Seeking Alpha

Zelaza

Zelaza
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Zelaza's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Tesla, Fairest Welfare Queen Of All, Cracks The Whip [View article]
    Lensman03 writes: " ... You keep making that claim: That as li-ion batteries age, they lose charge/discharge efficiency .... Do you have any evidence to back that up? Because as far as I can tell, that's 100% pure cabbage."

    Please allow me ! Try this if you have about an hour and a quarter:

    http://bit.ly/1aL7E9S
    Aug 13 10:55 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla, Fairest Welfare Queen Of All, Cracks The Whip [View article]
    Coyotee writes: " gas cars are also coal burners , gasoline does not magically appear at the pump , its requires coal power to produce electricity to power the refinery and to run all those pumps at all those gas stations..."
    WRONG! Out of every 100 barrels of crude out of the ground about 10 - 15 barrels are used to generate the high temperature steam and other energy used to heat and refine the petroleum. No electricity is required to refine the crude, but electricity is used because it is convenient and efficient in related refinery operations. "Waste" byproducts from these operation are used to generate any electricity needed and is often done by closely allied companies. No coal is required.

    " ... 4 to 7 kilowatts per gallon your car holds 10 to 20 gallons, 4 times 20 gallons is 80 kilowatt hours of coal fired energy per fill up and then use it at only 20% efficiency. "
    Huh ??? This is pure gibberish ... complete nonsense.
    Aug 13 10:27 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla, Fairest Welfare Queen Of All, Cracks The Whip [View article]
    fotu writes: " ... Many people keep their batteries until it holds only 25% of its original charge (less so for phone users @ ~50%). Unless you swap out your batteries at the 70% mark, you're being a hypocrite. "

    The Li-Ion battery on my Macbook Pro started showing signs of age recently, but I was OK with the lower amount of charge it could hold. However, the battery also started to swell and pressed against the trackpad making it unusable. I had to buy a new battery (not Apple's piece of junk replacement battery) but the trackpad hasn't completely recovered and seems to have a mind of its own. In short, often there are more things wrong with a degraded battery than capacity degradation.
    Aug 13 05:47 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Motors has 500M reasons to build the Gigafactory in California [View news story]
    TheBanker writes: " SA, we strongly encourage you to install an "ignore" button. We need one to protect ourselves from Paulo's ridiculous and continuous FUD. "

    Simple solution, don't read his stuff!

    What should be ignored are your posts (and a few others) that continually insult and only incite angry reactions. (yeah, I know, you'll now accuse me of the same ... been there, done that.)
    Aug 12 11:38 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Update: Tesla Deliveries Guidance Implications [View article]
    arondaniel writes: " ... Wow @Zelaza I had no idea courtroom rules were in effect here. I'll make sure to rigorously fact check and independently corroborate every assertion I make here from now on."

    Being a little bit of a drama queen here? I made no demand for "courtroom rules" (whatever that means.) I merely pointed out the continual, casual, and egregious distortion of facts by <^_^>. Not to mention the pervasive insults from sad <^_^>. Also, you, yourself, point out <^_^>'s errors in a post immediately above.

    " But seriously... to say Model S is more advanced than Leaf ain't going too far out on a limb. I don't see any stories about free cross country travel on a Leaf or Leaves beating Vipers on the drag strip. "
    I made no attempt at a mismatched comparison in my comments as you have done here. If you're going to mismatch, you should also mention, in your comparison, that the Leaf is 1/3 to 1/4 the price of the Model S. And participant "solucky" is correct to point out that the CC travel is prepaid, not free.

    Read what I wrote, not what you wanted me to write.
    Aug 3 12:03 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Update: Tesla Deliveries Guidance Implications [View article]
    Lensman03 writes:
    " ... It's true that if you take the EPA range ratings and compare the miles/kWh between the 85 kWh Tesla Model S and the Leaf, they come out almost exactly the same. "
    Really? According to the EPA for 2013 models, the Leaf gets 115 MPGe while the 85 kWh Model S gets 89 MPGe; the Leaf's "mileage" is 29% higher. You call that "almost exactly the same?"
    Oh, wait, I get it. Compare Leaf's 3.45 miles/kWh to Tesla's 2.63 miles/kWh and they're only 0.82 apart; a pittance.

    " ... But that's because the Leaf doesn't have TslaM's superior power electronics, and therefore doesn't have the energy efficiency of a TslaM car. "
    Tesla superior power electronics? Based on what? Provide some links.
    Does Tesla now produce their own superior power electronic components that are not available to anyone else? Are Tesla's power electronics engineers superior to those in the rest of the automotive world? What a bunch of delusional hogwash.

    " ... (There are other factors, of course; the Model S uses aluminum vs. the Leaf's steel, but the Model S is larger and has more wind resistance.)"
    The steel Leaf, at 3250# weighs almost 1500# less than the 4700# aluminum Model S. Try again.

    " ... If TslaM built a 24 kWh BEV, and limited the power to what the Leaf motor uses, it would have more range. "
    Again, Lensman03 has no evidence of this since there is no such Tesla vehicle, and he has not claimed, or exhibited, the technical background or competence necessary to justify this claim.

    " ... Not all BEVs are created equal. " You forgot to add: " ... to Tesla EVs."

    The other comments in Lensman03s post are equally dubious.

    Tesla boosters such as Lensman03 continue the delusional practice of claiming that anything Tesla does, no matter what, is superior to anything that anyone else can do.
    Aug 2 09:44 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Closes In On Mass Market [View article]
    Lensman03 needs a course in recursive arguing because he continues to argue against himself ... repeatedly.

    Lensman00 writes: " ... Arguing over the definition of words is another mark of a troll. Even worse than a FUDdite. "
    Writing these two sentences is arguing over the definition of words and therefore, Lensman00 marks himself as a troll and FUDite ... Lensman01.

    Lensman01 then writes: " ... "More automated" doesn't MEAN "more machines", it MEANS "a greater percentage of the work is done by machines vs. humans". "
    Again, Lensman01 is arguing over a definition and for the second time shows himself to be a troll and FUDite. We are now at Lensman02.

    Lensman02 continues with: " And in the case of TslaM, it also MEANS on average more work is done by each machine... which MEANS automation of automation! Automation squared? <^_^> "

    Yet again, Lensman02 is arguing over a definition and completes a hat trick by identifying himself (by his own definition) a troll and a FUDite; thus, Lensman03. Incidentally, I'm not sure what the emoticon, <^_^> , is supposed to mean, but to me it looks like a clown ... how appropriate.
    Jul 31 03:04 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Closes In On Mass Market [View article]
    Lensman03 writes: " ... Sometimes I wonder if the FUDdites on Seeking Alpha are competing to see who can post something furthest from the truth, without having readers simply burst out laughing. A modern version of tall-tale telling, perhaps?

    The truth is that the Tesla Motors auto assembly plant is a model of utilizing automation efficiently and flexibly, using more automation than most if not all other American auto assembly plants. Many other auto makers have toured the plant, to learn how they might improve their own assembly lines.
    It's clear the short-sellers don't know about any -real- problems with Tesla Motors. If they did they wouldn't feel the need to make up cabbage like this."

    *******

    Well lensman03, here's the cabbage and the thread from the Teslamotors forum:

    http://bit.ly/1AzVACd

    Read it.
    The thread's title is " Check Your Nuts! Found Assembly Error During Hitch Install" by P_Dave (the full forum name is in the article.)
    Carefully read his remarks and those of the other participants.
    Most importantly, check the 7 jpeg images showing his hitch installation and the loose nuts. This one is especially telling:
    http://bit.ly/1AzVACg

    Incidentally, P_Dave is a big Tesla fan even though he has had his drive train replaced and the nearest Tesla service center is 4 hours away.
    Jul 30 04:52 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Closes In On Mass Market [View article]
    stephenpace writes: " I've seen Model S owners with small trailers using hitches like this:
    http://bit.ly/1AyyBaF "

    More than about a year ago one of the regular participants (initials P B) at the Tesla Motors site installed such a bike rack and had a few surprises and photographs to disclose.
    This owner, who has a garage workspace that even a dealership might envy, discovered that when he removed parts from the rear of the Model S (in order to install the rack), a number of nuts holding body panels were not properly tightened and some were completely loose. So much for Tesla quality control.
    Jul 30 11:57 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: What About The Model X? [View article]
    Response to Lensman03 remarks above that begin "Zelaza said:"

    Wow!
    Just wow!
    It appears that Lensman03 has little ability to comprehend (understand) the English language; or at least when it is of the American or New York style.

    Lensman03 does not seem to understand the use of the word “connection” in my previous comments where I wrote: “There is absolutely no connection (none, nada, ziltch, ...) between using two drive shafts from a single motor to operate the front and rear wheels of an AWD vehicle and gas guzzlers.” In this context “connection” does not mean a mechanical connection. It means relationship or association.
    So that lensman03 understands and comprehends what I wrote, let’s try this. It is (easily) possible to deliver rotational motion from a source to a number of points (example, 4 wheels) purely by mechanical means. It doesn’t matter what the rotational source is. The rotational source can be an electric motor, a gasoline/diesel engine, a water wheel, a wind mill, a treadmill, or a hand crank. Lensman’s insertion of “gas guzzler” via “You're talking about the design of gas guzzlers, not BEVs. I think it will be the norm for 4WD BEVs to have two motors.” into my comment was purely meant to provoke and mislead. It should now be clear that the rest of his comments are irrelevant and completely miss the point I was making. Further, I was not criticizing Tesla's design, I was merely pointing out a simple mechanical alternative to using two (expensive) motors.

    Lensman03’s repeated use of the pejoratives “gas guzzler”, "FUD", "FUDite", and others illustrates yet again that he is incapable of an unbiased or rational discussion.

    Lensman03, who started posting a little over two weeks ago, has provided no bio and writes in a manner very similar to two (probably just one) previous provocateurs; Ford Prefect69 and Julian Cox. Coincidence?
    Jul 29 10:27 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla, Are We About To Be Surprised? [View article]
    Randy Carlson:

    In the first of a series of comments concerning Randy Carlson’s determination of the possible performance of an AWD version of the Tesla Model S, I incorrectly challenged his results.

    Mr. Carlson’s analysis and results are correct under his justifiable assumptions and my assertion that a much larger battery would be needed to meet the performance he indicates is wrong.

    In reviewing my approach, and referring to the figure in the link provided by Mr. Carlson, I realized that I too had approached similar problems using analysis that appears to mirror his. For some inexplicable reason, I resorted to a prior incorrect approach. In redoing the problem using his numbers, I too find that the AWD vehicle in question can be expected to achieve 0 – 60 mph in about 3.2 seconds; about 1.1 seconds to get to 27 mph (accelerating in excess of 1.1g) and about another 2.1 seconds to get from 27 to 60 mph (with an ever decreasing acceleration under the constant power regime and at 60 mph the acceleration "drops" to about 0.5g.) At the wheels the purely mechanical power required is only about 300kW. Including an electrical efficiency of 80% brings required battery power to 375 kW, and, after including other losses, a battery requirement to supply about 400 kW is not unreasonable and is within C=5 of the 85 kWh battery.

    I apologize and regret the unnecessary distraction.
    Jul 27 12:42 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla, Are We About To Be Surprised? [View article]
    Randy Carlson writes: " ... This would require an average battery delivered power of 313kW over the 3.2 seconds, well within the the 5C rate of ~425kW "

    That's correct. The AVERAGE power usage is 313 kW; zero power at t=0 when the vehicle is about to start, 313 kW of power at 1.6 seconds when the car is at 30mph, and it's gulping energy at 626 kW at t=3.2 when the car finally gets to 60 mph; and at t = 3.2 sec the C value is 7.4 and probably more than enough to trip some real or virtual circuit breakers. This is the best scenario if the motor is capable of a constant torque at its maximum value. If the torque fluctuates at lower values, more time is required to get to 60 mph. If you must get to 60 mph in 3.2 seconds and you don't use the constant torque, then a higher torque capability is needed so that a mix of higher and lower torques average to the original constant torque capability.

    " The basic fallacy in your argument is the presumption that the rate of acceleration is constant. It is not. "

    There is no fallacy in my argument. And of course the acceleration is not constant. But the constant maximum torque is the ideal "shortest time" scenario that defines the outer envelope. Deviations from this result in "worse" results.
    Jul 25 04:40 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla, Are We About To Be Surprised? [View article]
    Randy Carlson writes: " I believe you have made some assumptions about a likely Model S AWD that are not correct and that perhaps you have not appreciated what the second front motor / inverter is and what it does."

    I am aware of most of the things you mentioned but did not really need them because I was determining outer envelopes of requirements that had to be satisfied. And, yes, I know that by using four drive wheels you can lower the necessary (and expensive) tire stickiness to, perhaps, about half the value needed for two wheel drive (so that the wheels don't spin out.)

    I am, of course, aware that the acceleration is, in reality, not constant. But by using a constant acceleration we get a minimum time envelope. If the acceleration is not constant (fast ramp up to near constant level) the time to achieve a desired velocity (60 mph) will be longer. Or, if you still want the reduced time, then the power requirements and capabilities will have to be greater.

    I realize and expect that the front motor does not have the same torque and other capabilities as the rear motor. But however less the torque is, the weight will still be high. I can’t imagine that the front drive “axle” will come in at 200#, the iron (and even denser copper) in the current Tesla motor alone weighs in at just under 200# (based on my calculations using my estimate of the motor’s dimensions.)

    You also need to consider the increased weight of the larger battery required to satisfy the power needs I calculated; it is not really affected by how many motors you have or how the power is distributed among them. If you are sticking to an 85 kWh battery, then the 625 kW peak power I calculated (assumes no extra battery weight) is at C = 7.4 for the 85 kWh battery; your assumed max is C = 5. If you must limit C, the more power the heavier the battery, the heavier the battery the more power needed, rinse and repeat. The resulting algebraic equation can give a meaningful solution, and it is often a much heavier battery and car than expected.

    What I’m trying to get at is that ridiculous and unrealistic speed and acceleration requirements drive the car design and cost much higher than any derived benefits. Don’t forget that the electrified 1973 Datsun White Zombie makes Teslas eat rubber and dirt all the time.

    Finally, thanks for the values of the break speed at which the P85 constant torque begins to diminish. It's much lower than I expected and confirms a claim I made in another thread.
    Jul 25 12:57 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: What About The Model X? [View article]
    Lensman03 writes: " ... You're talking about the design of gas guzzlers, not BEVs. I think it will be the norm for 4WD BEVs to have two motors."

    RESPONSE: There is absolutely no connection (none, nada, ziltch, ...) between using two drive shafts from a single motor to operate the front and rear wheels of an AWD vehicle and GAS GUZZLERS. This is a bogus assertion that indicates a lack of awareness of what is going on here. You can make the same criticism of the Model S drive train because it uses a differential on the single motor to drive each wheel rather than using a motor on each wheel.

    " ... I cannot agree that the system you describe is "less complex in design". Sure, it needs two motors and two inverters instead of one, but electric motors have only one moving part, and the inverter is merely the part of the power electronics which coverts the battery pack's DC current to the motor's AC current. "

    RESPONSE:
    (1) An extra motor drive train will cost in the neighborhood of $10,000 - $15,000.
    (2) The electric drive train has far more than ONE moving part.
    (3) In the current Model S the battery terminals are adjacent to the motor driver with a very short couple of feet of high power connectors. If you have the front motor you need extension cables (3 of them) of about 15 feet in length to get to the front motor. The represents a safety compromise because the high power, high voltage, cables now cover the length of the car; doable, but not pretty.
    (4) Now that you have a motor in front, look out for that motor ending up in your lap in a severe front end collision.

    "Much simpler and lower pressure than a gas guzzler's radiator and coolant/antifreeze system ... In short, a BEV with two independent electric motors would have far fewer moving parts ... "

    RESPONSE: Again the nonsense about fewer moving parts; which, in this case is not necessarily correct.

    The design I proposed has absolutely nothing to do with gas guzzlers. Lensman03's effort to introduce this bogus association fails. Whether or not to use two drive shafts from one motor rests on other legitimate issues.
    Jul 25 11:27 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla, Are We About To Be Surprised? [View article]
    shangjeen writes: " ... I'd put the force required to move the car to 60mph in the ballpark of 20,000N, if not well over. "

    Of course, I agree.
    I was making a back of the envelope, bare bones, minimum amount of stuff, calculation.
    Jul 25 09:56 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
629 Comments
782 Likes