To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
Locked
240U
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:54 pm
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by 240U » Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:24 pm

Musk is a snake oil salesman.

TSLA has no chance of survival unless they fire him.

It's not too late to short the stock if anyone is interested in making some money.
Per my statement earlier, he has manufactured and sold billions of dollars worth of cars. Model S, Model X and Model 3 have been produced in large quantity and are continually improving. He has produced everything he said he would or is in the process of producing it in the case of the Model 3. A snake oil salesman sells stuff that has no positive attributes and may in fact be harmful. The Model S is the car he said he was going to produce and he has made it in sufficient quantities to position Tesla as a leader in the market. The Model X has done the same. The Model 3 is in the process of being sold and brought up to speed. It is nearly two years ahead of the original schedule and has received very good reviews. Certainly not perfect but no car is.

So to your claim, How is he a snake oil salesman? You make claims and have nothing to substantiate them. He has tried so hard to get the Model 3 to a huge presales list that he has placed his company is financial stress. At this point in time I think that he is essential to Tesla. Although to your point even EM has said that at some point he is likely to be fired.

Even with the stress he is still looking forward with new product and is still advancing the EV technology. How is that a bad thing. If you don't think it is a good investment don't invest in it. If you think it is a good stock to short do so. But why the hate? He is doing nothing to you. He isn't forcing you to buy a car or invest in the company. Perhaps you are invested individually in the status quo companies. I doubt it as you wouldn't likely be on this forum if you were. But even if you were, why hate him. You say Tesla is going to go broke soon. That should be a good thing if you are invested counter to Tesla.

I still am waiting for an answer to my question. Why the hate?

Helo80
Posts: 1506
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:47 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by Helo80 » Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:59 pm

240U wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:24 pm
He has produced everything he said he would or is in the process of producing it in the case of the Model 3. A snake oil salesman sells stuff that has no positive attributes and may in fact be harmful. The Model S is the car he said he was going to produce and he has made it in sufficient quantities to position Tesla as a leader in the market. The Model X has done the same. The Model 3 is in the process of being sold and brought up to speed. It is nearly two years ahead of the original schedule and has received very good reviews. Certainly not perfect but no car is.

Don't take this as me nit-picking your argument. Rather, Elon has a long history of gross exaggerations...

from 2016: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesl ... SKCN0XV2JL
Musk also said a 2020 volume target was close to 1 million vehicles.

Tesla’s new 500,000 [NOTE: 500k is 2018's target] target is still a fraction of what traditional, full-line automakers produce annually. Ford Motor Co (F.N) sold nearly 800,000 of its best-selling F-Series pickups on the U.S. market last year.
I have grave doubts they will be an EV automaking leader. For $100k+ with the Model S and X, right now that's mostly affluent territory that companies like Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, etc. dominate in. Obviously none of this will be sitting idly by. The Model S is like 6 years old..... it's due for a redesign.

I'm curious how many non-BH, very affluent people (Hollywood crowd, brokers, money managers, etc.) with stupid amounts of money have bought a Tesla Model S or Model X for the novelty, have gotten tired of it, and moved on to something new. IOW -- curious how long non-BH people are keeping these and what kind of brand loyalty exists (outside of BH, reddit, and other tech enclave niches that worship Elon Musk).

Helo80
Posts: 1506
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:47 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by Helo80 » Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:09 pm

randomguy wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:25 am

In 1999 did you say the samething about amazon?

Nope.... though the B&M scene is not as bleak as some point it out to be. Amazon dominates online sales though.

I give you credit for survivor bias though. :sharebeer

btw -- hope you bought AMZN bigly in 1999 and dumped all your vanguard mutual funds for it.

madbrain
Posts: 5530
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:06 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by madbrain » Mon Apr 02, 2018 2:16 am

Strummer wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:43 am
Electric cars don't need oil changes or much else — brake pads last practically forever because of regenerative braking, for example. (I've still got the original brake pads in my Prius, which has well over 200,000 miles on it, and the regenerative braking on a Prius is mild compared to pure EVs.)
About brake pads and EVs, this is not universal. My 2012 Leaf had brake problems from year 1 . I think it had to do with the steep hill I live in, and starting every drive downhill with a full battery, which means it couldn't benefit from renegerative braking. No such problems on Volt and Bolt so far.
Glad I returned that leased Leaf.

madbrain
Posts: 5530
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:06 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by madbrain » Mon Apr 02, 2018 3:03 am

jdb wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:26 pm
Also looking forward to installing Tesla solar roof on our house with garage storage battery so can get off the electric grid.
Please let us know how it goes with off-grid and EV combination.

Last time I checked a few years ago, even with 40 solar panels, we have huge shortage of solar generation vs consumption in the winter months. So much so that it would have taken significant space and half a million dollars in batteries with only 7 year predicted life to be able to go off grid. That was when we only had one EV. We have a had few rainier winters lately which would make things look even worse. EVs are a huge consumer of electricity. This January we had net grid consumption of 1546 kWh, and solar generation of only 565 kWh. This means we actually consumed 2111 KWh, and solar PV actually covered only 27% of our consumption. Whereas in June of last year, we had -88 kWh grid consumption (ie. net excess into the grid), and 1719 kWh solar production - ie. solar PV covered 105% of our electricity usage that month. For july through october, we had net grid consumption due higher temperatures and increased use of home AC - between 300 and 600 kWh net grid consumption.

The point is, you need to oversize your solar significantly if you are off-grid, and you also need to have huge amounts of batteries in order to store the excess energy in summer months so it can be used in the winter. This would be extremely costly, take a lot of space, and need battery replacement. The battery technology just isn't there. I believe grid-interconnected batteries (like the Tesla powerwall) will become practical and will make sense once daytime prices for electricity plummet and grid energy cost at night rises - the opposite of what it is today. But off-grid is going to remain a very difficult proposition, unless you have spare millions and are willing to spend more on your batteries than your cars and your entire home as well.

Another possibility would be to interconnect with the grid in winter months only - not sure that will be allowed or cost-effective in the long run. And not practical if you are in an area with the grid isn't available, of course.

We drive about 80 miles a day on average between our Volt and Bolt. My Volt gets about 3.5 miles/kWh year round average, and Bolt 4 miles/kWh year round. Charging losses are about 15% on 240V. That means over 20 kWh/day average consumption year-round. In comparison, the house + batteries uses a grand total of 53 kWh per day average (and the 53 kWh which was offset by 38 kWh per day solar production last year). So the 2 EVs account for 38% of our total electricity consumption. And this is a mansion with 2 ACs, 5 refrigerators/freezers of various sizes, outdoor hot tub running year round set to 98F, 250 lightbulbs, etc..

The electricity consumption of EVs is much higher in the winter months also, due to running the heater which is a big energy consumer in EVs, unlike ICEs. As a result, we consume more electricity in the winter months than in the summer months, despite not having any AC consumption in winter.

In other word, having an EV - let alone 2 - makes it very unlikely we'll ever be able to go off-grid. Unless we wanted to charge away from home, but it is neither practical nor affordable.

The following page claims LiOn battery storage price will drop to $200/kWh by the year 2030.
http://www.pveurope.eu/News/Energy-Stor ... 00-per-kWh
Our net (not total!) grid consumption was 5546 kWh last year. If we didn't expand our solar (or couldn't), a 5546 kWh battery system would cost $1.1M then. Probably, expanding solar would be much less expensive, but to do that, we would need to go to a 400 amp main panel, do very expensive and ugly tilt and/or tracking mounts on the remaining roof areas, and probably cover our entire front yard with PV too.
I think if we did all that, we might be able to reduce the net annual grid consumption to 0. That type of a solar PV expansion probably would cost over $100K. But we would likely still have net energy shortages in winter months, since we would need about 4 times as many panels as we have now to get through a month like this january, and we already have 40 panels, and it's very hard to conceive how 160 panels could fit on the roof and lot, and get the same level of sun exposure as the existing panels (no shading). If I wanted to do that, I would probably have had to buy the empty lot next to my home years ago when it was listed for $300k. Now there is another home on it.

Even then, we would still have 4x as much solar production than we need in June, and nowhere for the excess to go. Unless we became the neighborhood electric utility, in summer only ;) Since the PUC probably wouldn't allow it, offering public EV charging out of my driveway in summer months would probably be a better place for the excess electricity.

Buysider
Posts: 747
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 9:36 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by Buysider » Mon Apr 02, 2018 6:42 am

About brake pads and EVs, this is not universal. My 2012 Leaf had brake problems from year 1 . I think it had to do with the steep hill I live in, and starting every drive downhill with a full battery, which means it couldn't benefit from renegerative braking. No such problems on Volt and Bolt so far.
Glad I returned that leased Leaf.
Yikes, charged to 100% every day? That'll kill the brakes and the battery. FWIW, I had original brakes for +50k milies, and kept all 12 bars. YMMV.

User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 10625
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by TomatoTomahto » Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:06 am

madbrain, jdb, others interested in solar and batteries, I will be starting a thread soonish (thanks Elon) about our new house. We have a large solar field installed, but the utility is the battery, and I am wondering about converting to heat pumps (we are near Boston), adding batteries, etc. I am wondering about the economics of re-doing the energy profile of the house.

Apparently, the annual electric cost to the house is $0, and I've heard that there is quite a net surplus. In 2017, this is what the monitoring software tells me about production. In any case, I don't think charging my Tesla will swing the needle into the negative :D Perhaps this can be an inducement to get my wife to order a Tesla also.

Image
Okay, I get it; I won't be political or controversial. The Earth is flat.

jdb
Posts: 1641
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by jdb » Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:21 am

madbrain wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 3:03 am
jdb wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:26 pm
Also looking forward to installing Tesla solar roof on our house with garage storage battery so can get off the electric grid.
Please let us know how it goes with off-grid and EV combination.
Wow, am impressed with your research. Like many other things in life I know what I want but not quite sure how to get it. We live in south Florida with large unimpeded roof exposure to east and south so could generate solar power throughout year, but do use house a/c all year. Have not done the research, all I have done is put up $1K deposit with Tesla to be first in neighborhood when solar available. And even if can’t leave grid completely the combination of solar power and storage battery will help lessen our dependence on our local evil electrical monopoly. Hopefully storage battery technology will be improving the storage capacity. But will let you know results when finally installed. Thanks for your post.

randomguy
Posts: 9035
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by randomguy » Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:26 am

Valuethinker wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:50 am
Strummer wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:43 am
I appreciate your thoughtful posts, valuethinker and randomguy. I'll throw out one other element of Tesla's business model that gives them a big advantage over other auto manufacturers: no dealers. Auto dealers make the majority of their income off of service, not sales; periodic maintenance is a big money-maker. Electric cars don't need oil changes or much else — brake pads last practically forever because of regenerative braking, for example. (I've still got the original brake pads in my Prius, which has well over 200,000 miles on it, and the regenerative braking on a Prius is mild compared to pure EVs.) With auto manufacturers switching to EVs in a big way, what happens to their existing dealer networks in 10-15 years when their service revenue drops 90%? I don't know if Tesla is The Answer, but they've got a lot of the ingredients in place for long-term success.

wrongfunds, since you started this little discussion, I was pleased to see you back in the thread! I'll be sure to post thoughts about the car here once I get it and as I have the opportunity to live with it. With regards to the lack of a fob, I like the idea in theory, but it will all come down to how it's implemented. So far, I haven't heard a lot of complaints from owners.
Just further to that the auto parts manufacturers are already having conferences about the threat.

The EV does not have the complex drive train. From memory, it's something like a 30% drop in total parts per vehicle (it might be more than that).

Another case where technology is just going to disrupt everything. I heard about a legal application this week which is (already) saving clients of a big law firm 10s of thousands of dollars.
Does tesla charge 10% of what mercedes does for 15k/yearly maintenance? Last I checked they were charging more like 90% or so. Not a big change. Given that Toyota/Lexus stay in business while having something like 1/3rd the problems of other cars, I am not sure it is a killer problem. Even when Tesla gets their drive train reliability up to Toyota standards, they still have electronics, ac, and the like which will all need to be fixed. There will be changes in the market but how disruptive is hard to say. Predicating the future is really hard. What happens if 75% of the cars go electric to gas stations? Maybe keeping your gas car for long trips doesn't work when the gas station network falls apart.

randomguy
Posts: 9035
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by randomguy » Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:38 am

Helo80 wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:09 pm
randomguy wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:25 am

In 1999 did you say the samething about amazon?

Nope.... though the B&M scene is not as bleak as some point it out to be. Amazon dominates online sales though.

I give you credit for survivor bias though. :sharebeer

btw -- hope you bought AMZN bigly in 1999 and dumped all your vanguard mutual funds for it.
Definitely survivorship bias.:) But it doesn't change the fact in the late 99s there were tons of articles written about the crazy valuations of internet companies where noNames like amazon were worth more than B&M retailers like Barnes and Nobles. And people made the argument that now that BN got the internet they could ramp up and crush Amazon. There is probably some alternative future where that even happened:)

Tesla is a classic high risk/high reward story. If the EV revolution happens and if they end up in a dominant position, the current valuation could very well be justified. The combo of supercharger network and controlling service might result in them being a lot more profitable than other OEMs. Or they could very few make a few misteps (see smart phone market where companies like RIMM, Microsoft, danger, Palm,.... all failed to execute on the change when apple entered the market. Of them only Palm really shipped a competive product within 2 years of iPhone release and they were drastically underfunded) and get eaten up by other companies.

Valuethinker
Posts: 40259
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by Valuethinker » Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:10 am

TomatoTomahto wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:06 am
madbrain, jdb, others interested in solar and batteries, I will be starting a thread soonish (thanks Elon) about our new house. We have a large solar field installed, but the utility is the battery, and I am wondering about converting to heat pumps (we are near Boston), adding batteries, etc. I am wondering about the economics of re-doing the energy profile of the house.
Heat Pumps. Tricky in New England. Gas in NE is expensive or unavailable, but electricity is also very expensive. A storage battery is unlikely to have anything like enough energy to keep your home warm, unless you are super insulated.

http://www.nottenergy.com/energy_cost_comparison/

has the conversion factors for energy content. You need to know (because USA uses BTU) that 1 kwhr = 3,412 BTU.

If the new home is well insulated, HP will work. Then the question is Geothermal (Ground Source) v. Air Source:

- GSHP costs a lot to install - big issues there. If you have room for a trench, then it's probably doable for a predictable cost (relative did that on a farm in Ontario v. electric/ propane heating, and it was good payback - less than 7 years). Coefficient of Performance (COP) should average 4.0 or higher

- ASHP a lot less expensive (you can get a sound baffle if noise is an issue w neighbours) - the good Japanese ones should get you near 4.0, but it will fall off below 32F/ 0 degrees C

Probably, if you have access to natural gas:

- NG will be cheaper even if NE prices
- it will be a wash on emissions because NE electricity is not particularly clean (as the nukes shut down) and the marginal kwhr is likely to be imported from another electricity grid, and thus be emissions intensive (coal fired)

If you don't have NG then HPs are probably better than propane or oil fired solutions. Not necessarily cheaper at today's prices, but in the round environmentally cleaner.

HPs run best long and slow. They don't put out the heat output of a gas/ propane/ oil furnace-- they don't heat the house up quickly. Thus, you need a well insulated house, and you run the HP all the time.

Your net metering/ Feed In Tariff also comes into play. What rate are you getting for exporting to the grid? Because you will be generating electricity at mid day, when it's less valuable, and needing it post sundown, when it's very expensive. On the other hand, if your house is well insulated, you can "store" heat via the HP-- heat the house up in the day, then cut the HP in the crucial hours for the grid (sundown to about 9-930 pm).

You can see by the graph below that you would have to store a *lot* of power for a long time to meet your December/ January heating needs, when solar insolation is so low in those months. It's possible to get a solar thermal heatstore (basically a big water tank, or air in gravel, highly insulated) but it would be a *big* tank.

Biomass (wood) is of course an option BUT 1. it smells nice, but it's not clean (in fact the air pollution is quite significant, to the extent places with temperature inversions like Aspen CO have banned new installations; if you have neighbours with asthma, they will not thank you) ; 2. cost of so doing varies a lot-- if you can store green wood, it's going to be a lot less than if you have to buy dried wood. In any case it will vary a lot by locality even within NE. Given the Black Soot Problem (subject of much scientific debate) I am not at all sure burning biomass is environmentally friendly.
Apparently, the annual electric cost to the house is $0, and I've heard that there is quite a net surplus. In 2017, this is what the monitoring software tells me about production. In any case, I don't think charging my Tesla will swing the needle into the negative :D Perhaps this can be an inducement to get my wife to order a Tesla also.

Image
Say your household electricity consumption is 6,000 kwhr pa (about 40-50% of the average US home with AC). In NE, something like 6 peak kw solar array should handle that.

Your household heating consumption is likely to be something like say 100k BTU ie c 29k kwhr pa*. Half that if excellent insulated. That is an absolutely huge solar array. Even if you average COP 4.0, that's 7,500 kwhr pa or another peak kw array of 7.5 kw additional.

You'd have to add your EVs on top of that. Over to you how much they burn.

In a household with one EV, I'd want the second vehicle to be petrol-engined or PHEV. Thus covering the 2 eventualities (not enough juice, not enough gas).

* I am hand waving on that number, you'd have to track it more closely. Also estimating you at 1 peak kw = 1000 kwhr pa. In London, which has a higher latitude and probably more cloud, it's about 850 kwhr for a south facing array with no shade.

User avatar
Leif
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:15 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by Leif » Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:03 am

emoore wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:46 pm
I probably won't ever buy a Tesla but I think Musk will go down in history as someone that lead the change from ICE cars to electric cars.
I never bought an EV until my Tesla Model S. In the future I will never buy another ICE car. Not sure if it will be a Tesla. When the EV charging infrastructure if built out that will open the doors to more manufacturers.

ThriftyPhD
Posts: 870
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:43 am

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by ThriftyPhD » Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:29 am

Valuethinker wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:10 am
Apparently, the annual electric cost to the house is $0, and I've heard that there is quite a net surplus. In 2017, this is what the monitoring software tells me about production. In any case, I don't think charging my Tesla will swing the needle into the negative :D Perhaps this can be an inducement to get my wife to order a Tesla also.

Image
Say your household electricity consumption is 6,000 kwhr pa (about 40-50% of the average US home with AC). In NE, something like 6 peak kw solar array should handle that.

Your household heating consumption is likely to be something like say 100k BTU ie c 29k kwhr pa*. Half that if excellent insulated. That is an absolutely huge solar array. Even if you average COP 4.0, that's 7,500 kwhr pa or another peak kw array of 7.5 kw additional.

You'd have to add your EVs on top of that. Over to you how much they burn.

In a household with one EV, I'd want the second vehicle to be petrol-engined or PHEV. Thus covering the 2 eventualities (not enough juice, not enough gas).

* I am hand waving on that number, you'd have to track it more closely. Also estimating you at 1 peak kw = 1000 kwhr pa. In London, which has a higher latitude and probably more cloud, it's about 850 kwhr for a south facing array with no shade.
Take a look at the scale on his graph. Over 1 MWhr even in January. Over 40 MWhr for the year. "We have a large solar field installed". This isn't a rooftop install, it's producing a massive excess of solar. Battery is only needed overnight, not to carryover summer to winter.

User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 10625
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by TomatoTomahto » Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:39 pm

ThriftyPhD wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:29 am
Take a look at the scale on his graph. Over 1 MWhr even in January. Over 40 MWhr for the year. "We have a large solar field installed". This isn't a rooftop install, it's producing a massive excess of solar. Battery is only needed overnight, not to carryover summer to winter.
I’m sorry for taking this thread OT, and will start my own thread once I get a better handle on what my questions are. Fwiw, when I first looked at the house a couple months ago, the solar panels brought a smile to my face, which was a great relief to the realtor. And, yes, it’s a ground based installation :D
Okay, I get it; I won't be political or controversial. The Earth is flat.

240U
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:54 pm
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by 240U » Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:44 pm

Sorry I couldn't figure out where the Heat Pump question started. But to add my $.02 in. I designed PV systems for years. My standard response to someone that wanted to install a heat pump and counter the electric bill was to install a hybrid heat pump. That is a heat pump for AC and heat in moderate cold and then converts to NG in the winter with cold weather.

The heating elements used in a heat pump when the weather is below the HP rating takes WAY too much power to operate to cover with PV. The system is a little more expensive but is a lot cheaper than installing a PV system large enough to cover the electric bill in winter. That is assuming you have the roof or land space to install it.

madbrain
Posts: 5530
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:06 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by madbrain » Mon Apr 02, 2018 2:04 pm

TomatoTomahto wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:06 am
madbrain, jdb, others interested in solar and batteries, I will be starting a thread soonish (thanks Elon) about our new house. We have a large solar field installed, but the utility is the battery, and I am wondering about converting to heat pumps (we are near Boston), adding batteries, etc. I am wondering about the economics of re-doing the energy profile of the house.

Apparently, the annual electric cost to the house is $0, and I've heard that there is quite a net surplus. In 2017, this is what the monitoring software tells me about production. In any case, I don't think charging my Tesla will swing the needle into the negative :D Perhaps this can be an inducement to get my wife to order a Tesla also.

Image
Looking forward to your thread. The production numbers for December & January still seem like they wouldn't work with batteries, unless you had a very large amount of them, which means huge $$$.
FYI, my own system has produced 14 to 16 MWh depending on the year, so about 38% of yours. But given that I'm farther south, your solar field really must be quite large.
Our total consumption last year was about 20 MWh, including house and 2 cars. And we have natural gas heat and live in a much milder climate.
Not sure how efficient heat pumps are in terms of electricity consumption.
I think you are still going to be short of electricity in the winter, and will likely have massive surplus in the summer too.

Helo80
Posts: 1506
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:47 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by Helo80 » Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:30 pm

randomguy wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:38 am
Tesla is a classic high risk/high reward story. If the EV revolution happens and if they end up in a dominant position, the current valuation could very well be justified. The combo of supercharger network and controlling service might result in them being a lot more profitable than other OEMs. Or they could very few make a few misteps (see smart phone market where companies like RIMM, Microsoft, danger, Palm,.... all failed to execute on the change when apple entered the market. Of them only Palm really shipped a competive product within 2 years of iPhone release and they were drastically underfunded) and get eaten up by other companies.
Completely agree --- high risk, high reward.

I read the USA Today article on whether Musk is building the next DeLorean. Musk obviously is a visionary as he created Paypal and online payments 20 years prior to bitcoin (not exactly the same technology, but definitely moved online money transactions and fostered discussions of the ecommerce platform -- now Visa, chase, apple pay, google pay, etc. are effectively knock-offs of Paypal in my book).

With your Amazon example, Bezos started with a bookstore in his Seattle garage. Truth be told, most of us *could* more or less do the same thing with a small capital investment. Now, we would not do that well, and Amazon gets buying power, as well as logistical efficiencies, but most any BH with technical know-how *could* start an online bookstore. There are enough web tools out there to build a small ecommerce site and sell stuff like books (or anything). The worst that could happen, you're out a few thousand dollars in unsold merchandise.

With Tesla... it's very expensive to design, test, and then mass produce a car. The capital investment is huge compared to starting a bookstore like Jeff Bezos. I would not even know where to begin design a car, an engine for that car, working with suppliers to part the car such that an assembly plant can build it, and then finding an assembly plant... you get the idea. Musk is a multi-billionaire and a big dreamer... he can afford to hire the best... I just don't know if he's gone too far for his own good.

side note: The USA Today article does sort of irk me that Elon Musk has all of these "Captain Obvious" ideas about auto-making that Ford, GM, Toyota, etc. are not doing. I think Musk is belittling the efforts made by the big automakers and may be confronting the realities of automaking within Tesla's line now.

side note 2: I'm actually surprised Musk continues to double-down on the Tesla automaking part and wanting to sell cars to the masses -- especially with the Model 3. With the Model S and his battery plant, I sort of assumed he was building the car with his batteries as a proof of concept to kick GM, Ford, Toyota, etc. in the rear end so that they would get on the EV train and then Musk could sell his batteries to the big auto makers... I thought that was his "long con". Instead, Musk seems to really want to build cars.

Jack FFR1846
Posts: 12061
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 7:05 am
Location: 26 miles, 385 yards west of Copley Square

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by Jack FFR1846 » Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:19 pm

The first Tesla car used a lot of Lotus design, engineering and technology, including some of the computer models. This certainly gave the company a great head start to get a vehicle on the market (the Tesla Roadster in 2008). I don't know the background of newer cars. I've been a fan of the original Tesla Roadster, having owned a Lotus Elise, which the Roadster looks very much like.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/lotus-position
Bogle: Smart Beta is stupid

Valuethinker
Posts: 40259
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by Valuethinker » Tue Apr 03, 2018 3:12 am

240U wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:44 pm
Sorry I couldn't figure out where the Heat Pump question started. But to add my $.02 in. I designed PV systems for years. My standard response to someone that wanted to install a heat pump and counter the electric bill was to install a hybrid heat pump. That is a heat pump for AC and heat in moderate cold and then converts to NG in the winter with cold weather.
In the UK that could easily add another £3,000 to system cost (USD 4-5k). (All boilers are "condensing" ie 90%+ efficiency w a 2ndary heat exchanger-- indirect heating systems (hot water rads). However more than half of installations are now "combination" combis which don't need a hot water tank. Good new boiler (Vaillant!) will cost you around £1600 + installation. Reliability is an issue, you want to go with a good brand).

My read of modern ASHP is you need to get down to around 10 F (say -10-15 C) before Coefficient of Performance (COP) drops to 1.0? i.e. electric bar? So in many parts of USA (Mid Atlantic and South) you could get away with just ASHP? It's New England and the Midwest where that gets painful. Also our retail price of NG is probably 2-3x the US average (closer for New England).

The Japanese do some excellent ASHP - apparently it's the predominant form of heating & cooling there. With lots of earthquakes and no natural NG reserves, Japan has never built a domestic gas network AFAIK.

The main thing in New England is a significant percentage of homes do not have access to NG. There's a regional shortage of NG in NE due to opposition to pipeline construction and other factors. Thus the retail price is also high. Oil heat, and wood heat, are significant factors-- the only part of the USA where that is true, I believe (NE + NY State).

Heating oil is an ugly fuel for all kinds of reasons (air pollution, contamination), but if that is the backup to an ASHP, it's the backup. Propane also has its issues.

Because the need for AC is lower, I think many New England homes just have a heat source (propane or heating oil, backed up with wood) and an AC system. However the newer ASHPs can, I believe, still achieve decent performance in sub 32 degrees F (0 C) weather.
The heating elements used in a heat pump when the weather is below the HP rating takes WAY too much power to operate to cover with PV. The system is a little more expensive but is a lot cheaper than installing a PV system large enough to cover the electric bill in winter. That is assuming you have the roof or land space to install it.
I agree really big PV systems do not justify themselves. Besides all the issues with occupying that much space. I think if you install on the ground you've created a significant potential obstacle for resale plus the risk of theft etc.

It depends a lot on your net metering i.e. how is your surplus power priced going back to the grid?

The state of South Australia (Adelaide & around) is getting very exciting. They are going to try to roll out PV + batteries en masse to consumers, with aid for the social housing sector. Thus creating a virtual storage battery for the electricity grid. This is also where Musk built his supersized battery in record time.

Post privatisation, retail electricity prices in Australia are extortionate, and so it's become a leading country for installation of domestic PV.
The cost per installed peak kw of domestic PV in Australia is as little has half the US cost-- there's some interesting stuff out there how they have engineered it down (local planning applications online, common standards etc.).

denovo
Posts: 4477
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:04 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by denovo » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:31 am

Trying to circle back to the question of whether or not to buy a Tesla,

I think I would advise against it. The risk of this company completely collapsing in the next 3-5 years is infinitely higher than that of any other major company given their losses and chronic production failures.

Since there's only a small number of Tesla's and they don't share a platform with any other high-volume vehicles you could easily end up in a situation where you have a car and can't find any replacement parts.
"Don't trust everything you read on the Internet"- Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
just frank
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:13 pm
Location: Philly Metro

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by just frank » Tue Apr 03, 2018 8:47 am

^^^I would disagree.

I'm not a super-fan, but think that growing a manufacturing company by more than about 30% CAGR is really hard...in that no one has ever done it AFAIK. They would have to do that for several more years to become a peer with the major makers.

In the case of the '3', I think the problem is the crazy pack that they are using with the tiny cylindrical cells....the same as they have had since before Elon, with the Roadster, which was built by hand in low volume. Either they will figure out how to robotize that assembly (something that has never been done, and seems like it would be a complicated mess to me) OR they will switch the big rectangular cells like everyone else uses (and have no assembly problems). A certain amount of Gigafactory 1 is sunk into that dumb form factor, but it is not 100%.

They could easily decide to switch for future models (Y and beyond) and keep the cylindrical lines running for their earlier products, S,X,3.

In other words, its a hickup on a growth curve. As long as they have the brand in place (which is more endangered by quality issues than production delays) they will be able to access all the cash they require.

Valuethinker
Posts: 40259
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by Valuethinker » Tue Apr 03, 2018 9:46 am

denovo wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:31 am
Trying to circle back to the question of whether or not to buy a Tesla,

I think I would advise against it. The risk of this company completely collapsing in the next 3-5 years is infinitely higher than that of any other major company given their losses and chronic production failures.

Since there's only a small number of Tesla's and they don't share a platform with any other high-volume vehicles you could easily end up in a situation where you have a car and can't find any replacement parts.
The behaviour of the stock price (down -5% yesterday) tells you that the stock is "option value". The market isn't sure it will make it, and the high valuation leaves no room for error.

The problem will be that there stock price could be falling just as they need to raise money to address quality control problems or delays. The amount of working capital they will suck up if they are building cars but not selling them as fast, due to QA issues or other factors.

Causing a cash flow death spiral. They then won't be able to raise money, and they disappear.

FWIW I suspect there will be Tesla aftermarket spares around. But an absence of software upgrades could be a real issue. Like having an orphan phone (says the man who had a Blackberry with Blackberry OS ;-)).

User avatar
Nate79
Posts: 6032
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Delaware

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by Nate79 » Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:13 am

denovo wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:31 am
Trying to circle back to the question of whether or not to buy a Tesla,

I think I would advise against it. The risk of this company completely collapsing in the next 3-5 years is infinitely higher than that of any other major company given their losses and chronic production failures.

Since there's only a small number of Tesla's and they don't share a platform with any other high-volume vehicles you could easily end up in a situation where you have a car and can't find any replacement parts.
I agree. They are one major downturn away from bankruptcy. Growing a business during the bull market and good economy is one thing but they are very fragile right now.

Strummer
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:15 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by Strummer » Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:20 am

Based on the statement released today, it looks like rumors of Tesla's demise are greatly exaggerated.

http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=1062670

Excerpt:

"Q1 production totaled 34,494 vehicles, a 40% increase from Q4 and by far the most productive quarter in Tesla history. 24,728 were Model S and Model X, and 9,766 were Model 3. The Model 3 output increased exponentially, representing a fourfold increase over last quarter. This is the fastest growth of any automotive company in the modern era. If this rate of growth continues, it will exceed even that of Ford and the Model T."

The statement also notes that "Tesla does not require an equity or debt raise this year, apart from standard credit lines."

User avatar
Leif
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:15 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by Leif » Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:55 am

Helo80 wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:30 pm
side note 2: I'm actually surprised Musk continues to double-down on the Tesla automaking part and wanting to sell cars to the masses -- especially with the Model 3. With the Model S and his battery plant, I sort of assumed he was building the car with his batteries as a proof of concept to kick GM, Ford, Toyota, etc. in the rear end so that they would get on the EV train and then Musk could sell his batteries to the big auto makers... I thought that was his "long con". Instead, Musk seems to really want to build cars.
Perhaps as he says, he want to expedite the transition to sustainable transportation. What better way then sell an EV and get half a million reservations? That really focuses the minds of carmakers that all are coming out with EV concept cars now and say they will hit the market in 2020. Not just sedans, but SUVs, crossovers, trucks, and Semis of all things.

User avatar
DanMahowny
Posts: 994
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:25 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by DanMahowny » Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:03 am

High risk, high reward?

I think it's closer to high risk, little to no reward.

TSLA is already the most expensive car company. Where is the reward? It already happened.

Short TSLA.
Funding secured

User avatar
eye.surgeon
Posts: 609
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:19 pm
Location: California

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by eye.surgeon » Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:07 am

I have no crystal ball as to the future of Tesla as a company. I do know that my Model S converted this right wing Republican BMW-loving gas-burning gearhead to a EV driver for life. One drive in a model S opened my eyes to the superiority of EVs, I've had my Model S 3.5 years and have yet to personally ever visit a service center.
"I would rather be certain of a good return than hopeful of a great one" | Warren Buffett

btenny
Posts: 5382
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:47 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by btenny » Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:11 am

Can someone please tell me why the Chevy Bolt does not do Super Charging? I read that that car can be charged only at 240V. That seems slow to me. Please explain.

anoop
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:33 am

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by anoop » Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:13 am

eye.surgeon wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:07 am
I have no crystal ball as to the future of Tesla as a company. I do know that my Model S converted this right wing Republican BMW-loving gas-burning gearhead to a EV driver for life. One drive in a model S opened my eyes to the superiority of EVs, I've had my Model S 3.5 years and have yet to personally ever visit a service center.
Are you all electric in your household? :)

I ask this question because I am a one car household and I cannot think of owning only an electric. The range and charging time make it impractical for me as an only car, especially given that I routinely make 300+ mile single-day trips.

sandramjet
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:28 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by sandramjet » Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:30 am

btenny wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:11 am
Can someone please tell me why the Chevy Bolt does not do Super Charging? I read that that car can be charged only at 240V. That seems slow to me. Please explain.
I don't believe that's quite correct. You can order (for $750) the rapid charge option. It allows charging at much higher rate (using something like 80amps) than the home 240V (32amp) charger. However, it still doesn't match the Tesla superchargering rate. And there are relatively few of the high rate chargers out there, unlike the Tesla network.

User avatar
eye.surgeon
Posts: 609
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:19 pm
Location: California

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by eye.surgeon » Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:44 am

anoop wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:13 am
eye.surgeon wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:07 am
I have no crystal ball as to the future of Tesla as a company. I do know that my Model S converted this right wing Republican BMW-loving gas-burning gearhead to a EV driver for life. One drive in a model S opened my eyes to the superiority of EVs, I've had my Model S 3.5 years and have yet to personally ever visit a service center.
Are you all electric in your household? :)

I ask this question because I am a one car household and I cannot think of owning only an electric. The range and charging time make it impractical for me as an only car, especially given that I routinely make 300+ mile single-day trips.
No, my wife has a diesel SUV, and I also would not consider going all-electric as a family. One EV in a household with more than one car is a complete no-brainer though.

Clearly an EV is not a good choice for you, but then again driving 300 miles in a day routinely is the exception rather than the rule.
"I would rather be certain of a good return than hopeful of a great one" | Warren Buffett

anoop
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:33 am

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by anoop » Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:52 am

eye.surgeon wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:44 am
anoop wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:13 am
eye.surgeon wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:07 am
I have no crystal ball as to the future of Tesla as a company. I do know that my Model S converted this right wing Republican BMW-loving gas-burning gearhead to a EV driver for life. One drive in a model S opened my eyes to the superiority of EVs, I've had my Model S 3.5 years and have yet to personally ever visit a service center.
Are you all electric in your household? :)

I ask this question because I am a one car household and I cannot think of owning only an electric. The range and charging time make it impractical for me as an only car, especially given that I routinely make 300+ mile single-day trips.
No, my wife has a diesel SUV, and I also would not consider going all-electric as a family. One EV in a household with more than one car is a complete no-brainer though.

Clearly an EV is not a good choice for you, but then again driving 300 miles in a day routinely is the exception rather than the rule.
I too would agree that with more than one car in the household, having an EV is no-brainer.

Since this is a Model 3 thread, here's a recent review from Car and Driver.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/20 ... est-review

Of note, they found that range of an electric vehicle can drop by more than 25% in very cold temperatures.

Valuethinker
Posts: 40259
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by Valuethinker » Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:13 pm

eye.surgeon wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:07 am
I have no crystal ball as to the future of Tesla as a company. I do know that my Model S converted this right wing Republican BMW-loving gas-burning gearhead to a EV driver for life. One drive in a model S opened my eyes to the superiority of EVs, I've had my Model S 3.5 years and have yet to personally ever visit a service center.
Everyone says it's a great car (other than the quality control problems some encounter).

Unlike say, the Toyota Prius in its first few years, the Tesla has not attracted a "green political" stigma-- which matters in the USA (in Norway, 1/4 new cars is an EV). Rather it attracted a "geek chic" one -- as a high performance vehicle with lots of cool features. I actually saw one in the mountains of Austria, which surprised me somewhat. See the "Tesla nod" add.

That was another sign of Musk's genius. Whether in fact the company will survive, he appears to have genuinely changed the world, leaving the incumbent car manufacturers racing to catch up.
Last edited by Valuethinker on Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Valuethinker
Posts: 40259
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by Valuethinker » Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:17 pm

eye.surgeon wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:44 am
anoop wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:13 am
eye.surgeon wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:07 am
I have no crystal ball as to the future of Tesla as a company. I do know that my Model S converted this right wing Republican BMW-loving gas-burning gearhead to a EV driver for life. One drive in a model S opened my eyes to the superiority of EVs, I've had my Model S 3.5 years and have yet to personally ever visit a service center.
Are you all electric in your household? :)

I ask this question because I am a one car household and I cannot think of owning only an electric. The range and charging time make it impractical for me as an only car, especially given that I routinely make 300+ mile single-day trips.
No, my wife has a diesel SUV, and I also would not consider going all-electric as a family. One EV in a household with more than one car is a complete no-brainer though.

Clearly an EV is not a good choice for you, but then again driving 300 miles in a day routinely is the exception rather than the rule.
My guess is we won't be able to drive diesels within 15 years.

Certainly not in big cities with air pollution issues - which is basically all of them. London for certain is going that way, and I cannot imagine LA or NYC or Denver (perhaps Atlanta? Phoenix?) would be that far behind-- Paris and Tokyo and Beijing likely ahead. The solution for garbage trucks and other HGVs is not immediately apparent, but for light passenger and delivery vehicles, diesel will be gone. The health issues around PM 2.5 and smaller particles are just too great, and it does not appear that there are solutions.

In truth, a city like London, in 15 years I suspect only EVs will be allowed-- at least for the light vehicle end.

Valuethinker
Posts: 40259
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by Valuethinker » Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:22 pm

anoop wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:13 am
eye.surgeon wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:07 am
I have no crystal ball as to the future of Tesla as a company. I do know that my Model S converted this right wing Republican BMW-loving gas-burning gearhead to a EV driver for life. One drive in a model S opened my eyes to the superiority of EVs, I've had my Model S 3.5 years and have yet to personally ever visit a service center.
Are you all electric in your household? :)

I ask this question because I am a one car household and I cannot think of owning only an electric. The range and charging time make it impractical for me as an only car, especially given that I routinely make 300+ mile single-day trips.
I think even in the USA the average daily car commute is something under 50 miles.

And the average US household has more than 1 car. Americans generally live in suburbs with little public transportation, so if there is only 1 car, anyone at home is basically immobile.

Even in a 1 car only household, it may be possible with rentals, Zipcar etc. to work around the range limitation.

I agree people won't rush to do that, but we are definitely moving to a "usership not ownership" model of vehicle use-- Zipcar, Uber etc. Autonomous Vehicles will accelerate that. American cars sit unused for something like 95% of the day, so why own that as a depreciating household asset?

anoop
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:33 am

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by anoop » Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:43 pm

Valuethinker wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:22 pm
I agree people won't rush to do that, but we are definitely moving to a "usership not ownership" model of vehicle use-- Zipcar, Uber etc. Autonomous Vehicles will accelerate that. American cars sit unused for something like 95% of the day, so why own that as a depreciating household asset?
I'm going completely off topic here, but I feel compelled to...

Because by the time they figure out how to build a scalable rental model that is actually profitable and doesn't cause a waste of time, you will be paying 20x the cost per mile for the rental than you do with the ownership model. The fed will subsidize the model with ZIRP and put the old ownership model out of business. Once that is done, then costs will escalate.

Remember what has happened with healthcare and education.

The more financialization we bring to anything, the more things will cost because the more middlemen have to be paid. And then we won't have a choice anymore.

User avatar
BrandonBogle
Posts: 2679
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:19 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by BrandonBogle » Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:21 pm

anoop wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:13 am
eye.surgeon wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:07 am
I have no crystal ball as to the future of Tesla as a company. I do know that my Model S converted this right wing Republican BMW-loving gas-burning gearhead to a EV driver for life. One drive in a model S opened my eyes to the superiority of EVs, I've had my Model S 3.5 years and have yet to personally ever visit a service center.
Are you all electric in your household? :)

I ask this question because I am a one car household and I cannot think of owning only an electric. The range and charging time make it impractical for me as an only car, especially given that I routinely make 300+ mile single-day trips.
I am all-electric here. My Model S has gone to DC to Raleigh to Asheville to Atlanta to Jacksonville to Tampa, Orlando, Miami, and even Key West. All were trouble-free and not an issue. But my model of driving is not everyone's. For instance, just from Raleigh to Richmond, I have to stop and take a break before my car does. Thankfully, as more Superchargers have opened up, I'm usually able to time it so I can combine the stop. Basically, after 90-120 minutes, I need to get out and take a break even if the car doesn't. I'm only in my 30s and in generally good health - it's just the way I'm wired. I know people though who take a urine bottle with them and only stop for refilling, not even to eat anything beyond a chips, peanuts, and a soda. Those folks would be miserable in an EV.

madbrain
Posts: 5530
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:06 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by madbrain » Tue Apr 03, 2018 3:22 pm

sandramjet wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:30 am
btenny wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:11 am
Can someone please tell me why the Chevy Bolt does not do Super Charging? I read that that car can be charged only at 240V. That seems slow to me. Please explain.
I don't believe that's quite correct. You can order (for $750) the rapid charge option. It allows charging at much higher rate (using something like 80amps) than the home 240V (32amp) charger. However, it still doesn't match the Tesla superchargering rate. And there are relatively few of the high rate chargers out there, unlike the Tesla network.
Right. We have a Chevy Bolt with this option. It's using the CCS for DC fast charging. This is a different connector and different protocol than Tesla. "Super Charging" is the Tesla brand name for their own proprietary protocol of DC fast charging.

Despite having the Bolt for over a year, we have never taken it on a road trip yet, and thus have yet to try the DC fast charging feature.

There is more info about DC fast charging times here :
http://www.chevybolt.org/forum/82-charg ... mance.html

There are multiple sizes of CCS fast chargers. With the slowest ones (60 amp, 24 kW), a full charge from 0 to 100% would take a little over 3 hours. With the fastest one the Bolt supports (150A, 60 kW), the same charge would take about 105 minutes according to the graph, or 1h45 min.

Comparatively, the Bolt's level 2 (240V) charger supports 32A, ie. 7.6 kW. A full charge with this charger takes between 8.5 and 9 hours. This is what we charge with at home. It is rare that we have to charge it anywhere close to this amount of time, unless we didn't charge it for several days in a row.

Valuethinker
Posts: 40259
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by Valuethinker » Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:20 pm

anoop wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:43 pm
Valuethinker wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:22 pm
I agree people won't rush to do that, but we are definitely moving to a "usership not ownership" model of vehicle use-- Zipcar, Uber etc. Autonomous Vehicles will accelerate that. American cars sit unused for something like 95% of the day, so why own that as a depreciating household asset?
I'm going completely off topic here, but I feel compelled to...

Because by the time they figure out how to build a scalable rental model that is actually profitable and doesn't cause a waste of time, you will be paying 20x the cost per mile for the rental than you do with the ownership model.
OK. That's an issue. But if you only need the range 10x a year, then it still pays off.
The fed will subsidize the model with ZIRP and put the old ownership model out of business. Once that is done, then costs will escalate.
Long before ZIRP, the car industry moved to a finance model. The vast majority of American cars seem to be bought on finance. In Britain, we may have moved even past that (I'd have to understand the difference between PCH (Personal Contract Hire) and the US leasing model, and I do not, fully).

The point was, independent of however you pay for an asset, it's not very efficient to have it sitting in the driveway/ on the lot for 95 (98?)% of the day. And that's before we get to households with 3 cars. Thus, it's quite feasible that a household would have a main commuting car which is electric, and then if they only need 1 car, dispense with a 2nd gasoline powered car-- simply rent that when they need it.

If AVs take off, then of course it's extreme that way-- because the fleet owner can guarantee very high utilization rates-- the AV just goes somewhere and is available as the closest vehicle for the next user. Thus bringing down the usage charge (although the surge pricing might get ugly).
Remember what has happened with healthcare and education.
This is unclear to me. The model for healthcare finance in the UK (just about every country but the USA) is different-- so I am not sure I understand the point.

Education again national models are different. Maybe the UK is like the USA, more, these days-- although the student loan system is different.
The more financialization we bring to anything, the more things will cost because the more middlemen have to be paid. And then we won't have a choice anymore.
It's not only the US that has seen consumer credit growth over the last few decades. Look at South Korea for example. It's also the key to increasing car sales in a place like India, where cars are a much higher multiple of annual incomes, even of middle class Indians.

User avatar
just frank
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:13 pm
Location: Philly Metro

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by just frank » Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:55 pm

btenny wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:11 am
Can someone please tell me why the Chevy Bolt does not do Super Charging? I read that that car can be charged only at 240V. That seems slow to me. Please explain.
You have been misinformed. I have a Bolt, since @madbrain told me to get one, and I have done 6400 miles on it in 4 months, with many roadtrips in the 250-600 mile range.

The idea for GM to not make the fast charging plug standard equipment is moronic IMO, but I suspect that the overwhelming majority do do get that option.

The Bolt uses a standard called SAE/CCS combo for DC fast charging, or DCFC, the same as BMW and a number of other makers. The Bolt hardware is limited to 80 kW charging speed, and then only for the bottom half of the battery (it slows down a bit after it gets to 50% charged or so, just like Tesla does).

Right now all the SAE/CCS chargers in N America are nominal 25, 40 or 50 kW....and actual charging speeds are ~80% of nominal 20, 32 or 40 kW, or 70, 110 or 140 miles range per hour.

The 2017 Bolt was designed to be (slightly) future proofed....at 80 kW nominal, 65 kW actual, it will add over >100 miles range in <30 minutes of charging, which is good but not great. Fine if you are going somewhere a few hundred miles from home, wouldn't want to drive cross-country.

So when do we get these better chargers? The VW diesel-gate penalty is being used to build out a Tesla-worthy DCFC network on interstates and major cities across the US, that will start with 150 kW (!) SAE/CCS chargers. something like several hundred of them in 2019. My guess is that the 2019 and later Bolts (with 80 kWh batteries) will fast charge at >120 kW, or 200 miles in 30 minutes.

Helo80
Posts: 1506
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:47 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by Helo80 » Tue Apr 03, 2018 6:26 pm

Strummer wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:20 am
Based on the statement released today, it looks like rumors of Tesla's demise are greatly exaggerated.

http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=1062670

Excerpt:

"Q1 production totaled 34,494 vehicles, a 40% increase from Q4 and by far the most productive quarter in Tesla history. 24,728 were Model S and Model X, and 9,766 were Model 3. The Model 3 output increased exponentially, representing a fourfold increase over last quarter. This is the fastest growth of any automotive company in the modern era. If this rate of growth continues, it will exceed even that of Ford and the Model T."

The statement also notes that "Tesla does not require an equity or debt raise this year, apart from standard credit lines."

Am I supposed to leave my brain at the door when I read this statement, Tesla Investor Relations?

Pretty much no car company that sells cars in the United States can see the kind of growth numbers you are seeing, because you have sold so few cars to begin with. Did Ford and the Model T have the level of consumers with DI that we have today in America? Were Model T's and automotive transportation as fundamental to basic commerce as they are today back in the 20's (or whenever the Model T came out)?

The stats you posted are nothing more than TSLA's glass half-full after the recent news beating. The response above reads like the PR response on the Model X crash that was generated from TSLA's General Counsel, PR team, and a few highly paid image consultants wrote a few paragraphs on TSLA's interpretation of the events (Basically, autopilot killed somebody).

It's going to be interesting when TSLA makes their SEC quarterly filing soon.

jdb
Posts: 1641
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by jdb » Tue Apr 03, 2018 8:14 pm

As a model 3 reservation holder (actually 2 reservations) started reading this overly long thread recently. But query: if poster does not have a Model 3 reservation why hijack this thread in order to bash the company? Should be limited to responses of those who actually have Model 3 reservations and are questioning whether or not to take delivery which is a valid question. Or to be more blunt, and with all due respect, really don’t care to find out you don’t like the company or its vehicles if you have no skin in the game with reservation for Model 3 or experience as owner or lessee of Tesla vehicle so can comment from experience on its good and bad points. Just my two cents. Good luck.

User avatar
matjen
Posts: 2136
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:30 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by matjen » Tue Apr 03, 2018 9:49 pm

jdb wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 8:14 pm
As a model 3 reservation holder (actually 2 reservations) started reading this overly long thread recently. But query: if poster does not have a Model 3 reservation why hijack this thread in order to bash the company? Should be limited to responses of those who actually have Model 3 reservations and are questioning whether or not to take delivery which is a valid question. Or to be more blunt, and with all due respect, really don’t care to find out you don’t like the company or its vehicles if you have no skin in the game with reservation for Model 3 or experience as owner or lessee of Tesla vehicle so can comment from experience on its good and bad points. Just my two cents. Good luck.
Wouldn't you agree that a) when one can reasonably expect to get a Model 3, and b) the viability of Tesla the company have a large role in any decision regarding the Model 3?

FWIW, here the founder of Car Lab (auto consultancy) is worried about Tesla's viability and calls the Model 3 a pre-production prototype of "very poor quality" that is "Eastern Bloc level stuff."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2 ... onth-video
A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.

TravelGeek
Posts: 3630
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 3:23 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by TravelGeek » Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:21 pm

just frank wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:55 pm
So when do we get these better chargers? The VW diesel-gate penalty is being used to build out a Tesla-worthy DCFC network on interstates and major cities across the US, that will start with 150 kW (!) SAE/CCS chargers. something like several hundred of them in 2019. My guess is that the 2019 and later Bolts (with 80 kWh batteries) will fast charge at >120 kW, or 200 miles in 30 minutes.
Hope their completion time estimate isn't using Musk Time - 2027 is already a pretty long timeline for today's EV buyers.

https://www.electrifyamerica.com/our-plan

Nice to see that they will support not only SAE/CCS, but also CHAdeMO.

madbrain
Posts: 5530
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:06 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by madbrain » Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:13 pm

TravelGeek wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:21 pm
just frank wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:55 pm
So when do we get these better chargers? The VW diesel-gate penalty is being used to build out a Tesla-worthy DCFC network on interstates and major cities across the US, that will start with 150 kW (!) SAE/CCS chargers. something like several hundred of them in 2019. My guess is that the 2019 and later Bolts (with 80 kWh batteries) will fast charge at >120 kW, or 200 miles in 30 minutes.
Hope their completion time estimate isn't using Musk Time - 2027 is already a pretty long timeline for today's EV buyers.

https://www.electrifyamerica.com/our-plan

Nice to see that they will support not only SAE/CCS, but also CHAdeMO.
I wouldn't count on any of these chargers becoming available any time soon.

Over a year after the Bolt's release, there still isn't a single CCS charger on I-5 between the Bay Area and L.A. in California, surely the state with the most E.V. by a long shot.

8 years after the first Leaf was released, there are only 3 ChaDeMO chargers on that route, and all are at hotels that would require you to pay for a night there to use them, defeating the point of a fast charger.
Tesla does have SuperChargers along that route, but I have read that they can get very crowded and there can be lines waiting to charge.
Even if we had a Tesla, we probably would not take it on that route.

If you want to take the scenic route from the bay area to LA, forget it also. No CCS or ChaDeMO chargers between Monterey and San Luis Obispo, although part of highway 1 are closed so this drive is an impossibility in any car now. There are plenty of Tesla SuperChargers near this route.

There still isn't any kind of fast charger on highway 1 along the coast between San Mateo and San Francisco.

The situation is much better to go to wine country or the north bay - plenty of CCS, ChaDemo and Tesla on the way there.

Clearly, a lot of the value of Tesla is not in the car itself but the charging infrastructure, if you like to do long trips.
That said, we will still take a car that takes gas for those >200 miles trips. That means the Volt.
I once drove from SJ to LA in 4.5 hours in my 2001 Prius, at night and near the top speed of 100 mph that the car had.
The Tesla will reach 155 mph which in theory would make the drive in about 3 hours, minus the time stopped by the cops getting traffic tickets.
You probably also would have to recharge it 3 or 4 times on the way driving that speed, and would not get there any faster than with an ICE like a Prius or PHEV like the Volt.

Last time we did a long trip at high speed was 7 hours from San Diego to San Jose, in a 2011 Prius, which was replaced with the Bolt last year.
That's a 65 mph average, which doesn't sound like much except it includes driving through LA in traffic on the way, and some roads that are only 50 mph limited on the way back to the bay area, and we had 3 stops. I don't think there is any way the Tesla or any EV could have matched that time that day.

IMO, EVs are just not well suited to all-day driving. For long drives, you will likely be driving high speed - meaning speed limit, or possibly higher. The EPA range tests are done in ideal conditions in terms of temperatures and speed. It's a good idea to assume 2/3 of the EPA range for highway speed combined with terrain that isn't flat (and there are many hills between SJ and LA). On a Tesla 3, that would mean something like 2 miles/kWh.
Assuming 65 mph average, 10 hours, and 2 miles/kWh efficiency, you would need a 325 kWh battery to make it on one charge. A 60 kWh car like Tesla 3 or Bolt would need 5.5 total charges, ie. 5 charges on the way to have some margin of safety and account for less than full battery being available for charging. I haven't been able to find the 0 to 100% charging time for the 3. All I could find was 0 to 80% in 30 mins. The last 20% are always slower.
Assuming proper charger location and availability, trip could be done in 6 charges of 0 to 80% each taking 30 minutes, ie. adding 3 hours of charging to the 10 hours of driving. I would probably stop for at least 1 hour total in the first place on such a long drive, but not 3 hours. So that's 2 hours of waiting time, for my worst case. Makes no sense to take the EV in that case.

User avatar
BrandonBogle
Posts: 2679
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:19 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by BrandonBogle » Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:04 am

madbrain wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:13 pm
IMO, EVs are just not well suited to all-day driving. For long drives, you will likely be driving high speed - meaning speed limit, or possibly higher. The EPA range tests are done in ideal conditions in terms of temperatures and speed. It's a good idea to assume 2/3 of the EPA range for highway speed combined with terrain that isn't flat (and there are many hills between SJ and LA).
Madbrain, just as a reference point, I routinely beat the EPA rating in my Model S (300 Wh/mi) on shorter drivers or get within 10% of it if I'm being more aggressive like others/longer drives. The Leaf, hands down, it is not going to happen with highway driving or heat. But I thought the Volt and Bolt were reasonable compared to the EPA rating?

Note that these images have average speed listed and max speed blanked out. You can rest assured there was Interstate driving involved at faster than the listed "average" speed.
Image
Image
Image
Image

madbrain
Posts: 5530
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:06 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by madbrain » Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:53 am

BrandonBogle wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:04 am
Madbrain, just as a reference point, I routinely beat the EPA rating in my Model S (300 Wh/mi) on shorter drivers or get within 10% of it if I'm being more aggressive like others/longer drives. The Leaf, hands down, it is not going to happen with highway driving or heat. But I thought the Volt and Bolt were reasonable compared to the EPA rating?
Unfortunately, there is just about zero useful telemetry on the Bolt & Volt for purposes of measuring electric efficiency. GM/Onstar do not maintain a web site with any trip information. I have connected both cars to Voltstats.net using the Onstar API . But even Onstar 2.0 API still does not transmit any kWh information. For my Volt, I can get the EV miles, gas miles, and gallons of gas consumed. But it is displayed in per day, month or year graphs, not per trip.
I get charging information from my smart charger, but it is time-consuming to relate to trips, since there is no miles driven information in there. I do know which car charged due to the different charge rates (3.3 kW for the Volt, 7.6 kW for the Bolt). We have two Juiceboxes at 32A max that are both smart chargers.

The only really useful consumption information is on the dash of the car, and resets after a full charge.
It consists of miles driven since last full charge, and kWh consumed since last full charge. If you do partial charges, the counters will never reset.
There is no lifetime EV miles displayed anywhere, only total miles odometer. And no lifetime kWh consumed or lifetime gallons of gas consumed.

I'm one of those who doesn't get anywhere close to the EPA rating on the Volt. The main reason is living in very steep hills (15% grade).
I have a 26.6 miles round-trip commute. It is about 2/3 freeway.
In the best conditions, driving off-peak with zero traffic, following the speed limit of 65mph on the freeway, and 25 - 40mph on city streets, at the posted limit, I will get about 2.8 kWh consumption for the commute to work. Under the exact same driving conditions, at the same speed the return trip will be about 4.5 kWh, due to hills. This is without the use of AC or heat on either trip. This means 7.3 kWh total for 26.6 miles, or 3.64 miles/kWh.
Worst case, when I have to use the heater on both trips, and drive a little faster than speed limit, I will use 10.5 kWh for the same commute, ie. only 2.53 miles/kWh. Ie. my worst case is 69% of best case. The usable (non-reserved) battery capacity of my Gen1 Volt is between 10 and 11 kWh depending on temperature, so I'm only barely making the 26.6 miles commute before the car switches to gas, vs EPA EV range of 38 miles .

My gas mileage average is pretty awful, between 28-32 vs EPA of 38, but that's not surprising. Whenever I exceed the EV range, that means I'm likely on the freeway and driving beyond speed limit (I only speed when there are few cars, if alone on the road very late at night ,I might drive 85-90, otherwise closer to 70-75). For example going to the east bay via 680, there are quite a few hills up and down, and the elevation changes kill the mileage big time. Still, my 28-32 MPG freeway is far short of the EPA freeway mileage of 40 MPG for the Volt. But the EPA test does not take into account elevation, >65mph speed, or any use of heat, all of which often come into play simultaneously for me as I'm very much a night owl.

On the Bolt, the efficiency is better than the Volt. Not completely sure why since the weight is comparable. Maybe because my husband is the main driver, and he drives somewhat slower than me, as he has less than perfect vision (and wears glasses), wheareas I still have 20/20 even after 30 years of being on the computer >10 hours each day. That said, with the heater in use, the Bolt gets comparably bad miles/kWh (under 3, maybe not as low as 2.5). The lifetime average for the Bolt after 14 months 16,000 miles is 4.1 miles/kWh, slightly exceeding EPA rating. The full 60 kWh advertised is available battery for driving on the Bolt, meaning the total battery capacity is actually more. I have driven more than 240 miles on a single battery as a test, and there were still 20 miles left on the GOM. There was 57 kWh consumed since last full charge on the dash.
I probably have driven the Bolt myself for 3000-4000 miles, and my husband the rest. I only drive it when we are together in the car, otherwise, it's his car.

TravelGeek
Posts: 3630
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 3:23 pm

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by TravelGeek » Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:04 am

madbrain wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:13 pm
IMO, EVs are just not well suited to all-day driving. For long drives, you will likely be driving high speed - meaning speed limit, or possibly higher. The EPA range tests are done in ideal conditions in terms of temperatures and speed. It's a good idea to assume 2/3 of the EPA range for highway speed combined with terrain that isn't flat (and there are many hills between SJ and LA). On a Tesla 3, that would mean something like 2 miles/kWh.
Assuming 65 mph average, 10 hours, and 2 miles/kWh efficiency, you would need a 325 kWh battery to make it on one charge. A 60 kWh car like Tesla 3 or Bolt would need 5.5 total charges, ie. 5 charges on the way to have some margin of safety and account for less than full battery being available for charging.
Google Maps shows that the distance between San Jose and San Diego is 460 miles, via I-5. With 2 miles/kWh, wouldn’t you need a hypothetical 230 kWh battery to make that trip in one charge? What am I missing (after one glass of red wine)? :happy

I also personally wouldn’t drive significantly over the speed limit, so I might get >2 mile/kWh.

But as I said upthread, I am not trying to optimize my anticipated EV purchase for long distance driving at this time. I would overpay for a corner use case that is more efficiently covered by our 2nd vehicle (ICE).

madbrain
Posts: 5530
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:06 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by madbrain » Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:18 am

TravelGeek wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:04 am
madbrain wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:13 pm
IMO, EVs are just not well suited to all-day driving. For long drives, you will likely be driving high speed - meaning speed limit, or possibly higher. The EPA range tests are done in ideal conditions in terms of temperatures and speed. It's a good idea to assume 2/3 of the EPA range for highway speed combined with terrain that isn't flat (and there are many hills between SJ and LA). On a Tesla 3, that would mean something like 2 miles/kWh.
Assuming 65 mph average, 10 hours, and 2 miles/kWh efficiency, you would need a 325 kWh battery to make it on one charge. A 60 kWh car like Tesla 3 or Bolt would need 5.5 total charges, ie. 5 charges on the way to have some margin of safety and account for less than full battery being available for charging.
Google Maps shows that the distance between San Jose and San Diego is 460 miles, via I-5. With 2 miles/kWh, wouldn’t you need a hypothetical 230 kWh battery to make that trip in one charge? What am I missing (after one glass of red wine)? :happy
You are missing that the later part referred to a 10 hour drive at 65 mph average, ie. a 650 miles trip. This part is not about the drive from SJ to San Diego. 10 hours is the most I would ever drive in a single day. So it is basically the worst possible case for me.
I also personally wouldn’t drive significantly over the speed limit, so I might get >2 mile/kWh.
Right. If you get stuck in LA traffic, you will get significantly above that ! Maybe 5 miles/kWh or more.
But as I said upthread, I am not trying to optimize my anticipated EV purchase for long distance driving at this time. I would overpay for a corner use case that is more efficiently covered by our 2nd vehicle (ICE).
Agreed. For such very rare long drives, it might make sense to just rent an ICE. These can be very cheap if the trip is short term. I know people who ICE and use rental cars anyway for such trips, as they don't want to put that many miles on the car they own. I'm not sure that adds up financially, but just putting it out there. I would find that too inconvenient, personally. Certainly, as long I own an ICE or PHEV, I wouldn't rent an ICE.

User avatar
just frank
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:13 pm
Location: Philly Metro

Re: To take or not to take delivery of Tesla 3

Post by just frank » Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:32 am

OK, I have been driving my Bolt on highway roadtrips, in temps around freezing, with snow tires on, and getting >3 miles/kWh if the speed is under ~70 mph. 2mile/kWh is just nuts. IOW, I am getting 180 miles on a full charge worst case, more like 200 typical in winter conditions at HW speeds.

On a 50 kW charger, I can add 70 HW miles in 30 minutes. So I can go 250 miles one way with a single short stop, charge overnight L2 at the destination and drive home the next day for a 500 mile round trip, with no inconvenience factor.

And this is with a 2017 Bolt, and current, lame CCS/SAE DCFCs.

Wanna go ~400 miles one way? now you are doing 3 30-40 minute stops each way, and adding at least an hour to your 6-7 hour drive assuming you would've stopped for food/restroom anyway. Hardly a hardship if you have the DCFC available.

Of course, if you don't have the DCFCs, then its all hypothetical. When you get them, it becomes trivial.

Why are we talking about cars with 300 kWh batteries again?

Locked