[RABAUKE]

Originally Posted by rex imperatur

I can't believe people are talking as if 315 miles is nothing. The current M5 has a 338 mile range. That's only 23 more that the Model S P100D. The 2010/2011 M5' only had a range of 260 miles per tank of gas. Range anxiety is not an issue with Model S P100D.

I think it's more a matter of the several hours to recharge after the 315 miles driven, you can pull the M5 into a service station, fill up and be down the road in about 5 min.

[RABAUKE]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'll admit I've not read every piece of literature on Tesla (Musk), but I have been interested in the cars since they've come out (the Lotus-based Tesla) and I'm pretty well read on the subject. I have seen this argument that Musk's real goal is conversion of the worlds ICE-powered fleet to electric. But to say Musk started out with no intent to produce electric cars profitably I think is BS and something Musk conjured up to excuse his inability to produce his electric cars profitably. He's now convinced investors that his real goal is to become the worlds largest battery manufacturer. But batteries for what? Electric cars? Home solar electric systems? Industrial plants? I'm not sure. But why would he need to start a car company just to make that point? He's losing multiples of millions of dollars a month. Profits not available to him to further his R&D on battery technology. He could have become an electric drivetrain supplier to the automotive industry and still made his point. Look at LG Chem. The Korean company that is GM's main supplier for the Bolt. LG doesn't make cars (even though it is an industrial giant) but it has its hand in some serious electric car development. Its battery technology developed in conjunction with GM (for the Volt and now Bolt) is more advanced than Tesla's. GM will beat Tesla to the market by 2 years with an "affordable" 200+ mile EV. While Musk was unveiling yet to be completed Tesla 3 design, GM weeks before was posting video of the first Bolts traveling down the (low-rate initial) production line. A stark contrast. It's possible Musk has bitten off more than he can chew.

Fundguy1 makes some very good points that after more than a decade, electric cars are less than 1% of the market. And that if fuel range and recharging times are not brought near to their ICE counterparts the market will remain small for electrics. However while electrics are not for everyone, they do have a place in the market, just as Ferrari and Lambo et al. do. The automobile replaced the horse as transportation because it was a better product at a lower operating cost; the electric car is not that as compared to the ICE-powered car. I am quite interested to see how the Bolt will do in the marketplace.

I'm not a believer that Musk's original ultimate goal was total battery domination rather than thinking he was going to build a populate the earth with affordable EVs and make a profit doing it. Building a car company just to perform a proof-of-concept (for a battery business) is a bit hard to swallow in my book. The investment in the Giga factory is independent from producing Tesla cars. If there is no real market for EVs then what is the point of building batteries for it? He could have built the Giga factory without ever producing one Tesla S, X, or 3.

The province of Ontario and the city of Toronto is pushing hard for green technology and one could argue there is a huge anti automobile sentiment. The rebates to purchase EV's are huge. Toronto Hydro came out when this push was just starting and said that if 10% of the cars in Toronto were electric it would collapse the power grid.

I think that range anxiety, or more accurately time to recharge anxiety can be addressed then EV's will be more attractive, however I think that the extinction of the ICE is a long way out.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by RABAUKE

The province of Ontario and the city of Toronto is pushing hard for green technology and one could argue there is a huge anti automobile sentiment. The rebates to purchase EV's are huge. Toronto Hydro came out when this push was just starting and said that if 10% of the cars in Toronto were electric it would collapse the power grid.

I think that range anxiety, or more accurately time to recharge anxiety can be addressed then EV's will be more attractive, however I think that the extinction of the ICE is a long way out.

There is kind of an ironic issue with electric cars and city life. Electric cars are best suited for city use. Their tail pipe emissions are released to the environment far away from the place they are operated (so optically they are "green" and "clean"). EV's low range (100 miles currently) work well for the city since the average speed is somewhere around 20 MPH, even after 5 hours of use the range is not depleted. But the other side is most metropolitan cities have ample public mass transportation, and per-capta charging locations are low, meaning most city residents have no place to charge their vehicle near their home. So if you live and work in a city, the need to own a car is rare, and if you keep one for the weekends to get out of the city, your range is limited.

If you live in the burbs, owning an EV as your single car has range limitations with it. These are some of the reasons why electric cars have a small market share.

[saeedg48]

Originally Posted by Vic55

I just built a fully loaded one--- 2100 plus a month here in Cali. I just don't know if its worth that for what it brings to the table.

I agree with you here Vic. I have to say the car is an amazing daily driver but the technology will only go down in price as the giga-factory becomes more developed and don't forget about he Model 3; if you can get an order in.

Side story; I had a Model X ordered options around 175 CAN. The car is still scheduled for mid sept delivery however I don't think I am ready to pay for such an expensive, practical car. Call me immature but I feel a pragmatic car is generally more affordable. metal barriers

[RM7]

Some people just hate so much that there is an EV car on the market that has usable battery density and range. They swore and cussed up and down when manufacturers tried to come out with ~100 mile range EVs, saying that it would never work, but now that they are in the usable range where they'd suit the range needs of most people? These negative people are bitter and hateful. This is the future, or at least a big part of it that will be here from now on. Even Porsche and Mclaren know that for the maximum performance, you need an at least partly-electric vehicle, because nothing recaptures braking energy and allows you to slingshot out of a curve/deacceleration like electric generators and motors.

How many people drive 300 miles each way every day? Very very few, almost no one. With the range and ability of the modern Tesla, it's in the viable arena. I see them driving around here in winter, snow, ice and everything. I see them in the mountains down south. I see them in the cities. I see them pretty much everywhere. Why? I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's because it works.

I know, this won't dispel the hate, the people that think what they've experienced is the best anything is ever going to be, but I'm glad they are making these inroads and taking hold. More efficient than an ICE and the beauty is they don't care what kind of fuel is used at the power station, natural gas, coal, hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, nuclear fusion, fission, etc...

[P1]

Love the technology. Really good. Would not think twice about an electric car. But don't like the way Teslas look and not a fan of those interiors. Get me a X5 40e with a range of 50 miles and you just covered 95% of my driving.

[Fundguy1]

I drive 300 miles daily each way 5 days a week sometimes. That said if electrics want to have an impact, they need to be 30k cars that are the equivalent or a camry, accordd, etc and gas stations need to have an electric charging station or there needs to be the equivalent umber of charging locations as gas stations. They also need to make them more reliable. My 335 is a pillar of reliability next to a tesla. And that conumerous reports, not me saying that. Finally they need to broaden the product range to include SUVs and pickups. Then it becomes a force to be recunded with.

[kent11202]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

I drive 300 miles daily each way 5 days a week sometimes.

So, 600 miles per day? OMG! That can't leave much time to other things like sleeping, eating, showering, relaxation, etc.

(OK, everyone do your own "time expended" math)

[rex imperatur]

Originally Posted by RABAUKE

I think it's more a matter of the several hours to recharge after the 315 miles driven, you can pull the M5 into a service station, fill up and be down the road in about 5 min.

It typically takes 4 hours to drive a 300 miles distance. Unless you don't eat, pee, or stretch your legs (which would be unsafe), you are going to have to take a break. Difference is with gas you fuel for 5 minutes, park away from the gas pump (another 5 minutes), then you go buy some food and stretch your legs (15 minutes if you eat fast and don't wait in lines for a cashier). At a supercharger you plug in 10 seconds and walk away. You may end up spending less time overal than at a gas station.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by kent11202

So, 600 miles per day? OMG! That can't leave much time to other things like sleeping, eating, showering, relaxation, etc.

(OK, everyone do your own "time expended" math)

Nope. Orlando to miami one day. Orlando to marco island the next. Etc. That's 500+ each. Add in driving around when I get there. Some days I drive 10 hours with stops at 85 mph.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

I drive 300 miles daily each way 5 days a week

I would kill myself if I spent that much time in a car every week.

Also, turns out Orlando to Miami is only 236 miles.

[zenmaster]

According to Car and Driver, Nürburgring Nordschleife "record-chasing runs are a universally accepted, objective measure of a car’s performance, and shaving seconds gives automakers reasons to grab some headlines."

Ok, what does the "P" stand for? Performance? Tesla's "performance" models are so named apparently only the differentiate models within their own offerings. A P100D and any Tesla for that matter lacks stamina and will fail miserably under constant acceleration. Basically most sports sedans, or any BMW will demolish a Tesla around a track such as the Nurburgring. The non-competitive Tesla will simply overheat. Inefficient electronics and/or an insufficient thermal management system are still big problems for EVs.

[Fundguy1]

So that's why tesla hasn't don't the ring. I thought it was because the handling sucked. Which it does.

[oolas3]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

So that's why tesla hasn't don't the ring. I thought it was because the handling sucked. Which it does.

But it will go 0 to Starbucks faster than a F1. Lol.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by m3m3mr

But it will go 0 to Starbucks faster than a F1. Lol.

Yawn. I like the #1 rated coffee for taste personally. And it ain't Starbucks. Buy it does have golden arches.

[zenmaster]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

So that's why tesla hasn't don't the ring. I thought it was because the handling sucked. Which it does.

Handling is fantastic for a 4600lb car. For example, it'll do .90g on the skid pad. The 3500lb i8 does .93g. So poor handling is not what's holding it back as much as it going into limp mode after only a few minutes! If Tesla figures out how to maintain battery temps for the whole track, it'll be a whole new ballgame.

[J.M]

If, if, if...
EVs suck and regarding Tesla's PD10000 whatever: Kill it! Kill it with fire before it lays eggs!

[Fundguy1]

4600 lbs. Hmmmm. I didn't realize it was that fat.

[DieGrüneHölle]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Some people just hate so much that there is an EV car on the market that has usable battery density and range. They swore and cussed up and down when manufacturers tried to come out with ~100 mile range EVs, saying that it would never work, but now that they are in the usable range where they'd suit the range needs of most people? These negative people are bitter and hateful. This is the future, or at least a big part of it that will be here from now on. Even Porsche and Mclaren know that for the maximum performance, you need an at least partly-electric vehicle, because nothing recaptures braking energy and allows you to slingshot out of a curve/deacceleration like electric generators and motors.

How many people drive 300 miles each way every day? Very very few, almost no one. With the range and ability of the modern Tesla, it's in the viable arena. I see them driving around here in winter, snow, ice and everything. I see them in the mountains down south. I see them in the cities. I see them pretty much everywhere. Why? I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's because it works.

I know, this won't dispel the hate, the people that think what they've experienced is the best anything is ever going to be, but I'm glad they are making these inroads and taking hold. More efficient than an ICE and the beauty is they don't care what kind of fuel is used at the power station, natural gas, coal, hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, nuclear fusion, fission, etc...

I don't get the hate either. Yes battery tech still needs to advance to really make electric-only cars mainstream. But they really have made huge advances in a short period. Right now you still need a second car for making long distant drives(road trips). It really is the charging times that need to be addressed. I think plug-in hybrids are still the only viable one-car solution. The next step is some lower cost plug-in hybrid performance cars.

[DieGrüneHölle]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

So that's why tesla hasn't don't the ring. I thought it was because the handling sucked. Which it does.

Someone took Model S to the ring. They did a 10 min bridge to gantry lap, so not a full lap. Anyways, the car went into a reduced power mode about 3 minutes in due to excess battery heat.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Blipit_

I don't get the hate either. Yes battery tech still needs to advance to really make electric-only cars mainstream. But they really have made huge advances in a short period. Right now you still need a second car for making long distant drives(road trips). It really is the charging times that need to be addressed. I think plug-in hybrids are still the only viable one-car solution. The next step is some lower cost plug-in hybrid performance cars.

Oh, well I don't know about others but I haven't expensed any hate. I do loathe electrics with a passion and think anyone dumb enough to buy one gets what they deserve, but I didn't put that in any of my previous posts. Just the facts.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Blipit_

Someone took Model S to the ring. They did a 10 min bridge to gantry lap, so not a full lap. Anyways, the car went into a reduced power mode about 3 minutes in due to excess battery heat.

Lol