Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Starting to feel like Cybertruck is going the way of the Roadster: Vaporware

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Extra ZEV credits for a program that didn't really work out meant extra money for Tesla. How much? I don't think we'll ever know.

As for your buddy, I'm sure he was quite serious in the program and is a wonderfully talented mechanic. But Tesla brass doesn't necessarily tell the people under them why things are done. My cousin on the retail management side was blindsided by some real BS. Remember when Musk announced the stores were mostly closing? Sounds like similar BS happened to your buddy.
I fully understand what you are saying. Musk definitely has little compassion for others and little care about people's feelings or their lives. He uses people as long as they are useful, then throws them away as soon as he thinks they are not. This attitude permeates to the brass as well, otherwise, they will find themselves no longer useful and meet the same fate.
However, you have to realize that that was a different Tesla back then, with a lot fewer levels of management and he had been there since nearly the beginning. Just as he took care of our car, he also took care of Musk's car and, as the 1st Tesla store, Musk was around all the time. He wasn't as much in the dark as some poor floor associate at a remote Tesla store is today. He was in meetings with the brass about how it was going.
He specifically said it was an experiment to see if battery swap would work. He had reasonable support from corporate. He knew nothing was guaranteed - hence living in the transient life in the RV instead of setting down permanent roots in Coalinga, CA.
Just like with their government loans, Tesla profited from the extra ZEV credits, using them to survive and build our cheaper cars, but they also learned (or verified), 1st hand, with a real-world, working prototype, optimally situated, that battery swap is not a great idea. Most of the rest of us haven't invested in battery swapping because, the back-of-the-envelope calculations of battery management, safe and automated maneuvering of 1/2 ton batteries, spares inventory, standardization of huge battery packs, significant capital costs of infrastructure, etc, just don't pencil very well (sorry Shai Agassi).
The state of CA, misguidedly invested, and Tesla took advantage of it.
 
The problems with battery swaps aren't technical. They're just unappealing to consumers, and many times more so with how Tesla set it all up. People own their car batteries. They don't wanna deal with a weird rental situation and then say, "Oh, I got a bad one last time I was in Coalinga. now my range is down 15%. Well, maybe I'll get a good one the next time I pass through. Ya know. In 12 months or so. No big deal."

The BS retail closing was announced in 2019.
 
The problems with battery swaps aren't technical. They're just unappealing to consumers, and many times more so with how Tesla set it all up. People own their car batteries. They don't wanna deal with a weird rental situation and then say, "Oh, I got a bad one last time I was in Coalinga. now my range is down 15%. Well, maybe I'll get a good one the next time I pass through. Ya know. In 12 months or so. No big deal."

The BS retail closing was announced in 2019.
That can be a problem depending on how battery swap is implemented. Tesla's trial eliminated that challenge because on one's return trip you received your own battery pack back.
Another means of getting around that issue would be that data on the battery could be provided and perhaps assigned a value so that, if you dropped off a 98% battery and received an 80% battery, a $1.8k credit would be put in your account. If you dropped off an 80% battery and received a 90% one, $1K would be withdrawn from your account. I assume a $10K total battery cost for easy math - this could be adjusted, of course. I can see how this could be great for road trips: One could keep their battery for a long time since even a 100 mile battery is still useful for most daily use. Then, when you go on a road trip, you could swap for a newer battery and pay for it then, recovering it (or a similar one) again upon return home.
The technical issues also exist.
Interesting point is that the original T-shaped battery design in the EV1 was designed for battery swap as well. The T-shape was planned to be able to slide out to the rear while still having a lot of the weight up forward to keep weight distribution reasonable. Nobody was able to find a good way to design the rear wheels in a manner that allowed for this though. The Chevy Volt preserved the same T-shape battery, I guess for legacy reasons.
 
I charged at a local supercharger at maybe 40% charge. I think it maxed out at 75 kwh. I was not impressed with the speed of charging, not even slightly. Gas, however, moves at about 6000 miles of range per hour.
And this is why I think the supercharger network is a marketing tool more than it is a meaningful use. And this is why, should I take another car trip, it won't be in the MY or any other EV I own.
Starting a charge session at 40% is why it charged slow. SoC at below 20% yields higher charge rates since the more full the battery is the slower it can accept more energy.
 
Starting a charge session at 40% is why it charged slow. SoC at below 20% yields higher charge rates since the more full the battery is the slower it can accept more energy.
Which is all why the whole fast charging thing is a joke to me right now. Until we can get close to a gas fill up's speed, BEVs just will suck for long distance driving or those who cannot charge at home or work. This is why green hydrogen is likely the future for long distance driving and these people, while BEVs are for everyone else. Hydrogen is energy dense, can fill quickly, and can be produced in a green way, though it's still too expensive in an economy that doesn't charge consumers for air pollution produced. Maybe there will be some solid state breakthrough for batteries, but I expect solid state isn't going to work or beat lithium ion anytime soon. Hydrogen is also the likely future for all but short-distance airplanes.
 
@Jigglypuff You seem to be or have been misled on so many issues.
BEVs just will suck for long distance driving
I've driven over 1100 miles in a day with a Model 3. I've driven from LA to VA in 3 days. This was before I-40, the most direct route, was fully covered with Superchargers and before there were more than a couple of V3 ones.
those who cannot charge at home or work
I agree with you on the above. Not having charging at home or work will be a limitation. However, with charging at home or work EVs completely destroy ICE for convenience and costs.
Hydrogen is energy dense,
This is actually untrue. Energy density generally refers to energy per unit volume (WH/liter). This is also often referred to as volumetric energy density. Hydrogen actually has quite poor volumetric energy density, even if liquified. Definitely poor compared with gasoline. Given that the biggest user of energy in an automobile or an airplane is drag, extra volume tends to cause more air drag, making it a big (bad) deal.
Gravimetric energy density (AKA Specific Energy) refers to energy per unit mass (WH/gram). For this, Hydrogen is great. In fact, it has the highest specific energy of any chemical energy through oxidation (burning, fuel cell, etc). This is definitely important but other factors weigh in against it. For example, while the hydrogen may be light, a strong tank that can contain it in the event of an accident, will be fairly heavy, especially if it must be kept under high pressure to try to account for the volumetric energy density limitation.
can be produced in a green way
Yes, however its production is only about 75% efficient, meaning you waste 25%. Its usage is also only about 75% efficient so, round trip, one loses about 50% of the 'green' energy used. Batteries tend to have about 85% - 95% round trip efficiency. If you've got limited space on your roof for solar and have to pay for the panels, would you rather lose half of that energy or only 10%?
Then, one needs to realize that for hydrogen, as the smallest molecule, every container and pipe fitting is permeable. Its going to leak if you try to store or transport it. This both adds to the losses and makes safe handling particularly challenging.
And then there's the platinum catalysts required by hydrogen fool sells . . . .
It is worth actually looking at how to make batteries work. Given that, with home charging (essentially all houses have electricity), its cheaper and more convenient that ICE or hydrogen, and fast charging makes road trips work great, it seems like a good solution that beats ICE and we can live with it just fine. If you don't have charging currently, that's an easy problem to solve in the long run, certainly before any as-of-yet unknown magic energy solutions or hydrogen become feasible.
Hydrogen and Fool Sells to use it are the fuel of the future - and probably always will be.
 
Cybertruck production date keeps getting kicked out, but of all the products to come to market, Cybertruck is the most likely to be built.
Let me interpret that "??" for you:

Rivian R1T and Ford Lightning are 100% likely to be built (since they are already being built). Cybertruck is some likelihood below 100% since the production line doesn't yet exist. So it's not the most likely product to be built.
 
...This is why green hydrogen is likely the future for long distance driving and these people, while BEVs are for everyone else. ...
Hydrogen is already dead. The only companies even looking into it are doing so under government subsidies. The infrastructure requirements alone make it less viable than battery. Charging will get faster and faster and Tesla supercharging is already fast enough to be entirely comfortable for long distance driving. Admittedly no other company has charging as good yet.
 
Hydrogen is already dead. The only companies even looking into it are doing so under government subsidies. The infrastructure requirements alone make it less viable than battery. Charging will get faster and faster and Tesla supercharging is already fast enough to be entirely comfortable for long distance driving. Admittedly no other company has charging as good yet.
BEV isn't going to cut it anytime soon for distance towing/trucking. Infrastructure will always need to happen. As long as oil is cheap, hydrogen won't happen. As the costs of carbon keep rolling in and oil possibly becomes expensive, hydrogen is the logical answer to a lot of problems. And all energy gets subsidized.
 
BEV isn't going to cut it anytime soon for distance towing/trucking. Infrastructure will always need to happen. As long as oil is cheap, hydrogen won't happen. As the costs of carbon keep rolling in and oil possibly becomes expensive, hydrogen is the logical answer to a lot of problems. And all energy gets subsidized.
Hydrogen is just not a viable option now and it won't be down the road as we continue to shift off of oil. The cost of production vs the returned energy is just not there. Batteries continue to improve and solid state options appear close. Hydrogen is a dead tech already and only a foolish company would put any money into its future.
 
Hydrogen is a non-starter as it has zero infrastructure. Yes it could theoretically be implemented (gas & electric were at 0% at some point not all that long ago), but competing power sources are all but pervasive: gas is delivered to last-mile distance, electric literally goes to every building; insofar as they may be insufficient, that's just a matter of upgrading existing capacity as demand bubbles up.