Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[Rammstein]

You parking it inside a garage or outside? If the latter, you’ll lose a lot of range right off the bat as the car has to try to bring the battery up to temp(and lose a lot overnight making sure the battery isn’t damaged). Also, if you can, timing charging to finish right before you drive it will improve range in the cold, since charging naturally heats the battery somewhat. Preconditioning is also a good idea, as otherwise regen may be restricted/disabled until the battery is heated, further reducing range.

I left it outside. Next time I go to Edmonton I will definitely stay at a hotel with a destination charger. I was surprised at the lack of chargers in downtown Edmonton.

 

[Fact Checking]

I would say:

1. FCA. FCA is still largely in EV denial and way behind on tech, but I think FCA may be ready to call Tesla in desperation.
2. Daimler. Daimler and Tesla have a history, and appear to be in talks on a Van, I can see this being extended to a Pickup.
3. GM. GM appear to be more serious about building their own EV programs, but I doubt they are anywhere near the capability to build a high spec Pickup.
4. Ford. Look to be partnering with VW on EVs, but I doubt VW has the ability to help with a high spec Pickup.
5. Toyota. Toyota is also largely in EV denial and are lacking in expertise, but i think are less likely to come crawling back to Tesla.
6. BMW. I don't know that BMW has any interest in building a pickup, but could come to Tesla if they do.

So you are saying that any of them could be Tesla's partner in building pickup trucks. You are absolutely not helping!!!

 

[skybluecgreen]

Who is Tesla partnering with on drivetrain for truck?

Hey, @KarenRei, you can cast your vote. No one is looking.

Why would Tesla need a partner for the drivetrain on a pickup?

 

[Nocturnal]

The new Tesla Daimler thing is interesting. I could definitely see Tesla doing a brisk business in supplying drivetrains to other makers. If they want to both sell their own cars and be the Intel/AMD to Ford's HP then that sounds good.

I'm not terribly upset as long as the stock stay above 300, but man. Can we stay at 315 or so please?

Overall, I have the ineluctable impression that battery-powered auto drivers are supremely more conscious of their energy consumption than are their liquid fuel counterparts, and this translates to the kinds of comments we've been subjected to over the past month or so. This suggests to me that a carefully-crafted analysis of all vehicles' performance under differing weather conditions is essential.

For sure. And to be fair, that is easy to overcome in an ICE vehicle. 10 minutes and you have a full tank. (10 minutes at a dirty gas station hanging out in the cold)

As I've said many times, this is a great tradeoff IMO. I save 10-20 minutes a week by not needing to stop for gas. Say I take 2 cold weather roadtrips per year and I have to spend an extra 2 hours charging. In the net I'm still way better off over the year.

Also EVs heat up instantly compared to ICE cars, you can warm your car without filling your garage full of carbon monoxide, warm your car from your phone, and you have no worries about the cold cracking your motor. There are several diesel trucks that plug in their block heaters everyday in my parking garage, which I find amusing.

So cold temp range loss is real and sizable, but it's really not an issue for 90% of us 99% of the time. It IS sizable though. Just from cold temps I see about 30%, plus speed, weather etc. I've seen aggregate range loss at around the 40% number being thrown around.

Yep. This is our experience in Wisconsin as well. Range loss is substantial with the colder weather. 40% loss has been our experience. Anyone in these parts looking at which range vehicle to buy should do so with winter driving in mind.

Depending on your commute of course. I drive 35 miles each way to work so even at worst case I'd be fine with the SR. Now, on road trips that would sting. I have to assume though that SR buyers are not planning on many road trips.

 

[Remus]

I'm somewhat upset over this loss-of-range coverage that's been occurring; there has been a little bit of appropriate pushback in this thread but even in the appropriate sites it hasn't been properly addressed.

ALL of my diesel and gasoline vehicles suffer very obvious loss of range at low temperatures. I used to think that it should be the opposite: that increased air density would enhance combustion, but this isn't so. Unfortunately I've never kept appropriate logs to demonstrate the differences, but I know that every time travel out of or back to Alaska, the change in efficiency is remarkable regardless of whether I'm heading southbound or north. I would say that if I were getting 19mpg with a given load in Montana, by the time I hit the Alaska Range I would be seeing 11-12mpg. That's 37-42 percent right there.

Of course, snowpack has an immediate effect. The increased rolling resistance of even hard-packed snow whacks fuel economy to a fare-thee-well.

Overall, I have the ineluctable impression that battery-powered auto drivers are supremely more conscious of their energy consumption than are their liquid fuel counterparts, and this translates to the kinds of comments we've been subjected to over the past month or so. This suggests to me that a carefully-crafted analysis of all vehicles' performance under differing weather conditions is essential.

I agree but EV drivers might be affected more by the loss in range due to long refueling time, shorter range to start with, and insufficient charing infrastructure.

 

[Rammstein]

Anyone think that the range loss in winter will effect demand? I'm thinking it should still be good since the Model S has the highest market share in the US in it's class.

 

[ggr]

I don't see how that is the case. Driving in that temperature (assuming you are using the heater) will result in about 30% drop in range. Then add in losses due to highway speeds, winds etc. This is supported by my own experience (and many other anecdotes) as well as outside studies. I saw total losses as high as 50% when dealing with 10 degree weather and 70mph in heavy wind/snow conditions.

Personally, I think EVs have more pros than cons in cold weather but range loss is sizable.

Your range loss was mostly due to wind and snow, not cold. The article (now refuted for double counting) talked ONLY about temperature.

 

[humbaba]

I'm somewhat upset over this loss-of-range coverage that's been occurring; there has been a little bit of appropriate pushback in this thread but even in the appropriate sites it hasn't been properly addressed.

ALL of my diesel and gasoline vehicles suffer very obvious loss of range at low temperatures. I used to think that it should be the opposite: that increased air density would enhance combustion, but this isn't so. Unfortunately I've never kept appropriate logs to demonstrate the differences, but I know that every time travel out of or back to Alaska, the change in efficiency is remarkable regardless of whether I'm heading southbound or north. I would say that if I were getting 19mpg with a given load in Montana, by the time I hit the Alaska Range I would be seeing 11-12mpg. That's 37-42 percent right there.

Of course, snowpack has an immediate effect. The increased rolling resistance of even hard-packed snow whacks fuel economy to a fare-thee-well.

Overall, I have the ineluctable impression that battery-powered auto drivers are supremely more conscious of their energy consumption than are their liquid fuel counterparts, and this translates to the kinds of comments we've been subjected to over the past month or so. This suggests to me that a carefully-crafted analysis of all vehicles' performance under differing weather conditions is essential.

I particularly agree with your last observation that EV drivers are more conscious of energy consumption. I think a lot of it has to do with the timeliness and accuracy of the information available.

When driving an ICE vehicle the most accurate efficiency measurement is when refueling and that only gives you an (approximate) average since the last fueling. In other words, the measurement is not timely and cannot be specifically correlated to the circumstances (other than on trips). I've been in ICE vehicles that attempt to give a "real time" measure of fuel economy, but the accuracy has always been rather suspect.

In short, for an ICE vehicle you can only get an overall idea of the efficiency.

Contrast this with an EV where you can get a constant measure of your instantaneous (well, averaged over a short period) Wh/mile with a nice historical graph, or get a constantly updated average of the economy on a trip.

Gas gauges are notoriously inaccurate and are more suggestive than anything. The range indicator in an EV may not be accurate for range (it cannot know what your future Wh/mi will be), but it certainly is an accurate indicator of the fraction of energy remaining.

People know that a variety of things waste fuel or increase consumption (idling, fast take offs, fast speed), but without the accurate and immediate feedback there is little attention paid to it.

I know for a certainty that in my own case having an EV has made me acutely more aware of efficiency. Not out of a concern of "making it" to my destination, but due to the information that is available to me.

 

[Nocturnal]

I know we are getting pretty OT, but there isn't a ton of SP news going on. Kinda boring.

Anyone think that the range loss in winter will effect demand? I'm thinking it should still be good since the Model S has the highest market share in the US in it's class.

I don't think so. For all the handwringing it's not really an issue for the vast majority of people. Yes that's a negative but the positives are way larger. (even just looking at cold weather)

Your range loss was mostly due to wind and snow, not cold. The article (now refuted for double counting) talked ONLY about temperature.

Perhaps. I'm taking another long trip next week so I will have more personal info. I don't bother looking at range in my local driving because it's not accurate and doesn't matter. (short trips)

 

[Buckminster]

TMC is on fire!

 

[gora321]

Never2Late‏ @LateNever2
AP in Europe is approved..... $TSLAQ what’s next?!
ttps://www.streetinsider.com/dr/news.php?id=15098738

8:27 AM - 8 Feb 2019

 

[Tempus]

i find the whole "range loss in cold" discussion is a lot of angst about nothing. Yes, you get less range in cold (and also heavy winds and driving rain, go figure). It's not unique to the EV. As has been stated above, ICE cars have the same problems - just nobody is thinking about range from that perspective.

As an anecdote - when we had that crazy cold weather/snow recently here in Virginia, I tried to start up my dad's mercedes to move it off the street where it was parked while my parents are wintering in florida, and the damn thing wouldn't even start from the cold. At the same time my Model 3 had zero issues...

Tempus

 

[gora321]

Alex‏ @alex_avoigt
Mark my words: Model 3 will be #1 in Feb, March, April, M ... New BEV registrations in

in Jan:
799 Renault ZOE
746 VW e-Golf
703 BMW i3 (inkl. 58 BMW i3 mit Range Extender)
407 Audi e-tron
302 Kia Soul EV
291 Hyundai Kona
288 Nissan Leaf
264 Smart fortwo ed ....
Source: KBA

9:12 AM - 8 Feb 2019

 

[jhm]

Why would Tesla need a partner for the drivetrain on a pickup?

Tesla doesn't need a partner. Rather another truck maker needs Tesla for a high performance battery electric drivetrain.

 

[KarenRei]

Note that conflating wind/storm losses with cold losses isn't helpful, except to the extent that 1) winter may be windier than summer in some locations, and 2) it's important that people know how the combination of bad factors can add up. But just simply conflating them without noting that wind and cold losses are different is, IMHO, harmful. It makes people think, "If it gets cold, I'll lose 40-50% of my range". Sure, if you drive in raging blizzard and it's -13°C outside then yeah you might, but just doing a road trip when it's "cold out" won't do that. It's a conflation of factors.

A 20mph/32kph headwind when you're driving 65mph/105kph makes it as though you were actually driving 85mph/137kph. And crosswinds hurt your drag coefficient.

Sorry, this will be my last comment on this - don't want this OT to go on too long

 

[Mark's Beagle]

Model 3 charges faster at CCS station (125 kW) than superchargers?

This can't last long.

And that taper...

 

[gora321]

Unifor walks off job at Lear plant to protest GM cuts

 

[bpjod]

Not sure why we are not getting it. Have not gone on a very long road trip, but did about 150 miles round trip in very cold weather (below 0 F) and did not have a material reduction. I also have a friend who lives by me with a dual motor, and he also has not had any material reduction.

TL/DR summary:
Around freezing, mixed road conditions: about 15% loss in range on road trip
Around freezing, mixed road conditions, fully loaded car + roof box: about 30% loss in range on road trip
-27C, icy/snow covered roads, prewarmed car/battery: 38% loss in range on road trip + slow Supercharging​

I'm not seeing a terrible reduction in range around freezing. I haven't been tracking, but I've been seeing numbers more like 180-195 Wh/km (15% range loss). In fact, on a couple of ski trips to the mountains with a roof box, fully loaded (trunk, frunk, under trunk space, roof box, 4 passengers), driving about 125 kph I've been averaging about 230 Wh/km. These trips have been at temps ranging from -5C to +3C and clear roads to lightly snow covered. This compares to my summertime average of ~160 Wh/km driving at these speeds with loaded car but NO roof rack & box. So that is about a 30% loss in range, but with a roof box and high speeds. Without the roof box I've been doing far better.

However, last Sunday I deliberately went out and drove about 250 km. The temps ranged from -28C to -26C. Most of my trip was highway, about half with TACC set at 106 km/h, the other half at 116 km/h; just me in an empty car. On this trip I used 260 Wh/km for the highway portions of the drive (i.e. getting to the city and getting from the city to home, but not including the errands I ran in the city with cold soaking, etc.). This represents a 38% loss in range. The car/battery was prewarmed at home in the garage before heading out and at an outdoor SuperCharger with the heat left on in the car while SuperCharging before heading home.

I'm okay with that loss, it still gives me 280 km usable range in these cold temps and I hope to not be driving much in these temps. The shoulders of the highways and city streets were littered with broken down ICE vehicles whereas my Model 3 performed flawlessly. I left the cabin heat on all day while doing my errands and came back to a nice warm car with a still warm battery and not too great a hit on my battery's state of charge.

My biggest concern is actually the slow rate of SuperCharging. I didn't keep staring at my app, however it appeared to not go above 18kW at any time I checked. For a long road trip at these temps, that would lead to much longer stays at the chargers than I'd hope for.

I don't know how to change how the link appears here, but this is cold spell my trip was taken in:
Alberta: 31,000 calls for roadside help in extreme cold
Alberta: 31,000 calls for roadside help in extreme cold

 

[gora321]

FCA paid $77 million in 2018 for U.S. fuel economy penalties

 

[madodel]

I'm somewhat upset over this loss-of-range coverage that's been occurring; there has been a little bit of appropriate pushback in this thread but even in the appropriate sites it hasn't been properly addressed.

ALL of my diesel and gasoline vehicles suffer very obvious loss of range at low temperatures. I used to think that it should be the opposite: that increased air density would enhance combustion, but this isn't so. Unfortunately I've never kept appropriate logs to demonstrate the differences, but I know that every time travel out of or back to Alaska, the change in efficiency is remarkable regardless of whether I'm heading southbound or north. I would say that if I were getting 19mpg with a given load in Montana, by the time I hit the Alaska Range I would be seeing 11-12mpg. That's 37-42 percent right there.

Of course, snowpack has an immediate effect. The increased rolling resistance of even hard-packed snow whacks fuel economy to a fare-thee-well.

Overall, I have the ineluctable impression that battery-powered auto drivers are supremely more conscious of their energy consumption than are their liquid fuel counterparts, and this translates to the kinds of comments we've been subjected to over the past month or so. This suggests to me that a carefully-crafted analysis of all vehicles' performance under differing weather conditions is essential.

I think most ICE drivers don't pay any attention to this as they don't have the data easily available. I noticed it in my Highlander Hybrid. I never got the rated MPG in it to begin with, but it would go down 15-25% in the winter. ICE cars should all have milage displays always displayed.

Now when I drive my X I just use seat heat and leave off the cabin heat unless I need the windshield defroster on. That of course doesn't fly if my wife is in the car. But even with the heat off I am still seeing 450 - 500+ Wh/m. But it has been fairly cold here off and on the past couple of weeks.