Tesla, the absolute best car!

ktup-flyer said:
Both are barely quicker than my car and cost way more. The top speed on the Model S is only 130. It's about ~186 in the F-Type and my SS will hit around 183. I'll still stick with my internal combustion engines...
Click to expand...

You skated around irrefutable facts. Reread what I wrote. I don't care about the "SS". For me, 0-60 is a helluvalot more important than top speed. Operating cost is as well. My TL was tested to 147, who cares...:rolleyes2:
You know how many times I've had it that fast? 0. I'm not a teenager looking to see "183" and wrapping my car around a tree.
I'm waiting for the Tesla 3...
 
Aeric said:
You skated around irrefutable facts. Reread what I wrote. I don't care about the "SS". For me, 0-60 is a helluvalot more important than top speed. Operating cost is as well. My TL was tested to 147, who cares...:rolleyes2:
You know how many times I've had it that fast? 0. I'm not a teenager looking to see "183" and wrapping my car around a tree.
I'm waiting for the Tesla 3...
Click to expand...

You're not going to wrap your car around a tree going that fast lol. F-Type R 0-60 is 4.0 and the Camaro is 4.2. The range limitation is one of the other things that I don't like about electric cars. I might consider it if I lived in Silicon Valley, but here I would be better off with a Chevy SS or Pontiac G8 if I had to have a sedan. If you want to be eco-conscious with insane 0-60, the Porsche 918 is your best bet.... $845k I would rather spend on a Venom GT or a plane
 
:rofl: I love people who use top speed on a car as some deciding factor, do y'all live at Bonneville or something? If the car hits 90, and I don't know any that won't, you have a car that will hit any speed you need on the highways in America. What I have found except for very rare instances, it is impossible to hit more than 140mph in a car on the roads due to having to stand in the brakes for traffic. Even on the Autobahn it's hard to manage better than 240kph before you have to shut it down.

Besides, I have an airplane to go fast and get places, it does 180kts in cruise which pretty much tops any car made.
 
Last edited:
140mph may be impossible, but 130+ certainly happens...... If you drive German cars. Wouldn't do it in an American car.

upape2at.jpg



It is funny to see people knock the Tesla and claim to be car enthusiasts. That is the number one selling point, the performance.

The range argument really doesn't hold much merit as the charging stations get built out.

Price is still the biggest obstacle for the Everyman, but for the target of the current model, the price is certainly competitive with the other cars being considered.
 
JoseCuervo said:
140mph may be impossible, but 130+ certainly happens...... If you drive German cars. Wouldn't do it in an American car.

upape2at.jpg



It is funny to see people knock the Tesla and claim to be car enthusiasts. That is the number one selling point, the performance.

The range argument really doesn't hold much merit as the charging stations get built out.

Price is still the biggest obstacle for the Everyman, but for the target of the current model, the price is certainly competitive with the other cars being considered.
Click to expand...


I have been over 140 in quite a few American cars.
 
JoseCuervo said:
140mph may be impossible, but 130+ certainly happens...... If you drive German cars. Wouldn't do it in an American car.
Click to expand...

Oh. Brother. 130mph happens... it happens so frequently, that you felt compelled to take a picture of the speedometer? :rolleyes2: What in the world does any of this have to do with the Tesla?? The Tesla won't do 130mph. So freakin' what! Who cares? Probably .00001% of the world's population has ever gone 130mph in a car. The top speed of any car sold in America is completely irrelevant. It's irrelevant in nearly every other country too, except maybe for a select few living in Germany.

I too have driven the Autobahn and I can say, the vast majority of Germans never go 130mph either. It is only practical, or even possible in a select few areas. Basically, top speeds like that are pretty much for bragging rights only as your photo illustrates. If you consider the potential top speed of a car in your buying decision, you are not making a rational purchase, but rather an emotional one and that's OK by me, but just don't enter into discussion about ordinary street cars and think that top speed is any useful metric.

Oh and there are plenty of American cars that can do 130mph safely. Corvette and CTS-V spring to mind immediately.;)
 
Henning said:
I have been over 140 in quite a few American cars.
Click to expand...


I haven't. Not sure of any kid' cars like my daughter's that will do that and are American made.

Most American cars I have driven in the last 10 years all seem to have governors that shut down about 100mph.
 
Dav8or said:
Oh. Brother. 130mph happens... it happens so frequently, that you felt compelled to take a picture of the speedometer? :rolleyes2: What in the world does any of this have to do with the Tesla?? The Tesla won't do 130mph. So freakin' what! Who cares? Probably .00001% of the world's population has ever gone 130mph in a car. The top speed of any car sold in America is completely irrelevant. It's irrelevant in nearly every other country too, except maybe for a select few living in Germany.

I too have driven the Autobahn and I can say, the vast majority of Germans never go 130mph either. It is only practical, or even possible in a select few areas. Basically, top speeds like that are pretty much for bragging rights only as your photo illustrates. If you consider the potential top speed of a car in your buying decision, you are not making a rational purchase, but rather an emotional one and that's OK by me, but just don't enter into discussion about ordinary street cars and think that top speed is any useful metric.

Oh and there are plenty of American cars that can do 130mph safely. Corvette and CTS-V spring to mind immediately.;)
Click to expand...

Top speed is becoming more and more important in the USA if you want to keep up with the speed limits.

I know of many cars who can't get to the new speed limits on the Interstates, certainly can't hold speed up hills on the interstates, and to be honest, have such poor handling that they are dangerous at legal speeds.

If I am going to drive 80-85mph, I think I prefer a car engineered to go 131 mph instead of a car engineered to go 79 mph.

Ride around in a big Mercedes or a bigger BMW, you will understand why top speed engineering matters.

And, back to the Tesla topic, the top speed matters, as it is competing against cars that are a joy to drive at 85 mph. Tesla is not competing against a Prius or a Volt (with their current model).
 
JoseCuervo said:
I haven't. Not sure of any kid' cars like my daughter's that will do that and are American made.

Most American cars I have driven in the last 10 years all seem to have governors that shut down about 100mph.
Click to expand...

That governor goes away "in a flash".
 
JoseCuervo said:
Who requires it? Feds or manufacturer?
Click to expand...

Generally it's the lawyers. Check the tire ratings and look at what it would cost to get a tire that is ratted for the higher speeds. 150 mph is a common limiter speed based on available tires. A tire rated for a faster speed gets very expensive.

BTW, the Tesla is great at 90. It's top end is an rpm limit and not a torque or HP one. A multi-gear transmission would fix that but cost money and add complexity.
 
Electric cars, especially the exotic ones are limited in range, still use coal to get electricity, and are crap in cold weather climates.

Blowing $150k on a car like this is far more decadent and wastefl than blowing the same amount of money on a nice aircraft.
 
CTLSi said:
Electric cars, especially the exotic ones are limited in range, still use coal to get electricity, and are crap in cold weather climates.

Blowing $150k on a car like this is far more decadent and wastefl than blowing the same amount of money on a nice aircraft.
Click to expand...

Telling you guys the facts gets tiring. Once again, we rely less and less on burning coal for electricity. Secondly, 265 miles is not too bad for range. Thirdly, who says they are crap in cold weather?
Fourthly, the MSRP on the Model S is $69,900-$93,400. Not cheap, but a far cry from your BS $150,000 figure. And, have you heard about the upcoming Model 3? $35,000...make mine in a nice gold or dark green.

In summary, everything in your post is objective and proven to be false.
 
Aeric said:
Telling you guys the facts gets tiring. Once again, we rely less and less on burning coal for electricity. Secondly, 265 miles is not too bad for range. Thirdly, who says they are crap in cold weather?
Fourthly, the MSRP on the Model S is $69,900-$93,400. Not cheap, but a far cry from your BS $150,000 figure. And, have you heard about the upcoming Model 3? $35,000...make mine in a nice gold or dark green.

In summary, everything in your post is objective and proven to be false.
Click to expand...

What are you a Tesla salesman? 75% of the electricity in the country comes from coal. The rest is from hydro and nukes. Wind and solar make less than 1%. And the grid is not local, its national and the electricity sold between origin points and spread around.

Batteries, even the magic ones in a Tesla are affected by cold temperatures. Whether garaged or in the open. When the temps get below freezing, battery performance reduces exponentially.

And worse? No electric anything, even a giant electro-motive railroad diesel get over mountains well. They just can't generate the torque needed to do it without a LOT of fuel - and in your case a LOT more electrical power sucked from your laboring batteries.

You will not find a Tesla in a mountain home, or if you do, it will be owned by a Silicon Valley exec visiting his mountain get-a-way for the weekend with servants standing ready to recharge his car for him when he gets there.
 
Last edited:
Why not put in a grid-tie solar system on your house and take advantage of all the 'freebies' the .gov gives you on that, then buy a Tesla and thumb your nose at the power company and the gas stations.

Win-win. :)
 
CTLSi said:
What are you a Tesla salesman? 75% of the electricity in the country comes from coal. The rest is from hydro and nukes. Wind and solar make less than 1%. And the grid is not local, its national and the electricity sold between origin points and spread around.
Click to expand...

If you're going to try and argue a point, at least try not to shoot yourself in the foot in your first paragraph. In 2013 the electricity breakdown was:

Coal 39%
Natural Gas 27%
Nuclear 19%
Hydropower 7%
Wind 4.13%
Biomass 1.48%
Geothermal 0.41%
Solar 0.23%
Petroleum 1%
Other Gases < 1%

So, you're wildly wrong on every single claim you make. Good job.
 
Last edited:
Katamarino said:
If you're going to try and argue a point, at least try not to shoot yourself in the foot in your first paragraph. In 2013 the electricity breakdown was:

Coal 39%
Natural Gas 27%
Nuclear 19%
Hydropower 7%
Wind 4.13%
Biomass 1.48%
Geothermal 0.41%
Solar 0.23%
Petroleum 1%
Other Gases < 1%

So, you're wildly wrong on every single claim you make. Good job.
Click to expand...

Nothing in your list counters my point. Coal and Nat gas are CO2 makers. Nukes are clean. Solar and Wind are a fraction, btw, wind is not 4% of the total, your numbers are off by a magnitude. And as we now know, windmills are killing wildlife to the point of extinction.

The bottom line? The electricity for your 'green' electric car comes from CO2 producing energy plants. You are doing nothing but wasting your money, and being a hypocrite about the environment. Subsidies for electric cars are a pure waste of taxpayer cash.

Electrical Production in the United States for 2012
Coal 37% Nat Gas 30% Nuclear 19% Hydro 7% Other
Renewables 5% Petroleum 1%

Renewables include wood burning, and biomass production (both C02 makers).
 
Last edited:
CTLSi said:
Nothing in your list counters my point. Coal and Nat gas are CO2 makers. Nukes are clean. Solar and Wind are a fraction, btw, wind is not 4% of the total, your numbers are off by a magnitude. And as we now know, windmills are killing wildlife to the point of extinction.

The bottom line? The electricity for your 'green' electric car comes from CO2 producing energy plants. You are doing nothing but wasting your money, and being a hypocrite about the environment. Subsidies for electric cars are a pure waste of taxpayer cash.

Electrical Production in the United States for 2012
Coal 37% Nat Gas 30% Nuclear 19% Hydro 7% Other
Renewables 5% Petroleum 1%

Renewables include wood burning, and biomass production (both C02 makers).
Click to expand...
Actually, everything in that post counters your point. You are wildly off on your figures for electricity generation and wildly off on purchase price (you knew you were way off, so you didn't even try to counter me).
With such gross errors, how can anybody take anything you have to say about this subject seriously?
Oh, and speaking of electric subsidies being a waste of taxpayer cash, those pale in comparison to the countless billions we waste in skirmishes in the Middle East protecting our petroleum supply.

Edit: In case you want to try to poo-poo the figures cited by Katamarino, here's the source (quite official BTW) :http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
So you do acknowledge that your original figure of coal generation of 75% is way off? Thought so...:lol:
 
Last edited:
Coal has never made up 75% of the total, looking back all the way to 1950. Natural gas only causes half the CO2 that coal does, and more NG use has been in large part responsible for the overall drop in US CO2 emissions in recent years.

If you have better figures than the EIA, then please do share them with us and the EIA. I'm sure they'd be interested in your methods.

I don't have an electric car, by the way, and have no plans to buy one. But trying to trash them by just making up numbers is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Aeric said:
...
Oh, and speaking of electric subsidies being a waste of taxpayer cash, those pale in comparison to the countless billions we waste in skirmishes in the Middle East protecting our petroleum supply.
...
Click to expand...

You were doing so well in your post, then dropped this turd.

No matter how wasteful any other spending may be (and I would not argue that point), it serves as no justification for the silly and ill-conceived subsidies paid to purchasers and manufacturers of electric vehicles.
 
SCCutler said:
You were doing so well in your post, then dropped this turd.

No matter how wasteful any other spending may be (and I would not argue that point), it serves as no justification for the silly and ill-conceived subsidies paid to purchasers and manufacturers of electric vehicles.
Click to expand...

No, subsidies going to electric vehicle users can be EXACTLY linked to what we spend on wars for oil. Electricity is generated from DOMESTIC resource, so those who will use electricity instead of gasoline should get rebates and help incentivize others. Not that it takes much. My buddy with the MiEV tracks his electric costs to commute around 60 miles a day, he figures it at $12 a week.

If you drive an EV, you should not have to pay for the wars to protect the oil industry, but you do. So, the EV subsidies are just making it a fair playing field.
 
CTLSi said:
What are you a Tesla salesman? 75% of the electricity in the country comes from coal. The rest is from hydro and nukes. Wind and solar make less than 1%. And the grid is not local, its national and the electricity sold between origin points and spread around.

Batteries, even the magic ones in a Tesla are affected by cold temperatures. Whether garaged or in the open. When the temps get below freezing, battery performance reduces exponentially.

And worse? No electric anything, even a giant electro-motive railroad diesel get over mountains well. They just can't generate the torque needed to do it without a LOT of fuel - and in your case a LOT more electrical power sucked from your laboring batteries.

You will not find a Tesla in a mountain home, or if you do, it will be owned by a Silicon Valley exec visiting his mountain get-a-way for the weekend with servants standing ready to recharge his car for him when he gets there.
Click to expand...

What are you gasoline salesman? You really have no idea what you're talking about. What puts you on this crusade hate for electric cars? Your dog got run over by a golf cart in the past?? If you're going to try to rain on the electric car parade, at least go and study up and then make good arguments.
 
Dav8or said:
What are you gasoline salesman? You really have no idea what you're talking about. What puts you on this crusade hate for electric cars? Your dog got run over by a golf cart in the past?? If you're going to try to rain on the electric car parade, at least go and study up and then make good arguments.
Click to expand...

I see, you can't make a counter-point. The rain on the parade comes from green hypocrisy and denial. Electric cars make more Co2 than gas cars. That fact is both inconvenient, and a laugh.

Go ahead, drive your little electric toy and ignore the eagles you kill with the windmills, and the pollution you make sucking electrons off the grid.

But quit pretending you don't know the truth. I just gave it to you.
 
I actually flew today

My gawd, think of the CO2 I generated
 
CTLSi said:
I see, you can't make a counter-point. The rain on the parade comes from green hypocrisy and denial. Electric cars make more Co2 than gas cars. That fact is both inconvenient, and a laugh.

Go ahead, drive your little electric toy and ignore the eagles you kill with the windmills, and the pollution you make sucking electrons off the grid.

But quit pretending you don't know the truth. I just gave it to you.
Click to expand...

I don't think a Tesla Model S could in any way be considered a "toy". Again, that's an inaccurate statement.
Another inaccuracy in this latest post from you is regarding CO2 emissions. Electric cars will always be more efficient (read: emit less CO2) than internal combustion propelled cars. The internal combustion engine is horribly inefficient compared to modern power plants (yes, even the fossil fueled ones) in conjunction with electric motors in the vehicles. Heck, the ICE is horribly inefficient, period.
One thing I will agree with the haters of advancing technology is: the fact that electric cars are definitely NOT zero-emission vehicles. They simply transfer what little emissions they generate to someplace else.

I'm still waiting for a post from you that contains accurate, and therefore believable information.
 
I have never encountered a Tesla Model S that hasn't tried to race me on my motorcycle. They always end up highly disappointed in the result.
 
CTLSi said:
Wind Farms Need 700 Times More Land to Produce Same Energy as Fracking
Click to expand...

Of course it does, what kind of stupidity is that? Fracking doesn't take up any land when the process is over. The well sites remain behind, though they are about the same foot print as a big wind turbine base, and most fields they are placed about as far apart as wind turbines.

Don't worry about your Naural Gas investments, it's still needed for electricity and short term fuel to power the current gasoline burning vehicles. It'll be around at least 25 more years. It's an easy and inexpensive conversion for cars and most engines. Modern gas cogeneration plants run at 50% thermal efficiency, we can up the efficiency by setting them up to also distill and condense water for electrolysis. Eventually though the big burdens will be taken by Thorium, Geothermal, and Wind.
 
Henning said:
No, subsidies going to electric vehicle users can be EXACTLY linked to what we spend on wars for oil. Electricity is generated from DOMESTIC resource, so those who will use electricity instead of gasoline should get rebates and help incentivize others. Not that it takes much. My buddy with the MiEV tracks his electric costs to commute around 60 miles a day, he figures it at $12 a week.

If you drive an EV, you should not have to pay for the wars to protect the oil industry, but you do. So, the EV subsidies are just making it a fair playing field.
Click to expand...

Henning, you know I like you and your stuff - but that's just silly. I tell you out of respect.

Assuming (solely for the sake of discussion) the wars were all about oil, that creates no rational basis for subsidizing electric cars.
 
SCCutler said:
Henning, you know I like you and your stuff - but that's just silly. I tell you out of respect.

Assuming (solely for the sake of discussion) the wars were all about oil, that creates no rational basis for subsidizing electric cars.
Click to expand...

Every war for over the past half century, including the Cold War was over oil. Even Vietnam was to keep the Commies out of the South China and Java seas oil fields.

If you aren't going to use gasoline, you should be rebated your share of the cost to prosecute wars to maintain the supply. That's not silly, that's fair, and it's an incentive for more people to go electric, further reducing our demand for oil and our need to spend a trillion dollars a decade just to assure the supply, not to mention the extra third of a trillion a year we send overseas to buy the oil. If we could reduce our oil consumption in half we wouldn't need to be fighting these wars because we would have energy covered domestically and not need to deal with, or corrupt, the Islamic world anymore and they can live in their peace and blow each other the **** up for all I care. Us being over there exploiting the oil fields is why they bring terrorism over here and why we go send our soldiers to die over there. All for oil, all for money. Want to know why America suffers this crap? Seriously bad karma.
 
Nukes are by far the greenest energy production in the USA. Zero emissions. Not one person has been hurt or killed in the USA since the first plants went live 75 years ago.

Nuke waste is actually useable in Gen IV breeder tech. The USA does nukes better than anyone in the world.

By contrast, windmills are wiping out whole species of bats and birds. And some 50 guys die each year repairing them. Yet they produce a tiny fraction of our energy.

Subsidizing solar, electric cars, and windfarms is a complete waste of taxpayer cash. These niche techs will NEVER be anything more than wet dreams for green hypocrites who have larger carbon footprints than those of us who don't play their goofy game.

The next energy revolution will be fusion power. Not wind or solar. And right now we could have cheap electricity and turn every car into an electric if the anti-nuke goofs would allow Gen IV plants to be created without pushback.
 
Last edited:
CTLSi said:
Nukes are by far the greenest energy production in the USA. Zero emissions. Not one person has been hurt or killed since the first plants went live 75 years ago.

Yet, windmills are wiping out whole species of bats and birds. And some 50 guys die each year repairing them. Yet the product a tiny fraction of our energy.

Subsidizing solar, electric cars, and windfarms is a complete waste of taxpayer cash. These niche techs will NEVER be anything more than wet dreams for green hypocrites who have larger carbon footprints than those of us who don't play their goofy game.

The next energy revolution will be fusion power. Not wind or solar. And right now we could have cheap electricity and turn every car into an electric if the anti-nuke goofs would allow Gen IV plants to be created without pushback.
Click to expand...


We can no longer afford to wait for the fusion revolution, we need the Thorium solution that's available right now. You can't do nuke safer or lower impact and it has the bonus that the same ores carry the 'rare earth minerals' that we use in superconductors, so mining Thorium will also have valuable secondary products as well. Multiple products per process, that is the level of efficiency we have to run everything at with our population if we intend to progress.
 
Can't just build a thorium reactor, the science behind it is only noes being worked out. That said, I suspect it'll be a lot more attainable than break even or get ahead fusion.
 
steingar said:
Can't just build a thorium reactor, the science behind it is only noes being worked out. That said, I suspect it'll be a lot more attainable than break even or get ahead fusion.
Click to expand...

Thorium reactor is what they had in the NB-52 project, Thorium reactor is producing power in India. We built the entire Manhattan project in 2 years. We went from first controlled chain reaction to breeder reactors producing Plutonium to nuclear bombs all in less than a decade. Why on bloody earth do you believe there is a technical problem to Thorium Reactors that make them some 'maybe in the future' deal? We could have them on line as well as the hydrogen infrastructure to make efficient use of all the power by the end of the decade. Look what was accomplished during the WWII time frame, and it was all wasted on destruction. Think what would happen if we spent that much time, effort, and resource on something of enduring, positive, value.
 
Looks like iHenning knows too. It is a pure shame that anti-nuke liberals have managed to spread ignorance and disinformation on this important topic. It's not hard to fool the American public, after all, they voted in Obama just based on skin color and collective white-guilt instead of qualifications and background.

The USA is it's own worst enemy when it comes to forgetting who we once were and what we are capable of in regard to these technologies.

If people knew guys like Reid and Obama are behind killing Yucca mountain, and storing dangerous waste in temp tanks near big population centers open to terror theft and leaking they would start to see who the real culprits are, and get behind tech that is truly green, truly cost effective, and truly the future.
 
Henning said:
Thorium reactor is what they had in the NB-52 project, Thorium reactor is producing power in India. We built the entire Manhattan project in 2 years. We went from first controlled chain reaction to breeder reactors producing Plutonium to nuclear bombs all in less than a decade. Why on bloody earth do you believe there is a technical problem to Thorium Reactors that make them some 'maybe in the future' deal? We could have them on line as well as the hydrogen infrastructure to make efficient use of all the power by the end of the decade. Look what was accomplished during the WWII time frame, and it was all wasted on destruction. Think what would happen if we spent that much time, effort, and resource on something of enduring, positive, value.
Click to expand...
Problem is until the **** hits the fan the motivation won't be there for people to move quickly enough. It's going to be a nasty day when there isn't enough power for people to run their A/C...which is scary close. Our power grid is basically totally hacked right now by Russia, Iran, etc. We're way behind on cyber defense as a nation. The next big war is going to be rather nasty, and the worst of it will be delivered virtually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top