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

Tesla BEV Competition Developments

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
The smaller pack will not last as long as the larger pack because it will be discharged at a higher relative C rate and a deeper DOD. A 100 mile pack for example may have one third the emissions of a 300 mile pack but the larger pack will allow more than 3 times the lifetime miles traveled because it's not working as hard as the smaller pack.

Sigh. My old Smart ED was 99% original capacity when I sold it at 4 years and 35000 km driven (traded up to the newer Smart ED). The pack (2013-2018) operates BETTER than the Tesla pack in winter, meaning, I get full regen in cold conditions, and regen even in -20C completely cold overnight pack, something our Tesla never does. The Smart ED has full acceleration ( 60 kW peak power) in any temperature, whereas the Tesla throttles peak power routinely depending on temperature, SOC and other conditions. I love the Tesla, but do have a factual basis for comparing the technology of non-Tesla EV's, as I have been driving them for >6 years.

Tesla is a superior car by a massive margin (infinity %), it will take 3x the total distance driven for a Tesla to approach the lifetime emissions profile of a Smart ED in use for a short daily commute. Both Smart ED and Tesla have an 8 year battery and drive train warranty.

IF : Driven the same daily short (50km) commute, the Tesla will need 16 more years out of warranty to equal the total lifetime emissions profile as the Smart ED.

The Smart ED had $3 in total maintenance from 2013 to today, a tiny rear tail-light bulb. The Tesla has had motor+inverter replaced, cabin heater, battery heater, air suspension replacement, new brakes (winter package) and a host of other items that add to the lifetime materials/emissions profile.

Apples to apples. Distance driven vs inputs.
 
Our Tesla Model S is absolutely a much larger footprint vs a Smart ED from materials, manufacture, production, driving and recycle at end of life, it's nearly 3x the inputs! I am purely talking about CO2 (lithium, steel, water consumed in initial materials production and other inputs) per km driven.

But if the 3x smaller pack takes 3x as many charge cycles to drive a distance, and therefore dies 3 X faster, and thus I have to own 3x as many smaller packs over the same timeframe....
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRP3 and WarpedOne
But if the 3x smaller pack takes 3x as many charge cycles to drive a distance, and therefore dies 3 X faster, and thus I have to own 3x as many smaller packs over the same timeframe....

I'll post my scenario for the 3rd time in 3 posts. Short daily commute. 50km round trip.
I charged my Smart ED to 100% of 17.6 kWh daily for 4 years, 1200 charge cycles of 1/3 of the battery, so 400 "full charge cycles", had <1% degradation when I sold it. As per Daimler battery report (published online and available 2013-2017, web link no longer active) was good for 3000 full duty charge cycles to 80% capacity. ie. 30 years of daily 50 km round trip commute charging daily.

Precisely when would I need a new battery pack?

Tesla is a great choice of car, Smart ED is a different great choice, and absolutely, categorically has better emissions profile for short commute use where applicable and acceptable, full stop.
 
I'll post my scenario for the 3rd time in 3 posts. Short daily commute. 50km round trip.
I charged my Smart ED to 100% of 17.6 kWh daily for 4 years, 1200 charge cycles of 1/3 of the battery, so 400 "full charge cycles", had <1% degradation when I sold it. As per Daimler battery report (published online and available 2013-2017, web link no longer active) was good for 3000 full duty charge cycles to 80% capacity. ie. 30 years of daily 50 km round trip commute charging daily.

Precisely when would I need a new battery pack?

Tesla is a great choice of car, Smart ED is a different great choice, and absolutely, categorically has better emissions profile for short commute use where applicable and acceptable, full stop.
Why does when you sold it matter? The emissions are tied to the life of the car, no?

3000 full cycle charges on a 60 mile pack is 180,000 miles, regardless if it's owned by one person, or 4. Or if it's driven 20 miles at a time, or 50.

Whereas 3000 full cycles on a 200 mile pack is 600,000 miles, regardless of # of owners.

So to say the larger pack is 3x emissions of a larger pack is silly when you need 3x of many of them to satisfy the same driving requirement.

I know you are focused on your use case, but universally short daily distance != miles driven in a pack lifetime.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JRP3
The Smart ED probably takes somewhat less energy to make than the Model 3, but if you're comparing efficiency day to day you need to look at energy usage and Wh/Mi or Wh/Km. The Model 3 is actually more energy efficient than the Smart EQ, which is the current electric Smart car for sale in the US. The Smart was found by the EPA to be 310 Wh/Mi and the Model 3 AWD LR to be 290 Wh/Mi.

Impact on the environment also depends on the fuel source for electricity. NE Canada gets a lot of power from hydroelectric, just like Oregon and Washington states. Wind and solar are also increasing share every year.

Back to Mazda's comparison, they made the deep flaw that most people make when comparing the energy efficiency of electrics to gas or diesel powered cars. They seem to assume that gas or diesel appears at the pump by the gasoline fairy and there is no energy footprint getting it into your tank while taking into account every small energy use getting the energy into your battery.

Oil only comes out of the ground under its own pressure in a few places and only in young oil fields. The vast majority of oil in the world needs to be pumped out of the ground and a large percentage of oil produced today needs some kind of energy put down into the reservoir to get it out. A common method used today to get North American oil is pumping steam down into the reservoir to heat the oil and make it flow. Most of the North American oil is heavy stuff that takes more work to get out of the ground as well as refining.

The oil companies are actually fairly smart about steam injection. They have been doing it in California the longest and what they do is burn produced natural gas to heat water produced with the oil, then run the steam through a turbine to produce electricity which runs the pumps to inject the steam back into the earth and run the pumps that pump out the oil. They usually have some electricity left over to put on the grid.

It is in some ways a "freebie" energy-wise, but they are still consuming the energy to produce the oil. If there is not enough gas or water coming up with the oil, they need to get one or both from somewhere else.

After the oil is produced, it needs to be transported to the refinery. Light sweet crude will flow on its own with only some pumps, but that is very uncommon in North America and most oil is heavy oil which needs heated pipe lines to make the oil flow. That energy has to come from somewhere.

Once the oil gets to the refinery, more energy has to be put in to make it into a usable fuel. Again light sweet crude is the easiest to refine, but that's not common these days. Heavy crude needs to be put through a catalytic cracker which breaks the long carbon chains (tar) down into smaller chains used for liquid fuels like gasoline and diesel. Finding the electricity required to refine gasoline is not easy to find. The oil industry doesn't want you to know that refining gasoline takes electricity. But a couple of years ago I dug out estimates. Light sweet crude requires about 8 KWh/gal to refine and the heavy stuff that is most of what we're refining today takes about 16KWh/gal to refine.

If you take just the electricity needed to refine one gallon of light sweet crude and charge a Model S with it instead, you'll get about 25 miles of range out of the Model S. If you use the electricity needed to refine heavy crude, you're getting around 50 miles of range.

Just from the power station to refined fuel a 50 MPG gasoline car has the same energy foot print as a Model S. And that doesn't count the energy needed to get the oil to the refinery or the energy needed to transport the refined fuel from the refinery to the gas station.

The Model S is 70-90% efficient "burning" its fuel, but the gasoline or diesel vehicle is lucky to be 25% efficient.

I haven't even touched on the energy budget required to find and bring the oil well online in the first place. For something like offshore oil, the oil may be better quality than what's available onshore, but the costs in money and energy are much higher.

If you really compare the energy budgets from original source to turning wheels on the car, fueling an electric vehicle with electricity from coal is more energy efficient than any ICE car. And coal is as bad as it gets. The grid's energy sources are better today than they were 10 years ago and constantly improving. The quality of oil is declining which requires more energy to turn into usable fuel. We aren't really running out of oil, but we are just about out of the cheap, easy to produce and refine oil.

A few months ago I had this argument with my sister who is a petroleum Geologist. She knew all the steps in getting from the ground into the tank, but hadn't really thought about the energy budget until I pointed out the energy consumed in each step. When I did she dropped the argument.
 
The Model 3 is actually more energy efficient than the Smart EQ, which is the current electric Smart car for sale in the US. The Smart was found by the EPA to be 310 Wh/Mi and the Model 3 AWD LR to be 290 Wh/Mi

As I noted, the Smart ED has regenerative braking 365 days per year, our Tesla does not, lower temperature has a significant effect on the NCA chemistry in the Tesla vs the NMC of the Smart, and Tesla limits regen.
On the exact same commute our 2013 Tesla S85 uses 30% more energy than the Smart ED in the winter.
The Smart ED has no vampire loss, none, can leave the car for a week, same SOC, whereas the Tesla routinely burns 2kWh every night.
On a daily routine the Smart ED uses 7 kWh, the Tesla more than 11 kWh considering the overnight recharge required, not just what the dash says on efficiency, same route, same conditions. I have OBDII devices monitoring both cars, these are real life numbers from charging inputs.

As someone else posted above, you'd need to drive 600000 in the Tesla compared to only 180000 in the Smart ED to have the same emissions lifetime profile.

I love our Tesla and will be buying another, but the Smart ED is a lower emissions car for a short commute usage in colder climate, full stop.
 
Why does when you sold it matter? The emissions are tied to the life of the car, no?

3000 full cycle charges on a 60 mile pack is 180,000 miles, regardless if it's owned by one person, or 4. Or if it's driven 20 miles at a time, or 50.

Whereas 3000 full cycles on a 200 mile pack is 600,000 miles, regardless of # of owners.

So to say the larger pack is 3x emissions of a larger pack is silly when you need 3x of many of them to satisfy the same driving requirement.

I know you are focused on your use case, but universally short daily distance != miles driven in a pack lifetime.

And that should obviously have been "So to say the larger pack is 3x emissions of a smaller pack is silly when you need 3x of many of them to satisfy the same driving requirement."
 
  • Like
Reactions: guidooo
Reminds me a bit of the VW X1 car

vw-xl1-drive-0001_0.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doggydogworld
At first, 450 miles on 60 kWh sounds implausible, but it may be possible. That works out to about 134 Wh/mi, where I can get about 200 Wh/mi on my SR+ if I drive carefully around 55 MPH. So if it's lighter than an SR+ and more aerodynamic (both of which appear to be true), 134 Wh/mi could be achievable.
And it's WLTP, not EPA, too, which helps (or rather, means it doesn't have to actually do 450 miles).

A Model 3 LR AWD is rated at 348 mi WLTP range, for comparison.
 
Disappointing he's using click bait "Tesla killer" titles. I don't even need to watch the video to know it's neither competition nor a "killer".

You know what they say about titles that end in a question mark right? The answer is almost always no.

But the Ocean could be some competition given it's low entry price and month-to-month lease option. Shoot if you need to rent a car for a few weeks while your Tesla was in the shop for repairs leasing an Ocean would be cheaper than renting an ICE. (Assuming they ever make a single one and really offer the month-to-month lease that they say they will.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: willow_hiller
It was my wife's idea. ;)

But seriously, if you have any feedback on the content let me know.

So the backstory was my original title to the video was something like "Does Fisker Ocean have a chance against Tesla...".

My wife watches the video and says, "Dave! You need a more catchy title. The content is great but people aren't going to watch it with such a boring title."

I'm like, "seriously?"

She says, "Got to learn from Cathie Wood. She's a marketing genius. Put something dramatic out there, like $6000, for people to notice."

Me: "What?!?" o_O