Seeking Alpha

JRP3

JRP3
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View JRP3's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Tesla Kicks China Plans Into High Gear [View article]
    Indeed, the point that the entire bottom surface of the battery pack is aluminum plate, and that has not changed.
    Apr 20 09:36 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is The Model S A Disruptive Innovation And Tesla Motors A Disruptive Company? [View article]
    As all your links have shown the Tesla NCA chemistry will last longer than most cars do, thank you for repeatedly proving my point.
    Apr 20 09:27 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is The Model S A Disruptive Innovation And Tesla Motors A Disruptive Company? [View article]
    No references? He referenced the very video you posted! WTF?
    Of course batteries degrade, no one denies that, the point is they degrade slowly enough that it's not going to be an issue for Tesla. Period. Discussion on the forums as to how best to treat your battery pack doesn't mean anyone is seeing significant capacity loss. It's amazing the way you can twist the actual meanings of the things you post.
    Apr 20 09:26 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla - 20 Key Risks That Longs Are Ignoring [View article]
    No I did not factor in the behavior of a single car using older, different chemistry than what Tesla is using now.

    As to my calculations, let's use the EPI numbers you posted.
    Let's take a 12,000 mile average per year number, divide it by the 260 mile range pack, that's 46 charges per year, at $7 per charge, it's $322. That's assuming every single charge for the year is done at a supercharger, which just doesn't happen.

    I'd also like to know what gas car can get 260 miles of range from $7 worth of fuel.

    So once again, your initial claim that I referenced is a total crock.
    Apr 19 12:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla - 20 Key Risks That Longs Are Ignoring [View article]
    Chip,
    Apparently you don't understand what the word "attached" means.
    I guess there is not much point in continued discussion with you, it's just not that interesting if that's the level you've to which you've descended.
    Apr 19 12:04 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla - 20 Key Risks That Longs Are Ignoring [View article]
    Chip,
    As is often the case you seem confused by what you yourself actually wrote.

    "Probably as annoyed as being electrocuted/fried/burned by a defective battery pack"

    No one has ever been electrocuted/fried/burned by a defective Tesla pack. Further, no one has ever been electrocuted/fried/burned by a damaged Tesla pack due to an accident. So yes, your initial statement was only part of your imagination, not reality.
    Apr 19 11:59 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla - 20 Key Risks That Longs Are Ignoring [View article]
    At least you've learned something from me. Without opening up each SC location I guess we don't know how many have battery backup at this point. I don't assume all of them do yet, I'm sure you'll assume none.
    Apr 19 11:56 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla - 20 Key Risks That Longs Are Ignoring [View article]
    Market,
    You're absolutely correct, the early adopters pay the price, in dollars and product reliability, and the rest of us benefit. I remember the first large plasma displays that cost tens of thousands of dollars and the images would get burn in and/or fade rather rapidly. No longer an issue of course, just as Tesla has already fixed many of their early issues. The big difference is that Tesla also goes back and upgrades older vehicles, where display makers didn't. By the time Gen3 arrives there will be far fewer issues to deal with. Just remember even established OEM's have problems with new models, and with some old models, as we've seen from GM.
    Apr 19 11:41 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla - 20 Key Risks That Longs Are Ignoring [View article]
    Chip,
    Actually sleep mode was enabled in the beginning, but some cars had issues "waking up" from it, so Tesla temporarily disabled it. Those of us who follow closely knew this, while those simply looking for anything negative about Tesla ran around crowing about how terrible the vampire drain was, even after we corrected them. Again, it's a repeated pattern, people cling to negativity when it supports their position, even in the face of contrary data. The vampire drain was a temporary issue, no one cares about it now, except for those few who desperately dig through the past to try and reinforce their current position. Doesn't make much sense, but some people are like that I guess. The weakness of the bear argument keep reinforcing the bull argument, as it always has in all the time I've followed Tesla and EV technology in general.
    Apr 19 11:36 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Kicks China Plans Into High Gear [View article]
    Tom,
    You do know that the aluminum plate was not altered or covered by the titanium, right? The titanium part was placed in front of the pack where there was no previous plate.
    Apr 19 11:27 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is The Model S A Disruptive Innovation And Tesla Motors A Disruptive Company? [View article]
    Bailout,
    How did you misunderstand what was said in that lithium battery lecture you linked? He clearly showed how small amounts of additives drastically increases cycle life, over 2000 cycles, which, surprise, matches up with the cycle life graph of NCA that Ford posted. That's the chemistry that Tesla uses. Somehow you came to the opposite conclusion to what the video shows, and to what Battery University shows, which is that NCA chemistry has a superior cycle life.
    http://bit.ly/ZfUEm6
    Apr 19 11:25 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is The Model S A Disruptive Innovation And Tesla Motors A Disruptive Company? [View article]
    Solucky,
    What some people are mistaking for capacity loss is actually pack imbalance, which can be corrected, and capacity recovered. NCA does not lose capacity loss linearly anyway, as the graph Ford posted clearly shows.
    Apr 19 11:02 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is The Model S A Disruptive Innovation And Tesla Motors A Disruptive Company? [View article]
    Chip,
    What am I supposed to spin? I've never said lithium batteries never lose capacity, I've just said that the NCA chemistry is superior to LiCo chemistry, (as verified by links you yourself provided), and will have plenty of cycle life for the vehicle, and beyond. The video bailout linked, which I've seen previously, talks about how much longer the chemistry Tesla uses will last, and how people in his research lab now work at Tesla. He also talks about how small amounts of specific additives can drastically extend cycle life. Exactly what in all that contradicts my clear, continued assertion that Tesla's NCA based packs will have a long life? I'm glad bailout is doing some actual research now, even if he still seems to be missing the point of the materials he's looking at.
    Apr 19 11:00 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is The Model S A Disruptive Innovation And Tesla Motors A Disruptive Company? [View article]
    Solucky,
    Why do you keep referencing the mileage of Roadsters using LiCo cell chemistry when talking about the Model S using NCA chemistry? The differences have been pointed out to you often enough that you can't claim to be unaware of them, so what is your motivation for trying to paint a misleading picture of Model S pack durability? Obviously I know the answer, but it might be interesting for you to say it yourself.
    Apr 18 09:39 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla In China: Cleaning Up The Smoggy Skies [View article]
    The car has the highest safety ratings and no serious injuries or deaths. The batteries are in the car. Thus the car and batteries are quite safe.
    Apr 18 09:27 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
6,779 Comments
7,163 Likes