Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Friday July 25, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-30-2012, 02:04 PM   #26
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Nevertheless it is money wasted. Tesla was a better bet, but still fairly risky and probably a bad idea. I prefer purchase subsidies myself though b/c the company has to actually sell a product to benefit.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 02:10 PM   #27
JC
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 692
Join Date: Dec 1999
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Vehicle:
2006 Pontiac GTO M6
Triumph Street Triple R

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty View Post
Nevertheless it is money wasted. Tesla was a better bet, but still fairly risky and probably a bad idea. I prefer purchase subsidies myself though b/c the company has to actually sell a product to benefit.
The point of DOE loans is to foster innovation by reducing the risk for private industries to push the envelope of technology. This is meant to keep us competitive globally where other other countries will often outright fund companies that they see as strategic for their economic plan. Subsidies are an entirely different mechanism for an entirely purpose. Unless you want Americans to be driving electric cars designed by BYD et all and made in China with Chinese components, you should support the efforts of the DOE.
JC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 02:43 PM   #28
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

While I totally agree JC with the intent of the subsidy as you put it, the TESLA and the TESLA model S are not the proper tool to push electric car technology. TESLA cannot do anything that Ford, Chevy or Toyota cannot do themselves. If the government wanted to really improve the chances of electric cars appearing on the road, they should go all in on battery power and improving the electric grid. Not wasting money on a 100k dollar rich boy toy. The improvements are needed in the batteries, not the package that carries them.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 02:46 PM   #29
Indocti Discant
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 138000
Join Date: Jan 2007
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: et ament meminisse periti
Vehicle:
L Bo Hope you meet
the spirit in the sky

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
While I totally agree JC with the intent of the subsidy as you put it, the TESLA and the TESLA model S are not the proper tool to push electric car technology. TESLA cannot do anything that Ford, Chevy or Toyota cannot do themselves. If the government wanted to really improve the chances of electric cars appearing on the road, they should go all in on battery power and improving the electric grid. Not wasting money on a 100k dollar rich boy toy. The improvements are needed in the batteries, not the package that carries them.
if that was the case Toyota would not have invested in Tesla.
Indocti Discant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 02:55 PM   #30
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

There are many reasons why they may have done that, but I am sure it was not because they could not build a single speed electric car based entirely on the body of a lotus.

Maybe it was just the right company at the right time. Who knows, but if you think Tesla had some magical mysterious tech that all of Toyota could not figure out, then I think you give Tesla too much credit.

From the president of Toyota...

Toyota’s environmental communications manager, in an interview with HybridCars.com. “Toyota would like to learn from the challenging spirit, quick decision-making, and flexibility that Tesla has,” Toyota President Akio Toyoda, said in a press release.

and

The partnership gives both companies a boost in public perception. Toyota in particular could use a boost after a recent safety scandal threatened its reputation as not only the greenest car company but also one of the safest. But green car fans should not begin speculating about specific Toyota-Tesla electric cars—as cool as some kind of Prius Roadster or Tesla Hybrid might be. Hartline told us that any details beyond the most basic agreement to share and collaborate on parts and production systems have not “been hammered out.”

Again, Tesla has nothing technically toyota could not do by itself.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 02:58 PM   #31
XanRules
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 157348
Join Date: Aug 2007
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Rustletech Headquarters
Vehicle:
1996 JNCO Jorts
Stonewashed Denim

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indocti Discant

Charlie sheen show replaced him with demi moore exhusband will drive it now but cancel soon it will be though it is in california.
Thank?
XanRules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 03:00 PM   #32
JC
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 692
Join Date: Dec 1999
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Vehicle:
2006 Pontiac GTO M6
Triumph Street Triple R

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
There are many reasons why they may have done that, but I am sure it was not because they could not build a single speed electric car based entirely on the body of a lotus.

Maybe it was just the right company at the right time. Who knows, but if you think Tesla had some magical mysterious tech that all of Toyota could not figure out, then I think you give Tesla too much credit.
Don't underestimate the increased flexibility of a small company versus a large one. You work at NASA you know how hard it is to get things approved in a massive bureaucracy with endless approval loops. Typically the government fosters the basic research, small companies prove it commercially viable, then large companies refine it and bring it to the larger market. That system works and it is what you are seeing with Tesla and their partnership with Toyota.

Also don't underestimate the political aspects at play here. These investments create visible jobs and products that people want to take pictures next to. When was the last time you saw someone take a picture with power lines because they were 25% more efficient? That doesn't make the decision a poor on though. If it's between building a more efficient car and doing nothing, I'll take the car.
JC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 03:04 PM   #33
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JC View Post
If it's between building a more efficient car and doing nothing, I'll take the car.
for the most part, I have to agree with this, assuming the money saved would not be used for something else more noteworthy.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 03:47 PM   #34
JC
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 692
Join Date: Dec 1999
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Vehicle:
2006 Pontiac GTO M6
Triumph Street Triple R

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
for the most part, I have to agree with this, assuming the money saved would not be used for something else more noteworthy.
Considering all the stupid **** our government wastes money on, just being something worthwhile puts it in the top half of government money usage IMO.
JC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 03:49 PM   #35
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

All tesla has done is battery cooling and pack design. Both of which honestly GM appeaars to have done as well. I am fine with DOE loans to A123 and similar, but fisker and tesla are neither that useful of investments. IMO of course. Scrappy we dont need to work on the grid for electric cars btw batteries yes
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 04:12 PM   #36
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JC View Post
The point of DOE loans is to foster innovation by reducing the risk for private industries to push the envelope of technology. This is meant to keep us competitive globally where other other countries will often outright fund companies that they see as strategic for their economic plan. Subsidies are an entirely different mechanism for an entirely purpose. Unless you want Americans to be driving electric cars designed by BYD et all and made in China with Chinese components, you should support the efforts of the DOE.
I actually understand this far more than the average joe. But unless the money is targeted toward specific goals it is often a waste. Giving Tesla or Fisker loads of money so they can purchase a disused car factory and then purchase parts from the same suppliers that supply all the other automakers isn't giving us much. The same money could be spent on hybrid buses for example and still give the incentive to improve battery technology and push the envelope. Using a bunch of far east produced laptop batteries isn't pushing technology envelopes. The entire point of Tesla was to stop pushing technology and use technology we already have developed that is cheaper.

Yes other countries are pouring money in and have in the past as well. If it were not for IP theft then it would be far more lucrative to fund basic research than this sort of middle ground. When you subsidize the purchase you give the company an incentive and reduce risk as well. Same if you guarantee a certain number of purchases at a given price. These sorts of methods are better b/c the company actually has to produce products to get the money. Throwing money at GM, Ford, and Toyota to build fuel cells has resulted lots of money being spent and bigger patent portfolios but no vehicles are sold b/c the companies don't have to sell anything to get the money. Paying ford to investigate aluminum intensive vehicles in the 90s resulted in us spending money, but ford didn't bother to actually make such vehicles. Obviously there is some point where it will or won't work. If we subsidized each sale of a fuel cell vehicle at $1 million they could sell some. If we did it at $7500 I doubt they could sell any appreciable number. So some technologies simply are not to the point where such a scheme is effective. However EVs and PHEVs are. It isn't as if electric motors are new technology. If we want to do specific things (like the Japanese government funded research by toyota to remove rare earth metals from the motors) then fine, but don't just hand out huge sums of money especially to companies that are not expanding the technology edge. Everyone was upset about solyndra, but it was better than a loan to either Fisker or Tesla because they were actually trying something new.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 04:37 PM   #37
elirentz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 70082
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: charleston, sc
Vehicle:
2005 sti, 02 s2000
88 944 beater

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty View Post
Everyone was upset about solyndra, but it was better than a loan to either Fisker or Tesla because they were actually trying something new.
Some may say that its just packaging and rehashing old technology but Tesla is making packages and cars that have longer range and better usability than any of the other manufacturers despite having a smaller budget and smaller loans from the government. First people complain that their cars are too expensive then they complain that they use batteries etc that are available on the market to cut costs. Which do you want, highly expensive from the ground up new tech, or more affordable slightly less innovative tech? As was already said before other car manufacturers are investing in Tesla so that they can share technology (not just for brand imaging) because they don't want to spend the money to r & d the tech themselves since Tesla has already done it. Why don't you listen to what Bob Lutz has to say here: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11984

Summary: Lutz (creator of the Volt) has respect for what Tesla has done

It also explains quite a few other things discussed in this, and other threads.
elirentz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 04:44 PM   #38
HipToBeSquare
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 119958
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: (IA) flyover cornfield country
Vehicle:
1992 SVX LS-L

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty View Post
All tesla has done is battery cooling and pack design. Both of which honestly GM appeaars to have done as well. I am fine with DOE loans to A123 and similar, but fisker and tesla are neither that useful of investments. IMO of course. Scrappy we dont need to work on the grid for electric cars btw batteries yes
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showt...te-QuickCharge
Quote:
Originally Posted by www.teslamotorsclub.com
How does the 45 Minute Quickcharge work?
At the October 1st 2011 event Tesla Motors revealed that the 45 minute QuickCharge of the Model S will be done with a 90kW DC charger.

The biggest battery pack will hold about 85 to 90kWh of power. Charging from a 10% SoC (State of Charge) to 80% can be done in 45 minutes. Charging to a 100% will take a longer time.

With a 30 minute charge you will get somewhere around 150 miles of range. (Only with the 300 mile pack and maybe with the 230 mile pack)

What kind of charger will they use?
Tesla claims to have developed a new in-house charger consisting of 9 10kW chargers as found in the Model S. By placing 9 of these chargers (outside the car!) in parallel they would be able to deliver 90kW of power.

What kind of connector will they be using for this?
At the same event Tesla also showed their new connector. This "Tesla-only" connector will be able to handle up to 20kW of AC power through the HPC 2.0 EVSE or 90kW of DC power with the new charger.

At the moment we are not sure which protocol Tesla will be using, but it is almost certain that without an adapter the Model S will NOT be able to charge from existing CHAdeMO chargers like used for the Nissan Leaf.

Will I be able to install this charger at home?
No, probably not. You will need a 3-phase 480V ~120A connection, not something you will find in a regular house.

Where will I find these chargers?
Tesla will be installing these DC chargers along the major interstates throughout the US (and Europe?).
Most houses have 2x120v AC supply, at 100-200 amps total. 240v AC 3-phase * 200 amps (most houses probably have 100 amp service, but we'll be generous here) is 48000 watts, with your house budgeted to use up to 80% of the incoming current already.

48kW is a generous estimate for a house's 100% capacity. ONE of these quick chargers, single, by itself, is double that.

If you have multiple chargers, because they take 45 minutes, (not 4.5 minutes like filling the tank at a gas pump at a gas station)... to avoid long waiting lines... you are talking about more current than a small neighborhood, for one "station".

And that electricity isn't free, and at that sort of infrastructure level, it might not even be all that cheap. Especially considering the safety of a whole bunch of regular drivers trying to handle high voltage connections safely... Or are we planning on hiring electrical engineers as electrical charging station attendants?

And it would be a ticking time bomb to combine a high voltage electric station with a traditional gas/diesel station... so you are talking about separate real estate.

And those stations, even spread anywhere from 40-100 miles apart, to accommodate cars like Leaf's range, and likely closer than that for convenience and trips that are not one-way... There will still have to be thousands of those stations.

And you don't think that sort of demand will necessitate an upgrade to the electric grid, and a whole helluva lot more generation capacity? REALLY?
HipToBeSquare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 05:07 PM   #39
Indocti Discant
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 138000
Join Date: Jan 2007
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: et ament meminisse periti
Vehicle:
L Bo Hope you meet
the spirit in the sky

Default

Why do you guys think that loans are a waste of tax payer money? Given their senior secured nature (with the exception of solyndra) even in a bankruptcy scenario the DOE is likely to get all their money back.
Indocti Discant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 05:09 PM   #40
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elirentz View Post
Some may say that its just packaging and rehashing old technology but Tesla is making packages and cars that have longer range and better usability than any of the other manufacturers despite having a smaller budget and smaller loans from the government. First people complain that their cars are too expensive then they complain that they use batteries etc that are available on the market to cut costs. Which do you want, highly expensive from the ground up new tech, or more affordable slightly less innovative tech? As was already said before other car manufacturers are investing in Tesla so that they can share technology (not just for brand imaging) because they don't want to spend the money to r & d the tech themselves since Tesla has already done it. Why don't you listen to what Bob Lutz has to say here: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11984

Summary: Lutz (creator of the Volt) has respect for what Tesla has done
Lutz likes Tesla b/c they make desirable cars. He thinks that is why they will succeed. It has nothing to do with whether they are using old or new technology. The excuse for government funding is to push technology forward. Tesla isn't doing that except in pack design. If the cars are too expensive and using old tech that may explain why they don't need huge loans. Though we gave them half a billion about. Those vehicles cost nearly 100k apiece. I don't want to assign their $465 million to the roadster as that would be a government loan of $221k per vehicle and ridiculous. But unless they can start selling a vehicle that regular people can afford then the money is kind of a waste precisely because they are not innovating in other areas. We don't need DOE loans for pretty sheet metal and nice interiors. Those do sell vehicles. Tesla does have that mastered. But we don't need to spend the money for that. I realize they are farming out some of the harder engineering parts like the transmission in the roadster that did not work, but if we want to get such things we should have paid transmission companies to do the research. Tesla just gave up on it.

@Hip the chargers don't have high voltage until they are connected you can lick them if you like and still won't get shocked so we don't need electrical engineers plugging in vehicles. We don't need lots of new infrastructure either as it turns out. They can waste money installing it, they can beg for government money to do so, but we don't really need it except in certain specific instances which are far in the future and not viable today anyway. Once they are talking about 5 minute recharge then we can worry about the need for infrastructure.

Last edited by sxotty; 01-30-2012 at 05:17 PM.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 05:25 PM   #41
HipToBeSquare
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 119958
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: (IA) flyover cornfield country
Vehicle:
1992 SVX LS-L

Default

Give people an inch... they'll shock the hell out of themselves somehow. It's murphy's law.
HipToBeSquare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2012, 05:41 PM   #42
elirentz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 70082
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: charleston, sc
Vehicle:
2005 sti, 02 s2000
88 944 beater

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty View Post
Lutz likes Tesla b/c they make desirable cars. He thinks that is why they will succeed. It has nothing to do with whether they are using old or new technology. The excuse for government funding is to push technology forward. Tesla isn't doing that except in pack design. If the cars are too expensive and using old tech that may explain why they don't need huge loans. Though we gave them half a billion about. Those vehicles cost nearly 100k apiece. I don't want to assign their $465 million to the roadster as that would be a government loan of $221k per vehicle and ridiculous. But unless they can start selling a vehicle that regular people can afford then the money is kind of a waste precisely because they are not innovating in other areas. We don't need DOE loans for pretty sheet metal and nice interiors. Those do sell vehicles. Tesla does have that mastered. But we don't need to spend the money for that. I realize they are farming out some of the harder engineering parts like the transmission in the roadster that did not work, but if we want to get such things we should have paid transmission companies to do the research. Tesla just gave up on it.
You obviously didn't watch the video. It explains a lot about why they started where they did as far as expensive vehicles go. They aren't just innovative in the battery pack design its the entire package as a whole This is especially true for the model S as its one of the first modern cars designed from the chassis up to be an electrical vehicle (aside from the aptera's). As in not just a modified petrol car chassis. I find their motor packaging and system integration to be state of the art. But hey what do I know? I'm only and electrical engineer.

The reason that electric motors haven't changed all that much since the days of Tesla himself is that they are so efficient to begin with. The internal combustion engine is constantly evolving because they are/ were so inefficient in energy conversion.

All this talk of subsidies what about all of the money the government puts in to give us cheap oil?

Last edited by elirentz; 01-30-2012 at 11:50 PM.
elirentz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2012, 02:46 AM   #43
ejicon
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 2452
Join Date: Sep 2000
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Burbank,California, USA
Vehicle:
08 2.5 WRX
WRB Mica

Default

Tempting.
ejicon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2012, 07:20 AM   #44
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elirentz View Post
You obviously didn't watch the video. It explains a lot about why they started where they did as far as expensive vehicles go. They aren't just innovative in the battery pack design its the entire package as a whole This is especially true for the model S as its one of the first modern cars designed from the chassis up to be an electrical vehicle (aside from the aptera's). As in not just a modified petrol car chassis. I find their motor packaging and system integration to be state of the art. But hey what do I know? I'm only and electrical engineer.

The reason that electric motors haven't changed all that much since the days of Tesla himself is that they are so efficient to begin with. The internal combustion engine is constantly evolving because they are/ were so inefficient in energy conversion.

All this talk of subsidies what about all of the money the government puts in to give us cheap oil?
You are contradicting themselves. If electric motors haven't changed all that much since the days of Tesla himself then state of the art ain't so special. Tesla's roadster could not be driven hard without overheating and going into limp mode. That isn't state of the art. I am glad you are an electrical engineer, but it doesn't seem like you have supported your supposition that they are using state of the art tech.

I know full well why they started expensive. I said at the time it was a good idea. From a business perspective they are doing fine, but from the perspective of deserving our tax dollars I don't see it. You don't have to convince me that all the money we give traditional energy companies is a bad idea. But you know what they say about two wrongs not making a right.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2012, 09:42 AM   #45
elirentz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 70082
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: charleston, sc
Vehicle:
2005 sti, 02 s2000
88 944 beater

Default

I'm contradicting whoseselves? If you reread what I wrote I said the motor packaging not the induction motor itself although their hand wound watercooled induction motor is a great design. The new packaging for the S integrates the motor, controller, and transmission into a compact unit that frees up more space in the chassis and lowers the CoG. Here it is:

It is an extremely compact design for a 250+ hp motor, variable frequency drive, and transmission. I would write more about the technical details of why the battery charging and monitoring systems and motor controller designs are state of the art but why waste my words since most of you will never be convinced that Tesla isn't "the next delorean" or a waste of money and effort. Lets put it this way name another company that has technology more advanced than Tesla in their commercially available battery powered road cars.....I'll help you out, there aren't any.

What do you mean the roadster couldn't be driven hard without going into limp mode? Sure it would happen after a few hard laps on the track but during everyday driving with quick sprints or at an autox it is fine. That was the first generation of their design as well, the motor was air cooled. I'm sure you know that engineering a product for the consumer market always involves compromises between technology and affordability. As far as EV's are concerned Tesla's products are the most advanced on the market. I'm sure they could have pushed the tech envelope a little further but it would have been that much more expensive. The purpose of Tesla is not scientific research but engineering a consumer product that makes electric powered vehicles available to the public in that sense Tesla is state of the art. Several big name car manufacturers have tried their hand at EV's since the roadster debuted (e.g. porsche, mini/ BMW, Nissan etc.) but all have had significantly less range or performance.

As far as the subsidies goes the loan that Tesla received is an attempt by the DOE to help start up companies that will help reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Funding EV manufacturers does this because electric power can be produced by various different means that doesn't have to be from oil. It also allows for easier adaptability in the future and is even in its current state a more efficient means of transport.

Again Tesla is making the best EV's available right now and already have smaller cheaper cars in the design stage. The S is the first mass-produced car that will help to fund the start up of their plant.

Last edited by elirentz; 01-31-2012 at 09:55 AM.
elirentz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2012, 10:50 AM   #46
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

Wait, are you trying to compare a Nissan Leaf to the Tesla Roadster as proof Tesla can do things Nissan cannot. Please, statements like that are ludicrous.

The leaf must carry 4+ people and luggage and be sold for a profit, at a MIGHT LOT LESS than 100k dollars. IF you really believe that toyota, Nissan or Porsche cannot build what Tesla has, then you have been drinking waaaaay too much Tesla Kool Aid.

It is just an over glorified golf cart, actually a Golf cart can carry more luggage.

The Tesla Model S has several different ranges, the base model that costs 57400 gets 160 miles per charge on a perfect day going a steady 55 mph on level ground. Not verified by standardized US EPA LA4 City cycle.

The leaf goes for 35200, and goes 100 miles which has been verified US EPA LA4 City cycle, can seat 5 people, and is on sale today.

If nissan wanted to make an entry level electric sedan, I am pretty sure it is just a matter of putting more batteries in it.

Again, Nothing at all remarkable from Tesla. The Prius is far more impressive, and so is the Volt, both cars I would NEVER own. But they are remarkable none the less for the engineering. A converted Elise, not so much.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2012, 12:44 PM   #47
elirentz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 70082
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: charleston, sc
Vehicle:
2005 sti, 02 s2000
88 944 beater

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
Wait, are you trying to compare a Nissan Leaf to the Tesla Roadster as proof Tesla can do things Nissan cannot. Please, statements like that are ludicrous.

The leaf must carry 4+ people and luggage and be sold for a profit, at a MIGHT LOT LESS than 100k dollars. IF you really believe that toyota, Nissan or Porsche cannot build what Tesla has, then you have been drinking waaaaay too much Tesla Kool Aid.

It is just an over glorified golf cart, actually a Golf cart can carry more luggage.

The Tesla Model S has several different ranges, the base model that costs 57400 gets 160 miles per charge on a perfect day going a steady 55 mph on level ground. Not verified by standardized US EPA LA4 City cycle.

The leaf goes for 35200, and goes 100 miles which has been verified US EPA LA4 City cycle, can seat 5 people, and is on sale today.

If nissan wanted to make an entry level electric sedan, I am pretty sure it is just a matter of putting more batteries in it.

Again, Nothing at all remarkable from Tesla. The Prius is far more impressive, and so is the Volt, both cars I would NEVER own. But they are remarkable none the less for the engineering. A converted Elise, not so much.
There you go again with the golf cart comment. So by that logic is a Bugatti just an over glorified go kart?

So tell me what technology in the prius and volt is so much more advanced than what Tesla has coming out?

The leaf is a good ev but the 100 mile range has been known to be exaggerated in normal driving conditions: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/26067/
So far Tesla's range estimates have been close to what's found in normal driving.

Nissan is a large company and has many more resources and economy of scale for production to allow the leaf to be sold for that price not to mention the leaf is nowhere near as luxurious as the S. That's like comparing a prius to a BMW hybrid and saying "see toyota sells it for cheaper."

A small example of how Tesla has better tech than what is in the leaf is recharging. The older battery tech in the roadster (53 kWh) takes 10 hours to fully charge with a 240 volt charger @ 32 amps for ~ 230 miles worth of power (EPA tested). With the same outlet the Leaf's 24 kWh battery takes 8 hours for an EPA rated 73 miles worth of charge. Which one sounds more technologically advanced? This is with Tesla's old technology at nowhere near the fastest charging rates (faster rates are available with higher current rated circuits not an option on the leaf). Comparing the battery systems by saying "they just need to add more batteries" shows what little you know about both systems. The leaf is a good car and cheaper but nowhere near the same as far as technology is concerned. Yeah the roadster is more expensive but it was a first generation and had a chassis built by Lotus (and it only shared a few parts with the elise) and panels made of carbon fiber.

I'm not saying that nissan porsche etc can't develop their own tech they just haven't put the resources into it and Tesla is ahead of the game. Tesla's silicon valley mentality facilitates faster innovation since they have less bureaucratic nonsense to deal with to move funding around for r&d.

Again I'm sure I'm wasting my time given who I'm talking with. You both have been anti Tesla since day 1. At first it was "Ev's are just glorified golf carts" then it was "the roadster is vaporware" then "they'll never sell more then a handful" then it was "they'll never last more than a year or two" then "the model s is just vaporware will never sell." In fact the first year of the Model S is sold out already. I'm sure the response to that is "oh its all hype and no substance...bunch of lemmings" I disagree. Its selling well because it will be the best EV on the market and there's a market for it.

Last edited by elirentz; 01-31-2012 at 12:57 PM.
elirentz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2012, 01:51 PM   #48
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

You make waaay to many assumptions...and they are wrong...

If your comparison is to hold water, then you are saying that Nissan put its very best foot forward with the leaf. It tried the best of the best of the best for batteries and charging, and cooling etc.

Is that likely, or is it FAR more likely they built the leaf to a price for the average man to afford, not like Tesla who built a money is no object rich boy toy. They make concessions to charge time and capacity based on the cells they picked for the car which were no doubt not the best on the market, but met a happy median for price, availability (since they were making more than, OH 200 of them), and performance.

You can throw out numbers all you want, but the fact remains that the Tesla is a ultra low production toy sold as a gimmick to make people think electric cars do not suck.

Where as the Leaf is a mass market electric car made to be affordable to the slightly above average income common family.

The leaf is not an indicator of the best Nissan can do, but as it is, it is about on par with the best Tesla can do. Until Tesla makes a 35000 dollar 5 passenger car, Or until Nissan makes a 57000 dollar electric car we will not know...

But to even come close to implying the company that made the GTR is behind technologically to an upstart like Tesla is a comical joke.

Try to wrap your head around this. The Prius and Volt have essentially unlimited range due to something called an internal combustion engine, that can drive the wheels instead of and with the electric motor seamlessly. That lone is epically more complex and more technologically sophisticated than a pure electric.

As for the go kart analogy you propose, do not be ridiculous. Go karts do not have roofs.
But your right, the Tesla is not a golf kart, as they do not have regenerative brakes..

the tesla has FAR more common with an RC6





Tesla = Golf cart that is less useful.
one last thing, do not mistake orders for sales... big difference.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2012, 02:43 PM   #49
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
If your comparison is to hold water, then you are saying that Nissan put its very best foot forward with the leaf. It tried the best of the best of the best for batteries and charging, and cooling etc.

Is that likely, or is it FAR more likely they built the leaf to a price for the average man to afford, not like Tesla who built a money is no object rich boy toy. They make concessions to charge time and capacity based on the cells they picked for the car which were no doubt not the best on the market, but met a happy median for price, availability (since they were making more than, OH 200 of them), and performance.

You can throw out numbers all you want, but the fact remains that the Tesla is a ultra low production toy sold as a gimmick to make people think electric cars do not suck.

Where as the Leaf is a mass market electric car made to be affordable to the slightly above average income common family.

The leaf is not an indicator of the best Nissan can do, but as it is, it is about on par with the best Tesla can do. Until Tesla makes a 35000 dollar 5 passenger car, Or until Nissan makes a 57000 dollar electric car we will not know...
I can't believe I agree with Scrappy

Anyway look I am not trying to bash Tesla. I think they made a nice car in the roadster. I think the model S looks good so far. I just don't see the case that they are doing anything revolutionary. They just have a different market segment they are targeting. And frankly GM should have targeted a different segment as well. If the volt had been a caddy it would have been better from a business perspective IMO. Take a look at GM's packaging for the driveline on the volt it is plenty compact and spiffy as well.

Tesla has made fairly good business decisions, but I do not see them as bleeding edge innovators.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2012, 03:02 PM   #50
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

I will not tell anybody sxotty...

SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Black box on board New standards for automotive big brother take effect in 2012 AVANTI R5 Non-Subaru News & Rumors 38 04-21-2012 11:06 AM
Study says U.S. government incentives for battery-powered cars aren’t cost effective AVANTI R5 Non-Subaru News & Rumors 5 09-29-2011 12:39 PM
02-07 WRX/STi/2.5 Impreza airbag set - perfect replacement for wrecked car jamesfacts Interior/Dressup/Audio & Security 5 02-27-2009 10:09 AM
Lexus eases up on certified standards for used cars AVANTI R5 Non-Subaru News & Rumors 0 12-24-2007 12:13 PM
Todt and Ferrari setting a new standard for LAMENESS. meebs Motorsports 1 03-02-2005 05:01 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.