TSLA - Tesla Motors

[Liberty]

Seems rational to me to buy a vehicle suited to peak needs.  Perhaps people overestimate their peak needs or how often they'll hit that peak, but makes total sense to buy something that meets actual peak needs.

 

I don't care if I convince anybody, but thought I'd expand on my statement quoted above.

 

It often makes sense to build or buy something to meet peak rather than usual usage.  In some cases it is obvious.  Who wants to drive across a bridge designed to hold an average load, instead of a peak rush-hour load.  The electrical grid needs to be designed to handle a peak load on the hottest dozen days of summer, not just an average load.

 

Same can be true of purchases.  I have a guest bedroom in my house.  It is useful for the "peak" 20-30 days a year we have people staying there, even if it is not needed most of the time.  There are convenience and other benefits in addition to the economics of simply not needing a hotel room for guests.

 

Turning to a vehicle, seems to make sense to me to buy something that meets peak needs.  Someone may usually only drive 15 miles at 45 mph with no passengers, but weekly or monthly drive longer ranges with 6 in the car.

 

Someone may use a vehicle during the week only for commuting and not need any particular range, hauling or truckbed for those times, but have more demanding monthly uses.  Most will choose a vehicle that meets those monthly "peak needs."  Might be ok to ask a friend to borrow their truck or to rent a vehicle every once in a while, but I wouldn't want to do that monthly.

 

Certainly, some people may over-estimate their peak needs.  Some people may also buy for some type of extreme peak need that doesn't occur often enough to be considered.

 

However, I think the idea of buying a vehicle that meets peak needs rather than usual or typical usage makes a lot of rational sense.  Would it be rational to buy a bus because I might sometime want to haul 20 people?  No.  Would it be rational to buy a minivan because I occasionally but regularly take road trips with 6?  Seems rational to me.

 

We're probably agreeing, just not thinking of the frequency and magnitude of the peaks the same way.

 

Most people will buy for imaginary peaks, or peaks so rare that they might as well be. I'm not talking about weekend or monthly needs, but stuff that happens once a year or once every few years, and sometimes never. For more frequent peaks, yeah, it can make sense.

[Kaegi2011]

I'm a car guy and love wrenching on my cars as a hobby, so from an engineering perspective I think it's not all that difficult to have standardized bays for battery packs, etc.

 

Do you know how big the batteries are in an EV like a Tesla, and how important it is for that battery to be well protected from impacts? This isn't like changing the 12v lead-acid in a gasoline car. This is taking apart a major part of the mass of the vehicle that happens to contain a lot of potential energy and is connected via high-current cables that need to be disconnected and reconnected flawlessly every time, as well as all the shielding that comes with the underside of the battery.

 

Yes I do.  The difficulty is from convincing a whole group of people with potentially divergent interests to converge on one standard.  Look at how long it's taken lap top manufacturers to go to a standard charging cable.  But that's a business issue and not an engineering issue.  Go take a look at the differences in car dimensions for a class of cars and you'll come to the conclusion that they are largely the same per class (e.g., Model 3 vs. C class vs. 3 Series vs. A4s vs. Genesis vs. Lexus ES vs. Camry vs. Accord vs. Sonata and so forth).  You probably already know that most large car groups already share platforms across models / brands, and this is just an extension of that.  So I'm not dismissing your point.  It's a valid one, but not nearly as difficult as you might think if the stakeholders truly were aligned in making it happen. 

 

BTW - most of the issues you raised are just as valid for a single car (reconnection, shielding, etc.), and yet Musk thought that it warranted enough resources to invest some money behind it for the Model S, so I think that speaks to the fact that it's not an engineering problem as much as an alignment of incentive one. 

[Liberty]

I'm a car guy and love wrenching on my cars as a hobby, so from an engineering perspective I think it's not all that difficult to have standardized bays for battery packs, etc.

 

Do you know how big the batteries are in an EV like a Tesla, and how important it is for that battery to be well protected from impacts? This isn't like changing the 12v lead-acid in a gasoline car. This is taking apart a major part of the mass of the vehicle that happens to contain a lot of potential energy and is connected via high-current cables that need to be disconnected and reconnected flawlessly every time, as well as all the shielding that comes with the underside of the battery.

 

Yes I do.  The difficulty is from convincing a whole group of people with potentially divergent interests to converge on one standard.  Look at how long it's taken lap top manufacturers to go to a standard charging cable.  But that's a business issue and not an engineering issue.  Go take a look at the differences in car dimensions for a class of cars and you'll come to the conclusion that they are largely the same per class (e.g., Model 3 vs. C class vs. 3 Series vs. A4s vs. Genesis vs. Lexus ES vs. Camry vs. Accord vs. Sonata and so forth).  You probably already know that most large car groups already share platforms across models / brands, and this is just an extension of that.  So I'm not dismissing your point.  It's a valid one, but not nearly as difficult as you might think if the stakeholders truly were aligned in making it happen. 

 

BTW - most of the issues you raised are just as valid for a single car (reconnection, shielding, etc.), and yet Musk thought that it warranted enough resources to invest some money behind it for the Model S, so I think that speaks to the fact that it's not an engineering problem as much as an alignment of incentive one.

 

I'm not saying it couldn't be done. I'm saying there's no reason to do it when there's a much better and easier alternative, which is fast charging.

[Castanza]

I'm a car guy and love wrenching on my cars as a hobby, so from an engineering perspective I think it's not all that difficult to have standardized bays for battery packs, etc.

 

Do you know how big the batteries are in an EV like a Tesla, and how important it is for that battery to be well protected from impacts? This isn't like changing the 12v lead-acid in a gasoline car. This is taking apart a major part of the mass of the vehicle that happens to contain a lot of potential energy and is connected via high-current cables that need to be disconnected and reconnected flawlessly every time, as well as all the shielding that comes with the underside of the battery.

 

Yes I do.  The difficulty is from convincing a whole group of people with potentially divergent interests to converge on one standard.  Look at how long it's taken lap top manufacturers to go to a standard charging cable.  But that's a business issue and not an engineering issue.  Go take a look at the differences in car dimensions for a class of cars and you'll come to the conclusion that they are largely the same per class (e.g., Model 3 vs. C class vs. 3 Series vs. A4s vs. Genesis vs. Lexus ES vs. Camry vs. Accord vs. Sonata and so forth).  You probably already know that most large car groups already share platforms across models / brands, and this is just an extension of that.  So I'm not dismissing your point.  It's a valid one, but not nearly as difficult as you might think if the stakeholders truly were aligned in making it happen. 

 

BTW - most of the issues you raised are just as valid for a single car (reconnection, shielding, etc.), and yet Musk thought that it warranted enough resources to invest some money behind it for the Model S, so I think that speaks to the fact that it's not an engineering problem as much as an alignment of incentive one.

 

I'm not saying it couldn't be done. I'm saying there's no reason to do it when there's a much better and easier alternative, which is fast charging.

 

Yeah I've got to agree. By the time you change out a battery (current style) you could have probably charged your vehicle.

 

The logistics of this seems less certain. Trying to get sites which maintain enough batteries in stock to charge (think remote areas) would be a nightmare. Or maybe you arrive and there is a battery but it is only a few % charged. Also who would maintain these? Sounds like an expensive thing to do vs maintaining a charging station. It would require all types of tools (lifts, garages) employees, upfront costs. Who would be responsible for the cost of these batteries if something were to go wrong?

 

I think there was some scooter company that tried something above (perhaps what other mentioned above) and there were issues with the supply/demand and availability aspect of it. Not to mention Tesla would have to be completely re-engineered to have a more efficient swap out method. Although a bit more complicated...think about when Toyota had the Tacoma frame recall on their 2nd generation trucks. They setup their service centers to somehow rack a truck, disconnect all the parts (engine, brake lines, axles, etc) so they could swap out the frame. Each center was only able to do a handful a day at max efficiency. Even if swapping a Tesla battery was half as complex it would still be a ridiculous wait.

[Kaegi2011]

 

Yeah I've got to agree. By the time you change out a battery (current style) you could have probably charged your vehicle.

 

Even if swapping a Tesla battery was half as complex it would still be a ridiculous wait.

 

I think you may have missed a link:

 

 

 

[Castanza]

 

Yeah I've got to agree. By the time you change out a battery (current style) you could have probably charged your vehicle.

 

Even if swapping a Tesla battery was half as complex it would still be a ridiculous wait.

 

I think you may have missed a link:

 

 

Nice thanks for pointing that out. It's impressive for sure, but that doesn't address the distribution, supply side. etc. It seems the company would agree seeing as they stopped the swap program "for now." And as Liberty said, I'm not saying it can't be done. Super Charging seems far more effective until Tesla (if) reaches a scale of some magnitude.

[Kaegi2011]

Nice thanks for pointing that out. It's impressive for sure, but that doesn't address the distribution, supply side. etc. It seems the company would agree seeing as they stopped the swap program "for now." And as Liberty said, I'm not saying it can't be done. Super Charging seems far more effective until Tesla (if) reaches a scale of some magnitude.

 

I agree that trying to get others on board is difficult, as there are a lot of constituents who need to work together to get the battery swapping to work at scale. 

 

One thing that would actually inform this discussion is the % of Tesla miles (or more broadly, EV miles) that are charged by Superchargers / charging stations vs. at home.  If I'm Elon, and I see that only 2% of Tesla's recharging is from Superchargers, then quite frankly both Superchargers and battery swaps are more for rare occasions, and the decision would be which is cheaper/faster to build to get most of the benefit of the other.  If the data shows 90% of the recharging is done at Superchargers, I would think differently about the technological path forward b/t charging vs. swapping.  I suspect the data would show a number much closer to the former, but that's just an educated guess with zero data. 

[ERICOPOLY]

I could see swapping work if you were paying a monthly fee for your battery instead of owning your own battery.

 

[Liberty]

There's already an electricity distribution grid that reaches most places. A supercharging station is basically just adding an end point.

 

There's no distribution network for heavy battery packs. It would have to be built up from scratch, and there's always stuff that goes wrong with lots of moving parts and mechanical/robotized processes.

 

It was smart for them to pursue both at first, because if for some reason supercharging hadn't be possible, they still had a way to succeed. But it was just a plan B, and now it's unecessary, as EVs have much longer range than they did in 2013, there's zillion more supercharger and regular fast chargers everywhere on the map, and there's now millions of EV-driven miles proving the theory that supercharging is enough and works. And Supercharging has gotten better over time too, V3 is now really fast compared to what it was when it came out.

 

Case closed, IMO.

[Liberty]

Interesting Model 3 review from someone who actually owned it for 1 year (most reviews are people's first impressions):

 

 

Seems to be pretty fair, contains a good list of pros and cons that aren't all obvious to someone who is more used to regular cars.

[ERICOPOLY]

Longer range batteries would negatively change the competitive landscape for Tesla.  Once batteries reach the point of drive-all-day range, it won't matter what the size of the supercharger network is because nobody buying a new car will worry about ever needing one when driving between point A and point B.  The sooner the battery tech gets better, the sooner the playing field will be leveled for a new entrant.

[Dalal.Holdings]

Longer range batteries would negatively change the competitive landscape for Tesla.  Once batteries reach the point of drive-all-day range, it won't matter what the size of the supercharger network is because nobody buying a new car will worry about ever needing one when driving between point A and point B.  The sooner the battery tech gets better, the sooner the playing field will be leveled for a new entrant.

 

Tesla's moat consists of much more than merely its supercharging network.

[Kaegi2011]

 

Case closed, IMO.

 

I'm not arguing that the alternative is better, just that there are some merits to the swapping idea.  Also, the market has certainly moved in one direction already, so the conclusion is largely written, as I've noted a few times. 

 

Having said that, I was trying to put myself in Tesla's shoes and tried to figure out what data is necessary to determine the path to go if I were to rewind time.  On one hand they could have pursued the path that they have chosen (SC network, etc.).  On the other hand, maybe a viable option would have been to lease the batteries (as Eric suggested a few days ago), lower the price of the car significantly, removing a consumer concern around battery life (it's real.  I own 2 Pri and there are a few apps that specifically test out the cells of used Prius battery packs), putting up battery swapping stations, and securitizing the battery leases since battery life is somewhat predictable.  I think this potentially speeds up adoption rate since the biggest complaints about EVs are the charging times and cost, but obvious that path has its own risks. 

 

Again, not trying to have a Betamax / VHS debate.  Just trying to think through how else the market could have developed. 

[JRM]

I apologize for being a luddite and not owning a Tesla, so I have to ask a stupid question.  For the people who own a Tesla, who gets the full range as advertised? 

 

Is it possible other automakers advertise a more realistic range to avoid false advertising lawsuits that Tesla may be immune to?  Is it possible that Panasonic batteries are basically a commodity at this point?

[Dalal.Holdings]

I apologize for being a luddite and not owning a Tesla, so I have to ask a stupid question.  For the people who own a Tesla, who gets the full range as advertised? 

 

Is it possible other automakers advertise a more realistic range to avoid false advertising lawsuits that Tesla may be immune to?  Is it possible that Panasonic batteries are basically a commodity at this point?

 

At least you own up to not knowing instead of forming uninformed opinions.

 

Published EPA ranges are what you should be looking at, the automaker does not get to “set it”. Hilariously, the non-Tesla guys are not exactly conservative: Porsche/VW were initially coming out as if they’d be in the mid 200s or more, but then the official Taycan EPA range came out at 192 miles...all for a low six figure price tag.

 

Surprising because we all know VW is very skilled at acing regulatory testing, esp when it comes to emissions.

 

Re: batteries being commodities—Munro showed that Tesla’s organization of hardware confers many advantages over peers. It would be like saying silicon is commoditized so an iPhone has no competitive advantage over competitors.

 

Thought experiment: if EVs were so commoditized, why is the Taycan range so pathetic? Why has Tesla not yet been disrupted? Serious questions for you deep thinkers out there.

[Castanza]

I apologize for being a luddite and not owning a Tesla, so I have to ask a stupid question.  For the people who own a Tesla, who gets the full range as advertised? 

 

Is it possible other automakers advertise a more realistic range to avoid false advertising lawsuits that Tesla may be immune to?  Is it possible that Panasonic batteries are basically a commodity at this point?

 

At least you own up to not knowing instead of forming uninformed opinions.

 

Published EPA ranges are what you should be looking at, the automaker does not get to “set it”. Hilariously, the non-Tesla guys are not exactly conservative: Porsche/VW were initially coming out as if they’d be in the mid 200s or more, but then the official Taycan EPA range came out at 192 miles...all for a low six figure price tag.

 

Surprising because we all know VW is very skilled at acing regulatory tests, esp emissions.

 

Re: batteries being commodities—Munro showed that Tesla’s organization of hardware confers many advantages over peers. It would be like saying silicon is commoditized so an iPhone has no competitive advantage over competitors.

 

Thought experiment: if EVs were so commoditized, why is the Taycan range so pathetic? Why has Tesla not yet been disrupted? Serious questions for you deep thinkers out there.

 

Can anyone speak to what gives Tesla such an advantage in range (from an engineering perspective)? Electric engines are quite simple if I'm not mistaken. Can battery tech be that different among the competition? Must be in the software?

[rkbabang]

I apologize for being a luddite and not owning a Tesla, so I have to ask a stupid question.  For the people who own a Tesla, who gets the full range as advertised? 

 

Is it possible other automakers advertise a more realistic range to avoid false advertising lawsuits that Tesla may be immune to?  Is it possible that Panasonic batteries are basically a commodity at this point?

 

At least you own up to not knowing instead of forming uninformed opinions.

 

Published EPA ranges are what you should be looking at, the automaker does not get to “set it”. Hilariously, the non-Tesla guys are not exactly conservative: Porsche/VW were initially coming out as if they’d be in the mid 200s or more, but then the official Taycan EPA range came out at 192 miles...all for a low six figure price tag.

 

Surprising because we all know VW is very skilled at acing regulatory tests, esp emissions.

 

Re: batteries being commodities—Munro showed that Tesla’s organization of hardware confers many advantages over peers. It would be like saying silicon is commoditized so an iPhone has no competitive advantage over competitors.

 

Thought experiment: if EVs were so commoditized, why is the Taycan range so pathetic? Why has Tesla not yet been disrupted? Serious questions for you deep thinkers out there.

 

Can anyone speak to what gives Tesla such an advantage in range (from an engineering perspective)? Electric engines are quite simple if I'm not mistaken. Can battery tech be that different among the competition? Must be in the software?

 

A lot of things go into it.  The motors are similar, in fact Tesla I believe still uses induction motors which are less efficient than the permanent magnet motors that Porsche uses, so the rest of the factors must make up this shortfall and then some.  The other factors are the weight of the battery pack, the software controlling the battery pack (charging/cooling/etc), the inverter and the software controlling the inverter which transforms the DC from the battery to AC that the motors require.  The entire weight of the vehicles.  The cars' body design (aerodynamics/drag).  And a probably other factors that I am not thinking of.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

I apologize for being a luddite and not owning a Tesla, so I have to ask a stupid question.  For the people who own a Tesla, who gets the full range as advertised? 

 

Is it possible other automakers advertise a more realistic range to avoid false advertising lawsuits that Tesla may be immune to?  Is it possible that Panasonic batteries are basically a commodity at this point?

 

First off, Tesla says that you will shorten the battery life if you regularly charge the battery beyond 90% or discharge it below 10%.  So you can use the full advertised range for the infrequent trip, but you'd better rely on 80% of published range most of the time in your daily use.

 

Otherwise, the range is realistic if you drive in a certain manner, and in weather that is not too cold:

 

1. Don't speed on the freeway

2. Allow regenerative braking to do it's thing, instead of preempting it with the brake pedal

3. Turn off the climate control and heated seats

 

Cold weather reduces battery performance, and obviously headwind/tailwind is a factor, and altitude change is a factor.  I've found the range is pretty accurate in mild weather and where I measure the range after returning to the starting point of the trip.

[gary17]

is Tesla the only car that offers internet ?

[Castanza]

is Tesla the only car that offers internet ?

 

GM has been offering 4G data plans for awhile. I believe the service is At&T.

[rkbabang]

Can anyone speak to what gives Tesla such an advantage in range (from an engineering perspective)? Electric engines are quite simple if I'm not mistaken. Can battery tech be that different among the competition? Must be in the software?

A lot of things go into it.  The motors are similar, in fact Tesla I believe still uses induction motors which are less efficient than the permanent magnet motors that Porsche uses, so the rest of the factors must make up this shortfall and then some.  The other factors are the weight of the battery pack, the software controlling the battery pack (charging/cooling/etc), the inverter and the software controlling the inverter which transforms the DC from the battery to AC that the motors require.  The entire weight of the vehicles.  The cars' body design (aerodynamics/drag).  And a probably other factors that I am not thinking of.

 

It looks like I wasn't entirely correct about Tesla only using induction motors.

 

from: Tesla Model S vs Porsche Taycan vs Audi e-tron: Range Efficiency

 

"Traction motor and power electronics: In theory, the Porsche should be the most efficient of the bunch, using two hairpin wound permanent-magnet synchronous motors running at 800V. The Porsche also uses a smart 2-speed gearbox at the rear which allows low-speed torque at the wheels to be improved. They also seem to have avoided the use of oil spray cooling in the motor, which has become common in hairpin motors to maximise continuous power; however, it also incurs a parasitic power consumption from the oil system.

 

The Model S Performance has a permanent-magnet synchronous motor in the rear, but an induction-type motor up front running at 375V and the Audi has a pair of AC induction motors sometimes called asynchronous machines running at 396V. AC induction motors can be really efficient but tend to be larger and heavier than the equivalent power/torque PM motor. The PM motors used in the Porsche and also Tesla (and all-round in the Model 3) use a combination of permanent magnets and the magnetic reluctance effect to pack a large magnetic flux density into a small area and give excellent efficiency across a wide range of operating speeds and loads.

 

The Porsche should have the highest efficiency from the PMSM motors as using 800V allows the motor current to be significantly reduced for a given power because of the ohmic losses I2R. The Porsche should be able to use the transmission to shift the motor to keep it operating in its sweet spot and give higher power regen braking at lower speeds. Even if they are not doing that with their transmission control strategy, the 2-speed transmission allows them to use a smaller motor to give a given torque at the wheels for acceleration for less current at the motor while still able to deliver high-speed cruising."

[Liberty]

 

Case closed, IMO.

 

I'm not arguing that the alternative is better, just that there are some merits to the swapping idea.  Also, the market has certainly moved in one direction already, so the conclusion is largely written, as I've noted a few times. 

 

Having said that, I was trying to put myself in Tesla's shoes and tried to figure out what data is necessary to determine the path to go if I were to rewind time.  On one hand they could have pursued the path that they have chosen (SC network, etc.).  On the other hand, maybe a viable option would have been to lease the batteries (as Eric suggested a few days ago), lower the price of the car significantly, removing a consumer concern around battery life (it's real.  I own 2 Pri and there are a few apps that specifically test out the cells of used Prius battery packs), putting up battery swapping stations, and securitizing the battery leases since battery life is somewhat predictable.  I think this potentially speeds up adoption rate since the biggest complaints about EVs are the charging times and cost, but obvious that path has its own risks. 

 

Again, not trying to have a Betamax / VHS debate.  Just trying to think through how else the market could have developed.

 

You don't need battery-swapping at public stations as a way to "charge" to do battery leasing and to be able to swap the battery at a Tesla service station, if that's what they want to do. These can be two separate things.

 

But battery degradation seems to be very low and not really a problem, unless maybe if you use the car as a cab and drive way more than average. But that's not unlike the extra wear and tear on a gasoline car from extra mileage. They've also made improvements in battery longevity over time, so I suspect that newer EVs will have batteries that degrade even less over time.

[Liberty]

Can anyone speak to what gives Tesla such an advantage in range (from an engineering perspective)? Electric engines are quite simple if I'm not mistaken. Can battery tech be that different among the competition? Must be in the software?

 

You have to think about the whole package. Aerodynamics (including the underside of the vehicle, the door handles, etc), weight savings, how the motor(s) are tuned and how the regen is tuned, how software optimizes various things, how non-motor power electronics are optimized for power efficiency, how the thermals of the battery packs are managed to keep them in peak operating conditions for as long as possible, how the tires are tuned for lower rolling resistance, etc.

[Liberty]

I apologize for being a luddite and not owning a Tesla, so I have to ask a stupid question.  For the people who own a Tesla, who gets the full range as advertised? 

 

Is it possible other automakers advertise a more realistic range to avoid false advertising lawsuits that Tesla may be immune to?  Is it possible that Panasonic batteries are basically a commodity at this point?

 

First off, Tesla says that you will shorten the battery life if you regularly charge the battery beyond 90% or discharge it below 10%.  So you can use the full advertised range for the infrequent trip, but you'd better rely on 80% of published range most of the time in your daily use.

 

Otherwise, the range is realistic if you drive in a certain manner, and in weather that is not too cold:

 

1. Don't speed on the freeway

2. Allow regenerative braking to do it's thing, instead of preempting it with the brake pedal

3. Turn off the climate control and heated seats

 

Cold weather reduces battery performance, and obviously headwind/tailwind is a factor, and altitude change is a factor.  I've found the range is pretty accurate in mild weather and where I measure the range after returning to the starting point of the trip.

 

The same thing applies to the fuel economy for ICE vehicles. To get the sticker numbers, you need to drive like they drove in the EPA testing methodology, in similar conditions, and in a car that is in perfect condition. Let's just say that real-world fuel economy varies a lot more than most people think, and a lot of people are getting a lot less range than the sticker number.

[ERICOPOLY]

A big difference to an ICE car is running the heater.  You get the cabin heat in an ICE car as a byproduct, but in a Tesla the cabin heat comes from an electric heater that puts a drain on the battery.