1/1/2015
guest No. Tesla has already stated a target _gross_ margin of 10 to 11% on Model 3. Even with cheaoer batteries, the price can't fall that low, and Power electronics are expensive and in his storge keynote JB Straubel talked prices _forecast_ to _fall_ to $0.10/W, meaning $10k for a 100kW system. With a $10k battery and $10k inverter and other eldctronics, the base price minimum is constrained, so they'll have narrow margins to be able to be price competitive. (Note hat Tesla makes its own power electronics, since its aims require improvements in that area. Power electronics have been ignored in cost discussions, but fortunately we're now at the poi t where battery and panel prices have dropped enough that he electronics are a gorwing perce tage of cost. Prices continue to fall, which means there's still room for system prices to drop and with JB Straubel saying that storage only needs C/2 electronics, it suggests that a 10kW/20kWh system could end up costing $5 - 6k with Gigafactory battery pricing, which would mean adding 1c/W, asuming a conservative 10 year battery life. Given that PV plus storage would then lower grid integration costs dramatically, I am not surprised that JB Straubel says we're not thinking big enough and that Barclays cut ratings on utilities.)�
1/1/2015
guest Tesla has a choice with Gen3 - either sell low quantity and high margin, or high quantity and lower margin. According to Elon (last year I believe at Teslive), Tesla is choosing for high quantity of Gen3 and lower margin. What "lower margin" is unclear although Elon has mentioned that in the long-term they expect to have mid-teen operating margin. In order to have mid-teen operating margin, it's likely they are going to need need gross margin to be somewhere between 25-30%.
So just because Tesla will have more economies of scale later, doesn't mean their gross margin will improve much, if any.
You're assuming that Tesla will translate battery tech improvements into margin improvements, but this isn't necessarily the case. Battery improvements can translate into higher range and higher demand, and not necessarily margin improvements.
Model S/X will likely have high gross margin since they're large premium/luxury cars, so probably 30-35% (maybe even a bit higher than 35%).
However, Gen3 will have a lower gross margin since the competition will be fiercer in the entry level luxury sports sedan market, so expect Gen3 gross margin to be 20-25% to start out (after 1-2 years of production) and then gradually rising over time to 25-30%.
I agree with this. But typically the auto industry is a low margin business. And that's what's appealing to Tesla - they have potentially to have larger margin than their competitors while selling a ton of cars.
But overall I'd caution against the thinking that Tesla's gross margins are always going to go up. Gen3 will place immense downward pressure on gross margin, especially during the first few years of production.
- - - Updated - - -
I think you're confusing gross margin with operating margin.
By 2020, Tesla is projecting mid-20% gross margin and mid-teen EBIT margins.
From http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/05/tesla-motors-inc-tsla-worries-overdone/:
"The analyst noted that by 2018 or 2020 and with higher volumes, Tesla Motors Inc expects to have operating expenditures at around 10% to 11% of sales, with gross margins in the mid-20% range. The automaker is predicting EBIT margins in the mid-teens and earnings per share in the $20 range before receiving any benefits from adjacent businesses not in the auto industry."
- - - Updated - - -
$10k for an inverter in the long-term? I think that's way too much, especially with economies of scale that Gen3 will bring. Also, Gen3 will likely have a battery pack around 50 kWh.�
1/1/2015
guest You can buy hand built 100kW inverters in single quantities right now for $8k, I'm sure Tesla's costs are far lower.�
1/1/2015
guest At the end of his keynote, JB Straubel talked about all the power electronics and said "it'll be sub 10 cents per watt in the not too distant future." He was talking about the grid storage, but I wouldn't expect the Model S, with harsher performance requirements, to be cheaper than the number he gave. Inverter pricing might be like battery pricing, where all is not equal.�
1/1/2015
guest I can't imagine what would be in an inverter that is so expensive. I'd think the most expensive parts would be the IGBTs, which might be around $100-$200 each in bulk, and you'd need 6 of them.�
1/1/2015
guest one be guy presented charts at TMC Connect last weekend. He had 75k miles on Odo and had lost 12% of capacity. He used an accurate method of measuring loss. He did a range charge and then drove down to zero miles. His car only put out 70kwh now and it used to put out 80 kWh. That being the case, he did say he doesn't baby the battery. He does a lot of range charges and drives down to low SOC a lot.�
1/1/2015
guest The only problem with that is we've seen the car's reported capacity can be less than actual capacity, and can sometimes be recovered by leaving the car plugged in for long periods when fully charged. Do you know if he made any attempts to recover the capacity?�
1/1/2015
guest Nice bit of a breakthrough at Stanford looks like. Not saying anything imminent of course, but these are important steps to keep in mind for 2-3 years down the road, painting a strong forward picture for EV and Solar-storage
Phys.Org Mobile: Researchers achieve 'holy grail' of battery design: A stable lithium anode�
1/1/2015
guest I assume you meant to type "85" instead of "80"? Or was he factoring in a estimate of the amount of battery capacity that the firmware keeps "hidden" in reserve?
I also question the accuracy of his current battery capacity measurement of 70kWh. I suspect it's a difficult thing to measure unless you are a Tesla engineer who has access to firmware functions that we as owners do not have access to.�
1/1/2015
guest Assuming the cost of the battery comes down with the gigafactory will Tesla lower the price on say the 2020 Model S or will they include features standard that are currently options to keep the same price point? Or just make a like a 120kWh version the base Model S?�
1/1/2015
guest I wrote an article on Seeking Alpha and I'm having a field day with the comments section.
Why Tesla Stock Is Undervalued, Not Overvalued - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha�
1/1/2015
guest The trouble with this is that the size of the "reserve" below "zero miles" was not necessarily constant. Wasn't there at least one firmware update that increased the size of the reserve? Driving until the car actually runs out of charge would seem to enable a more accurate measurement of total battery capacity (not that I'd want to do it).
In any case, 12% loss after 75K miles isn't that great, but it's not terrible, and is probably significantly worse than average. Even at that rate of loss, the original battery pack should continue to be quite useful at 200K miles and beyond.�
1/1/2015
guest Shout out to Joel aka MichiganmodelS - Mobileye IPO this week. Important partner with Tesla for autonomous driving car.
http://www.siliconbeat.com/2014/07/28/tesla-watchers-eye-mobileyes-500-million-ipo/
- - - Updated - - -
Nice Article....have you thought about the potential valuation if they recognized the same or 2x (because of Model X sales) ZEV revenue going forward. The ZEV revenue for 2013 was about $140 million. That is approximately an extra $1 Billion of revenue at 100% margins over the next 6 years. The California CARB rules haven't changed, they will get more stringent later this year - not sure about the exchange and if ZEV credits are still actively traded. Would be an interesting exercise, increasing your current profit model by 30%, with a requisite current valuation of about $300.
Just a thought.�
1/1/2015
guest My gut is that they would lean more towards increasing range vs. lowering price on the S & X, though it may well be a combination.
I see this happening earlier, in 2017-2018.
In fact, I think we might see a mini version of this in 2015. Even if they use the same cells and haven't yet really rolled out lower battery costs next year, they may offer more attractive ranges by sharing some of the cost savings they are seeing in improved production methods (production is currently shut down as part of an investment in improved efficiency on the line) and economies of scale as they go from ~30K vehicle run rate to ~75K run rate.
I've thought about this some, and as an investor and consumer, I'd love to see them ring out about $3.5K in reduced production costs, and come out with something like this in 2015:
$70K, 70 kWh Model S, ~235 mile epa range, replacing 60 kWh without a price increase
$77K, 85 kWh Model S, $2-3K reduction in price, maintaining 265 mile epa range
$84K, 100 kWh Model S, ~305 mile epa range,
if the cost to Tesla per kWh at the pack level is $200-250, they could pull this off by finding ~$3.5K in cost savings elsewhere to compensate for the improved value they are offering the customer on the battery. $3.5K in production cost savings is basically a 3.5% improvement in gross margins, and Elon has already suggested 25% gross margins would go up, I believe he said to 28% and possibly more. I realize as an investor near term it would seem better to keep the profits and not pass on value to customers as they are supply constrained. But, long term, I think the "wow" factor of offering better value pricing will do a lot for the brand and drive home to more people that EVs have a far brighter future than ICE vehicles.
We have had various hints that there will be a bigger battery for the X, and even some hints of a bigger S battery next year (IIRC, Elon in Norway).�
1/1/2015
guest Price reductions for a luxury brand is bad news.
They should simply not raise prices and let inflation effectively reduce prices over time if that is the goal.
Better yet let the reduced cost pay for things many potential owners really want like adaptive cruise control(and other electronic nannies) and luxury items like heated/cooled seats. Add those items without increasing price.�
1/1/2015
guest If the package on those features is ready and matches the cost reduction that could be a good route as well.
I do disagree with applying your general statement about luxury brands and price reductions being bad to Tesla.
Tesla is Tesla. They do what is smart and offers the most value, not what some received wisdom about branding says. I think it's smart and offers value to customers to show that the cost of EVs are coming down, and show that Tesla will pass on much of that improvement to it's customers.
Conventional wisdom was you add 30-50% to your pricing in China because you can. In Elon's blog, he said Tesla was taking some risk it could be perceived as Tesla's having lower value because of the lower pricing relative to other Western luxury auto brands, but it's what he thought was right. I think this move was a significant part of the enthusiasm and affection Elon and Tesla received when he went to China... not a mistake that lost them "status."�
1/1/2015
guest Tesla has been very successful at breaking conventional wisdom, so far.
But it does not exist in a unique universe unto itself.
Conventional wisdom exist for a reason,it is usually right. Though not always.
Reducing prices is a bridge too far IMO, particularly when comparably priced Teslas are not comparably equipped.
It made a pitch to Chinese consumers about "fair universal pricing." Many/most Chinese consumers bought this. This is a rather unique situation.
If Tesla starts universal price cuts the pitch is " we are passing on savings to you" is a mass market - low end market pitch.
The headlines all over the world will be distressed merchandise being discounted to boost demand.
I think Tesla needs to pick its fights when taking on conventional wisdom,the financial/mass media, and Tesla/BEV haters. And this isn't one of them.
Even if the new features don't perfectly align, if lower price is the goal then new features/value added is how relative lower price adjustments should be done.
Tesla's "mass market car" is entry level luxury to everyone else.
Early adopters and 2nd wave adopters are not the same as conventional buyers.
Tesla wants to move from selling to people that "think differently" to to people that think "conventionally."
That is the only way to electrify the automobile.�
1/1/2015
guest I'm fairly certain that the Model S will stay in the same ballpark for price, I suspect we'll see a bunch of new features though:
- Automatic Cruise control, probably bundled in the tech package if I had to guess
- longer range, likely replace the 60 with the 85 and add something larger in place of the 85
- ventilated seats
- probably a lot of "minor" improvements, better seats, LTE data connection, better quality floor coverings, etc.
My hope is that most new features to the S will be done without major cost increases because of the savings happening elsewhere.
We're also likely to see that whenever they do their re-design of the S it will probably include more interior features (coat hooks, storage compartments, all the stuff everyone takes for granted, but Tesla doesn't currently provide)
The end result will be that not only will Tesla have the best drivetrain out there, but the best of EVERYTHING eventually. (so that reporters can't complain about the missing disco-ball that some other company thinks you need)�
1/1/2015
guest I expect the S to get more range and more features, not a price drop. The Model 3 will meet the needs of those concerned with price.�
1/1/2015
guest agree 100%-�
1/1/2015
guest I think Elon's original goal of a sub $50k family size sedan is still on target (inflation adjusted). In other words I think he was aiming for the BMW 5-series and Mercedes E-class, not the 7 series and the S-class. The question is - which is the way forward?
Even today the 528i starts at $49,500 with the M5 starting at $92,900 (and going up of course with options).�
1/1/2015
guest Rob I hear your opinion. As you know I see it a little differently, but mine is just an opinion as well.
I do think as they lower their production costs, they'll more increase battery size and vehicle range to increase value for the customer than lower prices. However, I think this is because they want to produce cars with more range, not because they think lowering prices would be "a bridge too far." That's why I think it's possible as they reset what battery sizes they offer there may be instances where some battery sizes go up while one of the battery sizes carries over unchanged but offered at a lower price. That was my hypothetical of going from 60 kWh to 70 kWh holding the price, adding a 100 kWh, and keeping the 85 kWh available at a lower price. In that scenario it would only make sense to drop the price on the 85 kWh a little, to keep it's relative pricing in line with the other battery packs.
Regardless of whether or not Tesla is opposed to ever lowering the price of these cars, the underlying driver we're looking at is the same and beneficial for all of us investors... for many years to come these cars will become even more and more compelling to consumers.�
1/1/2015
guest "Provided that we execute well and there are no serious macroeconomic shocks,
Tesla�s annualized delivery rate should exceed 100,000 units by the end of next year."
Elon Musk:"1,000 S + 1,000 X per week at the end of 2015".�
1/1/2015
guest Body shop will be upgraded and will have a capacity of 2,500+ cars per week, sometime in Q1 2015!!!
Paint shop will be upgraded too.�
1/1/2015
guest Elon Musk about battery constrain:
Without the Gigafactory annual production can reach 150,000 - 200,000 cars.
That's nice to know.�
1/1/2015
guest Pana must be ramping nice... Before they had difficulties supplying cells for 20k cars, now we are talking 10x that much in a few years.�
1/1/2015
guest I like this following snippet from the linked article:
For that reason, many industry analysts believe the grid storage market is on the cusp of huge growth. A 2012 study from Lux Research Inc., "Grid Storage Under the Microscope: Using Local Knowledge to Forecast Global Demand," predicted the market for grid storage would grow 40X over the next few years, reaching $113.5 billion in 2017.
Design News - Electronic News & Comment - Lithium-Ion Batteries to Provide Grid Support in Hawaii
Same article evme posted in the Gigafactory thread.�
1/1/2015
guest sorry for for delayed response. Was in cabo.
yes, I really mean 80kwh of energy supplied as measured by the trip meter. This was the amount of energy his brand new 85 kWh car would deliver from a completely full range charge and driving car all the way down to zero miles left of rated range. Yes. There is a battery reserve of course and as we know the car protects the battery by not releasing that last little bit of energy (~5kwh)
I really like his way of measuring battery loss over time. Basically, with 75k on the odo, he performed the same test: drove car from full range charge down to zero rated range. The car only delivers 70 kWh of energy now whereas it delivered 80kwh when the car was new.
- - - Updated - - -
You're right. I seem to recall discussions that TM may have changed the amount of reserve energy that is really left in the battery when the car is displaying zero rated range remaining. That being said, I highly doubt that the amount of reserve was reduced by more than 1kwh. Therefore, it's possible he really only only has a capacity loss of 9kwh instead of 10kwh. Regardless, I concur this this amount of range loss (11% or 12%) is a little higher than we would have hoped for. But it's not horrible. As I mentioned, the owner said that he definitely isn't easy on the battery. He does a lot of full charges and runs the battery to low SOC often.
Cheers�
1/1/2015
guest We also don't know if what the car is allowing to be used accurately represents the actual capacity. People have "recovered" "lost" capacity by letting the car sit plugged in fully charged for extended periods.�
1/1/2015
guest There were some big announcements in TSLA�s latest earnings report and conference call. Essentially, they indicated that production for next year will be much higher than this year. Analysts are predicting around 60,000 cars in 2015. However, an L.A. Times article stated that they will produce 100,000 cars in 2015....and followed up that number by later confirming with Tesla that this is correct.
100,000 cars with an average price of $90k (fairly conservative, since Model X will be out next year as well) would put next year�s revenue at $9 billion. They already have a profit margin of close to 28% (and have plans to increase that margin in the future). With a market cap today of $29 billion, that�s roughly 3 times next year�s sales. To put that in context, Google is at 6 � times sales with revenue only increasing around 25%. Big MO is at 3 times sales with flat yearly revenue.
When considering that TSLA is doubling its revenue every year for the next several years, their current market cap of $29 billion is too low (just over 3x). Presently TSLA trades with a market cap of 10 times this year�s sales. Even if we �split the difference� between this year�s and next year�s Price/Sales ratio, we come up with a P/S ratio of 6.5. 6.5 times 9 billion is 58.5 billion, or in another manner of speaking, roughly double the current stock price.
If the current P/S holds through next year, the market cap would be $90 billion, or triple today's stock price.�
1/1/2015
guest Whoa - careful, there. My read of the release, the LA Times article AND its follow-up correction is that TM revealed it plans to be operating at the 100K/yr RATE by the end of the year. That is a very different statement from saying they plan to produce? that many autos next year.�
1/1/2015
guest First, Tesla will not sell 100k vehicles next year. Think more on the lines of 70k vehicles in 2015. Also, Tesla won't hold a 10x P/S ratio (look for it to trend toward 4-7x P/S over the next couple years). And further, to bring in GOOG's P/S ratio isn't fair since GOOG has 63% gross margin. That's why GOOG has a super high P/S ratio comparatively. On the other end, you could bring in GM's P/S ratio (or Ford or any other auto manufacturer) to bring some balance here. Lastly, IMO I don't think P/S is a very good way to try to establish valuation since each company is at a different part of their growth trajectory and each company's margins differ as well.�
1/1/2015
guest @DaveT
I also read that Elon mentioned 100k vehicles next year.�
1/1/2015
guest He didn't�
1/1/2015
guest If someone confirms this with TM communications please post as I will mortgage the house and buy TSLA.....( half kidding/half serious)
It is not the way I heard it or took it. I understood him to say they were exiting 2015 (Dec 31, 2015) being able to produce at a Rate that would be equivalent to building enough cars per week to make 100,000 vehicles IF they continued at that rate. They will enter 2015 producing about 1,000 cars/week and exit 2015 at 2,000/week. So, I think 60-70K guidance.
I hope I am wrong and you are correct.�
1/1/2015
guest In the conference call Elon mentioned a minimum of 60k vehicles delivered in 2015.�
1/1/2015
guest During the call it was stated that by the end of 2015 Tesla would be building vehicles at a RATE of around 100k PER YEAR.
It was never stated that Tesla would build 100K vehicles during the 2015 calendar year.
Listen to the call. It's available for anyone to listen to.�
1/1/2015
guest Sorry I didn't manage to get the difference between rate and production because I just gave a fast look to the article that mentioned this matter.�
1/1/2015
guest Yeah, many articles have gotten it wrong unfortunately. Luckily I don't think the misconception will be widespread enough to cause damage...or at least I hope it won't.�
1/1/2015
guest Let's Do Elon's Math
Tesla s Math | MUSINGS
Great Musings!�
1/1/2015
guest Another interesting read: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/08/03/how-biofuels-will-expand-teslas-charging-stations/13481289/�
1/1/2015
guest Here's an article claiming that a threefold increase in battery efficiency may be just a few years away:
Stanford breakthrough might triple battery life
While I am skeptical about most such claims of battery breakthroughs, including this one, I am also encouraged that someone, someday, will find a way to greatly expand the efficiency of battery storage. When that day arrives, the ICE vs. EV battle will be clearly won by EVs. If Tesla already has the best EVs in the world and the setup for the largest scale battery manufacturing in the world, we stockholders are going to be in for one amazing ride.�
1/1/2015
guest I do wonder about the safety of using metallic lithium, since unlike lithium ions, it would be reactive in an accident.�
1/1/2015
guest This one has excellent technical merit. Some additional issues to work out including some of the safety reactive issues JRP3 points out. But this is a genuine article advancement. Precisely the bridge to ultra-capacitance. IMHO�
1/1/2015
guest I think the question here is did he do it on the same firmware. I have a feeling that Tesla changed some logging information between 5.8 and 5.9. In 5.8 I could use 78 kWh and still have 4% battery left according to the battery graph. In 5.9 after 72kWh I was at 0%. In both cases I started from full. In the first case I had 5.8 and the car was about 1 month old with ca 2000km on the odo. In the second case I had about 10k km on the odo and the car was 5 months old. I doubt there was such dramatic degradation, but I do think that in 5.8 the trip usage accounted all car usage including battery warming (was in January) and climate. In the second trip I drove the whole distance in one go and it was summerish so climate was working. After 5h drive I can fully understand that the car might have used 6 kWh for the climate and that wasn't shown in the trip meter. I've noticed it also when I had to stand and wait for 1h in the car in hot summer with climate blasting and the kWh didn't show up when I started driving. The km climbed, but kWh went up as per normal driving, neither did my chart reflect the 1h standing, which should have been a couple kWh of used battery. My range DID drop, but the accounting didn't show it. So that's what I'm basing my observation on that something changed in the accounting between 5.8 and 5.9.�
1/1/2015
guest We don't need to wait, EVs are already better.�
1/1/2015
guest + 1�
1/1/2015
guest I also noted earlier today that Model X reservations are almost exactly double what the Model S reservations were at a similar time before production started. Reservations could be up towards 40k by next spring. (That's $200m free cash flow btw....)�
1/1/2015
guest QUOTE: "We would have a cellphone with triple the battery life"
Come on - lets be real! No one will ever produce smartphones with triple battery life - what we will get is a thinner, more lightweight smartphones. Which is also good:biggrin:�
1/1/2015
guest Waiting for SpaceX launch(couple hours from now), rereading some Li-ion papers, and here is the quote:
"Under some abuse conditions, if the coating of GPE and LISICON film is broken, water will contact with Li metal. In the aqueous electrolyte, there is enough lithium salt. The reaction will produce insoluble LiOH layer on the surface of lithium metal and prevent the further reaction. By the way, the produced hydrogen will pass through the aqueous electrolyte and be cooled down. It is difficult for it to get on fire. In addition, the produced hydrogen is very light and will be very easy to dissipate into the atmosphere. The content of hydrogen will be very small to cause fire or explosion."
So if water based electrolyte would be used, the cells would be way more safe, mostly because of nonflammability of aqueous electrolyte compared to common organic ones.
doi:10.1038/srep01401
BTW, one of mine favourite papers, very cheap chemistry, basically metallic lithium, which is cheap, home made (sic!) gel polymer electrolyte, commercially produced LiMn2O4 and LISICON film... While showing excellent cyclability and good specific energy.�
1/1/2015
guest This is, of course, the exact same thing I say about electric cars and range..�
1/1/2015
guest Except pretty much everyone wants cars with more range. The first question most people ask about an EV is "what's the range", not "how light is it". I know you don't care about range, but I hope you do realize that EV's will be getting more range as cost and density improves.�
1/1/2015
guest Aside from commenting about how great the car looks an is, how far have you gone is the most frequent question I get.
I usually underplay it and say "about 250 miles", but add that that's when I got to the charger.�
1/1/2015
guest After my Portland, OR -> Napa, CA road trip this summer, now I frequently say "pretty much as far as I want, I covered 650 miles in about 12 hours". That usually starts the conversation with a surprise and then it's an easier transition to explain the range, charge times, where the super chargers are.
As for the long-term part of this thread. The value in the super chargers is huge, more than I fully appreciated before this last trip. Even if BMW had a competitive EV by the time the Model 3 comes out, without access to the super charger network it loses a lot of its competitive value. I'm a Tesla believer and I still thought the super chargers weren't going to be quite good enough, but they are and they'll only get better for newer cars and batteries.
By the time Model 3 comes out, super chargers will be everywhere and that's an infrastructure lead that BMW/Audi/whatever is going to have a hard time competing with.�
1/1/2015
guest And I hope you realize people will stop asking that question after they get educated.
Remember how talk/standby time used to be an important measure on phones, people would brag about how many days they got? Before they realized it was not important to go for a week without charging their phone, and now you rarely see that stuff advertised.
And I get the question about weight quite often in my roadster, from anyone who likes driving.�
1/1/2015
guest Except your phone running out of juice is no where near the PITA as running out of juice in your car.
Until every BEV has 300 plus EPA miles people will continue to ask that question.�
1/1/2015
guest Are you saying people don't rely on their phones for important things? Or are you saying you're likely to run out of juice with less than 300 mile range? Because neither of those things are anywhere close to true.�
1/1/2015
guest I don't think once, in my 25 years of owning a car, has someone asked me what a car weighs. I suppose if you're the type to hang out with race track folks, it happens, but even when talking to folks that are pretty passionate about cars, work on them, restored, etc, I've never had that question come up.�
1/1/2015
guest Well if you're driving a sports car, or the issue of performance comes up, then you'll get that question. I get it all the time. Not as much as range (which I usually brush off, because its not really important), but quite often. The amount of times it comes up will be proportional to the interest in driving of the person you're talking to. Otherwise the number means nothing to them since they have no benchmark as to how much a car should weigh.
I get it when talking about the model s as well, though not as often as the roadster.
I've had the weight question at least twice just in the last week. One talking to an frs driver, one a Nissan z driver.�
1/1/2015
guest One difference between a car running out of battery and a phone is that you can use the phone as soon as you plug in, while you're charging.�
1/1/2015
guest Why would someone care what a car weighs? What would seem to matter are the performance numbers: acceleration, skid pad, etc. Caring about weight would seem to be worrying about the wrong measurement. If the car could do 0-60 in 2.0s and hold 3gs on a skidpad, why would anyone care what it weighs?
Weight is obviously of great importance to optimize for the car designer, but from a driver's perspective, all I'd care about are the performance specs.
I know heat is a big deal for microprocessor designers, but as a computer buyer/user as long as the power and battery life are at the levels I want, why would I care about the heat?�
1/1/2015
guest Sorry to bust in here, but I am sure if you polled Tesla owners, 99+% of them would say that they get questions from non-owners about the car's range/charging needs/road trip potential/etc. way way more than weight. I have owned my car for 10 months now, and EVERYBODY asks me about range (usually one of the first 2 questions asked), and no one has ever asked me about weight (I usually bring it up later myself when discussion of safety comes up).�
1/1/2015
guest Another difference is that phones run out of batteries much more than cars do, though its still rare now that the consumer is reasonably educated about them, and yet for some reason tesla drivers love to talk about cars running out of batteries all the time. When we all should know better.
Also, in a world full of Superchargers, this is even less important than it already is.�
1/1/2015
guest Because what a car weighs is a short way of describing what those performance specs will be, and what the car will feel like while driving it. The lighter car will win at all of those things, assuming somewhat reasonably similar other characteristics. Weight is the number one most important thing for performance and handling and efficiency purposes, so that's why people ask that question.
That car you describe would weigh very little. That's why people care. And designers care because they know that weight is extremely important. So maybe we should take a cue from the designers and realize that if the experts know its important, we should too.
People still ask about Hp, even though it means nothing. What does mean something? Power to weight. There you go, weight again.�
1/1/2015
guest Another difference is that the raison d'etre of a cellphone is not being plugged in; you can much more easily plug in a car and therefore are much less likely to run out of charge.�
1/1/2015
guest I don't think the raison d'�tre of an EV is to be plugged in, either - it's to drive. I have no complaints about range or charging and I'm happy with my 85 kWh, but it is definitely easier to find a place to plug in my phone than it is to plug in my car. For example, I can plug it into my car. Can't plug my car into my phone!�
1/1/2015
guest I get what you're saying. I still think it's asking the wrong question, trying to get specs by implication rather than just looking at the specs.
But, you see that kind of thing all the time across lots of topics, people asking about a proxy measurement rather than the real item. It's also a trap in some cases because folks focus on optimizing the proxy rather than the actual desired stat.
If all someone was focused on was improving gas mileage, they'd get blinders to the real stat which is probably something like "most cost efficient propulsion" which may not even involve gasoline.�
1/1/2015
guest The point about optimizing weight is that that's how you optimize so many desired stats. You can't just turn up the "skidpad knob" in your design program and have the car do better at skidpads. The stat numbers you mention are the proxies, the base car specs they all rely on are weight, cg, contact patch, etc. There is very little about a car that isn't improved by low weight, and while printing the car's weight in an ad won't get you very far (except the f150 shaving 800lbs off its weight this year, which they're shouting from the rooftops, and rightly so...because its a vast improvement for mileage), having a lower weight will make the car better in a lot of ways that you can put in the ad. And overall the most important thing is the subjective feel of driving the car, and that again is improved by focusing on those base things like weight and cg, and the stat numbers don't really matter much...as we all know with our EVs, they feel much faster than the acceleration and Hp numbers suggest.�
1/1/2015
guest I care about weight because I do a lot of mountain driving. Lowering weight is beneficial when the hills are steep enough to require frequent braking, even regenerative braking. That said, I'd still rather load down a car with more batteries and increase its range at the expense of some efficiency. It doesn't matter if one can climb a mountain more efficiently if completing the drive is a challenge due to range limitations.
The bottom line is that most car buyers do not want to feel limited in terms of range. You can buy a BMW i3 instead of a Tesla S if you care more about vehicle weight and efficiency than range. I think I know which of those vehicles is going to continue to be more popular, despite its higher price.�
1/1/2015
guest To keep beating on this horse, I'd argue you don't care about the weight itself. It sounds like you care about not having to use the physical brake so as to get the most efficiency? Which presumably is because the real thing you care about is range? Optimizing weight is one means to that end, but it may not be the only solution to that particular engineering problem.
It's always worth playing the 5 year old and asking "why?" several times to make sure the approach is focused on the problem (range) and not a predetermined solution (weight). The predetermined solution might still be the right choice, and often is, but it's always worth questioning.�
1/1/2015
guest I bought a Roadster, and vehicle weight is a large reason why. I don't want an S, it's way too big. Even the Roadster is a bit bigger than I'd like (having come from a MINI E, which weighed more but had a smaller physical footprint).
Also, to pick an example of a car which just came out and is nothing like the car you're comparing it to and say that that's proof that range is the only thing that matters is quite silly. The cars are not at all competition. And if you wanted to pick one which counters your point, you could pick the Leaf, which has of course sold many more units than the Tesla. I suppose that "proves" that efficiency matters and range doesn't? (no, it doesn't, because these cars are vastly different...just as in your point about the i3)
The bottom line is that car buyers won't feel limited in terms of range once they are educated and familiar with the product and it's use. Just as they don't feel limited in terms of battery life for their cellphones after they've come accustomed to their use, and tend to prefer thinner and lighter phones rather than ones with silly-huge batteries which don't add additional utility. And just as many 100-mile-class EV drivers don't feel restricted by their cars after having driven them for some time. And we, as Tesla owners, can help that to happen, but not if we're just going around bragging about how our car gets way more range than theirs because we spent more money and that that's the only thing that matters. Which is unfortunately too often the attitude that I see from Tesla owners - and that non-Tesla owners hear, and tend to resent. Tesla's mission statement is to accelerate EV adoption, and that's my mission too, and the main reason I'm here. And I think educating the public that EVs are superior now, rather than telling them that 900-mile batteries will come out in the future so they better wait, is the better option.�
1/1/2015
guest Unexpectedly to me, I think I'm starting to come around a bit to this point you've been making (and making, and making.)
Ok, now, after this embarrassing admission, two observations: first, EVs are not superior to ICEs now, just Tesla is. Second, I would pay an additional 15k for an increase of 100 miles range for the top end Model S, and I'd venture to say that others would, too.�
1/1/2015
guest I guarantee that a large majority of EV owners, even Tesla owners, want more range. We could do a thread with a simple poll: Do you want 1. More Range or 2. A lighter car. I have little doubt what this educated EV audience will choose.�
1/1/2015
guest I, too, think this is true. I think there is a significant market for longer ranges than what the Model S currently offers.
But I also start to see FANGO's point that for a majority of mainstream buyers, Tesla's current max range is good enough. I definitely wouldn't encourage anyone to wait longer, unless they know they need more for their particular situation (like I know I do.)
Bottom line, the market is not monolithic and we can all get along now.�
1/1/2015
guest I only want more range as refilling locations are few and slow where I live. Once the superchargers come through, an 85kWh/400km range will be plenty.�
1/1/2015
guest Tesla is undoubtedly superior, for sure. But also, the Fiat 500E, a car which Fiat doesn't even want to make or sell, is very well-reviewed, fun to drive, and priced competitively just between the low- and high-end cars in the Fiat line (Pop and Abarth). It's been reviewed to be either a) not-just-quite as fun to drive as the Abarth (which does have better performance specs) or b) similarly fun to drive as the Abarth, just in a different way. And this is a car that they didn't even want to make! Which has managed to slot into their product lineup in exactly the place it belongs. Surely if Fiat can make a car, on their first try, without trying very hard, and make it at least equivalent to their traditional offerings, then the drivetrain is at least equivalent, if not superior. And considering all the hypercars are going hybrid, the Volt and Leaf have high customer satisfaction scores, etc., this leads me to believe that EV technology is simply superior. Tesla is the most obvious example, but that again is another way to show the superiority of the drivetrain - an upstart company "on its first shot with barely a dress rehearsal, has built a car genuinely competitive with the best" (quote from Road & Track's Model S review). The Model S isn't just electric, it's good *because* it's electric - and because Tesla is the one company truly trying to make an amazing electric car from the ground up. I'm sure that if anyone else did the same, the result would be similar.
This isn't to say there's no room for improvement, of course there is. But I'm of the opinion that electric, no matter what car you pick (and pick one which fits your needs, of course - there's enough varied offerings to cater to most of the population, at least the ones who can afford/park them), is superior, right now. That's why I'm wary about the range discussion, because I'm tired of people waiting for whatever's just around the corner. There's always going to be something around the corner, but the stuff out right now is great already.
And I think offering options of more range is mostly fine, and have never said that some people won't pay for it - the 85kWh exists, obviously, for that reason. This is why I'm mostly fine with the "range reducer" in the i3 (that's what I call it, since it makes the car 10% heavier and thus reduces electric range by 10%). You can spend an extra 4k for a security blanket which makes your car worse all the time, but gives you the option of having extra range if you need it. It's like training wheels, you can buy it with your first EV then realize you don't need it and next time around get a pure EV. I've long thought the same thing about the Volt. And I've never had a problem with the 85kWh battery, which is too big for almost anyone's needs, but which Tesla buyers are often happy to get because they haven't driven an EV before and want to be sure, or they always get top of the line and can afford it, or whatever else. What I do have a problem with is when people talk about axing smaller battery options, or talking about how 300 miles is the minimum amount you could have for your car not to break down by the side of the road, or that the car is unusable unless you get the largest pack, because this is not productive (or true). Or assuming that the only reasonable way to upgrade the Roadster would be to give it range beyond the level of usefulness for most people, when a weight upgrade would be a far superior option in so many ways - particularly considering it's a mini sportscar, never meant to be a road trip car.
As for JRP3s poll, it goes back to the same thing I was talking about with ckessel - yes, a lot of people don't know the importance of weight in a car. And it also goes back to the point I made that people will realize range is less important when they are educated in the matter. And Tesla owners, who have a car which goes 300 miles and can fast charge, bought that car likely largely because of that number, and likely get anxious when their car is under 100 miles of range even though that's still an enormous amount (I just saw some i3 owners joking about this today on Facebook), are not necessarily the right people to talk to about the issue, as they haven't necessarily been educated in the matter, since their car has more than enough range. Note that I say "more than," not "just enough." I'd venture to say that a significant number of those theoretical "we need more range" answers have rarely even seen a 2-digit number on their display. And besides, what's the quote about a faster horse? Or have you read the original iPod review from slashdot (�No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.�)? Consumers don't necessarily know what they want or need, particularly when confronted with a new paradigm. That's why, over time, I think consumers will start to realize they don't need as much range as they think they need, and that process will be helped along by EV owners, including ourselves, letting them know that they probably don't need to wait for a 500+ mile pack, and they probably don't need to spend tens of thousands of dollars for bigger battery packs. We're all rather fortunate here to have enough money to afford Teslas, or to have bought into Tesla stock early enough that we can afford to pay large sums for security blankets, but not everyone is going to want to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get a huge battery pack, and will instead buy a Civic or something worse and keep burning gas while they wait for a mythical pack which will never happen. I don't think that's helpful. We really need to stop using gas as quickly as possible. Like now.
Besides, the poll has been done a few times in the Roadster forum. Here is one showing handling improvements to be the most popular option: What type of Roadster battery pack upgrade would you choose? - View Poll Results , here is one showing that only 4% would upgrade range regardless of price (but that a lot more would think about it) How would you respond if an 80 kwh Roadster pack were available in 2014? .
All of this, together, by the way, is why I often speak about EVs as a whole, rather than Tesla vs. BMW vs. Nissan vs. whatever. We're all on the same team here, and there's plenty of room for all the products in the market. I just get tired of having range be the only conversation, because it's really a boring conversation. Plug in at night, supercharge on trips, conversation over as far as I'm concerned. And Tesla owners (and the company itself) bring it up too often, I think largely out of pride because their car is impressive in that metric, but I'm not sure it's productive to the goal of overall EV adoption considering the pricetag which comes with it at the moment and into the foreseeable future.�
1/1/2015
guest Unlikely.
The most common comment I get at car shows about range is "I want to drive from here to Houston (about 400 miles) without being forced to stop". You shouldn't have to give up anything when going to an electric car. Now they likely will stop somewhere, but there's a difference between stopping because you have to take break and stopping because you have to or you'll run out.
At the end of 2015 if Tesla builds out their plan, there will still be vast areas that aren't covered which will make travel--even in a 85--more of an adventure than most are comfortable with. It will be a long time before Superchargers cover the more interesting routes--think twenty years or more.
My opinion is that that saying "you only need X amount of range" is similar to "No one needs more than 640K of memory", is 1970's EV thinking, and does a big disservice to EV adoption. Telling someone "You only need..." is a sure way to kill the EV sale. A 500 mile battery at a reasonable price (means 400 miles in real life) is the one thing that will silence the nay-sayers and spur EV adoption more than anything else. Even if Superchargers are 100 miles apart on every possible highway, having a car with 500 miles of range will allow you to skip the SC if it's ICEd or full. It will allow you to not worry about making it if it's -20 and snowy. A larger battery will also last longer because it's being stressed less. Of course, right now you can't make a reasonably priced 500 mile battery, but in a few years...
When we were concerned about cellphone standby time, the only thing you did with your cellphone was make calls on it. Now a cellphone is much more than that, so the paradigm is completely different.�
1/1/2015
guest I don't care how well-reviewed this car is or how fun to drive, because its range is vastly inadequate for my needs.
I haven't seen such an argument made anywhere. Stretching it to these extremes makes it a strawman. Using reasonable parameters and qualifiers, it turns into many variants of reasonable arguments.
We're talking at cross-purposes here because we can all find support for our arguments by imagining situations with different combinations of price/range. Every argument I've seen made on this subject is about a different region of this parameter space, and these arguments only seem to clash because those regions are never made explicit.
Everyone would want a car that would go 1000 miles on a charge for a price of $1000. Nobody would buy one that goes 10 miles for $100,000. Those are the non-interesting corners of this space.
The other diagonal is more interesting. People vary in their ability/willingness to pay, and they also vary in the ranges they need/want. That's why plenty of people are willing to buy Leafs for whatever they sell, even though I, for one, would never consider it, and why other people bought >$100k Roadsters. Model S is close to a sweet spot for those upmarket buyers who can afford a 70-100k vehicle. I'm saying that spot can be made even sweeter, and that the Leaf spot is pretty sour right now.
In a nutshell:
- I would not advise a friend who could only afford a Leaf to buy it as his only car today
- I would advise a friend who could afford a Model S to buy one today even as his only car
- If I were in a position to buy a Model S today, I would buy one, but I would jump at the opportunity to upgrade the battery.
But nobody is saying, or at least I haven't seen it, that "300 miles is the minimum amount you could have for your car not to break down by the side of the road, or that the car is unusable unless you get the largest pack".�
1/1/2015
guest Saying that a 500 mile battery is necessary is a big disservice to EV adoption. Before the Tesla came out, a 300 mile battery was "necessary." Now it's a 500 mile battery. What do you bet will be "necessary" when a 500 mile battery comes out? I bet it'll be more than 500.
None of them are necessary, none of them have ever been necessary. People are looking for excuses, and you're fueling their excuses. You're playing the same game VW is playing with their diesels, making up numbers for how far they can go by using the most favorable circumstances for them, and using the least favorable circumstance for the EV ("real world" miles which somehow are magically 20% lower than the EPA miles, even though the same treatment isn't given to gas cars - which, by the way, you shouldn't run below half or else you'll damage the fuel pump), and saying "see?! it's useless! buy a diesel instead!" That's exactly what people hear when EV early adopters tell them that they need more range. It's not helping.
Also, the memory thing is 100% inapplicable to this - and in fact I made reference to that with the iPod quote in my last post, where the reviewer thought memory was more important than it turned out to be, just as will be the case with range. What is applicable is cellphone batteries. Memory, though, has nothing to do with it. The day does not get longer, and the world does not get larger. Data gets larger, and computers do more operations, which is the point of memory. But days don't get longer, which is why cellphone batteries don't need to have longer and longer talk/standby times (they do need bigger batteries for all the data/processing they're handling, but note that those batteries get used up by more processing, not more "range" i.e. talk/standby time), and the world doesn't get larger, which is why cars don't need more and more range. In fact, the world is getting *smaller*, as alternative forms of transportation get more widespread and cheaper, and as people drive less miles rather than more (this has been happening for about a decade), and as quick charging becomes more prevalent.�
1/1/2015
guest People have been driving less because gas is getting more expensive and they can't afford to drive more. EVs are reversing that trend (of course, EVs are a small population compared to ICE cars, so the general trend continues--except for EV drivers).
Mostly I think we can agree to disagree. And no, I don't think that once you have a 500 mile battery, you'll be clamoring for a 750 mile battery. People aren't clamoring for 750 mile ICE cars because the 500 mile cars they have now have the range required for almost everyone. The battery size Tesla chose was based on economics and available technology, not on what would be ideal. The current range of the Tesla is barely adequate, but it's the first EV that has a range you can live with--which is why I purchased one. A Leaf wouldn't even get me (and most of my co-workers) to work and back without stopping to charge. The only time I'm inconvenienced in the Model S is on trips, so it's not a big problem as trips are two or three times a year event, but it would be a lot better if there was no inconvenience. And don't forget that as batteries get better the range will increase without increasing vehicle weight.�
1/1/2015
guest And the point is that the consumer will learn that their needs are lower than they think they are.
The argument was suggested one page back, when RobStark said that until BEVs all have over 300 mile range people will think they're going to get stranded by the side of the road - and of course they'll keep thinking that, with Tesla owners talking as they do about 300 (or 500, as seen above) being the "necessary" amount of miles for a battery pack.
The argument about axing small batteries was also made the last time this came up, and people thought that the 60kWh should be axed and the offerings should be only 85/110. It has also been made in the past with the axing of the 40kWh. The argument is made quite often.
The Leaf spot is not sour at all, it's a car which fits the needs of a majority of the populace assuming they have the funds to purchase or lease a new car (though a few used ones exist now) and who have a place to charge it. And it's a car that over 100,000 people have bought and been quite satisfied with (it has better NPS scores than the competition, though not as good as the Tesla, obviously), so I have no idea where you're getting sourness from. Leaf owners tend to love their cars. And this is the problem I have with Tesla owners, who assume that all other EVs are inferior not just to the Tesla (which, of course, they are, but that's why the prices are different), but to their gas competition. They aren't, people love them. And because of that, I, like most Leaf owners according to the NPS surveys, would absolutely recommend a friend to buy one. And have. Obviously even moreso for multi-car families, but some can certainly be fine with it being their only car. And I know multiple EV-only families who have 100-mile-class EVs and nothing else.�
1/1/2015
guest No one said that. His point was that a "500" mile battery, which could be significantly less in many real world situations, would be desirable to many. Remember a larger pack also provides shallower cycling, hence longer pack life, and greater power output potential. It also provides a greater buffer of range in inefficient driving situations, rain, wind, cold, etc. Is it strictly necessary? Of course not. Will many people want it, even if they are "educated"? You bet.�
1/1/2015
guest I would agree that not much range is truly "necessary" for most driving. Our Nissan LEAF has plenty of range for the day to day sort of driving that most people do. It's not enough range for most families to go ICE-free, but it is enough to be very useful to a great many multi-car families, and far more affordable than a Tesla. I hope to see more people come to understand this reality.
On the other hand, now that I'm hooked on EV driving, I'd prefer to be able to drive an EV everywhere rather than burning gasoline anytime we leave our local area (or doing lots of waiting for the LEAF to charge). We could also use more space and AWD (to avoid California snow chain requirements), hence my interest in the Model X. See how high the bar tends to be raised when we start talking about replacing the ICE for everything? A 250 mile battery should be fine, but I'd prefer the versatility of a 500 mile battery once battery prices have dropped further.
The bottom line is that Tesla has strategically chosen to occupy the "no compromises" portion of the EV market, not the "local driving only" segment. There's room for both. But Tesla is doing a wonderful thing for overall adoption by showing what EVs *can* be. We know that some folks get drawn to EVs by Tesla, then end up purchasing a LEAF or another EV that they can better afford.�
1/1/2015
guest Sigh, the forum ate my response to this post.
Short version: miles driven is dropping because young people drive less and people are moving into cities and air transportation for long distances is getting cheaper necessitating less roadtrips. VW seems to think 700 miles on a car is important, that's why they talk about it in their ads even though they use fuzzy math, and 300 miles is not 'barely adequate' for almost anyone, and if it went to 500 you'd still have people saying it's 'barely adequate' even if it isn't (as evidenced by the VW commercial). If you drive over 80 miles one-way to work (as you say you'd need to charge on the way), you are an outlier and should not generalize your experience to the overall population's.�
1/1/2015
guest I meant round trip, not one way. However, I do have several co-workers that do 80 or more miles one way. This is Texas, not California.�
1/1/2015
guest Yeah, and for those people they can buy an S or they will have to wait until the 3 - which will be an improvement in price, rather than longer range. But for you, if it's 80 miles two-way, if you can charge at work (since you're there for hours anyway), you would be fine with a Leaf. Maybe even without charging. I used to routinely drive my MINI E, which was rated at 100 miles on the old 2-cycle test (so it would probly be lower now), 50 miles each way to LA and back without charging, and never worried about it. Or you could use a Volt, and you'd still do ~90% of your miles on electric power if you could charge at work, and that's with just ~40 mile range, much less than the "barely adequate" 300 miles.
One thing I'm trying to say here is that these cars are a lot more capable than they get credit for, and that we, as EV drivers, should be telling that story, instead of saying that the cars are less capable than they get credit for. And acknowledging that huge batteries are nice for niche applications, but that they're still niche. Almost any EV on the market has suitable range for a large number of applications, so we need to get past this question, and talk about how great they are in their application, because they're all enjoyable to drive, cheap to run, convenient to charge and tremendously better for the air we all breathe when compared to gas cars. Start dispelling the reasons people have not to buy EVs, instead of endlessly talking them up.
very late edit: interestingly, I looked up vehicle miles traveled per capita by state, and it turns out that Texas is actually below average. California is a little below Texas, but both are below average. (9,267 TX, 8,647 CA, 9,590 USA, as of 2010 DOT numbers.)�
1/1/2015
guest Perhaps many, if not all early adopters, either live in homes with a garage to charge in, or live in condos/apartments that have adequate parking and provide/allow plugs for charging. Many of us waiting for Model? live in apartments that don't provide parking and may have electrical that's a bit fragile (built in 1923, last permit pulled 1974). I have no hope for home charging in the next decade, so I plan to charge on the occasional weekend when I'm doing administrative stuff at work and I can block the loading door. I don't think I'm alone. This is why range is still a pressing issue for many of the "masses".
Charging just isn't as simple as plugging in every night for many urban dwellers.
I am very interested in Elon Musk's plan for urban charging, but suspect that companies like Blink and Chargepoint will be our only options for some time to come.
Or maybe that's one of the "cards" he's hiding in R&D...�
1/1/2015
guest Urban charging is a problem but won't be solved by enormous batteries, but by figuring out better charging solutions for people without garages. I would not recommend even a model s to a person who doesn't control their own charging. I don't think tesla will solve the problem themselves either, they will need government support, like san Jose's recent move to require charging in all new developments, and California's law to require HOAs and such to allow the installation of charging stations.�
1/1/2015
guest The raison d'etre of a car is not to drive, it's to be drivable. You park your car and walk away until the next time you need it. A cellphone goes with you and you only park it to charge. That's why people's cellphones run out of charge. The way your car will run out of charge is using it and stretching the charge.. The way your cellphone runs out is because you're not actively using it so you aren't aware that the battery's low. The cellphone comparison actually is limited to "a battery-powered device you plug in and some people get way too partisan and obsessive about." Unfortunately I can't suggest a better analogy.�
1/1/2015
guest Speaking as a 2-car household, my answer would be, "One of each, please"
Elon is one of those who doesn't consider the ("up to") 100-mile EV to be useful. I think he's ignoring a sizable application, but I also think it's proper to say this is fairly irrelevant to Tesla's mission. So the two will co-exist.
What card is he hiding? No one's suggested inductive charging yet. I'd like to see better than the current (80%?) efficiency for that technology.�
1/1/2015
guest I tink this weight/range-discussion is a bit 'long-term' for this thread... ;-)�
1/1/2015
guest People's needs for range lie on a bell curve. My guesstimate for what percentage of the population can make due with a given range:
50 mile EPA: 10%
100 mile EPA: 40%
150 mile EPA: 60%
200 mile EPA: 80%
300 mile EPA: 90%
400 mile EPA: 95%
500 mile EPA: 97.5%
1000 mile EPA: 99.5%
2000 mile EPA: 99.9%
The exact figures aren't really that important, but it shows the concept. And for the automaker, the question is - how large a share of the market should you try to appeal to? Is 40% enough, or should you aim for 95%? Do you offer a variety of range options, with a variety of models and battery packs, or do you cater to a specific niche?
I think Teslas 265 mile range is more than enough for the majority of the population, but I also think there is a meaningful market for longer range as well. Those 10-20% who need longer range will usually be willing to pay a premium, as well, because these people will tend to travel very many miles each year, and the fuel savings with an EV will be extreme.�
1/1/2015
guest Ygg, if you're talking about needs and not wild fantasies, then your numbers are all vastly too high. 2,000 miles, really? Shift every number down by two or three ranks on your table and you'll have realistic percentages.
Eldest oyster, I think you're right on about co-existence, but maybe not about inductive charging. It's another thing that reduces efficiency for a very minimal benefit, and there are downsides as well (weight, cost, incompatibility). Inductive charging hasn't taken off for any other devices because people realize that plugging in is really not that bad, when confronted with the reality (cost, size, etc.) of the inductive charging options which are available. Maybe Tesla will work on it, I have no doubt that they already have done work on it's viability, but I think overall it's not going to be viable and probably won't happen. As for normal-range cars being outside of Tesla's mission, the mission is to accelerate vehicle adoption, and offering cars that more people can afford is a way to do that - and was the point of the S and will be the point of the 3. So bringing back a 160-mile offering would be beyond reasonable.�
1/1/2015
guest I'm talking about needs, and I think the figures are in the ballpark.
Looking at a 50 mile EPA range EV, I think 10% is about right. This range would really only appeal for people who almost never travel beyond 20-30 miles, or has two or more cars. Also, very many in the group of people who has two or more cars wouldn't accept such a small range, as the range is barely good enough for doing some shopping at nearby stores, on a hot day with the A/C running.
A 100 mile EPA range EV has significantly more utility. This can in most cases be a second or third car, and having it as the only or primary car is workable for a significant amount of people (though in most cases, still inconvenient). You can be fairly sure that most people (75%?) will need at least one car that's good for the occasional long-distance trip, and a 100 mile EPA range EV just isn't that car. Maybe 50% of the population would find a 100 mile EV in accordance with their needs, but that's maximum.
A 150 mile EPA range EV is even better. Now we're talking about a car that can do the occasional long-distance trip, even if this will add inconvenience, and the range is good enough for virtually all second/third/forth cars. 60-70% seems realistic.
A 200 mile EPA range EV is better still. Long distance trips are possible and not extremely inconvenient given sufficient charging. Still, for regularly travelling long distances, stopping every 2-3 hours is too inconvenient for a significant amount of people. It's also not sufficient for towing, as you'll constantly be stopping, using hours and hours on charging. 80% seems about right.
For greater ranges; long-distance trips, towing, travelling at 100 mph, extreme weather environments, etc become less and less of a challenge, thus winning over a greater and greater percentage of the population. And I don't find it unrealistic to assume that 1 in a 1000 people may occasionally need the 2000 mile EPA range to tow a boat 500 miles without stopping with the A/C on full blast.
The sweet spot range-wise for me personally would be around 350 miles EPA range. That would mean I could make it to and from those of my friends who live the furthest away from me without stopping, in -10C and with a slightly degraded battery capacity. I have done this trip in the past for xmas parties and the like. Sometimes, I've stayed the night, but if I were to plug in there, I would at most get around 30 kWh in 16 hours. I can do the trip in the Model S, but that involves 30 minutes at a SC. I find that acceptable, but it would certainly be better if I didn't have to. Basically: I would pay for up to 350 miles EPA range, while I wouldn't pay for more than that.�
1/1/2015
guest Yes, it's important to remember that any "range" we are talking about can easily be cut by 40% or so by different conditions. People want to be able to rely on their range in the worst of conditions, when it's probably the absolute worst time to run out of a charge. That's why 400-500 mile range vehicles are important for many.
Regarding the importance of range vs weight, I just did a quick search on the forum. "range" returned over 23,000 results, "weight" returned 5,400. Range is obviously more important, even among experienced EV owners.
And yes, we are way off topic for this thread :redface:�
1/1/2015
guest Market behaviour at large is not determined by minimum needs. The more you move away from the lower end, the greater the weight of nice-to-haves and wants. Nobody needs 200hp cars, or 3000 sq feet homes, or more than two pairs of shoes. What people need is irrelevant when it comes to changing the status quo for the better, assuming you don't coerce people to fit within your arbitrary parameters. What matters is what people in the majority choose freely.
The sourness is in context, which you like to change all the time to make your argument work.
I said "sour spot", as opposed to "sweet spot". A product is in the sweet spot when it is displacing the competition by being compelling enough for a majority of the customers in a given market segment, while also allowing the vendor to make a profit. Model S is in a sweet spot, as evidenced by it outselling its gas equivalents in most markets where it's offered, and its numerous car-of-the-year awards it snatched from its gasoline rivals. People want the car because it's better, not because it's electric, and Tesla makes a large profit on it.
The Leaf is loved by its owners, I know. So was the EV1. That doesn't mean it's in the sweet spot of its segment, not by a long shot; it is not yet compelling enough for a majority of the customers in the market for a $30k car. People buy it not because it's better, but because it's electric, which is why gasoline cars in its segment still outsell it in most markets.
The electric car that will occupy the sweet spot for the $35k market is 30 months away and is called the Model 3. That car will most likely have the ability to displace gasoline car purchases in that market for a majority of the customers, not because it's electric, but because it will be functionally equivalent to an ICE at the same price, and in some ways vastly superior.
Your problem is not with Tesla owners, it's with the market. Elon knows that, which is why the number one focus for Tesla was, and still is, range. The buyers know that, which is why the Leaf doesn't have a waiting list of 4 months; even though it satisfies many people, it doesn't satisfy a majority. And investors know that, which is why many, myself included, are going all in with Tesla stock, as opposed to Nissan.
I can't think of anything useful to add, so I guess I've run out of charge on the subject.�
1/1/2015
guest And here I thought this was the "Long-Term" Fundamentals thread, but somehow it seems to have turned into the "Long-Range" Fundamentals thread.
Can I kindly suggest we take discussion of range needs over to a more appropriate part of the forum, and instead focus on discussion of things like the earnings impact of a 2015 exit rate of 100,000 cars and this analyst forecast for 2016 earnings and a $316 price target?
More $ and EPS and less mi and Wh/mi here please.�
1/1/2015
guest Vehicle miles per registered vehicle would be a much better metric. Living in Texas these results don't seem intuitive to me, but it is what the numbers say. Using Table MV-1 FHWA and Table VM-2 FHWA, I get these numbers:
State Miles driven Vehicles Miles / Vehicle California 326,272,000,000 27,702,150 11778 Texas 237,836,000,000 20,238,122 11752 �
1/1/2015
guest Can we talk long-term costs of the Supercharger Network with all these new cars?
Energy provision, only.
$50/car/year with the following assumptions:
15,000 miles per year
10% of miles Supercharged
3 miles/kWh
$0.10/kWh
Current Costs:
~50,000 cars using Supercharger Network
$2.5M/year
End of 2015 (Projected)
130,000 MS/MX using Supercharger Network
$6.5M/year
End of 2016 (Projected)
270,000 MS/MX using Supercharger Network
$13.5M/year
End of 2017 (Projected)
770,000 MS/MX/M3
$38.5M/year�
1/1/2015
guest The way Elon thinks about it is this: Tesla installs a lot of solar panels and either uses that power in the SuperChargers directly or sells the solar power to offset its purchased power costs. That approach puts the annual SC cashflow near zero.
As an economist, I think he's engaged in flawed accounting. If he spends, say, $250M installing solar panels everywhere, they would generate positive cash flow regardless of whether Tesla also has SCs. The SCs are still cashflow negative. And, Tesla will have tied up $250M in capex that could be used for other things, like expanded factory capacity, new service centers, etc. that contribute more directly to the bottom line.
This isn't to say that the SCs aren't a good investment: they clearly accelerate the adoption of Tesla's cars.�
1/1/2015
guest I think I saw a SA article(take it with a grain of salt) saying that it was pretty profitable for them.�
1/1/2015
guest Then I suppose the Leaf is also in a sweet spot because of its numerous car-of-the-year awards.
Among other awards and recognition, the Nissan Leaf won the 2010 Green Car Vision Award, the 2011 European Car of the Year, the 2011 World Car of the Year, and the 2011�2012 Car of the Year Japan.
Notable awards include the inclusion by Time magazine as one of the 50 best inventions of 2009. EV.com�s 2011 EV of the Year,[SUP][421][/SUP] 2011 Eco-Friendly Car of the Year by Cars.com,[SUP][422][/SUP] 2011 Green Fleet Electric Vehicle of the Year,[SUP][423][/SUP] it was listed among the 2011 Greenest Vehicles of the Year by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,[SUP][424][/SUP][SUP][425][/SUP] also listed by Mother Earth News among its "Best Green Cars" of 2011,[SUP][426][/SUP] and also was ranked first in Kelley Blue Book Top 10 Green Cars for 2011.[SUP][427] [/SUP]Ward's Auto listed the Leaf's 80 kW electric motor in Ward's 10 Best Engines for 2011.
These are the same thing.
Nissan didn't start from zero with the Leaf, nor does it only make the Leaf. That's why it doesn't have a waiting list (which it did have before it came out, and soon after), and that's why people aren't going all-in with the stock, because it's not a pure play. Obviously. Also, if Nissan has a waiting list on the Leaf, they just sell consumers another car. This is a problem with the dealership model, not with the car. The dealership model is not a sweet spot, of course.
- - - Updated - - -
So you've moved the goalposts away from polling, to mentions on the forum, after being shown polls that countered your thesis. After, of course, having it explained many times that the consumer doesn't know that he wants low weight, but does want low weight, because it improves everything about his car. But go ahead, keep arguing for the faster horse. It's not like we're talking about a paradigm shift in technology or anything.
Bjorn got what was it, 230 miles in horrible conditions? I guess that means the Model S has 575 miles range, given your 40% number.�
1/1/2015
guest SCs are only cash flow negative if you assume that they don't have revenue when you buy the car. e.g. $2000 for the 60kWh or part of the $10k to upgrade from 60->85.�
1/1/2015
guest I've seen no polls on this forum that counter my thesis. My search results move no goal posts, they simply reflect an obvious reality, range is more important than weight. The search results are completely free of bias or self selective poll results. The same reality is reflected in the far greater sales of 85kWh cars over 60 kWh cars, and the even greater selection of both over the 40kWh cars.You can keep explaining it but that doesn't make it true. The "lighter" 60 is not better in all things than the heavier 85 car. If your thesis were true the 60kWh car should far outsell the 85kWh car, yet the opposite is true. People don't seem to be "learning" the lesson you think they should.
I don't know what the conditions were to which you are referring to, but I'm sure Bjorn has a better idea than most as to how to mitigate those conditions. Sure you can go without heat/AC, slow down, and hypermile, but if the average person is going into a headwind in the rain or snow they will take a significant range hit. Also as many of our German friends point out the autobahn can suck the life out of a pack.�
1/1/2015
guest The good news in all this range/weight discussion is everyone should be happy with having more choices about battery size/range and weight as more models from Tesla and other manufacturers come to market.
There is no perfect vehicle for every situation, if there were we would all be driving the same vehicle. Eventually the debate will be settled by consumer choice.�
1/1/2015
guest So basically your saying that a car should only be able to get you to work, where you have to fight for one of the two chargers that cost $$ to use, hope they aren't out of service, and then you have to interrupt your day to move the car when it's done or risk it getting towed. And if you have a power outage overnight, you have to call the boss and tell him you can't come in because the car didn't charge. You also better hope that you aren't called back into work because the car won't be charged. Sorry, but that doesn't seem like it would make for a good EV experience.
As far as the average trip distance per capita goes--well it's an average. A lot of people in Texas don't drive (migrant workers mainly), and there are a lot of small towns where the maximum distance across town isn't very far. Averages just don't cut it for those who are likely to purchase a Tesla.�
1/1/2015
guest Well, I highlighted two of them in response to you.
I'm not convinced you know what my thesis is, because I'm not convinced you're reading the things I post. And the 24kWh model (Leaf) outsells the 85kWh model, so I suppose you're wrong by that metric, just like with the polls. But then, you aren't reading, and you've moved the goalposts, so why did you even bother replying to me to begin with?
- - - Updated - - -
See, there's the same argument again. The car is more than capable of going 100 miles on a charge, and rated for over 80. You drive 40 miles one way to work (or maybe it's even less than that), and you think that a car which is capable of 100 and rated for over 80 couldn't possibly get you there even one-way. You are constructing fantasy scenarios in the most negative possible way, without being attached at all to the reality of the situation, in order to prove that 300 miles of range is the absolute minimum for your 40 mile drive. It's absurd, and behavior like this is exactly what slows adoption, and what the auto companies want you to do, because that's exactly what they're doing, with their ads about how far they can go in the perfect possible conditions, which exist for the sole purpose of making EVs look subpar even though there is no comparison between electric range and gas range, particularly when you try to minimize one and maximize the other with fuzzy math. They want consumers to think range is important, when it's simply not. And they *love* when you make up these contrived stories about the terrible trials of owning an EV. Surely that will help adoption, won't it?
Your suggestion was that I was wrong because I'm from California and you're from Texas and I don't know how far people drive in Texas. People in Texas drive less than the national average, and not far off from what people in California drive, that's what the stats show. You can see in the other stats posted by someone else that the numbers are basically the same on a per-vehicle basis. As if California doesn't have migrant workers or small towns (which, by the way, don't affect the stats much, because they're small, which means nobody lives in them, by definition...because over half of Texas' population lives in two metropolitan areas).
Your last sentence, though, is exactly my point. Tesla owners, who have enough money to afford one, will overpay for a huge battery they don't need, get anxious if their range ever gets near 2 digits, and overestimate how many miles they drive or think that their situation is different from everyone else's because they're special. This happens too often. And they do this because it's their first EV, and they don't know that they don't need 300 miles of range, but they have the money for it, and they want the performance model anyway, because that's the buyer we're dealing with, the type who gets the top of the line. And then showing that attitude to the general public simply confirms that electric cars are too expensive, that they will make you too anxious, and that you drive too many miles because the averages don't matter and apparently everyone commutes 200 miles a day, and that you should get a gas car until a "better" electric car with 2,000 miles worth of range comes out. Which is completely absurd, and harms adoption.
So what I want us Tesla owners to do, again, is stop harming adoption. You have lungs and so do I. I'd like us both to try to improve adoption, not stop it by telling people they need to wait until cars with 2,000 miles of range come out, which will never happen anyway, because that would be stupid. And which still won't fit all their needs, apparently, according to that table someone posted a page or two back. Which is why you don't trust consumers when they say what they want when the paradigm is changing and they don't know what they want. They don't know that standby/talk time doesn't matter as long as it's over the threshold of one day of use, they don't know that there's something better than a faster horse, and they don't know that the iPod's storage is plenty big enough.�
1/1/2015
guest Your polls weren't representative of the EV market as a whole, since Roadster owners are more likely to be concerned with handling and performance than range. Plus the fact that your Pack upgrade poll showed the majority of people would take a heavier pack with more range, in direct conflict with your claims, and the other poll isn't even relevant to the topic, though does show the majority are interested in more range. Your own linked polls do not even back you up.�
1/1/2015
guest I would not consider 24.53% of people a majority. That's the percentage who picked a heavier pack with more range. 5.6% picked an equal weight pack, everyone else picked a lighter one, including the most popular option, which was the lightest one. The other poll showed that, in contrast to your claim that everyone wants more range and that cost won't stop them from doing so, very few people actually hold that belief.
Also, we could alternately use this interpretation: The polls aren't representative of the EV market as a whole, since Roadster owners are more likely to have lots of money to spend on expensive range upgrades, and the cars are not capable of quick charging which makes onboard range more valuable. Therefore, Roadster owners would be more likely to want lots of range, and yet they still don't.
I happen to think that that interpretation is too one-sided and wouldn't be fair, which is why I didn't include it with my original mention of the polls. Because to make your conclusion before seeing data, as you've done, is not rational. My point of mentioning the polls was that they are not nearly as one-sided as you theorized them to be, since you seem to think that "everyone" wants more range, and that's just not the case. Not to mention that what they think they want may not matter (faster horse, iPod storage, talk/standby time).�
1/1/2015
guest Mod Note: couple of posts went to snippiness. Play nice now.�
1/1/2015
guest Did you really ignore the fact that 81% wanted longer range? If weight were so important, even to Roadster owners, would not the majority actually choose the current range, or less, for greater weight savings? Instead, 81% picked more range.�
1/1/2015
guest You said a majority picked a "heavier pack with more range." This did not happen. Now you're moving the goalposts, again. And I have no idea where you're getting 81%. The only way I can see you getting that number is by adding 13.21 and 5.66, but I don't know why you would do that considering what those choices stand for. Also, it seems as if you're trying to say that the votes for the "lower weight" pack prove your point (which has heretofore been that weight doesn't matter) because lower weight makes for more range, even though my point from the beginning has included that weight savings are important because they make for greater efficiency. Which all of a sudden you're arguing for, I guess? In which case, great, I'm glad you finally agree and we can be done with this. I certainly am. Bye.�
1/1/2015
guest You keep saying weight is more important than range, what percentage picked less range and less weight, for the lightest possible choice? Or even the same range but less weight? Every choice that offered more range at less weight would have saved even more weight with some range sacrifice. Only 30% picked the lightest configuration, and even that came with a slight range boost. Any way you run the numbers your point is unsupported.�
1/1/2015
guest This thread has taken a rather lengthy tangent that's not really focused on long-term fundamentals of Tesla. Let's try to get back on-topic.
Thanks.�
1/1/2015
guest Since most people on here make great posts with technical data, every once in awhile I get to contribute without having to show my technical ignorance. An anecdote:
My wife goes to mail something at the local UPS store every few months. It always takes her 15 extra minutes because the two guys who are always there want to talk to her about her Tesla (red one). They even have asked her if she's married to the guy with the blue one (thankfully that's me, but there may be another...) Today was no exception, and when she came home she said, "They know everything about the car, they know more than you!".
We laughed, but then I thought that these are two asst. store managers at a UPS store. Random guys, totally in love with the car, probably looking forward three years, thinking about their own Model 3. Gotta be hundreds of thousands of people like 'em.�
1/1/2015
guest Completely agree with this! Almost everyone I show my car to (take the time to explain it, let them drive it, etc.) either wants an S or X and since the majority can't afford it, they almost all say they want a 3 when it comes out. I have so many people I will need to contact when Model 3 reservations become available. If/when Tesla ever decides to properly advertise, I think the demand will eventually be in the range of 60-70%+ of cars in that price/style class. The only reason they won't be able to get that market share will be due to supply constraints. And then imagine an economy model eventually - wow.�
1/1/2015
guest My wild guess is that the main reason driving solar panels installations on Super Charging locations is moral (green) consistency. Economic motives could be secondary to being congruent.
Moral consistency and congruency is critical to Tesla brand. Any incongruency might lead to devaluing their brand, mission statement and loss of credibility.�
1/1/2015
guest Good point. Assuming there are 55,000 Model S's produced thus far, plus confirmations/payments for another 5000 (extremely rough math), and assuming 90% of those cars comes with S capability, that would add up to $108million (54,000 x $2,000). If each SC costs $400,000 to make (I have seen indications ranging from $300,000 to $500,000), that money would have paid for 270 Superchargers. Since there are an indicated 160 operational Superchargers around the world, and my estimate of 50 additional Superchargers under some level of construction (where Tesla has already had to outlay for some parts and labor), I think they're in a pretty good spot in terms of cash flow on the Superchargers.�
1/1/2015
guest I believe Superchargers are less than that...unless costs have gone up recently due to different tech or they're installing more bays or something. Original estimates were 150-300k. I forget where that was stated but Elon or JB said it in some interview or something�
1/1/2015
guest I remember it was 2x for the theoretical solar panel canopy SC. So like 150k for regular and 300k for solar canopy. Since 99% are non-solar I think its about 150k each.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét