RE: Tesla Model S P90D: Review

[cfdeb70]

CedricN said:

Evs got very odd torque curves, and hence acceleration curves. Would be interesting to see more cars in the same plot. Tesla seems to gather quite a following, now just start produce electricity in a better way so it actually starts helping the environment to drive ev

They've got the electricity wrapped up too. You buy a Tesla "powerwall" you plug your solar panels, or a domestic windmill if you're in Scotland, into the powerwall so it get's charged during the day, then plug the car into the powerwall at night and you have free, environment friendly electricity to power your 300 mile journey.

[FurtiveFreddy]

cfdeb70 said:

They've got the electricity wrapped up too. You buy a Tesla "powerwall" you plug your solar panels, or a domestic windmill if you're in Scotland, into the powerwall so it get's charged during the day, then plug the car into the powerwall at night and you have free, environment friendly electricity to power your 300 mile journey.

Are you saying a day of UK sunshine into a house's solar panels or a back garden wind turbine gives you enough power to fully charge a Tesla car?

Or is this speculating on their potential relative efficiency in the future?

[Chris Stott]

cfdeb70 said:

Fuldhat said:

Hehe no he did not and the only reason why I get midly upset is that I hate when facts are not correct. All this circle jerking about Tesla is to much, the car is fast until 60-70 and then any car with 250 hp or more will walk on it any day. So supercar fast, yes until 60-70 miles after that no so much.

I guess you haven't seen things like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0LxAhzdPEI so unless you are supercar fast by the time your acceleration advantage kicks in the Tesla is already too far ahead to catch up. So to beat the 7 seat, free to drive Tesla, you need a £250k Aventador or similar (videos are on there too). Mmmm, I think you might need to think again about the facts.

Even without the standing start jump, my brother-in-law's P90D just walks away from my 996 from 50mph to well in excess of that. You're going to need a lot more than 300bhp to keep up with a P90.

In normal day to day driving (ie; not breaking the limit to an extent that you're risking going to jail), they will be faster than pretty much anything else on the road.

[cfdeb70]

FurtiveFreddy said:

cfdeb70 said:

They've got the electricity wrapped up too. You buy a Tesla "powerwall" you plug your solar panels, or a domestic windmill if you're in Scotland, into the powerwall so it get's charged during the day, then plug the car into the powerwall at night and you have free, environment friendly electricity to power your 300 mile journey.

Are you saying a day of UK sunshine into a house's solar panels or a back garden wind turbine gives you enough power to fully charge a Tesla car?

Or is this speculating on their potential relative efficiency in the future?

That's what they claim, however it neither states the area of solar panels nor size of wind turbine you would need.
I'm sure somebody on here can work out the Kw/hours used by the car and what size solar panel you'd need to recharge it in 8 hours of daylight.

[Terminator X]

The Mad Monk said:

Terminator X said:

I had a Tesla pull up next to me at the lights recently, having read this I'm glad I let it go!

TX.

Why?

What would you have done if you hadn't read this?

Not let it go?

TX.

[je777]

Electric cars are only more environmentally friendly if they source their electricity in an enviromentally friendly manner.
In the US (because they source most of the electricity through fossil fuels), that makes them less EF than a normal car, especially considering the increased environmental cost of manufacture.
Ergo, this is a nonsense technology.
The sales are high because people's desire is to make themselves feel better - not to help the environment.
We all know this and we all know that electric cars are a dead end.
This is just politics - same as people pretending that diesel is better for the environment.
In the short term, more efficient petrol engines would be better for the environment.
In the long term, we either have to source our electricity from alternative means or spend the money on developing hydrogen or other fuels.
Electric cars are all about one thing - the one thing that drives all of the above - money.

[Mike_C]

je777 said:

In the US (because they source most of the electricity through fossil fuels), that makes them less EF than a normal car, especially considering the increased environmental cost of manufacture.
Ergo, this is a nonsense technology.
The sales are high because people's desire is to make themselves feel better - not to help the environment.
We all know this and we all know that electric cars are a dead end.
This is just politics - same as people pretending that diesel is better for the environment.
In the short term, more efficient petrol engines would be better for the environment.
In the long term, we either have to source our electricity from alternative means or spend the money on developing hydrogen or other fuels.
Electric cars are all about one thing - the one thing that drives all of the above - money.

What a load of nonsense! You do have a couple of sensible points about electrical energy, but your assessment of the technology being nonsense and people only buying them to 'feel better' is bull$hit.

Let's start with the energy thing; my choice to buy a Tesla is based on the fact that by owning a petrol or diesel car, I have no choice but to use fossil fuels. On the other hand, by choosing an EV I have the option to generate my own power (via solar panels or wind turbine, if I wish) but moreover based on the fact that more and more of our electricity is coming from renewable sources; just look at the off-shore windfarms and those dotted along the A5, or the 'solar-fields' popping up across East Anglia. As a case in point, Norway (one of the largest markets per capita for Tesla, due to their zero tax on the purchase price) generates 98% of their energy from renewable sources (hydro and wind). So are you seriously suggesting this is a nonsense technology only invested in by people wanting wanting to feel good about themselves? Of course its not.

Secondly, the 'feeling better' thing - I care about the environment to the extent that I want to protect it and understand that at current rates of non-renewable energy consumption we're all in for a big shock in the not so distant future. Contrary to what you suggest, the prolification of petrol and diesel cars, particularly in the US, is driven by money, not EV. The big oil and car companies would hate to see fossil fuels cars die out, for obvious reasons. Conversely, the likes of Elon Musk seem to be pushing for a better future; of course he wants to make money I'm sure, but he also reinvests most of it. Early adopters of cars like Model S and Model X will pay a premium for sure, but this premium funds the development of more affordable mass market vehicles, such as Model 3.

It is up to our Governments worldwide to invest in renewable energy sources and ditch fossil fuel power stations - all we can do in the meantime is pressure them into it by investing in the EV technology available today.

[danp]

cfdeb70 said:

FurtiveFreddy said:

cfdeb70 said:

They've got the electricity wrapped up too. You buy a Tesla "powerwall" you plug your solar panels, or a domestic windmill if you're in Scotland, into the powerwall so it get's charged during the day, then plug the car into the powerwall at night and you have free, environment friendly electricity to power your 300 mile journey.

Are you saying a day of UK sunshine into a house's solar panels or a back garden wind turbine gives you enough power to fully charge a Tesla car?

Or is this speculating on their potential relative efficiency in the future?

That's what they claim, however it neither states the area of solar panels nor size of wind turbine you would need.
I'm sure somebody on here can work out the Kw/hours used by the car and what size solar panel you'd need to recharge it in 8 hours of daylight.

You'd need a pretty hefty setup! IME a standard 4kW home system (16 panels) will produce about 20kWh on a good day, and averages about 10kWh over the year.

A Tesla battery is say 80kWh, and the powerwalls store 7 or 10kWh.

So with about £25/30k of solar PV (80 panels!) and the same £ again in powerwalls (about 10) you could in theory charge your Tesla fully at night for free after a sunny day in the UK. You'd also need a very very big roof or some land for the panels.

Edited by danp on Friday 29th January 11:31

[kambites]

It does seem a bit of a stretch with current PV technology.

However, it would be viable to self-generate enough for the average UK driver's 20-30 miles a day.

[AnotherClarkey]

danp said:

cfdeb70 said:

FurtiveFreddy said:

cfdeb70 said:

They've got the electricity wrapped up too. You buy a Tesla "powerwall" you plug your solar panels, or a domestic windmill if you're in Scotland, into the powerwall so it get's charged during the day, then plug the car into the powerwall at night and you have free, environment friendly electricity to power your 300 mile journey.

Are you saying a day of UK sunshine into a house's solar panels or a back garden wind turbine gives you enough power to fully charge a Tesla car?

Or is this speculating on their potential relative efficiency in the future?

That's what they claim, however it neither states the area of solar panels nor size of wind turbine you would need.
I'm sure somebody on here can work out the Kw/hours used by the car and what size solar panel you'd need to recharge it in 8 hours of daylight.

You'd need a pretty hefty setup! IME a standard 4kW home system (16 panels) will produce about 20kWh on a good day, and averages about 10kWh over the year.

A Tesla battery is say 80kWh, and the powerwalls store 7 or 10kWh.

So with about £25/30k of solar PV (80 panels!) and the same £ again in powerwalls (about 10) you could in theory charge your Tesla fully at night for free after a sunny day in the UK. You'd also need a very very big roof or some land for the panels.

Edited by danp on Friday 29th January 11:31

I suppose all of that supposes tat the Tesla is being driven about 300 miles every day, taking it from full to completely flat. Normal usage for most people would require a fraction of that capacity.

[danp]

kambites said:

It does seem a bit of a stretch with current PV technology.

However, it would be viable to self-generate enough for the average UK driver's 20-30 miles a day.

Yes - hoping to do so fairly soon just by charging directly from the panels (from say April to Sept should be viable with weekend and the odd weekday plug in).

Not sure on the powerwalls really - circa 3k to store about £1 of electricity seems an extravagance (less so if you're susceptible to power cuts I guess). I'd rather power the house from the battery in the EV when I didn't need the juice in it (have seen a Leaf boiling an urn!)

[je777]

Mike_C said:

je777 said:

In the US (because they source most of the electricity through fossil fuels), that makes them less EF than a normal car, especially considering the increased environmental cost of manufacture.
Ergo, this is a nonsense technology.
The sales are high because people's desire is to make themselves feel better - not to help the environment.
We all know this and we all know that electric cars are a dead end.
This is just politics - same as people pretending that diesel is better for the environment.
In the short term, more efficient petrol engines would be better for the environment.
In the long term, we either have to source our electricity from alternative means or spend the money on developing hydrogen or other fuels.
Electric cars are all about one thing - the one thing that drives all of the above - money.

What a load of nonsense! You do have a couple of sensible points about electrical energy, but your assessment of the technology being nonsense and people only buying them to 'feel better' is bull$hit.

Let's start with the energy thing; my choice to buy a Tesla is based on the fact that by owning a petrol or diesel car, I have no choice but to use fossil fuels. On the other hand, by choosing an EV I have the option to generate my own power (via solar panels or wind turbine, if I wish) but moreover based on the fact that more and more of our electricity is coming from renewable sources; just look at the off-shore windfarms and those dotted along the A5, or the 'solar-fields' popping up across East Anglia. As a case in point, Norway (one of the largest markets per capita for Tesla, due to their zero tax on the purchase price) generates 98% of their energy from renewable sources (hydro and wind). So are you seriously suggesting this is a nonsense technology only invested in by people wanting wanting to feel good about themselves? Of course its not.

Secondly, the 'feeling better' thing - I care about the environment to the extent that I want to protect it and understand that at current rates of non-renewable energy consumption we're all in for a big shock in the not so distant future. Contrary to what you suggest, the prolification of petrol and diesel cars, particularly in the US, is driven by money, not EV. The big oil and car companies would hate to see fossil fuels cars die out, for obvious reasons. Conversely, the likes of Elon Musk seem to be pushing for a better future; of course he wants to make money I'm sure, but he also reinvests most of it. Early adopters of cars like Model S and Model X will pay a premium for sure, but this premium funds the development of more affordable mass market vehicles, such as Model 3.

It is up to our Governments worldwide to invest in renewable energy sources and ditch fossil fuel power stations - all we can do in the meantime is pressure them into it by investing in the EV technology available today.

Yep, for a small minority of people who can produce their own electricty, that's fine. And for a country like Norway, it's also a great idea - but they have a population of 5 million.

In the USA, which was the country I mentioned, electricity production is:

Coal = 39%
Natural gas = 27%
Nuclear = 19%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.7%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.4%
Wind = 4.4%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases < 1%

Coal is particularly filthy.

China generates 80% of its electricity from coal.

Sorting out what the big polluters do matters a lot more than - the conveniently chosen - Norway.
Or what you do in your back garden. (Kudos to you if you're doing it, but it's an option that just isn't available to most).

Electric cars are a short-term money-maker. Without changing global electricity production, they have a tiny impact on global pollution - if any.

As I said, if you factor in the extra environmental cost of their production, in a country like the US - because of where their electricity comes from - they're less environmentally friendly.

Edited by je777 on Friday 29th January 19:32

[kambites]

je777 said:

Electric cars are a short-term money-maker. Without changing global electricity production, they have a tiny impact on global pollution - if any.

Indeed, but who says that's the aim? I wan't an electric family car because I want an electric family car, any benefit to the macro-environment would be a positive side-effect not the primary goal.

[98elise]

danp said:

cfdeb70 said:

FurtiveFreddy said:

cfdeb70 said:

They've got the electricity wrapped up too. You buy a Tesla "powerwall" you plug your solar panels, or a domestic windmill if you're in Scotland, into the powerwall so it get's charged during the day, then plug the car into the powerwall at night and you have free, environment friendly electricity to power your 300 mile journey.

Are you saying a day of UK sunshine into a house's solar panels or a back garden wind turbine gives you enough power to fully charge a Tesla car?

Or is this speculating on their potential relative efficiency in the future?

That's what they claim, however it neither states the area of solar panels nor size of wind turbine you would need.
I'm sure somebody on here can work out the Kw/hours used by the car and what size solar panel you'd need to recharge it in 8 hours of daylight.

You'd need a pretty hefty setup! IME a standard 4kW home system (16 panels) will produce about 20kWh on a good day, and averages about 10kWh over the year.

A Tesla battery is say 80kWh, and the powerwalls store 7 or 10kWh.

So with about £25/30k of solar PV (80 panels!) and the same £ again in powerwalls (about 10) you could in theory charge your Tesla fully at night for free after a sunny day in the UK. You'd also need a very very big roof or some land for the panels.

Edited by danp on Friday 29th January 11:31

For the average driver you need about 7kWh per day. If you're an average driver, and plug the car in each night, then you could run a tesla off a domestic system.

Edited by 98elise on Friday 29th January 20:30

[JonnyVTEC]

je777 said:

Yep, for a small minority of people who can produce their own electricty, that's fine. And for a country like Norway, it's also a great idea - but they have a population of 5 million.

In the USA, which was the country I mentioned, electricity production is:

Coal = 39%
Natural gas = 27%
Nuclear = 19%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.7%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.4%
Wind = 4.4%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases < 1%

Coal is particularly filthy.

China generates 80% of its electricity from coal.

Sorting out what the big polluters do matters a lot more than - the conveniently chosen - Norway.
Or what you do in your back garden. (Kudos to you if you're doing it, but it's an option that just isn't available to most).

Electric cars are a short-term money-maker. Without changing global electricity production, they have a tiny impact on global pollution - if any.

As I said, if you factor in the extra environmental cost of their production, in a country like the US - because of where their electricity comes from - they're less environmentally friendly.

Edited by je777 on Friday 29th January 19:32

Main thing we need to factor in is that you're don't have a clue what you making up.

[98elise]

je777 said:

Mike_C said:

je777 said:

In the US (because they source most of the electricity through fossil fuels), that makes them less EF than a normal car, especially considering the increased environmental cost of manufacture.
Ergo, this is a nonsense technology.
The sales are high because people's desire is to make themselves feel better - not to help the environment.
We all know this and we all know that electric cars are a dead end.
This is just politics - same as people pretending that diesel is better for the environment.
In the short term, more efficient petrol engines would be better for the environment.
In the long term, we either have to source our electricity from alternative means or spend the money on developing hydrogen or other fuels.
Electric cars are all about one thing - the one thing that drives all of the above - money.

What a load of nonsense! You do have a couple of sensible points about electrical energy, but your assessment of the technology being nonsense and people only buying them to 'feel better' is bull$hit.

Let's start with the energy thing; my choice to buy a Tesla is based on the fact that by owning a petrol or diesel car, I have no choice but to use fossil fuels. On the other hand, by choosing an EV I have the option to generate my own power (via solar panels or wind turbine, if I wish) but moreover based on the fact that more and more of our electricity is coming from renewable sources; just look at the off-shore windfarms and those dotted along the A5, or the 'solar-fields' popping up across East Anglia. As a case in point, Norway (one of the largest markets per capita for Tesla, due to their zero tax on the purchase price) generates 98% of their energy from renewable sources (hydro and wind). So are you seriously suggesting this is a nonsense technology only invested in by people wanting wanting to feel good about themselves? Of course its not.

Secondly, the 'feeling better' thing - I care about the environment to the extent that I want to protect it and understand that at current rates of non-renewable energy consumption we're all in for a big shock in the not so distant future. Contrary to what you suggest, the prolification of petrol and diesel cars, particularly in the US, is driven by money, not EV. The big oil and car companies would hate to see fossil fuels cars die out, for obvious reasons. Conversely, the likes of Elon Musk seem to be pushing for a better future; of course he wants to make money I'm sure, but he also reinvests most of it. Early adopters of cars like Model S and Model X will pay a premium for sure, but this premium funds the development of more affordable mass market vehicles, such as Model 3.

It is up to our Governments worldwide to invest in renewable energy sources and ditch fossil fuel power stations - all we can do in the meantime is pressure them into it by investing in the EV technology available today.

Yep, for a small minority of people who can produce their own electricty, that's fine. And for a country like Norway, it's also a great idea - but they have a population of 5 million.

In the USA, which was the country I mentioned, electricity production is:

Coal = 39%
Natural gas = 27%
Nuclear = 19%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.7%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.4%
Wind = 4.4%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases < 1%

Coal is particularly filthy.

China generates 80% of its electricity from coal.

Sorting out what the big polluters do matters a lot more than - the conveniently chosen - Norway.
Or what you do in your back garden. (Kudos to you if you're doing it, but it's an option that just isn't available to most).

Electric cars are a short-term money-maker. Without changing global electricity production, they have a tiny impact on global pollution - if any.

As I said, if you factor in the extra environmental cost of their production, in a country like the US - because of where their electricity comes from - they're less environmentally friendly.

Edited by je777 on Friday 29th January 19:32

Well to wheel EV's are way more efficient that ICE's. Once you add renewables or domestic PV into the mix then it only gets better.

Thats not why I would buy one though. I want a simple reliable powerful car.

[DoubleD]

Shame there is no exciting Electric car.

[Mike_C]

DoubleD said:

Shame there is no exciting Electric car.

You clearly haven't driven a P90D...and don't pretend you have to try and make a point, if you had you wouldn't make that comment!

[DoubleD]

I haven't driven one. They just look so dull.

[Vanin]

I think that Audi, BMW and Jaguar cars look equally dull, but they are not built for supercar looks, more for being a bit discreet.
The build quality of the Tesla looked fine to me.

A couple of things not yet mentioned I found on my test drive in an 85S apart from the movement of my internal organs towards my spine. Firstly the amount of space in the car. A boot front and rear and extra seats in the back to make an occasional seven seater, but a generous five seater. Fold down the seats to make near estate car room in the back.
The sales guy told me to take it to a quiet roundabout and see how fast I could go. My nerve went before the tyres even squealed! All that weight down low together with four wheel drive means it goes very fast round corners without drama.
The computer looks interesting and all the safety features, lane changing, cameras, self drive etc mean a more exciting car for me than groundhog day in all the rivals.
I would relish the challenge of long a long journey rather than being scared of it.