The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-21-2013, 10:09 AM   #101
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,189

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
There are several lines of research that promise to make batteries smaller, lighter, and more energy dense. Lithium-air is one that comes to mind.

I wouldn't mind practical fuel cell vehicle succeeding in the marketplace, but I have serious doubts. First of all it's energy-inefficient to convert electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity. But the biggest obstacle is storage. Hydrogen atoms are so small they slip past any barrier. A fuel cell car will constantly lose fuel and if it's parked in an inclosed space, like a garage, leaked hydrogen could be dangerous.

I think fuels cells may make good range-extenders for EVs, but I don't see pure FC vehicles ever being practical.
What we end up with may utilize hydrogen but look nothing like modern fuel cells. Many people are working on easier ways to store hydrogen energy in non-liquid or gaseous forms. That may end up being the answer. None of it is a sure bet. But neither is Lithium-Air or any other proposed future energy storage tech.

In time, the answer will come. The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that it won't come about because the federal government gave millionaires subsidies to drive $100,000 cars.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2013, 11:58 AM   #102
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,838
Default

You can try and add up carbon footprint but I don't care. I care about the car having range and performing like we are used to. You can nitpick down to how much co2 does it take to rip lithium from the ground to make a battery but I don't care. I care mostly about convienence and cost when the time comes.

IMO the forced progression to these electrics is a joke. They won't last in this form and the cars aren't that good. The range, the power, or if they do have good range and power the cost. So a bunch of rich people are tooling around in Tesla's, big deal. Musk is like the richest guy around. If anyone doesn't need low interest govt loans its him. Obama passed out loans to donors, plain and simple.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2013, 10:43 AM   #103
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,965

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
You can try and add up carbon footprint but I don't care. I care about the car having range and performing like we are used to. You can nitpick down to how much co2 does it take to rip lithium from the ground to make a battery but I don't care. I care mostly about convienence and cost when the time comes.
A "solution" that does not address the desire (i.e. to reduce dependence on fossil fuels) is... not a solution. It's a lot better idea to stick with petrol instead of natural gas fossil fuel burning cars. Why in the world would we want to put car fuel in competition with the fuel used to heat homes? Makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote:
IMO the forced progression to these electrics is a joke.
sh*t! I know. Just in the last couple weeks I've had to dodge no less than 3 Tesla goon squads that were trying to force me to buy a Tesla. The really weird part? They were all wearing Steve Jobs masks. I don't get that part...

Quote:
They won't last in this form and the cars aren't that good. The range, the power, or if they do have good range and power the cost. So a bunch of rich people are tooling around in Tesla's, big deal. Musk is like the richest guy around. If anyone doesn't need low interest govt loans its him. Obama passed out loans to donors, plain and simple.
Tesla has shown its feasible to make a mainstream EV that has reasonable power, range and cost. Is the Model S that? No, it shows that such a vehicle is possible.

Despite BB's willful ignorance, battery tech has increased a lot since the EV1 days. A modern L-ION battery has about 5x the specific energy (energy per mass) and nearly 10x the energy density (energy per volume) of lead acid batteries. In other words, replace the EV1 battery with a Tesla Model S battery and the EV1 will go between 5x (if you replace by weight) and 10x (if you replace by volume) the distance per change, That's between 400 and 900mi/charge depending on what you replace by, mass or volume (compared to 90). And at an equivalent price.

When the EV1 got NiHM batteries, it's unclear if they replaced by mass or by volume (or by cost), but the result was 140mi/charge which is in the range of replacement by mass or volume compared to lead-acid. Using even the NiMH batteries of the EV1 Gen2+, a vehicle such as the Model S is entirely infeasible (at any cost). NiHM batteries do not have the specific energy or energy density required to even fit in a Model S platform.

As for cost, pointing at the Model S and saying "OMG, look how expensive EVs still are" is equivalent to pointing at a 2014 Corvette, BMW 7 series, or similar vehicle and saying "OMG, look how expensive ICEs are!" The Model S is a luxury/performance vehicle. To produce a mainstream vehicle, Tesla will reduce the overall performance (likely in the 200hp/200tq range or about 1/2 the power -- still a nicely powered vehicle equivalent to a 250-300 hp/tq ICE) and then trim battery size/cost preserving as much range as possible. Then it'll strip out however much of the luxury crap they feel they need to get to a "mainstream" price.

Oh, and speaking of expense. You did notice that even your own article says the "mainstream" Toyota HFC cars will "somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000". In other words, the "mainstream" Toyota will likely be just as expensive as the decidedly non-mainstream Model S.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 03:38 AM   #104
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

http://defamer.gawker.com/fast-and-f...ium=socialflow

Quote:
Walker and another person were driving in a Porsche together when the driver lost control and hit a tree or light post, sending the car into flames and killing both passengers.
Huh. Tragic.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 08:05 AM   #105
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,189

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Despite BB's willful ignorance, battery tech has increased a lot since the EV1 days. A modern L-ION battery has about 5x the specific energy (energy per mass) and nearly 10x the energy density (energy per volume) of lead acid batteries. In other words, replace the EV1 battery with a Tesla Model S battery and the EV1 will go between 5x (if you replace by weight) and 10x (if you replace by volume) the distance per change, That's between 400 and 900mi/charge depending on what you replace by, mass or volume (compared to 90). And at an equivalent price.
Lithium-Ion existed in 1999. With most of the same advantages. Yes, it's gotten cheaper, as I already stated, but no, it's still not priced in line with NiMH, which is why all hybrids and low-cost EVs still use NiMH (or even Lead Acid). Tesla made a smart move getting into the luxury market, again, as I said before. The advantage is they can gain a real performance edge because of what the high price point allows them to do. But they're not changing the economics of transportation in that segment. Because their share is insignificant.

Quote:
As for cost, pointing at the Model S and saying "OMG, look how expensive EVs still are" is equivalent to pointing at a 2014 Corvette, BMW 7 series, or similar vehicle and saying "OMG, look how expensive ICEs are!" The Model S is a luxury/performance vehicle. To produce a mainstream vehicle, Tesla will reduce the overall performance (likely in the 200hp/200tq range or about 1/2 the power -- still a nicely powered vehicle equivalent to a 250-300 hp/tq ICE) and then trim battery size/cost preserving as much range as possible. Then it'll strip out however much of the luxury crap they feel they need to get to a "mainstream" price.

Oh, and speaking of expense. You did notice that even your own article says the "mainstream" Toyota HFC cars will "somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000". In other words, the "mainstream" Toyota will likely be just as expensive as the decidedly non-mainstream Model S.
The Fuel Cell debate was about the future, not about today. Tesla's already admitted (by deciding against production) that they're not ready to produce a lower cost EV that can get adequate range to be marketable.

The context of the Fuel Cell/Battery debate was whether batteries are really the best bet on the future of transportation. Should we be subsidizing millionaires to drive status symbols while there's at least a clear possibility that Tesla's battery-based model ends up being a dead-end fork in the road?
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 08:09 AM   #106
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,189

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
A "solution" that does not address the desire (i.e. to reduce dependence on fossil fuels) is... not a solution. It's a lot better idea to stick with petrol instead of natural gas fossil fuel burning cars. Why in the world would we want to put car fuel in competition with the fuel used to heat homes? Makes no sense whatsoever.
Bad argument, considering how all that new Tesla juice is going to be produced at the end of the day.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000...910246338.html
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 10:57 AM   #107
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,965

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Lithium-Ion existed in 1999. With most of the same advantages. Yes, it's gotten cheaper, as I already stated, but no, it's still not priced in line with NiMH, which is why all hybrids and low-cost EVs still use NiMH (or even Lead Acid). Tesla made a smart move getting into the luxury market, again, as I said before. The advantage is they can gain a real performance edge because of what the high price point allows them to do. But they're not changing the economics of transportation in that segment. Because their share is insignificant.
Translation: *plugs ears* lalala I can't hear you!

Like I've been saying, Tesla has proven that with L-ION batteries you can build an EV that is a suitable replacement (performance, range, recharge) to much of the gas powered car market. Something that is simply not possible with NiMH or Lead-Acid, at any price.

Quote:
The Fuel Cell debate was about the future, not about today. Tesla's already admitted (by deciding against production) that they're not ready to produce a lower cost EV that can get adequate range to be marketable.
Tesla has not cancelled plans for a mainstream vehicle in the $30k range. And frankly, the way L-ION prices continue to drop, it's only a matter of time before *someone* achieves that goal.

Quote:
The context of the Fuel Cell/Battery debate was whether batteries are really the best bet on the future of transportation. Should we be subsidizing millionaires to drive status symbols while there's at least a clear possibility that Tesla's battery-based model ends up being a dead-end fork in the road?
All investment has risk, and all technologies receive public subsidy at some point in their life. But it's quite silly (and massively hypocritical) to whine about the subsidy for EVs. Gas powered vehicles still enjoy massive subsidy in fuel prices. Trillions of dollars (and innumerable lives) have been spent in the last few decades alone to maintain oil supplies in addition to substantial tax breaks for oil companies and various other market manipulations used to keep the price of gas down as far as possible.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 12:24 PM   #108
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,189

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Translation: *plugs ears* lalala I can't hear you!

Like I've been saying, Tesla has proven that with L-ION batteries you can build an EV that is a suitable replacement (performance, range, recharge) to much of the gas powered car market. Something that is simply not possible with NiMH or Lead-Acid, at any price.
Nobody said it was. Again, what you're missing is that someone could've built an EV a decade ago using LiIon. It was viewed as too costly. And for the average Joe, it still is.

Nobody's saying Tesla's a bad company. I'm not rooting for them to go under. I just have an issue with paying a little extra every year so Leonardo DiCaprio can have an artificial discount on his 6-figure ride.

Quote:
All investment has risk, and all technologies receive public subsidy at some point in their life. But it's quite silly (and massively hypocritical) to whine about the subsidy for EVs. Gas powered vehicles still enjoy massive subsidy in fuel prices. Trillions of dollars (and innumerable lives) have been spent in the last few decades alone to maintain oil supplies in addition to substantial tax breaks for oil companies and various other market manipulations used to keep the price of gas down as far as possible.
As I've said before. If battery technology has a breakthrough, it won't be because of Tesla. They're basically an end-consumer. If you want to throw some extra research funds at MIT, be my guest. That's far more likely to produce the results you're touting for Tesla.

And quit with the whole 'green' angle. In the real world, fossil fuels are going to supply the vast majority of Tesla's new electrical requirements. Resource acquisition is one of the primary functions of any society. Your selectively applying it as a "subsidy" is hilarious. Everything everywhere is "subsidized" using that logic.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 01:34 PM   #109
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,965

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Nobody said it was. Again, what you're missing is that someone could've built an EV a decade ago using LiIon. It was viewed as too costly. And for the average Joe, it still is.

Nobody's saying Tesla's a bad company. I'm not rooting for them to go under. I just have an issue with paying a little extra every year so Leonardo DiCaprio can have an artificial discount on his 6-figure ride.
There's a big difference between a ~$700,000 vehicle and a $70,000 vehicle (L-ION batteries are now only about 5% the cost they were in 1998, and still falling). The former is entirely infeasible. The latter is well within reach of significant parts of the population. This continued sillyness of saying only the super rich can afford a $70,000 vehicle is just absurd. It's a price right in line with BMW, et. al.

And again, Tesla is developing more mainstream offerings and, of course, Tesla isn't the only EV maker that utilizes that subsidy so complaining about the subsidy only going to rich folks is just plain wrong.

Quote:
As I've said before. If battery technology has a breakthrough, it won't be because of Tesla. They're basically an end-consumer. If you want to throw some extra research funds at MIT, be my guest. That's far more likely to produce the results you're touting for Tesla.
There's a big division of labor in the R&D world. Want a completely new tech? You'll need to fund basic R&D efforts like research universities. Want existing tech to be refined and make more affordable? That's the territory of for profit entities like Tesla.

L-ION is sufficient for the needs of the bulk of all drivers. The only thing that is a problem right now is cost. Tesla and other companies actually producing EVs are how that cost will get reduced. Refinements in manufacturing, economies of scale, etc.

Of course, there are better battery technologies in development as well, which are all also getting large amounts of funding from the public. No reason we can't be pushing all angles (new battery types, better EV design, AND improvements in existing L-ION platforms). A well designed, highly refined L-ION platform is a great starting point as a platform for whatever improved battery type becomes available or even HFCs, thorium cars, or whatever other possible tech that ultimately feeds an electric motor on wheels.

Quote:
And quit with the whole 'green' angle. In the real world, fossil fuels are going to supply the vast majority of Tesla's new electrical requirements.
The big difference is a petrol or natural gas car MUST use fossil fuels and other 'dirty' energy sources. An EV doesn't have to, but even it it does it is far more efficient at doing so than an ICE.

Quote:
Resource acquisition is one of the primary functions of any society. Your selectively applying it as a "subsidy" is hilarious. Everything everywhere is "subsidized" using that logic.
Oh I agree, government subsidizes everything. What you have to convince me is that EVs should be an exception to that reality.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 02:15 PM   #110
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,189

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
There's a big difference between a ~$700,000 vehicle and a $70,000 vehicle (L-ION batteries are now only about 5% the cost they were in 1998, and still falling). The former is entirely infeasible. The latter is well within reach of significant parts of the population. This continued sillyness of saying only the super rich can afford a $70,000 vehicle is just absurd. It's a price right in line with BMW, et. al.
We're talking a $70k vehicle that can basically only commute. The vast majority of people can't spend 70k on a daily commuter (or at all) and then pony up a bunch more for a long-distance vehicle. That basically only fits the job-slave and/or fly-everywhere set. Which is a tiny minority of drivers.

Quote:
And again, Tesla is developing more mainstream offerings and, of course, Tesla isn't the only EV maker that utilizes that subsidy so complaining about the subsidy only going to rich folks is just plain wrong.
All EV subsidies are garbage. Whether it's for a golf cart or a Fisker Karma. And I'm sure Tesla's planning all sorts of things. But it's tough to bank the future on a theoretical prototype that might or might not be built in two or three years.

Quote:
There's a big division of labor in the R&D world. Want a completely new tech? You'll need to fund basic R&D efforts like research universities. Want existing tech to be refined and make more affordable? That's the territory of for profit entities like Tesla.
This all presumes the bedrock technology can deliver what 90% of drivers need. In this case, it can't.

Quote:
L-ION is sufficient for the needs of the bulk of all drivers. The only thing that is a problem right now is cost. Tesla and other companies actually producing EVs are how that cost will get reduced. Refinements in manufacturing, economies of scale, etc.
3-400 mile range and FULL recharge in 10-15 minutes. Then you can say that. Until then, it's a solution that doesn't fit 75% of the market (who can't afford an array of vehicles for their various travelling needs)

Quote:
Of course, there are better battery technologies in development as well, which are all also getting large amounts of funding from the public. No reason we can't be pushing all angles (new battery types, better EV design, AND improvements in existing L-ION platforms). A well designed, highly refined L-ION platform is a great starting point as a platform for whatever improved battery type becomes available or even HFCs, thorium cars, or whatever other possible tech that ultimately feeds an electric motor on wheels.
My issue is with targeting subsidies towards a specific technology based mostly on political connections and/or impressions. Joe Biden should have no part in deciding which future technology ends up driving America.


Quote:
The big difference is a petrol or natural gas car MUST use fossil fuels and other 'dirty' energy sources. An EV doesn't have to, but even it it does it is far more efficient at doing so than an ICE.
Once you factor in energy spent in manufacture, there's really not much of an energy efficiency edge at all. And I'm sure you could rig up an LPG vehicle to run on methane or some other non-fossil energy. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what something theoretically could run on. Only what it will run on. And I think this came up in the context of fuel cells. And there's more than one theoretical source for hydrogen energy.

Quote:
Oh I agree, government subsidizes everything. What you have to convince me is that EVs should be an exception to that reality.
No, we're talking about a cash subsidy over and above the implied support of living within a civilization. There's nothing about battery power that deserves an extra-special layer of support.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 02:54 PM   #111
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bevis
We're talking a $70k vehicle that can basically only commute.
No we're not. The model S can reach an 80% SOC in 40 minutes at Supercharger stations. So if you start out with a full charge you'll drive almost 4 hours at 70 MPH before needing to recharge. By then you'll be ready to stop for lunch, stretch your legs, use the bathroom, etc. By the time you're done your model S has another 3 hours of driving on the battery. This sounds pretty practical for long distance travel unless your in some kind of hurry.

And the charging is free. And if that's not fast enough the model S is also designed for battery swapping that just takes a few minutes. Tesla is installing battery-swapping stations across the country.

Last edited by The Lone Bolt; 12-02-2013 at 03:00 PM..
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 02:54 PM   #112
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,965

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
We're talking a $70k vehicle that can basically only commute. The vast majority of people can't spend 70k on a daily commuter (or at all) and then pony up a bunch more for a long-distance vehicle. That basically only fits the job-slave and/or fly-everywhere set. Which is a tiny minority of drivers.

All EV subsidies are garbage. Whether it's for a golf cart or a Fisker Karma. And I'm sure Tesla's planning all sorts of things. But it's tough to bank the future on a theoretical prototype that might or might not be built in two or three years.

This all presumes the bedrock technology can deliver what 90% of drivers need. In this case, it can't.

3-400 mile range and FULL recharge in 10-15 minutes. Then you can say that. Until then, it's a solution that doesn't fit 75% of the market (who can't afford an array of vehicles for their various travelling needs)


You have a gross misunderstanding of typical vehicle use. A typical vehicle is driven 30mi day on average. A typical household has 1.9 vehicles. A typical household drives 55 miles a day across all vehicles. A typical one way vehicle trip is 10mi.

http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf

As for the overall market percentage, here's a nice pretty graph for you to fail to comprehend, as is so often the case with you:



95% of trips are < 30 miles. 99% are less than 70 miles. There's a reason Nisson was happy to produce a 100mi range car. That covers 99.9% of typical daily usage with plenty of room to spare ... as measured by the real world instead of your fantasy land.

The idea that you need a vehicle with a 400 mile range for 75% of the vehicle market is... completely, hilariously wrong. And the idea that multiple vehicles is not common is similarly completely unsupported.

The only actual issue is recharge time for long trips, which is not longer a show stopper, just a minor inconvenience. An EV with a 200mi range per 30 minutes stop is acceptable. That's 3-4 hours of travel per stop, which is about the average between stops that people want anyway.

I know I would love the trade off of only ever having to visit a refueling station 4 times a year on average (for long trips taken by car) instead of 30 times a year (my average refueling needs per year).


Quote:
My issue is with targeting subsidies towards a specific technology based mostly on political connections and/or impressions. Joe Biden should have no part in deciding which future technology ends up driving America.
:eyeroll:

Quote:
Once you factor in energy spent in manufacture, there's really not much of an energy efficiency edge at all. And I'm sure you could rig up an LPG vehicle to run on methane or some other non-fossil energy. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what something theoretically could run on. Only what it will run on. And I think this came up in the context of fuel cells. And there's more than one theoretical source for hydrogen energy.
And here comes the gumby act. It's almost like you assume an there are no energy costs to the manufacture of ICE vehicles or the recovery, refining and distribution of fossil fuels. We've been over this before. Remove head from rectum.

Quote:
No, we're talking about a cash subsidy over and above the implied support of living within a civilization. There's nothing about battery power that deserves an extra-special layer of support.
You mean like the cash and blood subsidy to keep fuel prices low? Why does petrol deserve that monumental and indefinite support from society but EVs don't deserve a temporary and comparatively insignificant support of society?

When one of the primary purposes of the U.S. Military becomes securing resources for EV companies, you'll have something of a point.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 03:23 PM   #113
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,189

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
No we're not. The model S can reach an 80% SOC in 40 minutes at Supercharger stations. So if you start out with a full charge you'll drive almost 4 hours at 70 MPH before needing to recharge. By then you'll be ready to stop for lunch, stretch your legs, use the bathroom, etc. By the time you're done your model S has another 3 hours of driving on the battery. This sounds pretty practical for long distance travel unless your in some kind of hurry.

And the charging is free. And if that's not fast enough the model S is also designed for battery swapping that just takes a few minutes. Tesla is installing battery-swapping stations across the country.
The numbers you're quoting are from the $100k model. And maybe you've never long distance roadtripped much. But an hour break every 3 hours (assuming you can find a rare supercharger) sounds anything but efficient.

That's pretty much Retirement travel pace. And that's the best case scenario. Last time I looked, there were two supercharger stations along the entire Rocky Mountain front.

As far as "free" goes, that's a temporary marketing gimmick. Once there are enough stations and cars to be significant, free charging stations will go away.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 03:43 PM   #114
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The numbers you're quoting are from the $100k model. And maybe you've never long distance roadtripped much. But an hour break every 3 hours (assuming you can find a rare supercharger) sounds anything but efficient.
The 85 kWh model S is about 80K after federal tax credits, and lower if state credits are available. And I've driven long-distance before and after 4 hours of driving I have been dying for a break. 40 minutes is not very long, just time enough for lunch, bathroom, and stretching legs. Even driving a gas car I usually stop for at least a half hour after 4 hours of driving, so an extra 10 minutes would be no problem. I think almost nobody drives that long without a significant break (except you apparently).

Quote:
Last time I looked, there were two supercharger stations along the entire Rocky Mountain front.
There should be three now. But that's irrelevant. They're spaced close enough to get from one to the other in a model S.

Quote:
As far as "free" goes, that's a temporary marketing gimmick. Once there are enough stations and cars to be significant, free charging stations will go away.
Well I never realized you're clairvoyant. Can I get next week's winning Lotto number from you too? Or are you a personal friend of Mr. Musk's and he let you in on his scheme?

Pray tell what is your supporting evidence?
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 03:52 PM   #115
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,189

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post


You have a gross misunderstanding of typical vehicle use. A typical vehicle is driven 30mi day on average. A typical household has 1.9 vehicles. A typical household drives 55 miles a day across all vehicles. A typical one way vehicle trip is 10mi.
That's true of me too. Tesla would work fine for 90% of my driving (in per-trip terms anyway). But the fact that it can't suffice for the other 10% though is more important than you're grasping. I can't justify 6 figures on a vehicle that also requires me to own another vehicle. Neither can 90% of everyone else. Which is why Tesla currently sells something like 1/5th of 1% of the cars a real market player like GM does.

Quote:
The idea that you need a vehicle with a 400 mile range for 75% of the vehicle market is... completely, hilariously wrong. And the idea that multiple vehicles is not common is similarly completely unsupported.
Tesla's ($100k) best theoretical 280 mile range leaves you with a 140 mile practical trip distance (if you want to get home again). Anything less than that introduces significant hurdles to overcome. I feel sorry for you if you so rarely stray less than 140 miles from home. In the $70k Tesla, you're talking more like 100 miles.

No way to spin it. That's just not practical for most people.

Quote:
And here comes the gumby act. It's almost like you assume an there are no energy costs to the manufacture of ICE vehicles or the recovery, refining and distribution of fossil fuels. We've been over this before. Remove head from rectum.
I'm talking the amount of energy and emissions DIFFERENCE, not just the cost itself. EVs are very energy inefficient and carbon unfriendly to build. Much more so than any internal combustion vehicle.

Quote:
You mean like the cash and blood subsidy to keep fuel prices low? Why does petrol deserve that monumental and indefinite support from society but EVs don't deserve a temporary and comparatively insignificant support of society?

When one of the primary purposes of the U.S. Military becomes securing resources for EV companies, you'll have something of a point.
In these terms, energy is energy. It drives our economy. Putting it in a battery first doesn't fantasmically make that reality go away. But that goes back to the proggies' primary logical weakness. The seen vs the unseen.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 04:30 PM   #116
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,237
Default

(sigh)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy with reading comprehension problems
Tesla's ($100k) wrong -- 80K or less. I already covered this best theoretical 280 mile range leaves you with a 140 mile practical trip distance (if you want to get home again or unless you can locate one of over 200 supercharger stations). Anything less than that introduces significant hurdles to overcome if you consider a 40 minute or less charge a "significant hurdle". I feel sorry for you if you so rarely stray less than 140 miles from home. In the approximately $70k Tesla, you're talking more like 100 265 EPA rated miles.

No way to spin it. That's just not practical for most people if by "most people" you mean about 1% of the driving population.

Last edited by The Lone Bolt; 12-02-2013 at 04:50 PM..
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 05:29 PM   #117
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,965

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
That's true of me too. Tesla would work fine for 90% of my driving (in per-trip terms anyway). But the fact that it can't suffice for the other 10% though is more important than you're grasping. I can't justify 6 figures on a vehicle that also requires me to own another vehicle. Neither can 90% of everyone else.
:eyeroll:

1.) Like I've said dozens of times, I'm not saying the Model S itself is a practical EV. Only that is demonstrates that a practical EV is now feasible.

2.) Statistically, only much less than 1% of all trips are more than the range of a Model S.

3.) A vehicle with a 200 mile range and 30 minute recharge is perfectly feasible for 1% of trips. No second vehicle required. You sound like the dumbasses who think they NEED a 4WD vehicle, a performance oriented vehicle, or a dually truck to drive back and forth to work.

A longer range would be NICE, but not NEEDED. I have 6-8 trips of around 350 miles per year, and almost always stop at least once to eat, piss, and top off my tank. By all means, the statistical outliers who routinely drive long distance trips won't be served well by an EV. But, they are the statistical outliers. 99% of all trips are less than 70mi. Well within the range of pretty much every L-ION based EV.

Quote:
Which is why Tesla currently sells something like 1/5th of 1% of the cars a real market player like GM does.
Tesla Model S is currently the best selling vehicle in its class (full size luxury performance Sedan).

Quote:
Tesla's ($100k) best theoretical 280 mile range leaves you with a 140 mile practical trip distance (if you want to get home again). Anything less than that introduces significant hurdles to overcome. I feel sorry for you if you so rarely stray less than 140 miles from home. In the $70k Tesla, you're talking more like 100 miles.

No way to spin it. That's just not practical for most people.
Lone Bolt has already addressed the above inaccuracies.


Quote:
I'm talking the amount of energy and emissions DIFFERENCE, not just the cost itself. EVs are very energy inefficient and carbon unfriendly to build. Much more so than any internal combustion vehicle.
Not true. We've been over this before.

Quote:
In these terms, energy is energy. It drives our economy. Putting it in a battery first doesn't fantasmically make that reality go away. But that goes back to the proggies' primary logical weakness. The seen vs the unseen.
Are you drunk?

Last edited by Fedaykin; 12-02-2013 at 05:32 PM..
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 09:10 PM   #118
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,189

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Lolz. 350 miles? That's your definition of a long road trip?

You kiddies need to get out more. See the America outside Coastal Metroburbia.

"Hey, I know kids! Let's drive out to that Supercharger station up on I-5 and have some lunch at the Tesla Diner and then come back home!"

And the fact that you lump 4wd in with a dually in terms of practicality. Priceless. There really are two Americas, I guess.

Some more real world experience:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/au...v-highway.html

Next up, Fed posting a graph saying 99.8% of New Yorkers would never want to go to Boston anyway.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 12-02-2013 at 10:06 PM..
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 10:21 PM   #119
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,965

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Lolz. 350 miles? That's your definition of a long road trip?

"Hey, I know kids! Let's drive out to that Supercharger station up on I-5 and have some lunch at the Tesla Diner and then come back home!"
You still don't get it. Long haul trips are a tiny, tiny minority of vehicle usage, and are certainly feasible with modern EVs. Not as convenient as with an ICE, but feasible. Again, we're talking a 30 minute break every 3-4 hours. Anyone who's actually traveled with kids knows that isn't even a significant change in literary.

Quote:
And the fact that you lump 4wd in with a dually in terms of practicality. Priceless. There really are two Americas, I guess.
Not lumoing the two together, just pointing out how idiotic your 400 mi range "requirement" is (a requirement that most ICEs cars don't even meet!). Just like an idiot that thinks he needs a heavy duty 4WD vehicle to commute back and forth to work 5 miles a day.

Quote:
Some more real world experience:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/au...v-highway.html

Next up, Fed posting a graph saying 99.8% of New Yorkers would never want to go to Boston anyway.
That bull**** has been thoroughly discredited. The person doing the review purposefully ran the Tesla out of juice to make his "story". He literally got in the car after charging it only up to 30 some miles and attempted a 70 some mile journey. Complete and utter dishonesty. Not surprised you like it.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 10:23 PM   #120
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,965

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Other stunning reviews by Broder:

"My experience with BMWs. I put 1 gallon of gas in my 16 gallon tank, and the car wouldn't make it 70 miles! Those ICEs need a lot of work before they are ready!"
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 10:33 PM   #121
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,189

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
You still don't get it. Long haul trips are a tiny, tiny minority of vehicle usage, and are certainly feasible with modern EVs. Not as convenient as with an ICE, but feasible. Again, we're talking a 30 minute break every 3-4 hours. Anyone who's actually traveled with kids knows that isn't even a significant change in literary.
30 minutes is your myth, not reality. Read the NYT article. Realistically it's an hour. And that's assuming the eminently rare Supercharger station isn't significantly out of your way (more likely than not)



Quote:
Not lumoing the two together, just pointing out how idiotic your 400 mi range "requirement" is (a requirement that most ICEs cars don't even meet!). Just like an idiot that thinks he needs a heavy duty 4WD vehicle to commute back and forth to work 5 miles a day.
I said 3-400. I had a '89 5-passenger sedan that could manage that pretty easily. "Heavy duty 4wd" . Have you ever driven in ice or snow? Just curious. 5 miles a day to work doesn't mean anything. Do I ever need 4wd? Even for a couple months out of the year? Then driving that 4wd to work every day makes far more sense than dropping 75g's on a finicky status symbol. The (more modest than you'll admit) energy savings will never pay for vehicles for every season.

Quote:
That bull**** has been thoroughly discredited. The person doing the review purposefully ran the Tesla out of juice to make his "story". He literally got in the car after charging it only up to 30 some miles and attempted a 70 some mile journey. Complete and utter dishonesty. Not surprised you like it.
Billionaire Corporate CEO says the NYT is full of ****. Fed laps it up so long as Gaia is adequately serviced.

He was in contact with Tesla support for the whole trip. They arranged it for him. He followed their advice. And together they couldn't properly orchestrate a trip from NYC to Boston. How is Johnny Six Pack gonna make that work?

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 12-02-2013 at 10:44 PM..
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 10:59 PM   #122
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,965

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

[QUOTE=BroncoBeavis;3987367]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
You still don't get it. Long haul trips are a tiny, tiny minority of vehicle usage, and are certainly feasible with modern EVs. Not as convenient as with an ICE, but feasible. Again, we're talking a 30 minute break every 3-4 hours. Anyone who's actually traveled with kids knows that isn't even a significant change in literary.

30 minutes is your myth, not reality. Read the NYT article. Realistically it's an hour.
30 minutes is for ~80%. The hour time frame is for a full charge.

Quote:
And that's assuming the eminently rare Supercharger station isn't significantly out of your way (more likely than not)
I could just see this conversation in 1917. "That's assuming the eminently rare gas station isn't significantly out of your way".

Quote:
I said 3-400. I had a '89 5-passenger sedan that could manage that pretty easily. "Heavy duty 4wd" . Have you ever driven in ice or snow? Just curious. 5 miles a day to work doesn't mean anything. Do I ever need 4wd? Even for a couple months out of the year? Then driving that 4wd to work every day makes far more sense than dropping 75g's on a finicky status symbol. The (more modest than you'll admit) energy savings will never pay for vehicles for every season.
:eyeroll: There are of course legit needs for 4WD, duallys and cars with very long range between refueling. That's not the point. The point is many people who have those types of vehicles don't actually need them.

The basic fact remains: 99% of all car usage requires less than a 70 mile range. A 3-400 mile range requirement is a completely arbitrary 'requirement' that is not indicated by reality.

Quote:
Billionaire Corporate CEO says the NYT is full of ****. Fed laps it up so long as Gaia is adequately serviced.

He was in contact with Tesla support for the whole trip. They arranged it for him. He followed their advice. And together they couldn't properly orchestrate a trip from NYC to Boston. How is Johnny Six Pack gonna make that work?
LMAO. Tesla had the data recorder from the car in question. It very clearly shows what he actually did vs what he lied about doing. And the data recorder matches with both common sense and reality, vs. the clearly made up bullsh*t of the 'reviewer' who couldn't even keep his lies straight.

"In his article, Broder claims that “the car fell short of its projected range on the final leg.” Then he bizarrely states that the screen showed “Est. remaining range: 32 miles” and the car traveled “51 miles," contradicting his own statement (see images below). The car actually did an admirable job exceeding its projected range. Had he not insisted on doing a nonstop 61-mile trip while staring at a screen that estimated half that range, all would have been well. He constructed a no-win scenario for any vehicle, electric or gasoline."

Here ya go: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most...iar-test-drive
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 11:10 PM   #123
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,189

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
30 minutes is for ~80%. The hour time frame is for a full charge.



I could just see this conversation in 1917. "That's assuming the eminently rare gas station isn't significantly out of your way".



:eyeroll: There are of course legit needs for 4WD, duallys and cars with very long range between refueling. That's not the point. The point is many people who have those types of vehicles don't actually need them.

The basic fact remains: 99% of all car usage requires less than a 70 mile range. A 3-400 mile range requirement is a completely arbitrary 'requirement' that is not indicated by reality.



LMAO. Tesla had the data recorder from the car in question. It very clearly shows what he actually did vs what he lied about doing. And the data recorder matches with both common sense and reality, vs. the clearly made up bullsh*t of the 'reviewer' who couldn't even keep his lies straight.

"In his article, Broder claims that “the car fell short of its projected range on the final leg.” Then he bizarrely states that the screen showed “Est. remaining range: 32 miles” and the car traveled “51 miles," contradicting his own statement (see images below). The car actually did an admirable job exceeding its projected range. Had he not insisted on doing a nonstop 61-mile trip while staring at a screen that estimated half that range, all would have been well. He constructed a no-win scenario for any vehicle, electric or gasoline."

Here ya go: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most...iar-test-drive
Oooh, a company press release from the Company that Sued the BBC for Libel over the range they reported on their test track.

Unfortunately (for you) others looked into Musk's claims and found them fairly unconvincing.

http://www.thewire.com/technology/20...-fakery/62149/

Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

Basically Musk makes a bunch of losers' arguments with graphs showing that maybe he was driving 52 instead of 45 to try to conserve energy.

That's the "Supercar" I want to rely on! Good luck with that sell, Elon.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 12-02-2013 at 11:33 PM..
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 11:15 PM   #124
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,189

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
30 minutes is for ~80%. The hour time frame is for a full charge.
Is that with the $2,000 "Supercharge" addon?

You could buy 30,000 miles worth of fuel in a hybrid with that kind of money.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 12-02-2013 at 11:18 PM..
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2013, 11:38 PM   #125
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,965

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

[QUOTE=BroncoBeavis;3987389]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post

Oooh, a company press release from the Company that Sued the BBC for Libel over the range they reported on their test track.
The suit for libel was for (as the company admits) staged "out of power" segment on which implied that the Tesla ran out of power during testing and had only a 55mi range (against a stated 200+) on "Top Gear".

"Of course, Top Gear admitted the car they pushed wasn't out of batteries but that it was done for effect and that it is completely true that the car would have run out at 55 miles of track time. Producer Andy Wilman defended their actions by basically saying "Duh, it's a television show" and accusing Tesla of trying to use them for press."

http://jalopnik.com/5887611/judge-th...-libel-lawsuit

FYI: Top Gear was NOT driving the Tesla Roadster under the conditions where it would get the stated 200mi range. They were pushing it to its limits on a track. Guess what, when you take a petrol car out and do 0-60 tests and run it 120mph around a track, it's range gets drastically reduced too. As for 55mi? they never gave any information on how they figured that, so there's really nothing to go on.

Quote:
Unfortunately (for you) others looked into Musk's claims and found them fairly unconvincing.

http://www.thewire.com/technology/20...-fakery/62149/

Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

Basically Musk makes a bunch of losers' arguments with graphs showing that maybe he was driving 52 instead of 45 to try to conserve energy.

That's the "Supercar" I want to rely on! Good luck with that sell, Elon.
Musk overstepped a few things, but not on the key issue: Broder purposefully charged the car to only 32 miles and attempted a 61 mile journey (explicity against advice from Tesla and basic common sense), despite the car telling him he would not make it. He admits this is what he did. He set up the "failure" in order to get a "story". Your article (which I've read before) does not dispute that fact.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:52 AM.


Denver Broncos