Why One Should Not Buy A Tesla Model S




Question though: where are we supposed to get all that electricity to charge all these cars?
Nuclear plant or Hydroelectric dams are out of the question, we would never be able to overcome the protests.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...-co2-they-save
Here's some data on the sources of new electrical capacity additions in the U.S.:
So basically if the industry sells 1 million EVs over the next X years, or 5 million over the next Y years, ask yourself how much of the new capacity built to serve those cars would be fossil, based on what has happened lately.
Last edited by syswei; Aug 22, 2017 at 07:30 PM.








Last edited by syswei; Aug 27, 2017 at 11:34 AM.




The video embedded in the article above is pretty interesting as well, particularly the crash test starting around 1:25.









It'll be good for them, lower manufacturing costs likely equal better margin...
What most have not realized is that Tesla is a battery company and not so much a car company. To push it even further, Tesla is an engineering entity that is almost entirely focused on producing better battery factories (and by extension better car factories - its Musk's the machine that builds the machine mantra). Battery storage is now cost competitive with peaker power plants. Displace peakers with batteries and now the problem of renewables not being available all the time is diminished. It becomes easier for utilities to bring renewable sources on line without the cost of batteries. The market for batteries dwarfs that of cars.
Our focus (on the business side) has degraded from twenty years out to quarterly. Our politics have degraded from long term vision to fundraising for the next election. It is no surprise to me that most people to do appreciate what Tesla is doing and how they are rolling the dice to do it. Most have never seen this value add approach to life.
Last edited by lolachampcar; Sep 4, 2017 at 11:01 AM.
The Best of Mercedes & AMG




I'm totally supportive of companies taking business risks and applaud a lot of what Tesla has done. They've definitely advanced the state of the industry. But I don't want to see them taking chances with people's lives.




I hate making assumptions, but given the crash test results I'm guessing you are talking about autopilot.
If you are, I drive about sixty miles a day and use it for about half the drive. Even with AP1 (the MobileEye version), it works just fine so from a user standpoint, it works for me. I've not scared anyone nor run them off the road so I suspect it works for those around me as well.
On the business side, it took something like ten years for Google to put a million miles on their technology. A quick Google search (kinda ironic
) has Bloomberg saying Tesla has 1.3B miles of data as of December last year.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-miles-of-data
They likely have much more now. If you are going to convince NHTSA using something other than alternative facts, you really do need data.
Once upon a time, data survived vested interest attacks. If you are facing a technology deficit, you go to work like mad to quietly close the gap while loudly throwing mud at the competition. At least this seems to be the current corporate play book. Hopefully hard data's advantage remains for just a tad longer as we are all likely to be safer when the car is doing the driving we do not care to do. Of course and as always, this is just my opinion.




If you are, I drive about sixty miles a day and use it for about half the drive. Even with AP1 (the MobileEye version), it works just fine so from a user standpoint, it works for me. I've not scared anyone nor run them off the road so I suspect it works for those around me as well.
On the business side, it took something like ten years for Google to put a million miles on their technology. A quick Google search (kinda ironic
) has Bloomberg saying Tesla has 1.3B miles of data as of December last year.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-miles-of-data
They likely have much more now. If you are going to convince NHTSA using something other than alternative facts, you really do need data.
Once upon a time, data survived vested interest attacks. If you are facing a technology deficit, you go to work like mad to quietly close the gap while loudly throwing mud at the competition. At least this seems to be the current corporate play book. Hopefully hard data's advantage remains for just a tad longer as we are all likely to be safer when the car is doing the driving we do not care to do. Of course and as always, this is just my opinion.
BUT I think Tesla takes chances with it, and it could have been safer or more fully developed before release. From the WSJ article I had linked to earlier (here):
"Weeks before the October 2015 release of Autopilot, an engineer who had worked on safety features warned Tesla that the product wasn’t ready, according to a resignation letter circulated to other employees and reviewed by the Journal.
Autopilot’s development was based on “reckless decision making that has potentially put customer lives at risk,” the engineer, Evan Nakano, wrote."
AP2:
"In October 2016, Tesla announced an upgrade of Autopilot....
For another $3,000, drivers get the right to activate the rest of the cameras when Tesla enables a full self-driving system....
The announcement shook up some engineers, because they believed that the product that was released wasn’t designed to be self-driving, according to several people interviewed.
The marketing [decision by Elon Musk] was a factor in the decision by Mr. Anderson and at least two other engineers to leave the company, according to people familiar with the matter."
AP2 still has only a single radar. I've read that some other companies believe 4 should be used for full self driving.
"Tesla said the vehicle hardware unveiled in October will enable “full self-driving in almost all circumstances, at what we believe will be a probability of safety at least twice as good as the average human driver.” The self-driving feature is subject to software development and regulatory approval, and “it is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described” will be available, Tesla noted."
Twice as safe as a human alone is imo not a very high hurdle. I'd expect MB, Volvo, and some others to be engineered toward higher targets...and I trust them to do so. 5 years from now (or whenever) if MB, Audi, Volvo, and Tesla are making equal claims for their self-driving capabilities, I would trust Tesla less than the others as far as safety, unless there is hard data (for instance, from insurers) that proves otherwise.
Last edited by syswei; Sep 6, 2017 at 10:26 PM.




This July, all of Germany’s motor-sport icons— Audi , Mercedes-Benz, Porsche and BMW —said they would soon join Formula E, the electric-car equivalent of Formula One.....
Many see Formula E as a proving ground for vanguard electric vehicle technology...
“You can tell something is changing when the car manufacturers start piling in,” says Zak Brown, executive director of McLaren Technology Group, a U.K.-based maker of supercars and Formula One mainstay. “Formula E provides a great technical laboratory.”




Interesting reading, imo.




Interesting reading, imo.
First off, their horse and buggy replacement by cars was a dramatic upgrade for the user. This is definitely not the case with EV's. Unless there is a driver for faster adoption, like a longer range and cost savings over an ICE, adoption rates will be much lower.
I am also curious oh how people assume the public charging infrastructure will be paid for, not only the initial installation but also the power consumption.
A single shopping mall would likely need over a 100 charging stations with ongoing consumption.
In the end the costs will be transferred to the consumer indirectly...




First off, their horse and buggy replacement by cars was a dramatic upgrade for the user. This is definitely not the case with EV's. Unless there is a driver for faster adoption, like a longer range and cost savings over an ICE, adoption rates will be much lower.
I am also curious oh how people assume the public charging infrastructure will be paid for, not only the initial installation but also the power consumption.
A single shopping mall would likely need over a 100 charging stations with ongoing consumption.
In the end the costs will be transferred to the consumer indirectly...
Public charging ultimately will offer higher voltages and hence much faster charging than what is common today, so the number of chargers needed per EV won't be as high as it might be with current, slow chargers. And I see more charging being done at home anyway. Public charging can be paid by the user, or by the car company (meaning it gets embedded into the car price). It isn't normally going to be free in the future.
Last edited by syswei; Sep 15, 2017 at 08:38 PM.








https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvk18vx-nrY
these aren't to be played with from a stop




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvk18vx-nrY
these aren't to be played with from a stop
The attributes are due to the EV's instant torque advantage which will be something that will be shared in time with a number of other EV's.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvk18vx-nrY
these aren't to be played with from a stop









