery when its voltage is outside the safe range of 3–4.2 V per cell.[33][45] When stored for long periods the small current draw of the protection circuitry itself may drain the battery below its shut down voltage; normal chargers are then ineffective.
Say you're right, then wouldn't it make sense for the tesla to have the same shutdown system as the laptop in order to save it's $40,000 battery? You would lose your backup information anyway if you kill the battery. I don't know how you would solve the long term situation though. Even if you shut it down with say 5% of the battery left. The battery will eventually die.
Well, from what I've been able to find, the laptops can suffer the same fate if they are allowed to discharge below a certain voltage. Not as huge a problem as having the same thing happen with a $40,000 battery. As much as I admire the Tesla, I am now questioning the current battery technology.
