Seeking Alpha

Zelaza

Zelaza
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Zelaza's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Why Self-Driving Cars Are No Threat To Tesla, Apple Or The Auto Industry [View article]
    Gee, no mention of Google or Sebastian Thrun?
    May 22, 2015. 01:58 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • EPower Successfully Completes Third-Party Demonstration Trial [View instapost]
    John Petersen,
    Thanks for responding to my comment and for enlightening me about some of the reality of trucking. I should have included in my earlier comment that I knew nothing of the methods and economics of the trucking industry.
    My concerns where motivated by what I perceived were issues for passenger cars and they are different than trucks. Whereas the total mass of a truck carrying a load can vary (guessing) by a factor of up to 4 or 5, a car's total weight will only vary up to about 10%. So, for cars it is reasonable to assume a near constant mass in all occasions and then layout a serial electric drive train design for that. Not so for the truck.
    Thanks again and I will continue to keep an eye out for information on "hybridizing" trucks.
    May 21, 2015. 09:08 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • EPower Successfully Completes Third-Party Demonstration Trial [View instapost]
    I’ve been reading, and re-rereading, the few details of ePower’s hybrid design and am troubled by some of the numbers I see. In particular, there seems to be very little margin in the ratings of the power components (Diesel engine, generator, motor, and battery pack) and as a result, many may be stressed more than anticipated. While it is important and commendable to minimize the sizing of these power components (especially their cost), continually operating them close to their limits can be “exhausting” and is not necessarily more economic.

    Information and charts in the provided link:

    http://bit.ly/1cJVTm6

    indicate that a power of about 200hp (150 kW) is required to run an 80,000 pound truck and cargo at 60 mph on flat terrain. Further, each 1% of grade requires another 130 hp (100 kW) to maintain 60 mph. The current design has a 200 hp Diesel engine and a 200 hp (150 kW) generator. These may be too small since they just meet the basic operating requirements. The operating environment for a truck varies greatly and it might do well to increase the size of both the engine and generator. This not only permits handling more difficult terrains and issues, but also lets these components (engine and motor) operate more comfortably and further down from their limits. More importantly, slightly over sizing these components reduces the load (and heating) on the power battery system when it is called on.

    The next component size that is bothersome is the drive motor that is rated at only 200 hp (assuming continuous rating with allowed excesses for short time periods.) All power to the wheels comes through this motor and if the base requirement (at 60 mph) is 200 hp at the wheels, then adding additional 100s of hp for steeper grades exceeds the continuous rating and stresses the motor. Also, with the smallish Diesel and generator, more power is required of the battery system with a resultant increase in heating that is slow to dissipate.
    I don’t know the design details, nor the exact meaning of the component ratings as presented, and so I may be overly concerned. But the power component specifications provided certainly raise concerns.
    May 20, 2015. 03:28 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Silliness Of Tesla's 10kWh Back-Up Battery [View article]
    Dave_M writes: " ... So, basically you use your own erroneous comment from last year to substantiate your erroneous comment today. Great journalism. Not. "

    Amazing. You missed the point completely.
    I wasn't relying on my earlier comment, but on JRP3's response in which he agreed with my remark and wrote: " You don't need to look up the video, I remember Musk saying the same thing. "

    OK, I just noticed fiwiki's link and will change the rest of my original response. You are right and I am wrong. So, instead of the S40 being a "dog", it's a "hobbled horse" and "wasn't a good product." That certainly changes the picture a lot. NOT.
    So, the correct answer to Dave_M's challenge: "What was the last sub-standard product that Tesla produced?" is not Dave's answer "There weren't any. ", but, from Elon's lips, "The Tesla Model S40", which should have had the code name "hobbled horse" :-)

    Finally, I'm not a journalist but an Engineer and Scientist, and have developed innovative and damn good technology and insight. And, that's not just my own opinion.
    May 8, 2015. 06:06 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Silliness Of Tesla's 10kWh Back-Up Battery [View article]
    Dave_M wrote: " ... Send us all a link to where Musk said "the S40 was a dog" as you claim. Not popular, yes. But "dog", no. Without substantiation, it's simply a lie. "

    Did you just write "Without substantiation it's simply a lie." ? That's a completely false assertion. So, without substantiation your claim of buying Tesla at 25 is a lie? And without a link, your claim that Musk actually said "hobbled horse" must also be a lie. Find that link where you think Musk said "hobbled horse" and you'll find my claim to be true.

    I don't have much time to search for the video where Must calls the S40 a "dog", but I'll look when I can. However, I do have corroboration of my assertion from no other than noted EV enthusiast JRP3.
    In an exchange of comments on SA on April 14, 2014, I wrote in response to some comment (in part): " ... Tesla discontinued the 40kWh Model S because it was, paraphrasing Musk's own words, "a dog". I don't have the time, right now, to find the video where Musk admits that. The 4% buyers claim is a convenient excuse, and was inevitable since Tesla, it is reported, bad mouthed the 40 kWh to potential purchasers. "
    In response to this (two comments later), JRP3 wrote, on April 15: "You don't need to look up the video, I remember Musk saying the same thing. However if you do have any evidence of Tesla badmouthing the 40 to potential customers I'd like to see it. In any case if Tesla managed to push people into the longer range versions I'd say that's good marketing, and if someone looking at the 40 could be so easily swayed to a 60 or 85 then it's quite obvious the demand for the 40 was weak, as I said, and Tesla was wise to kill it. It would have been killed when the Gen3 came out anyway." Bingo!

    I think this discussion has run out of steam even more than the S40. I will, however, look for the link which will validate my comment.
    May 8, 2015. 04:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Silliness Of Tesla's 10kWh Back-Up Battery [View article]
    Dave_M writes: " ... Wrong again Z. The S40 was a variant of the Model S. It was still a Model S, but with different options. ... So keep trying."

    So many distortions in so short a paragraph.
    " The S40 was a variant of the Model S. It was still a Model S, but with different options. " Actually, the S40 was the original base version used to attract attention because of its "low" (<$50K adjusted) price. The S60 and S85 came later and were referred to as extended range Model S.

    " Many customers DID purchase an S40. " Wow, just wow. When Tesla advised (on April Fool's Day) that the S40 would not be produced, they claimed that very few (only 4%) opted for this version; ergo, we ain't makin' any. This is one of the first times I've seen a Teslarian "claim" that many customers DID purchase an S40. Today the S60 with <2% sales will probably disappear soon; if it hasn't already.

    "However, Tesla shipped it [S40?] with a 60kW battery that was electrically limited to what the range would have been with a 40."
    Wrong! Tesla did not ship an S40 with a range limited 60kWh battery. They shipped an S60 with software limited range (hey buddy ... for a measly $10,000 we'll remove the range limit) because otherwise Tesla would have faced a firestorm for shafting the original purchasers. No S40 "dogs" were produced.

    So, Dave_M, keep trying to put lipstick on that p.. (oops) dog.
    May 8, 2015. 09:52 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Silliness Of Tesla's 10kWh Back-Up Battery [View article]
    Dave_M writes: " ... Question. What was the last sub-standard product that Tesla produced? Answer. There weren't any. "

    Hahumm. The Tesla Model S40, which Musk referred to as "a dog." Oh, that's right, they never did "produce" it. Only used it to claim a sub $50K EV (after $7,500 tax rebate.)
    May 8, 2015. 08:57 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Net Metering Leaves Tesla Home Battery Storing A Lot Of Hype [View article]
    Dave_M writes: " ... And yes, I have a way of measuring the duration of power outages while I'm out of town. "

    Ahh. The good old electric motor driven analog wall clock plugged into an outlet.
    May 7, 2015. 05:38 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Full Simulation Of The Tesla Battery: Insights For Investors [View article]
    Davewmart writes: " ? So they have developed some passive liquid thermal management system instead of using the active one they have in their cars? .... That is a first! "

    Active cooling would imply some sort of pump to move the coolant around and, maybe, even a sort of radiator. Does the pump need inspection and maintenance after a few years?
    May 7, 2015. 09:38 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Full Simulation Of The Tesla Battery: Insights For Investors [View article]
    Ivan Gault writes: " ... A 10 kWh battery only supplies 10 kW for one hour or 5 kW for 2 hours, etc. "
    No, that's incorrect. The 10 kWh battery can only supply power of 2kW continuously and short lived peaks of a little more than 3 kW; that is, this battery operates at 0.2C continuously and with a peak of 0.3C+. This is quite curious since in the 85kWh battery of the P85D is supposed to be able to supply peak power at close to 450 kW (600 hp), or, 5C+. How come there is a factor of 15 difference in peak power capability?
    This also brings to mind the question of how rapidly these batter packs can be charged. If their discharge is limited to 0.2C continuous, is the charge rate also limited to the same 0.2C value?

    I think the 10 kWh (or 7 kWh) designation and ratings are misleading and draw attention away from the very limited continuous and peak power output. BBB ... battery buyer beware!
    May 6, 2015. 04:41 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Motors: Did Elon Musk Already Lower 2015 Delivery Guidance? [View article]
    response to PeterJA comment of 6 May, 11:47AM

    Sorry to return, but PeterJA's response above is just too good and juicy to ignore; especially the end where Peter pastes Musk remark intended to show that Broder was anti EV, namely:
    <<the state of the electric car is dismal, the victim of hyped expectations, technological flops, high costs and a hostile political climate.>>
    http://bit.ly/12NvCfg

    I read Broder's article (http://nyti.ms/1byjEww : it's pretty good) that is referenced by Musk and, if you can read and understand English, it's actually reasonably pro-EV (especially the last sentence which ponders who would benefit from the demise of the EV.) But here is the funniest part:
    Broder's article is dated March 24, 2012. Musk, himself, handed over the keys to the purchasers of the first 10 Tesla Model S in a big company ceremony on June 22, 2012; three months later. I think that when Broder wrote his article there was no Model S and almost everyone, including Musk, would have agreed that at that time the state of the electric car was dismal. In fact, today Musk, PeterJA, and similar minded acolytes, consider the state of all other EVs dismal, imagine what it was like three years ago. Broder wasn't displaying a hostility towards the Model S, he was honestly telling it how it was.
    The next time PeterJA (and Musk) references and links to articles he (and also Musk), should read them first.
    PeterJA, thanks for proving and making my points.
    May 6, 2015. 02:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Motors: Did Elon Musk Already Lower 2015 Delivery Guidance? [View article]
    PeterJA writes: " ... Obviously that was before Elon saw the data logs showing Broder had not simply made honest mistakes."
    This comment shows that PeterJA's brain has been conditioned to filter out, discard, and attack any non-complimentary comment about Tesla (even if they come from Musk) because he totally misses the part where Musk's admits that the charging stations are (were) too far apart (Feb 2013); thereby helping explain and justify Broder's difficulty.
    I think I'm done with this fruitless conversation, and yes (I know what Peter will now write, because it's getting very old), I won't let the door hit my rear on the way out. Bye!
    May 6, 2015. 11:15 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Motors: Did Elon Musk Already Lower 2015 Delivery Guidance? [View article]
    arondaniel wrote: " broder (verb) - to purposely or with willful ignorance ... idiocy to accomplish."

    Using a person's name, or ethnicity, to create a derogatory verb (or word) as was done here (for the thousandth time) is very low class. And the favor can easily be returned.
    May 6, 2015. 10:03 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Motors: Did Elon Musk Already Lower 2015 Delivery Guidance? [View article]
    PeterJA writes: " ... I suggest that anyone interested read both accounts of Broder's perilous adventure. Apparently Zelaza did not read the Tesla account, since he seemed unaware until I told him that Broder's range display was at zero while circling the parking lot more than twice. "

    Perhaps PeterJA should follow his own suggestion to others and read Broder's response to Musk ( http://nyti.ms/VjvHD1 ) . Peter doesn't have to like or believe Broder, but before he can continue to ask the same questions over and over again (parroting Musk), he MUST READ the above link even if it makes him gag. If Peter does so he can even find out if Broder found his contact lens :-)

    " ... Apparently Zelaza did not read the Tesla account, "
    Actually, I did read it, and carefully, back then. I even created a simple little equation that would allow me to determine how much time was necessary to go between locations (required that velocity not be zero in the said interval.)

    This is getting very booorrringgg, especially to the four or five people still following this. I'll close with the final two paragraphs of Broder's article:

    " MUSK's comment: ... When I first heard about what could at best be described as irregularities in Broder’s behavior during the test drive, I called to apologize for any inconvenience that he may have suffered and sought to put my concerns to rest, hoping that he had simply made honest mistakes. That was not the case.”

    BRODER's response to Musks above claim: "Mr. Musk not only apologized, he said the charging stations should be 60 miles closer together and offered me a second test drive when additional stations were built. "
    May 6, 2015. 09:57 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Motors: Did Elon Musk Already Lower 2015 Delivery Guidance? [View article]
    PeterJA writes: " ... I started to read his response, but stopped in disgust at his appeal to his own authority. "
    Are you referring to Musk or Broder?
    Refusing to read Broder's response to Musk's allegations only reinforces the obvious that you are totally biased and that it is your intention to plug your ears, close your eyes, and attack any, ANY, other opinion or questioning of Musk, Tesla, and related stuff.

    " ... The logs show Broder drove over half a mile in this small parking lot."
    Thank you for confirming my comment at how ridiculously small and insignificant that distance is.

    " ... The smaller the lot, the more circuits he had to make. Has he offered ANY explanation, besides the obvious one? "
    The obvious one is that on a dark, cold, winter night he didn't know where the supercharger was in the service center and, if he missed it the first time, he had to go around again because of one way driving arrows. What's the problem here? Obviously I don't know what happened, but what I assert seems much more plausible than your "drive it to death" claim.
    This past weekend at Tyson's Corner I circled/toured the parking area for way more than a half a mile looking for a parking spot close to LL Bean, whose location I was unsure of. How is anyone going to drain a meaningful amount of electrical energy from ANY EV in a small parking lot? If anything, constantly pointing out that Broder circled the lot twice shows how absurd this allegation of his trying to sabotage the drive is. You must be desperate.
    May 5, 2015. 09:34 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
886 Comments
1,383 Likes