bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Would that still be true if you only took a road trip a few times/year? At what point does the more expensive battery not look attractive?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
What is Tesla Motors' biggest flaw/challenge?
- Thread starter Yggdrasill
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
Would that still be true if you only took a road trip a few times/year? At what point does the more expensive battery not look attractive?
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Given only one choice, I'd rather have the range to make semi-regular trips, so I don't have to stop. Of course it is better to have both.
Right now I need an EV that will get more than 100 miles of range in highway driving, because I have semi-regular (1-2 times per month) trip that is that long (one way, but I have at least a couple of hours to stop at the destination before making the return trip). I won't be getting an EV with less than that (like the Leaf), even with rapid charge capability because I would rather not have to stop mid-way. And even if a station gets built in between, it might be occupied, so I can't rely on it.
I think the answer will vary depending on how much range you are talking about.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Personally I think to some degree it does make sense to have a 50 kW (or 44kW) network for cars like the Leaf and Zoe with a ~100 mile range, but more to extend the range with 1 or perhaps 2 recharges, and perhaps for *rare* longer trips. However this is surely a limited market, though sufficiently large by itself.
Larger range, faster charging (90 kW), a network extending also beyond the most popular routes, and lower relative price, will each increase the number of people able to use EVs, and interested to buy them.
If you want, you can add "education about real needs" as one other factor. Or "education about climate science". "peak oil". "solar power". "trade deficit". As long as it doesn't come at the cost of support for the other factors.
A larger range gives more independence, while a better network is not only necessary for longer trips, but also costs less per car (above a certain volume).
Finding good combinations of these features is the challenge for EV companies when making future product choices, especially if they need (or want) to make profit. I think Tesla does a good job at that, together with its power train business. The Model S should give Tesla enough breathing space to time future developments in sync with any necessary battery (price-) development. However Tesla can't do the same as Nissan or GM, and produce products that don't make profit. Nevertheless, I believe (now as much as ever) that Tesla is more important for a timely EV future than those products currently trying to serve the mass-market. "Electric miles driven" is not yet my benchmark, not for many years. Showing the real world feasibility of a complete solution, as profitable products, with happy owners, is my current benchmark.
Larger range, faster charging (90 kW), a network extending also beyond the most popular routes, and lower relative price, will each increase the number of people able to use EVs, and interested to buy them.
If you want, you can add "education about real needs" as one other factor. Or "education about climate science". "peak oil". "solar power". "trade deficit". As long as it doesn't come at the cost of support for the other factors.
A larger range gives more independence, while a better network is not only necessary for longer trips, but also costs less per car (above a certain volume).
Finding good combinations of these features is the challenge for EV companies when making future product choices, especially if they need (or want) to make profit. I think Tesla does a good job at that, together with its power train business. The Model S should give Tesla enough breathing space to time future developments in sync with any necessary battery (price-) development. However Tesla can't do the same as Nissan or GM, and produce products that don't make profit. Nevertheless, I believe (now as much as ever) that Tesla is more important for a timely EV future than those products currently trying to serve the mass-market. "Electric miles driven" is not yet my benchmark, not for many years. Showing the real world feasibility of a complete solution, as profitable products, with happy owners, is my current benchmark.
I agree. Was talking more in terms of ideal situation some day far in the future where multiple quick charging stations are at each highway exit similar to gas stations. That's decades away I'l imagine though. By then, range probably won't be much of an issue anyway. I'd rather have much more range like you said to have the added flexibility to find a charge station when I wanted to without having to worry if it's taken or not working.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Range is only part of the equation. A larger pack size also means the cells will have an easier, and longer, cycle life. They'll be discharged less for the same distances and they will put out lower C rates for the same power, preserving capacity. Avoiding the need for fast charging also reduces cell stress.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
I want the larger battery. I always want more range. 
But I'm questioning if that's necessary for widespread adoption because of the high cost. The question in my mind is IF we work at building out the charging infrastructure and improve charging technology (ie, how fast can we jam electrons into that battery), will that accelerate adoption at a lower cost than the large battery? I agree it's likely a combination of both. But I suspect the network will become more and more important.
But I'm questioning if that's necessary for widespread adoption because of the high cost. The question in my mind is IF we work at building out the charging infrastructure and improve charging technology (ie, how fast can we jam electrons into that battery), will that accelerate adoption at a lower cost than the large battery? I agree it's likely a combination of both. But I suspect the network will become more and more important.
My long trips are up to Canada for hiking. Spokane to Revelstoke, B.C. is about a 7-hour drive. When I was younger I could do a ten-hour drive, but at my age, seven leaves me exhausted. Of course I could break it into two days (IF there was a charging station along the way, which there is not, and likely won't be in the foreseeable future, due to the isolated nature of the route) but I don't like to have to do that. IF there was a whole network of L3 fast chargers along the route at the absolutely ideal spots, and I drove a Leaf, I could probably make it with four half-hour stops, making my trip nine hours. A few delays to wait for a spot to charge could make it eleven or twelve hours. And just one charge station out of service, and I'd have to call for a flatbed to haul me to the next charge station.
No thanks. And I'm already committed to electric cars. So, yes, range is a big issue.
My solution is to drive a gas car those few times a year.
Yes, but we're talking about challenges for Tesla, today, when there are a few charging stations in a few places, and people are still finding some out of service and having to be towed. And where I live, AFAIK, the only public charge points are L1.
This is one of the reasons I'm so happy I ended up with the Roadster instead of a Leaf. I'm sure I would have been delighted with a Leaf, and the range would have been adequate, even if it meant driving the Prius a few more times per year; but the large pack in the Roadster gives me plenty of range, plenty of room for battery deterioration with age, and far less stress since it never goes very low.
Everyone here is already committed to some degree or another to the idea of electric cars. Some are driving them now, and others are just waiting for a car that has the range or capacity they need, or the cost they can afford. But the general public has a long way to go. This is both bad and good: Bad because we need to make the shift away from gasoline ASAP; good because a gradual acceptance and a slow growth of electric transportation will give plenty of time for the development of infrastructure. Tesla does not have to worry about the people who need a 400-mile car because there are so many now for whom a 160-mile car will work; or about the people who would need a charging infrastructure, because there are so many who do not. There is no charging infrastructure where I live, but I never drive more than a hundred miles or so in a day, and those longest drives are just to enjoy a sunny day in the country.
But there's a significant sub-set of people for whom a Model S would be sufficient, for whom also the Leaf is perfectly adequate, and much cheaper. And whether Bluestar can offer advantages over the Leaf, in terms of price:range radio, given Nissan's economies of scale and deep pockets, remains to be seen. That's a challenge to Tesla. I think they can meet that challenge, but it's a real and significant one. I, for one, would never have bought my Roadster had Nissan been willing to deliver my Leaf any time before they began delivering Leafs to people who placed their orders four months after I placed mine!
Thanks Larry Chanin for very useful info! Clearly TM is doing the right thing by keeping its options open. I think part of my point may still stand though: IF, for WHATEVER reasons, flat and larger cells do end up winning out, some good chunk of TMs intellectual property which currently defines their market lead is no longer critical, right?
I guess it just means to me that if the point comes where TM looses the one innovation which, to date, has been the most critical ingredient to its success (safety, range and price advantages achieved via its small, high volume cell approach), then it will be particularly important to stay nimble and show that its drivetrain can beat out the competition based on other metrics as well.
I guess it depends on what you consider "market lead". I don't consider Tesla as having the market lead if based on EVs sold. That front-runner position probably belongs to Nissan.
Here is Tesla's response to your question:
We believe one of our core competencies is the design of our complete battery pack system. We have designed our battery pack system to permit flexibility with respect to battery cell chemistry, form factor and vendor that we adopt for battery cell supply. In so doing, we believe that we can leverage the substantial battery cell investments and advancements being made globally by battery cell manufacturers to continue to improve the cost per kilowatt-hour of our battery pack. We maintain an internal battery cell testing lab and an extensive performance database of the many available lithium-ion cell vendors and chemistry types. We intend to incorporate the battery cells that provide the best value and performance possible into our battery packs, and we expect this to continue over time as battery cells continue to improve in energy storage capacity, longevity, power delivery and cost. We believe this flexibility will enable us to continue to evaluate new battery cells as they become commercially viable, and thereby optimize battery pack system performance and cost for our current and future vehicles. We believe our ability to change battery cell chemistries and vendors while retaining our existing investments in software, electronics, testing and vehicle packaging, will enable us to quickly deploy various battery cells into our products and leverage the latest advancements in battery cell technology.
In my opinion Tesla's success or failure does not hinge on the fact that it uses small high volume cells, although I do believe this currently is an advantage that makes it impossible for big players to influence the supply of Tesla's batteries. If Tesla is to be a success it will be because it has a grasp of a multitude of factors, both technical and qualitative.
Larry
rogbmw
Member
I think Tesla's biggest challenge will be Customer Service. I think my Father-in-law says it best: his business was insurance, and he had an insurance agency in a small town. He said: Essentially most insurance companies are very similar, but it is the service that the customer receives that makes the difference. Smart man. IF Tesla takes care of their customers, then we - as customers - will sing their praises to others, and help to dispell the EV fears many have. I hope Tesla can follow the customer service that LEXUS gives - LEXUS essentially changed the way customer service was given to the Auto business. Maybe individual dealerships of other brands gave great service (I have personally experienced this), but overall, LEXUS is known for their customer service. Automobiles are made by people, and there are going to be times that things have to be fixed - period. But, its how you perceive that experience that will keep you coming back or selling the car. Simply read through the posts in this topic, and you realize LEXUS does it right (and no, I do not have a LEXUS).
As a "S" and a "X" reservation holder, I am excited about Tesla's direction. I hope we can say the same thing in 5 years!
As a "S" and a "X" reservation holder, I am excited about Tesla's direction. I hope we can say the same thing in 5 years!
There are inherent limitations and difficulties in providing service when your customers may be far from any service center. I accepted this fact when I bought my Roadster. The nearest Tesla store is 5 hours away. But I agree with you that customer service is important, and is a challenge with so few stores and customers so spread out. And while they can get away with charging $175/hour to work on a hundred-thousand dollar car, I think they'll have to lower their rates when they start selling a $30,000 car.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
The best customer service Tesla can provide is building a car that doesn't need service. Same is true for any automaker. One of the reasons my parents have only owned Toyotas for the last 20 years or so is they just work, at least ours have.
Perfection is impossible. I agree that reliability is of paramount importance. But customer care when something does go wrong is essential as well.
I owned an American Motors CJ-5 Jeep. It was a piece of garbage, and service was abysmal. I didn't buy another American-made car until the Tesla. Both my Honda and my Toyota were excellent and reliable cars, and service was top-notch. (Honda service was much better than Toyota's though. Honda gave me a loaner for every service. Toyota only gave me a ride in a "courtesy car." And after the courtesy car driver ran a red light while looking at his address list rather than the road, I stopped using that offer, and took a cab instead.) Tesla won't be able to offer Toyota-level service until they have a lot more stores.
I owned an American Motors CJ-5 Jeep. It was a piece of garbage, and service was abysmal. I didn't buy another American-made car until the Tesla. Both my Honda and my Toyota were excellent and reliable cars, and service was top-notch. (Honda service was much better than Toyota's though. Honda gave me a loaner for every service. Toyota only gave me a ride in a "courtesy car." And after the courtesy car driver ran a red light while looking at his address list rather than the road, I stopped using that offer, and took a cab instead.) Tesla won't be able to offer Toyota-level service until they have a lot more stores.
Norbert
TSLA will win
PHP:
And it appears Tesla is very much considering this when designing the car. (Elon mentioned it as an argument against building a gas-extended hybrid.)
The Roadster requires a once a year service (or 10-12k miles)...will the Model S (which will be more complex than the roadster) require the same amount of service? Most ICE cars require a once a year service...From a cost/time perspective Tesla thus far has done a poor job highlighting the "service free" nature of electric vehicles.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Sort of. 100K+ vehicles seem to require regular, expensive service. Tesla may be lower than average for the Roadster compared to similarly priced vehicles. If they require the same sort of service for the S then they have missed the mark.
My guess is that anyone who goes for one of the big vendors wasn't likely to go through with the sale in the first place. Paying big bucks for a car that only goes 100 miles on a good day isn't competition in my opinion. If they had equal range there would be some concern.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Too slow? The Model S is going to be on sale this summer, right on schedule. Not to mention with a measurably superior product.
Well, the schedule has changed a couple times over the years so it's on time relative to the last change, which granted was a while ago, but Tesla is no longer way ahead of the competition in terms of releasing a product. Competitors are not too far behind them (in the sedan market). Hell, BMW beat them to it with the Active-E though that's in some sort of limited production. Now, being first isn't always good since folks coming in after often do better in the market, but that's often the big boys coming in later and gobbling up the trail blazer.
In this case Tesla isn't first nor is it a big boy, so there's some reason to worry. I have some faith or I wouldn't be buying the Model S, but (in reference to the thread's title) it is something I worry about.
Similar threads
