Musk is not a genius, but obviously a smart business man.
Don't think there has been any public disclosure of his IQ, so hard to judge. He obviously is very good at what he does.
Regarding links. I cannot provide as many links as I want because I am junior member, watched by the admins. Yet all the sources are credible.
So let’s go back to TESLA’s presentation of 2012. They don’t give a precise number but on the graph you clearly see an indication above 350$.
Do you really think that the admins in this forum would be unwilling to allow a demonstrably well-researched and referenced post?
With reference to the newest Berger study there’s no indication that we are anywhere close to the sub 200$. In fact they think major innovation in CAM technology will be necessary to bring the cost down to 200$ by 2018.
It’s just not that easy. The cells used on the Model S are identical to a laptop cell in the same way a Smart Two Seater is identical to a Mercedes S-Class, since both vehicles have 4 wheels and an engine.
Right now the biggest player for Li-ion High Energy cells in the automotive sector is Toyota.
But of course since the cells are mainly used for hybrids they use relatively thin active layers. But for a 85kwh battery pack you cannot use that. You need thicker active layers in the electrode with higher internal resistance. So already on the automotive level there are great differences.
You mean a vehicle of the type: let's build a car with n wheels and n=4? Tesla started out looking at standard 18650 cells. There is quite a lot on Tesla's IP, including patents, in this thread, all quite well referenced:
=>
Amazing Core Tesla Battery IP - 18650 Cell
Furthermore it’s simply absurd to believe that Tesla is able to lower the cost by simplifying the safety and thermal management in comparison to a laptop battery just because they use more cells. In a car you have a completely different environment. The battery management system is a lot more complex. Some cells for example might experience a capacity fade and manifest an increase in impedance. So what you need than is a system that balances the cells to maintain near equilibrium voltage across the entire battery string.
Thermal management. Have you ever seen a laptop heating it’s battery when turned off?
This is Tesla's core IP, how to deal with a complex battery system using cheap simplified cells.
Laptop batteries don't last very long and are a relatively cheap component to replace compared to the cost of a good buissness notebook. Using an expensive, complex, fluid-based and heavy battery architecture in a wheight and price constrained Laptop doesn't make any sense. The cost of such a battery architecture doesn't just scale down linearly from a huge Tesla battery.
Manufacturing. If you assemble such a large battery pack you are working with a high voltage component storing a lethal amount of energy. You need to implement high levels of safety. The same applies for logistics and shipment. It’s not an easy and simple process. It never will be.
These batteries are not assembled fully charged. You only deal with the high Voltage with a completely assembled battery, when in use. Obviously, there need to be high safety measures built into the battery architecture. Again, this is Tesla's own core IP and as Boing spectaculary demonstrated very difficult to get right, which gives Tesla a huge headstart compared to other manufacturers.
It is true that an accident damaged EV battery can be a serious hazard and service personnell and emergency services will need to deal with that.
A few words on the chassis design and construction. As I have mentioned the cost for each Model S is 95.000$, according to Q1 2013. That is by any comparison extremely expensive. Especially if you take a look at the chassis design.
You have, yet, to justify your numbers. Furthermore, do you think that the production cost of the Model S at this stage is representative of the price in let's say Q4 2013?
The Model S is basically a very simple one box rolling chassis design. It’s not a Space Frame like in the Audi A8. Instead it’s a rigid structure with the body parts attached to it. It’s similar to the Lotus VVA (Vehicle Versatile Architecture). This is not a surprise since Tesla chief engineer Peter Rawlinson is a former Lotus Engineering guy.
If you google pictures of the Lotus Evora you will find instant similarities to the Model S chassis. In detail the Model S chassis is even simpler and less complex with standard parts regarding wishbones, steering, brakes, even the air suspension. The Model S does neither have any expensive pre active safety feature. Just take a look at the doors and the seats and you know that this car is basically about saving weight and cost. Which is fine, because with such a low center of gravity and no engine in the front where is no need for any active dynamic tricks. This is a very nice straightforward design.
Agreed.
There is only one problem. Such a structure is not really working in a car weighting more than 2 tons. The chassis is not rigid enough. Not until you use the battery pack and it’s safety cell as a stressed member. In fact it is the central part of the chassis! That is a very intelligent construction, but of course not if you want to change that battery on a later date. And that is exactly the Achilles of the Model S.
If that battery has to be changed the cost will be horrendous. On a Lotus Evora a gearbox change goes to the complete dismounting of the chassis with a cost over 15.000$ thanks to the massive amount of working hours. I have no idea how Tesla wants to change such a high voltage pack which is completely integrated into the car’s chassis. A battery swao system for this car is impossible and fatuous!
The battery pack has been designed to be swappable from the start. Even though it is a structural element, it is part of the final assembly of the car and bolted into the rest of the chasis from the outside. It is in fact installed "in seconds":
=>
The Tesla Factory: Birthplace of the Model S | Blog | Tesla Motors
This aspect creates 2 problems:
1. The insurance cost for the car will go up, because in case of an accident the battery pack might need a replacement and
2. The resale price will drop dramatically. Elon Musks 3-year resale price guarantee is in fact an explosive burden for Tesla shareholders as the resale value collapse is pretty inevitable.
1. It remain to be seen, how easily the battery is damaged in an accident. Looking at this forum there have been a couple of accidents reported and experienced and so far the general consensus seems to be that the Model S is built like a tank.
2. That is pure speculation. "inevitable" - You haven't brought any convincing arguments to the table, why such a value collapse should occur, even when batteries might have to be replaced more readily after accidents. Either the battery is damaged and needs to be replaced or repaired, or it is whole, in which case the value of the car shouldn't suffer. Unless the Model S tanks in a major way, because of so far unknown serious short-comings, low wear and tear will garantee at least a reasonable resale value. Even if there is a share holder risk imminent in this guarantee, it is not necessarily catastrophic. Keep in mind that Tesla not only will be able to demand a higher resale price for a Model S in connection with extended manufacturer guarantee, than 3rd party vendors. But they also don't need to make any profit on this secondary market transaction, but just break roughly even.
I don’t want to create “Anti-Tesla” Gibberish here but just look at the facts. In England Lotus produces a low volume Alu- composite car for less than 40.000$ and sells it for 65, whereas Tesla produces a high volume Model S for 95 and sells it for 105. How does that fit to a battery pack cost < 12.000$.?
Tesla up-front battery replacement of $ 12.000 can be redeemed after 8 years only without paying a penalty, which is from 2020 onwards. Battery prices have a way to go before then. On the other hand the Blue Star 3rd Gen vehicle will have been out for a few years, producing further economies of scale.
I guess wishful thinking is an understatement here.
I really don't think you are doing your user name justice with the imminent pessimism displayed in this and your other posts. If you produced good sources to back all of this up, I might be more willing to listen to you.
