Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA)

[eepic]

The other cars are missing a LOT of features compared to the Model S, and it has the same range as the rest of them (about 300 miles, which what ICE cars typically get on a tank, give or take, if you're not making up numbers using the most advantageous situation for the ICE and the least for the Model S - which, of course, strangely, so many people here on the Tesla boards do). And then the ICE car has to go to a gas station, instead of the convenience of being refilled at home, for cheap, overnight, while you're doing other things. The only "disadvantage" is a slightly longer (and cheaper) trip for people who don't pee or eat and are driving more than 300 miles in a day.

I mean honestly, it's as if nobody here has driven an EV. You should all know this. Also, it's funny to see so people arguing that the Model S is not the best in its class by far.

It is just plain silly to argue electric powertrains haven't reached cost parity.

Nobody is arguing that the Model S is not the best in class, but that doesn't mean there are no tradeoffs versus an ICE.

For example, let's say you're travelling to a town 250 km from home, with no supercharger less than a 150 km detour along the way. You can't drive around or run a few errands in that town and drive straight home without a significant charging stop, so one can't deny there would be an advantage to an ICE vehicle with all the existing refueling infrastructure. Not to mention many common ICE cars can do the whole thing without any refueling stops (e.g. quick google reveals the BMW 3 series has ~800km rated range).

Do the benefits of an EV like the Model S outweigh the drawbacks? Absolutely, starting with a full charge everyday and free supercharging outweighs the drawbacks, but that doesn't mean there are no disadvantages to an EV whatsoever.

 

[FANGO]

Nobody is arguing that the Model S is not the best in class, but that doesn't mean there are no tradeoffs versus an ICE.

For example, let's say you're travelling to a town 250 km from home, with no supercharger less than a 150 km detour along the way. You can't drive around or run a few errands in that town and drive straight home without a significant charging stop, so one can't deny there would be an advantage to an ICE vehicle with all the existing refueling infrastructure. Not to mention many common ICE cars can do the whole thing without any refueling stops (e.g. quick google reveals the BMW 3 series has ~800km rated range).

Do the benefits of an EV like the Model S outweigh the drawbacks? Absolutely, starting with a full charge everyday and free supercharging outweighs the drawbacks, but that doesn't mean there are no disadvantages to an EV whatsoever.

And nobody's saying there's no tradeoffs either. I'm saying that with all things put together, and intelligently-designed EV is able to compete with similarly-priced gas cars on balance. The Tesla interior isn't as nice, they're missing some of the auto-driving stuff (which I'm guessing will be released alongside the X), I'm not really a fan of the seats for more than 45 minutes or so, etc.

But you can contrive situations where one car is superior to another car, and I can contrive situations where the other car is superior to the first. Personally, I don't do my errands 250km away from home, I do them within a couple miles, and I think this is likely the case with most drivers. At the local Tesla store there is a chart which an owner came up with showing the tank size x mpg of various cars in the Model S' class, and the Model S is right smack in the middle of it based on rated range per tank. I do not believe the 3 series is on there, because the 3 series is not in the Model S' class.

On balance, overall, with everything considered, the EVs in question compare favorably to similarly-priced gas cars. The Tesla compares more favorably than the Leaf and Fiat, but the Leaf and Fiat are well-reviewed and well-liked by their owners as well (just not as overwhelmingly so). That's how I define parity, from the consumer perspective, and I don't know of a better way. If you define parity as "the cost of putting 36kWh of energy storage into the car" or something, then obviously we're far off since a gallon of gas is something like 4 dollars and 36kWh batteries is not. But clearly these are not the same thing. So I think most analysts who only focus on battery size, and not use cases of cars, are missing out on the consumer perspective - and I think whatever $/kWh number they've defined as the crossover is myopic, because it doesn't take the whole product into account. I think strong sales of the Leaf, and strong sales of EVs in general (sales growing at a much faster rate than hybrids at the same timeframe since introduction), show that consumers are pretty happy with EVs, despite that car companies are barely marketing them. Consumers take time to come around to things, they don't all automatically buy the thing when it reaches cost parity, they gradually make their way over, due to a lot of factors. And one of those factors which makes them take longer is EV advocates constantly talking about how subpar EVs are, as people strangely seem to do a lot around here.

And if Tesla can do it, as we both agree that Tesla has, then others should be able to do it - with effort. I just don't think anyone (outside of Nissan and maybe BMW) has really put in any effort yet.

 

[JRP3]

It is just plain silly to argue electric powertrains haven't reached cost parity.

Actually it's just plain silly to argue that any EV besides Tesla has reached cost parity, since they are all range and fueling crippled compared to any ICE at any price.

 

[FANGO]

Actually it's just plain silly to argue that any EV besides Tesla has reached cost parity, since they are all range and fueling crippled compared to any ICE at any price.

That's odd because I've never seen an ICE at any price that isn't so crippled that it can't even fill up at my home. It's plain silly to argue that having to go to a gas station and spend lots of money is crippling compared to having a cheap and easy fillup at home, which takes no time because you don't actually have to go anywhere to do it and it happens when the car is parked anyway. Which is the sort of thing I would expect an EV driver to be onboard with, yet people here get too caught up in tribalism and think that talking down on all other EVs is somehow going to help Tesla. It's crazy, we're all on the same team here. FWIW, on i3 forums they consider me a Tesla fan, and here you guys consider me a Leaf/etc fan. I like all EVs, as long as they're done in a somewhat serious effort.

 

[Johan]

TSLA wise I guess what matters most is that to many the Model S has reached and surpassed (?) cost parity vs its counterparts.

 

[JRP3]

It's crazy, we're all on the same team here.

Yes, but some of us seem to be more in tune with the non-EV driving public. I can tell people all day they don't really need 300+ miles of range and the ability to fill up in 10 minutes or less, but they still won't buy an EV. They certainly won't even consider something like a LEAF which can only do less than 90 miles in most situations, especially when you tell them that it can in fact be significantly less than that in severe situations, when people really need to count on their vehicle. You can't claim cost parity for an EV that can't do some pretty common trips, like driving for more than an hour and a half on the highway.

 

[FANGO]

Yes, but some of us seem to be more in tune with the non-EV driving public. I can tell people all day they don't really need 300+ miles of range and the ability to fill up in 10 minutes or less, but they still won't buy an EV. They certainly won't even consider something like a LEAF which can only do less than 90 miles in most situations, especially when you tell them that it can in fact be significantly less than that in severe situations, when people really need to count on their vehicle. You can't claim cost parity for an EV that can't do some pretty common trips, like driving for more than an hour and a half on the highway.

Yes, some of us are more in tune with the non-EV driving public. The public which has bought Leafs and continues to buy Leafs at a greater rate than Teslas, because they don't need 300+ miles of range and they would rather save money. The public which drives far less than you think they drive, based on statistics which have been posted and analyzed multiple times before in this same conversation which you love to keep bringing up. And the public which is adopting EVs at a much faster rate than hybrids despite only two manufacturers really throwing their weight behind them (and only one advertising them, except the occasional CA Fiat commercials and the brand-new MB B-class EV commercials which will hopefully continue) and dealers being fairly complacent on selling them so far.

You can't claim that there isn't cost parity for an EV just because of one aspect which you seem to think is the only thing anyone will ever consider when buying a car, and where you purposefully take that aspect in the most negative possible way and ignore all positives to it. You *can* claim there's cost parity when the balance of reviews, awards, customer satisfaction, and features show that the EV is competitively priced with cars that it is similar to, and when the car does pretty well in sales considering the amount of effort spent on advertising and the effort spent producing and selling them. Which is the case for all the ones I've mentioned. There are no huge backlogs of Leafs sitting on lots unsold, with huge dealer incentives to just get them out of there (as we see in the case of the ELR), and the same is the case with the 500E (Fiat refuses to make enough to fill demand for it, but there is definitely more demand than supply), and possibly the i3 (though it's brand new so we can't use it as a data point).

And the fact that multiple EVs at multiple price points and multiple feature sets exist, and they all seem to be doing pretty well, shows that costs are at a pretty reasonable range right now, all things considered, in this business environment, at this moment in time, etc. Tesla, of course, is the best, and there's no argument over that from anyone.

The situation will of course only get better over time, and it will probably get better faster for Tesla than anyone else (because they're expending the most effort). But cost parity is at least easily here for the Model S, and thus if they can do it, others should be able to as well. This is why I argue that it's here already.

 

[JRP3]

Actually what you did is admit it's not there for others, then changed your mind. Deep down inside you know it's not really there yet for other EV's besides Tesla.

 

[FANGO]

Really, read the post if you're going to respond to it.

Actually, what you did with your post is admit that it's there for others, and that you don't really have anything to back up your argument. Deep down inside you know it's really there for all EVs.

 

[SteveG3]

Yes, some of us are more in tune with the non-EV driving public. The public which has bought Leafs and continues to buy Leafs at a greater rate than Teslas, because they don't need 300+ miles of range and they would rather save money. The public which drives far less than you think they drive, based on statistics which have been posted and analyzed multiple times before in this same conversation which you love to keep bringing up. And the public which is adopting EVs at a much faster rate than hybrids despite only two manufacturers really throwing their weight behind them (and only one advertising them, except the occasional CA Fiat commercials and the brand-new MB B-class EV commercials which will hopefully continue) and dealers being fairly complacent on selling them so far.

You can't claim that there isn't cost parity for an EV just because of one aspect which you seem to think is the only thing anyone will ever consider when buying a car, and where you purposefully take that aspect in the most negative possible way and ignore all positives to it. You *can* claim there's cost parity when the balance of reviews, awards, customer satisfaction, and features show that the EV is competitively priced with cars that it is similar to, and when the car does pretty well in sales considering the amount of effort spent on advertising and the effort spent producing and selling them. Which is the case for all the ones I've mentioned. There are no huge backlogs of Leafs sitting on lots unsold, with huge dealer incentives to just get them out of there (as we see in the case of the ELR), and the same is the case with the 500E (Fiat refuses to make enough to fill demand for it, but there is definitely more demand than supply), and possibly the i3 (though it's brand new so we can't use it as a data point).

And the fact that multiple EVs at multiple price points and multiple feature sets exist, and they all seem to be doing pretty well, shows that costs are at a pretty reasonable range right now, all things considered, in this business environment, at this moment in time, etc.

The situation will of course only get better over time, and it will probably get better faster for Tesla than anyone else (because they're expending the most effort). But cost parity is at least easily here for the Model S, and thus if they can do it, others should be able to as well. This is why I argue that it's here already.

Fango, I think you are right that many people would need a smaller range EV than they think they might think they need not having experienced an EV.

That said, Tesla has created a business to generate profits to expand their capacity to produce EVs. They need to respond to the consumer. The consumer loves the Model S. Both those who have bought the car and the many who ask "when Tesla will make one that I can afford?" Leaf owners may love their cars, but I don't see a big wave of people who don't as yet own the car dreaming of the day they can get a Leaf. They could go out today and buy one, but that is only happening in modest numbers. As I understand it, the Model S was the best selling large luxury car in the U.S. (at least before deliveries had to be shared with customers in the EU and China). The Leaf is no where near the top in sales for it's class. Yes, the Leaf has more absolute sales than the Model S, but that's because the size of the market for $30K starting price cars is many times larger than $70K starting price cars.

Another example, I've heard at least 8 long Q&As Elon has done with the public (store openings, annual meetings... ). Many times I've heard people ask him when he'll have a longer range Tesla. I've even heard people ask him for electric boats, and I believe electric motorcycles. I've heard a request from one person for Elon to bring him onboard at Tesla as the new co-chairman, and I recently heard Steve Colbert ask for a jetpack. I've never once heard anyone ask him for a car with a smaller range.

Look, again, I do agree you are right about many people's needs... you're just a bit ahead of your time. People just don't respond to being told what's good for them, especially if they perceive it (accurately or misguidedly) as a downgrade.

Elon wants as fast a conversion from ICE to EVs as possible. In fact, he wants this passionately. As I'm sure you've pointed out, smaller battery cars would allow for supply to ramp up faster... don't you think he's thought about this? Don't you think he'd sell a 100 mile EV if he thought it would accelerate the advent of EVs?

I say this only partially in cheek, but perhaps the best strategy to help people realize that a 100 mile range would do the trick for many of us is to say, "No, we will not sell you any 100 mile EVs. You cant' buy one." i.e. if there's a dearth of lower range EVs on the market, and consumers realize it's what they want, we'll hear them saying "what do you mean forcing me to buy that big battery I don't really need and not giving me the choice I want." Fango, I think it only works when the consumer on his/her own says "I want it."

 

[Robert.Boston]

Moderator's Note:

When you start criticizing the poster instead of the post, you are crossing a line towards snippiness. Please stop with the personal attacks. There are more effective ways to make your point than ad hominem ​arguments.

 

[FANGO]

Fango, I think you are right that many people would need a smaller range EV than they think they might think they need not having experienced an EV.

That said, Tesla has created a business to generate profits to expand their capacity to produce EVs. They need to respond to the consumer. The consumer loves the Model S. Both those who have bought the car and the many who ask "when Tesla will make one that I can afford?" Leaf owners may love their cars, but I don't see a big wave of people who don't as yet own the car dreaming of the day they can get a Leaf. They could go out today and buy one, but that is only happening in modest numbers. As I understand it, the Model S was the best selling large luxury car in the U.S. (at least before deliveries had to be shared with customers in the EU and China). The Leaf is no where near the top in sales for it's class. Yes, the Leaf has more absolute sales than the Model S, but that's because the size of the market for $30K starting price cars is many times larger than $70K starting price cars.

Another example, I've heard at least 8 long Q&As Elon has done with the public (store openings, annual meetings... ). Many times I've heard people ask him when he'll have a longer range Tesla. I've even heard people ask him for electric boats, and I believe electric motorcycles. I've never once heard anyone ask him for a car with a smaller range.

Look, again, I do agree you are right about many people's needs... you're just a bit ahead of your time. People just don't respond to being told what's good for them, especially if they perceive it (accurately or misguidedly) as a downgrade.

Elon wants as fast a conversion from ICE to EVs as possible. In fact, he wants this passionately. As I'm sure you've pointed out, smaller battery cars would allow for supply to ramp up faster... don't you think he's thought about this? Don't you think he'd sell a 100 mile EV if he thought it would accelerate the advent of EVs?

I say this only partially in cheek, but perhaps the best strategy to help people realize that a 100 mile range would do the trick for many of us is to say, "No, we will not sell you any 100 mile EVs. You cant' buy one." i.e. if there's a dearth of lower range EVs on the market, and consumers realize it's what they want, we'll hear them saying "what do you mean forcing me to buy that big battery I don't really need and not giving me the choice I want." Fango, I think it only works when the consumer on his/her own says "I want it."

Yes, true, there are more people who dream about Teslas than Leafs. But there's not a lot of people who dream about any car which leases for 199/mo. Things that are attainable aren't people's dream cars, because they can have them. Tesla is absolutely smart to have started at the top, to establish a "dream" aspect to their brand. This was the point all along, and it's absolutely the right thing for them to have done. Other manufacturers I think have approached it somewhat wrongly, coming out with econobox models first. But I think this was intentional on most of their parts too, since most of them are just doing it for compliance, and they don't *want* people to be dreaming about EVs because their business is still mostly conventional engines. That said, even these cars which were made for compliance have been received rather well, which is what tells me that EVs are a better value proposition than many people here seem to think.

I've heard those Q&As too, and I've heard Elon and JBs answers where they talk about how they could make a car with enormous range but that it would be lousy, and that they don't see a huge amount of upside on range from here, and that focus should be more on supercharging, and on introducing a cheaper car for the masses, than on ever-increasing range. I've mentioned this whenever this comes up, because they're right. That's my view, and has been my view for some time, and it's been Elon and JB's view for some time as well.

I too want as fast a conversion as possible, which is why I, as a Tesla owner and investor, don't talk down on other EVs that people can actually afford. It's great for people to dream about a Tesla, but if they're driving a gas guzzler around and twiddling their thumbs waiting for Teslas to come down in price, that doesn't help any of us. Which is why I encourage these people to buy or lease a Volt or Leaf or something, which are good cars for their price, and then when the 3 comes out they can get that.

I fully accept that I'm ahead of my time, as is just about everyone here since we're all in on Tesla and have been for a while. I fully accept that the consumer isn't as ready as I am. But what we were discussing this whole time is cost parity, not consumer attitudes. The consumer won't instantly accept something, especially if that thing isn't heavily marketed or they don't know anything about it, as is the case with many consumers and EVs.

I think if the other manufacturers wanted to, they could use that method to sell their cars. "Well sure you could get a Tesla, do you have 70-130k? No? Well, you know why, it's because that battery is too big for your needs...I've got this great car here which costs less than half as much, and it will still get you everywhere you go within town, and if you're still really worried about range we'll give you a loaner for up to 10 days a year...lets go for a test drive, you'll be impressed by how much peppier it is than your Corolla"...then the people buy the Leaf (or whatever), never or rarely use the loaner because they drive less than they think, and the dealer gets a sale out of it. But I don't think the dealers have put a huge amount of thought into how to sell EVs as of yet, since they get a lot of money from service contracts, and those are going to be more lucrative for gas cars than EVs. EVs have service expense, but it's going to end up being largely parts (battery), there's not a lot of shop hours for oil changes and other moneymakers.

 

[JRP3]

EV's are going to get more range, and prices for that extra range will drop. Neither would be happening if it weren't necessary. Tesla's entire business model for the Model 3 is based on the premise that people want more range than current vehicles provide in that price range.

 

[SteveG3]

Yes, true, there are more people who dream about Teslas than Leafs. But there's not a lot of people who dream about any car which leases for 199/mo. Things that are attainable aren't people's dream cars, because they can have them. Tesla is absolutely smart to have started at the top, to establish a "dream" aspect to their brand. This was the point all along, and it's absolutely the right thing for them to have done. Other manufacturers I think have approached it somewhat wrongly, coming out with econobox models first. But I think this was intentional on most of their parts too, since most of them are just doing it for compliance, and they don't *want* people to be dreaming about EVs because their business is still mostly conventional engines. That said, even these cars which were made for compliance have been received rather well, which is what tells me that EVs are a better value proposition than many people here seem to think.

I've heard those Q&As too, and I've heard Elon and JBs answers where they talk about how they could make a car with enormous range but that it would be lousy, and that they don't see a huge amount of upside on range from here, and that focus should be more on supercharging, and on introducing a cheaper car for the masses, than on ever-increasing range. I've mentioned this whenever this comes up, because they're right. That's my view, and has been my view for some time, and it's been Elon and JB's view for some time as well.

I too want as fast a conversion as possible, which is why I, as a Tesla owner and investor, don't talk down on other EVs that people can actually afford. It's great for people to dream about a Tesla, but if they're driving a gas guzzler around and twiddling their thumbs waiting for Teslas to come down in price, that doesn't help any of us. Which is why I encourage these people to buy or lease a Volt or Leaf or something, which are good cars for their price, and then when the 3 comes out they can get that.

I fully accept that I'm ahead of my time, as is just about everyone here since we're all in on Tesla and have been for a while. I fully accept that the consumer isn't as ready as I am. But what we were discussing this whole time is cost parity, not consumer attitudes. The consumer won't instantly accept something, especially if that thing isn't heavily marketed or they don't know anything about it, as is the case with many consumers and EVs.

I think if the other manufacturers wanted to, they could use that method to sell their cars. "Well sure you could get a Tesla, do you have 70-130k? No? Well, you know why, it's because that battery is too big for your needs...I've got this great car here which costs less than half as much, and it will still get you everywhere you go within town, and if you're still really worried about range we'll give you a loaner for up to 10 days a year...lets go for a test drive, you'll be impressed by how much peppier it is than your Corolla"...then the people buy the Leaf (or whatever), never or rarely use the loaner because they drive less than they think, and the dealer gets a sale out of it. But I don't think the dealers have put a huge amount of thought into how to sell EVs as of yet, since they get a lot of money from service contracts, and those are going to be more lucrative for gas cars than EVs. EVs have service expense, but it's going to end up being largely parts (battery), there's not a lot of shop hours for oil changes and other moneymakers.

thanks for the post Fango. I think there's a fair amount to agree on here.

I just want to clarify... I was responding to my generally having seen you raise this issue about how large a battery is sensible to offer over the past few months rather than the comments over the last few hours about cost parity.

Two other items. Elon and JB have certainly said ~"yes, we could make a bigger battery car today, but it doesn't make sense," but they were talking about the reality of the time... when it comes to the future, they've said more range. Elon has hinted at more range for the S as soon as next year (he did this in a Q&A in Europe). About a year ago on one of the earnings call, one of the analysts asked about the possibility of a 400 mile range car, Elon scoffed "400 miles? how about 500 miles." Now Fango, it's possible the numbers were 300 and 400, but though you might not like this, it was quite clear he's looking at more range.

As to dreaming about a $30K car. well, if you'll loosen that up to $35K, while not generally the range of "dream cars" I would say a very large number of people are dreaming about the Gen III car... certainly far more than I see them having the capacity to build for many years.

just out of curiosity, if it were technically possible to build a metal air hybrid battery, so a 200 mile lithium ion battery (or 100 mile battery as you like) were paired with a metal air battery to function as a range extender for long distance, would that be a solution you'd find appealing?

 

[FANGO]

As to dreaming about a $30K car. well, if you'll loosen that up to $35K, while not generally the range of "dream cars" I would say a very large number of people are dreaming about the Gen III car... certainly far more than I see them having the capacity to build for many years.

just out of curiosity, if it were technically possible to build a metal air hybrid battery, so a 200 mile lithium ion battery (or 100 mile battery as you like) were paired with a metal air battery to function as a range extender for long distance, would that be a solution you'd find appealing?

Yeah absolutely, thats the brilliance of Tesla's approach. They're building an aspirational brand, an aspirational car, something people can dream for. They're establishing that their brand means performance, that it's a premium brand. And *then*, after already doing all that, they're releasing a car that more people can afford. It's definitely the right way to go about it, and has been the strategy all along. This is why people will dream more about the next Tesla than about the Nissan they can have now.

The solution that BMW has done is appealing to me, to some extent. They've got a normal battery car, but if you're worried about range you can spend money to make the car 10% more expensive and 10% worse in terms of performance (acceleration, efficiency, handling, etc.) in exchange for a very small gas engine and a small gas tank which will let you go further on the few occasions you need it. It's definitely the most well-though-out range extender (though I like to call it a range reducer, because it reduces the car's electric range) on the market, and some people will consider it a positive value proposition. Anything similar to that is fairly acceptable. The only problem I have is if they preferentially sell that particular option, playing up fears etc, because it results in more revenues for the dealers (both through the sale and the service on the engine), and lets them stick to their oil driven paradigm longer. I think actions like this tend to reinforce the incorrect belief of the public that EVs aren't ready for prime time, and thus they keep burning gas which really needs to stop now, like now now, like ten years ago now. Also, personally if offered that option I wouldn't pay more for it, nor would I want to pay extra for something that reduces my car's performance and efficiency, but it's at least the best implementation of a plug-in hybrid that I've seen yet.

As for metal-air, I don't know that I have any comments on it, because I don't understand it (and nor do I think many people do), and as far as I'm aware it isn't ready for primetime yet anyway. I would have to see it first. It sounds like your theoretical solution would be similar to the BMW one I mentioned above (which is why I talked about it), only wouldn't use oil, which would make it even better. But again, if it costs more and makes the car any worse, I personally probably wouldn't pay extra for it. Particularly when supercharging exists.

 

[SteveG3]

Yeah absolutely, thats the brilliance of Tesla's approach. They're building an aspirational brand, an aspirational car, something people can dream for. They're establishing that their brand means performance, that it's a premium brand. And *then*, after already doing all that, they're releasing a car that more people can afford. It's definitely the right way to go about it, and has been the strategy all along. This is why people will dream more about the next Tesla than about the Nissan they can have now.

The solution that BMW has done is appealing to me, to some extent. They've got a normal battery car, but if you're worried about range you can spend money to make the car 10% more expensive and 10% worse in terms of performance (acceleration, efficiency, handling, etc.) in exchange for a very small gas engine and a small gas tank which will let you go further on the few occasions you need it. It's definitely the most well-though-out range extender (though I like to call it a range reducer, because it reduces the car's electric range) on the market, and some people will consider it a positive value proposition. Anything similar to that is fairly acceptable. The only problem I have is if they preferentially sell that particular option, playing up fears etc, because it results in more revenues for the dealers (both through the sale and the service on the engine), and lets them stick to their oil driven paradigm longer. I think actions like this tend to reinforce the incorrect belief of the public that EVs aren't ready for prime time, and thus they keep burning gas which really needs to stop now, like now now, like ten years ago now. Also, personally if offered that option I wouldn't pay more for it, nor would I want to pay extra for something that reduces my car's performance and efficiency, but it's at least the best implementation of a plug-in hybrid that I've seen yet.

As for metal-air, I don't know that I have any comments on it, because I don't understand it (and nor do I think many people do), and as far as I'm aware it isn't ready for primetime yet anyway. I would have to see it first. It sounds like your theoretical solution would be similar to the BMW one I mentioned above (which is why I talked about it), only wouldn't use oil, which would make it even better. But again, if it costs more and makes the car any worse, I personally probably wouldn't pay extra for it. Particularly when supercharging exists.

Fango, not sure if you are aware of this but the motorcycle engine in the i3 is meant as an emergency backup not a means of gaining range for long distance use.

This from an article with comments from BMW:

"Herbert Diess, global R&D boss for BMW, was recently quoted on the ReX range extender in Plastics News (in an article originally published in trade weekly Automotive News).
Diess explained the company's point of view, reinforcing the viewpoint cited at the launch:
The range extender is not intended for daily use. It's for situations when the driver needs to extend the range of the vehicle to reach the next charging station. Therefore, the i3 probably won't be the choice for customers with a need for an extended range.

Diess suggests that a plug-in hybrid is "a more suitable solution" for those customers who frequently need a car with range beyond that offered by the i3's battery pack."

BMW i3 Electric Car: ReX Range Extender Not For Daily Use? (Page 2)

as to metal air being added as a range extender. I don't know what's practical, and I've not heard much on this from Tesla other than their apparently having patents on this, but here's a brief video to give you some idea of what may be possible,

Phinergy drives car by metal, air, and water - YouTube

 

[EVNow]

The solution that BMW has done is appealing to me, to some extent. They've got a normal battery car, but if you're worried about range you can spend money to make the car 10% more expensive and 10% worse in terms of performance (acceleration, efficiency, handling, etc.) in exchange for a very small gas engine and a small gas tank which will let you go further on the few occasions you need it. It's definitely the most well-though-out range extender (though I like to call it a range reducer, because it reduces the car's electric range) on the market, and some people will consider it a positive value proposition.

From reports it is not a well thought out Rex. Infact it is unsafe to drive the car in hilly areas after battery depletion - the power supplied by REx isn't good enough to even go at 25 mph sometimes.

My Nissan Leaf Forum View topic - Official BMW i3 thread

After the ICE kicked on, the car maintained speed for maybe 5 minutes, then began to feel very weak. On the next uphill section, my speed fell quickly from 50MPH down to 25MPH and was falling (this while at WOT). Cars backed up behind me and I needed to put on the hazard blinkers and crawl to the next turn out.

 

[EVNow]

On balance, overall, with everything considered, the EVs in question compare favorably to similarly-priced gas cars. The Tesla compares more favorably than the Leaf and Fiat, but the Leaf and Fiat are well-reviewed and well-liked by their owners as well (just not as overwhelmingly so). That's how I define parity, from the consumer perspective, and I don't know of a better way.

When we look at huge changes in technology - we normally see changes taking hold when the new thing is more convenient than the old thing. Flat panels are obviously more convenient than old huge SDTVs - so are digital cameras compared to film cameras and DVDs compared to tapes, CDs compared to LPs (and mp3 compared to CDs) etc.

So a better way to compare would be how convenient is it to buy, own & operate an EV compared to ICE. I think the story is now rather mixed. It is easier to fuel at home nightly - but range is an issue. It is somewhat cheaper to buy an ICE of similar size and quality. It is possible to pre-heat or cool EVs in the garage - but they lose lot more range in cold than ICE. It is easier to drive your ICE over long distances than EVs (or rent an ICE).

 

[SteveG3]

Great post, Steve. What's so frustrating to me is that these guys can be so blatantly wrong and when it is proven some time later, they ignore/spin/cop out their previous comments and there are no professional repercussion for them. How much money do they have to lose for people before they lose some credibility? That Damodaran cop-out was weak and here Cramer claims to have been "all in Tesla" when it took off: Jim Cramer: The Danger of Worshipping Tesla - Pg.2 - TheStreet

Cramer: "Sure, there is a YouTube clip of me at first dismissing the stock, which was right. It did next to nothing for those first three years. But when it took off I was all in Tesla. Now, 150 points later, down $50 from its high, call me worried, not from the BMW challenge, but by the worship of a stock."

the closest Cramer came to being all in was saying he thought the car was awesome (he really did rave about the car), but that he wouldn't touch a short or long position on the stock.

other than that it's been a steady stream of trying to invalidate Tesla bulls by trying to frame us as oversensitive irrational fanatics worshipping the company and/or Elon.

 

[RunningOnMangoes]

the closest Cramer came to being all in was saying he thought the car was awesome (he really did rave about the car), but that he wouldn't touch a short or long position on the stock.

other than that it's been a steady stream of trying to invalidate Tesla bulls by trying to frame us as oversensitive irrational fanatics worshipping the company and/or Elon.

Cramer is a joke, he actually cost me alot of money. Though thanks to the advice of a friend, I did better than ok! I love Telsa/ Tsla.

Cramer is a guy that knows how to market himself. One good advice I read from his books is the need for health insurance. Folks before you do any investing, please invest in your health and get health insurance. I remember in one of his books he chose sears because Eddie was running the show, well we all know how Sears is doing. I am not trying to bash Cramer, as much as I want the truth from these so called pundits.

Cramer said point blank, tesla will fail. Well, see you in the rear view mirror Cramer!