Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA)

[ckessel]

Otherwise the number means nothing to them since they have no benchmark as to how much a car should weigh.

Why would someone care what a car weighs? What would seem to matter are the performance numbers: acceleration, skid pad, etc. Caring about weight would seem to be worrying about the wrong measurement. If the car could do 0-60 in 2.0s and hold 3gs on a skidpad, why would anyone care what it weighs?

Weight is obviously of great importance to optimize for the car designer, but from a driver's perspective, all I'd care about are the performance specs.

I know heat is a big deal for microprocessor designers, but as a computer buyer/user as long as the power and battery life are at the levels I want, why would I care about the heat?

 

[pz1975]

Sorry to bust in here, but I am sure if you polled Tesla owners, 99+% of them would say that they get questions from non-owners about the car's range/charging needs/road trip potential/etc. way way more than weight. I have owned my car for 10 months now, and EVERYBODY asks me about range (usually one of the first 2 questions asked), and no one has ever asked me about weight (I usually bring it up later myself when discussion of safety comes up).

 

[FANGO]

One difference between a car running out of battery and a phone is that you can use the phone as soon as you plug in, while you're charging.

Another difference is that phones run out of batteries much more than cars do, though its still rare now that the consumer is reasonably educated about them, and yet for some reason tesla drivers love to talk about cars running out of batteries all the time. When we all should know better.

Also, in a world full of Superchargers, this is even less important than it already is.

 

[FANGO]

Why would someone care what a car weighs? What would seem to matter are the performance numbers: acceleration, skid pad, etc. Caring about weight would seem to be worrying about the wrong measurement. If the car could do 0-60 in 2.0s and hold 3gs on a skidpad, why would anyone care what it weighs?

Weight is obviously of great importance to optimize for the car designer, but from a driver's perspective, all I'd care about are the performance specs.

Because what a car weighs is a short way of describing what those performance specs will be, and what the car will feel like while driving it. The lighter car will win at all of those things, assuming somewhat reasonably similar other characteristics. Weight is the number one most important thing for performance and handling and efficiency purposes, so that's why people ask that question.

That car you describe would weigh very little. That's why people care. And designers care because they know that weight is extremely important. So maybe we should take a cue from the designers and realize that if the experts know its important, we should too.

People still ask about Hp, even though it means nothing. What does mean something? Power to weight. There you go, weight again.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

One difference between a car running out of battery and a phone is that you can use the phone as soon as you plug in, while you're charging.

Another difference is that the raison d'etre of a cellphone is not being plugged in; you can much more easily plug in a car and therefore are much less likely to run out of charge.

 

[MikeC]

Another difference is that the raison d'etre of a cellphone is not being plugged in; you can much more easily plug in a car and therefore are much less likely to run out of charge.

I don't think the raison d'être of an EV is to be plugged in, either - it's to drive. I have no complaints about range or charging and I'm happy with my 85 kWh, but it is definitely easier to find a place to plug in my phone than it is to plug in my car. For example, I can plug it into my car. Can't plug my car into my phone!

 

[ckessel]

Weight is the number one most important thing for performance and handling and efficiency purposes, so that's why people ask that question.

I get what you're saying. I still think it's asking the wrong question, trying to get specs by implication rather than just looking at the specs.

But, you see that kind of thing all the time across lots of topics, people asking about a proxy measurement rather than the real item. It's also a trap in some cases because folks focus on optimizing the proxy rather than the actual desired stat.

If all someone was focused on was improving gas mileage, they'd get blinders to the real stat which is probably something like "most cost efficient propulsion" which may not even involve gasoline.

 

[FANGO]

I get what you're saying. I still think it's asking the wrong question, trying to get specs by implication rather than just looking at the specs.

But, you see that kind of thing all the time across lots of topics, people asking about a proxy measurement rather than the real item. It's also a trap in some cases because folks focus on optimizing the proxy rather than the actual desired stat.

The point about optimizing weight is that that's how you optimize so many desired stats. You can't just turn up the "skidpad knob" in your design program and have the car do better at skidpads. The stat numbers you mention are the proxies, the base car specs they all rely on are weight, cg, contact patch, etc. There is very little about a car that isn't improved by low weight, and while printing the car's weight in an ad won't get you very far (except the f150 shaving 800lbs off its weight this year, which they're shouting from the rooftops, and rightly so...because its a vast improvement for mileage), having a lower weight will make the car better in a lot of ways that you can put in the ad. And overall the most important thing is the subjective feel of driving the car, and that again is improved by focusing on those base things like weight and cg, and the stat numbers don't really matter much...as we all know with our EVs, they feel much faster than the acceleration and Hp numbers suggest.

 

[abasile]

I care about weight because I do a lot of mountain driving. Lowering weight is beneficial when the hills are steep enough to require frequent braking, even regenerative braking. That said, I'd still rather load down a car with more batteries and increase its range at the expense of some efficiency. It doesn't matter if one can climb a mountain more efficiently if completing the drive is a challenge due to range limitations.

The bottom line is that most car buyers do not want to feel limited in terms of range. You can buy a BMW i3 instead of a Tesla S if you care more about vehicle weight and efficiency than range. I think I know which of those vehicles is going to continue to be more popular, despite its higher price.

 

[ckessel]

I care about weight because I do a lot of mountain driving. Lowering weight is beneficial when the hills are steep enough to require frequent braking, even regenerative braking.

To keep beating on this horse, I'd argue you don't care about the weight itself. It sounds like you care about not having to use the physical brake so as to get the most efficiency? Which presumably is because the real thing you care about is range? Optimizing weight is one means to that end, but it may not be the only solution to that particular engineering problem.

It's always worth playing the 5 year old and asking "why?" several times to make sure the approach is focused on the problem (range) and not a predetermined solution (weight). The predetermined solution might still be the right choice, and often is, but it's always worth questioning.

 

[FANGO]

The bottom line is that most car buyers do not want to feel limited in terms of range. You can buy a BMW i3 instead of a Tesla S if you care more about vehicle weight and efficiency than range. I think I know which of those vehicles is going to continue to be more popular, despite its higher price.

I bought a Roadster, and vehicle weight is a large reason why. I don't want an S, it's way too big. Even the Roadster is a bit bigger than I'd like (having come from a MINI E, which weighed more but had a smaller physical footprint).

Also, to pick an example of a car which just came out and is nothing like the car you're comparing it to and say that that's proof that range is the only thing that matters is quite silly. The cars are not at all competition. And if you wanted to pick one which counters your point, you could pick the Leaf, which has of course sold many more units than the Tesla. I suppose that "proves" that efficiency matters and range doesn't? (no, it doesn't, because these cars are vastly different...just as in your point about the i3)

The bottom line is that car buyers won't feel limited in terms of range once they are educated and familiar with the product and it's use. Just as they don't feel limited in terms of battery life for their cellphones after they've come accustomed to their use, and tend to prefer thinner and lighter phones rather than ones with silly-huge batteries which don't add additional utility. And just as many 100-mile-class EV drivers don't feel restricted by their cars after having driven them for some time. And we, as Tesla owners, can help that to happen, but not if we're just going around bragging about how our car gets way more range than theirs because we spent more money and that that's the only thing that matters. Which is unfortunately too often the attitude that I see from Tesla owners - and that non-Tesla owners hear, and tend to resent. Tesla's mission statement is to accelerate EV adoption, and that's my mission too, and the main reason I'm here. And I think educating the public that EVs are superior now, rather than telling them that 900-mile batteries will come out in the future so they better wait, is the better option.

 

[The Blue Owl]

I bought a Roadster, and vehicle weight is a large reason why. I don't want an S, it's way too big. Even the Roadster is a bit bigger than I'd like (having come from a MINI E, which weighed more but had a smaller physical footprint).

Also, to pick an example of a car which just came out and is nothing like the car you're comparing it to and say that that's proof that range is the only thing that matters is quite silly. The cars are not at all competition. And if you wanted to pick one which counters your point, you could pick the Leaf, which has of course sold many more units than the Tesla. I suppose that "proves" that efficiency matters and range doesn't? (no, it doesn't, because these cars are vastly different...just as in your point about the i3)

The bottom line is that car buyers won't feel limited in terms of range once they are educated and familiar with the product and it's use. Just as they don't feel limited in terms of battery life for their cellphones after they've come accustomed to their use, and tend to prefer thinner and lighter phones rather than ones with silly-huge batteries which don't add additional utility. And just as many 100-mile-class EV drivers don't feel restricted by their cars after having driven them for some time. And we, as Tesla owners, can help that to happen, but not if we're just going around bragging about how our car gets way more range than theirs because we spent more money and that that's the only thing that matters. Which is unfortunately too often the attitude that I see from Tesla owners - and that non-Tesla owners hear, and tend to resent. Tesla's mission statement is to accelerate EV adoption, and that's my mission too, and the main reason I'm here. And I think educating the public that EVs are superior now, rather than telling them that 900-mile batteries will come out in the future so they better wait, is the better option.

Unexpectedly to me, I think I'm starting to come around a bit to this point you've been making (and making, and making.)

Ok, now, after this embarrassing admission, two observations: first, EVs are not superior to ICEs now, just Tesla is. Second, I would pay an additional 15k for an increase of 100 miles range for the top end Model S, and I'd venture to say that others would, too.

 

[JRP3]

The bottom line is that car buyers won't feel limited in terms of range once they are educated and familiar with the product and it's use.

I guarantee that a large majority of EV owners, even Tesla owners, want more range. We could do a thread with a simple poll: Do you want 1. More Range or 2. A lighter car. I have little doubt what this educated EV audience will choose.

 

[The Blue Owl]

I guarantee that a large majority of EV owners, even Tesla owners, want more range. We could do a thread with a simple poll: Do you want 1. More Range or 2. A lighter car. I have little doubt what this educated EV audience will choose.

I, too, think this is true. I think there is a significant market for longer ranges than what the Model S currently offers.

But I also start to see FANGO's point that for a majority of mainstream buyers, Tesla's current max range is good enough. I definitely wouldn't encourage anyone to wait longer, unless they know they need more for their particular situation (like I know I do.)

Bottom line, the market is not monolithic and we can all get along now.

 

[bsd]

I guarantee that a large majority of EV owners, even Tesla owners, want more range. We could do a thread with a simple poll: Do you want 1. More Range or 2. A lighter car. I have little doubt what this educated EV audience will choose.

I only want more range as refilling locations are few and slow where I live. Once the superchargers come through, an 85kWh/400km range will be plenty.

 

[FANGO]

Unexpectedly to me, I think I'm starting to come around a bit to this point you've been making (and making, and making.)

Ok, now, after this embarrassing admission, two observations: first, EVs are not superior to ICEs now, just Tesla is. Second, I would pay an additional 15k for an increase of 100 miles range for the top end Model S, and I'd venture to say that others would, too.

Tesla is undoubtedly superior, for sure. But also, the Fiat 500E, a car which Fiat doesn't even want to make or sell, is very well-reviewed, fun to drive, and priced competitively just between the low- and high-end cars in the Fiat line (Pop and Abarth). It's been reviewed to be either a) not-just-quite as fun to drive as the Abarth (which does have better performance specs) or b) similarly fun to drive as the Abarth, just in a different way. And this is a car that they didn't even want to make! Which has managed to slot into their product lineup in exactly the place it belongs. Surely if Fiat can make a car, on their first try, without trying very hard, and make it at least equivalent to their traditional offerings, then the drivetrain is at least equivalent, if not superior. And considering all the hypercars are going hybrid, the Volt and Leaf have high customer satisfaction scores, etc., this leads me to believe that EV technology is simply superior. Tesla is the most obvious example, but that again is another way to show the superiority of the drivetrain - an upstart company "on its first shot with barely a dress rehearsal, has built a car genuinely competitive with the best" (quote from Road & Track's Model S review). The Model S isn't just electric, it's good *because* it's electric - and because Tesla is the one company truly trying to make an amazing electric car from the ground up. I'm sure that if anyone else did the same, the result would be similar.

This isn't to say there's no room for improvement, of course there is. But I'm of the opinion that electric, no matter what car you pick (and pick one which fits your needs, of course - there's enough varied offerings to cater to most of the population, at least the ones who can afford/park them), is superior, right now. That's why I'm wary about the range discussion, because I'm tired of people waiting for whatever's just around the corner. There's always going to be something around the corner, but the stuff out right now is great already.

And I think offering options of more range is mostly fine, and have never said that some people won't pay for it - the 85kWh exists, obviously, for that reason. This is why I'm mostly fine with the "range reducer" in the i3 (that's what I call it, since it makes the car 10% heavier and thus reduces electric range by 10%). You can spend an extra 4k for a security blanket which makes your car worse all the time, but gives you the option of having extra range if you need it. It's like training wheels, you can buy it with your first EV then realize you don't need it and next time around get a pure EV. I've long thought the same thing about the Volt. And I've never had a problem with the 85kWh battery, which is too big for almost anyone's needs, but which Tesla buyers are often happy to get because they haven't driven an EV before and want to be sure, or they always get top of the line and can afford it, or whatever else. What I do have a problem with is when people talk about axing smaller battery options, or talking about how 300 miles is the minimum amount you could have for your car not to break down by the side of the road, or that the car is unusable unless you get the largest pack, because this is not productive (or true). Or assuming that the only reasonable way to upgrade the Roadster would be to give it range beyond the level of usefulness for most people, when a weight upgrade would be a far superior option in so many ways - particularly considering it's a mini sportscar, never meant to be a road trip car.

As for JRP3s poll, it goes back to the same thing I was talking about with ckessel - yes, a lot of people don't know the importance of weight in a car. And it also goes back to the point I made that people will realize range is less important when they are educated in the matter. And Tesla owners, who have a car which goes 300 miles and can fast charge, bought that car likely largely because of that number, and likely get anxious when their car is under 100 miles of range even though that's still an enormous amount (I just saw some i3 owners joking about this today on Facebook), are not necessarily the right people to talk to about the issue, as they haven't necessarily been educated in the matter, since their car has more than enough range. Note that I say "more than," not "just enough." I'd venture to say that a significant number of those theoretical "we need more range" answers have rarely even seen a 2-digit number on their display. And besides, what's the quote about a faster horse? Or have you read the original iPod review from slashdot (“No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.”)? Consumers don't necessarily know what they want or need, particularly when confronted with a new paradigm. That's why, over time, I think consumers will start to realize they don't need as much range as they think they need, and that process will be helped along by EV owners, including ourselves, letting them know that they probably don't need to wait for a 500+ mile pack, and they probably don't need to spend tens of thousands of dollars for bigger battery packs. We're all rather fortunate here to have enough money to afford Teslas, or to have bought into Tesla stock early enough that we can afford to pay large sums for security blankets, but not everyone is going to want to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get a huge battery pack, and will instead buy a Civic or something worse and keep burning gas while they wait for a mythical pack which will never happen. I don't think that's helpful. We really need to stop using gas as quickly as possible. Like now.

Besides, the poll has been done a few times in the Roadster forum. Here is one showing handling improvements to be the most popular option: What type of Roadster battery pack upgrade would you choose? - View Poll Results , here is one showing that only 4% would upgrade range regardless of price (but that a lot more would think about it) How would you respond if an 80 kwh Roadster pack were available in 2014? .

All of this, together, by the way, is why I often speak about EVs as a whole, rather than Tesla vs. BMW vs. Nissan vs. whatever. We're all on the same team here, and there's plenty of room for all the products in the market. I just get tired of having range be the only conversation, because it's really a boring conversation. Plug in at night, supercharge on trips, conversation over as far as I'm concerned. And Tesla owners (and the company itself) bring it up too often, I think largely out of pride because their car is impressive in that metric, but I'm not sure it's productive to the goal of overall EV adoption considering the pricetag which comes with it at the moment and into the foreseeable future.

 

[jerry33]

And I hope you realize people will stop asking that question after they get educated.

Unlikely.

The most common comment I get at car shows about range is "I want to drive from here to Houston (about 400 miles) without being forced to stop". You shouldn't have to give up anything when going to an electric car. Now they likely will stop somewhere, but there's a difference between stopping because you have to take break and stopping because you have to or you'll run out.

At the end of 2015 if Tesla builds out their plan, there will still be vast areas that aren't covered which will make travel--even in a 85--more of an adventure than most are comfortable with. It will be a long time before Superchargers cover the more interesting routes--think twenty years or more.

My opinion is that that saying "you only need X amount of range" is similar to "No one needs more than 640K of memory", is 1970's EV thinking, and does a big disservice to EV adoption. Telling someone "You only need..." is a sure way to kill the EV sale. A 500 mile battery at a reasonable price (means 400 miles in real life) is the one thing that will silence the nay-sayers and spur EV adoption more than anything else. Even if Superchargers are 100 miles apart on every possible highway, having a car with 500 miles of range will allow you to skip the SC if it's ICEd or full. It will allow you to not worry about making it if it's -20 and snowy. A larger battery will also last longer because it's being stressed less. Of course, right now you can't make a reasonably priced 500 mile battery, but in a few years...

When we were concerned about cellphone standby time, the only thing you did with your cellphone was make calls on it. Now a cellphone is much more than that, so the paradigm is completely different.

 

[The Blue Owl]

But also, the Fiat 500E, a car which Fiat doesn't even want to make or sell, is very well-reviewed, fun to drive, and priced competitively just between the low- and high-end cars in the Fiat line (Pop and Abarth). It's been reviewed to be either a) not-just-quite as fun to drive as the Abarth (which does have better performance specs) or b) similarly fun to drive as the Abarth, just in a different way.

I don't care how well-reviewed this car is or how fun to drive, because its range is vastly inadequate for my needs.

What I do have a problem with is when people talk about axing smaller battery options, or talking about how 300 miles is the minimum amount you could have for your car not to break down by the side of the road, or that the car is unusable unless you get the largest pack, because this is not productive (or true).

I haven't seen such an argument made anywhere. Stretching it to these extremes makes it a strawman. Using reasonable parameters and qualifiers, it turns into many variants of reasonable arguments.

We're talking at cross-purposes here because we can all find support for our arguments by imagining situations with different combinations of price/range. Every argument I've seen made on this subject is about a different region of this parameter space, and these arguments only seem to clash because those regions are never made explicit.

Everyone would want a car that would go 1000 miles on a charge for a price of $1000. Nobody would buy one that goes 10 miles for $100,000. Those are the non-interesting corners of this space.

The other diagonal is more interesting. People vary in their ability/willingness to pay, and they also vary in the ranges they need/want. That's why plenty of people are willing to buy Leafs for whatever they sell, even though I, for one, would never consider it, and why other people bought >$100k Roadsters. Model S is close to a sweet spot for those upmarket buyers who can afford a 70-100k vehicle. I'm saying that spot can be made even sweeter, and that the Leaf spot is pretty sour right now.

In a nutshell:
- I would not advise a friend who could only afford a Leaf to buy it as his only car today
- I would advise a friend who could afford a Model S to buy one today even as his only car
- If I were in a position to buy a Model S today, I would buy one, but I would jump at the opportunity to upgrade the battery.

But nobody is saying, or at least I haven't seen it, that "300 miles is the minimum amount you could have for your car not to break down by the side of the road, or that the car is unusable unless you get the largest pack".

 

[FANGO]

My opinion is that that saying "you only need X amount of range" is similar to "No one needs more than 640K of memory", is 1970's EV thinking, and does a big disservice to EV adoption. Telling someone "You only need..." is a sure way to kill the EV sale. A 500 mile battery at a reasonable price (means 400 miles in real life) is the one thing that will silence the nay-sayers and spur EV adoption more than anything else. Even if Superchargers are 100 miles apart on every possible highway, having a car with 500 miles of range will allow you to skip the SC if it's ICEd or full. It will allow you to not worry about making it if it's -20 and snowy. A larger battery will also last longer because it's being stressed less. Of course, right now you can't make a reasonably priced 500 mile battery, but in a few years...

When we were concerned about cellphone standby time, the only thing you did with your cellphone was make calls on it. Now a cellphone is much more than that, so the paradigm is completely different.

Saying that a 500 mile battery is necessary is a big disservice to EV adoption. Before the Tesla came out, a 300 mile battery was "necessary." Now it's a 500 mile battery. What do you bet will be "necessary" when a 500 mile battery comes out? I bet it'll be more than 500.

None of them are necessary, none of them have ever been necessary. People are looking for excuses, and you're fueling their excuses. You're playing the same game VW is playing with their diesels, making up numbers for how far they can go by using the most favorable circumstances for them, and using the least favorable circumstance for the EV ("real world" miles which somehow are magically 20% lower than the EPA miles, even though the same treatment isn't given to gas cars - which, by the way, you shouldn't run below half or else you'll damage the fuel pump), and saying "see?! it's useless! buy a diesel instead!" That's exactly what people hear when EV early adopters tell them that they need more range. It's not helping.

Also, the memory thing is 100% inapplicable to this - and in fact I made reference to that with the iPod quote in my last post, where the reviewer thought memory was more important than it turned out to be, just as will be the case with range. What is applicable is cellphone batteries. Memory, though, has nothing to do with it. The day does not get longer, and the world does not get larger. Data gets larger, and computers do more operations, which is the point of memory. But days don't get longer, which is why cellphone batteries don't need to have longer and longer talk/standby times (they do need bigger batteries for all the data/processing they're handling, but note that those batteries get used up by more processing, not more "range" i.e. talk/standby time), and the world doesn't get larger, which is why cars don't need more and more range. In fact, the world is getting *smaller*, as alternative forms of transportation get more widespread and cheaper, and as people drive less miles rather than more (this has been happening for about a decade), and as quick charging becomes more prevalent.

 

[jerry33]

and as people drive less miles rather than more (this has been happening for about a decade).

People have been driving less because gas is getting more expensive and they can't afford to drive more. EVs are reversing that trend (of course, EVs are a small population compared to ICE cars, so the general trend continues--except for EV drivers).

Mostly I think we can agree to disagree. And no, I don't think that once you have a 500 mile battery, you'll be clamoring for a 750 mile battery. People aren't clamoring for 750 mile ICE cars because the 500 mile cars they have now have the range required for almost everyone. The battery size Tesla chose was based on economics and available technology, not on what would be ideal. The current range of the Tesla is barely adequate, but it's the first EV that has a range you can live with--which is why I purchased one. A Leaf wouldn't even get me (and most of my co-workers) to work and back without stopping to charge. The only time I'm inconvenienced in the Model S is on trips, so it's not a big problem as trips are two or three times a year event, but it would be a lot better if there was no inconvenience. And don't forget that as batteries get better the range will increase without increasing vehicle weight.