Seeking Alpha

Samuel H

Samuel H
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Samuel H's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Why Tesla Is Poised To Leave Its Competition In The Dust [View article]
    80% is a ballpark figure. I expect the Model 3 to be small like the Mercedes CLA, Cadillac ATS, Lexus IS, or Audi A3, but with more passenger and cargo room. Tesla could surprise us and build a car that's similar in size to the BMW 3 series with which it's supposed to compete.

    A 200-mile EV that costs less than $50,000 and have most of the features of cars in its class would take the segment by storm. I'm certainly going to get one. In the mean time, I'll have to settle for a Volt. The Leaf can't take a road trip.
    Aug 17 10:35 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Competitors To Look Out For [View article]
    With solar, we pay $.102/kWh locked in for the next 20 years. I'm getting a used Chevy Volt now, and plan to get the Model 3 a couple years after it comes out.
    Aug 6 04:34 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 50 GWh Puzzle: 3 Reasons Why Tesla Can Scale Where Others Have Failed [View article]
    "battery technology is still evolving"

    And it will continue to. What's your point? Tesla can adapt faster than any other automaker.

    "large car companies have billions to invest and counter TSLA should EVs really take off."

    This argument really gets repeated too often. Why haven't EVs taken off? It's because these companies have no interest in them. If they did, they would start making good EVs like Tesla. Instead, they're making 70-100 mile EVs, and most of them are compliance cars that most people can't get. Even if they had an interest (Nissan, GM, and BMW), just look at their cars. They are still small, funky-looking 70-100 mile range EVs.

    Tesla's Gen III is going to outsell every EV when it comes out. Think about it. $35K with a 200-mile range. Tack on $2K for Supercharging, and you can have yourself an electric 3-series beater that can travel the country for free. Deck it out, and it'll get expensive. But hey, all the other premium car companies do it.

    You shouldn't have lumped Mitsubishi in this. Their iMiev is Garbage.
    Jul 30 02:34 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's Real Problem: Energy Density [View article]
    On my recent trip to California, a Tesla Model S Supercharged in the same time it took my Dad to gas up and use the bathroom while I chatted with the Model S owner. We arrived at close to the same time, and he left slightly before we did. I'd say Supercharging is already fast enough. It's supposed to be improved to 135kW soon for even faster charging!
    Jul 26 12:49 AM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's Real Problem: Energy Density [View article]
    This guy wrote an article based off 5 presumptions that assume technology is in stasis and won't improve.

    1. Wrong
    2. Wrong
    3. Wrong
    4. Wrong
    5. Wrong

    EVs are fundamentally different that gas vehicles. They are not the same, and won't be used in the same way. I used to commute 50-60 miles a day and was considering a Chevy Spark EV. Now I have a job that requires me to drive 122 miles round trip, but my pay went up 50%. I'm looking to get a fully-loaded used Chevy Volt. If the Tesla Model 3 were out, I'd try to get that. But it's not out; so I'm settling for a Volt. Gas costs are ridiculous, and range anxiety in the gas vehicle is annoying.

    No other EVs but Tesla would work for me. Tesla is the only company that makes EVs that compete directly with gassers and beat them in many areas. If you're willing to trade off longer travel times when exceeding 200 miles in a day (2x a year for me), for convenience and inexpensive operation all the time a Tesla will work for even the extreme commuter like me. Tesla will be able to be a major player in whatever segment it produces a car in. The Model S outsold every single other top tier car from every single manufacturer on the planet. That's saying something!

    The Next-Gen Model S P100+ AWD is right around the corner!

    Current EVs are better than gas cars to drive, but only Tesla's have the range for long commutes. When mass-market EVs exceed 200 miles on a charge, there will be mass adoption. Once I go electric, I'm not going back. Gas cars are laggy, have to shift gears, they're too expensive to fuel and maintain, they produce noise pollution, they spew dangerous gasses, they're inconvenient since you have to stop and gas up every week, and buying gas funds terrorism. If you have the means, why wouldn't you go electric?

    Future EVs will relegate ICEs to niche use and nostalgic purposes. Hydrogen? Forget it.
    Jul 26 12:40 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's Real Problem: Energy Density [View article]
    This guy wrote an article based off 5 presumptions that assume technology is in stasis and won't improve.

    1. Wrong
    2. Wrong
    3. Wrong
    4. Wrong
    5. Wrong

    EVs are fundamentally different that gas vehicles. They are not the same, and won't be used in the same way. I used to commute 50-60 miles a day and was considering a Chevy Spark EV. Now I have a job that requires me to drive 122 miles round trip, but my pay went up 50%. I'm looking to get a fully-loaded used Chevy Volt. If the Tesla Model 3 were out, I'd try to get that. But it's not out; so I'm settling for a Volt. Gas costs are ridiculous, and range anxiety in the gas vehicle is annoying.

    No other EVs but Tesla would work for me. Tesla is the only company that makes EVs that compete directly with gassers and beat them in many areas. If you're willing to trade off longer travel times when exceeding 200 miles in a day (2x a year for me), for convenience and inexpensive operation all the time a Tesla will work for even the extreme commuter like me. Tesla will be able to be a major player in whatever segment it produces a car in. The Model S outsold every single other top tier car from every single manufacturer on the planet. That's saying something!

    The Next-Gen Model S P100+ AWD is right around the corner!

    Current EVs are better than gas cars to drive, but only Tesla's have the range for long commutes. When mass-market EVs exceed 200 miles on a charge, there will be mass adoption.
    Jul 26 12:32 AM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Enough Superchargers To Power Tesla's Model X [View article]
    How about buying the Model S for PERFORMANCE? who cars about the "green" aspect?!!
    Jul 7 03:10 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Enough Superchargers To Power Tesla's Model X [View article]
    80% of people buy used. There aren't very many used cars, and some used Nissan Leaves have battery degradation issues.
    Jul 7 03:08 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Enough Superchargers To Power Tesla's Model X [View article]
    Buy a BMW i3 then.
    Jul 7 03:05 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Enough Superchargers To Power Tesla's Model X [View article]
    Needle? What needle? There are no needle gauges in the Tesla Model S. Have you not seen pictures or been in one? It's a numerical readout, streamed to an app on your phone. BTW, Owners rarely sit in their cars and stare at the numbers counting up for 30 min. They're in the store next to the Supercharger. The one I visited was in a Carl's Jr. parking lot. I saw one in a Culver's parking lot as well. Hotels need to step up their game and install EV chargers across the board.

    Who cares if they take their Suburban which I doubt they will since the Tesla is so much nicer. The Model S gets used on a daily basis as the primary car while the ICE-age cars sit until someone decides to drive them.
    Jul 7 02:59 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Enough Superchargers To Power Tesla's Model X [View article]
    It's all about capability. No other EV can travel like the Model S can. About the range of the Model X: Tesla has already stated that it'll have about 10% less range than the Model S. That's 238 miles on a charge, not 250; which is still plenty for Supercharger hopping.
    Jul 7 02:44 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's Gigafactory And Why Competitors Should Worry [View article]
    The Nissan Versa has one of the largest interior in its segment, and is not representative of the rest of the pack. These numbers are also irrelevant since the fact remains that 6-footers fit fine in the back seats of the Model S. Most people are under 6 feet tall. There are tons of other cars out there that don't accommodate very large people. Nobody seems to make a fuss about them.

    Besides, the Model S is a 4-door coupe/hatchback like the Audi A7. It's not in the same class as the A8, S-class, 7-series, LS, or XJ. It's a premium performance sedan, not a high-end feature-packed luxury car. As such, it's somewhat smaller than them, and drives a lot better than them.

    The jumper seats ARE FOR KIDS. What about that don't you get? They are built-in racing seats for kids. They also fold completely flat.
    Jul 2 06:07 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's Gigafactory And Why Competitors Should Worry [View article]
    Cool and very informative post to those who don't understand the Model S. However, the 1965 Griffith Series 200 did 0-60 in 4.9 sec. which is very fast, but not Model S fast.

    Electric cars do feel faster than they really are because the torque is immediate with no lag, and it's seamless and vibration-free. The Gs don't start to let up until you're doing over 80 mph. Even at 80 mph, hit the pedal and it still leaps forward. It's insanely awesome! But different. EVs are slowly becoming more and more popular, but it'll take a while before they completely take over and relegate the ICE to niche use.
    Jul 2 05:57 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's China Deliveries In Q2 2014 And Its Right Hand Drive Markets [View article]
    Three ordinary people fit just fine in the back seats of the Tesla Model S. Not everyone is over 6 ft.
    Jun 26 02:34 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's China Deliveries In Q2 2014 And Its Right Hand Drive Markets [View article]
    Are you really this blind to the obvious problems with hydrogen? Please do some real research on the issue. You will find that they are just as inefficient to marginally more efficient than ICE-powered vehicles, and 2-4 times less efficient as EVs, PHEVs, and EREVs.

    The Hyundai Tucson HFCV gets about 50 MPGe. When you factor in the tons of energy used in hydrogen generation, compression, cooling, transportation, storage, and more compression and cooling during the pumping process (40-55kWh/kg of hydrogen; kg is the gallon of gas equivalent), the high inefficiencies become apparent. The SUV also has a large 24kWh battery pack (same as the Leaf) which doesn't help when you factor in manufacturing energy costs. It also has a 265 mile range which incidentally is the same as the Tesla Model S 85. Did I mention that almost all FCVs are really SLOW? (0-60 mph in 12.5 sec.; a lot slower than the Prius)

    The hydrogen infrastructure doesn't exist (12 stations nationwide; 10 in L.A. or D.C.), and the cost to build one is extremely high ($2,000,000+ per station). For the cost of one hydrogen station, you could build many hundreds (possibly 1000+) Level 2 EV chargers or 10 Superchargers, enough to cover the average state.

    There are reasons that the oil companies are pushing for hydrogen cars. One is that it's a direct replacement for gas that will still enable them to maintain their monopoly on the transportation sector. With EVs, the energy monopoly can be broken with solar, wind, hydro, or something else on the owner's own property. Car companies are doing it because they can get $130,000 per FCV in ZEV credits. That's 7 times more credits than they can get from an EV. It's a government compliance/money thing.

    Then to the obvious, Who in their right mind would spend that kind of money ($70,000!) on a very slow, ugly 4 seater with an acute lack of usability or practicality?

    The future is not hydrogen because it's NOT affordable at all. It's also not efficient or very practical (The hydrogen powertrain takes up a lot of space in a car). HFCVs are interesting science experiments, but a dumb idea for the mass market.

    For those who are concerned about emissions, the generation of hydrogen is 96% from hydrocarbons. The chemical reactions that take place to produce hydrogen from say natural gas produce more CO2 than if you just burned the natural gas in an ICE (as well as other dangerous byproducts). The remaining 4% is water electrolysis which is the only "clean" way to produce hydrogen if the energy is renewable. However, the energy required is much higher than if you stripped hydrogen from fossil fuels.

    I hope this makes it clear to all who aren't die-hard hydrogen fans why Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology is a bad idea for powering vehicles. There are other applications for it, such as in spacecraft, but it's too expensive, inefficient, and impractical to do viably in automobiles.

    EVs on the other hand are up and coming and viable for the future. Long range, fast charging affordable mass market EVs will soon be here, and will forever change the car landscape. As batteries get continuously refined, EVs will get better and better.

    Phew! I should just write my own article.
    Jun 26 02:22 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
395 Comments
801 Likes