-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?
- Thread starter Robert.Boston
- Start date
Indeed, Kevin Tynan remained calmly realistic despite the condescending attitude of perpetually anti-Tesla Cory Johnson who wanted to make it sound like this would involve the cost of $85/hr mechanics plus parts. This won't involve parts unless it's decided to install an inexpensive replacement bolt rather than tighten the old one. The high labor cost may have been the case, if Tesla had franchised dealerships. Instead it will be using its own salaried employees who were going to be paid anyway. Apparently it's the service writers and not mechanics who first perform a one-minute test on the seat belts and give them a passing grade.
Cory made it appear he was stunned by this "recall" involving every Model S ever made. To me this really unnecessary "recall" appears to be a public relations ploy by Tesla to assure the public of its total commitment to safety. It may also be a marketing ploy in two respects. First it gets Tesla in the news for being concerned about safety without the expense of advertising. Second it draws Model S owners into service centers and may inspire them to trade up to newer Tesla cars with more expensive options. That would also allow Tesla to purchase the "older" cars and earn a nice profit when reselling them as Certified Pre-Owned.
It appears as though both Cory and the algobots got stung by this.
That's a splendid interview with Jurvison, ev-enthusiast. Thanks so much for posting. I learned that Jurvison finished #1 in his class at Stanford. Truly, he's a brilliant guy. What we see is companies such as his funding Silicon Valley thinkers who are now reaching outside the traditional software and computer worlds into the greater economy. Elon Musk's enterprises were, of course, included. This is an exciting time to be an investor in such companies.
Of all places! The Huffington Post has an article claiming hydrogen cars superiority over Tesla. Written buy a guy in the in the hydrogen business. I have not honed my hydrogen arguing skills. Maybe someone here can make a comment on the article. The Huffington Post has HUGE following and readership.
Why America Must Build the Car That Overtakes a TeslaTim Young
Why America Must Build the Car That Overtakes a TeslaTim Young
Hogfighter
Professional Lurker
Tesla understood early on that in order to change public opinion on a disruptive technology, that technology must be far superior to the existing technology, or it won't catch on. FCEV's are less superior than ICE vehicles in performance as well as cost (both to build and to fuel). Not to mention that hydrogen is currently being produced in ways harmful to the environment, negating the potential benefit of being 'green'.
The author also makes a big leap in stating that because the Model S doesn't go as far on a charge as an F-150, then it's not 'a right fit' for Americans. For some, no, but for the vast majority 270 miles are plenty.
Not directly about Tesla, but this Barron's article on Ford and Korean battery makers LG Chem and Samsung SDI includes a statement about safety that is contradictory to what I have read and heard over the years, including related to the Boeing 787 incidents.
Korean Batteries? Ford To Spend $4.5 Billion In EV - Asia Stocks to Watch - Barrons.com
"As I wrote for Barron’s magazine last weekend, the pair of electric car batteries makers have the best large batteries technology in the world, with LG Chem being the market leader. Traditional auto makers are walking the other way from Tesla (TSLA), which cleverly packages commoditised laptop batteries to power its cars. (Panasonic (6752.Japan) suppliers to Tesla.) The others such as GM, Volkswagen and Ford are using the larger batteries instead, because they are safer and easier to package, and they will be buying from the Koreans."
Thoughts?
Korean Batteries? Ford To Spend $4.5 Billion In EV - Asia Stocks to Watch - Barrons.com
"As I wrote for Barron’s magazine last weekend, the pair of electric car batteries makers have the best large batteries technology in the world, with LG Chem being the market leader. Traditional auto makers are walking the other way from Tesla (TSLA), which cleverly packages commoditised laptop batteries to power its cars. (Panasonic (6752.Japan) suppliers to Tesla.) The others such as GM, Volkswagen and Ford are using the larger batteries instead, because they are safer and easier to package, and they will be buying from the Koreans."
Thoughts?
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Rubbish article based on the fact that the is no evidence or logic to suggest why a cell should be safer just because it's larger (that all has to do with chemistry). One could argue smaller cells, chemistry being identical, are safer due to better heat dissipation and a larger number of fuses in the pack.
As for larger cells being easier to package, well... You don't have to be an engineer or even have graduated middle school to understand that it's inherently harder to pack something that comes in larger units.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Not sure I agree with the last statement. I would never try to assemble a battery pack using 18650's myself because it's so much more complicated compared to the brick sized cells I used in my EV.
chickensevil
Active Member
Basically, my understanding of it, it is harder to build the pack safely, yes. Because you need to micro-manage the cells, almost on an individual level. This is why their pack is so compartmentalized. Each block has it's own CPU to manage that block and then those 16 CPUs report back to a master CPU that manages the entire pack. In this way they can balance cells out to keep them all at similar charge levels, and also ensure that proper temps are maintained throughout the pack. This makes it much more complex.
The reason large format batteries are chosen is because these companies lack the expertise to manage the cells on such a low level. So on one hand, yes, they are safer, because you don't have to put as much effort into keeping them happy. Instead of 7,000 cells all doing their own thing, you have like 20-30 cells (if that) to manage and keep happy. But the cells themselves are not inherently more or less risky than the large ones.
The reason large format batteries are chosen is because these companies lack the expertise to manage the cells on such a low level. So on one hand, yes, they are safer, because you don't have to put as much effort into keeping them happy. Instead of 7,000 cells all doing their own thing, you have like 20-30 cells (if that) to manage and keep happy. But the cells themselves are not inherently more or less risky than the large ones.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
I understand the term "packaging" as stuffing something into a given, and often complex and/or irregular volume. Which is why smaller cell units will obviously be better to pack.
Maybe you're referring to building a pack, which I agree will be more complex using more and smaller cells.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Except the Tesla pack is basically a box, so nothing complex about packaging cells in it, especially if they were brick or flat pouch shapes. Simply put, if Tesla could put the same chemistry into bricks or pouches, without worrying about overheating, they'd have a more energy dense pack with less, (no), open spaces between cells. Because of the volatile nature of the chemistry Tesla currently doesn't have that option. Hopefully someday they will. With LiFePO4 you just pack them tightly together, don't worry about cooling, (well maybe in Arizona), and put a resistance heating pad under them in an insulated box. It's around 110wh/kg but requires little in the way of added support, where Tesla starts with a 260wh/kg cell and ends up at 150wh/kg at the pack level because of all the added protection and structural support. (In my case since I didn't' intend to drive it in the winter I didn't even build a box, just an open frame to hold them.)
AFAIR there are other implications, for example with small cylindrical cells and the special voodo that Tesla does to them they can go with much more aggressive chemistry since one cell runaway event doesn't cause chain reaction and doesn't ruin the pack. With bigger cells they have to be very conservative because the consequences of a runaway cell are severe.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Another "Tesla killers" list with the usual suspects, none of which are capable of killing anything: http://www.cheatsheet.com/automobiles/7-cars-hoping-to-become-the-first-true-tesla-killer.html
In an yet another FUD article in Seeking Alpha, I noticed the following quote attributed to NY Times:
In March of 2009, when Tesla was gearing up to produce the Model S (at a time when CEO Elon Musk promised that the base model would cost only $57,400 before tax credits), The New York Times ran a story with the following passage:
Tesla is also financing the development of the Model S with deposits from people on the waiting list, who can pay $40,000 to reserve one of the first 2,000 cars or $5,000 for later cars.
For those who are worried about what will happen to their deposits if the car is never produced, since the money will be spent on development and not held in escrow, Mr. Musk said: "The worst-case scenario is they would lose their money. They are at risk."
Is this true? I always thoughts deposits are maintained and accounted separately and cannot be considered as revenue until the sale is completed and as such Tesla cannot touch those funds.
In March of 2009, when Tesla was gearing up to produce the Model S (at a time when CEO Elon Musk promised that the base model would cost only $57,400 before tax credits), The New York Times ran a story with the following passage:
Tesla is also financing the development of the Model S with deposits from people on the waiting list, who can pay $40,000 to reserve one of the first 2,000 cars or $5,000 for later cars.
For those who are worried about what will happen to their deposits if the car is never produced, since the money will be spent on development and not held in escrow, Mr. Musk said: "The worst-case scenario is they would lose their money. They are at risk."
Is this true? I always thoughts deposits are maintained and accounted separately and cannot be considered as revenue until the sale is completed and as such Tesla cannot touch those funds.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Blue Owl
Endangerous Herbivore
I googled the above statement attributed to Elon and this NYT article indeed contains that exact quote. By "worst case scenario" he probably meant "if Tesla goes bankrupt".
Of course, right after that quote the article ends with:
Elon Musk cited by the NYT said:
Which sure as hell happened. But that doesn't fit Seeking Alpha's objectives.
Not only am I okay with it, I fully expect Tesla to put my deposit to good use when they get it toward the Model 3. I would be unhappy if they did anything less.
Tesla is still a young car company in relative terms. They will need all the capital they can get to achieve their objective.
Similar threads
