Sold...
As long as it comes with the "We brake for nobody" on the back!
And it includes a free Yoghurt talking doll..
Oh and Spaceballs flamethrower..
Man I've watch that film far too many times!
Tesla boss Elon Musk has outlined new performance packages for his company's Model S sedan, including a "ludicrous" speed option that will turn the electric car into a darting demon. Musk also confirmed that his motor biz will have its delayed Model X SUV out in a few months, and promised the Model 3 budget car will be out by …
In the normal human response time, this beast is already going 20-30mph. Of course if the human is being squashed into her seat by 3 g's of acceleration, even reaching the pedal would be impossible for most.
Still, I'd be happy to give it a spin on our dirt roads in Vermont, Elon.
"Of course if the human is being squashed into her seat by 3 g's of acceleration..."
Even the "Anal Clench" line of super-grippy drag tyres couldn't manage 3 Gs acceleration. Well, maybe if they applied rubber cement to the tarmac...
I dunno about that, Big John. Top Fuel & Funny Car regularly hit a hair over 4G. The deceleration is worse, can lead to detached retinas when the laundry is deployed ... c.f. Don Garlits, who retired after this happened to him back in 1992 when the parachutes only produced about a negative 4G.
if the human is being squashed into her seat by 3 g's of acceleration
Where do you get 3G from? 0 to 60 in 2,8 seconds gives acceleration of 0.97682986G (This is the average over the 2.8 seconds, obviously the peak will be a bit higher)
I'm reasonably certain people can sustain a force of about 1G for quite a long time.
The distance covered in the 2.8 seconds is 37.55 metres.
a = (v - u)/t
a = acceleration (ms-2)
v = final speed (m/s)
u = initial speed (m/s)
t = time taken (sec)
1G = 9.80665 ms-2
> if the human is being squashed into her seat by 3 g's of acceleration [sic]
Erm... 0-100 km/h in 2.8 s works out to ~9.92 m/s², or just about 1 G. Did you forget to convert km/h to m/s perhaps?
And it's perfectly possible to operate pedals and throttles at 3 G and over (I have an aerobatics qualification on my pilot licence).
... How many laps of Sears Point (my local track) can one of these things do on "loco"[0] before the battery is empty ... or more likely, the engine management system backs off on available power, or something in the drive-train melts down (Shirly not!).
[0] Real driver at the controls, preferably The Stig, of course.
In fairness to the Model S, it's not a track car, and to take it on track would be interesting, but far, far from it's main function, which is to let you pootle about at normal road speeds (IE up to 100mph realistically) and let you get up to those road speeds sharpish.
You're more likely to deploy the power for overtakes, pulling away from toll booths, or to scare your friends; the chances of you dumping all the power into the motors for long periods of time on a regular basis in the real world are pretty slim.
Really, the same holds true for any car with more than around 300-400 hp; I have 125hp at my disposal and use it all the time because it's not fast enough to case problems with control. My car with double the power, I'd probably use full throttle rather a lot less. Well, until I get used to it.
I'm fairly sure 700-ish hp is not something you get used to quite as quickly, though...
I'd expect the Model S to acquit itself quite well at the track, given its amusingly low C of G and gigantic tyres.
I suspect you'd be having too much fun to notice how badly you're running down the batteries though. Fortunately, Tesla's putting a charging point ten minutes up the road from my nearest race track.
Now to just go out and buy that Model S...
> I'd expect the Model S to acquit itself quite well at the track
There is a video somewhere of a Model S at a racetrack in Germany, where the car is seen to do very well for 2-3 laps but then drops into a reduced speed "safe mode" in order to avoid overheating the battery pack.
As someone else said above, it's not designed for *sustained* high speeds (as most cars aren't).
No question that today the internal combustion engine still has the electric car beaten if you want to do 150mph on an Autobahn.
Firstly the energy requirements are huge so the only way to get decent range is with 100l of dinosaur juice, and secondly the continuous power requirements are also very high which again is easier in a large ICE engine.
For any other driving situation, I'd take the Model S :-)
Really, the same holds true for any car with more than around 300-400 hp
Even in that range, real-world driving probably rarely uses all the available power.
My current car (Volvo XC70 T6) is rated at 300 hp and 325 lb-ft of torque, and gets it to the pavement with AWD, but I almost never have any reason to hold the throttle open. The power is really only useful for hauling a trailer - and even then I could get by without it.
Obviously power/weight ratio matters far more than pure power, but back in the '80s and early '90s I was perfectly happy with hatchbacks that made less than 100 hp. They were fine for city traffic and while they weren't great for overtaking on back roads, they'd get me from here to there.
"0.98g is still pretty ludicrous. Basically, it accelerates forwards at the same speed horizontally as if you drove it off a cliff vertically."
But as noted, nothing compared to the fastest dragsters which zoom to over three times that speed in the same amount of time. I think the only thing that exerts more G's is a manned space rocket launch which IIRC isn't as intense as a drag race but lasts longer. Most figure this to be about the limit for the average human and even that requires a degree of training (beyond this and you're getting into the realm of military endurance--fighter pilots and the like--and more significant training).
Bikes have lousy braking (dozens of cars stop better than the best bike), and they're not that great in corners either (except being narrower helps on narrow roads).
The car shows (Top Gear, 5th Gear) should move the finish line closer to the last corner and the cars would beat the bikes every time. Having the finish line halfway down the long straight is simply working towards the bikes one advantage.
Bikes keep falling over too. Useless.
Bikes have lousy braking [etc. etc - snip]
Whilst there is grounds to dispute what you've posted, I will merely point out that it has nothing at all to do with the thread of the converstion, which was about whether or not 1g sustained acceleration is "ludicrous". It's not.
Vic.
Will it go plaid?
Seriously, though, I'd think that the same crazy acceleration would be possible with hydraulic hybrids:
http://hydraulicspneumatics.com/200/TechZone/HydraulicPumpsM/Article/False/84554/TechZone-HydraulicPumpsM
You Brits did elegant work on that back in the '80s:
http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/v1ewaveg/Robert%20Clerk/Index.htm
...and more pragmatic stuff recently:
http://www.artemisip.com/applications/on-road
Only assuming you don't stop for any reason. A Tesla could do 301 miles with a stop of 5 minutes at a supercharger, no problem. That's just about enough time to go to the loo.
And of course, you can basically guarantee you're starting your journey from full in the Tesla. What are the odds you'd only have a quarter of a tank in the morning and you'd need to fill up?
The "301 miles" was a poke at the limited range and slow recharging. The challenge is a significant cross country race. The Tesla WILL not beat a normal car.
90kwh in "5 minutes" is more than one megawatt (simple math). So something has to give. You'll not be brimming the battery pack in "5 minutes". The fact that you would make this "5 minute" claim in the context of a cross-country race is revealing of either gross ignorance or pure deception.
There's no 'Supercharger' station that's 300 miles from here. Nor is there one 600 miles from here. Same thing for 900, 1200. Besides, a Tesla won't reach 300 mile range when hammered. So Elon's fanboy would be parked outside someone's house with an extension card plugged into a 2kw outlet that'll need 45 hours to provide 90kwh. Even the normal 50A 240v Tesla system needs about 8 hours to brim the 90kwh battery. This is simple math, 'Conservation of Energy' as taught in High School.
There's no way that a Tesla (in the present day) could keep up with any normal vehicle over a 12 or 24 hour cross country race. As soon as the battery is flat, in the real world, you've got a problem that takes hours. This is a cold hard fact.
It's wonderful that Tesla is pushing the envelope in several areas. It's not cool that there's a swirl of bald faced fraudulent claims originating from his adoring fanboys.
"It's not cool that there's a swirl of bald faced fraudulent claims originating from his adoring fanboys."
To be fair, I bet Elon Musk despairs at the inability of a lot of people to understand basic physics and do the calculations. Ignorance isn't fraudulent.
I've been looking at current electric cars that would do as a replacement second car, and not a single one of them has the range to cope with a day out. There are two electric charging points near here...both almost permanently occupied by the electric cars of the local car club, which are hardly ever used, so they are completely useless. Neither has an adjacent parking space within charging lead range. There is no point in having a fast charge point where you want to go if the chances are it won't be available. A conventional fuel station can "charge" my car to its full 400 miles range in a few minutes and I never have to wait more than 10. The prospect of having to wait maybe for a day or two for someone from the car club to come and make a charging point available isn't terribly practical.
@ScottME
So the Tesla rolls into the finishing line dead flat. Guess what, the finishing line isn't just outside one of the very few Supercharger stations. You're screwed.
Actually YOU are not screwed because like most Tesla defenders, you don't actually own one. Because you're not THAT daft.
I know I'm really late on this but I only just noticed your lame reply.
At a guess I'd say there are several orders of magnitude more charging points than filling stations in most developed countries.
You don't seem to be aware that EVs can charge off of virtually any electrical output socket. You probably have a couple in your home. It takes longer of course, but I find that my car often spends long periods of time sitting at home -- time when it can be charging, so there is as much range as I need ready and waiting. Never need to visit one of those smelly cold pumps.
Oh, and while I don't currently own a Tesla, I do have one on order.
I understand that a Supercharger is able to add about 150 miles of range in an hour. So five minutes could give you an extra 10 or 12 miles, could be enough to get past the mythical 300 mile mark?. Besides, many performance ICE cars won't do much more than 300 miles on a tank of fuel.
Stupid, non-argument, non-objection to what is surely a game-changing vehicle.
ScottME offered "...a Supercharger is able to add about 150 miles of range in an hour."
That's funny. There are plenty of cars that could, in theory, add about 150 miles of actual *distance* while the Tesla is sitting parked at the StupidCharger station for yet another stupid hour.
Someday, some mouthy Tesla owner is going to challenge a petrol powered car to a race for pink slips. It'd be funny when they agree on the bet, on the condition that the petrol car owner can choose the venue. Which turns out to be 1200 miles. LOL.
"There's no way that a Tesla (in the present day) could keep up with any normal vehicle over a 12 or 24 hour cross country race."
Then there is no way that your dead-dinosaur powered car could keep up with a Tesla in a 12/24month race. It stops by the side of the road, unfolds the solar panels and has a kip for a few days.
You start drilling a well, hoping that there is undiscovered oil under you, while looking up how to build an oil refinery out of washing up liquid bottles and sticky back plastic in your Blue Peter annual.
"...in a 12/24 month race."
I understand that the oil and gasoline industry will eventually go away, but I'm not convinced it'll happen in the next year or two.
So, until it does, the effective 30 megawatts equivalent energy delivery speed of a normal petrol pump handily beats the 0.012 megawatts of a typical Tesla charger.
One of the complaints against battery packs in high voltage substations is that they can't cope with rapid changes. Now they can.
Say every high power appliance in your home used the internet to conspire against you and time their combined power surge to the nearest microsecond, an upgraded Tesla home battery pack could cope.
> For example, perhaps 301 miles.
Not so sure. My car does over 1,000 km on a full tank at normal speeds, yet at 290 km/h (fastest I've driven it, not on a public road) the tank would only last about 20 minutes, or barely 100 km. Lots of fun but hardly practical.
"...290 km/h... ...100 km..."
Like the old joke about out-running a bear, you'd only need to stay ahead of the other guy, i.e. in front of the Tesla. And that would get much easier as the hours rolled on by.
Once he's parked for an 8-hour full recharge at the only available outlet, then you could go into fuel economy mode to finish the race.
I actually disagree on this one, I think the range with the top end model is good enough, because they have superchargers all over that are free to use. It's a nice price to 'refuel'.
Most people probably don't drive that far in one stretch without a break very often. For those that do, they can drive a diesel as they do now.
Just extra options on the market. Shame the price is high, but it is a nice bit of kit if you have the cash.
Piro. What are you disagreeing with? You go buy a Tesla. We'll race for pink slips over a 1200 mile route for fairly represents the real world. I'll sell the Tesla (once you've gotten it back from replacing the smoldering battery pack that you ruined trying to keep up).
The winner is that a petrol pump emits energy at an equivalent of about 30 MW. This beats even a 120 kW Supercharger station * by SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.
( * 20 minutes for a one-half recharge)
You cannot win. By 'you', of course I mean someone that actually owns one and is silly enough to take on such a no-win bet.
Nothing is free.
You've paid for using that charger up-front in your purchase cost. Or perhaps more accurately: like a pyramid scheme, you are paying up-front for your use *and* all the existing Tesla owners' use.
Also like a pyramid scheme, you have to join early to get the benefit. It doesn't take much imagination to see that if the $35K model 3 materialises and sells in any volume, then the freebie electricity will be dropped pretty smartly.
In the mean time, enjoy :-)
Dumb as it is, burning fossil fuels inefficiently when that oil could do other cool stuff, chemical form is a very efficient way to store energy. Electric cars are actually a of thing overall, I love that projects like this will help improve battery technology, etc., but the energy density is still low, and recharge times too high for this to be viable YET.
Moon shot stuff like this does drive the technologies to improve though, so the by products will be of more value than the car itself.
My 9 year old godson is a Star Wars fan courtesy of his dad, he'd never seen Spaceballs before so we all sat down to watch it one night, until he piped up about 1/3 the way through that he coouldn't handle it anymore because he found it just too weird!
Give him a year or two and try again (some of the humor IS a bit low-brow and it took time for me to get it after my first viewing of it aboard an Amtrak train at age ten). Oh, and it may help to let him know that the whole film is meant to be a spoof of the Star Wars-type films: in case he's taking it too seriously.
Means an extra 0.5 tonne over the standard 30kWh battery - I bet that won't achieve 0-60 in 2.8s. And how many times can you do these high-performance starts? I have the image of a Tesla owner 'roaring' ('whispering'?) away from the lights shouting 'eat my dust suckers" and then coasting feebly to a halt.
Your instincts are likely correct.
Tesla will claim 300 mile range, hard acceleration, and quick recharging.
Just choose one.
Similar contradictory claims are made for normal cars, e.g. performance vs fuel economy. The difference is that we all know that. Tesla's smitten fanboys, being young, naive and in love, are willing to believe anything.
LOL.
The larger the battery, the higher peak power levels it can operate at.
Double the size of the battery and you double the power of the car without doubling its mass (because while the battery is heavier the rest of the car's weight is unchanged).
So the quickest 0-60 time will always be the from the car with the biggest battery.
Same is true for charging - the bigger the battery, the higher the power you can pump into it to charge.
So the 90kWh car will acclerate fastest, travel the furthest, and charge the quickest.
The electric propulsion model totally turns the ICE concept of either performance OR practicality on its head - the most practical cars also have the best performance.
Of course doing 0-60 runs uses more energy than driving gently, but the difference is way smaller in an EV than in a petrol car, and in the electric car once you're up to 60mph you can use regenerative braking to recover about 50% of the energy back into the battery. I'm pretty sure a 911 Turbo S can't turn CO2 back into petrol while it decelerates.
Limiting factor from 0-30 is traction. Now that they've gone AWD then without going to racing compound tyres that's not going to get any faster.
Above that the limiting factor is power (i.e. the rate at which you can add kinetic energy to the car), and in practice for an Electric Car it's current.
The change they've just made is to replace the fuse in the battery so that it can safely operate at 1500A while still providing essential short circuit protection if the current goes higher. That's it - the only change to the entire car is a new fuse, and some firmware changes to the drive inverter to allow larger current flow.
You are not meant to follow - Jeffypooh seems to have an agenda. His arguments started off well, but now he got to the 'sigh' and other insults stage, rather than continue to cogently argue his case, and that is a very visible guarantee of argument loss.
I don't have a Tesla. But I'd really like one. 300 miles (or even 200) is more than enough for me and my daily commute. I don't generally feel the need to use every ounce of power available at every opportunity (I still have a race car for that), and talk of drag racing leaves me cold (corners are where the driving skill is).
Now, off to fill up my car with petrol. I have to make a special trip as there is no station on my drive in to work (not bad for 30 miles each way).
"Double the size of the battery and you double the power of the car"
Double the power *capacity*. There's a limit to how much current the motor and cabling can pull before the magic smoke escapes.
"So the quickest 0-60 time will always be the from the car with the biggest battery"
Not necessarily. That's true if the power delivery capacity of the battery is the limiting factor. The lower capacity but lighter car may accelerate faster if the motor or tyre traction is the limit.
"Same is true for charging - the bigger the battery, the higher the power you can pump into it to charge"
Probably not. You can't push current into a battery faster than the charger or cabling can cope with, so the bigger battery at the max current of the charger will take longer to charge from empty than a smaller one.
"electric car once you're up to 60mph you can use regenerative braking to recover about 50% of the energy back into the battery"
Only if you're slowing down, regen braking uses the car's momentum to use the motor as a generator. A petrol engine's management system will turn the fuel off when coasting, effectively the same thing. Once stopped (unless you have auto-start-stop on the engine) it will use some fuel idling the engine where the electric uses none.
"Only if you're slowing down, regen braking uses the car's momentum to use the motor as a generator. A petrol engine's management system will turn the fuel off when coasting, effectively the same thing. Once stopped (unless you have auto-start-stop on the engine) it will use some fuel idling the engine where the electric uses none."
This isn't wholly true - its NOT effectively the same thing. . Although you may have turned off the petrol, you are not reusing the energy lost through braking - it leaves as heat. A regenertive system reclaims that energy and reuses it, which is a big benefit with electric vehicles in my view.
The Model S comes in 3 variants: 70 kWh, 85 kWh and 90 kWh. The P85D which has a 3.1 second acceleration uses the 85 kWh battery.
It's reasonable to assume the 90 kWh battery doesn't weigh much more than the 85 kWh battery, hence the 2.8 second acceleration would probably work for it.
Look up the Tesla Racing Channel on youtube... that guy races his P85D all day on the drag strip with no problems.
There is no 30 kWh battery.
Tesla racing - in its natural element.
Never drives further than one-quarter of a mile from the recharging point.
LOL
How long would it take a Tesla to do the Cannonball run? Probably a similar experience to the Solar Impulse 2 airplane trying to get around the world before everyone gets too old and forgets which way they were heading.
While an extra 70 miles is a very good thing with the uprated battery pack, there is no point in the extra acceleration, and this is coming from a person with a sub 5 seconds to 60, 180 mph car.
The whole point of the big cars (and I have one of those as well) is to get from A to B in total comfort (the Tesla is very comfortable), with minimal fuss, and ideally negligible noise (double glazing works well at that). Sure you need a certain amount of power (actually torque), but that's so you can pull away and overtake smoothly plus get out of danger zones quickly. If you need to be pushed in to the back of the seat then you get a more suitable car that will handle a lot better and be set up for the sprint.
People buy vehicles for different reasons. A long range and comfy ride might be what you need, but if you lived in Abu Dhabi where your sensible range is that of a small city, but you will reach traffic lights every 200 yards, you might take the acceleration over the range.
> there is no point in the extra acceleration
Not for the driver - but there is for Tesla.
How much free advertising + how many extra sales does having the fastest accelerating road car get you?
There isn't much point to winning Le Mans every year for the average Audi A3 buyer - but Audi still pay to do it.
300 miles for "normal" driving isn't bad at all for an electric car. Some gas powered vehicles don't boast that. Most people only go on long trips infrequently, and topping off the car's batteries at night when home from work will keep it pretty full, I'd expect.
Yes, you will probably cut that range in half or worse if you beat the crap out of it all the time. But you'd do the same with any fossil fuel-powered car too. My V8 vehicle with a little over 300HP gets about 23MPG on the highway but when I "drive it like I stole it", the mileage drops to more like 12MPG. The only difference is the fueling time involved and the availability of fuel everywhere. And even living in the USA where gas is cheaper than Europe, paying to recharge an electric vehicle is a LOT less money than buying gasoline, even if you have an econobox that gets 40+ MPG.
What I've always worried about as electric cars become more prevalent is that many older homes' infrastructure is not up to the challenge of delivering that much power all the time. I'd expect blown fuses and electrical fires as people try to plug electric vehicles into homes with 50+ year-old wiring and devices.
If you're buying a Tesla to save money, you're crazy.
The battery pack is reportedly $40,000 to replace.
It will eventually fail. Hopefully the cost of replacement will drop a bit before they start to fail en mass.
Even still, even a 5-figure repair bill is going to hurt anyone.
All the evidence from the US fleet (where there are cars with heading towards 200k miles on them already) suggests that the life expectancy of the battery is well in excess of the life expectancy of the car. It already has an 8 year infinite mile warranty, and Tesla have batteries in their labs that have gone through the equivalent of a million miles' of usage*
A battery pack might cost $40k to buy new, but that's not the replacement cost, because the old battery still has a huge value when recycled, or repurposed as static energy storage.
* in fact that's what led to this "ludicrous" upgrade on the P90D - their R&D guys are working on how to make the powertrain have a million mile lifetime, so they needed to come up with a new kind of fuse that isn't gradually degraded by the repetitive thermal cycling. The result is a new fuse design that not only has a longer life but which also can handle much higher currents safely, hence they've been able to improve the performance of the car in the 30-60mph range (0-30 is limited by tyre grip).
The battery has an 8 year infinite mile warranty. So if it was "ruined" presumably this meant an insurance claim of some sort due to doing something stupid or being in an accident. In that case the insurance company pays, and that's what insurance premiums are for.
It's impossible for someone to have had an out of warranty claim on a Model S battery so far, on which basis there is by definition no data as to the cost of such a thing.
How much do Mercedes charge if you "ruin" the engine in an S63AMG by draining the oil out of it and then driving around a race track until it seizes? I bet it's more than $40k.
Firstly this was a roadster, not a Model S (which has a much more advanced anti-bricking protection built in - you'd literally have to leave the car standing idle for over a year to do this to a Model S).
Secondly as far as I'm concerned this qualifies as chronic abuse - in which case you get what you deserve. Ignoring your car for months on end (and ignoring the warnings it gives you that you need to charge it) is exactly like ignoring a low oil light until your engine seizes.
>The guy with the ruined battery pack was reportedly quoted $40k. It was in the news.
Care to share a link to a "reliable" news purveyor covering the story ... not News of the World, The Sun, Daily Mirror, Telegraph, etc ... thanks.
It is BS because the battery pack has a warranty, or the guy tampered with it, in which case, you know what ...
As Mikey says, the existing P85D initially accelerates at about 1.3G (0.8s to 24mph on test IIRC) limited by tyre grip, by 60mph this has dropped to about 0.6G which is still pretty impressive. For short-term power peaks the limit isn't the battery or the motors (sustained power causing heating is the problem here) but just the maximum current the inverter can deliver -- and even this isn't really a problem for a few seconds.
If you want massive peak power for a short burst of acceleration electric is hard to beat, there's nothing to stop Tesla keeping ramping this up -- and the fact that it can go from zero to maximum torque pretty much instantaneously and regardless of driver skill makes this pretty difficult to beat with internal combustion.
Of course it's true that if you want to thrash round a track for multiple laps or drive continuously at 150mph on the autobahn a Tesla isn't the ideal solution, but then few people ever do this. Or if you drive long journeys all the time without breaks to recharge, same answer. If either of these cases matters to you, don't buy a Tesla. But for many people in the "normal" world it's a very attractive package if you can afford it -- and yes the cost is still high, but coming down all the time as the technology matures and volumes go up.
And from the point of view of the planet, the well-to-wheel efficiency of a Tesla is way ahead of anything comparable using internal combustion (or hydrogen fuel cells) even if the power comes from fossil fuels. If it comes from renewables or nuclear there's no comparison.
I save about £500 a month on running costs with the Model S compared to my previous car.
Even with my pretty aggressive driving style it returns the cost equivalent of 220mpg (i.e. I can go 220 miles for the same cost as buying 1 gallon of unleaded), it has no car tax, and it doesn't even need to be serviced.
£6k a year rapidly adds up to having quite a lot in the "possible future repair bills" pot :-)
Admittedly, this would eventually coat the electrodes beyond functionality, but infrequent long hauls wouldn't be a problem.
..and by reversing the process later, you would have a reserve tank of fully charged electrolyte and clean nodes.
So potentially a 600mile run with just one ten minute stop to flush and refill, with a few days of charging and swapping out it would be ready to take you back home again.
I appreciate swapping your brand new or cared for battery for a fully charged one of dubious quality would not appeal to many, but if that quality was measured and factored into the exchange, a fair system could emerge allowing unlimited range.
P.T. Barnum would be fond of Musk. Anyone who can sell sand to the Arabs must be a smooth talker and able to lie while looking you in the eye.
If you know anything about electric motors you know they have instant full torque output when fully powered. An internal combustion engine however has a torque curve with a torque peak. Torque is the ability to do work. More torque equals faster acceleration in a vehicle. What Musk fails to tell you is when you do these fun little 0-60 runs or even the 1/4 mile, you drain the batteries very quickly. So don't plan on doing these speed runs and then driving for more than a half hour afterwards as you will likely have dead batteries.
If an EV is your desire, buy one but don't be so naïve as to believe the marketing B.S. spewed by those with a profit motive. EVs are impractical for most people but if they meet your needs and you're willing to pay an excess price to fill some perceived need, then buy one. Be aware however that these vehicles come with limitations and documented issues. Do your homework so you are not just another "mark" that ends up dumping your EV after a year at a huge financial loss because it wasn't what you expected it to be and doesn't do what you thought it could/would do.
It's worth understanding that battery powered EVs will disappear in just a few years as hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles are far more practical and do not have the range anxiety issues and limitations of all current EVs. Better battery tech is not going to make EVs any more viable than they are now because you will still always have to recharge or swap batteries which limits the practicality of the vehicle for most people. You will also need to replace the batteries every 5-8 years, perhaps sooner at a major cost.
The only limitation on hydrogen fuel cell powered cars at the moment is limited refilling stations. That will change soon as it's not too expensive to install a refilling station at any location including existing petrol stations. Thus you will be able to buy petrol, Diesel, CNG, Propane and Hydrogen at many filling stations in the not too distant future. That will mark the end of battery powered EVs for anything but golf carts.
Agree with your points.
One minor detail with hydrogen is that most of it is produced from natural gas, releasing lots of CO2 in the process. 40kg of CO2 for 10kg of H2.
There seems to be an assumption that hydrogen is always split from water using renewable energy. It's a nice concept, but it's simply not true. Not yet. Not even close.
Yeah right. Having your tank full of fuel evaporate in 2 weeks is a great advantage, as is the cost of replacing your catalyst when it gets poisoned. The way hydrogen is made, combined with transport and storage losses, makes it a very dirty form of transport when you're not just looking at the tailpipe. And that's assuming we can avoid a Hindenberg type incident from a badly-maintained vehicle.
Hydrogen is a fundamentally stupid way of transporting energy for propulsion, for one simple reason:
https://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/168439/hydrogen-flow-chart_large.png
Also hydrogen cars are secretly battery powered cars anyway - they all have a small lithium ion battery in between the fuel cell and the motor.
And they're so slow - in a pure electric car you put your foot down and the power delivery is instantaneous - electrons move down a wire and you're away. In a petrol car it can be pretty quick too - robotic gearboxes can change in fractions of a second, variable geometry turbos can spin up fast, and fuel is injected into the cylinders. But a hyrdogen fuel cell is really slow to respond to changes in demand, so when you put your foot down your acceleration is limited to the power you can draw from the tiny lithium ion battery. The only way to make a hydrogen car quicker is to put a bigger battery in it!
The Toyota Mirai is supposed to represent the pinnacle of what a hydrogen car can do today. It costs about £100k to make (Toyota make a £40k loss on each one at the £60k list price) and takes NINE SECONDS to get to 60. On the other hand an entry level Model S costs £50k (on which Tesla make a profit) and gets to 60 in 5.5s
ROTFLMAO
"...Model S... (on which Tesla make a profit)..."
Not what I read.
The cheaper econobox was supposed to come next (supposed to have been subsidized by the S), but since Musk has reportedly failed to make any real profit on the S, he's had to switch to the 2nd release being a big stupid profit-making expensive SUV. I even read his apology on this switch-a-roo last year.
Tesla as a corporation isn't planning to make a profit until 2020 at the earliest. But that may be simple reinvestment, which is fine.
Of course TM as a company are not profitable - they're spending huge amounts on R&D, and building an enormous battery factory in Nevada.
I simply meant that the retail price of a Model S is greater than the cost of all its parts and the labour to assemble it - i.e. the gross margin on the car is positive (indeed it's quite large).
On the other hand the Mirai's components cost more than its sale price, so it's a loss making vehicle even before you start factoring in the R&D costs.
...to pay for the latest SpaceX disaster that blew up shortly after launch. As another story reported, Musk's businesses are all based on government grants and not on real business models. Investors are becoming quite interested in Tesla's creative accounting practices. Lawsuits for cars that fall apart and that need to be transported back to factory for repair have raised serious questions about Tesla's future. You can be sure that the increased range is under ideal conditions as have been the past claims. You certainly won't get many 0-60 runs before running the batteries down quickly. I'd take the PR claims with a large grain of salt as Musk's claims have been proven false in court.
1) it's the first failure of an F9, and 2) its not really a disaster. So not sure what you mean by 'latest disaster'.
And you also seem to have fallen for the government grants strawman as well. And that investor thing.
And since when have the 0-60 figures or ideal conditions thing not applied to every single car performance ever? What about the Ferrari which could only do two full speed accelerations before you needed a new clutch, or the 15 minute drive time of a Veyron at full speed. Or how about the wife's car, which gets nowhere near the claimed range or fuel economy, despite being driven sensibly all the time.
with proper hacking, the car can do more.
there needs to be a racing class where stock Model S's, Nissan Leaf's (Leaves?) and Prii are handed out to teams. Only physical modification would be roll cages and safety gear provided by the league.
Everything else is software and telemetry. Hack it like you mean it. Best hack and best driver wins.