Tesla Model S waffling

[ZBB]

Wow. I have a busy day at work and my thread goes bonkers... Guess its my turn to step in it. :-)

I tend to agree with JST. From what we've seen so far, I don't think the legacy carmakers get it. None of their all electrics have a range aver 100 miles (most are ~70 miles). Even the BMW i3 is in that range. While that may make sense when comparing to the average daily drive, it doesn't take into account the occasional need for 100-150 miles driven on a weekend when running errands, let alone the road trip scenario. The Tesla has that range covered, and road trips are possible now with Superchargers.

Regarding the Supercharger build-out, head over to supercharge.info and click on the graphs link on the top right. A year ago there were 9 Superchargers. Today there are 115 live, with 94 in the US. Tesla charges $2k per Supercharger-enebled car (an option on the 60, buried into the price on the 85). With nearly 40k Teslas on the road not, that's ~$80MM paid by customers for the Superchargers. Each supercharger site costs $125-150k -- so Tesla has spent <$18MM building them. I wouldn't necessarily call that burning money (and yes, I'm ignoring the operating cost since each site has a pretty big electric bill each month...).

As for the hybrid vs pure battery electric: I also agree with JST that the hybrids are just a crutch and not the long term solution. The i3 with the range extender is nearly crippled (it gets only 150 miles of range total -- and carries ~2 gallons of gas for the scooter engine used as a generator). The Volt is more realistic, but its really just a Prius-style hybrid with a bigger (but still relatively small) battery. Plug-in Hybrids are really the Mophie-style solution (but a Mophie you can't take off and leave at home when you don't need it).

As for future battery technology... I'm pretty sure Tesla is keeping an eye on any developments. But even with improved batteries, you'll still need a pretty big capacity to enable 300+ mile range. The 85 kWh Model S has a battery that weighs ~1200lb and gets ~260 miles of real-world range. A lighter battery would help get longer range -- but cutting battery weight in half won't double the range. The biggest issue with range in an EV is actually wind resistance (especially at speed). So maybe a 50% drop in battery weight would result in an extra 20% of range. But then you still have an 85 kWh battery pack that needs to be charged -- and a 240V 40A outlet can still deliver max 10kW -- so would take ~8 hours to charge. Perhaps new battery tech will allow Supercharging speeds to get even faster -- so Tesla's supercharger buildout will still be helpful for road trips...

For me the Tesla works. Any future EV I buy will need to meet its capability at a minimum.

[lemming]

We are just discussing. It's what intelligent car people do.

[ZBB]

Originally Posted by lemming

We are just discussing. It's what intelligent car people do.

Was I not discussing?

[bren]

Originally Posted by lemming

The only thing that we will materially disagree upon is if you buy the argument that the Tesla is saving money. Everything else, including the uniqueness and out of the box thinking, I can see.

But when a car in its base configuration costs 12k per year to lease, it's a bizarro 1%-er la la land and I find it to be really pretentious.

If it was about saving money, you would own a volt for 31k or lease for 209 a month and you're right, based on 90% of Americans' commute, you would never use gas.

This isn't about Eco anything. Sorry.

What does the money/cost have to do with the "Eco" credentials?

[JST]

Originally Posted by lemming

The only thing that we will materially disagree upon is if you buy the argument that the Tesla is saving money. Everything else, including the uniqueness and out of the box thinking, I can see.

But when a car in its base configuration costs 12k per year to lease, it's a bizarro 1%-er la la land and I find it to be really pretentious.

If it was about saving money, you would own a volt for 31k or lease for 209 a month and you're right, based on 90% of Americans' commute, you would never use gas.

This isn't about Eco anything. Sorry.

Like bren says, saving money and saving the earth are two different things. The Tesla is not cheap, and you're right, if saving money was your main motivation, it wouldn't make any sense to buy a Tesla over a Volt.

But that's true of a lot of the cars we buy--probably all of them. And keep in mind, the Tesla can do one thing that very few other cars can, which is carry 7 people in a pinch. People may chuckle at the jump seats, but those jump seats come in handy, and are all that is standing between me and something like an Audi Q7.

Is it good for the environment? Well, an i3 is probably better, since it uses less energy. But a Tesla is a lot better than a 16 mpg V8 sport sedan when it comes to energy usage, and that's what it's really competing with.

The messianic gleam in Tesla owners' eyes can get a bit wearing (and pretentious), but there is some truth to the notion that people bought the Roadster to make sure the Model S got built, and are buying the Model S to make sure the X and Gen III get built. In that sense, voting with your wallet by buying a Tesla is supporting the disruptive technology that really would have a long-term ecological benefit.

[ZBB]

Just one comment on price... When you factor in fuel cost, the federal tax credit, and AZ's reduced registration cost, the Tesla really competes with cars that are ~25k less. In my case, I managed to keep the loan payment within $1 of what I paid for the Boxster, and I'm spending $150-$200 a month less in fuel cost...

Originally Posted by JST

The messianic gleam in Tesla owners' eyes can get a bit wearing (and pretentious)...

That's the one thing I'm not looking forward to at TMC Connect (the Tesla version of BMWCCA's Octoberfest) next month...

[Rob]

Can't discount the messianic gleam, but pretentious? Please. Go talk to your local prius owner and then report about pretentious. (From people that have no clue about the actual financial impacts of all these ramifications that we discuss.)

[lemming]

Originally Posted by Rob

Can't discount the messianic gleam, but pretentious? Please. Go talk to your local prius owner and then report about pretentious. (From people that have no clue about the actual financial impacts of all these ramifications that we discuss.)

so i bought this 5000 square foot house. it's LEED Gold certified. it's amazing! it saves me $3000 a year in utility costs.

*the mortgage is only $16,000 per month, but i'm saving $3000 a year.




i can see how that logic actually makes sense. because there is cost savings in there, but you can also appreciate the cap expense one needs to spend to get that level of savings? that's what i'm speaking to --

--and of course Prius owners are strange. anyone who chooses that car over the Camry hybrid is doing it so in addition to that "baby on board" placard, they can also let you know that despite killing kids in China during mining of the heavy metals in open pit string mines, they are, indeed, environmentally sensitive.

[robg]

Originally Posted by JST

Like bren says, saving money and saving the earth are two different things. The Tesla is not cheap, and you're right, if saving money was your main motivation, it wouldn't make any sense to buy a Tesla over a Volt.

But that's true of a lot of the cars we buy--probably all of them. And keep in mind, the Tesla can do one thing that very few other cars can, which is carry 7 people in a pinch. People may chuckle at the jump seats, but those jump seats come in handy, and are all that is standing between me and something like an Audi Q7.

Is it good for the environment? Well, an i3 is probably better, since it uses less energy. But a Tesla is a lot better than a 16 mpg V8 sport sedan when it comes to energy usage, and that's what it's really competing with.

The messianic gleam in Tesla owners' eyes can get a bit wearing (and pretentious), but there is some truth to the notion that people bought the Roadster to make sure the Model S got built, and are buying the Model S to make sure the X and Gen III get built. In that sense, voting with your wallet by buying a Tesla is supporting the disruptive technology that really would have a long-term ecological benefit.

I do think all the environmental, safety practicality and "cost savings" justifications are just ways to rationalize buying an expensive, fast, cool, good looking car. None of us would seriously be interested in the Model S if it weren't so fast and good looking. But those justifications can be useful in terms of trying to convince a spouse. Much like how M5 buyers justify it by pointing out how it has 4 doors vs a Porsche 911.

[bren]

Originally Posted by lemming

[i][b]so i bought this 5000 square foot house. it's LEED Gold certified. it's amazing! it saves me $3000 a year in utility costs.

I still don't get it.

If you were looking at two houses, and one was LEED and one wasn't, you shouldn't chose the former just because it might cost more? The amount of dollars spent doesn't change the impact on the environment.

Originally Posted by robg

I do think all the environmental, safety practicality and "cost savings" justifications are just ways to rationalize buying an expensive, fast, cool, good looking car.

I have a friend who is waiting on a Model S and only has a passing interest in "cars". He's doing it because he believes in the tech and "eco" stuff.