Results 1 to 100 of 100

Thread: Who is right, Toyota or Tesla? Fuel Cells v Batteries

  1. #1

    Default Who is right, Toyota or Tesla? Fuel Cells v Batteries

    Interesting article on Fuel Cells, I think the technology is pretty neat. And even if fuel cells aren't carbon neutral, at least if they become economic, they will remove localized polution in cities / reduce smog:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/sc...=top-news&_r=1

  2. #2
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    Toyota has had hydrogen vehicles on prototype and limited production for some time. There was a previous gen. RAV4 hydrogen powered car a few years back. I thnk the problem is that hydrogen is extremely energy intensive to produce and capture.

    Given that Toyotas rank at the top of the pack for alternative fuel vehicle sales, reliability and longevity, and Tesla ranks near the bottom, I know who I'd believe
    Parkdale

  3. #3

    Default

    I think if fuel cell technology suceeds in dropping price such that it is economic, it could be a huge win for the natural gas industry, at least until other means of producing hydrogen become more economic. It may even be possible to have existing natural gas pipelines feeding fuel stations, where there would be small reformation units to convert the gas to hydrogen right at the pump. Longer term the potential for hydrogen production is unlimited from water, especially if Fusion power is realized.

  4. #4
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,380

    Default

    ^ Hydrogen production from water also offers an opportunity to use surplus wind and solar power if the electrolysis units can be made inexpensively.

  5. #5

    Default

    At the moment I think curb appeal will be the deciding factor...

    Toyota's fuel cell vehicle, the Mirai, going on sale in the US next year for $57,500US with 153hp:


    [Source]

    Vs the Tesla Model S for $69,900US with 302hp (up to 691hp with the P85D):



    [Source]

    The Toyota looks like some bad 90's movie interpretation of a futuristic car. Drop the extra $10k for a real car.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  6. #6
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Toyota has had hydrogen vehicles on prototype and limited production for some time. There was a previous gen. RAV4 hydrogen powered car a few years back. I thnk the problem is that hydrogen is extremely energy intensive to produce and capture.

    Given that Toyotas rank at the top of the pack for alternative fuel vehicle sales, reliability and longevity, and Tesla ranks near the bottom, I know who I'd believe
    they have also licensed their fuel cell technology to bmw ( http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...ota-technology ).

    it will be interesting to see what that does to bmw's hydrogen vehicles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7 ) which use hydrogen as a direct fuel source for an internal combustion engine (that program had 100 vehicles produced and provided as "loaners" to prove network as well as vehicle viability.

    and interesting marriage might be the use of stationary fuel cells generating enough hydrogen to be used to fill up the vehicles getting past the current drawback of having the hydrogen produced from fossil fuels. that would also get over the distribution/safety concerns of hydrogen pipelines.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    The Toyota looks like some bad 90's movie interpretation of a futuristic car. Drop the extra $10k for a real car.
    Eye of the beholder I guess, I like the Toyota, the Tesla looks a bit like Ford Fusion The main difference though, is you can fill the Toyota up ifully in about 2 minutes.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    The Toyota looks like some bad 90's movie interpretation of a futuristic car. Drop the extra $10k for a real car.
    Eye of the beholder I guess, I like the Toyota, the Tesla looks a bit like Ford Fusion The main difference though, is you can fill the Toyota up ifully in about 2 minutes.
    I'll take the benefit of filling up anywhere over being able to fill it up in 2 minutes. If you have access to a Supercharger station, you can get half a charge in 15 minutes. Most of the time though, you'll charge it overnight and never worry about having to find one of the extremely rare hydrogen stations.

    The fuel cell is no good on a road trip. Electricity is ubiquitous - there aren't hydrogen stations, well, anywhere. Fuel cells are useless outside of where the stations are.
    Last edited by Chmilz; 18-11-2014 at 07:59 PM.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  9. #9

    Default

    There aren't many supercharge stations either, give it time. Personally, I think electric is interesting, but people aren't going to wanna wait 15 minutes for only half a tank (long trips just aren't practical), whereas conceptually at least, that's not an issue with fuel cells. Both of them are overly costly right now, but if I was to bet on one, Id go with fuel cells (which also, unlike batteries, can be scaled up effectively for SUVs and trucks).

  10. #10

    Default

    Apparently platinum supply would be a major constraint in broad based fuel cell adoption.

  11. #11
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    Aren't the new fuel cell cars from Toyota just their token zero emission car for the 8 states that have the minimum fleet efficiency standards?

    Building cars so expensive only rich people will buy and probably mostly for vanity reasons seems like weird way to go about with this whole climate change reduction thing.
    be offended! figure out why later...

  12. #12

    Default

    They won't be stopping at just producing expensive versions... These are stepping stones.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    There aren't many supercharge stations either, give it time. Personally, I think electric is interesting, but people aren't going to wanna wait 15 minutes for only half a tank (long trips just aren't practical), whereas conceptually at least, that's not an issue with fuel cells. Both of them are overly costly right now, but if I was to bet on one, Id go with fuel cells (which also, unlike batteries, can be scaled up effectively for SUVs and trucks).
    I believe there's hundreds of Supercharger stations, with tons being built. With electric, 99.9999% of all passenger-vehicle trips can be made within the range of the vehicle, which would start fully charged, and be able to charge at the destination. The fuel cell vehicle has to always be able to make it to the rare fuel cell fueling station. Your travel is absolutely limited by the location of that station. You can charge an electric anywhere. I'll wait the 15 minutes to "fuel" up every 400-600km on a road trip, than wait forever for a fuel cell delivery or tow truck when that fuel cell vehicle runs out of juice.

    Besides, a world of electric cars would be a world where you charge it wherever you stop. A world with fuel cell cars still requires gas stations, which are a total waste of space and pointless infrastructure. We already have an electric grid.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Apparently platinum supply would be a major constraint in broad based fuel cell adoption.
    Its one of those things they have been working on trying to reduce the content of. There was a similar issue with Catalytic converters. At least it can be recycled I guess, but it is part of the cost problem at the moment, the automakers seem to think it can be overcome, per how many have fuel cell concepts close to production, but time will tell. In the same way, we don't know if batteries are going to get much better, I suspect there is more room for improvement in fuel cells, as batteries are a more mature technology. What we do know is its highly unlikely batteries will ever be effective to power a large tractor-trailer, fuel cells offer that promise one day, or perhaps a direct burn of hydrogen as kcantor mentioned, using the same hydrogen infrastructure.
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-11-2014 at 09:56 AM.

  15. #15
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    There aren't many supercharge stations either, give it time. Personally, I think electric is interesting, but people aren't going to wanna wait 15 minutes for only half a tank (long trips just aren't practical), whereas conceptually at least, that's not an issue with fuel cells. Both of them are overly costly right now, but if I was to bet on one, Id go with fuel cells (which also, unlike batteries, can be scaled up effectively for SUVs and trucks).
    I think that really the most reasonable and practical applications for EV's *at this current time* are for folks who only ever drive short distances over any given day and are willing to rent a gas powered car for occasional longer excursions, of for folks like us who have two cars, one of which only gets used as a commuter, and the other being a larger truck or SUV that rarely gets driven, but again, used for longer trips or for specialized reasons.

    As for the fueling stations.. I remember, back in BC anyways, when natural gas was supposed to be the new fuel conversion of choice, and there was much talk about natural gas fueling stations.. "just wait.. they'll be as ubiquitous as gas stations in 10 years"

    We know how that turned out.
    Last edited by 240GLT; 19-11-2014 at 10:15 AM.
    Parkdale

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    As for the fueling stations.. I remember, back in BC anyways, when natural gas was supposed to be the new fuel conversion of choice, and there was much talk about natural gas fueling stations.. "just wait.. they'll be as ubiquitous as gas stations in 10 years"

    We know how that turned out.
    I also remember it was hard to find diesel at a regular gas station, and now they are everywhere. I think that will change very quickly once enough vehicles start being sold, it will start with a few pumps converting to hydrogen in a few stations, but it will grow, if the market grows. The infrastructure is already there (gasoline stations), it just needs to be modified once there is demand, the market will do that. Natural gas market didn't grow as expected, as the cars didn't have great range or power, and it wasn't that cheap when natural gas wasn't cheap. Even now, when you can fill up your car with natural gas at home, it still isn't really that viable a solution.
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-11-2014 at 10:25 AM.

  17. #17
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,222

    Default

    Tesla S is hot.

    That said, bring back V12s.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  18. #18
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    There aren't many supercharge stations either, give it time. Personally, I think electric is interesting, but people aren't going to wanna wait 15 minutes for only half a tank (long trips just aren't practical), whereas conceptually at least, that's not an issue with fuel cells. Both of them are overly costly right now, but if I was to bet on one, Id go with fuel cells (which also, unlike batteries, can be scaled up effectively for SUVs and trucks).
    I think that really the most reasonable and practical applications for EV's are for folks who only ever drive short distacnes over any given day and are willing to rent a gas powered car for occasional longer excursions, of for folks like us who have two cars, one of which only gets used as a commuter, and the other being a larger truck or SUV that rarely gets driven, but agian, used for longer trips or for specialized reasons.

    As for the fueling stations.. I remember, back in BC anyways, when natural gas was supposed to be the new fuel conversion of choice, and there was much talk about natural gas fueling stations.. "just wait.. they'll be as ubiquitous as gas stations in 10 years"

    We know how that turned out.
    emphasis added...

    being one of the older posters here i find the highlighted comment interesting. it wasn't that long ago that cars that provided double digit mileage in american gallons (i.e. 12 miles per us gallon or almost 20 litres per 100 kilometres) was the norm and 8 mpg (almost 30 litres per 100 kilometres) was not uncommon.

    gasoline alley in red deer - and similar locations across the continent - were not conveniences, they were necessities when a full tank of gas might only take you 200 miles (i.e. a '65 buick depending on engine option was rated at 9.5 - 10.5 mpg and had a 20 gallon tank).

    you might have driven long distances in a single day but it was always a series of short distance drives where the pit stop was usually accompanied by pie and coffee - if not a complete meal - as well as filling up with gas. it's no more unreasonable for an ev today as it was for all vehicles then - it's more a matter of expectations than reasonableness. if that's what the vehicle dictates, that's what becomes reasonable.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  19. #19

    Default

    Hydrogen can't be retrofit into the petrochemical supply chain, even the natural gas stuff, given that it's a much, much smaller molecule & requires an order of magnitude finer tolerances to prevent leaks & offgassing. That means we don't still need gas stations for hydrogen, we need gas stations for gas & a completely seperate, discrete set of infrastructure for hydrogen.

    Fuel cells are a fantastic idea for fleets & stationary NG powered ones are the quickest & easiest way for providing the electricity needed to charge an EV without the need for a massive upgrade in neighborhood infrastructure. For John Q Public? I just don't see it happening.

    The "hydrogen economy" has been "10 years out" since I was 12 looking at Popular Science magazines in the school library, right up there with fusion, another perennial revolution that's always just around the corner.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  20. #20
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Tesla S is hot.

    That said, bring back V12s.
    bring them back? some of them never went away...



    and with the twin 10 gallon/35 litre tanks she could easily get to calgary non-stop if we didn't now need our own pit stop in red deer but she probably wouldn't get back without one of her own.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  21. #21

    Default

    Lots of advancements coming down the pike on both sides... I don't think the two are mutually exclusive either. Fuel cell vehicles with super capacitors to capture energy from regenerative breaking, solar panels on the roof, etc....

    Super Capacitors
    Batteries seem to be the limiting factor in the popularity of electric cars. They are one of the most expensive components of the vehicle, and have limited range compared with gasoline powered vehicles. While there have been some impressive advances in recent years, a team of researchers have created a supercapacitor film that could replace the need for a battery altogether within the next five years.
    http://www.iflscience.com/technology...within-5-years

    Cheap hydrogen production
    Now researchers at Stanford University have developed a nanoscale material that makes it possible to split water cheaply using just a 1.5-volt "AAA" battery, and they claim it can be done without producing any emissions.
    http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/g...gen-production

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    The "hydrogen economy" has been "10 years out" since I was 12 looking at Popular Science magazines in the school library, right up there with fusion, another perennial revolution that's always just around the corner.
    I remember it as a child as well, and then the focus wasn't fuel cells, it was the BMW burning hydrogen approach. It does still have the most "promise" in terms of moving away from a carbon economy though. At best, electric is going to replace autos, but what then do you do with trains, and trucks, and busses? Its an incomplete solution, it makes more sense to have a clean fuel and supporting infrastructure that can power them all. I'm with "Top Gear" on this one, the future is fuel cells - the Shell hydrogen station looks pretty normal to me, I could see these in "Gasoline" Alley, rather than lining up for 15 minute supercharges (how annoying would that be if three people in line before you?):

    http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/9971520001
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-11-2014 at 11:44 AM.

  23. #23

    Default

    Did you not see the part where I said fuel cells make sense for fleets? (But not sustainable sense, at this point in time)

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle15900241/
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  24. #24

    Default Toyota Mirai review - Autoweek

    As far as hydrogen fuel cells versus electric cars or wind-powered land sailers, you can make arguments on all sides of the alternative fuel debate until you’re blue in the face from too much CO2. If you like fuel cells, you can construct a pretty good case for them: hydrogen is really just a storage medium for energy, you could say, the same way batteries or gasoline hold energy. Looking at it that way, you can bypass the argument that battery electric cars are more efficient because they cut out the whole making-the-hydrogen loop. Since extracting hydrogen from natural gas releases some CO2, you could put fuel cell vehicles down a notch from pure battery electrics on the cleaner-than-thou scale, unless you’re getting your battery EV juice from a Chinese coal-fired power plant. But FCEVs are cleaner than natural gas vehicles and way cleaner than gas engines and diesels. And if you make your hydrogen from electrolysis powered by the sun or wind, well, you’re just about as clean an anything out there short of riding a bike naked.

    Toyota believes fuel cells will become profitable sooner than electric cars, so it’s ending the Rav4EV program and going with this. It is also assisting in the construction of 19 hydrogen refueling stations in California, a state where there will eventually be 100 of them. Through its partner Air Liquide, it is helping build 12 stations in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and Rhode Island. California gets them because that state’s Air Resources Board is requiring carmakers to offer ZEVs. If somehow that requirement were dropped, we can imagine all carmakers suddenly and inexplicably losing interest in battery electrics and fuel cells.
    http://autoweek.com/article/green-ca...le-first-drive

  25. #25

    Default

    Woo! Eventually 100 stations! Only on the coasts!

    (Current Supercharger count is 259 & covers 80% of Canada & US. We're in the 20%)
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  26. #26

    Default Fuel Cell vehicle as Significant as Prius

    ^yeah, but you won't be lining up for 45 minutes at the fuel station if there 3 people ahead of you. And, the fuel cell vehicle, when it does ramp up, I'm guessing is going to get way better range in our climate. Time will tell, both are new technologies, I just suspect Toyota, who have tried both technologies, know more than Tesla who has just comitted to one. People were skeptical when the Prius came out to.

    http://www.google.ca/url?url=http://...gayFsmWEzrLc4w
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-11-2014 at 12:21 PM.

  27. #27
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    There aren't many supercharge stations either, give it time. Personally, I think electric is interesting, but people aren't going to wanna wait 15 minutes for only half a tank (long trips just aren't practical), whereas conceptually at least, that's not an issue with fuel cells. Both of them are overly costly right now, but if I was to bet on one, Id go with fuel cells (which also, unlike batteries, can be scaled up effectively for SUVs and trucks).
    I think that really the most reasonable and practical applications for EV's are for folks who only ever drive short distacnes over any given day and are willing to rent a gas powered car for occasional longer excursions, of for folks like us who have two cars, one of which only gets used as a commuter, and the other being a larger truck or SUV that rarely gets driven, but agian, used for longer trips or for specialized reasons.

    As for the fueling stations.. I remember, back in BC anyways, when natural gas was supposed to be the new fuel conversion of choice, and there was much talk about natural gas fueling stations.. "just wait.. they'll be as ubiquitous as gas stations in 10 years"

    We know how that turned out.
    emphasis added...

    being one of the older posters here i find the highlighted comment interesting. it wasn't that long ago that cars that provided double digit mileage in american gallons (i.e. 12 miles per us gallon or almost 20 litres per 100 kilometres) was the norm and 8 mpg (almost 30 litres per 100 kilometres) was not uncommon.

    gasoline alley in red deer - and similar locations across the continent - were not conveniences, they were necessities when a full tank of gas might only take you 200 miles (i.e. a '65 buick depending on engine option was rated at 9.5 - 10.5 mpg and had a 20 gallon tank).

    you might have driven long distances in a single day but it was always a series of short distance drives where the pit stop was usually accompanied by pie and coffee - if not a complete meal - as well as filling up with gas. it's no more unreasonable for an ev today as it was for all vehicles then - it's more a matter of expectations than reasonableness. if that's what the vehicle dictates, that's what becomes reasonable.
    It'll come down to both the physical constraints of the vehicle and what the expectations are ,I suppose.

    Our Lexus ES does about a 10k round trip from Goldbar to downtown most days, with the occasional pit stop at the Stadium Save-On or liquor store or what have you. So my expectation is that an EV can manage, say, 50k on a charge while giving me a bit of a buffer in case we have to go somewhere a little further.

    My new-ish Tacoma will go from Edmonton all the way to Valemount on a tank, and its ability to achieve that range was one of the requirements of the purchase. So I know that I can leave Edmonton on a full tank, fuel up in Valemount, and be at Bridge lake with a half tank left. That's the expectation, so obviously an EV or some other vehicle without refueling ability would not be practical for that application
    Parkdale

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    And, the fuel cell vehicle, when it does ramp up, I'm guessing is going to get way better range in our climate.
    The fuel cell is just a different form of electrical storage from a battery. They're both just storage techs. Power draw is power draw & any amp-hours used to power the heater are amp-hours not available to the wheels. If you swapped your house from grid-power to gas-power via a generator, would your appliances take a different amount of electricity? Uh, nope.

    It'd be different if we were talking about a Mazda or BMW hydrogen-burner, but you're specifically speaking about fuel cells.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  29. #29

    Default

    ^the performance of batteries degrades in cold temperatures, I know, my hybrid gets way less fuel economy in winter than in summer (even if I keep the heater off). A Tesla won't get the same distance in Alberta in winter as it does in California, but a fuel cell vehcile will.

    http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...gen-fuel-cells

    While electric cars can see their range figures tumble in very cold weather, as battery chemistry struggles to cope, Toyota says there are no such issues with its fuel-cell vehicles--a less-than subtle hint that it still sees fuel cells as the superior option...

    Despite snow and low temperatures, Proton's vice president of business development Mark Schiller has reported no issues with the vehicles--"I continue to get range of about 300 miles despite the cold and blasting the heater" he says.

    Air Products in Pennsylvania also runs a test fleet, also trouble-free. Its drivers have carried on as normal despite the state having one of its worst winters in recent memory.

    Like many automakers, Toyota tests its vehicles in extremes of both heat and cold, and its fuel cell vehicles in particular have spent long periods testing in Yellowknife, Canada--where temperatures can reach -30 Celsius, or -22 Fahrenheit.
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-11-2014 at 01:04 PM.

  30. #30

    Default

    So does the performance of fuel cells & their reliability. Let's look at a much-vaunted pilot/test program from right here in Canada:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle15900241/

    But at $2.5-million a year over and above the cost to operate diesel buses, the province and its cash-strapped transit system couldn’t afford to keep the fuel-cell buses going.

    The buses were also saddled with a reputation for breaking down frequently, especially in cold weather.
    emphasis mine.

    You're still not indicating to me, all things equal, the electric heater in the fuel cell vehicle would be more efficient than the electric heater in the battery car. It's the draw of electricity to power the heater that's the main loss factor for winter range.

    Keep in mind, the only difference between these two vehicles is the place where the electrons come from.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  31. #31

    Default

    ^I never said that, I said the range is better, and that's true, per that quote, 300 miles with the heater on (show me an electric that can do that in sub zero temperatures). A fuel cell vehcile is like a gasoline vehicle, yes if you burn more fuel say with a heater you will get a shorter range, but an electric vehicle will get a shorter range even if you don't burn more / keep the heater off. Batteries just don't work well at storing energy in cold climates, it might be fine for tottering around town, and its fine as a hybrid, but not as a sole source for longer distances in this climate. The batteries will probably age quicker in the cold as well. As to reliability, I expect Toyota's technology has addressed that (its something I trust Toyota on), but time will tell.
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-11-2014 at 01:17 PM.

  32. #32
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,380

    Default

    Fuel cell are much more efficient than internal combustion engines, (70-80% instead of ~25%) but they still produce a significant amount of waste heat that could be captured for HVAC purposes, so the winter range loss would likely be less than for a battery powered vehicle.

    Battery performance as measured by maximum power output degrades in the cold, but the total amount of energy stored in the battery does not change. Your battery powered car might not be able to accelerate very well in the cold, but if you kept the heater off the range would be the same.

  33. #33

    Default

    It's interesting, TEsla gets all the headlines, but it is Nissan / Renault who dominates ev sales:

    http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...tric-car-sales

    I guess he difference is that Tesla needs to constantly raise capital from the market to fund itself, hence all the headlines on giga battery factories and similar, whereas the big boys like Nissan and Toyota can quietly develop their technologies using traditional auto sales to help fund. I'm curious how the next Nissan Leaf will do, Nissan aren't standing still technology wise:

    http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/nissan/...nd-range-boost

    I wonder what impact lower fuel prices will have on both of these technologies.
    Last edited by moahunter; 29-11-2014 at 09:27 AM.

  34. #34
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,804

    Default

    So you're saying that you're surprised that a technology start-up company requires billions of dollars of investment before it can mass produce tens of thousands of vehicles? That's really something you consider to be a point against Tesla? They're starting from scratch, of course they're going to need huge amounts of funding before they can become a volume car manufacturer. The Roadster and Model S were never intended to be large volume vehicles.

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    So you're saying that you're surprised that a technology start-up company requires billions of dollars of investment before it can mass produce tens of thousands of vehicles? That's really something you consider to be a point against Tesla? .
    I didn't write that, Tesla is, what it is, a start up that requires constant capital from the market for working capital, hence they need to promote their story all the time.

    Does Tesla make me a little nervous re an investment? Yes, I think of Bricklin, or Delorean, it isn't easy to start an automaker from scratch. But if they manage it, it would be a terrific achievement and the payback could be high to investors. They can't forever fund themselves just off raising capital though, sooner rather than later, they need a vehicle (or batteries) that makes money sufficient to recover its R&D and start funding some new R&D (IMO). Toyota, Nissan, and other automakers don't have that pressure to the same extent re EV's or fuel cell vehicles.

    In other words, investors are paying far more for Tesla’s future promises than today’s performance by other luxury car manufacturers. Daimler, the manufacturer of Mercedes-Benz, sold more than 2.5 million vehicles last year and has a market cap of about $85 billion. So, although it sells 70 times more vehicles than Tesla, its market cap is less than three times greater.
    http://fortune.com/2014/08/15/tesla-stock-momentum/
    Last edited by moahunter; 01-12-2014 at 01:47 PM.

  36. #36

    Default

    http://www.teslamotors.com/en_CA/blo...-pilot-program

    This technology allows Model S owners in need of a battery charge the choice of either fast or free. The free long distance travel option is already well covered by our growing Supercharger network, which is now at 312 stations with more than 1,748 Superchargers worldwide. They allow Model S drivers to charge at 400 miles per hour. Now we're starting exploratory work on the fast option.
    Pretty cool. Even with the metal ballistic plating protecting the underside of the battery, takes ~3 minutes now & down to ~1 minute in the future with some tweaks to the cars.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  37. #37

    Default

    ^neat if your battery is old / dying, just take it in and swap it. Not so good if you pick up an old one though I guess.

  38. #38

    Default

    ...because Tesla would want to swap out a less than ideal battery into one of the customers' cars for what reason? So they can have more warranty work?

    4 year, 80,000 km (whichever comes first) new vehicle limited warranty
    8 year, 200,000 km (whichever comes first) battery and drive unit warranty for 60 kWh battery equipped Model S
    8 year, unlimited kilometer battery and drive unit warranty for 85 kWh battery equipped Model S
    Both battery warranties cover damage from improper charging procedures and battery fire, even if the fire results from driver error
    They'll use new or new-ish packs as much as possible & take the spent ones in for analysis, testing & refurbishment. Tesla has some pretty advanced cell-wear-prevention technology & because the packs are made from commodity cells they're rather simple to pull apart & replace just the cells that have worn. Plus, they're about to start making the cells themselves, cutting out the middleman.

    Really, I'd be more worried about dodgy gasoline from a budget gas station than I'd ever be worried about getting a bum pack from Tesla.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Really, I'd be more worried about dodgy gasoline from a budget gas station than I'd ever be worried about getting a bum pack from Tesla.
    I wouldn't, I have seen this in action, they get their gasoline from the same terminals as the brand names. The tanker driver basically just puts a card in that determines the additive mix he/she wants, depending on the customer.

  40. #40

    Default

    The saviour will not be found in hydrogen or batteries.... They still take energy and resources to build,operate and maintain. if the world continues to grow in population and the markets for autos continue to expand we are still up **** creek. These things don't run on love.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  41. #41
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ^ I agree.

    I've found it odd that the supposed cure for climate change always involves spending large amounts of money.

    Realistically just reducing consumption is the solution but nobody makes money off that so it's never gonna happen.

    Build cities where the reliance on he personal auto can be minimized. Expand public transit. Increase efficiency standards. Individuals reduce their personal consumption. These things probably will work much better than having gov subsidies vehicles for wealthy people ( able to afford the initial premium on the car price)
    be offended! figure out why later...

  42. #42

    Default

    Exactly. Efficient people movement is never discussed.....
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  43. #43

    Default

    ^i think there is plenty of discussion of transit on various threads here. It will be interesting though to see what happens if gasoline prices stay down for a few year to technologies like electric and hydrogen. With robocars on the horizon (which could in theory drive themselves out of downtown to find cheap parking), the future might hold more autos not less. The question is, how long will it take for hydrogen or electric production costs to drop to a level that can compete with comparable performance at mass production levels (not just high end)? It will take a little longer with gasoline prices down.

    Here is an analyst who is cutting Tesla sales projections based on his estimate they will miss their target price for the model 3 (their first lower price car, due in 2017). Now, he might be totally wrong, but he was a former Tesla fan so it's interesting stuff:

    http://www.autoblog.com/2014/12/18/a...t-fuel-prices/

    Another interesting article here, the German automakers got their hands on a Tesla S and it scared them how good it is:

    http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...tesla--and-why
    Last edited by moahunter; 21-12-2014 at 09:03 AM.

  44. #44

    Default

    ^ I don't think you understand the argument Richard and I are put forward. We know there will be more cars. The population of the globe is expanding and with it the car buying market is growing....

    The question is should we let the number of cars increase, being honest about the fact that every car still needs energy and that comes from somewhere and likely involves green house gas at multiple points along the way... As well as, no matter how much you improve the eiffecncy of the PPV unless you increase the occupancy, downtime and decreas the space they take up we actually continuing to make things worse.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ I don't think you understand the argument Richard and I are put forward. We know there will be more cars. The population of the globe is expanding and with it the car buying market is growing....

    The question is should we let the number of cars increase, being honest about the fact that every car still needs energy and that comes from somewhere and likely involves green house gas at multiple points along the way... As well as, no matter how much you improve the eiffecncy of the PPV unless you increase the occupancy, downtime and decreas the space they take up we actually continuing to make things worse.
    New materials, new engines, self-driving/system coordinated vehicles may dramatically improve the system's efficiency and reduce pollution levels long before we have to resort to increased capacity per unit. Reducing the space, unused space, makes sense. If every individual had their own vehicle (or pad) and families could link them together for some reason, that might be a solution. If everyone had their own pod, even children, able to travel together in a pack, then families may not need everyone in the very same open cavity - or two or three pods could join together when infant care is needed or all pull off to the side of the road as needed (when the baby monitor calls you)...

    One, think of the "efficiency" gains Google could bring by better controlling both the individual operation of a vehicle as well as the routing, speed, spacing and traffic flow of all vehicles.

    Two, recycling and reusing components could vastly reduce material usage. For instance, just think of all the slightly used, or never used, rear and third row seats that get sent to the crusher. It's insane. (Look to the "efficiency" Cuba has resorted to due to the blockade. Old cars kept on the road forever, though suffering the consequences of horrible safety and air pollution from those old cars.)

    Three, new engine technologies might create unheard of efficiencies using other or old fuel types. There have been all kinds of potentially promising developments over the years. The wave or shock disk is just one more recent innovation:


    "This new model, which does away with the internal combustion engine of the past, has the potential to reduce auto emissions up to 90 percent, when compared to the current emissions level. This is because the engine uses roughly 60 percent of its fuel for propulsion, when you compare this to the typical cars engine that uses only 15 percent of fuel for propulsion, we can see how the increase is possible. ..."

    Source: http://phys.org/news/2011-03-msu-prototype-video.html
    Last edited by KC; 28-12-2014 at 08:50 PM.

  46. #46

    Default

    This article is sobering reading re Tesla:

    http://t.thestar.com/#/article/busin...ill-olive.html

    The losses keep piling up / multiplying, the employees are multiplying, this is frightfully like another Nortel (albeit without the revenue Nortel earned). I wonder when the bubble will pop.

  47. #47
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,804

    Default

    Musk has never intended for the company to be profitable in the short term. That's all part of his strategy, and shouldn't surprise anyone. Production continues to ramp up rapidly, with 10,000 deliveries in the first quarter. By comparison, even as recently as last summer they were doing more like 7,000: http://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-sa...ter-1428067522

    It'll be interesting to see how the release of the Model X goes; whether it's on time, what the final price point is, and what kind of sales response there is. If it's going to be a success, it's going to need to sell hundreds of thousands of cars a year, and for that to happen it's going to have to be able to sell cars for 20-30k, not 100k.

    I wouldn't disagree that Tesla having a market cap of nearly half of what GM and Ford do is pretty optimistic on the part of investors. That seems like a crazy investment to me. But much the same was said about Google when it's IPO was floated. Anyone who'd invested at the IPO price of Google in 2004 would have seen their investment increase by ten times in the following 10 years. Is Tesla going to perform similarly? No idea. But it's not obvious that it will fail, that's for certain.

    If I was in the market for a high end (but not super-car priced) car right now, it would be a toss up between the BMW i8 and the Tesla Model S P85D. The Tesla is way more practical, not to mention it's actually faster. But the BMW can be fueled up conventionally (Superchargers are finally starting to pop up in Western Canada, though) and it's styling is far more appealing to me.

    I wouldn't touch a Leaf with a 10 foot pole though.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 01-05-2015 at 02:41 PM.

  48. #48
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,334

    Default

    Technically the Model X is already late given it was supposed to ship in late 2013.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  49. #49
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,804

    Default

    Well yeah, I meant on time as of the latest supposed release date. Last I heard it's late this year.

  50. #50
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,804

    Default

    It's interesting to note that even at something like 5 times the price depending on model, the Model S is now outselling the Leaf (although the Leaf sold nearly twice as many in 2014): http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

  51. #51

    Default

    ^i think Tesla is going to have the same problems as the Leaf - you can make a decent range electric model if you throw enough money at the battery packs, the S is a terrific car. But that's a tiny segment of the auto market. To get the X having a decent range and an affordable price is a lot easier said than done. Tesla is also being hurt by its direct to market strategy, it simply can't sell in many States that have laws ostensibly to protect jobs of dealers.

  52. #52

    Default Tesla loses 4k on every car sold

    Continunig to burn through cash, Tesla actually loses either 3.7k or 14k (depending on accounting method) on each car sold:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle25902007/

    I think a lot of "wishful" thinking in its valuation.

  53. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Continunig to burn through cash, Tesla actually loses either 3.7k or 14k (depending on accounting method) on each car sold:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle25902007/

    I think a lot of "wishful" thinking in its valuation.
    Anyone with a lot of money and any kind of interest in cars will be looking at getting one. Then it becomes something others drool over. Status symbols soon equal outsized profits. Just look at how Range Rover showed up in every urban driveway and saved that company. Or Cadillac! I think Telsla is just getting started.

  54. #54

    Default

    ^its cool technology, but I don't understand why they aren't pricing their products to make a profit, like Ferrari, Porsche or Lamborghini. I actually hope they pull it off and make batteries viable and cost effective, I'm just a bit skeptical of any company that survives by burning through its investors capital, the other auto companies like Toyota can use their proven products to fund. Sure, it can work (Facebook), but more often it doesn't.

  55. #55
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC
    Just look at how Range Rover showed up in every urban driveway and saved that company.
    What? Range Rover (Land Rover, Rover, whatever) has been bought and sold half a dozen times in the past 10-20 years. It's absolutely not a successful or profitable brand. Coincidentally, they sell about the same number of vehicles a year as Tesla. One's been around for 70 years, the other less than 10, and is pioneering an entirely different kind of vehicle. Not to mention that Land/Range Rovers have an absolutely horrendous reputation for reliability. They're basically an SUV Jaguar (which has itself finally gotten it's crap together after decades as a laughing stock, also after being bought and sold several times). Maybe Tata will be able to turn Jaguar and Rover in to legitimately decent car brands, who knows.

    They look nice, I guess.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 31-08-2015 at 10:01 AM.

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC
    Just look at how Range Rover showed up in every urban driveway and saved that company.
    What? Range Rover (Land Rover, Rover, whatever) has been bought and sold half a dozen times in the past 10-20 years. It's absolutely not a successful or profitable brand. Coincidentally, they sell about the same number of vehicles a year as Tesla. One's been around for 70 years, the other less than 10, and is pioneering an entirely different kind of vehicle. Not to mention that Land/Range Rovers have an absolutely horrendous reputation for reliability. They're basically an SUV Jaguar (which has itself finally gotten it's crap together after decades as a laughing stock, also after being bought and sold several times). Maybe Tata will be able to turn Jaguar and Rover in to legitimately decent car brands, who knows.

    They look nice, I guess.
    Exactly.

    Read my earlier post in its context - which was in response to the idea that Tesla's valuation was too high.
    Last edited by KC; 01-09-2015 at 11:51 AM.

  57. #57

    Default

    This didn't take long, Porsche have uped their game with a Tesla electric competitor concept. Not sure if this is at all linked to Tesla releasing their patents:

    http://www.gizmag.com/porsche-missio...ankfurt/39404/

    Looks prettier than a Tesla, I wonder how long before production?

    It might be light but the car's body is also absolutely gorgeous – it's as if Emmett Brown replaced his DeLorean with a fusion of 911, 918 Spyder and 919 Le Mans racer and set it for 2020. Up front, the LED matrix headlamps meld into a 911-style bonnet and front fenders, while the car's hips and wide tail lights make it look instantly familiar.

    This is becoming a bit of a habit, but we're willing to go out on a limb and say the Mission E is in with a chance at taking out the gong for best looking car of 2015. Sorry for getting your hopes up, Mercedes C-Class Coupe.
    Last edited by moahunter; 16-09-2015 at 08:51 AM.

  58. #58
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,804

    Default

    Sure looks like the back seat in that Porsche would be cramped, given the slope of the roof line. It'll be interesting to see if it's truly a competitor to the Model S, which actually has a lot of room in the back seat and can seat 5 or even 7 in some configurations. That Porsche concept is a 4 seater.

    In any case, it's just a concept that's likely 2-3 years away. Meanwhile the Model S is outselling the Panamera in the here and now, in many markets. It's also been pretty consistently outselling the Leaf globally.

  59. #59

    Default

    ^I don't understand the Panamera, its such an ugly vehicle. Model S isn't that pretty either but at least it has the performance advantage / interest at the moment (and, must be good value, given Tesla is losing money on every one of them).

  60. #60
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,804

    Default

    Totally agreed on the Panamera. Apparently it's a very good drive, but I agree that it's ugly. Then again, my feeling is that the only car Porsche should be making is the 911 along with it's direct variants and maybe the Cayman, but that ship sailed long ago.

  61. #61
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,334

    Default

    I disagree the Porsche is prettier than the Model S but I've never really liked the bulgy look that's so common these days. The Model S is a nice sleek car with lots of room inside.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  62. #62

    Default

    ^I guess its eye of the beholder, Model S looks like a Ford Fusion to me. The Porsche is beautiful, how the Panamera should have looked probably. Just a concept though at this stage, the realities of manufacture might remove some of its beauty. I wish pop up lights would come back, but I guess they never will due to pedestrian saftey issues.
    Last edited by moahunter; 16-09-2015 at 11:29 AM.

  63. #63

  64. #64

    Default Hydrogen getting closer - TESLA 3 to be unveiled

    Toyota's Mirai fuel cell car is currently selling in California for US$57,500, has a range of over 500 kilometres on a full tank, and fuels up in three to five minutes.

    The company is betting on fuel cells as the long-term solution to an emissions-free vehicle because they offer more range, faster refuelling, better performance in the cold and overall lower costs than battery-powered cars, said Beatty.
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/hydrogen...drop-1.2839360

    Further to that, not sure if co-incidence, or if one drums up publicity before the other, but the model 3 TESLA will be unveiled tonight:

    http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/31/11...er-line-photos
    Last edited by moahunter; 31-03-2016 at 02:38 PM.

  65. #65

    Default

    Huge lines are forming around the world to order a Tesla Model 3, sight unseen




    New $35,000 US Tesla 3 model hits showroom today!



    Riots break out at Tesla showrooms when customers see the new model for the first time.
    Full story
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  66. #66
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    Not sure if I like the AIR car better than the Tesla 3 though. The AIR has a degree of cool and cute, the Tesla 3 is quite a bit more average

    http://jalopnik.com/tesla-model-3-this-is-it-1768284734

  67. #67

    Default

    Seems that if the could create air cars with larger, quick-connect canisters, one could do say two minute 'refuel' stops along some major distances.

    For very short urban commutes, the air car seems like the ultimate clean car if it could be charged with 'clean' electricity compressors. Maybe if it was used to spinup a flywheel...

    So could flybrids compete with battery hybrids? Rob Thring of Loughborough University's department of aeronautical and automotive engineering wonders if that's a fair question. "Flywheels are a good way of storing energy. But as for comparing them to batteries – it's like comparing petrol and diesel. Both have merit," he says. "Flywheels' have a lower energy density compared to batteries, but their power density is higher."

    Meaning flywheels can release stored energy far more quickly than batteries. So despite the fact that they can't store as much energy for the same weight, they might actually be great for city-centre driving, characterised by short distances and endless stop-starts.
    ...
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/...hybrid-flybrid
    Last edited by KC; 03-04-2016 at 12:35 PM.

  68. #68

    Default

    I am starting to see dangerous parallels between Tesla's attempt to go mainstream and the fall of Blackberry. While like any failure story, the story of Blackberry is full of small, incremental failures building up to the point of no return, some (like the authors of the book, "Losing the Signal") believe the start of their fall was the launch of BlackBerry Storm. Basically, the market pressure to remain innovative in the face of increasing pressure from rivals, forces companies to loosen their quality control standards. Like Tesla, BlackBerry was also famous for top notch quality of its earlier handsets. Product life cycles (design to arrival to market) shrink, while volumes need to grow to grab market share. And things start to spiral downwards. Let's see where Tesla ends up going.

    Wall Street Journal, 19-Apr.-2016
    Quality Woes a Challenge for Tesla’s High-Volume Car

    Anne Carter had her Tesla Motors Inc. Model X sport-utility vehicle for a few days before the $138,000 electric vehicle suffered a mechanical malfunction.

    On a recent morning, the car’s falcon-wing doors wouldn’t open as she prepared to drive her children’s carpool to school. “It’s a bummer; you spent all this money…and the doors won’t open,” she said in an interview while waiting for the Model X to be picked up for repairs. She expected some issues, but feels embarrassed that friends might think: “Look at the Carters—they spent all this money and the doors don’t work.”]

  69. #69

    Default

    ^they have been getting a lot of bad press on quality. Its surprising, because in theory, with electric motors, it should be more reliable, you remove so many moving parts. I suppose they are having to learn a lot of simple things that automakers like GM, Ford, Toyota, etc., with respect to chassis, suspension, electrics (I guess they aren't as bad as the British used to be yet), and interior fittings, learned a long time ago. That door one is like the Delorean story, with people having stuck gull wing doors.
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-04-2016 at 12:40 PM.

  70. #70
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,334

    Default

    There has to be a huge amount of institutional knowledge in the major car manufacturers that will be hard, but not impossible, to catch up on. It's also possible that some of that institutional knowledge should not be learned as it's stuff that is holding vehicles back.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  71. #71

    Default

    ^lots of little things, reminds me of my dad's old 1970s ford falcon that was built in Australia. Or my old 1970's Hilman Avenger (built in UK) - have a look at this:

    https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/atta...-2-pdf.168870/

    It wouldnt surprise me if there are leaks and rattles all over after a few years.

    A bit like a Hyundai, they have sorted out the initial quality, but they still age badly. At least the model three should be a lot simpler, but they need to get these details better done.
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-04-2016 at 01:07 PM.

  72. #72
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,334

    Default

    Makes me curious to see how Apple does with theirs although they appear to be taking their time on it. Rumour is it won't see the light of day until at least 2020.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  73. #73

    Default

    ^I don't understand the Apple rumors at all / I'm a bit doubtful of them. I could see Apple doing autonomous driving software (like Google is), but an auto is IMO a step way too far. Its like how they never produced a television, it made more sense just to have the apple TV dongle. If they did do a car, it would be logical to team up with an auto maker (google "seems" to be teamed up with Lexus, re the test vehicles they are using).

  74. #74

    Default

    well, my theory as posted is, Tesla is trying to rush their products to market exactly because they fear what Apple did to BlackBerry (ironically enough, but also Google, and other traditional auto players) might happen to them too. So it is not just "knowledge" of industry (as their previous vehicles got shining scores, at least initially), it is loosening engineering process and quality control processes.

  75. #75

    Default

    Ford Motor Co. paid $199,950 -- $55,000 more than the sticker price -- to buy one of the first sport utility vehicles made by Tesla Motors Inc. so it could test and examine the electric SUV.
    One Ford executive spotted driving the company’s white Model X was David Woodhouse, chief designer of the automaker’s Lincoln luxury line, according to a person who saw him. Woodhouse oversaw the creation of the Lincoln Navigator concept SUV that debuted at the New York Auto Show last month. Like the Model X, the Navigator concept featured gull-wing doors, though Ford said that feature won’t be on the production version of the SUV. Ford declined to confirm who is driving the car.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...th-model-x-suv

    Saw this & thought it was relevant to the discussion.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  76. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^lots of little things, reminds me of my dad's old 1970s ford falcon that was built in Australia. Or my old 1970's Hilman Avenger (built in UK) - have a look at this:

    https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/atta...-2-pdf.168870/

    It wouldnt surprise me if there are leaks and rattles all over after a few years.

    A bit like a Hyundai, they have sorted out the initial quality, but they still age badly. At least the model three should be a lot simpler, but they need to get these details better done.
    From the Ford-buying-a-Tesla article I linked

    We are committed to making the world’s most reliable cars,” said Tesla in a statement Tuesday. “While we have seen some issues with early Model X builds, the issues are not widespread, and we are working closely with each owner to respond quickly and proactively to address any problems. We will continue to do so until each customer is fully satisfied. This commitment is one of the reasons why 98 percent of our customers say they will buy another Tesla as their next car.”
    They're taking a good page outta the Apple book: while they may face difficulties in integrating new ideas, manufacturing & technology into a perfect package, excellent post-sales customer service & follow through goes a long, long way.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  77. #77

    Default

    ^there were story's a while back that BMW purchased a model S and were shocked by how good it was performance wise.

  78. #78

    Default

    I am not surprised other auto manufacturers buy their rivals' cars to learn their tricks as well as shortcomings. I am not rooting for Tesla's fall, but pointing out that the paths looks similar to BlackBerry's down fall. From the WSJ article I posted:

    Tesla aims to build 500,000 vehicles a year by 2020, most of which will be the Model 3, a sedan intended to compete with mass-market brands like Chevrolet.
    This sort of jump from niche to mass market stretches company resources and make them vulnerable to rash decision making.

  79. #79
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,804

    Default

    The made some pretty rash decisions with the design of the Model X, and Musk has admitted as such. It'll be interesting to see if they can scale up production as fast as they project. The pre-sales success of the Model 3 may well be a double edged sword.

  80. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    This sort of jump from niche to mass market stretches company resources and make them vulnerable to rash decision making.
    What rash decisions? They're producing automobiles in a factory that's currently underutilized.

    The Gigafactory is already in battery production while it's still under construction, thereby reducing & eventually removing one of the primary choke points in their production. Eventually they'll produce as many Li-ion batteries as the rest of the world combined.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  81. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    The made some pretty rash decisions with the design of the Model X, and Musk has admitted as such. It'll be interesting to see if they can scale up production as fast as they project. The pre-sales success of the Model 3 may well be a double edged sword.
    A rash decision is one made too fast. I agree they've made some dubious choices with the Model X design under the banner of innovation, but I'd not really categorize them as rash, per se.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  82. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    This sort of jump from niche to mass market stretches company resources and make them vulnerable to rash decision making.
    What rash decisions? They're producing automobiles in a factory that's currently underutilized. d.
    Going ahead with the door design of the X was a foolish / rash decision. There is a long history of these types of doors failing, the mechanical tolerances to keep them working effectively after mass production, just don't seem to be there. At least the Model 3 looks a lot simpler / more sensible.

  83. #83
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,804

    Default

    heh, I'm not going to debate the definition of "rash decision". In any case, the "falcon wing" doors on the Model X were a pretty big mistake.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla...-x-door-2016-1

    And actually, looks like they had to completely re-design the doors with electric motors instead of hydraulics only 4 months before the vehicles' launch, dropping the original supplier contracted to design and supply them. I'd say that's pretty rash, by any definition.

  84. #84

    Default

    It's a dubious design choice, sure. But considering they spent YEARS on them, they're not a rash decision.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  85. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    heh, I'm not going to debate the definition of "rash decision". In any case, the "falcon wing" doors on the Model X were a pretty big mistake.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla...-x-door-2016-1

    And actually, looks like they had to completely re-design the doors with electric motors instead of hydraulics only 4 months before the vehicles' launch, dropping the original supplier contracted to design and supply them. I'd say that's pretty rash, by any definition.
    Hey, you keep on using rash however you want. Free country & language is fluid.

    Changing out OEMs at the 11th hour is hardly damning. I mean, the switch from polycarbonate to glass screens on the iPhone was done after the unveiling & before the public release date, at the 11th hour.

    Sometimes things don't work out as expected, so you need to change things up. I think it's a point in their favour that they re-engineered & switched suppliers rather than try and beat the dead horse & get the original supplier into shape.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  86. #86
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I don't understand the Apple rumors at all / I'm a bit doubtful of them. I could see Apple doing autonomous driving software (like Google is), but an auto is IMO a step way too far. Its like how they never produced a television, it made more sense just to have the apple TV dongle. If they did do a car, it would be logical to team up with an auto maker (google "seems" to be teamed up with Lexus, re the test vehicles they are using).
    They're definitely working on one. Between the hiring of a lot of car related technical talent and the permits they've had to get for the buildings in Sunnyvale they're apparently using it's pretty much an open secret.

    The details, on the other hand, are murky. It's not clear whether they're aiming for full autonomous or something else.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  87. #87
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Hey, you keep on using rash however you want. Free country & language is fluid.
    Fine, I will debate the definition of rash!

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rash

    marked by or proceeding from undue haste or lack of deliberation or caution
    Bolding mine. And in Musk's own words: http://www.techinsider.io/elon-musk-model-x-2016-2

    The mistake we made with the Model X, which I really think we have taken to heart at Tesla, is that we put too many new features and technologies, too many great things all at once into a product. In retrospect, it would have been a better decision to do fewer things with the first version of the Model X and then roll in capabilities, and features, and new technologies over time, in subsequent years," Musk said. "So I do think there is some hubris there with the X.
    Maybe "rash decision" isn't the best or most appropriate phrase, but it works well enough.

  88. #88

    Default

    Demand for Tesla, Model 3 is strong, let's see where this goes.

    https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/the...ent-mainstream

  89. #89

    Default

    Scientists accidentally make batteries that last a lifetime
    http://www.theweathernetwork.com/new...ifetime/66934/

    Monday, April 25, 2016, 4:37 PM - California-based researchers have developed a nanowire-based battery material that can be charged hundreds of thousands of times. This could eventually lead to commercial batteries for computers, smartphones, appliances, cars and spacecraft that may never need replacing.

    A typical lithium-ion battery has a lifespan between 300 and 500 discharge/charge cycles for commercial products, according to manufacturers.

    After that, the filaments eventually grow brittle and crack.

    But by coating gold nanowires in a manganese dioxide shell and encasing it in a gel, researchers at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) have managed to make batteries last far longer.

    A coated electrode was tested up to 200,000 times over three months without losing any of its capacity or power. For perspective, charging a battery once a day, 200,000 times, equates to about 547 years of use.

    The environmental impact of the technology, if massed produced, could be significant.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  90. #90
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,334

    Default

    New battery tech breakthroughs in the lab are announced every few weeks. Most end up with some fatal flaw that keeps them from mass production. :/

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  91. #91

    Default

    ^Agreed, its cool and I hope it works, but I must have a read a dozen or more articles about a revolutionary battery created in a lab over the last decade or so. Most of the breakthroughs simply aren't economic to ever go into production.

  92. #92
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  93. #93

    Default

    ^a few problems with that:

    1. hydrogen doesn't have to be made with electrolysis. It can be taken from natural gas for example, and there might be bio-means to make it in future.
    2. it ignores that electric is totally unpractical for tractor trailers (whereas hydrogen fuel cells could scale up to)
    3. fuel cell vehicles can have re-gen breaking too (most also now have a back-up battery, like a gasoline hybrid)
    4. it ignores all the other downsides of electric - like how long to charge. 30 minutes might not sound like much, but its a lot more than 4 to 5 minutes at a pump. There are already all sorts of stories about people having rage issues at Tesla recharge stations as someone drops off their car and goes for a walk.
    5. The idea of hydrogen economy is eventually power plants could be built for electrolysis - e.g. a fusion plant, basically providing limitless fuel. Until that's realized, other sources can be used, at least any pollution is kept out of cities. It also has potential in the future to just be produced by solar right at the fueling station, or even in the home:

    http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/SolarHydrogenStation/



    The way I think about it, is that fuel cell and electric vehicles are essentially the same, its just, hydrogen vehicles replace the battery with hydrogen as the storage means. Hydrogen is a lot simpler to swap out than a battery is, hence, it can charge much faster.
    Last edited by moahunter; 28-04-2016 at 12:50 PM.

  94. #94

    Default

    1) Natural gas hydrogen is even MORE energy intensive than taking it from water. Please also provide an example of how we'll make hydrogen biologically at economic scale.

    2) Red herring & completely factually inaccurate. Tractor trailers run on diesel due to the higher energy density vs gasoline & you'd like them to go backwards, fast. Liquid hydrogen has less than 1/4 the energy density of liquid diesel & less than 1/25th the energy density as a gas at 5000 psi. Completely impractical for tractor trailers.

    3) A hybrid hydrogen car inherits all the problems of both a conventional hybrid & a hydrogen car while gaining nothing. Any advantages obtained by regenerative braking & similar tech backported from a pure electric vehicle won't be as significant as they would be thanks to compromised implementations. Also note: the same efficiency rating is used for both vehicles, fuel cell & pure electric in the chart.

    4) Refuelling time is the one advantage of the hydrogen car, at the cost of 200% efficiency, as noted in the article.

    5) Making hydrogen is less efficient than charging batteries, no matter whether it's scifi woowooo fusion or dirty, dirty coal. Any off-grid electrolysis or whatever else would be more efficient if they charged batteries. Plugging the Enterprise's warp core into a battery charger would still be more efficient than plugging it into a hydrogen making-machine.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  95. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    1) Natural gas hydrogen is even MORE energy intensive than taking it from water. Please also provide an example of how we'll make hydrogen biologically at economic scale.
    Its being researched right now: (wouldn't this be cool, if a small percentage of our current farm production provided our transport fuel?)

    It would take about 25,000 square kilometres to be sufficient to displace gasoline use in the US. To put this in perspective, this area represents approximately 10% of the area devoted to growing soya in the US
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biolog...uction_(algae)

    And other research:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biohydrogen

    2) Red herring & completely factually inaccurate. Tractor trailers run on diesel due to the higher energy density vs gasoline & you'd like them to go backwards, fast. Liquid hydrogen has less than 1/4 the energy density of liquid diesel & less than 1/25th the energy density as a gas at 5000 psi. Completely impractical for tractor trailers.
    Source? Looks practical to me, and clean air for cities/roadside:


    http://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/wp-c...cell-truck.jpg

    3) A hybrid hydrogen car inherits all the problems of both a conventional hybrid & a hydrogen car while gaining nothing. Any advantages obtained by regenerative braking & similar tech backported from a pure electric vehicle won't be as significant as they would be thanks to compromised implementations. Also note: the same efficiency rating is used for both vehicles, fuel cell & pure electric in the chart.
    It gains zero pollution in the city (unlike diesel or gasoline), and the potential to charge at home (just like electric).

    4) Refuelling time is the one advantage of the hydrogen car, at the cost of 200% efficiency, as noted in the article.
    I think both technologies might have a place. If you only use your auto as a commuter, or as a sports car toy, electric is logical. But for people using them all day long, or doing long road trips, or you have a pick up truck and do heavy loads, half an hour charge times just aren't practical versus a quick fill of hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel cells also work much better in cold climates (no degradation, unlike batteries, I know my hybrid used to get pretty bad performance in winter in Alberta).

    5) Making hydrogen is less efficient than charging batteries, no matter whether it's scifi woowooo fusion or dirty, dirty coal. Any off-grid electrolysis or whatever else would be more efficient if they charged batteries. Plugging the Enterprise's warp core into a battery charger would still be more efficient than plugging it into a hydrogen making-machine.
    The solar hydrogen is real today. Hydro is real. Hydrogen is a fuel of the future, just like electric is, I think both have a role to play. But given Toyota and Honda are leading the charge on fuel cells, I wouldn't bet against them, given their history of giving us hybrids. Electric alone won't get us to a completely clean air transport society, but electric and fuel cells will (well, maybe not airplanes).

    But — and this will be a big “but” if we ever do manage to rid ourselves completely of the internal combustion engine — an FCV needs only three minutes at the pump. EVs, even Tesla’s vaunted Model S, require 20 or 30 minutes; that means an electric refueling station may require eight to 10 times more superchargers to service the same amount of traffic. Do the math again and, if you’re looking at the cost of a superhighway refueling station, the fuel cell looks like a viable alternative.

    As for running costs, experts estimate that 500 km of hydrogen-fueled motoring will cost about US$30, about the same — at current prices — as the same trip in a gasoline-fueled subcompact. That is still, as Tesla owners loudly proclaim, more than the $10 of electricity a modern EV requires for the same trip. More importantly, it’s probable that electricity will always be cheaper than hydrogen. Indeed, in the long run, I suspect the battle between battery- and fuel cell-powered vehicles may come down to a simple case of efficiency (EVs) versus convenience (FCVs).

    Whatever the obstacles to a hydrogen-fueled future, however, it’s impossible to discount the impact of Toyota’s commitment. With apologies to Hyundai, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz and others that have all, either past or present, dabbled in hydrogen, this is the company that literally invented the green-car market. Toyota’s success in promoting environmentally friendly motoring is simply staggering. Of the nine million hybrids that have been sold since the Prius first hit the market in 1997, more than eight million were built by Toyota, the Prius alone outselling all other EVs, hybrids and plug-ins combined by a factor of three to one. So, when Toyota says it will sell 30,000 hydrogen-powered cars a year by 2020, it’s time the entire automotive industry started taking hydrogen seriously.

    In 1997, naysayers scoffed — as Mr. Musk and others do today — at Toyota’s ambitious plans for its then-revolutionary gas-electric hybrid. Three and a half million Priuses later, no one’s scoffing.
    http://driving.ca/toyota/mirai/auto-...more-efficient
    Last edited by moahunter; 28-04-2016 at 02:03 PM.

  96. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    Demand for Tesla, Model 3 is strong, let's see where this goes.

    https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/the...ent-mainstream
    The strong demand for Model 3 has energized Elon Musk to go, kinda, all-or-bust. Even as he admits production challenges (Model X delivery was roughly 15K in Q1, and estimated by Tesla to only reach 17K in Q2, against 80K-90K production target for this year) he cut the 500,000 target production deadline from 2020 to 2018! As Financial Times put it, this is either the iPhone moment for electric cars or Tesla can go broke.

    Financial Times, 5-May-2016
    Tesla looks to its defining iPhone moment

    ...If all those pre-orders turn into sales (a big “if”, since the deposits are refundable) Tesla will bank $14bn in revenues. As the company has already taken to boasting, that will make the debut of its new Model 3 the biggest consumer product launch of all time. Even the iPhone did not get to that kind of scale until its third full year of sales.

    Based on this, Mr Musk has decided to go for broke. Tesla’s goal of hitting a production target of 500,000 by 2020 — nearly 10 times its 2015 deliveries — always looked a stretch. Now he plans to hit that output by 2018. And his new 2020 target? A cool 1m. At $35,000, but with the sizzle of the Tesla brand and incorporating many of the features of the far more expensive Model S, Mr Musk has decided the Model 3 represents a breakthrough moment....

  97. #97

    Default Rust already?

    DETROIT -- Electric car maker Tesla Motors is denying allegations that there are safety problems with its vehicle suspensions.

    The Palo Alto, California, company says one of its cars had an abnormal amount of rust on a suspension part, a problem it hasn't seen in any other car.

    On Thursday, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it asked for information from owners and Tesla about Model S suspension failures. The agency has not opened a formal investigation.

    Tesla said in a statement Friday that the Model S with the rust had over 70,000 miles on it and was caked in dirt when picked up for service. The company says it has given the agency all relevant information.
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/tesla-de...ions-1.2940245

    My current auto (ford explorer) is a 2014 that has done 140,000km/s, there is no rust. I haven't had suspension rust ever on much older and higher mileage vehicles in the past (including Ford Tarus, Buick Le Saber, etc.). Hopefully just an anomaly for Tesla re this vehicle, but a little concerning I think, especially if Tesla have covered up / not done a recall on:

    Where Tesla crosses the line here is not the “crime” itself, but the coverup. If Tesla used a TSB rather than a recall to fix a safety problem, if it has an institutional bias against ordering recalls and if it uses NDAs as a matter of course to prevent owners from reporting defects, this could become the biggest auto safety scandal since the GM ignition switch affair. That’s a lot of “ifs,” but thus far the evidence indicates that these are very real possibilities. Watch this space for further developments in this troubling story.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...spension-issue
    Last edited by moahunter; 10-06-2016 at 12:35 PM.

  98. #98
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,804

    Default

    140,000km/s
    Wow, that's one fast Explorer! Just under half of the speed of light.

  99. #99

    Default

    ^lol, space explorer.

  100. #100

    Default

    The more autos Tesla makes, the more money it loses:

    http://www.latimes.com/business/auto...nap-story.html

    Tesla Motors Inc. posted a second-quarter loss of $293.2 million Wednesday, a shortfall that was far worse than Wall Street expected.

    The loss, despite a 33% jump in revenue to $1.27 billion, came as the electric-car maker led by billionaire Elon Musk is ramping up production of its Model X sport utility vehicle and making plans for its Model 3 mass-market sedan.
    Interesting article comparing Mirai and Tesla:

    http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/07/...ve-comparison/

    Our 21st century is at a disruptive technology crossroads. We’re still buying 20th-century technology at our car dealerships. But this technology is reaching the end of its sustainability due to Middle Eastern wars and global warming. The great news is that automakers like Tesla and Toyota have solutions. We only have to buy them.

    One of the reasons we are not buying these solutions is because most of us cannot take the risk of betting on the wrong technology. We were here before in the 20th century, where we had to choose Betamax or VHS. In the end, neither were the solution. It was the cloud, digital streaming, smartphones, Netflix and, now, Pokémon Go.

    That is where car technologies are today. The Tesla Model S and Toyota Maria are cool cars. But they will be history soon as the next generation of disruptive technologies gain economies of scale. For example, the all-electric Tesla Model 3 and Chevrolet Bolt have 2017 delivery dates. Both offer more affordable $35,000 prices (before incentives) plus a 200-mile driving range between recharging.
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-08-2016 at 04:37 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •