Thứ Tư, 1 tháng 2, 2017

Tesla to make gas-electric car part 1

  • Feb 1, 2008
    donauker
    Tesla to make gas-electric car

    Interesting way to put it. I always thought it was called being an idiot and running out of gas.
    �
  • Feb 1, 2008
    doug
    That was a really poorly written article.

    As an example, the author uses that "completely conking" line twice.
    �
  • Feb 1, 2008
    mt2
    REV?

    Did they get that wrong? Or are we now calling them Range Extended Vehicles instead of REEVs. Or was it E-REV? Maybe we should call them RVs - er, no...

    Assuming that the article is accurate, it's good to see that REEV (REV, whatever) will be an option. I'll just have to make sure I'm wearing my glasses when I check the box for BEV.
    �
  • Feb 1, 2008
    stopcrazypp
    Hmm, I suppose it makes sense to supply both options so people who want a REV (or REEV) can get one if they want. However, the design of a REEV is significantly different than an BEV, and the Whitestar will have to accomodate both in its body. That's a little worrying as that means it's unlikely the chassis will integrate the battery pack to save weight, but we already knew the Whitestar wouldn't get much weight reduction.

    I hope they really assess their plan of doing both beforehand because I can see that the REEV might not necessarily save money, and might even raise the price of both versions esp if they run into problems again. The BEV is more straightforward as that have experience from the Roadster already. If GM's Volt is any indication, the parts for a REEV is likely cheaper (esp true for GM since they have been working with ICE the whole time), but the design is much more complicated, so Tesla has their work cut out for them.
    �
  • Feb 1, 2008
    doug
    In another example of poor writing, the article keeps using the article "an" as in "an REV." My guess is at one point it might have said, "an E-REV."
    Though, I definitely prefer REEV to E-REV.
    �
  • Feb 1, 2008
    mt2
    I didn't catch that. I'm guessing that means they were spelling it out; "an ahr ee vee." So it could mean that the author heard "an ahr ee ee vee" and just got confused about what he heard.
    �
  • Feb 2, 2008
    domenick
    God, when will they ever learn. It's an EVRx for cryin' out loud!
    I think GM went with E-REV so they can have an E-REVolution marketing scheme.

    A Tesla with an internal combustion engine sounds like a bad idea to me. But, what the hell do I know.
    �
  • Feb 2, 2008
    tonybelding
    It's a PHEV, people. A Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle.

    Tesla and GM can't decide from one day to the next what they want to call these things. The only thing they can agree is that they're desperate to avoid calling them any kind of hybrid, even though that's exactly what they are. They're afraid people will hear "hybrid" and think Prius.

    I say to Hell with their marketing spin! A PHEV is a PHEV, and a lot of confusion will be saved all around if we just call them what they are.
    �
  • Feb 2, 2008
    domenick
    Yah, you could say PHEV. I just like the way EVRx sounds. PHEV sounds like something that happens after I eat too much cabbage. ^_^
    �
  • Feb 2, 2008
    DDB
    Tony, I think there's a lot of people that would diagree with this statement. I'd imagine, whoever wins this war (which may turn out to be something like Pepsi vs Coke as opposed to Blue Ray vs HD), will decide what we call range extended vehicles.

    Regardless, I'm optimisitc that Tesla will let me choose to buy a BEV sedan at about half the price of a Roadster.
    �
  • Feb 2, 2008
    raymond
    Elon's Roadster in Amsterdam?!

    In a related article it says:

    The company originally expected the first production Roadster to arrive Tuesday, but a missed connection in Amsterdam delayed the arrival (see Missed Flight Gives Tesla Another Headache).

    It will probably be quite a while before we get the next Tesla in the Netherlands. :frown: Such a pity...
    �
  • Feb 2, 2008
    tonybelding
    Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Tesla announce they are going to drop the "REV" handle and start calling them MFDVs -- Magic Fairy Dust Vehicles. Would you accept that?

    All I'm asking for is something that's descriptive and not misleading. REEV and REV are poor descriptions and they are misleading.


    I suspected for a while that they would do this. It makes sense.
    �
  • Feb 2, 2008
    Cobos
    Tony: I don't see what is misleading with the REEV name ? Personally my only hope is that we reserve the EV name for anything that has an electric motor and electric motor only to drive the wheels. So most of these mild hybrids are not EV's they are electrical assist ICE vehicles while both a BEV and REEV are pure electrical vehicles. Though they store the energy in different ways and one is zero-emission while the other is not.

    Cobos
    �
  • Feb 2, 2008
    donauker
    I agree that there is definitely a place for the REEV term as far as I am concerned. To me it is good identifier for a particular category of PHEV which is a category of Hybrid Vehicles which is a category of Vehicles in general. After my Roadster arrives, my next vehicle purchase will almost certainly be a REEV.

    I have no interest in a PHEV that requires the ICE to run to do anything more than gentle acceleration or to provide cabin heat. I will only purchase a vehicle that is a full capability electric vehicle for at least 40 - 50 miles. I also believe that if I plug in my REEV every night and only drive it less then 40 miles a day it is just as much an electric vehicle as my Roadster that I drive less then 40 miles a day. In one case I am carrying around an ICE which I never use and in the other case I am carrying around a lot of extra batteries.
    �
  • Feb 2, 2008
    tonybelding
    It doesn't give any hint that there is an internal combustion engine on board, or that the vehicle derives any of its power from gasoline (or diesel, or biofuels). "Range-extended electric vehicle" sounds like an electric car with some kind of super battery. Or maybe a really long extension cord. That's misleading.


    I keep hearing this, but I can't figure out why anybody thinks it would matter to ordinary people. Ordinary people care about things like:

    Can I plug it in? Do I have to plug it in?

    Can I fill it at a gas pump? Do I have to fill it at a gas pump?

    If you start to talk to most people who are not gearheads about what is or is not connected to some shaft, or gear, or mechanism in the power train, their eyes will glaze over. It's not their problem.


    Except that it's not, in fact, a pure electrical vehicle. This is the thing that worries me the most. . . That electric cars will become the next big fad, and companies will try to cash in by selling "100% pure electric vehicles" that are primarily (or entirely) powered by filling them from a gas pump. GM and Tesla are both paving the way for that to happen.
    �
  • Feb 2, 2008
    doug
    Tesla defies its roots, plans gas-electric car for 2009 - Engadget

    Engadget picked up the CNET article and is now also calling it a "REV (range extended vehicle)." I think REV must be a mistake by CNET since "Range Extended Vehicle" is a pretty meaningless term. REEV at least tells you there's an EV in there. E-REV, recently coined by GM, is pure marketing and I think was created to go along with E-FLEX, since otherwise that hyphen placement makes no sense.
    �
  • Feb 2, 2008
    tonybelding
    Nissan's 100% Pure Electric Vehicle

    No sooner had I posted my message above than I went to AutoblogGreen and found this:

    How does Nissan's battery-free e-4WD work? - AutoblogGreen

    Yep. It's a 100% pure electric vehicle -- as defined by GM and Tesla -- which has no batteries, no plug, and derives all of its power from an internal combustion engine burning gasoline. The ultimate REEV. Is this our future?
    �
  • Feb 2, 2008
    donauker
    Actually I don't see anyone calling this a pure electric vehicle or a REEV for that mater. This is the exact setup of one of the most used series hybrids around. The train locomotive.

    This is exactly the reason why I support the REEV term as applied to the VOLT or a REEV Whitestar. It clearly identifies the the radical difference from this series hybrid implementation.

    On further review it isn't even a series hybrid it just has electric rear wheel drive added to a regular FWD vehicle.
    �
  • Feb 2, 2008
    malcolm
    How about FEV, for Fuelled Electric Vehicle?

    There will also need to be a way of comparing battery-only range to total range 15%/85% or something like that.
    �
  • Feb 2, 2008
    stopcrazypp
    Actually the PHEV designation will do exactly that, it will separate those that don't have a plug from those that do. It puts a parallel PHEV-40 and a series PHEV-40 at the same level. The only thing the REEV term does is it makes the series PHEV sound that much better. Like it's MORE of an electric car and MORE green than a parallel PHEV (basically GM's strategy against Toyota's prius as mentioned, and also the recent "war" with GM backing series and Toyota backing parallel). In other words, it's marketing speech.

    Though I don't think people will call that e-4WD a REEV, I see no reason they can't as REEV just means a Range extended electric vehicle, which means as long as there is a range extender on an EV drive train (regardless if there is a plug or not), they can still call it a "range extended electric vehicle" since the term is ambiguous enough in terms of its english meaning that one can do that. It is just GM's marketing department attempting to create a new term to make their car sound better.

    In fact, I think the PHEV designation and convention is actually very good. It tells you the car is a plug-in hybrid, meaning it has both an EV drivetrain, likely a ICE based generator/engine (as implied by the hybrid term), and also can be plugged in. PHEV-(miles) tells you exactly how many miles you get in EV mode and this is also an established convention (for example PHEV-40 PHEV-10 PHEV-20 terms used before). The REEV doesn't use an equivalent convention. Also, you can add series or parallel to the front of the PHEV term and it tells you exactly what type you have. "Series PHEV-40" tells you all of the relavant information about the Volt, while the REEV term doesn't really tell you much.

    The only function the REEV (or E-REV or REV or whatever) serves is to make the series PHEV sound better. I'm not going to strongly resist it because if the marketing departments push hard enough, the term will be accepted as it is now. However, I think Tony has a point in that the PHEV term and conventions are already very good and the REEV doesn't really improve on that.

    On a side note, I do have some rebuttal to what I am saying. Using the series PHEV designation, many of the media reporting on the Volt dropped off the "series", a main difference between existing hybrids and the Volt. Then some even just called the Volt a hybrid, which makes it sound as if the Volt didn't really have a significant EV range. So GM came out strongly to invent the REEV term so that lazy reporters won't miss the major differences.
    However, my point still stands, the REEV term is designed specifically to separate from the prius or a future plug-in prius. It is designed to specifically make the series PHEV Volt sound like more of an EV and more green, when an equivalent parallel PHEV-40 will be on the same level. By using the REEV term, I see many GM advocates argue that the Volt is a pure electric car (Bob Lutz seems to refer to it that way too). When I referred to it as a PHEV, I had one person respond to me "f* you, the Volt is an electric car it's not a hybrid!" It seems the REEV term made them forget the Volt only gets 40 miles in EV mode with a VAST majority of its range given by the ICE.
    �
  • Feb 2, 2008
    tonybelding
    I don't either. But if you strictly follow Bob Lutz's reasoning, that's what you would have to call it.


    How does it do that?


    You are right; the article didn't describe it that way, but the diagram shows it.
    �
  • Feb 2, 2008
    vfx
    I am on record in complete agreement with Tony.

    The term REEV is misleading and requires two layers of explanation to the masses. With REEV you first have to describe the acronym then what range extend means. Twice as complicated for the non car folk to take in which makes it easier to bamboozel them in marketing.

    With PHEV everyone already knows what a Hybrid is so it's only one layer of tech talk.
    You plug it in and it's a hybrid Electric Vehicle.

    Sadly, I note Martin is using REEV on his blog

    FEV is not too bad but they will never adopt that one.
    �
  • Feb 2, 2008
    TEG
    I agree - REEV /EREV / REV seem like market spin trying to pretend you don't have an ICE on board.

    We already have PHEV. You can talk about series PHEV versus parallel PHEV if you want to start differentiating, but REEV wasn't really needed. If making series PHEVs and calling them REEVs is the only way Tesla can make a long term profit then so be it.
    �
  • Feb 3, 2008
    donauker
    I generally take both Bob Lutz's and Martin Eberhard's reference of a REEV as a fully functional electric vehicle that has an autonomous range of some reasonable value certainly greater then zero prior to needing a "Range Extender". I don't think anyone could reasonably say that either of these gentlemen where implying that a zero mile EV range would qualify a vehicle for a REEV label.


    Any HEV to which someone adds a battery charger will qualify for the PHEV title. This does not mean the vehicle will have any true EV capability. The PHEV Prius conversions have very limited all electric performance and no cabin heat capability without running the ICE. The only commercial series hybrids I am familiar with also only have limited all electric performance.

    A RE-EV is first and foremost an EV. It has the exact same performance specs and amenities that the BEV has without any use of an ICE or other RE up to its designated 40 or 50 mile range. If I drive less than 40 miles a day (which is most days for me) there is absolutely no difference to me or the environment if I am driving a REEV or a 200 mile range BEV.
    �
  • Feb 3, 2008
    donauker
    Well the REV was just a reporter making one of their many reporting mistakes and the REEV and EREV are 2 variations of the same thing. And I don't see either GM or Tesla hiding the fact that they have an ICE aboard from anyone.
    �
  • Feb 3, 2008
    DDB
    I guess if you develop it, you can call it whatever you want.
    �
  • Feb 3, 2008
    tonybelding
    Sure you can. . . Especially if truth-in-advertising laws are sufficiently lax.

    But you can't necessarily expect everyone else to go along with you.
    �
  • Feb 3, 2008
    TEG
    Why do they call the ICE a "range extending device" rather than a gasoline powered generator?

    And those Volt commercials?

    "...extended range electric car..."
    "...up to 40 miles without a drop of gas..."
    never once do they mention that it has a gasoline engine inside.

    Just calling it a VOLT downplays the gasoline side of it.
    �
  • Feb 3, 2008
    stopcrazypp
    In addressing the thing about hybrids just adding a plug and being called a PHEV, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and IEEE defines a PHEV as one having at least a 4kWh battery, meaning it should be able to travel at least 10 miles on EV range alone.

    That's why I said "serial PHEV-40" would be the best discription. You know off the bat it's a serial hybrid and you know off the bat that it has 40 miles EV range, and that's just from the English meaning of the word. What if Toyota makes a Prius PHEV-40 WITH the capabilities you mentioned? Well it wouldn't qualify as a REEV according to the current definition, and then the GM Volt will sound like MORE of an EV than the Prius. That's why I feel that it's a marketing term, it's a term to give GM a better position in the market. Remember the EV-1 got 55-75 miles on lead acid batteries 10 years ago. In many ways the Volt is to make up for axing the EV-1 and only the RE-EV term (with emphasis on the EV part) will help it do that. They have also outright said they went with the E-REV term so "E-REVolution" can be used in marketing.

    What fires me up is there are people with the gall to say the it would be INCORRECT to call the Volt a PHEV or hybrid and I quote from an article on the GM-VOLT site: "Calling a car a hybrid signifies that it�s driveshaft can be turned both by an electric motor and a combustion engine." That isn't true as series hybrids DON'T have a driveshaft that can be turned by the combustion engine. The people have been so caught up their enthusiasm for the Volt they forgot we have been calling it a series PHEV or that there were series hybrids before the Volt.

    Link:GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Concept Site � Blog Archive � GM Calls the Volt an E-REV

    As I mentioned, there is a practical purpose for the term since reporters have called the Volt a "hybrid," which really shortchanges the vehicle. I'm not going to strongly go against the term, as it's already gaining acceptance, but I'm not going to pretend it doesn't have another motive behind it. I just hope I don't see an increase in people who say "F* you the Volt is an electric car, it's not a hybrid" when I refer to it as a plug-in hybrid (as I have experienced in the past).
    �
  • Feb 3, 2008
    TEG
    It was a "series hybrid" last time around, but now they want to distance themselves more from "other" hybrids (like the Prius)...
    [?IMG]
    [?IMG]

    Recall that Toyota was dissing series hybrids so one response would be to rename your technology.
    �
  • Feb 3, 2008
    doug
    I suppose one could say that this is because the ICE generator is supposed to be "flex-fuel capable." And as part of their E-FLEX platform, "This could easily be replaced by versions that run on diesel, E100, natural gas, or hydrogen based on market requirements." So they say.

    Detroit Auto Show: General Motors' E-Flex platform - AutoblogGreen
    �
  • Feb 3, 2008
    AGR
    If any electric car will have mass customer appeal, its going to have a "range extender/ performance enhancer" to give the prospective customer peace of mind that they will not get stuck running out of batteries.

    That range extender is going to be an ICE with gas or diesel as the most economical fuel.

    A stand alone electric car with a limited range especially in cold climates will not have enough of a market appeal, it might have an "intellectual appeal" for electric techies. It needs to sell in an acceptable volume to give an acceptable financial return.

    There's a German company that has an innovative diesel fueled ICE which is compact, and ideally suited for a "range extender" application.

    The "mass customer" is used to pulling up to a gas station and charging up his vehicle in about 5 minutes. Most folks are pressed for time, getting stuck with a dead battery and have an electric car towed home to have it charged overnight is not a viable alternative for anyone. Waiting around a few hours to "gas up" an electric car is not a option that many people will willingly entertain.

    "I just spent 50 large for this newfangled electric car, and when the batteries run out of juice its 3 hours to charge it up, and I have to turn off every appliance in the house to speed up the charging".
    �
  • Feb 3, 2008
    stopcrazypp
    Hawaii had been testing their rapid charge infrastructure with lead acid cars 10-15 minute for ~100miles, which should be good enough for most people. But the infrastructure isn't here in the US yet esp. since there are barely any BEVs in the US. Maybe the Whitestar (BEV or PHEV) and Volt will help spur such development in rapid charging tech. But I have a feeling with the PHEV you aren't going to worry much about range (as you have the majority of your range taken care of by the ICE) & rapid charging won't really be important for you. In a BEV on the other hand, you definitely worry about range.
    I have mixed feeling about the PHEV Whitestar, but if it actually turns out saving money over the BEV version, I don't really have a problem with it, as I am sure there will be customers who want the PHEV option. I just hope the extra layer of complication won't drag down the BEV Whitestar too. Just something to be wary about esp. after the transmission deal dragging down the Roadster, and I imagine building a series PHEV is multiple times more complicated than a transmission.
    �
  • Feb 3, 2008
    vfx
    My wife has always said that her next car would be a Whitestar. I also know she likes to do the SF LA drive and more often the LA SD (100 miles one way) drive.

    She has the typical concern about being stranded. Should be interesting to see which way she goes... and if it's even a Tesla....
    �
  • Feb 4, 2008
    Kardax
    I thought it over and I believe that the hybrid version is going to outsell the pure-BEV version 10 to 1, maybe even more. It doesn't seem likely to me that mainstream America would be willing to give up the versatility.

    -Ryan
    �
  • Feb 4, 2008
    doug
    I like that they're considering having the option for both, just as long as the design for versatility doesn't compromise the the pure BEV version too much. But assuming the Volt and possibly other serial PHEV's are ready by then, why would people buy a Tesla REEV?
    �
  • Feb 4, 2008
    Cobos
    Possibly because they've got a good reputation for their Roadsters and they've got a luxury sedan while the Volt isn't aimed at that market. But I do see your problem and I would seriously consider the Opel Flextreme (which should be the European variant of the Volt).
    Though for me and my Norwegian sin tax regime it seems it isn't as clearcut if a series hybrid will be exempt from the sin-tax the way an electric car is. And in that case the extra 50% added to the price for the REEV version means the BEV will easily compete on price.

    Cobos
    �
  • Feb 4, 2008
    donauker
    Personally I feel that this is a more realistic ad then those showing vehicles maneuvering the edges of buildings or the ocean floor.

    The part of this ad that really stood out to me and I believe is the most important thing that GM is going for at this time is the part were he says "You plug it in", the immediate look of approval and acceptance on the boys face is key. I have been witness to too many ignorant TV news anchor laments about "NEEDING to plug it in" following electric vehicle news reports. I believe the perception that plugging in is a BAD thing is a major hurdle that most be removed. What better way then to show the next generations instant acceptance and approval to "Plugging it in".

    I guess I am just a bit more accepting of the implied then some, but I would take the phrase "up to 40 miles without a drop of gas" to imply that after 40 miles we use gas. Otherwise he would need to say up to 40 miles before it dies.
    �
  • Feb 4, 2008
    doug

    Nice point.
    �
  • Feb 4, 2008
    TEG
    ===[Minor rant]===

    Some of the "hard core" EV enthusiasts are likely to be off-put by any kind of hybrid with an "onboard ICE" being called a "Volt" (GM) or "Tesla".

    Tesla and Volta were not about burning gas. They were about electricity.

    I wish Tesla would spin off a "Musk motors" devision to sell the hybrids...
    And GM should rebrand the "Volt" as the "REEV".

    The "end game" should be 100% BEV, and trying to brand all these hybrids as "pseudo-EVs" will just cloud public perception.

    ===[End rant]===
    �
  • Feb 4, 2008
    AGR
    TEG,

    Specialty low volume electric cars are feasable. Higher volume electric cars unfortunately will not have a mass market appeal, and the electric infrastucture is non existant to charge thousands of batteries in thousands of electric cars.

    From the quick survey that was done on the Tesla blog, most private homes could charge batteries of an electric car in the middle of the night with the existing electric circuit in the home.

    The Tesla Roadster being the 3rd or 4th car makes imminent sense as an electric car, and it still would be interesting to see how a roadters would behave with winter tires, minus 10C temperatures, dealing with a 50 klms commute with heater, wipers, heated seats, rear window defroster, windshield defroster, HVAC blower motor running, and stuck in traffic at 60 kph for 1 hour. The car is parked no facilities or possibilies to charge the batteries, 9 hours later the return commute, now its darker just as cold if not colder, headlamps, on top of the other consumers.

    A few kilometers from the house it goes into limp mode with close to dead batteries, you wife calls you from her cell "I don't think this car is going to make it home!"
    �
  • Feb 4, 2008
    donauker

    Hmm.... Wonder what would be considered "hard core"
    I have been known to drive my current 2 wheeled BEV to work when the temperature was in the mid 20's. :redface:

    I really am looking forward to getting my 4 wheeled BEV which includes doors, windows, a top and a heater!!
    �
  • Feb 4, 2008
    TEG
    OK, substitute "purist" for "hard core"...

    I am all for the idea of PHEVs to appeal to those who cannot afford a pure EV or live with its' shortcomings. I just wish Tesla would leave that market to other companies and GM wouldn't call their PHEV the "Volt".
    �
  • Feb 4, 2008
    stopcrazypp
    "Volt" makes it sound like a full blown BEV like the Roadster. The name is working wonders for GM and the E-REV term only helps as people are already beginning to put the Volt closer to equal footing with the Roadster in terms of "EV-ness." So it is kind of annoying, but PHEVs do have a better position in the market so I guess we just have to accept that. As annoying as GM's marketing have been, I still hope they can deliver with their promises, as I hope there are more options for electric drive, be it PHEV or BEV. In a way, I wish that Tesla would stay with BEVs too, but if PHEVs can help them in the market and not drag down the BEV then it's fine by me.

    Wonder when we will hear more details on the Whitestar; I'm guessing probably after March 17 when production begins on the rest of the roadster.

    BTW, one thing that has seriously annoyed me is the CNET article's use of the term REV. Range-extended vehicle? If they are going to use GM's phrase at least use the right one! And the REV term is spreading fast too as every blog that reported on the article seems to have failed to correct it. I know GM started with the E-REV (extended-range electric vehicle) and then Tesla previously called it a REEV (range-extended electric vehicle), now they call it REV (range-extended vehicle).

    At least the previous terms actually made some sense; "Range-extended vehicle" is about as ambiguous as you can get (you can have a car with a bigger gas tank and call it a "range-extended vehicle"!!). The article said Ze'ev Drori was the one who referred to it as REV. I hope this phrase doesn't spread too fast as people are going to get even more confused.
    �
  • Feb 5, 2008
    donauker
    What would you consider a "purist"? Is that "purist" at the individual car level or the household level? Does being a "purist" usurp the goal of reducing gas consumption?
    �
  • Feb 5, 2008
    DDB

    Darn good question. For me, that's what this is really about. When I make my choice (or I have a choice) as to which EV I buy, I'd consider the Volt an EV because it's possible to drive all EV miles, assuming I'm not lazy and plug it in daily.
    �
  • Feb 5, 2008
    TEG
    I was thinking car level.

    Purist like those who think that a 914, 924, 944 & 928 weren't "real" Porsches.
    (Because they were front engined and/or had Audi/VW parts)

    Having the ICE on board says you are OK with a little gasoline consumption. Having a 100% BEV says you are committed to to using no gas.
    It is somewhat of a statement.

    If Tesla goes through with the idea of having REEV and BEV versions of Whitestar then people can pick: help make a difference, vs make a bigger statement.

    I remember when Prius started outselling other hybrids by a large margin. (In particular the Honda Civic hybrid). Some articles said it is because the Civic has a similar looking non-hybrid counterpart and so customers don't get noticed for their "greenness". The Prius became popular in part because it was a unique chassis so people could immediately associate the car shape with trying to reduce fuel usage and emissions.
    Article
    Smugness backlash

    With a REEV version of Whitestar on the market, the BEV only owners may not get the same sort of "green cred" as someone who bought a 100% BEV only vehicle (like the Roadster).
    �
  • Feb 5, 2008
    donauker
    Being in a rather typical two worker suburban household I have developed my own closest to perfect for my needs, vision of what will be in my garage over the next few years. Whether it is considered purist or not doesn't mater near as much to me as my desire to burn the least amount of imported dino juice possible.

    First and foremost is a 150 to 200 mile BEV daily driver which I have high hopes of seeing in my garage before the end of this year. The second will be a reasonably attractive 4 or 5 passenger, 50 mile or greater REEV to replace my gas addicted Lexus hybrid. This REEV will need to function exactly like a BEV for those first 50 miles each day.

    This combination of vehicles whether purist or not will allow me to go for weeks or maybe even a month or two without burning a single drop of fossil fuel for our transportation needs. Yet I will be able to take that 300 mile plus trip and when doing so will still do the first 50+ miles on electric. I am very excited to now see that this second phase could be available in the next few years.

    I do have a few wish list items for my future REEV, the first would be that the ICE were a diesel capable of using B100 Biodiesel. This would allow me to do even those longer trips in a carbon neutral, zero fossil fuel mode. Additionally an all wheel drive configuration would be very nice for our winter months.
    �
  • Feb 5, 2008
    donauker
    Well I really have an aversion to gasoline consumption but I am not willing to build this virtual barrier about 100 miles from home which I can't go past and return home and I don't want to own and maintain yet another vehicle which I use so rarely.
    �
  • Feb 5, 2008
    TEG
    I totally sympathize with your position, Don.
    I think many others will take the practical standpoint over the "high road".

    The true purists would rather be living on a commune riding bicycles made out of bamboo.
    �
  • Feb 5, 2008
    Cobos
    I'd say the true purists either for economical reasons as in my case as well as beleif reasons will have to choose their friends/parents wisely :)
    I've got a parent with a large station wagon, with a hitch as well as a trailer. So I should be able to borrow that the few times a White star wouldn't suffice. And assuming a BMW-5 series size with decent practical solutions for filling the back seat I can't see that I need that option all that often...

    Cobos
    �
  • Feb 6, 2008
    domenick
    Sweet bike! Not that I'm especially any kind of purist. I just really like bamboo.
    �
  • Oct 19, 2011
    doug
  • Oct 19, 2011
    bonnie
    It did! I literally did a 'whaaaa!!?' when I saw the title thread.

    Whew.
    �
  • Oct 20, 2011
    VolkerP
    Just read the "secret blog entry" again. In 2008 it all made sense. What happened since then?
    * GM delivered the Volt in 2010. Numbers sold are low. It is unclear if by lack of demand or by lack of supply.
    * Price is around $40k (before or after the tax credit? :confused:)
    * The GM Volt and the Vauxhall/Opel Ampera start to sell in 2012 in Europe. I am not sure you can even order one right now. Prices remain in the 40k region, even for Euros or Pounds
    * Battery prices have dropped. TM keeps the exact figures in secrecy.

    How does that shift the points in Martin's blog? My impression is that the viability of the hybrid approach is diminishing. It was incredibly hard to predict in 2008 how fast, but for me the picture is clearer. I predict no more than 4 hybrid models in the sub $50k price offered by global car makers until they will go all electric.
    �
  • Oct 20, 2011
    AnOutsider
    Thanks Doug, I'd started digging after seeing your post on fb (hard when mobile). These are good reads, thanks!

    Glad they changed, I wouldn't have bought it as a hybrid, no matter the marketing.
    �
  • Oct 20, 2011
    dsm363
    Should we add 'Old rumor:' in front of the title?
    �
  • Oct 20, 2011
    PopSmith
    I feel the same way. Even if Tesla made a PHEV with ~50-60 miles of range for the same cost as the base Model S I wouldn't have been as interested. I don't think Nikola Tesla would appreciate his name being attached to a hybrid (of any kind). :eek:
    �
  • Oct 20, 2011
    zack
    He most certainly would not. He was completely against using up our resources as fuel. He had a long-term vision for humanity.
    �
  • Oct 20, 2011
    WhiteKnight
    Other manufacturers have battery costs that are double Tesla's. According to the big Deloitte study, even though 77% of Americans drive less than 50 miles per workday, only 3% are satisfied with an EV that delivers 50 miles in range. 77% of those surveyed want 200 miles or more of range.

    ONLY TESLA can deliver those ranges cost effectively because of their battery pack advantage. No one else can come close with a pure EV.

    So other manufacturers are forced to make hybrids (or low range EVs like the Leaf) because lugging an ICE around for occasional long trips is the only way you can advertise the range.
    �
  • Oct 20, 2011
    Iz
    Same here. If TM had focused on a hybrid I doubt their brand would be popular or as promising as it is today.
    �
  • Oct 20, 2011
    richkae
    If Tesla had made a hybrid, the competition with Fisker would be intense - who can engineer a better car and who can design a better car. As it is, the direct comparisons are not super meaningful ( to me ) because you have who to compare the capabilities of the technology choice ( pure BEV vs serial hybrid ) before you can focus on who executed best.

    Since I believe in the fundamental superiority of BEV to serial hybrid, there is no point in comparing further.
    �
  • Oct 20, 2011
    AnOutsider
    ditto... But can you imagine the state we'd be in without Tesla? Who else is producing EVs with this sort of range? Even the base S is more than anything on the market (though the rumblings around here seem to suggest Infiniti might be shooting for higher marks). If Tesla didn't exist, I don't think I could get excited about an EV.

    I think that may be what the majority of the population is feeling as well. They hear about the volts and the leafs and think: "those things are impractical, and will be for years to come" -- not knowing that...



    A new challenger has appeared!
    �
  • Oct 20, 2011
    VolkerP
    Well, everything OK with freedom and like but, hey - the freedom of the US people to use up 20% of global oil resources and to wage war all around the globe can hardly be justified by "consumer satisfaction". That's not a constitutional right. What's the best way to change public perception of the problem? Make some really nice EVS that only a stubborn mind can hate, then wait for it to trickle down... blech.
    �
  • Oct 20, 2011
    richkae
    The good news is that 14 million vehicles are sold in the US in a typical year. If 23% are happy with current capability EVs, thats 3.22 million. If 3% of the people who buy vehicles are highly motivated to buy an EV, thats 420,000 vehicles. Nissan can supply maybe 100,000 Leafs, that still leaves a lot of room for Tesla.
    The total market for Audi,BMW,Mercedes,Volvo,Land Rover,Porsche,etc ( and all other luxury brands I noticed but excluding Cadillac,Lexus,Infiniti,Acura because their sales are not broken out from their parent companies ) is about 900 thousand vehicles per year. Tesla only needs a little over 2% of that to sell 20,000 vehicles per year.
    �
  • Oct 20, 2011
    WhiteKnight
    When you say "total market" I don't know if you mean in the United States or around the globe? Worldwide I think they sell 1.2 or 1.6 million vehicles with a price tag of $50,000 or more. And there are a lot of people on this website that have never bought a $50,000 car before that want to buy the Model S.

    The only obstacle standing in the way of Tesla selling 50,000+ cars a year is a lack of awareness. Once people realize that the Model S exists and they understand all the unique benefits then it's off to the races. The biggest thing harming Tesla at this point is the fact that competing hybrids and EVs are so much less attractive people think they already know they don't want an EV.
    �
  • Oct 20, 2011
    richkae
    Yeah sorry I meant total market in the US.
    I am just trying to establish that even if a tiny fraction of consumers are interested in EVs ( real EVs ), and the majority turn up their noses - that demand will dramatically outstrip supply.
    The people who doubt the utility of EVs can spend a few more years wasting hundreds of dollars per month on gasoline, while the tiny minority of EV owners prove that they work.
    �
  • Oct 21, 2011
    Eberhard
    When I saw the huge "frunk", why not add a swappable little generator as range extender, just strong enough to run the car at 20miles/h and provide enough to keep the car warm at freezing temperature. I think 3kW electric and 6-8kW thermic would be enough. Honda provides a generator with this numbers with only 35kg on weight?
    �
  • Oct 21, 2011
    Mycroft
    I think you meant "frunk" there E. You're right, and if the Model S takes off, that might make a great after-market addition. Although I won't be buying one.
    �
  • Oct 21, 2011
    ckessel
    Wouldn't that require some heavy rework to figure out how to vent the generator exhaust?
    �
  • Oct 21, 2011
    VolkerP
    no, just get the latest front exhaust pipes from Fisker.
    �
  • Oct 21, 2011
    Mycroft
    Ha! If I'd been drinking milk when I read that, it would have come spurting out my nose! Thanks for the funny! :biggrin:
    �
  • Oct 21, 2011
    Eberhard
    for a small 50ccm needs about 75l inhaust and about the double exhaust per minute. Thats a really small pipe needed. its about 2% compared a standard sized car.
    �
  • Oct 21, 2011
    ckessel
    They'd have to put in a firewall too since there'd be an ICE in the frunk.
    �
  • Oct 21, 2011
    rabar10
    G'ah, quit talking about ways to put an ICE in the Model S!

    It's like telling a vegetarian to cook tofu in bacon grease...
    �
  • Oct 21, 2011
    Mycroft
    Mmmm bacon!
    �
  • Oct 21, 2011
    richkae
    Its like telling a cocaine addict to just cut back to once per day.
    �
  • Oct 21, 2011
    TEG
  • Oct 21, 2011
    Iz
    Rather than dealing with potential exhaust issues I would prefer a trailer, if the need arises. Can you imagine occupants dying from exhaust fumes in a Model S because they installed a small ICE engine in the frunk with inadequate venting?
    �
  • Oct 22, 2011
    Eberhard
    Trailer? to carry a weight of only 35kg?
    �
  • Oct 24, 2011
    Iz
    There was a generator trailer project 10-years ago for the Rav4 EV. I believe the small engine would use liquid fuel to charge the battery. Project never got off the ground. Perhaps new and more efficient designs will be developed for Model S and Leaf.
    �
  • Oct 24, 2011
    AnOutsider
    That's actually pretty cool. Practical though? I suppose if you only attached it on long trips, but how much range does it add compared to range decreased for towing the little guy?
    �
  • Oct 24, 2011
    TEG
  • Oct 24, 2011
    ckessel
    The idea of towing a gas engine with an electric car feels so very wrong.
    �
  • Oct 24, 2011
    gg_got_a_tesla
    Agree. If one's really a frequent road-tripper, maybe, an ICE car - with good mileage where the manufacturer would have done the best optimization of everything for gas mileage and emissions - is the better fit for you (atleast as of today). This is just weird and counter-intuitive.
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)