Tesla and Uber Unlikely to Survive...
Discussion
gangzoom said:
As for anyone who thinks VAG are actually serious about EVs, right now the head of VW is busy trying to stop EU laws mandating reduction in emissions......
https://electrek.co/2018/10/11/vw-ceo-scare-tactic...
Electrek is far from an independent source of news or opinion. https://electrek.co/2018/10/11/vw-ceo-scare-tactic...
The home page is essentially one long Tesla advert.
Edited by LG9k on Friday 12th October 11:42
LG9k said:
gangzoom said:
As for anyone who thinks VAG are actually serious about EVs, right now the head of VW is busy trying to stop EU laws mandating reduction in emissions......
https://electrek.co/2018/10/11/vw-ceo-scare-tactic...
Electrek is far from an independent source of news or opinion. https://electrek.co/2018/10/11/vw-ceo-scare-tactic...
The home page is essentially one long Tesla advert.
Edited by LG9k on Friday 12th October 11:42
You can’t force consumers into EVs via aggressive legislation before there is the means to build enough battery packs and for the consumer to be able to afford them. It doesn’t make a firm evil or dishonest to point out the truth that the transition needs to be orderly and profitable.
It is also subtly pointing out that if EU nations want to force swifter adoption of EVs then they need to invest taxpayer money in building a massive Europe wide charging structure so that the average consumer can afford an EV as the only way to make them price competitive today is to massively reduce the size of the battery packs meaning non domestic charging becomes essential.
The problem is that what is being discussed here is the real world where politics and economics have to work together to achieve long term goals.
DonkeyApple said:
It is also subtly pointing out that if EU nations want to force swifter adoption of EVs then they need to invest taxpayer money in building a massive Europe wide charging structure so that the average consumer can afford an EV as the only way to make them price competitive today is to massively reduce the size of the battery packs meaning non domestic charging becomes essential.
Lol we are about to leave the EU so we are f
ked I guess if an EU wide infrustructure was rolled out......ours will be far better than the EU's we wil use a standard 13amp 3 pin plug 
you may or may not have noticed that the UK government has all but scrapped a green agenda and is rolling full steam ahead with fracking and other carbon based energy policies "rant mode off"
Toaster said:
Lol we are about to leave the EU so we are fked I guess if an EU wide infrustructure was rolled out......ours will be far better than the EU's we wil use a standard 13amp 3 pin plug
you may or may not have noticed that the UK government has all but scrapped a green agenda and is rolling full steam ahead with fracking and other carbon based energy policies "rant mode off"
We’re not going to leave the EU. We’re working out a deal where we still do whatever the EU says but without having any say, it costing more but importantly the angry old men of Britain who remember defeating Hitler despite not being born will have stuck it to their kids and finally be happy. ked I guess if an EU wide infrustructure was rolled out......ours will be far better than the EU's we wil use a standard 13amp 3 pin plug you may or may not have noticed that the UK government has all but scrapped a green agenda and is rolling full steam ahead with fracking and other carbon based energy policies "rant mode off"
There never was any green agenda. We’re a consumer society that lives by borrowing money to buy things that we don’t need nor can afford ( like Tesla’s) and where this is kept going by changing legislation so consumers have to bin what they’ve bought and buy a different thing before they’ve even paid off the last thing. The green agenda is the most magnificent tool to keep excess consumption and spending going.
The green agenda is about consuming even more as a solution to our excess consumption. Want to save the planet then buy these goods.
We all know that to be genuinely green we need to consume less but no one wants to so they are supplied with the means to continue their excessive and destructive consumption but with ‘green’ products that somehow make them think that they are part of some solution rather than being at the heart of the problem with everyone else.
It’s all total b
ks when you really drill down below it all and just part of the big, global consumption machine swamped with debt and insane marketing practices. 
What kind of f
knuckle ever thinks they are being environmentally friendly by borrowing £100k to have a brand new EV. It’s not even a sticking plaster but a perfect example of the insane excess consumption of the masses that is the beating heart of all the environmental issues. And we’re all guilty. DonkeyApple said:
We’re not going to leave the EU. We’re working out a deal where we still do whatever the EU says but without having any say, it costing more but importantly the angry old men of Britain who remember defeating Hitler despite not being born will have stuck it to their kids and finally be happy.
There never was any green agenda. We’re a consumer society that lives by borrowing money to buy things that we don’t need nor can afford ( like Tesla’s) and where this is kept going by changing legislation so consumers have to bin what they’ve bought and buy a different thing before they’ve even paid off the last thing. The green agenda is the most magnificent tool to keep excess consumption and spending going.
The green agenda is about consuming even more as a solution to our excess consumption. Want to save the planet then buy these goods.
We all know that to be genuinely green we need to consume less but no one wants to so they are supplied with the means to continue their excessive and destructive consumption but with ‘green’ products that somehow make them think that they are part of some solution rather than being at the heart of the problem with everyone else.
It’s all total bks when you really drill down below it all and just part of the big, global consumption machine swamped with debt and insane marketing practices.
What kind of fknuckle ever thinks they are being environmentally friendly by borrowing £100k to have a brand new EV. It’s not even a sticking plaster but a perfect example of the insane excess consumption of the masses that is the beating heart of all the environmental issues. And we’re all guilty.
There never was any green agenda. We’re a consumer society that lives by borrowing money to buy things that we don’t need nor can afford ( like Tesla’s) and where this is kept going by changing legislation so consumers have to bin what they’ve bought and buy a different thing before they’ve even paid off the last thing. The green agenda is the most magnificent tool to keep excess consumption and spending going.
The green agenda is about consuming even more as a solution to our excess consumption. Want to save the planet then buy these goods.
We all know that to be genuinely green we need to consume less but no one wants to so they are supplied with the means to continue their excessive and destructive consumption but with ‘green’ products that somehow make them think that they are part of some solution rather than being at the heart of the problem with everyone else.
It’s all total b
ks when you really drill down below it all and just part of the big, global consumption machine swamped with debt and insane marketing practices. What kind of f
knuckle ever thinks they are being environmentally friendly by borrowing £100k to have a brand new EV. It’s not even a sticking plaster but a perfect example of the insane excess consumption of the masses that is the beating heart of all the environmental issues. And we’re all guilty. thats about right alhough going green combined with a certain less comsumptive lifestyle may just may save the planet and that includes smaller families with say 1 or no children. Edited by Toaster on Friday 12th October 13:00
DonkeyApple said:
It’s all total bks when you really drill down below it all and just part of the big, global consumption machine swamped with debt and insane marketing practices.
Best bit is in 2008/9 there was a real chance to start all over again, but the government bottled out, printed loads of fake money, screwed the masses to keep the few happy and the joke carries on.......Just make sure your near a chair when the music stops next time ks when you really drill down below it all and just part of the big, global consumption machine swamped with debt and insane marketing practices. 
.gangzoom said:
DonkeyApple said:
It’s all total bks when you really drill down below it all and just part of the big, global consumption machine swamped with debt and insane marketing practices.
Best bit is in 2008/9 there was a real chance to start all over again, but the government bottled out, printed loads of fake money, screwed the masses to keep the few happy and the joke carries on.......Just make sure your near a chair when the music stops next time ks when you really drill down below it all and just part of the big, global consumption machine swamped with debt and insane marketing practices. .The efficiency calculation and comparison is very one-dimensional. To build the bigger picture it should be looking at a variety of legislative drivecycles; as well as some alternative real-life use-cases. Let's assume that the "physics-based" model is correlated and accurate - unsurprisingly the US-based OEMs come first in terms of efficiency over the US legislative cycle.
What about other scenarios, e.g WLTP? Germans love their high-speed drivecycles, and this is something that all the European OEMs take seriously. I'd be interested in seeing a broader dataset, as most of the established OEMs are making very different attribute trade-offs to Tesla. The latter prioritise EPA range and 0-60mph times, but do very poorly on an HSD cycle and other continuous performance measures - maybe this is what the market wants, and Tesla are right, time will tell.
To conclude that Tesla's tech is more efficient from that piece of armchair analysis is rather naiive though. Your control strategy, i.e. how you operate all the vehicle systems, will have a massive influence on performance over a legislative drivecycle. How you use things like the cabin HVAC is always a compromise between efficiency and comfort/convenience. Tesla are very aggressive in how they turn off HVAC loads to preserve range (the Model S would fail certain OEM sign-off tests around demist for example), whereas JLR may be compromising this more to prioritise comfort.
What the analysis actually tells you, is that Tesla have deployed their systems to prioritise EPA range more than other OEMs. You need to stick e-motors, inverters and batteries on a test bed to establish whether their tech is actually significantly more efficient. Those that have done don't seem to be worried.
What about other scenarios, e.g WLTP? Germans love their high-speed drivecycles, and this is something that all the European OEMs take seriously. I'd be interested in seeing a broader dataset, as most of the established OEMs are making very different attribute trade-offs to Tesla. The latter prioritise EPA range and 0-60mph times, but do very poorly on an HSD cycle and other continuous performance measures - maybe this is what the market wants, and Tesla are right, time will tell.
To conclude that Tesla's tech is more efficient from that piece of armchair analysis is rather naiive though. Your control strategy, i.e. how you operate all the vehicle systems, will have a massive influence on performance over a legislative drivecycle. How you use things like the cabin HVAC is always a compromise between efficiency and comfort/convenience. Tesla are very aggressive in how they turn off HVAC loads to preserve range (the Model S would fail certain OEM sign-off tests around demist for example), whereas JLR may be compromising this more to prioritise comfort.
What the analysis actually tells you, is that Tesla have deployed their systems to prioritise EPA range more than other OEMs. You need to stick e-motors, inverters and batteries on a test bed to establish whether their tech is actually significantly more efficient. Those that have done don't seem to be worried.
DonkeyApple said:
Carrot said:
Digga said:
RobDickinson said:
People know they can save massive on fuel costs.
But depreciation costs are still utterly enormous.amstrange1 said:
The efficiency calculation and comparison is very one-dimensional. To build the bigger picture it should be looking at a variety of legislative drivecycles; as well as some alternative real-life use-cases. Let's assume that the "physics-based" model is correlated and accurate - unsurprisingly the US-based OEMs come first in terms of efficiency over the US legislative cycle.
What about other scenarios, e.g WLTP? Germans love their high-speed drivecycles, and this is something that all the European OEMs take seriously. I'd be interested in seeing a broader dataset, as most of the established OEMs are making very different attribute trade-offs to Tesla. The latter prioritise EPA range and 0-60mph times, but do very poorly on an HSD cycle and other continuous performance measures - maybe this is what the market wants, and Tesla are right, time will tell.
To conclude that Tesla's tech is more efficient from that piece of armchair analysis is rather naiive though. Your control strategy, i.e. how you operate all the vehicle systems, will have a massive influence on performance over a legislative drivecycle. How you use things like the cabin HVAC is always a compromise between efficiency and comfort/convenience. Tesla are very aggressive in how they turn off HVAC loads to preserve range (the Model S would fail certain OEM sign-off tests around demist for example), whereas JLR may be compromising this more to prioritise comfort.
What the analysis actually tells you, is that Tesla have deployed their systems to prioritise EPA range more than other OEMs. You need to stick e-motors, inverters and batteries on a test bed to establish whether their tech is actually significantly more efficient. Those that have done don't seem to be worried.
Yup, the biggest efficiency gains are with the drivers right foot (or lack of) What about other scenarios, e.g WLTP? Germans love their high-speed drivecycles, and this is something that all the European OEMs take seriously. I'd be interested in seeing a broader dataset, as most of the established OEMs are making very different attribute trade-offs to Tesla. The latter prioritise EPA range and 0-60mph times, but do very poorly on an HSD cycle and other continuous performance measures - maybe this is what the market wants, and Tesla are right, time will tell.
To conclude that Tesla's tech is more efficient from that piece of armchair analysis is rather naiive though. Your control strategy, i.e. how you operate all the vehicle systems, will have a massive influence on performance over a legislative drivecycle. How you use things like the cabin HVAC is always a compromise between efficiency and comfort/convenience. Tesla are very aggressive in how they turn off HVAC loads to preserve range (the Model S would fail certain OEM sign-off tests around demist for example), whereas JLR may be compromising this more to prioritise comfort.
What the analysis actually tells you, is that Tesla have deployed their systems to prioritise EPA range more than other OEMs. You need to stick e-motors, inverters and batteries on a test bed to establish whether their tech is actually significantly more efficient. Those that have done don't seem to be worried.
I can't comment for EV, however we spent along time working with an EU/UK car maker who tested our tech; at high speeds (>40mph) it provided measurable benefits in efficiency (and lower C02), however didn't provide the benefits at lower speed or on the NEDC / WLTP cycle.
Therefore the reply was, thanks great tech, but no thanks.........
amstrange1 said:
What the analysis actually tells you, is that Tesla have deployed their systems to prioritise EPA range more than other OEMs.
That probably explains why a larger Model X uses 20%+ less energy at 80mph than an iPace, but hey who cares about efficency at illegal speeds .https://youtu.be/WT5VmC-Ze3w
EPA rating just happens to be much more accurate than the waste of time NEDC. My old Leaf had an NEDC range of 120 miles and EPA of 84 miles, can you guess which offical rating was closetst to real life use?
If you think any manfacture doesn't care about getting the max out of any offical testing cycle you might not have heard what VAG has been upto for the best part of a decade
.
gangzoom said:
That probably explains why a larger Model X uses 20%+ less energy at 80mph than an iPace, but hey who cares about efficency at illegal speeds .
https://youtu.be/WT5VmC-Ze3w
EPA rating just happens to be much more accurate than the waste of time NEDC. My old Leaf had an NEDC range of 120 miles and EPA of 84 miles, can you guess which offical rating was closetst to real life use?
If you think any manfacture doesn't care about getting the max out of any offical testing cycle you might not have heard what VAG has been upto for the best part of a decade.
Yep, different CdA means the iPace needs more energy. Styling prioritised over economy/range. Doesn't mean that the JLR tech is s.https://youtu.be/WT5VmC-Ze3w
EPA rating just happens to be much more accurate than the waste of time NEDC. My old Leaf had an NEDC range of 120 miles and EPA of 84 miles, can you guess which offical rating was closetst to real life use?
If you think any manfacture doesn't care about getting the max out of any offical testing cycle you might not have heard what VAG has been upto for the best part of a decade
.te, nor does it mean the Tesla tech is physics-cheating magic, just means a different attribute compromise. The report I was commenting on was claiming to have decoupled aero/mass from the equation to arrive at a level-playing field comparison of efficiency (not economy, which is what you're talking about) - I was pointing out why that is an incomplete approach.Where did I mention NEDC? WLTP and HSD. Teslas do terribly on the latter, moreso in terms of hitting thermal de-rates. Seems to be an important thing to mainly just Germans, but the traditional OEMs quite like selling cars there. Means that there is another attribute compromise to get that stronger continuous performance - nothing comes for free.
Not sure I said no OEM cares about getting the maximum out of official test cycles, just that it's one of many factors they consider. When you're talking of ICE vehicles, many (VAG, BMW, Daimler-Benz, Renault, PSA etc. etc.) got caught out schooling the emissions tests - because there were financial penalties if they were non-compliant. With an EV, there is no penalty for lower EV range, it's just another marketing attribute for the OEM to play a tune with.
It was a point made earlier in this thread, that established OEMs have stacks of market data - which they use to set targets for forthcoming programmes. They are all using this to shape some of their strategy, as well as needing to limit their losses, whereas Tesla don't have these decades of consumer data or financial constraints - time will tell whether this lack of history means Tesla's alternative approaches gives them a market advantage. I suspect that over time Tesla will continue to get more automotive in their approach (BiW, craftsmanship and NVH all seem to have been a focus for them based on Model 3 benchmark data) to become more successful. What will be interesting to see, is whether any of the Tesla approach is picked up by the other OEMs - at the moment I can't see why they'd go "all in" on EV at the moment and join Musk on the race to the bottom.
Edited by amstrange1 on Friday 12th October 18:50
AstonZagato said:
That autocar render of how they think an electric XJ might look is actually quite cool.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff