Seeking Alpha

Zelaza

Zelaza
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Zelaza's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Here's The One Way Tesla Can Survive [View article]
    DM Suh writes:" @Zelaza You forgot to account for the weight of an ICE relative to an electric motor. "

    My Infiniti G35X with a 6 cylinder ICE, transmission, exhaust system, fuel system, steel body (rather then lighter weight aluminum), and excellent (and heavy) interior appointments, still manages to weigh 1000 pounds less than the Tesla Model S.
    Apr 20, 2015. 06:23 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Here's The One Way Tesla Can Survive [View article]
    Wulfher writes: " Do You really need to drag your fridge to work to make lunch? That's what most people do today for the majority of their driving needs. They haul around a tank of fuel to travel 10% of its distance. "

    Let's see. 15 gallons of gas is about 100 pounds, tank fills in 3 - 4 minutes, takes you 300 - 400 miles, and this small weight/mass (half of many drivers) is continually reduced as you drive. 85kWh battery is about 1200 pounds, weight does not reduce, and gets, maybe, 265 miles. On a long trip, and only at a supercharger, battery refills take 20 minutes for 150 - 170 miles and about an hour for 250+ miles. Also, you pay for gas when you use it, but you pay ($$$$$) for the battery up front. Who's dragging around the dead weight?
    Apr 20, 2015. 09:36 AM | 15 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Seems To Be Staggering Releases To Take It To The Model X [View article]
    WhosSideRUon writes: " ... It's clearly replacing the S60 that wasn't selling and allowing those cheapskates who did not want a 85D to get a 70D instead. "

    Nice.
    So generous of you to label the Tesla owner who has spent $70,000+ on a Tesla a cheapskate. I wonder what you label the Tesla S40 early adapter?
    By the way, which Tesla do you own?
    Apr 16, 2015. 12:14 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Motors fires up the Model S 70D [View news story]
    JRP3 writes: " doubleEm, "The S60 does not contain ballast."
    I believe it does. The weight difference between the 60 and 80 is too small to reflect the weight of the 25kWh difference. The explanation I've heard is that variations of the same model with less than 200lbs weight difference do not require separate crash testing. "

    Thanks for recognizing the possible validity of my assertion and for pointing out that seemingly "dumb" things sometimes need to be done for economic and regulatory reasons.
    Apr 8, 2015. 08:46 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Motors fires up the Model S 70D [View news story]
    Eric Barnett writes: " Do you think the battery is made up of the new 20700 battery cells. I would imagine that Panasonic is making them in small quantities by now."

    As far as I know the battery case is the same for the 60 kWh and 85 kWh batteries. The 85 kWh battery contains 7104 cells so, if the same chemistry is used, the 60 kWh battery would require a little over 5000 cells of the similar type (give or take a few %). Since you want the mass properties of the two batteries to be about the same for structural, dynamic, and same platform reasons, the 60 kWh battery may contain almost 2000 dummy/ballast cells. So, to make a 70 kWh battery requires about 5850 of the same cells, and this can be done to the 60 kWh battery by replacing about 850 of the dummy cells with real ones. And some think that Tesla may have an excess of Panasonic cells lying around.
    Apr 8, 2015. 12:04 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Volatility ramping up on Tesla Motors [View news story]
    omcdac writes: " ... According to a tweet from Chairman Elon Musk, SolarCity just surpassed the 5 GWh/day benchmark. This occurred just two weeks after reaching 4 GWh/day of electricity generation. "

    About half of that energy/day increase is probably due to the sun being higher in the sky since the spring equinox.
    Apr 3, 2015. 07:19 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 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 ( http://bit.ly/1Cgf4Or ) 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:
    http://bit.ly/1Cgf4Or
    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
    http://bit.ly/1b4nZbk

    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
COMMENTS STATS
847 Comments
1,311 Likes