RE: Tesla launches 691hp Model S P85D
Discussion
Saw the Tesla's at Goodwood and was very impressed.
I was wondering about the supercharging point or any points for that matter. Do you lock your plug in so that people can not just disconnect it while you are at the station having a break etc?
Wonder if they will ever develop charging like these charging mats you get for phones etc. Where you basically park in a charging space and the car starts charging without needing to be plugged in. Not sure I would like walking over it though. If that became available then they could probably make some main roads charge the cars. Getting a bit like scalextrics I know.
The i3 is very appealing but they are quite expensive at the moment. I also live in a flat which has a gated car park but my space is maybe 20m away from the main building. So it would mean stealing someones space to charge the car with an extension. However there is a big electrical hut in the corner of the car park about 5m from my space so maybe points could be taken from there?
I was wondering about the supercharging point or any points for that matter. Do you lock your plug in so that people can not just disconnect it while you are at the station having a break etc?
Wonder if they will ever develop charging like these charging mats you get for phones etc. Where you basically park in a charging space and the car starts charging without needing to be plugged in. Not sure I would like walking over it though. If that became available then they could probably make some main roads charge the cars. Getting a bit like scalextrics I know.
The i3 is very appealing but they are quite expensive at the moment. I also live in a flat which has a gated car park but my space is maybe 20m away from the main building. So it would mean stealing someones space to charge the car with an extension. However there is a big electrical hut in the corner of the car park about 5m from my space so maybe points could be taken from there?
kambites said:
DonkeyApple said:
I think the evidence is abundant that given the opportunity ICEs would be taxed and legislated off the roads. Once you reach a certain point of decline you then lose your fueling points and that is that.
There will certainly be less petrol stations than there are now, but I'm absolutely certain they will continue to exist well past the end of our life-times. I think the Tesla system is similar, in some ways, but the Nissan Leaf locks the quick (sometimes known as rapid) charger cable to the car, impossible to release without massive force (more than ripping a wing mirror off). Same for most street posts, the cable can be locked to the car and the charger locks it too. Nissan system also allows for alerts to your phone if unplugged (you can check your charging state via an app too).
Debaser said:
greygoose said:
I think the vast majority of the general public couldn't care less what their car was powered by, they want something practical for their needs, affordable and reliable. I am not sure that the majority would buy a classic car rather than the latest Fiesta/Corsa/Focus/Astra etc.
I agree that most people don't really care how their cars are powered, but I know several people with no interest in cars who insist on owning a manual transmission (with three pedals), so they won't be getting an EV any time soon. The power grid will require modification, but electricity generated efficiently with heat reclamation and emmissions scrubbing (or preferably low carbon) has to be preferable to individuals burning oil on a small scale in internal combustion air pumps outside of their most efficient conditions, whilst spewing out heat, soot and poison into urban areas.
The range issue might require some thinking, but most journeys are not long. Plug-in long-range battery packs or range-extenders could be rented or stored in garages for when needed.
Yes, 0-60mph in 3 seconds is quick (and unnecessary, but a headline-grabber), but motorbikes have been capable of this kind of thing for a long time now, without causing immediate death -albeit will less "snappingly fierce" initial acceleration.
Real-world performance akin to a modern 1.6/2.0 TD is more adequate for most people.
The conservatism of some people on here is astounding:
ps. I love engines and other mechanical things, but I can see the shortfalls.
Edited by MC Bodge on Tuesday 14th October 12:30
dino ferrana said:
I think the Tesla system is similar, in some ways, but the Nissan Leaf locks the quick (sometimes known as rapid) charger cable to the car, impossible to release without massive force (more than ripping a wing mirror off). Same for most street posts, the cable can be locked to the car and the charger locks it too. Nissan system also allows for alerts to your phone if unplugged (you can check your charging state via an app too).
Interesting - I had wondered about this. Question is, how do you unplug it when you want to leave?GGX said:
Not sure ranges that you give in the article are correct.
If you look on Tesla's US website, seems that range on 80 has improved from 265 miles to 295 miles on 80D.
On P85 range has also improved by 10 miles to 275 miles on P85D from 265 miles.
Seems a win/win with improved performance and better range. Just the small matter of cost to consider...
These were the figures quoted to me by Tesla UK, re range (at 65 mph):If you look on Tesla's US website, seems that range on 80 has improved from 265 miles to 295 miles on 80D.
On P85 range has also improved by 10 miles to 275 miles on P85D from 265 miles.
Seems a win/win with improved performance and better range. Just the small matter of cost to consider...
• 60D: 225 miles (vs 215 miles for 60)
• 85D: 295 miles (vs 285 miles)
• P85D: 275 miles (vs 285 miles)
RoverP6B said:
Interesting - I had wondered about this. Question is, how do you unplug it when you want to leave?
With the Tesla supercharger it was as simple as inserting and removing a fuel filler nozzle. You plug it in, it lights up red which I presumed indicates it's locked in and charging then it goes green and unlocks once fully charged and you can remove it. You can also cancel it anytime although don't recollect exactly what's involved but it was a simple button press somewhere or other. Either way it's super easy and works how you expect so I didn't give it any further thought.MC Bodge said:
The power grid will require modification,
These will save the national grid, we currently consume the majority or our power during the day and the vast majority of cars will be charged at night when the demand is non-existent but the infrastructure is still being paid for.And come peak at 19:30 when Corrie finishes, there will be 5 million massive battery packs all feeding a small percent back into the grid to feed demand.
dvs_dave said:
With the Tesla supercharger it was as simple as inserting and removing a fuel filler nozzle. You plug it in, it lights up red which I presumed indicates it's locked in and charging then it goes green and unlocks once fully charged and you can remove it. You can also cancel it anytime although don't recollect exactly what's involved but it was a simple button press somewhere or other. Either way it's super easy and works how you expect so I didn't give it any further thought.
Right... so if it's that simple, what's to stop some mischief-maker doing exactly the same without it charging much? The glory of a petrol pump is you don't have to leave it unsupervised for hours, it only takes a few minutes to fill a tank...RoverP6B said:
Right... so if it's that simple, what's to stop some mischief-maker doing exactly the same without it charging much? The glory of a petrol pump is you don't have to leave it unsupervised for hours, it only takes a few minutes to fill a tank...
They wouldn't be able to unplug it from the car without unlocking the charge port, and to do that you need to use the touchscreen.Debaser said:
They wouldn't be able to unplug it from the car without unlocking the charge port, and to do that you need to use the touchscreen.
By which I presume you mean the in-car touchscreen. Right. That combined with key-proximity-sensing automatic locking/unlocking could make life interesting. Also wonder what the odds are on 'charge rage' incidents, cars being broken into so as to disconnect them, etc? I know I'm looking at worst-case-scenario stuff here, but I am a natural pessimist...Hurricane52 said:
MikeGalos said:
Sounds like all the people complaining about "real CO2 emissions" should actually be complaining not about the Tesla but about the lack of upgrading the UK's power grid to less damaging electric production. Where I live over 90% of our electricity is from hydroelectric with no CO2 emissions and the rest have been modernized to drop CO2 until they're phased out.
Yes. Tidal seems the logical electricity solution. dvs_dave said:
kambites said:
Or not, if their usage is anything like the UK's where every car going electric would require no more power generation capability at all.
Quite. How much electricity is currently consumed by oil refining and distribution? hidetheelephants said:
Road fuel is mostly a byproduct of the refining process; we would still need refining to produce all the nice stuff modern life needs, plastic, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, fertiliser etc.
Different refineries. There are specific refineries to extract the alkanes (heptane etc) for fuel use and others to extract the other other naptha elements for manufacturing. It's the heavier stuff from both that is actually the byproduct like bitumen etc.
We could switch off all the fuel refineries and it would have no impact on industrial chemical manufacture or plastics etc other than making crude cheaper.
RoverP6B said:
Debaser said:
They wouldn't be able to unplug it from the car without unlocking the charge port, and to do that you need to use the touchscreen.
By which I presume you mean the in-car touchscreen. Right. That combined with key-proximity-sensing automatic locking/unlocking could make life interesting. Also wonder what the odds are on 'charge rage' incidents, cars being broken into so as to disconnect them, etc? I know I'm looking at worst-case-scenario stuff here, but I am a natural pessimist...RoverP6B said:
Right... so if it's that simple, what's to stop some mischief-maker doing exactly the same without it charging much? The glory of a petrol pump is you don't have to leave it unsupervised for hours, it only takes a few minutes to fill a tank...
It works on the same principle as the door locks....DonkeyApple said:
They do lose money selling cars.
They make a money selling the ZEV credits.
I think this time last year was the first time that they had what accountants can call a profitable quarter but each car is a loss maker. The key is that the loss per unit is shrinking quicker than investors originally bought in on.
The non US growth could double volumes and that's likely to be the point where they could break even. So long as the massive investment in the smaller cars doesn't incur any hiccups in predicted revenues.
It's all looking good but each car is a loss still and it's only because of the ZEV credits they get on each unit that they then sell on that they can make enough revenue to match the burn.
In reality they are a carbon credit trading firm with a car building arm.
Some industries are more complex than They make a money selling the ZEV credits.
I think this time last year was the first time that they had what accountants can call a profitable quarter but each car is a loss maker. The key is that the loss per unit is shrinking quicker than investors originally bought in on.
The non US growth could double volumes and that's likely to be the point where they could break even. So long as the massive investment in the smaller cars doesn't incur any hiccups in predicted revenues.
It's all looking good but each car is a loss still and it's only because of the ZEV credits they get on each unit that they then sell on that they can make enough revenue to match the burn.
In reality they are a carbon credit trading firm with a car building arm.
- make widget
- sell widget for more money than it costs to make widget
- profit
Design costs money and tesla is designing products. The company is not announcing huge profits because it is firmly in the middle of a growth stage. Any profits get taxed so if you want to grow it is far better to ensure the cash assists that aim.
In their financial statements this is clear
http://ir.teslamotors.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1...
From 4Q 2013 to 1Q 2013
Sales up by 60 million
Cost to produce cars exactly the same (increasing efficiency)
so they made $60 million more
and spent an additional 30 million on R&D
and nearly 60 million on the supercharger network, New showrooms, etc.
These are assets <political>like the channel tunnel</political> while they may not show up as a cash profit but they are where the cash has ended up meaning they are comfortable in spending tens of millions on a longer term plan.
If they were selling widgets I would assume they have a minimum margin of around 20%, This is more than the tax credits even on the cheaper model. To me though it seems like a good way to spend the tax credits. Building infrastructure and new technologies.
They could easily have announced a huge profit and put peoples tax into the hands of a few rich shareholders.
ctallchris said:
DonkeyApple said:
They do lose money selling cars.
They make a money selling the ZEV credits.
I think this time last year was the first time that they had what accountants can call a profitable quarter but each car is a loss maker. The key is that the loss per unit is shrinking quicker than investors originally bought in on.
The non US growth could double volumes and that's likely to be the point where they could break even. So long as the massive investment in the smaller cars doesn't incur any hiccups in predicted revenues.
It's all looking good but each car is a loss still and it's only because of the ZEV credits they get on each unit that they then sell on that they can make enough revenue to match the burn.
In reality they are a carbon credit trading firm with a car building arm.
Some industries are more complex than They make a money selling the ZEV credits.
I think this time last year was the first time that they had what accountants can call a profitable quarter but each car is a loss maker. The key is that the loss per unit is shrinking quicker than investors originally bought in on.
The non US growth could double volumes and that's likely to be the point where they could break even. So long as the massive investment in the smaller cars doesn't incur any hiccups in predicted revenues.
It's all looking good but each car is a loss still and it's only because of the ZEV credits they get on each unit that they then sell on that they can make enough revenue to match the burn.
In reality they are a carbon credit trading firm with a car building arm.
- make widget
- sell widget for more money than it costs to make widget
- profit
Design costs money and tesla is designing products. The company is not announcing huge profits because it is firmly in the middle of a growth stage. Any profits get taxed so if you want to grow it is far better to ensure the cash assists that aim.
In their financial statements this is clear
http://ir.teslamotors.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1...
From 4Q 2013 to 1Q 2013
Sales up by 60 million
Cost to produce cars exactly the same (increasing efficiency)
so they made $60 million more
and spent an additional 30 million on R&D
and nearly 60 million on the supercharger network, New showrooms, etc.
These are assets <political>like the channel tunnel</political> while they may not show up as a cash profit but they are where the cash has ended up meaning they are comfortable in spending tens of millions on a longer term plan.
If they were selling widgets I would assume they have a minimum margin of around 20%, This is more than the tax credits even on the cheaper model. To me though it seems like a good way to spend the tax credits. Building infrastructure and new technologies.
They could easily have announced a huge profit and put peoples tax into the hands of a few rich shareholders.
Nothing like the company balance sheet to get the facts straight on whether they make a profit on selling cars, vs making a profit overall as a company...
| Q1 2014 | Q1 2013 | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenues | ||
| Automotive sales | $618,811,000 | $555,203,000 |
| Cost of Revenues | ||
| Automotive sales | £462,471,000 | $461,818,000 |
So this year for automotive sales a tidy 156 million profit on a cost of 462 million / sales of 618 million. That's 25% profit in my book.
That gets eaten up by the 81 million spent on R&D and 117 million, selling general and administraive (shops, marketing events and superchargers).
If they were making a loss on every car sold they'd have gone bust by now. Probably.
Still, the right wing oil and gas lobby want Americans to believe Telsa is getting tapayers money to support an unprofitable business. If you google Telsa profits most of the articles that come up are blog sites slagging off CARB credits (which only affect sales in 11 states anyway). Never belieive what you read on the internet! (Even what I just wrote, LOL). There's a blog war going on to try and delay the introduction of EVs an clean tech, to give them a bit longer to sweat out investments already made.
boxerTen said:
My personal preference for environmentally friendly cars is to manufacture fuel directly from water and CO2, extracted from the air, or from sea water. The US Navy can apparently manufacture jet fuel from sea water this way using surplus energy from nuclear power on board their aircraft carriers.
The USN are looking at that because it's logistically advantageous; they can have fewer tankers trailing their carrier battle group around being vulnerable to attack and costing money. The process itself needs copious cheap energy to make any sense, which until fusion or cheaper fission arrives is not on the cards.ctallchris said:
DonkeyApple said:
They do lose money selling cars.
They make a money selling the ZEV credits.
I think this time last year was the first time that they had what accountants can call a profitable quarter but each car is a loss maker. The key is that the loss per unit is shrinking quicker than investors originally bought in on.
The non US growth could double volumes and that's likely to be the point where they could break even. So long as the massive investment in the smaller cars doesn't incur any hiccups in predicted revenues.
It's all looking good but each car is a loss still and it's only because of the ZEV credits they get on each unit that they then sell on that they can make enough revenue to match the burn.
In reality they are a carbon credit trading firm with a car building arm.
Some industries are more complex than They make a money selling the ZEV credits.
I think this time last year was the first time that they had what accountants can call a profitable quarter but each car is a loss maker. The key is that the loss per unit is shrinking quicker than investors originally bought in on.
The non US growth could double volumes and that's likely to be the point where they could break even. So long as the massive investment in the smaller cars doesn't incur any hiccups in predicted revenues.
It's all looking good but each car is a loss still and it's only because of the ZEV credits they get on each unit that they then sell on that they can make enough revenue to match the burn.
In reality they are a carbon credit trading firm with a car building arm.
- make widget
- sell widget for more money than it costs to make widget
- profit
Design costs money and tesla is designing products. The company is not announcing huge profits because it is firmly in the middle of a growth stage. Any profits get taxed so if you want to grow it is far better to ensure the cash assists that aim.
In their financial statements this is clear
http://ir.teslamotors.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1...
From 4Q 2013 to 1Q 2013
Sales up by 60 million
Cost to produce cars exactly the same (increasing efficiency)
so they made $60 million more
and spent an additional 30 million on R&D
and nearly 60 million on the supercharger network, New showrooms, etc.
These are assets <political>like the channel tunnel</political> while they may not show up as a cash profit but they are where the cash has ended up meaning they are comfortable in spending tens of millions on a longer term plan.
If they were selling widgets I would assume they have a minimum margin of around 20%, This is more than the tax credits even on the cheaper model. To me though it seems like a good way to spend the tax credits. Building infrastructure and new technologies.
They could easily have announced a huge profit and put peoples tax into the hands of a few rich shareholders.
The key here is that it is a traditional Silicon Valley equity play. Private investors bankroll all losses to year X when it reverts from a start up play into a growth one (arguably this is the point we are at now) and finally an income play. So the focus is currently on the growth period where they have a bit of a ticking time bomb that the projections through to and beyond 2020 are based on the volume targets of the smaller car due in 2017 but this has a perfect delta to the delivery of the giga factory.
At this moment in time they are not a profitable firm but lose money on each unit even stripping out the factory and network investment. This doesn't matter because of their position in the equity cycle, it's to be expected but it isn't correct to say they are profitable, with or without the various global grants and subsidies.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff