dennis
Model S Plaid
I tried to upgrade my P85D to a P100DL. I was told that it was physically impossible by a very credible service manager who got the answer from corporate.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
racer26
Active Member
While this much is true, I'm reasonably confident from owning a first generation Honda Insight 2 years ago that even if Tesla doesn't offer a battery for the car that some enterprising owners will pick up the slack, quite possibly aided by the guys like wk057 who've taken to disassembling the guts.
Bumblebee Batteries in Oregon sells replacement batteries for basically all the 10-15 year old hybrids that are better than the original batteries, never mind the aging new old stock that the dealership will sell you as new. I made friends with the guy who runs it through the Insight community, and know that he built that battery, and later the business on the back of a lot of research and tinkering done by himself and several others.
Since we know that Tesla's are capable of dealing with different battery sizes and configurations by virtue of the existing pack layouts, I have every expectation that we will eventually see third party replacement batteries.
And that sums it up.
We have a P90D L and it's the hidden/surprise aspect that's just beyond the pale here.
Obviously, these were the highest margin cars--there's no way the extra $30k or $40k for a "P" with Ludicrous is accounted for in hardware costs. But it's all about the mission of Tesla and helping that goal be achieved, even if it's a little "spendy."
In this case, there's something ethically wrong about hidden/undisclosed "counters." Perhaps it was just a communication problem (and I'm being generous) but the sooner Tesla fixes "Countergate" the better for all. I don't even know where we are in our "counter" or even if our version is affected, but we're likely to trade it in for a non-P just to be done with questions and the underlying feeling of being cheated given an MSRP in the $140k-zone. Tesla will make it right, but as both a shareholder and buyer of about six MS's (in the family) so far, it would sure be nice if they'd stop with these sorts of boneheaded, easily avoided mistakes.
Isn't it true that improvement in P90DL v2 came as a surprise to owners and was not marketed? So whatever the reasons and plausible excuses Tesla might or might not have for this, isn't it an overstatement to say that the owners "did not get what they paid for"?
I am not 100% sure of the answer - this is honest question.
I am not 100% sure of the answer - this is honest question.
P90DV1 did not deliver the promised specs (quarter mile 10.9s), V2 did not either, so if Tesla downgrades V2 to V1, owners will not get what they paid for (as did not V1 owners either). But V2 was more close to getting 10.9, so downgrading takes it further away from what was promised
New report detailing how ICE manufacturers real world emissions numbers are increasingly deviating from test results.
Report calls for investigation into Daimler as some % of their gap are unexplainable by simple exploitation of test rules.
https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/T&E_Mind_the_Gap_2016 FINAL_0.pdf
"Executive summary
This report examines the difference between the official laboratory test results and real-world CO2 emissions and fuel economy of cars. It shows the current system has totally failed and explains how to fix the problems. The difference between official laboratory test results and realworld car performance is growing uncontrollably jumping from 9% in 2001 to 28% in 2012 and 42% in 2015. It is expected to reach 50% before 2020. New cars have not become more efficient, as carmakers claim; on the road, progress in reducing emissions having stalled for four years. Carmakers, not drivers, are the cause of the problem by exploiting testing loopholes and possibly in some cases through the illegal use of defeat devices. In 2002, exploiting test flexibilities accounted for just five-percentage points difference between test results and realworld performance. This grew to 15 points in 2010; and 24 points in 2014. Technology that reduces emissions more in the test than on the road contributes an additional three percentage points to the gap; the failure to switch on auxiliary equipment during tests adds around eight points. Exploiting test flexibilities is therefore the dominant cause of the growing gap. In addition, new evidence emerging from the Dieselgate scandal shows some cars detect laboratory fuel economy and CO2 tests and illegally put the car into a low emission mode thereby cheating the test. Mercedes cars have the biggest average gap between test and real-world performance, with realworld fuel consumption exceeding test results by 54%, Audi and Smart are second with a gap of 49%. A lot is known about how carmakers manipulate tests, in part because manufacturers themselves have insisted allowances for “test flexibilities” have been accounted for in the way the new WLTP test is introduced. But the cumulative contribution of every known flexibility can only account for a gap of around 50%. The Mercedes gap is significantly larger than this and that achieved by every other carmaker and needs to be investigated by the German Type Approval Authority (KBA) and the European Commission."<====Moderator-repaired. That was a strange one!
Edit: fixed greentext.
Report calls for investigation into Daimler as some % of their gap are unexplainable by simple exploitation of test rules.
https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/T&E_Mind_the_Gap_2016 FINAL_0.pdf
"Executive summary
This report examines the difference between the official laboratory test results and real-world CO2 emissions and fuel economy of cars. It shows the current system has totally failed and explains how to fix the problems. The difference between official laboratory test results and realworld car performance is growing uncontrollably jumping from 9% in 2001 to 28% in 2012 and 42% in 2015. It is expected to reach 50% before 2020. New cars have not become more efficient, as carmakers claim; on the road, progress in reducing emissions having stalled for four years. Carmakers, not drivers, are the cause of the problem by exploiting testing loopholes and possibly in some cases through the illegal use of defeat devices. In 2002, exploiting test flexibilities accounted for just five-percentage points difference between test results and realworld performance. This grew to 15 points in 2010; and 24 points in 2014. Technology that reduces emissions more in the test than on the road contributes an additional three percentage points to the gap; the failure to switch on auxiliary equipment during tests adds around eight points. Exploiting test flexibilities is therefore the dominant cause of the growing gap. In addition, new evidence emerging from the Dieselgate scandal shows some cars detect laboratory fuel economy and CO2 tests and illegally put the car into a low emission mode thereby cheating the test. Mercedes cars have the biggest average gap between test and real-world performance, with realworld fuel consumption exceeding test results by 54%, Audi and Smart are second with a gap of 49%. A lot is known about how carmakers manipulate tests, in part because manufacturers themselves have insisted allowances for “test flexibilities” have been accounted for in the way the new WLTP test is introduced. But the cumulative contribution of every known flexibility can only account for a gap of around 50%. The Mercedes gap is significantly larger than this and that achieved by every other carmaker and needs to be investigated by the German Type Approval Authority (KBA) and the European Commission."<====Moderator-repaired. That was a strange one!
Edit: fixed greentext.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gerardf
Active Member
WOW.
The even the 'best' one still has a gap of 30% ! Of course any GAP more than 10% (5% ?) is totally unacceptable and should result in correction or penalties.
(Matias: Yup.. just highlight the green text
)
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Highlight it and it becomes white text on a black background.
For me it's white on white. VERY hard to read.
Thanks, Matias -- I would have missed it but for your pointer!
As others comment, it helps to highlight the text, but first one has to know there is any text.
So if original transgression was that v1 did not "deliver the promised specs", however arguable it is (some point out that 10.99s meant that it did deliver), and company tried to improve on v1 by improving hardware/software in v2, putting reasonable safeguard in the software, with v2 improvement delivered without being advertised, how is it "____gate" now, and how is it that this "____gate" is because owners "did not get what they paid" for? Does not seem reasonable to me by any means.
Note for posters using green for quotes: there are several shades of green available. Selecting the darkest makes text both readable and standing out as a quote.
-- Bolt is planned for 30K/year and limited to 90K/year without building a second factory (which will take 2 years and hasn't started)
-- Audi is targeting the Model S price range and again appears to be limited to ~50K/year
-- Mercedes and BMW also appear to be targeting the Model S price range and limited to ~50K/year
In short, I don't see competition for Model 3 coming along before late 2019 (if GM starts building a second Bolt factory in January) -- more likely 2020. Even if the charging infrastructure is solved.
Hyundai Ioniq is a potential "competitor" when it gets its 200-mile range version -- promised in 2018, but may slip to 2019 -- *if* they get long-distance charging *and* build enough of them. I couldn't find production numbers, but I found some references saying they were "expecting" 77,000 sales in 2017, so again, production capacity is probably too low.
Nissan Leaf 2.0 with the larger battery is a potential competitor when it eventually comes out (supposedly 2017), *if* they get long-distance charging (which is more plausible for Nissan than for anyone else) *and* build enough of them. Nissan is certainly the most likely to actually have volume production, since they can already produce at least 300K/year (at four factories).
I believe the total demand for electric cars is so high that almost all of these cars will be displacing ICE car sales, however.
If there were multiple competitors planning to produce 500K/year, I might worry. Instead, it looks like the sum total of all "competitors" other than Nissan is under 250K/year, and even then only in 2019 or 2020. On top of this, most of the competitors are limited by their battery suppliers' capacity. Nissan has a captive battery supplier, but none of the others do, and Nissan is talking about selling it (!?!?)
BYD is a wild card but seems to be focusing on buses and trucks in the international market, which is great, and keeps them out of direct competition with Tesla everywhere but China.
I don't think this is a risk. I do think they'll rely heavily on loans (not stock issuance) prior to the mass production of Model 3, so that means *sudden large interest rate rises* are a risk which could hurt profits.
Yeah, they've become very tight-lipped about this but I personally see no reason to worry. The only reason others have identified is that they haven't seen Model 3 being test-driven on streets, but I strongly suspect they'll do their tests indoors anyway.
Last edited:
racer26
Active Member
I would remind said users that this is precisely the purpose of the
Code:
[QUOTE=Whoever][/QUOTE]I can simply do something like:
Wall Street Journal said:
A misc article,
AFP: "Volkswagen AG on Wednesday opened a new assembly plant in Kenya and launched plans for a ride-sharing service in Rwanda as it seeks to take advantage of surging car demand in Africa."
Volkswagen moves into Kenya, Rwanda
AFP: "Volkswagen AG on Wednesday opened a new assembly plant in Kenya and launched plans for a ride-sharing service in Rwanda as it seeks to take advantage of surging car demand in Africa."
Volkswagen moves into Kenya, Rwanda
racer26
Active Member
I wondered if those two were the same.
I have to wonder how many TE Microgrid class projects there are out there now. We've heard about 3 or 4, which had little-to-no fanfare from Tesla themselves, and we only heard about them because the customer said something publicly about it. What fraction of customers would go public with that news? Certainly some, but probably not 100%.
Gerardf
Active Member
The USA company to be penalized in China for monopolistic practices was indeed GM.
They got away with only 29M: China fines GM venture $29 million for monopolistic pricing: state TV
They got away with only 29M: China fines GM venture $29 million for monopolistic pricing: state TV
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
