Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Zelaza's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Tesla Motors talks range and self-driving features [View news story]
    Canadian Tesla writes: " ...Ok, here's my vision of chipdoctor: He walks two miles from his empty ICE vehicle to the nearest gas station, and back with a gallon of gas. He does this 50 more times to fill up his tank. Whew! Job done. Seriously. "

    Seriously. Seriously?
    Why would you think that chipdoctor is as dumb as the solution you propose. How's this. Walk two miles and get a gallon of gas. Walk back to car. Put gas in tank. Get into car and drive to gas station. Return container. Fill up. Done.
    Mar 19, 2015. 04:30 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Gigafactory Tipping Point [View article]
    PeterJA provided a link to an article ( ) concerning a road test of a Tesla Roadster with a longer range battery. The article seemed to claim that the test was to see if the Roadster could travel 400 miles without recharging. According to the article the Roadster reached its destination (Santa Monica pier), and traveled only about 340 miles. Clearly, 400 miles was not achieved and 340 miles is substantially less than 400 (15% less) and not "slightly short" as PeterJA claimed. The article went further and stated that: " Tesla also claims 20 miles worth of charge remained after completing the six-hour drive." Because of this last claim by Tesla, PeterJA proceeded to claim that the Roadster achieved 360 miles and tries to accuse me of misrepresentation. Clearly, the prototype did not go 400 miles and PeterJAs assertion otherwise is wrong because the Roadster only went 340 miles.
    So why didn't the Roadster try to drive the, claimed, extra 20 miles remaining in the battery? That should have been a simple task: drive out 10 miles and then come back. If afraid of being stranded (i.e., Brodering the Tesla, a big NO NO), drive out 1 mile and back ten times. So why didn't Tesla do that. I don't know.
    But here's a possibility. The battery may have had 20 miles of charge left, but the Roadster could no longer drive. Perhaps its motor (after six hours) was overheated and the battery/drive management system shut it down. Maybe the power inverter was overheated and the Battery Management System shut it down? After all, Roadster2.0 (I think) has a range of about 230 miles and at about 60 mph that's a little less than 4 hours of driving. Since 2.0 doesn't have supercharging, it expects to be charged at about (electrical equivalent of) 60 miles per hour and, therefore, can expect to rest and cool off for quite a few hours while recharging after a long drive. It didn't happen here since, in the test, it had gone close to 6 hours and it's possible that it overheated. I don't know, just an engineering guess.
    Or, maybe the "new" battery overheated and the Battery Management system shut the Roadster down?
    I don't know if any of these things happened, but they're plausible and explains why the remaining 20 miles wasn't tested.
    In the end, it seems that no 400 mile Roadster has yet been demonstrated, no matter PeterJAs sophistry,
    Mar 15, 2015. 08:58 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Gigafactory Tipping Point [View article]
    PeterJA writes: " ... Zelaza, my link says total range of the prototype was 360 miles, which is 10% short of 400. Did you not comprehend the article or deliberately misrepresent it? "

    A FIND search turns up no mention of "360". Reading the article:
    says: " A prototype Roadster 3.0 recently made the trip from San Jose, California, to the Santa Monica Pier in Los Angeles without stopping to recharge. That's a distance of approximately 340 miles, completed without any hiccups."
    Shortly thereafter the claim is made that: "Tesla also claims 20 miles worth of charge remained after completing the six-hour drive." Since the 20 miles is a claim, not fact, clearly there is no misrepresentation on my part ... but possibly on your part. Also, 340 miles divided by 6 hours is 56.7 mph, a very heroic speed. Couldn't they drive around the block a bunch of times to make up the remaining miles to 400?
    Again, PeterJA, you resort to twisting the text and facts in order to ... oh, whatever.
    Mar 14, 2015. 03:23 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Gigafactory Tipping Point [View article]
    PeterJA writes:
    " ... False. A Roadster 3.0 prototype did a test drive last month (falling slightly short of 400 miles per charge). "

    PeterJA is wrong. Again (sigh.)

    I was absolutely correct in calling out Cecil Rhodes (or Julian Cox) for writing, " The upgraded Tesla Roadster can already do 400 miles", since even you (and the link you provide) admit that the car hasn't done 400 miles. Incidentally, 340 miles is not slightly short of 400, it's 15% short.
    What is it with you ? Do you even read what you yourself write?
    Mar 14, 2015. 11:07 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Gigafactory Tipping Point [View article]
    CR wrote: " ... This line of argument is increasingly hopeless. The upgraded Tesla Roadster can already do 400 miles. "
    Of course, no one has seen this mythical car so I'm surprised the claim is only 400 miles.

    " ... The Model 3 will certainly offer a 300 mile plus variant and probably more as an option ... "
    No Tesla today, at even $125,000+, offers more than about 270 mile range. So it's natural, of course, to claim that a Tesla at 1/3 the cost will offer a much greater range. This is certain to make a significant portion of the (approx) 50,000 owners of today's Model S a little bit upset (think of those that missed out on the D's by a few days.)

    " ... and Gigafactory cells in 2 years time will enable a Model S with at least 400 miles and more like 500 miles of range without changing the price or probably even the weight. "

    This is certain to make an even larger portion of the (approx) 50,000 owners of today's Model S more than a little upset. Even if there was a slight chance in what Julian Cox just wrote was possible, sales of the Model S and (the yet to appear) Model X would come to a near screeching halt. Think of what the introduction of the D did to the demand for the "normal" S. And imagine what a Tesla at 1/3 the price of an S or X would do to the sale of S and X.

    Reality is a bummer!
    Mar 14, 2015. 10:31 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla component part of RAV4 EV recall [View news story]
    Randy Carlson writes: " ... A better example of the advantages of over-the-air updates would be hard to find... "

    Except for the updates that made things worse and had to be up-updated.
    Mar 12, 2015. 10:40 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla component part of RAV4 EV recall [View news story]
    123man writes: " ... my Tesla is updated in my garage while I sleep - thinking about that, I wonder how Toyota will deal with the fuel cell defects and recalls - to compete with Tesla they will have to have a herd of little minions that sneak into peoples garages at night and swap out parts ... "

    Hmmm. So, when Tesla's inadequate underbody battery protection was discovered because of fires, the titanium shields were installed "over the air"?
    And the defective drive trains were repaired "over the air"? And defective batteries are also "replaced over the air"? I'm impressed.
    Mar 12, 2015. 10:30 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla component part of RAV4 EV recall [View news story]
    The referenced article in Automotive News writes: " A software flaw in the RAV4 EV’s propulsion system may cause the vehicle to shift into neutral and result in a complete loss of driving power, increasing the risk of a crash, according to a statement posted on Toyota’s U.S. website on Wednesday." See

    Sounds similar to recent reports that the Performance P85D, dual motor, Tesla Model S had similar problems that required immediate fixing.
    Mar 12, 2015. 09:00 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Gigafactory Tipping Point [View article]
    Dave_M writes:
    " Spend $80K to get blah blah blah blah, BLAH BLAH BLAH, blah blah blah blah, and free fuel for road trips.

    Read again, and carefully:
    $80K ...
    $80,000 ...
    Eighty Thousand dollars ...

    That's the minimum cost (average cost $90K+) to get performance most people don't care that much about. An extra $40,000 or $50,000 above the price of a very nice car gets you free fuel (there is that $2,000 premium for supercharger usage) if you follow prescribed routes on your road trips.

    Now that's a little more realistic.
    Mar 11, 2015. 03:30 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Gigafactory Tipping Point [View article]
    Dave_M writes: " ...No. That's best case. The shortest possible time to fill a gas car. It's certainly not the average. You know better than that. Drivers are typically three deep at every Costco lane to save 5 cents per gallon (75 cents per fillup). Each driver will take at least 5 minutes to pump and pay. So you have no credibility if you are trying to convince people that 5 minutes is average. I was generous to give you an average of 10 minutes. "

    I don't buy gas at Costco, or Walmart, or any no name gas stations. Since I haven't spent $90K+ on my car, I have plenty of money for gas. Ever since Jack Rickert [sic] wrote (sometime ago) that he timed people averaging 20 minutes a fill up somewhere in Missouri, I've timed some of my fill ups (of 12 to 15 gallons for 17 gallon tank) and it's less than 5 minutes. And that includes waiting for my receipt to be printed.
    You apparently don't recall what filling up is about. I fill up when I'm below 1/4 (or so) of a tank. If the first station I come to is three or two deep (almost never), or even one deep, I have plenty of gas to move on to a station five blocks away, or 50 miles away. And even at a price difference of 10 to 20 cents a gallon, the cost difference between service stations is no more than a few bucks (MAX).

    "... Dude, if you've been driving a gasoline car for hours on the highway and you pull over to refuel, you will probably HAVE to use the restroom. "
    Dude, I don't have too. And I expect that people much younger than me don't have to either. I also want to point out that, if I want to, I can drive at 75 mph (or more) for hours and hours (5 - 6) on the highway.
    Mar 10, 2015. 08:24 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Gigafactory Tipping Point [View article]
    Dave_M writes:
    “ … What was I thinking? The naysayers would not be satisfied if I gave them 5 examples, or 25 examples, or 100 examples. You would just say "Oh, that sample size is not representative". Which buys you more time to be a naysayer without overwhelming proof. “

    Sorry, but I’m not the one who raised the issue of your habit of coming to conclusions based on single sample events. Try Neil_Anderson, and take it up with him. But more than one example might be helpful.

    “ … I'm no more a battery expert than any one of you, however, common sense will tell you that Lithium Ion battery life is "more" a function of usage, than time. “
    Common sense, or logic, applies to abstract subjects such as math or philosophy. That’s why it was thought, common sense, that the Earth was the center of the universe. Only experimental evidence eventually showed that it’s not true. So too in the real battery world where there is evidence that age (and lack of use) is important in determining deterioration. In any case, your (single) example has no merit.

    “ … Your math is very bad. Your logic is worse. How many gas station visits will it take to get enough gasoline for driving 113,000 miles? ANSWER: 362 visits, @ 10 min. per visit (Costco is longer). That's 60 hours of WAITING for fuel. “
    Not a very good job doubling the things I pointed out. Try 57,000 miles since I was comparing using the supercharger to using the gas station; so down to 30 hours. Next: I fill up in 5 minutes, not 10. So, down to 15 hours; about what I calculated. Neither my math nor my logic is bad. But you should try not changing the facts or the rules in the middle of the discussion.

    “ … With a gasoline vehicle, you MUST WAIT by the car for the full refueling time. That is the definition of waiting. “
    If your using the rest room, eating, etc, then your spending more than the 5 minutes walking to and from these things than the 5 minutes I spend fueling up.

    One more thing I forgot to mention in my original comments. Your dinner friend probably spent north of $90K for the Tesla, while the ICE owner probably spent well south of $40K for their car. That’s a $50K difference that way more than covers the difference in fuel cost. And if one were smart about it, in addition to having a nice set of (ICE) wheels, that extra $50K could be used to purchase more than 250 shares of Tesla; possibly a better investment than the car itself.
    Mar 10, 2015. 04:03 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Gigafactory Tipping Point [View article]
    Dave_M writes: " ... His range degradation backed up my ~1.5% per year (or per 12K miles) estimate. He was about 12% range degradation. when he measured last (around 100K mi). "

    Range degradation isn't just a function of mileage, it is also a function of time. One could take your numbers and see that the battery degraded 12% in two years and using these numbers, just as well, argue that the battery will degrade 23% in 4 years, 32% in 6 years, 40% in 8 years ... Of course, I doubt this very much, but if you're going to analyze the data incorrectly, your going to get nearly meaningless results; just as we both have.

    " ... Driving a Model S for 240K miles amounts to $40K in fuel savings. "
    This questionable calculation assumes 18 mpg at $3.00 a gallon. A more reasonable mileage of 24 mpg would "only" provide a saving of $30K. No real need to pump the numbers.

    " ... I estimate that he must have used superchargers for at least 50% of his miles, ... "
    Let's see. That's 57,500 miles from Superchargers. At 150 miles per visit that comes to 383.3 visits. At 20 minutes per visit that comes to about 128 hours at the Superchargers in 2 years. Compare that to about 13 hours at the pump for similar mileage.
    Mar 10, 2015. 12:28 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Gigafactory Tipping Point [View article]
    PeterJA writes: " ... Zelaza, you seem unable to address the fact that automajors are not doing it (not even announced doing it in the future), and the argument that they have a powerful disincentive to do it, namely their reluctance to kill their cash cows with long-range EVs that are superior. "

    How do you know that I'm unable to address IT ? What is IT? When have I been asked about IT?
    OK, let's assume I've been asked about IT; that is, why are the automajors not installing superhargers (is that IT, I want to be sure?) My answer is obvious. The automajors have no need for superchargers. That's it. One could just as easily ask why the Fremont plant has no oil filters, mufflers, or catalytic converters. Same answer; because they don't need them. And if, and when, they do (automajors or Tesla) they will get them.

    Speaking of superchargers (IT); what is the definition of a supercharger? (1) Does it have to provide 90 kW, 120 kW, 135 kW, or x000 kW? Which one, and are the others no longer superchargers? (2) How about: a supercharger charges a battery to half its nominal range in (pick one) 30, 20, 15, or x minutes? (3) Or is the definition of a supercharger: a device that charges a battery at a rate of 1C, 1.5C, xC?
    If it's (2) or (3), then GM has put thousands of portable supercharges on the road in the form of VOLTS.

    " ... and the argument that they have a powerful disincentive to do it, namely their reluctance to kill their cash cows with long-range EVs that are superior. "
    I think that that's a really dumb argument. Into today's day and age the automajors can see the writing on the wall and are working on the best transition from one to the other. The idea that they will not enter the EV market and let someone else eat their lunch is ridiculous. The automajors have to produce millions of cars a year and they are not going to throw all that away over a weekend in order to produce less than a few hundred thousand expensive vehicles. And then, when their product lines are sufficiently electric, they'll come to a good standard and build appropriate superchargers; probably powered by solar panels. Wouldn't it be a hoot if automajors have solar powered superchargers before Tesla?
    Mar 5, 2015. 03:00 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Gigafactory Tipping Point [View article]
    WFA writes: " ...The onboard chargers are 10KW each and you can have up to two for a total of 20KW. The difference in power alone tells you they aren't going to be close. "

    Much as you would like it to be, I'm not referring to the on-board charger. I'm referring to the drive train power converter, you know, the cylindrical container about 1 ft in diameter and about 1 ft in length, next to the differential that is next to the 300+ kW motor. That container holds a liquid cooled, bilateral DC to 3-phase AC variable frequency converter with an instantaneous rating of, probably, around 300 kW (to match the motor) and probably a 50 - 100 kW continuous rating. That power converter also converts variable frequency 3-phase AC, coming from the motor during regeneration, into 400+ Volts of DC to recharge the battery; you know, a bilateral converter. That's the converter capabilities and sizing I'm comparing to.

    But this all irrelevant fluff because you seem to be unable to address my argument that if Tesla can do it, so can any other of the major car companies.

    "Not even close". Amen.
    Mar 5, 2015. 12:49 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Gigafactory Tipping Point [View article]
    watchingfromabove writes: " @Zelaza ... "

    You don't seem to be able to understand when a comment is meant to expand on another’s thought or comment. It’s done all the time in my world: when someone says we can do “A”, another person will come back and argue, “ if that’s so, why can’t we also do 2A, or 3A, or 100A.”

    “Dave's comment obviously meant low-power level 2 chargers which are fast to set up and inexpensive due to the current feed requirements (80A @ 220V max)
    Then you conflate that with the setting up "high-power chargers" easily and quickly which can't be done easily or inexpensively.
    It was pretty obvious to all of us you were conflating low power chargers suitable for apartment garages with high-power chargers because those are the words you use. It is also obvious to us that high-power chargers are much more difficult to set up owing to the fact that they need a much bigger feed and physical space. “

    I beg to differ. I did not confuse the two. I used one to lead to the next. It's done all the time in discussions. Also, if Tesla can set up high power chargers, why can’t the other car companies that have revenues and resources that are 10x – 100x greater? And as I wrote, the so-called high power charger is comparable in size to the power inverter in the Tesla Model S and the transformers needed to step down the high power feed is also no more a problem than it is for Tesla.

    “ … you mixed the two concepts with your question "Doesn't this also mean...?"
    Funny thing is, Dave_M had no problem understanding that my comment concerned the feasibility of setting up a network of high power chargers, nor did his comment imply that I was confusing high power with low power chargers. He challenged my argument by asking why any company (other than Tesla) would do such a thing?

    "Are you a poor EE who didn't understand ... ?" Dr. Zelaza ain't no poor EE.
    Mar 5, 2015. 10:53 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment