Actually, the Hayward Fault. And like so many fretting mothers, we've diagnosed this one up one side and down the other:
Earthquake risk to Tesla Motors
6.0 Earthquake Shakes Northern California - Page 3
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Earthquake risk to Tesla Motors
6.0 Earthquake Shakes Northern California - Page 3
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
adiggs
Well-Known Member
My underestimated threat to Tesla is the expense and difficulty of dealing with minor to medium complexity repairs to the vehicle as a result of fender bender / crashes. For me, it's like a worm eating the inside of the apple - it all still looks good on the outside, but on the inside it's... not so good. It's the only issue that has had me thinking seriously about whether to carry through with my Model X reservation.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
The biggest drivers of insurance rates are personal injury and theft rates.
Based on anecdotal evidence both are very low for Model S. And the cost to repair is very high.
But I doubt most insurance companies have a statistically valid Model S samples. Yet.
Here is a very interesting data point.
Body Shop Needs $100k in new equipment to become Tesla Authorized
According to Green Car Reports
Like other high-end aluminum car manufacturers—Audi, Jaguar, and Range Rover among them—Tesla requires substantial factory training and specialized equipment for its authorized body shops.
Peotter(Body Shop Owner) says he was required to buy about $100,000 in additional equipment and tools to become a Tesla-authorized shop—in addition to equipment he already had in the shop to work on aluminum Jaguars.
He had to buy a special cradle to drop out the half-ton Tesla battery, for instance, in case structural repairs required its removal.
The Tesla factory training class lasts fully three weeks; according to Peotter, it is more in-depth and more intensive than Jaguar’s. It’s also more expensive for the shop.
As a result of these higher training and equipment costs, Peotter’s shop rate for Teslas is higher than its Jaguar aluminum rates--and nearly double the rate of a standard car.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...sts-are-higher
Like other high-end aluminum car manufacturers—Audi, Jaguar, and Range Rover among them—Tesla requires substantial factory training and specialized equipment for its authorized body shops.
Peotter(Body Shop Owner) says he was required to buy about $100,000 in additional equipment and tools to become a Tesla-authorized shop—in addition to equipment he already had in the shop to work on aluminum Jaguars.
He had to buy a special cradle to drop out the half-ton Tesla battery, for instance, in case structural repairs required its removal.
The Tesla factory training class lasts fully three weeks; according to Peotter, it is more in-depth and more intensive than Jaguar’s. It’s also more expensive for the shop.
As a result of these higher training and equipment costs, Peotter’s shop rate for Teslas is higher than its Jaguar aluminum rates--and nearly double the rate of a standard car.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...sts-are-higher
Interesting, thanks for posting.
Thinking about it, it seems that the cost of set up is only high because Tesla cars are ubiquitous amongst repair crowd. If we imagine a situation in which car markets were reversed so bev cars were common and ice uncommon, then setting shop for ice repair would be even more prohibitively expensive.
That cost will go down as bev cars multiply. It might be fair to say that this risk is unlikely to grow but to diminish, as approved repairers multiply.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
The article points to two issues:aluminum repair and the "mattress battery."
It seems Bolt has reversed course and will be going with a "mattress" battery.
Any cradle type machine used to remove one "mattress" type battery should be just as good to remove another brand. Unless they specifically design to prevent this.
Second is aluminum repair. I can't imagine a Jaguar or 2015 Ford F-150 authorized shop would not be able to repair at least basic dents on Tesla body panels.
Structural unibody repairs may be a different matter until things become more standardized. It seems Tesla is requiring specific frame machines and jigs for Model S.
I think there are 3 Tesla authorized body shops in greater Los Angeles.
By 2020 with Model 3 in full swing there should be at least 20 IMO.
Competition then becomes real. Three shops in three different areas of Los Angeles is more prone to collusion than competition.
It seems Bolt has reversed course and will be going with a "mattress" battery.
Any cradle type machine used to remove one "mattress" type battery should be just as good to remove another brand. Unless they specifically design to prevent this.
Second is aluminum repair. I can't imagine a Jaguar or 2015 Ford F-150 authorized shop would not be able to repair at least basic dents on Tesla body panels.
Structural unibody repairs may be a different matter until things become more standardized. It seems Tesla is requiring specific frame machines and jigs for Model S.
I think there are 3 Tesla authorized body shops in greater Los Angeles.
By 2020 with Model 3 in full swing there should be at least 20 IMO.
Competition then becomes real. Three shops in three different areas of Los Angeles is more prone to collusion than competition.
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
I would hope Model 3 will be made from steel and not aluminium. Because even though people might accept ridiculously high repair costs on cars that cost 100K to begin with, I am sure not a lot of people in the market for a Model 3 will accept such costs.
With that thought in mind I can also only shake my head at BMW's decisions to go carbon fiber on the i3 versus steel on the VW e-Golf. Tests show that both cars are almost spot on par as far as efficiency and range are concerned (funnily enough with the e-Golf even being better in a few range-related aspects), yet VW achieves this without the use of any fancy materials for their body panels, making for cheap repairs that on top don't require any specially authorised shop either.
With that thought in mind I can also only shake my head at BMW's decisions to go carbon fiber on the i3 versus steel on the VW e-Golf. Tests show that both cars are almost spot on par as far as efficiency and range are concerned (funnily enough with the e-Golf even being better in a few range-related aspects), yet VW achieves this without the use of any fancy materials for their body panels, making for cheap repairs that on top don't require any specially authorised shop either.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Here in the US, the $25k New Ford F-150 truck body is made with aluminum and sits on two steel rails.
Elon has only said that the Model 3 will not be made exclusively in aluminum.
BMW and VW had different set of priorities for the i3 and eGolf
i3 has a 22 kWh battery and does 0-60 in ~6.9 seconds.
eGolf has a 24 kWh battery and does 0-60 in ~10.5 seconds.
Ultimate Driving Machine vs Das Auto.
No more Fahrvergnügen
Tesla needs to keep weight down to have good acceleration, the base needs to at least match the i3,and at least 200 EPA miles.
This means some combination of aluminum and high strength steel plus maybe some other light weight materials.
Elon has only said that the Model 3 will not be made exclusively in aluminum.
BMW and VW had different set of priorities for the i3 and eGolf
i3 has a 22 kWh battery and does 0-60 in ~6.9 seconds.
eGolf has a 24 kWh battery and does 0-60 in ~10.5 seconds.
Ultimate Driving Machine vs Das Auto.
No more Fahrvergnügen
Tesla needs to keep weight down to have good acceleration, the base needs to at least match the i3,and at least 200 EPA miles.
This means some combination of aluminum and high strength steel plus maybe some other light weight materials.
The repair cost is an issue, IMO, but I agree with @RobStark's PoV that this is a transitional issue. The authorized body shops had to spend a lot on equipment and training, and they're trying to recoup those costs. How much would you tack on to repair bills for a rare car from a start-up company? These shops probably figured that Tesla might sell 25k Model Ss and then go out of business, so they set prices to recover those investments as quickly as possible.
Volume of sales will bring two things: more authorized body shops, creating competition; and more certainty that there will be a steady stream of work on Teslas. Both effects will lower repair costs.
As to the Model 3, my guess is that it will have more steel than the Model S, but will retain a lot of aluminum. Elon has set two conflicting goals for the car: a low price and a long range. Steel is cheaper, helping the price, but denser, hurting the range. The Al/Fe ratio will be one of the parameters Tesla's engineers can tune to achieve both goals.
That said, I invested in AA a while back. It seems clear to me that the auto industry is going to be shifting heavily from steel to aluminum as part of its toolbox to hit the new CAFE standards.
Volume of sales will bring two things: more authorized body shops, creating competition; and more certainty that there will be a steady stream of work on Teslas. Both effects will lower repair costs.
As to the Model 3, my guess is that it will have more steel than the Model S, but will retain a lot of aluminum. Elon has set two conflicting goals for the car: a low price and a long range. Steel is cheaper, helping the price, but denser, hurting the range. The Al/Fe ratio will be one of the parameters Tesla's engineers can tune to achieve both goals.
That said, I invested in AA a while back. It seems clear to me that the auto industry is going to be shifting heavily from steel to aluminum as part of its toolbox to hit the new CAFE standards.
I believe that the most underestimated threat to Tesla is that new owners have a tendency to resort to the old ICE when taking long trips. If everyone does not use them for long trips, then Tesla will not become main stream for transportation.
Which new owners? The ones on the forums seems to dislike having to get an ICE rental when they fly and only take the ICE if supercharging isn't practical. Obviously, superchargers will continue to be more practical so this is one I certainly wasn't even thinking of.
As the Supercharger network continues to expand the issue you describe will disappear. I think that such a use case situation is uncommon now: in a few years it will shrink to zero.
I'm not sure; my wife still prefers to drive the ICE on long distances, even with ample Superchargers, because she wants to get where she's going ASAP. While Superchargers reduce the time penalty for driving an EV, they don't eliminate it.
That is true for those who like to drive long distances without stopping. For me, I have found that on a San Francisco to Orange County (south of Los Angeles) run the overall time is the same as an ICE. My wife and I like to stop every few hours to stretch our legs and have a snack. We don't like to sit in a car all day only stopping 5 minutes to add gas.
dandelot
Member
ecarfan:
Our drive from San Francisco to Palm Springs was at least 90 minutes longer (more
on the way south) and part of that is some mismanaging of our time at stops
at SCs.
It is 120 miles between SC locations (on our I-5 to I-210 to I-10 route)
we might have done better at the 80MPH we used to do in ICE vehicle.
But driving at 70 plus charging stops took longer (in S 85) than
in 500-mile-range ICE at 80MPH (in Jaguar S-Type).
And yes we did take a bathroom break every 1-2 hours with ICE.
With Tesla we usually waited till arrival at SC (I was not always
a happy camper at SC arrival
Our first long-ish Tesla trip, so it was a learning experience.
Our drive from San Francisco to Palm Springs was at least 90 minutes longer (more
on the way south) and part of that is some mismanaging of our time at stops
at SCs.
It is 120 miles between SC locations (on our I-5 to I-210 to I-10 route)
we might have done better at the 80MPH we used to do in ICE vehicle.
But driving at 70 plus charging stops took longer (in S 85) than
in 500-mile-range ICE at 80MPH (in Jaguar S-Type).
And yes we did take a bathroom break every 1-2 hours with ICE.
With Tesla we usually waited till arrival at SC (I was not always
a happy camper at SC arrival
Our first long-ish Tesla trip, so it was a learning experience.
Not much to report on this rumor from an Apple employee statement. But might be worthy of some discussion on possibilities
Rumor: Apple preparing to with new automotive project
Rumor: Apple preparing to with new automotive project
While not on-topic here, the rule of thumb when traveling between Superchargers is to drive as fast as you choose. Provided of course that you don't runout of charge! Saving power by driving slowly wastes time because the SCs put power into your car far faster than driving, even reasonably fast, draws it out. Always better to spend an extra minute supercharging than losing a minute driving slowly.ecarfan:
Our drive from San Francisco to Palm Springs was at least 90 minutes longer (more
on the way south) and part of that is some mismanaging of our time at stops
at SCs.
It is 120 miles between SC locations (on our I-5 to I-210 to I-10 route)
we might have done better at the 80MPH we used to do in ICE vehicle.
But driving at 70 plus charging stops took longer (in S 85) than
in 500-mile-range ICE at 80MPH (in Jaguar S-Type).
And yes we did take a bathroom break every 1-2 hours with ICE.
With Tesla we usually waited till arrival at SC (I was not always
a happy camper at SC arrival
Our first long-ish Tesla trip, so it was a learning experience.
I would be surprised if Apple goes head to head with Tesla, into car making.
They might go into some car related products. It is difficult to reconcile the statement "Apple will give Tesla run for its money" with no direct competition between the two companies though.
My take on the most underestimated threat to Tesla's business is strong US $. Strong $ might seriously eat into revenues and hinder further expansion. I would like to see Tesla slow down on global expansion and focus more on US market until they find a solution for loss of revenue due to strong $.
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
Ok, this is offtopic, but in answer to these acceleration times: 0-60 is not very important on these two commuter EVs.
0-31 times are far more important in daily driving, as that is the acceleration from a standstill at a red light for example to the standard inner-city/town maximum over here.
And interestingly - with a warm engine (which is the way this has to be measured to be realistic) - the 0-31 time of the e-Golf is 3.3 seconds, versus 3.1 of the i3 (and also the P85+ by the way). So almost identical. And having driven all three of the mentioned cars I can only second that it really feels the same. Especially the P85+ disappoints in that respect, as it loses quite a bit of its oomph after the engine gets warm.
And as far as the original topic is concerned. Another possibly underestimated threat is the worry that Model 3 won't get to market quickly enough before the competition has caught up, given Tesla's notorious tendency to not meet published or quoted deadlines/project milestones.
There are now quite a few interesting EVs on the horizon that could hit the market before Model 3 finally arrives.
Similar threads
