Tesla S

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
Posts: 4838
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Tesla S

Post by protagonist » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:37 pm

wrongfunds wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:20 am
There is no physical or mechanical reason why exceeding 1g in horizontal direction is impossible. On horizontal plane, the effect of the gravity is only on the frictional force and it is not preventing the vehicle straightline acceleration. To put it differently, assuming the vehicle has the same grip on the moon (I know very wrong assumption!), the lower g on the moon would not help or hinder the Tesla accelerating on the moon :-) Alternatively, g is not like speed of light which can not be broken.
Here are a few discussions of the phenomenon.....not as cut and dried as it seems.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... standstill
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/282-sci ... y/63207854
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/? ... oogle.com/

Posts: 725
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Tesla S

Post by wrongfunds » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:05 am

No, it is really cut and dry as explained very simply in one of the link you provided. Give it up please, you are unnecessarily digging yourself deep. I understand it is little bit counter intuitive but there should really be no controversy about it. It is as rock solid as the earth is flat. I know some people don't believe it but that does not make it wrong.
There is absolutely no reason why a coefficient of (static) friction should be limited to values below unity. Think of two rough surfaces where the roughness acts as 'interlocking teeth'. Under such circmstances the force required to make the wheels slip along the road can be (much) greater than the normal force of the road on the wheels.

Posts: 337
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:08 pm

Re: Tesla S

Post by roflwaffle » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:32 am

Helo80 wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:41 pm
HomerJ wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:44 am
Read an article today. A little scary.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companie ... hp#image=1

Of course it's scary... it's the point I was trying to make over in the Personal Finance forum about Tesla being a lottery ticket or not. Tesla is worth like more than Ford, GM, FCA, BMW, and other automakers.

Tesla makes cool cars, but Musk promises more than he can deliver, IMHO. Mercedes, BMW, GM, and others are ramping up their EV investments. The arguments I have read on BH is that Tesla has first movers advantage (and other MBA class terms) on the EV market and that's why Tesla will win long term. Alrigghhhtttyyy theeeennnnnn.............

I still think Tesla's long term play is being a leader in battery production, not cars...
I think first mover's advantage and the willingness to forgo short term profits in favor of substantial expansion are Tesla's bread and butter. Production delays aren't great, but given the head start they have I don't think they hurt Tesla a whole lot either. What matters most if whether they can execute and deliver on the Model 3 over the next year and change, not whether they're on schedule or 3-6 months behind.

Besides that, they have...

What IMO is the best battery management system (BMS) in the industry.
Good margins on the S/X.
No dealer network to cater to/deal with.
The supercharger and destination charging network.
The Powerwall, which is the lowest cost warrantied storage battery I've seen.
Solar City (helps offset their supercharger costs, allows them to offer a fairly complete home energy/transportation package to buyers).
And they're aggressively pushing down battery costs and increasing durability thanks to Jeff Dahn and co.

Their current valuation is between Tesla as a premium high'ish end EV maker and Tesla as the auto/energy sector equivalent of Amazon.

Post Reply