Seeking Alpha

Rick Krementz's  Instablog

Rick Krementz
Send Message
Entrepreneur, Technophile, Telewarrior Career Coaching Business Brainstorming Entrepreneur Coaching
My company:
Harvard Business School
My blog:
Racketash Musings
  • Tesla S-85 Performance - A Test Drive 86 comments
    Apr 7, 2013 5:17 PM | about stocks: TSLA, TOYOF

    I finally got around to a Tesla test drive. S-85 Performance, in suburban NJ. Traffic prevented much of a workout.

    Yes, it has (more than) decent acceleration. There is the huge 17 inch monitor - I wanted to know what all the little doodads and icons did, but did not have the opportunity to play with it.

    Having heard all the "Wows!" from the Tesladors, I was hoping to be thrilled. It was a very nice drive, and extremely quiet (5 stars!). But, orgasmically Wow? Well, not for me. Perhaps my expectations were too high.

    I thought the lack of infrastructure was interesting. Tesla has been selling at the Short Hills (NJ) mall since November, yet they do not have *any* way of recharging. In the showroom, the cars are not even plugged into basic 120v, event though the cars are alive - dashboard lights, etc., including one saying needs to be charged, no electricity available. There was a wire attached to the car, but I guess it just goes under the car, not to an outlet. The sales guy said there was some issue with the mall management.

    In a remote part of the lot there are a few spaces allocated for Tesla - BUT no charging stations! (not even 120v). I asked about charging, and the sales guy muttered about some of their loyal customers taking them home to charge. November to April - no charging? Hmmm. The incentive to buy the car, park and shop is missing.

    I asked about bricking. I mentioned that rumors said the bricking problem had been solved; what were the hardware or other changes done? "Hmmm, well there might not have been any hardware changes, but we now communicate better to customers, with texting, emails, and even phone calls when the battery is low." Well, I guess it is better that communication is better, but it still sounds like parking the car for a few months is still verboten. Especially in cold weather, when the battery has to be kept warm.

    I asked about seeing the warrantee - nope, can't see it until after I make a deposit on the car … which seemed a bit odd. I asked about the $600 per 12,500 miles required warrantee. Some writers have opined that meant cheap maintenance - a max of only $600 per year.

    Well, I drive about 30,000 miles per year; the sales guy confirmed that is about $1,800 per year maintenance - about 5 cents/mile. The car uses at least 150 watts continuously (and over 1500 watts in extremely cold or hot weather) even when fully charged, so that is another few hundred dollars per year. The tires are expensive, apparently wear out fast, and are not covered by the warrantee. Some writers have mentioned annual tires at several thousand dollars - but I guess that depends on how you drive.

    In short, ignoring battery depreciation, it's several grand a year for maintenance. Some people calculate battery depreciation at 40 cents/mile; I could not get a straight answer whether driving 30,000 miles per year was considered excessive and would actually be covered under the warrantee.

    In comparison, I often drive a Prius. Not because it is green, but because I get c. 50 mpg, which saves me thousands in gas over my last car, a GM Suburban V8. The Prius has free maintenance for the first $30,000 miles, as does BMW.

    Like all $100,000 cars, she is superficially very appealing. And, just like a magazine cover girl, that superficial attractiveness doesn't translate into wanting to take her home for a permanent (and expensive) relationship.

    I will pass.

    Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

    Stocks: TSLA, TOYOF
Back To Rick Krementz's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (86)
Track new comments
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2128) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for the assessment. I'm sort of an economic guy. Would love a cover girl girlfriend but know I can't afford her. Sounds like the same thing to me. Hope all that can afford a Tesla, have a long and loving lasting relationship. Alas, just not for me.
    7 Apr 2013, 06:53 PM Reply Like
  • JohnM121
    , contributor
    Comments (341) | Send Message
     
    You can't see the terms of service until you pay. If you bought the smallest battery, they install a larger one, but will only activate it for a fee. Tesla is a software company. It even started in the grand tradition of vaporware.

     

    I describe it as Conspicuous Environmentalism. It doesn't have to be good, as long as it looks good.

     

    Thanks for the review.
    7 Apr 2013, 07:09 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (8492) | Send Message
     
    Rick, Thanks for the write up. From my perspective it still could be a great "Toy" as you suggest. Just like a Porsche or some other exotic ride where special metrics mean a bunch to a select number of people that can afford to pay for it. Not that they will be impressed with the buying experience you witnessed.

     

    As for people holding this vehicle up and pointing to a time frame when they can assure us the EV will displace ICE powered personal transport vehicles for the masses. They need their head examined. Just like the government "servants" that sponsored this vehicle with public funds. Let's hope, unlike Fisker, Tesla can get enough enthusiasts to pay the loan back. The balance of the public funding for the buyers, well, it's gone money kind of.

     

    PS A Suburban vs a Prius? I trust your needs have changed a little. And/or petrol prices!
    7 Apr 2013, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3308) | Send Message
     
    "I asked about seeing the warrantee - nope, can't see it until after I make a deposit on the car … which seemed a bit odd."

     

    ...a gem of understatement.
    7 Apr 2013, 07:31 PM Reply Like
  • Stilldazed
    , contributor
    Comments (2046) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Rick,
    While I like the looks of the car, what you have said confirms that we aren't there yet for mainstream EVs for price or infrastructure. Next!
    7 Apr 2013, 11:54 PM Reply Like
  • Windwood Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (2355) | Send Message
     
    >Rick-

     

    Nice write-up.

     

    I suspect that the sales folks really aren't familiar with the new-fangled contraption and could not answer all the inevitable questions that would arise upon reading the insurance company sized print warranty.

     

    The company most likely has resident experts that will sit down with/teleconference etc with the purchaser when a contract is in place. Someone isn't going to not buy this thing because of being suspicious of a warranty clarification. Either they really want it or not.

     

    WT
    8 Apr 2013, 01:09 AM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (729) | Send Message
     
    Rick-

     

    My understanding of why TSLA cannot have fast charging there is that would violate something about having or not having a dealership in the state. My limited understanding of policy is that in most (all?) states automobile companies cannot sell directly to the consumer and have to through a dealership. Therefore TSLA can sell via a store/internet and technically just drop the car to an agreed upon location. Not a big fan of the law myself as it seems more to protect the dealer than the public but its a law.

     

    I agree with you on the drive. Very nice but not jaw dropping,
    8 Apr 2013, 10:00 AM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » mrh - My understanding, too, was that Tesla was limited in selling in several states due to dealership protection laws. However, the sales guy said he could sell me a car. I thought I had to actually purchase the car over the Internet.

     

    The delivery of cars in NJ are not at the Short Hills Mall. The drop off / customer pick up is in Springfield, across the street from where I work. There is no sign or any other indication that Springfield is a Tesla entity - literally, nothing until you get fully inside. Total stealth.

     

    I would have thought Short HIlls could have had chargers, as does Milford CT and Newark DE with Superchargers, without impinging on dealership laws. The sales guy said it was a mall issue, not a legal issue. Of course, he may not know, too. I was surprised that not even regular 120 volt power was not available, much less the higher speed 240 volt chargers.

     

    The Short Hills Mall did some expansion a few years ago, and they may have maxed out their electrical connection. Adding 100 kw of intermittent demand would be problematical.
    8 Apr 2013, 10:25 AM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (729) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for the clarification Rick. I thought you meant you the pickup for New Jersey was at Short Hills. Used to live a few miles from there.
    8 Apr 2013, 12:51 PM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1769) | Send Message
     
    Rick,

     

    "I asked about the $600 per 12,500 miles required warrantee. Some writers have opined that meant cheap maintenance - a max of only $600 per year.
    Well, I drive about 30,000 miles per year; the sales guy confirmed that is about $1,800 per year maintenance - about 5 cents/mile."

     

    I'm confused. I have read the comments, from many of John's battery articles, and there is always this guy who goes to great lengths to explaining how there are no maintenance costs with an electric vehicle, unlike a comparable BMW. Surely he wasn't wrong??
    I also have to wonder if the reason the tires wear out faster is due to the immediate torque effect of the electric motor on the tires, vs the slightly slower effect from an ICE engine, though I suppose it is true for any muscle car that can spin the tires faster than they can overcome inertia.
    8 Apr 2013, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • CO3
    , contributor
    Comments (244) | Send Message
     
    Lab: "I also have to wonder if the reason the tires wear out faster is due to the immediate torque effect of the electric motor on the tires"

     

    Your theory is correct.
    My shop used to service Toyota, Honda & Subaru only.
    We started servicing Gen 1 Prius in 1999 as the dealer service
    dept. was "service" in name only, and a major contributor to my business.
    Couldn't keep tires on them, no matter how timid the driver was.
    Questions came up in tech training all the time and training engineers confirmed full torque from standing is rough for tires.
    They were also poor performers in winter for the same reason,
    Spun out too quickly & tcs would kill throttle, couldn't get any momentum going ....
    8 Apr 2013, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2791) | Send Message
     
    Lab Tech

     

    "there is always this guy who goes to great lengths to explaining how there are no maintenance costs with an electric vehicle"
    I suspect this is how they are funding the SC the nondealerships and the incredible amount of extra work they are doing on unfinished and flawed cars they are delivering. (and may have to do in the future.)

     

    This is a list of articles from Edmonds. They bought a MS in late Feb.

     

    http://edmu.in/12Aignq

     

    This one is in the list from March and talks about body problems.
    In general, they like driving the car, but the problems and annoyances keep adding up.

     

    About maintenance the body I think will be trouble.
    2013 Tesla Model S: A Few Flaws in the Craftsmanship
    http://edmu.in/10MmKTR

     

    Balancing cells in the Roadster took over a month and problems with the battery and electronics seemed a lot to me but I have no way to compare it too another car. Also Tesla has revamped things such as the PEM which was a problem in the Roadster is liquid cooled in the MS.
    Consumers reports has now added the MS to its list of cars to be reported on in a year or so. (The Roadster never was)
    Finally some real numbers.

     

    I've not heard of the motor being a problem.
    8 Apr 2013, 03:11 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Labtech - Yep, several EVangelists purposely spread falsehoods about no maintenance Tesla. Utter rubbish. Liars.

     

    The Roadsters required $600 annual service, and *strongly* suggested annual a/c checkup (for the batteries) for $150. There were also a bunch of biennial services recommended, too. The link seems to be gone, now. However http://bit.ly/YGTUVP seems to indicate Roadster service now costs $3,000 per year. Look down near the bottom.

     

    Basic Model S service http://bit.ly/10Mow7u is $600 per year. Wheel and tire service is another $700-900.

     

    Even if the electric motors were maintenance-free, most cars have a lot of other service - lamps, cabin air filters, shocks, a/c, electric windows, brakes (Tesla has mechanical brakes, too), locks and doors, etc. If huge companies with enormous supply chain experience and clout, like Toyota and GM, still have issues, it is naive to think a little startup will do better.

     

    I don't know why the tires are said to wear out so soon. I just know a lot of people in the Tesla forums have complained about it. Hotrodding is fun.
    8 Apr 2013, 03:19 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7426) | Send Message
     
    Has anyone really suggested that the parts EV's share with ICE's other than brakes will somehow not wear out on an EV? I don't remember ever reading that. Just because Tesla is charging $600/year for a maintenance program doesn't mean the car actually needs that much maintenance. It's an income source for Tesla. If you were being honest you'd compare the yearly maintenance costs with a similar ICE vehicle in the same price and performance range. I'd bet a $70K+ BMW, Audi, Merc, etc. might cost more than $600/year. Using twice the average yearly miles in your example would of course increase the costs of any vehicle. Not to mention that 30K miles a year in a similar luxury performance sedan at 20mpg and $4/gallon premium fuel would cost you $6000 per year, compared to around $1500 in electricity.
    9 Apr 2013, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2128) | Send Message
     
    I think that most luxury vehicles BMW, Mercedes, etc come with 4 year, 50,000 mile full maintenance warranties included in their sale price. Can't speak for Rick, but I think he was simply comparing apples to apples.

     

    http://bit.ly/11O60gC
    9 Apr 2013, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » JRP - Yes, several EVangelistas make ridiculous claims that there is no maintenance on Tesla cars. It's refreshing even you see that is silly.

     

    BMW service is free 4 years / first 50,000 miles, and can be upgraded to 6 years / 100,000 miles. http://bit.ly/11O60gC

     

    You are really in an imaginary world if you think the $600 annual service fee is profitable to Tesla; why do you think the Roadster fee went to $3,000? Try to make sure the DEA does not find out what you are smoking.
    9 Apr 2013, 09:49 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7426) | Send Message
     
    What items do you think Tesla will need to replace each year on the Model S that are covered in the service contract which will cost them so much? Wiper blades?
    That's great that BMW includes 4 years of service, still doesn't compare to the savings of the S running on electricity, even with the $600 service contract, (which is only $475 per year if you prepay for 4 years.)
    Interestingly yearly maintenance costs for an Audi A6 comes out to $629 per year according to Automobile Mag
    http://bit.ly/ZlFd6m
    9 Apr 2013, 09:54 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2791) | Send Message
     
    Rick
    Thanks for the write up.
    Something other than just gushing how fast it is.
    I am surprised at the lack of charging abilities stations around.
    Customers drive them home to charge them?
    No you can't see the the warranty?
    OK.
    8 Apr 2013, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • stephenpace
    , contributor
    Comments (343) | Send Message
     
    @froggey77 Yes, owners charge at home 95% of the time. How often do you need to drive more than 250 miles on a whim? If I have to be much farther than that quickly, I generally fly. Even so, I'm not sure where you live, but I live in oil country, and I see chargers everywhere. If you are interested in finding where they are near you, just download an app from Blink, ChargePoint, PlugShare, or Recargo and they will show you where the ones near you are.
    10 Apr 2013, 03:19 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (8492) | Send Message
     
    Stephen, Do any of the applications you suggested indicate if the chargers located at the charge points are available? This meaning not occupied or functional. This information along with a possible completion time given by the vehicle owner or based on the vehicle SOC might prove invaluable for obvious reasons.

     

    TIA for any info. you might have on this.
    10 Apr 2013, 03:27 PM Reply Like
  • Stilldazed
    , contributor
    Comments (2046) | Send Message
     
    Might be nice to know if there are others waiting in line to use the charger also.
    10 Apr 2013, 03:29 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (8492) | Send Message
     
    Stilldazed, Absolutely. And all this tech. is obviously available. All it needs is some code to support the information sharing.

     

    Then again I'm sure I'm missing some nefarious reasons why this should not be shared.
    10 Apr 2013, 03:41 PM Reply Like
  • Stilldazed
    , contributor
    Comments (2046) | Send Message
     
    ii,
    Not sure about any nefarious reasons, but I could build a conspiracy theory around the subject. I do, after all, wear a TFH. ;-)
    10 Apr 2013, 04:47 PM Reply Like
  • Robert.Boston
    , contributor
    Comments (56) | Send Message
     
    The charging company I use most, ChargePoint, shows availability in real time on its website and smartphone apps. Very nicely done -- especially when you consider that most of its charging is free. I've pulled over 1,000 kWh from ChargePoint stations since December and haven't paid a penny for them. That's approximately 180 gallons for gasoline, free. BMW doesn't supply my wife with free gasoline for her 535xi.
    10 Apr 2013, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2791) | Send Message
     
    Steven
    I was actually commenting on letting customers drive off with $100K cars.
    Not to mention the liability that would entail as opposed to employees driving them.
    That the consider this an adequate plan VS renting perhaps a spot in a local garage which would have 220 available and the car would be protected. Does some customer leave their own car outside at the mall overnight? Who is responsible?
    When something goes wrong?
    This seems like, an easily avoidable, nightmare scenario to me.
    This has been going on for months?
    10 Apr 2013, 09:27 PM Reply Like
  • CO3
    , contributor
    Comments (244) | Send Message
     
    "That's approximately 180 gallons for gasoline, free."

     

    Interesting business model ...
    How long can they afford to keep doing that ??
    11 Apr 2013, 12:06 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (8492) | Send Message
     
    Robert, Thanks so much for sharing the information on your app. and ChargePoint. Seemed like an obvious and useful thing to make available. Glad to see it's being supported.
    11 Apr 2013, 09:12 AM Reply Like
  • BugEYE
    , contributor
    Comments (189) | Send Message
     
    Rick, thanks for the report. It is a great fun to stay in the sideline watching Telsa's progression or else.

     

    In regarding to the tires, from Q4 CC, Mr. Musk stated " And so, we had to do some dumb things like fly tires from the Czech Republic like (indiscernible) that was, like one of the -- I want to punch myself on the face for that one."

     

    Maybe this kind of Czech made premium tires are planed to wear out more quickly.
    8 Apr 2013, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2791) | Send Message
     
    Lab Tech BugEye
    I meant to write this the first time.
    Tesla and most HI PO cars have very grippy (Soft) tires.
    Which wear out quickly and are very expensive. With the extra weight Tesla has to get moving keep from sliding sideways and stop. For best performance it needs them.
    Many roadster owners bought other tires that lasted longer but did not give quite the same performance.

     

    CO3
    About the Prius the low rolling resistance tires also wore out quickly. I heard the tires got better but I also heard a lot of owners swapped them out.
    The also give poor grip on the road as they are designed to not grip the road. I had assumed this was better by now as I hadn't heard of it in years but in a bit of serendipity last week I did.

     

    Range-Increasing Low-Rolling Resistance Tires Falling Out of Favor with Drivers
    http://bit.ly/Yd2L2h

     

    This BTW is probably in addition of the torque problems. While I had heard this suggested; I don't have any facts to back it up.
    Personally I think it makes sense.
    8 Apr 2013, 11:58 PM Reply Like
  • CO3
    , contributor
    Comments (244) | Send Message
     
    Froggy: My experience over 11 years of servicing them was consistent no matter what type or brand of tire. Here in Vt. everyone
    has two sets of tires, summer & winter. The OEM ones get replaced
    with snows in the fall, and with whatever as soon as they wear out.
    People are not loyal to OEM tires here, they just don't work that good.
    11 Apr 2013, 12:11 AM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2791) | Send Message
     
    CO3
    Thanks for some real world experience.
    11 Apr 2013, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7426) | Send Message
     
    Can't say I'm surprised you weren't that impressed considering how much time you've spent setting yourself up for disappointment previously. You wanted to be underwhelmed and you were. Since your driving impression is in stark contrast to the vast majority of reviewers I think we can see it for what it was.

     

    "I mentioned that rumors said the bricking problem had been solved; what were the hardware or other changes done? "Hmmm, well there might not have been any hardware changes, but we now communicate better to customers, with texting, emails, and even phone calls when the battery is low."

     

    Unfortunately some of the Tesla staff is less informed than others. I'm afraid some of them were hired in a hurry and not properly trained or educated.
    9 Apr 2013, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2128) | Send Message
     
    Rick,
    I am surprised that you would take your valuable time to test drive a Tesla with the idea firmly planted that you wanted to be "underwhelmed". You really should start with an open mind.

     

    The fact that a company would like $60,000+ of your money and have employees that are " hired in a hurry and not properly trained or educated" should have nothing to do with your buying decision. I'm sure they don't run their factory, service, or administrative departments in that way. It is only the Sales department. That is the department that deals with customers. Customers are not important. Only the car.
    9 Apr 2013, 09:45 AM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Futurist, thank you for reminding me about being firmly planted to be "underwhelmed". Four years ago, I was so firmly committed to being kewl that I put the Roadster on the top of my very short list of desired fantasy cars. I already had had a Lotus years ago, and an electric would be soooo much kewler.

     

    However, that damned open mind of mine, with little assistance from JP, et. al, just got filled up with facts, and most of that hopium just evaporated. What a shame. I had all the answers then ... just like [commentors name deleted].

     

    Despite the accusation, I really did want be overwhelmed, awed, and fall in passionate love. Didn't happen, at least for me.
    9 Apr 2013, 06:05 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7426) | Send Message
     
    It's a rapidly expanding company and as Elon has said recently they need to work on the customer service side more.

     

    Regarding your "bricking" concern:
    "Btw, Model S warranty does cover "bricking"."
    http://bit.ly/ZlFBBQ
    9 Apr 2013, 10:00 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » jrp - You must be kidding!!! A tweet is the answer???? Yeah, lemme take that to court.

     

    The full, uncensored, tweet:
    ---
    Sarah Palin calls Tesla a loser. Am deeply wounded. http://bit.ly/ZM58DY … Btw, Model S warranty does cover "bricking".
    ---
    OK, everybody, who thinks this is the authoritative answer? Maybe Sarah Palin decides what is a bricking and what is abuse?

     

    This is the warrantee that the sales guy in NJ would not let me see???? I am calling the DEA. I give up.

     

    Note to self AGAIN: DNFTFT!!!!!!!!
    9 Apr 2013, 10:11 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7426) | Send Message
     
    It's a public statement by the head of a public company. You are aware that the SEC has ruled that social media including Twitter is a valid means of communication, right?
    Also from the older article:
    " Today, Tesla said the Model S has more protections than the Roadster and would approach full discharge after 12 months if left parked with a 50 percent charge. Also, a Model S can be recharged if driven to a zero battery state.

     

    "Model S batteries also have the ability to protect themselves as they approach very low charge levels by going into a 'deep sleep' mode that lowers the loss even further. A Model S will not allow its battery to fall below about 5 percent charge. At that point the car can still sit for many months. Of course you can drive a Model S to 0 percent charge, but even in that circumstance, if you plug it in within 30 days, the battery will recover normally," Tesla said on its Web site today. "

     

    http://cnet.co/TZOoIb
    9 Apr 2013, 10:35 PM Reply Like
  • Neil_Anderson
    , contributor
    Comments (1178) | Send Message
     
    To Rick Krementz

     

    << However, that damned open mind of mine ... just got filled up with facts, and most of that hopium just evaporated. >>

     

    Rick, I saw your comment (above) a couple days ago and finally realized that you are probably the ideal person to ask why you changed your mind about electric cars, being initially an advocate (for lack of a better term). I've been on the fence quite awhile, mainly because I recognize that hopium cannot be reliably relied upon, and having been burned on countless other wrong-headed mistakes.

     

    I'm not asking for links or logical-proofs or a lot of time and effort spent on your part (but if you provide any of such, it will be appreciated). I'm just asking what factors were important or instrumental.
    17 Apr 2013, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Neil -

     

    Electric sounded kewl. Having a really quiet car was very attractive - I hate engine sounds. I live off grid much of the year, and do that without a generator. I have always been really interested in alternate energy, even as a kid.

     

    I thought we were really going to turn into a renewable electric world, then I started running numbers. I read Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjørn Lomborg, Green Illusions by Ozzie Zehner, and David Mackay at http://bit.ly/15mVL6e. Ran more numbers. Read all of Petersen's articles, and read all the links.

     

    Did endless calculations on energy density, scalability of various fuels, dispatchable vs non-dispatchable energy, PV, etc. I could not come for any "green" reason to support EV. If somebody with their own money wants to buy a Tesla or Hummer or Ferrari or Leaf, go ahead. At tiny penetrations it doesn't matter.

     

    I have a strong dislike for the propagandists repeatedly spewing misinformation. EVangelistas and Tesladors are just a small part of the disengenuous crowd promoting economic fraud programs, such as retro-fitted residential rooftop PV.

     

    From my personal situation, it became clear that a S-85 would be near useless for me and my driving patterns. (30,000 miles per year, mostly long road trips, sometimes in zero degree weather, and often to places without any access to power. I regularly do 400 mile trips without a stop.). I know I am an outlier, so that does not project to anybody else of course.
    17 Apr 2013, 04:33 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3308) | Send Message
     
    Neil, sincere compliments on a great question, one likely to bring forth much more light than heat...

     

    You of course didn't ask me, (and I agree that RK's thoughts and facts are a good place to start when looking for truth and insight) but I'll just say I've had a similar journey.. I was enthusiastic in particular about the Volt, and still kinda have a soft spot for it, but what has turned me primarily against pure EV's are all the issues with the current generation of batteries... the material constraints to true scalability, the various performance and utility compromises, the high embodied energy , the inevitable calendar and cycle-life degradations and thus depreciation, the strains on the grid, the problematic recycling issues... etc etc... (though the main one by a big margin is, just how scalable are EV's world-wide--enough to matter?) JP makes compelling arguments about the relative production levels of metals vs fossil fuels--that they differ by orders of magnitude and that trying to save fossil fuels by consuming much scarcer metals is bound to be a fool's errand.

     

    I'll also admit to an ideological component... suffice it to say that I'm an anti-leftist... and when EV's become in some sense part of the left's popular religion (hatred of oil, worship of N.Tesla, etc), with seemingly blind acceptance and without sufficient examination, it irritates...

     

    But all that said, I like electric things, you could say it's in the family, and I think electric propulsion in and of itself is very cool and has a significant role going forward... I'm a big fan of hybrids etc... but in the end it still all comes down to the li-ion battery... it's just not going to be the solution that so many think it is. And the current dream is bound end in tears. Now, when and if a totally new technology arrives that is economic, performs, and is eminently scalable-- something like the Aluminum-air battery, if that were to prove out, many of my showstopper objections to EV's would go away...
    17 Apr 2013, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • Randy Carlson
    , contributor
    Comments (1141) | Send Message
     
    The assumptions as well as the conditions analyzed in Rick's reference are so extreme as to be irrelevant to the US. The solar calculations are based on locations in the UK. The southern most tip of the UK is as far north as the middle of Newfoundland! The study then assumes that the available solar collector area per capita is only 10 sq. m, or about 108 sq ft. It then goes on to stipulate that solar collection can only reasonably take place on sough facing roofs, but then fails to correct for the substantial geometric advantage of south tilted collection area, especially for such a far north location.

     

    And it gets even more ridiculous. This study assumes that the typical person's car uses 40 kWh per day. A Tesla Model S @330 Wh/mile would be driving 120 miles per day or almost 44,000 miles a year! I suppose we are to assume that the UK is a small, very crowded place where everyone drives a lot...

     

    A US relevant situation might be, for a family of four living a in a detached, suburban home with two cars - an relatively high energy lifestyle - 25 kWh/day for domestic electricity use; 25kWh/day for hot water and space heating/cooling via ground-source heat pump; 25 kWh/day to 'fuel' two Model S class electric cars operated a total of 75 miles per day. This is a total of 75kWh/day for total family 'domestic' use and with 5kWh/sq.m-day solar radiance on flat panel PV collectors, south facing tilted at latitude and 20% conversion efficiency, 75 sq. meters of panels would be required and would be easily accommodated within the roof area of a typical surban house/garage. This level of solar power (or more) is available over MOST of the continental US.

     

    http://1.usa.gov/10is458

     

    The continuing argument that electric cars somehow consume vastly more resources than ICE cars to produce is a red herring. The model S weighs just slightly more than a comparable size, comparable performance Audi S7.

     

    http://bit.ly/YzpaF8

     

    The next turn in Li-ion cells should flip the small weight difference in favor of the Tesla. If comparable EV and ICE cars weight the same, it is difficult to support a rational argument that the electric car somehow consumes more resources. (just how much platinum and palladium do go into the S7's catalytic converter anyway?)

     

    Truly dispassionate arguments either for against electric cars, solar power and the like need to be made in a reasonable, real-world context. Arguing that solar is no good because it doesn't work in a coal mine (or in far-north, cloudy England) doesn't exactly qualify.
    17 Apr 2013, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7426) | Send Message
     
    " I read Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjørn Lomborg, Green Illusions by Ozzie Zehner, and David Mackay at http://bit.ly/15mVL6e. Ran more numbers. Read all of Petersen's articles, and read all the links."

     

    A nice collection of thoroughly debunked sources.
    18 Apr 2013, 09:15 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1748) | Send Message
     
    Wasn't Lomborg brought up on scientific dishonesty charges for the Skeptical Environmentalist? Something about fabrication of data, selectively disregarding contrary data, not using statistical methods correctly, etc, etc..
    If I remember correctly, he got off because he claimed the book was not "science", as one excuse
    19 Apr 2013, 01:56 AM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » You guys sound just like the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (under Cardinal Ratzinger) who did not find any pedophilia in the Catholic Church, and that nobody should be punished if there was any. In any case, all documents since 1903 (not a misprint) are still sealed to make sure that nobody can snoop around and find any.

     

    Insinuation, or facts and objective links?
    19 Apr 2013, 09:14 AM Reply Like
  • Neil_Anderson
    , contributor
    Comments (1178) | Send Message
     
    To Rick Krementz

     

    I've visited the link provided and been reading -- a lot to read, much of which resonates with my prior thinking about the major problem -- so many mouths to feed, clothe, etc.. I've always had the smae opinion as Rev Thomas Malthus (the early economist) regarding population growth.

     

    But I kept thinking about something thing you said :
    << I live off grid much of the year, and do that without a generator >> it seems that if you live off-grid and have no generator, then, forgive me for being presumptous, how do you survive? How do you charge your batteries to run your computer?

     

    I admit that I was about to guess that you might be Amish (nothing wrong with that), but then I figured that the Amish wouldn't have computers.

     

    Anyway, my ignorance is showing, so I will end here and hope you aren't offended.
    19 Apr 2013, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Neil, nope, not Amish. Nor a Malthusian. Not offended, in any case. The rest of the year I live in Rhode Island, walking distance to the train.

     

    However, a very popular on-line store, lehmans.com, is owned and run by Amish. I have heard the brick and mortar store has dedicated parking for horse and buggies.

     

    I do have electricity - mostly PV. While I have railed against grid connected retro-fit residential PV, PV definitely has some important uses.

     

    My alternative to PV is a cantankerous, expensive, noisy, high maintenance petrofuel generator, which has an all-in cost well north of $2/kwh. Most people's alternative is easy, locally clean 10-20 cent grid power.

     

    I use very little electricity - usually less than 2kwh per day, often less than 1 kwh. Note a common confusion of units - some sources state the "average" US home uses 2kw, which is 48kwh per day. My refrigerator runs off propane, not electricity.
    19 Apr 2013, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • Neil_Anderson
    , contributor
    Comments (1178) | Send Message
     
    To 481086

     

    << ... the material constraints to true scalability, the various performance and utility compromises, the high embodied energy , the inevitable calendar and cycle-life degradations and thus depreciation, the strains on the grid, the problematic recycling issues... consuming much scarcer metals [rather than abundant oil]. >>

     

    481086 - I must admit all these (except perhaps the "embedded" and the "scarcer metals") are all valid and important issues confronting, I mean, confounding the L-ion battery and possibly every battery chemistry we are likly to encounter in our, I mean, *my* lifetime. However, no one should have expected EVs and ICEs to have the same set of strengths and weaknesses. So, a lot of the EV weaknesses are forgiveable, especially because it is important to explore alternatives to oil.

     

    I'm thinking that the 20,000 Model S's to be produced in 2013-14 are literally just a beta-test or "shake-down" cruise of EV fleet reliablity and consumers' acceptance. (All of the 2200 Roadsters were just a proof of concept required by intial investors.) In other words, EVs are still in the testing phase.

     

    If consumers are well informed about all the issues you've identified, and they still buy Lith-BEVs, it would only bring more research dollars to find solutions to all those issues ... and I say that only because that's what capitalism tends to do, i.e., compete on price and/or quality.

     

    China and India are huge and are only now beginning to flex their market-muscles. I believe we would have already seen seen a doubling or tripling of gasoline prices had it not been for the 2007-8 Financial Crisis. Thank goodness for a crisis when you need one.

     

    Electric cars, taking 25 % of the market, could help keep the price of gasoline from skyrocketing. (Only Americans drive big monsterous cars and trucks.) Over a few years, the EVs would be expected to drive down the price of gasoline until gasoline was so cheap that ICE cars would be competitive. Right now I'm guessing that as the world population grows and oil becomes more scarce, the EV might reach 90% within 20 years. And yes, that scares the heck out of me. Oil would have to be pretty scarce adn that's scary. By the way, it is well known that the OPEC countries ALL overstate their reserves, and the overstatement is probably significant but no one knows for sure.

     

    A lot of liberals like subsidies because of the market-distortions subsidies are intended to make, and I have little to say against the intent, other than it'd be better to have no subsidies. I disaprove of all subsidies, but from where we are now, eliminating 'em across the board is impossible and dangerous. Uncle Sam's subsidies for L-ion cars won't last forever, and if better battery comes along, I'm sure more subsidies will be allowed. (Did I just endorse subsidies? Oh, Lord.)

     

    << I'll also admit to an ideological component... suffice it to say that I'm an anti-leftist... and when EV's become in some sense part of the left's popular religion (hatred of oil, worship of N.Tesla, etc), with seemingly blind acceptance and without sufficient examination, it irritates...

     

    Being conservative is supposed to mean keeping your powder dry and being able to take extraordinary measures when extraordinary measures are your only viable alternative. That means diversification of energy sources, like EVs would diversify automobile fuel to coal and NG and renewables, has a lot value, even if EVs actually cost more than other alternatives, like, you know, sticking with oil until the EV clearly dominate ICE in all measures (highly unlikely). If a few consumers aren't willing to risk a little capital on EVs now, then what battery manufacturer or car manufacturer is going to risk fielding a new EV with better batteries? Nissan is the only one that might in my uninformed opinion. And I only say that because the "Esflow" is reportedly to appear in the Tokyo Auto Show in November(?) 2013. I wouldn't mind risking some money on that, if the amount were reasonable.

     

    The big gripe I have with Tesla is that they're making a very expensive car, and I can't stomach the risks (tech, service, financial health, etc) of a small start-up auto company. If I spend that much money, I need more security. But I understand that if there is a problem in manufacturing or something inherently wrong with battery technology (beyond what is warrantied) then its better for Tesla Motors to have only 20,000 angry birds, than 100,000.
    19 Apr 2013, 06:12 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7426) | Send Message
     
    "Insinuation, or facts and objective links?"

     

    Rick, if I posted all the links debunking Lomborg would you even bother to read them? You obviously ignored all the data debunking Petersen's junk.
    21 Apr 2013, 01:16 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2128) | Send Message
     
    Poor JRP3,
    deluded into believing that whatever he posts is gospel. Now we are chastised for not believing in his religion. We are so bad that he is insulted that he might have to posts links just to get people to read and change their minds.

     

    "Rick, if I posted all the links debunking Lomborg would you even bother to read them? "

     

    Actually JRP3 that is exactly how it works. If you believe something so strongly that you want to change peoples opinion, then you need to post facts ( not opinions) with reputable links that PROVE your point rather than justify an opinion.
    21 Apr 2013, 09:15 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7426) | Send Message
     
    Future,
    I, and many others, have posted links debunking many of Petersen's claims, yet still you believe them. Most recently his claims that 40,000kWh's were required to build a Model S 85kWh pack:
    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    If you really want to read a number of articles pointing out the many flaws in Lomborg's articles here you go:
    http://bit.ly/11xal76
    http://bit.ly/zAtK90
    http://bit.ly/11xalnv
    http://bit.ly/15Cmiw7
    http://bit.ly/11xao2z
    22 Apr 2013, 09:55 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Neil, you wrote: Electric cars, taking 25% of the market, could help keep the price of gasoline from skyrocketing. (Only Americans drive big monsterous cars and trucks.)

     

    Hypothetically, if EVs took 25% of the market so that the price of gasoline falls, the demand for big, gas guzzling vehicles, worldwide, would skyrocket since the price of fuel is so low.

     

    A truly disruptive technology, eg, computers over mechanical calculators, does change things. EVs are not disruptive: they existed before gasoline cars and do not provide a transformative experience (such as self-driving, impossible to crash, much faster real world driving times, etc.).

     

    All indications are that electrochemical batteries will not ever (at least in the next century) have the energy density or cost advantage to become pervasive (at least 50% of inventory).

     

    I do predict that electric drivetrain vehicles will be popular, and possibly pervasive, by the end of my life. Hybrid vehicles, electric trains and trams, and heavy mining and construction equipment is already electric drive. However, I do not see any path that includes a significant component of electrochemical batteries in electric drive trains, Tesladors and EVangelistas to the contrary.
    23 Apr 2013, 08:17 AM Reply Like
  • Randy Carlson
    , contributor
    Comments (1141) | Send Message
     
    Rick,
    If Tesla is having issues with the mall about charging vehicles - in the showroom or in the parking lot - I would be concerned that George B. and his crew need to get it together with respect to negotiating / managing their retail space leasing.

     

    It is also noteworthy IMO that Tesla's SuperCharger locations in the NorthEast are different that originally announced and that on the DC - Boston corridor, there notably are ZERO stations in NY or NJ. This suggests to me that there are issues negotiating for the locations, the electrical hook-ups, or simply executing the build. Rolling out the SuperCharger network is a complex 'people problem'. There are many players involved in siting, connecting, building, managing and maintaining this system. From the technical side this is much simpler than, for instance, building gas stations. From the people side however, SuperChargers are something new and there are a lot of 'moving parts' involved.

     

    Maybe it's time for Tesla to take SuperChargers away from their marketing folks and set up a 'BizDev' centric organization to get this done...
    9 Apr 2013, 03:32 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Randy, I am not surprised that Tesla does not have any NY SC. Certainly NYC has a huge bureaucracy and cost discincentive, and I don't think there are any plazas between NYC and the CT border. It's only 30 miles from NJ to CT.

     

    I don't have any understanding, other than incompetence or overreaching, why there do not appear to be any charging stations in NJ. The sales guy said he thought they had sold about 100 from Short Hills.
    9 Apr 2013, 05:43 PM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (729) | Send Message
     
    Having worked with the PANYNJ, NJ Transit and other municipalities in NJ I am not surprised. They simply need to pay the "right" consultants and it will get done.
    9 Apr 2013, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » mrh, yeah, I know. I was trying to be polite about my native state.....
    9 Apr 2013, 06:52 PM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (729) | Send Message
     
    I used to be polite. Then I worked in NJ for 7 years and became direct. Now being back in the midwest its now a negative on my last employment review.
    9 Apr 2013, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • Randy Carlson
    , contributor
    Comments (1141) | Send Message
     
    Rick,
    I was thinking not only of NYC, but also of NY State - along I90 for instance. Toll roads are ideal places for SuperChargers because the traffic is - by definition - road trip traffic. I suspect that the 'controlled access' nature of these facilities leads to there being more people / agencies involved in setting up there... and this might possibly vary from one state to another?
    9 Apr 2013, 08:03 PM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (729) | Send Message
     
    There are more agencies/groups involved in toll plazas. Generally states outsource these toll plazas to organizations such as Westfield, HMS Host, etc. These orgs are responsible for mgmt and therefore would probably require TSLA to pay for some metering as they do with their other tenants. So you would have to get approval with a state toll commision and then work with the private operator to get it installed. As they wouldn't collect a fee for each user it wouldn't be a high priority for them and probably time consuming. I'd expect them to try to get TSLA to pay a rental fee as well.
    9 Apr 2013, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Randy, the key transport route is I-95, not I-90. The traffic Boston-DC is probably 10x Boston-Albany-Buffalo.

     

    Interesting read about Tesla range http://bit.ly/16PhH82 that strongly demonstrates that an S-85 cannot reliably make it between Newark DE and Milford CT charging stations (200 miles). Sometimes "yes", even often "yes", but always, "no". Tesla really needs to have an intermediate SC in NJ.

     

    I usually drive 75mph+ when possible, and really, really would not want to drive slow, avoid a/c or heat, or be worried about traffic jams and detours.
    11 Apr 2013, 10:19 AM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1748) | Send Message
     
    Rick,
    You also have to keep in mind of such trips that's if it's not fully charged in DE or CT. That's one of the biggest arguments why the Broder run was an epic fail.

     

    He only charged to 90% in DE. Save the gory details from the duckware, Had he charged to 100%, he would have had 233 miles, no problem with heat on, driving faster, etc, etc, end result, he would have had roughly 25 miles left.
    Moral of the story from Broder.. "know your vehicle, charge to 100% when needed". range mode is OK once in a while, but not topping off everyday.

     

    Also they did get the battery degradation wrong, it would take over a decade (of normal driving) to even get to 10% degradation as per the recent Panasonic engineering presentation.

     

    Also, they plan to put more super chargers in the northeast corridor too, so the problem will be solved soon.
    11 Apr 2013, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • Randy Carlson
    , contributor
    Comments (1141) | Send Message
     
    Rick,

     

    No question another SuperCharger is needed. Tesla has said so and any analysis of Tesla range under 'worst case' conditions supports the requirement. Of course even today, if one encountered worst case cold, high speed driving, etc., one could stop at one of the many conventional chargers that exist along this route today. Doing this would not speed the trip of course, but it would be a more rational solution that using a tow truck...
    11 Apr 2013, 11:46 AM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Dan, the "gory details from the duckware" demonstrate the range calculations in the car are materially wrong. Call it a software bug.

     

    Just because some enthusiasts have made it from one SC to another in warmer weather does not demonstrate the car can do it reliably in adverse conditions. I have not seen ANY evidence that the range calculations are particularly accurate. Note the Tesla website calculator does not even try to calculate for adverse conditions, such as < 32F, > 90F, speed > 65 mpg, payload > 300 lbs, heavy use of electric accessories, rain or snow, etc.
    11 Apr 2013, 12:14 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Correction: speed > 65 mph, not mpg. :)
    11 Apr 2013, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1748) | Send Message
     
    Rick,
    CNN made it, took a 30 minute detour, and had two people in the car, don't know what the weight of the woman was, but 10 degrees warmer, it's a reasonable mimic of the test (3 people in the car vs only Broder)

     

    http://cnnmon.ie/12K4WaK
    11 Apr 2013, 02:18 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Dan, Nobody questions that some people can often get 200+ mile range out of a S-85 (not a S-60) when new in decent weather, especially if you drive slowly.

     

    What's your point? Every car I have ever driven could always go over 200 miles at 75 mph, even if the fuel tank is 10 years old, regardless if the temperature is -10F or 110F.
    11 Apr 2013, 11:35 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7426) | Send Message
     
    " Sometimes "yes", even often "yes", but always, "no". " One person failed to make it, because they never charged the car fully, not once. No one else has failed to make that trip to my knowledge, but even if they did, so what? Your argument is akin to saying since some people run out of gas ICE's don't have enough range. The great thing about the Model S is that as time goes on the car you already own gets better in many ways, including more superchargers.
    12 Apr 2013, 09:29 AM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1748) | Send Message
     
    The tires are not that expensive comparatively
    the 19s are about $800, or about the same as the OEM tires on a Ford Fusion
    Here's tire racks prices
    Tesla 19s- set of 4, $580
    http://bit.ly/Ybye0j

     

    Ford Fusion (titanium since it has 19's), set of 4- $976
    http://bit.ly/ZCrxe9

     

    Tesla 21's, set of 4, ~$1125
    http://bit.ly/YbybBQ

     

    How about the Porsche Panamera tires? 19's all seasons $1010
    http://bit.ly/ZCrxeb

     

    How does the 21 Tesla's compare to let's say Maserati's 20's. Both are summer tires. The Maerati's are more expensive for OEM equipment.

     

    Yes, the 21s are expensive, but would you really get summer tires for NJ? Like any car with summer tires, it's against better judgement to use it in the snow, cold weather. Only an idiot would purchase a Model S in NJ without having a "bad weather car". Hurricanes, snow storms, ice storms... cough.. cough..

     

    Also, if you put 30,000 miles on a car, using summer tires, Yes, it's going to be costly. All summer tires wear out faster, get the 19s instead. The 21s are made for performance, not wear, like any other summer tire. to complain is Ridiculus, the Model S is not some econo car where everything is cheap.

     

    Sure, it's $600, but for $600 I can't get someone to drop the engine out of may car, give it a once over, degrease the engine, do oil changes, transmission flushed, brakes, etc, etc.
    9 Apr 2013, 07:38 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Dan, I am not a tire guy, and only know wrong tires are not good.

     

    I was just repeating, not authenticating, comments from the Tesla boards. I guess the Tesla owners like to complain.

     

    Entering 2012 19" Tesla Model S to Goodyear comes up with http://bit.ly/10RxzSf

     

    The cheapest set of four is $904. The OEM equivalent are $1900.

     

    Obviously these are MSRP, and discounts are available. The Sport and 21" tires are not available online, according to Goodyear.com.
    9 Apr 2013, 08:16 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (8492) | Send Message
     
    Tire Rack huh?

     

    Is this still the case?

     

    Tesla Model S Service Contract: $600/Year, Or Warranty Voided

     

    "But in a recent blog post on the Tesla Motor Club forum, Tesla vice president George Blankenship made it perfectly clear: Failure to fork over $600 for an annual inspection will void your warranty. Period.

     

    Moreover, any visit to a non-Tesla shop--even for something as simple as tire rotation--will also void the warranty. Period."

     

    http://bit.ly/ToUeB9
    9 Apr 2013, 11:00 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1748) | Send Message
     
    iindelco,
    with the tires, they really can't prohibit you from getting the tires elsewhere, I think Blankenship misspoke, and they have to change the policy. What Tesla doesn't want is someone poking around in the battery or not working on the car in an approved manner, ie, lifting up the car right on the battery or something the dents the battery casing or something like that. Never, ever put the car on a lift, that's what they don't want, and you don't want a gizmo mechanic poking around to see how it works.

     

    Really need a nascar jack, if you are doing that you probably have one though. I had to get one for my last car though, so already solved for me.

     

    Also, if you take off the rims yourself, get OEM tires from tirerack, take the rims over to your mechanic, do the switch, Tesla's not going to know- they'll see tires with minimal wear and have to prove that you changed them and were not driving on grass or a rubber track for the last 10,000 miles.

     

    This came up yesterday too, a reverse-Broder, if you allow Tesla to monitor, a cop pulls you over for failure to stop at a stop sign, call up Tesla, have them pull the data logs, fax/email the data logs- present it at your court date, show the speed and how long you stopped. At least in NJ, there is no set amount of time, so if you stopped for a millisecond you are off the hook, now some towns of local ordinances, but those are slowly being challenged due to the fact that the towns MUST display the law when it is stricter than the state's law (i.e. if they say 2 second stop, it must be displayed on the sign).
    10 Apr 2013, 08:04 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (8492) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Dan. Appreciate and understand your points. There is clearly a reason why you want control of a certain level of the repair/maintenance work on this level of vehicle. Plus you want the opportunity to have access to the vehicle to go over it at some frequency to see how your tech. is working out in the field since it's relatively new.

     

    I will however point out that part of this article states that the sales force at this dealership was not forthcoming with information such as the warranty. And another poster on this article has commented that Elon's tweets are as good as SEC submissions. So now we have a corporate officer stating touching the tires voids the warranty. So what do I believe? My only point, They need to be clear of everything in writing and keep the comments so they correlate with the text.

     

    Even I remember playing that game in first grade where you line up the class and keep orally passing a statement from one person to the next. Lesson, Doesn't work well so write it down if you need to clearly communicate. I guess Elon wasn't in my class!
    10 Apr 2013, 08:58 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7426) | Send Message
     
    A number of Model S owners have had tires mounted, and purchased after market rims, and even extensively customized the car exterior and interior, none of them have said their warranty was voided.
    10 Apr 2013, 08:21 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2791) | Send Message
     
    II
    I've not heard of any change.

     

    "Moreover, any visit to a non-Tesla shop--even for something as simple as tire rotation--will also void the warranty. Period.

     

    This is BTW illegal.

     

    http://1.usa.gov/XEbPhn

     

    <Do I have to use the dealer for repairs and maintenance to keep my warranty in effect?

     

    No. An independent mechanic, a retail chain shop, or even you yourself can do routine maintenance and repairs on your vehicle. In fact, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which is enforced by the FTC, makes it illegal for manufacturers or dealers to claim that your warranty is void or to deny coverage under your warranty simply because someone other than the dealer did the work. That said, there may be certain situations where a repair may not be covered. For example, if you or your mechanic replaced a belt improperly and your engine is damaged as a result, your manufacturer or dealer may deny responsibility for fixing the engine under the warranty. However, according to the FTC, the manufacturer or dealer must be able to demonstrate that it was the improper belt replacement — rather than some other defect — that caused the damage to your engine. The warranty would still be in effect for other parts of your car.
    Will using 'aftermarket' or recycled parts void my warranty?

     

    No. An 'aftermarket' part is a part made by a company other than the vehicle manufacturer or the original equipment manufacturer. A 'recycled' part is a part that was made for and installed in a new vehicle by the manufacturer or the original equipment manufacturer, and later removed from the vehicle and made available for resale or reuse. Simply using an aftermarket or recycled part does not void your warranty. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes it illegal for companies to void your warranty or deny coverage under the warranty simply because you used an aftermarket or recycled part. Still, if it turns out that the aftermarket or recycled part was itself defective or wasn't installed correctly, and it causes damage to another part that is covered under the warranty, the manufacturer or dealer has the right to deny coverage for that part and charge you for any repairs. The FTC says the manufacturer or dealer must show that the aftermarket or recycled part caused the need for repairs before denying warranty coverage. >

     

    <Understanding the Magnuson-Moss
    Warranty Act

     

    http://bit.ly/10UmvoT

     

    The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is the federal law that governs consumer product warranties. Passed by Congress in 1975, the Act requires manufacturers and sellers of consumer products to provide consumers with detailed information about warranty coverage. In addition, it affects both the rights of consumers and the obligations of warrantors under written warranties.

     

    To understand the Act, it is useful to be aware of Congress' intentions in passing it. First, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could get complete information about warranty terms and conditions. By providing consumers with a way of learning what warranty coverage is offered on a product before they buy, the Act gives consumers a way to know what to expect if something goes wrong, and thus helps to increase customer satisfaction.

     

    Second, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could compare warranty coverage before buying. By comparing, consumers can choose a product with the best combination of price, features, and warranty coverage to meet their individual needs.

     

    Third, Congress intended to promote competition on the basis of warranty coverage. By assuring that consumers can get warranty information, the Act encourages sales promotion on the basis of warranty coverage and competition among companies to meet consumer preferences through various levels of warranty coverage.

     

    Finally, Congress wanted to strengthen existing incentives for companies to perform their warranty obligations in a timely and thorough manner and to resolve any disputes with a minimum of delay and expense to consumers. Thus, the Act makes it easier for consumers to pursue a remedy for breach of warranty in the courts, but it also creates a framework for companies to set up procedures for resolving disputes inexpensively and informally, without litigation."

     

    It goes on much further and has side comments for explanations. I added some as Rick mentioned they would not let him see the warranty without putting a down payment. This is along the edges as a down payment is not actually buying it but I think would be held illegal if pushed. But I'm no lawyer.
    10 Apr 2013, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7426) | Send Message
     
    "This is BTW illegal."
    Exactly, probably why it's not in effect. Even if Tesla states that you void your warranty by taking your car elsewhere they can't enforce that policy. Since tire rotation is provided by Tesla as part of the service contract I'm not sure why you would pay to have it done elsewhere anyway.
    11 Apr 2013, 08:53 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (8492) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for the information guys. Makes more sense than the quote in the article.
    11 Apr 2013, 09:16 AM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » ii - The sales guy was not the highest voltage cell in the pack. I didn't press him on the warrantee issue because I certainly wasn't going to buy a car that day, even if I did fall in love.

     

    I think this is the current warranty http://bit.ly/14ewgUY

     

    Note the url is "blog_attachements", so it may not actually be the official, current warranty. I had to dig deep to find this.
    11 Apr 2013, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (8492) | Send Message
     
    Rick, Thanks much for sharing your archaeological finding. Interesting read.

     

    Warranty doesn't cover.

     

    "Any damage to the vehicle’s Battery, including damage directly or
    indirectly caused by, due to or resulting from abuse, misuse, accident, lack of or improper maintenance, including, but not limited to, the following:"
    ·
    Allowing the Battery to reach a zero state of charge...."
    -
    Also,

     

    "The Battery, like all lithium-ion batteries, will experience gradual energy or power loss with time and use. Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage, is NOT covered under this New Vehicle Limited Warranty."

     

    And if you drive your vehicle into Mexico it appears the warranty is done.

     

    "This New Vehicle Limited Warranty applies to a Model S vehicle sold by Tesla in the Tesla North America Warranty Region and transported or driven only in the Tesla North America Warranty Region. For purposes of this New Vehicle Limited Warranty, the Tesla North America Warranty Region is defined as all 50 states of the United States of America, the District of Columbia, and all 13 provinces and territories of Canada. If your vehicle was sold, transported or driven outside the Tesla North America
    Warranty Region, no warranties, including this New Vehicle Limited
    Warranty, will apply"
    12 Apr 2013, 09:16 AM Reply Like
  • vfx
    , contributor
    Comments (190) | Send Message
     
    If someone spent $25,000 or so at the Tesla IPO they could be driving a Model S by now.
    9 Apr 2013, 10:21 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2791) | Send Message
     
    Rick
    I thought you would like to see this.

     

    Life With 2013 Tesla Model S: 'Vampire' Thirst For Electricity At Night?

     

    http://bit.ly/10UnUMg

     

    I don't know if the improvement in sleep mode has come out. if it did I missed it.
    10 Apr 2013, 09:55 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7426) | Send Message
     
    No it has not come out yet. It was enabled initially but they had problems with cars starting back up so they temporarily disabled the low power mode. Musk has stated it will be re-enabled before European shipments begin. It's a temporary annoyance, nothing more.
    11 Apr 2013, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Great article, froggey. I am glad to see some EVangelists finally noticing the electric drain / waste of the Teslas, and their disingenuous communication. His estimate of 188 watt hours per day is similar to the 146 and 158 wh calculations for the Roadster. Imagine that, the greensters wasted 22 MWh yesterday before they went out to show off their conspicuous greeniness!

     

    I think the author still underestimates the power used, as the batteries need to be cooled in very hot weather. There are reports of 1500+ watt loads in very cold weather to keep the battery warm, and the warranty is voided if the battery is left in -22 F weather for more than 24 hours. I do not think the sleep mode will have any substantial effect on the vampire loads.
    11 Apr 2013, 12:04 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2791) | Send Message
     
    Rick
    According to I think one of the same guys articles Tesla does not keep the battery warm. Supposedly cold doesn't hurt the battery so they don't bother.
    All of the Vampire loads are the electronics. The vampire loads he is reporting are all in the electronics.

     

    The following excerpt shows the battery is unheated.
    http://bit.ly/ZkjjBh

     

    <To my surprise, regenerative braking in the Model S virtually disappears when the battery is cold. Starting out on a winter's day, it feels disappointingly like any old ICE car--even with the regen on the highest setting.
    As the battery warms, the regen gradually increases. But it can take a maddeningly long time to get back to the max level.

     

    Model S vs Volt
    On a sunny 40-degree day last week, it took almost 25 miles of driving for full regen to come back. On my typical shorter trips around town, I never get it back. I'd guess that overall, perhaps only a third of my driving so far has had full regen available.
    Blame the Model S battery management system, which is programmed to limit the charge rate when the battery is cold.>

     

    I don't know if the same holds true in the heat. If it does, it might open it to Phoenix type heat degradation. Otherwise a lot more vampire loads will be added.
    11 Apr 2013, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2057) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » froggey - I don't have the link, but I read that in extremely cold weather the battery is heated. I don't remember if "extremely cold" was cited as 20F, 0F, or -22F.

     

    I think it was MRTTF who wrote that Li batteries essentially stop working at 26F. The warranty states: "Exposing the vehicle to ambient temperatures above 140°F (60°C) or below -22°F (-30°C) for more than 24 hours at a time;" voids the warranty http://bit.ly/14ewgUY
    11 Apr 2013, 10:51 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2791) | Send Message
     
    Randy
    It could be this guy just hasn't had it cold enough, but this is the loss without heating.
    12 Apr 2013, 01:55 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7426) | Send Message
     
    There are cars running on earlier software versions that had sleep mode enabled and their vampire loads are substantially lower. They've avoided upgrading to the new software until sleep mode is re-enabled. Whatever issues Tesla had with sleep mode does not seem to be affecting their cars. So in fact sleep mode is already known to reduce vampire load substantially, no reason to think it won't do so again in newer versions.
    12 Apr 2013, 09:34 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7426) | Send Message
     
    The battery can be heated but possibly not enough to allow full regen. This makes sense at some point since wasting energy to heat the pack to allow regen to recover less energy would be pointless. In the cold motor and inverter heat is sent to the pack while driving, though it's not a lot of heat.
    12 Apr 2013, 09:37 AM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

Latest Comments


Most Commented
Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.