ptery

Don't think I3 has 200mile, actually not even half of that range with its extended range version, and I3 has a speed limit of 107mph which is meh..

I8 could be a competitor, but It will be priced above 120K.

rockethead7

The joke in all of this is that somehow gasoline just jumps to your local gas station. Where does the gas come from, guys? Oil producers, drilling, refining, dry holes, etc. Producing gasoline is less efficient than just using the existing electric distribution infrastructure that already powers your home. Plus, there are tremendous losses in the supply/distribution chains to get the gasoline where you need it, heavy trucks burning gas just to haul the gas, pipelines, spillage, etc. The true believers in oil never consider these facts. Gasoline will not survive as the dominant propulsion for cars, no matter how much you die-hard oil fans want it to.

V8888v

BS. 85 battery had an 8 year warranty unlimited

rockethead7

Sure they do, but Tesla's stance on that is that range-reduction due to age/use of the battery isn't covered by their warranty. Your battery has to die altogether for it to be covered. What happens if, due to repeated recharging and heavy use, that the battery's range isn't even half of what it was when it was new? Sorry, you pay for the replacement yourself. The warranty doesn't cover that.

astrotx

You're wrong--have you owned one? I have, and the Tesla Customer Support is second to none. They would never make a client buy a battery.

These guys bend over backwards to make sure they are happy. I remember I had mine in the shop for minor thing, they felt bad they did not have a new Tesla for me to drive, so they hired a car/driver for the day to take me where I needed to go. That's customer service.

Had some swirl marks on my car from delivery, they sent a professional detailer TO MY HOUSE to completely detail my cart until it was perfect.

The battery warranty is rock solid, and you are completely wrong.

rockethead7

OK, I was basing it on their website.
Here's the clause: "Lithium-ion batteries will experience gradual capacity loss with time and use, which is NOT covered under warranty."

I see on some blogs that people are looking for Tesla to commit to a number, but haven't found it in writing yet.

But, you're right, I haven't owned one. If you have a copy of your battery warranty, can you read it and confirm?


Added edit:
I found someone who posted this text from their Tesla battery warranty:

****
Battery Limited Warranty
The Model S lithium-ion battery (the “Battery”) is an extremely sophisticated powertrain
component designed to withstand extreme driving conditions. You can rest easy knowing that
Tesla’s state-of-the-art Battery is backed by this Battery Limited Warranty, which covers the repair
or replacement of any malfunctioning or defective Battery, subject to the limitations described
below. If your Battery requires warranty service, Tesla will repair the unit, or replace it with a factory
reconditioned unit that has an energy capacity at least equal to that of the original Battery before
the failure occurred. Your vehicle’s Battery is covered under this Battery Limited Warranty for a
period of 8 years or for the number of miles/km specified below for your Battery configuration,
whichever comes first:
• 60 kWh - 125,000 miles (200,000 km)
• 85 kWh - unlimited miles/km
Despite the breadth of this warranty, damage resulting from intentional abuse (including
intentionally ignoring active vehicle warnings), a collision or accident, or the servicing or opening of
the Battery by non-Tesla personnel, is not covered under this Battery Limited Warranty.
In addition, damage resulting from the following activities are not covered under this Battery
Limited Warranty:
• Exposing the vehicle to ambient temperatures above 140°F (60°C) or below -22°F (-30°C) for
more than 24 hours at a time;
• Physically damaging the Battery, or intentionally attempting, either by physical means,
programming, or other methods, to extend (other than as specified in your owner
documentation) or reduce the life of the Battery;
• Exposing the Battery to direct flame; or,
• Flooding of the Battery.
The Battery, like all lithium-ion batteries, will experience gradual energy or power loss with time and
use. Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage, is NOT
covered under this Battery Limited Warranty. See your owner documentation for important
information on how to maximize the life and capacity of the Battery.

So, I'm confused, is it your assertion that the above text is wrong, and your battery had a different warranty? Or, are you saying that your local Tesla dealer will disregard the warranty and replace a $20K battery free of charge in the interest of customer service?

I'm confused. I realize you have owned one, and I haven't. So, when you say I'm wrong, I take you seriously. But, all evidence I can find says YOU are wrong (respectfully).

MisterMe

Assertion with no basis in fact. What you don't seem to get is that each of the energy sources mentioned in your post are options for EVs, but are not for gasoline-powered vehicles. You assume that electricity requires transmission lines, conveniently ignoring the fact that this is not the case. Many businesses and homes going solar--either from the start or retrofitting to solar. You don't need transmission lines for solar.

astrotx

Give it up--go to the Tesla forum and argue with them...they'll tell you the same thing I just did.

rockethead7

Um, yes, the Tesla forums are where I found the battery warranty that says YOU are wrong.

So, you've used the crazy icon to describe me? For what? For trusting Tesla's own published materials describing their own warranty on their own battery? THAT makes me ???

Really?

So, let me put it a completely different way, since you've apparently decided that *I* am crazy: I think you don't have the slightest clue what your own battery warranty is/was, and I think that you're pulling your ideas about what you THINK Tesla will or won't cover straight out of your own behind. Go ahead, call me crazy.

The notion is that Tesla (a company bleeding tens of millions in cash every quarter) is going to go around replacing $20K batteries in the interest of customer service when their written warranty says it's NOT covered.

This is what is posted about the Tesla battery warranty. Now, is it correct, or not?

"The Battery, like all lithium-ion batteries, will experience gradual energy or power loss with time and
use. Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage, is NOT
covered under this Battery Limited Warranty."

b4i4getit

Tesla S is a terrific car. I would have one if I could justify the price. However when the price of electric cars equal to the Tesla start coming down in price all our precious gasoline powered sports cars will be like dinosaurs and will not be worth much. They will be as attractive in the used car market as a horse and buggy is now. Get used to it.

astrotx

Time for your medicine...one purple pill and relax battery boy.

rockethead7

Oh, spare me. You're dead wrong, and you KNOW it. Yet you ranted at ME, and called ME crazy for knowing the facts, while you pulled your opinions straight out of your own behind.

Keep on trying to blame me for your own problems, but nobody is buying it.

Hmmm. What to believe about the Tesla battery warranty... what to believe....?? Hmmm... tough choice here.

1) Tesla's own published warranty policies....

vs.

2) Some guy on the internet who said "my local dealer buffed my car and drove me around one day, therefore Tesla will give everyone $20K batteries for free."


Yeah, I guess I'm "crazy" for going with #1, huh?

Again, yeah, it's MY fault, right? It's MY fault that you were wrong and stuck your own foot in your mouth, huh? You CANNOT simply admit that you were wrong, but you know you were. And, now you're going to blame ME for YOU being wrong (after YOU were the rude person who ranted about something you knew nothing whatsoever about).

C7Amaybe

Tesla would not be such a success with the Model S without heavily relying on many kinds of government subsidies, and even with substantial subsidies they are still not profitable.

Yet subsidies can not last.

At the meantime, gas cars will continue to improve fuel efficiency. At some point energy cost becomes less relevant. A gas powered car that can get 50+ mpg renders the fuel cost a non issue, compared to the cost of owning and maintaining a car.

It is still too early to tell.

steel_3d

That's one of the weakest arguments constantly brought up against electric cars, and I hope you realize you're being disingenuous. I can go up on my roof tomorrow and install enough solar panels for around 10k to more than satisfy my household energy needs and fuel my cars for decades to come. I spent 24k just on gas for my Vette in the past 6 years, then there's the electric bills. It just makes economic sense. No nukes or coal anything required.

Second, not ALL electricity in the grid comes from dirty sources today, and nothing says clean energy can't make up a much higher proportion in the future. It just takes the will, and the investment. Granted, not everyone has 10k to spare today for free "gas" a few years down the road. I also realize the cost structure is slightly different if you don't live in California, but that just makes the payback period a bit longer. Lots of people doing well with solar in Canada, Germany, etc. Also, government subsidies improve that cost structure a lot currently, but that's diminishing as we speak (at least in California), and presumably solar equipment costs will fall in lockstep, and keep falling after the subsidies are already long gone. Energy prices will keep increasing, as they always have, further improving the cost structure.

Third, many of Tesla's charging stations use solar power today, and you can bet more of them will be outfitted in the near future, because it makes economic sense.

3 Z06ZR1

Electric TOY! no thanks! Try traveling cross country!

steel_3d

By free fuel I meant literally the fact that Tesla lets you charge for free at their stations. Though it appears from their website that "free" supercharging is a $2000 option on the 60kwh model. Still, I'm hard pressed to come up with similar examples from entrenched industries.

As far as solar home charging, that wasn't what I was referring to. I laid out my rationale for amortization, so I'm fully aware that "amortization" does not equal "free", just cheaper.

What IS a second blow to capitalism, after Tesla's "free" supercharging, is that even that small amortized "fuel" cost is not paid to the old, entrenched corporations - the oil companies and utilities - but to new solar tech companies. Similarly, the cost of purchasing a car is not going to the old car companies, dealers, mechanics, etc., but to a new tech company. All this is going to be quite distruptive, and it's what the entrenched industries have tried to stall for so long. But the cat's not going back in the bag Sorry for the politics again.

How did you calculate 6.5k/year in battery amortization? And is that on TOP of normal depreciation you'll see on IC cars? Don't we usually factor powertrain mileage into vehicle depreciation? How about factoring in maintenance costs on IC cars? The truth is no one will really know the answer to these calculations until a few years have passed.

I still don't get you. Supply and demand says the Tesla is better than any other Luxury sedan on the market based on sales. Physics says the Tesla can go roughly as quick as one of the fastest sports cars made in America, and can drive for thousands of miles cross country without much more trouble than a gas car. Math says they can sell one (slightly less awesome one) for 60k subsidized, which is not cheap, but not stratospheric (not sure why you keep quoting 100k, the 60k one is just as real, and quite nice). Math says the cost of ownership on a tesla is better than comparable IC cars (depends who's doing the math). Math also says a brand new company with zero experience making cars was able to do all this from scratch and is still in business.

So things that are continually repeated without factual basis I call dogma

Not a stock holder, no. But every day that goes by, I'm considering it more and more, even at these bubble prices. Judging by their corporate attitude, their disruptiveness, they could very well be the Ford of the 21st century, which means immense growth in the next few decades.
But I'm not really interested in stocks, I prefer different investment vehicles.

I'm surprised you don't understand the role of the stock market in the life cycle of companies, but I'm not going to repeat myself or hold ECON 101 here. All I'm gonna repeat is: not mine, but thousands of investors' money says that Tesla doesn't need to be profitable at this stage in the game. I guess you could argue that millions think otherwise, since they haven't bit Can't argue with that. We'll let the market decide in the long run. Suffice it to say they're not the first company to start out unprofitable to go on to great profits. I feel they're very aggressive with their investments (ie: infrastructure), which makes me even more confident that they'll reach critical mass in time (see nationwide supercharger network, battery swapping, top flight manufacturing facilities, etc.), and reaching critical mass in time can be critical

C7Amaybe

Many people buy into bitcoins because it is new and disruptive

I have nothing against Tesla, it is capitalism at work.

But it is also for people with sufficient disposable income to have a Model S as the third or fourth car to show off, not to save fuel cost. Hardly something the established car manufactures can bank on.

The IC cars are heading in the direction of 50+ mpg. At that level of efficiency, fuel cost becomes a minor issue compared to the cost of buying and maintaining a car.

The argument of less reliance on foreign oil is no longer valid, now that the US is a net oil exporter. While the environmental consequences of mining rare earth metals needed for the batteries should come to the focus.

There is the other side of the argument, and not all of it is disingenuous.

onthebottom

Don't be silly, the peak oil fools have been dining on crow for decades now. US will be energy independent within two decades. Hydrocarbons have such a high energy density that they are ideal for transportation. LNG would make sense for fleet / public transit vehicles, good old gas is cheap (relatively), widely available and has an amazing distribution network - nothing else comes close.

OTB

TTRotary

So, why don't you then? Your claim is just as disingenuous. First, a solar array of current technology cannot even come close to providing the charge capacity a Tesla requires - at least if you want to charge it in less than 4 days. It's just simple math. And, panels have major issues, a primary one being dust - unless they are regularly cleaned, dust significantly reduces performance - this is a particular problem in low-rain and desert areas.

Your scenario will eventually exist, when roof tiles become PV cells and the technology improves, but that is years away. That leaves you charging your Tesla, at night, from the grid. At for us in SoCal, that power comes primarily from Hoover Dam and coal-fired FourCorners generating stations, and our effective fuel mix is 67% coal on the night dispatch curve. You may as well be shoveling lumps of it into your Tesla, if you live here in L.A.

See answer above, for SoCal. There was a time when power companies might have considered building efficient combined-cycle gas fired baseload plants in Ca, but ever since the Gray Davis energy debacle, and due to the nightmares of getting plants certified, power companies like Duke won't touch the "gloden state" with a 10ft pole. Ironic, isn't it...

rockethead7

You just don't get it, do you? You go on and on and on about these things, making claims that electric cars are more market ready than they really are... and your entire basis for it is a car brand that averages $100K per year, but still can't manage a profit. And, unless you're a stockholder in that company, don't pretend that you have any business saying whether they should be profitable or not.

And, you've called me a "defeatist" for the last time (and expecting me to reply any further). I'm not explaining myself for the billionth time to you that I ADVOCATE electric cars, and I believe they ARE the future. If that's being a "defeatist" in your mind, it's time for you to learn what a dictionary is.