Tesla

Status
Not open for further replies.
denverpilot said:
I'm really torn by that "transition". I can't bring myself to sign the check for a new pickup truck. The thought of it instantly losing $20K drives me nuts.

On the flip side, buying some truck someone has not taken care of properly and fixing its problems, or that they'e already done heavy towing with for 100K miles, isn't very appealing either.

Most of the "neat stuff" dealers have added is available at the local car stereo dealer, when it comes to trucks. About the only thing that's not true of is the integrated trailer brake controllers that integrate with the vehicle traction control and accelerometers. You can get close in the aftermarket but not 100%.

New cars/trucks are only new for one trip home. :)
Click to expand...
OK, I bought a 2010 Silverado back in 2010. The sticker price was $36,800. With incentives and some dealing I ended up at $29,000. That price by the way was $250 more than a 2010 Silverado sitting right next to it with 6,500 miles on it. I traded a Dodge Dakota on it and paid cash for the rest.t I bought the Dakota new and drove it five years. I put 67,000 miles on the Dakota. The trade in was exactly $5,000 less than I paid for it. I put 37,000 miles on the Silverado. A couple weeks ago I bought a 2014 Ford Escape. Played the game and got the Escape down where I thought that it would work. Traded the 2010 Silverado. They allowed me $26,475 on it. I don't know what you are looking at that is going to lose 20k as soon as you drive off the lot, but if that is the case, it has to be one expensive pickup truck.
 
Looks like Alex had a nice flight injecting lead in the atmosphere.

Oh, and interesting that Alex and gismo have almost identical tail numbers, other than the 5th character.
 
denverpilot said:
Except that it isn't green. It just moves the tailpipe from the car to a smokestack a hundred miles away.
Click to expand...
Or a bunch of windmills. Out here, wind power is starting to supply a decent amount of electricity now.
 
Maxmosbey said:
"Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change? " :D

Oddball, Kelly's Heros
Click to expand...

What are you expecting from someone named No Joy?
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Or a bunch of windmills. Out here, wind power is starting to supply a decent amount of electricity now.
Click to expand...

True, but most of those are heavily subsidized.

Will be interesting to see if we have a problem with "old tech" wind farms the power companies want government to help them take down because they will otherwise lose money removing or upgrading them when subsidies go away in the future.

I suspect that's their plan, anyway. Whine loudly and buy the new crop of Congresscritters off. ;)
 
Why do I keep thinking "Back to the Future" and "DMC"?:rolleyes:
 
No Joy said:
Sounds a bit like a pipe dream to me.

It would have to be a pretty big, expensive solar array to keep up with much driving. Tesla recommends 70 amp, 240 volt service. To keep the solar system small, it would likely need a battery to store energy in-between charging the car.

Batteries don’t last forever and can be quit expensive. But those that can afford a tesla, ought to be able to afford a battery. About 10K.
Click to expand...

The car has 265 mile range on an 85 kWh battery. Let's say you need to charge your car once a week (which gives you 30 miles a day with a 55 mile buffer at the end of the week). Now you only need to generate 12.1 kWh/day. I would guess you can survive with a 2 kW solar installation, preferably more, which isn't all that large-scale. Further, you don't need to store that electricity in batteries -- you sell it back to the electric company during the week at market rates, and on "charging day" you basically just buy it back all at once.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Or a bunch of windmills. Out here, wind power is starting to supply a decent amount of electricity now.
Click to expand...

It was my understanding that even coal-powered electric is far better for the environment than gasoline-powered internal combustion engines. Certainly more efficient. If nothing else you are centralizing the pollution in a controlled manner, rather than having millions of smaller sources polluting at the street level.
 
I would like to see electric cars fitted with solar cells on the roof, yes I know it will be far from the power needed to run the thing, but every little bit of power helps and given that the Tesla is already quite expensive why not?
 
Roof, hood, trunk... Sounds like a good idea to me.
 
Skylane81E said:
I would like to see electric cars fitted with solar cells on the roof, yes I know it will be far from the power needed to run the thing, but every little bit of power helps and given that the Tesla is already quite expensive why not?
Click to expand...

Weight can offset your gains. Not everything that looks green, is.
 
dukeblue219 said:
The car has 265 mile range on an 85 kWh battery. Let's say you need to charge your car once a week (which gives you 30 miles a day with a 55 mile buffer at the end of the week). Now you only need to generate 12.1 kWh/day. I would guess you can survive with a 2 kW solar installation, preferably more, which isn't all that large-scale. Further, you don't need to store that electricity in batteries -- you sell it back to the electric company during the week at market rates, and on "charging day" you basically just buy it back all at once.
Click to expand...
Cut the hype. Be honest. The 265 mile range is likely only under ideal conditions. People are often going to drive more the 30 miles a day. Most people houses won’t handle the power requirements to charge a Tesla without paying the utility company more to up the amperage of the service. 2 kW system is very small, but still very expensive, and like I said before it‘s going to take expensive equipment to hook it up to the grid.
 
MAKG1 said:
Weight can offset your gains. Not everything that looks green, is.
Click to expand...

Well they already offer a glass roof, wouldn't weigh much more than that, possibly less as wou wouldn't have to beef up the roof structure as much.

And the hard core greenies would love it
 
Skylane81E said:
Well they already offer a glass roof, wouldn't weigh much more than that, possibly less as wou wouldn't have to beef up the roof structure as much.

And the hard core greenies would love it
Click to expand...

11 watts a square foot, best case. You could run a dash clock and the trunk lights that's about it.
 
dukeblue219 said:
It was my understanding that even coal-powered electric is far better for the environment than gasoline-powered internal combustion engines. Certainly more efficient. If nothing else you are centralizing the pollution in a controlled manner, rather than having millions of smaller sources polluting at the street level.
Click to expand...
It depends on a lot of variables and what factors are considered as efficiency.

IE: Using a power plant, there is a lot of efficiency and energy lost during transmission and conversion, especially if you live far away from the power plant.
 
ClimbnSink said:
11 watts a square foot, best case. You could run a dash clock and the trunk lights that's about it.
Click to expand...

Understood, but again, why not? Some is better than none and most of the hardware needed for solar power collection is there, short of the cells.
 
ClimbnSink said:
11 watts a square foot, best case. You could run a dash clock and the trunk lights that's about it.
Click to expand...
I have a small solar panel on my car, it is enough to compensate for the drain when the car is turned off. There is a small load when the car is off (clocks, door lock receiver, etc.). Batteries also self drain (internal resistance) so it’s best to keep them on a trickle charge.

Most trunk lights (other then a few small LEDs) would drain more then a small solar panel would charge.
 
Skylane81E said:
Understood, but again, why not? Some is better than none and most of the hardware needed for solar power collection is there, short of the cells.
Click to expand...
Most solar cells are expensive and delicate. A stone cast out of a tire tread could easily destroy most solar panels.
 
Skylane81E said:
Understood, but again, why not? Some is better than none and most of the hardware needed for solar power collection is there, short of the cells.
Click to expand...

People would expect more then it could deliver, which would leave a big mental negative and put chinks in the smug idea of green driving that they paid dearly for.
 
ClimbnSink said:
11 watts a square foot, best case. You could run a dash clock and the trunk lights that's about it.
Click to expand...

It's about perception, not reality.
 
denverpilot said:
Except that it isn't green. It just moves the tailpipe from the car to a smokestack a hundred miles away.
Click to expand...

Which, for Caifornians, is just fine with them...
 
SCCutler said:
Which, for Caifornians, is just fine with them...
Click to expand...

It also can make sense. I live in one of the top 10 cities in the country for worst air quality. A lot of that has to do with the coal powerplants around here combined with the cars and other sources of pollution from a metropolis. I've advocated they need to shut down the coal plants and move them someplace else that doesn't have much polution. Creates jobs in that region and helps our air quality without having as significant of an impact on the air at the new location.
 
Range is still a big issue. I live in Nevada and just driving to Elko, it'd die before I got there. There are only really two towns between here and Elko... Lovelock and Winnemucca.

It won't make it to Vegas either, or Boise. Just not a good vehicle for the mostly empty Western states.
 
Skylane81E said:
Understood, but again, why not? Some is better than none and most of the hardware needed for solar power collection is there, short of the cells.
Click to expand...

Yeah, some is better than none, but you're talking about such a tiny percentage of your power being derived from the solar panel on your car's roof that it's truly not worth it, UNLESS you need a trickle charge for a battery or something. The base model has a 270kW engine -- you're going to get maybe 20 watts from a rooftop installation (.007% of peak power draw). The only practical solar option is panels on your home's roof that either store power for days at a time, or which sell back to the utility to offset what you use when you charge it.

It's like if you could take one of those AA-powered miniature fans people use in the summer time and tape it to the outside of your plane -- yes, every bit helps, but it's not even noticeable compared to the power of the engine.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Looks like Alex had a nice flight injecting lead in the atmosphere.

Oh, and interesting that Alex and gismo have almost identical tail numbers, other than the 5th character.
Click to expand...

What a great day to fly. Glass smooth coming across the Rockies this morning with a beautiful mist hanging in the valleys. Reading these threads, many of us could use some more seat time on days like this.

I guess I should try and buy some carbon offsets now.

Lance is my hero, so I tried to imitate him. I'm just not cool enough to fly a twin.:)

No Joy said:
You let a drive cloud your judgment. A hot test ride, does not change the economics, physics and math.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it clouded my judgement at all. I have owned the competitive vehicles and as a consumer I at least have that perspective. The european cars are sexy, drive great, and cost a fortune to own (I have plenty of stories). My Lexus/Toyota's have been super reliable and low cost to own, but they are just not as thrilling as the europeans. The Tesla has the makings of being both. Of course time will tell with regard to reliability.

BTW- I started this thread to discuss the merits of the car itself, not make an environmental argument. That said, ever drive in L.A. in the 70's? Looked like Beijing does now. We have come a long way and none of us should be down on new technology.
 
No Joy said:
Cut the hype. Be honest. The 265 mile range is likely only under ideal conditions. People are often going to drive more the 30 miles a day.
Click to expand...

I was making a generic example. Most people aren't going to drive more than 30 miles a day, seven days a week. Yes, lots of people do, but most don't. Even then, I was leaving a substantial margin behind. I don't consider this unrealistic to charge the Tesla once a week for an average driver.

Most people houses won’t handle the power requirements to charge a Tesla without paying the utility company more to up the amperage of the service. 2 kW system is very small, but still very expensive, and like I said before it‘s going to take expensive equipment to hook it up to the grid.
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't intend to imply that doing a solar powered charging system was cost-effective, just that it wasn't unreasonable for somebody who is already willing to shell out this much for a luxury sedan. I also wanted to be clear that you don't need a solar panel capable of providing those 70A, nor do you need a large battery system if you willing to tie into the grid. Frankly, most people who would use solar to charge their car are probably already using it to power their house, so it would just be an expansion of an existing system.
 
i could afford the payments on one of these, but the insurance for being near Austin is probably more than the loan.. anyone have one in Texas and care to share how much insurance hurts their wallet?
 
DesertNomad said:
Range is still a big issue. I live in Nevada and just driving to Elko, it'd die before I got there. There are only really two towns between here and Elko... Lovelock and Winnemucca.

It won't make it to Vegas either, or Boise. Just not a good vehicle for the mostly empty Western states.
Click to expand...

But it would work well in the urban areas, which is more its market. Out west I've seen a lot more F-350s than S550s. In New York the numbers were reversed.

Alexb2000 said:
What a great day to fly. Glass smooth coming across the Rockies this morning with a beautiful mist hanging in the valleys. Reading these threads, many of us could use some more seat time on days like this.

I guess I should try and buy some carbon offsets now.

Lance is my hero, so I tried to imitate him. I'm just not cool enough to fly a twin.:)
Click to expand...

You could fly a twin. I'm not that cool, and I fly one. ;)

Today it's low cloudy. I want to go flying. :(
 
denverpilot said:
It'd get me out of the subdivision by three miles, and 25 miles short of my destination. ;)
Click to expand...

Yep, but you would sure wish you'd had it if you had to push it those last few miles.

FWIW battery capacity/driving range shows about 283watts of consumption at 55mph but I'm not buying that it cruises on only 1/3hp so...
 
Skylane81E said:
FWIW battery capacity/driving range shows about 283watts of consumption at 55mph but I'm not buying that it cruises on only 1/3hp so...
Click to expand...
???
My rough calculations, with a battery capacity of 85kwh and a manufacturer range estimate of 265 miles is about 4.4 hours at 60 mph, energy usage of about 19kw. Thats roughly 25 horsepower. Seems to calculate correctly...
 
Aeric said:
???
My rough calculations, with a battery capacity of 85kwh and a manufacturer range estimate of 265 miles is about 4.4 hours at 60 mph, energy usage of about 19kw. Thats roughly 25 horsepower. Seems to calculate correctly...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think I goofed the conversion, didn't throw time in:mad2::lol:
 
Skylane81E said:
Yeah, I think I goofed the conversion, didn't throw time in:mad2::lol:
Click to expand...
You goofed. But most Tesla advocates seem to often skew, misrepresent, or exaggerate Tesla’s performance.

Tesla allegedly tends to exaggerate it’s claims. Tesla advocates often seem to misrepresent and/or exaggerate the Tesla.

The range claimed could probably be only be under ideal conditions. The fast charge times, can only be achieved with a utility service that is more powerful then some home service. The fast charge uses more power then some homes. Low maintenance and long range claims, are contrary to many real world results.

Suspect climate controls like heat on cold days or AC on hot days would significantly reduce range.

Tesla Libel Suit Over BBC’s ‘Top Gear’ Dismissed in U.K.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...er-bbc-s-top-gear-dismissed-by-u-k-court.html

Jeremy drives the Tesla Roadster
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/electric-shocker
 
No Joy said:
Allegedly:

"Adding up the Lies in Tesla’s DOE application"
http://boycotttesla.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/adding-up-the-lies-in-teslas-doe-application/
Click to expand...

You sure seem to have a strong opinion. You also seem like a sharp person so I'm sure you wouldn't have formed such a strong opinion unless you had driven one, owned one, or at least had some first hand knowledge. We get lots of strong opinions here about aircraft people have never flown/owned, but yet they're 100% confident about their perspective. That's always sad for a group that is supposed embrace experience over rhetoric.

So how did you think it drove? Did you have any issues with the range? Any problems with the touch screen technology? Fit and finish?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top