10/11/2012 8:34:22 AM

yeah shows the model s winning when the bimmer spins all over hell..


..... duh..

said it won 3/5 times...

meaning its just more consistent in the real world but the m5 is faster.

10/11/2012 9:09:50 AM

IBTL

10/11/2012 9:52:10 AM

I blasted this blog post over on Autoblog.

In the Tesla S all you do is floor it and hold on. No shifting. So why did they compare it to a 6 speed manual BMW M5? They should have used the dual clutch 7 speed equipped model. But they didn't, because the Tesla would have been smoked every time.

And apparently Automobile Magazine's staffers aren't very good at testing vehicles (which is no surprise since they do not publish any vehicle testing data, i.e. b/c they don't do any). Their times in the BMW couldn't even equal BMW's own published data, which everyone knows is always quite conservative.

This is not to say I'm not impressed with the Tesla S in all aspects. Remarkable vehicle all around.

[Edited on October 11, 2012 at 10:14 AM. Reason : k]

10/11/2012 10:07:16 AM

Unlesss your name is Vin Diesel, does it really matter if it won or lost by a split second (looking at similar comments on Autoblog about launch control, transmission, driving skills, etc)? . This test shows is that Tesla, slated for mass production and built with new tech by a young startup, can hang with an parformance icon from an established automaker that has been around for almost 100 years, while being competitively priced. Arguing about everything else is splitting hairs. Musk got more balls than the entire boardroom at the BMW HQ. Glad to see that BMW is not sitting idle, and i8 will probably be faster and even more radical (although it will be in a differenct class), but at this point they are playing catch-up.

10/11/2012 12:08:41 PM

BMW is making money while Tesla is still losing a ton of it

10/11/2012 12:27:50 PM

^^

It proves in a test that favors an electric car... that an electric car will win..

see they didn't do a 1/4 mile because at the end of that race, in spite of the spinning you can see the m5 running it down near the end of the race.

^ also correct.

10/11/2012 12:32:50 PM

If BMW could just get government money and sell vehicles at a loss then...

10/11/2012 12:49:09 PM

As far as performance, you guys are splitting hairs. Even if (when?) tesla lost by a few car lengths, it doesn't make much of a difference. What is shows is that you can get a similar driving experience under the circumstances 99% of drivers are likely to encounter. No one buys a model S to the it to the track, and in the US there are not really any places where you can legally go over 70mph. It's like saying that an apple has potential to be slightly more nutricious than an orange, but only if both are made into juice first.

As far as profitability, I don't think you guys understand how much financing it takes to start a mass-production assembly line. It is very reasonable for it not to be profitable after selling just few hundred vehicles. BMW has multiple model lines to fall on. How many car companies (or even motorcycle) were started in the US within the last 50 years and were able to stick around? Better yet, how many existing companies, with tons of existing capital and know-how, were killed off?

^Tesla got a LOAN from the government. A loan is money that you have to pay back with interest. I am sure many other manufacturers received loans and even grants from the respecive governments, like BMW surely did during WWII, and like Chinese car companies are receiving today. Tesla vehicles are NOT sold at a loss; they have negative cash flow meaning they are paying more for equipment right now than they are getting from the cars they are able to built, this being explained by the fact that production is still ramping up. But keep listening to Fox news, the only thing they can start successfully is controversy.

[Edited on October 11, 2012 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2012 12:52:00 PM

Quote :

"Glad to see that BMW is not sitting idle, and i8 will probably be faster and even more radical (although it will be in a differenct class), but at this point they are playing catch-up."

I sincerely don't foresee the i8 being faster than the M5 (0-60 in 3.7 and sub 12 second quarter mile runs).

They should just compare the Tesla S to the BMW 5 series visually. That Tesla is a thing of beauty while the BMW is fugly and brutish looking.

10/11/2012 1:00:26 PM

Quote :

"If BMW could just get government money and sell vehicles at a loss then..."

That actually sounds pretty fuckin' sweet.
electric vehicles
corn fuel
Cheap Bimmers!

10/11/2012 3:14:48 PM

If Tesla survives and is able to pay back their loans I will eat a lithium battery.

10/11/2012 4:03:42 PM

Why do some of you fuckers hate America?

Quote :

"Tesla Motors, Inc. is a Silicon Valley-based company that designs, manufactures and sells electric cars and electric vehicle powertrain components. Tesla Motors is a public company that trades on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the symbol TSLA."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors
Tesla is American made.

Go hop in your rice rockets, traitors

10/11/2012 4:27:27 PM

This turned from Garage thread into Soapbox and then into Chit Chat pretty quickly

[Edited on October 11, 2012 at 4:29 PM. Reason : sigh]

10/11/2012 4:29:24 PM

Not really, pryderi merely turns every thread into shit by his presence alone.

Unless it involves tits.

10/11/2012 6:05:31 PM

Quote :

"If Tesla survives and is able to pay back their loans I will eat a lithium battery."

Well last month their CEO said they should start repaying their loans ahead of schedule...

10/11/2012 8:43:04 PM

No, he said it was being asked to pay it sooner.

Then last week they reduced their revenue forecast and this week they are looking for another quarter billion in funding.

10/11/2012 8:49:16 PM

Quote :

"We need to repay the government loan. In fact, my goal is to repay that loan early. I actually feel pretty confident that we will be able to repay the loan early and I take that really seriously because, essentially, the U.S. people, through their intermediaries in Congress, has been kind enough to loan Tesla money and it is our absolute duty to repay that as soon as possible."

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/07/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-q-and-a/

10/11/2012 9:45:07 PM

Quote :

"Why do some of you fuckers hate America?"

Says the man who believes OBAMA=WIN! You must hate America if you support this political monster....

Quote :

"Go hop in your rice rockets, traitors"

That's just prejudice, you liberal hypocrite.

10/11/2012 10:04:24 PM

^^dude, read the news from this month

And actually read what you posted. They want to repay it early and are being pressed to. The reality is that 10 days ago they reduced revenue projects and a few days ago they started trying to raise another quarter billion dollars in funding.

No chance.

[Edited on October 11, 2012 at 10:06 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2012 10:04:50 PM

And for the record, Germans are kraut rockets. Rice rockets are Asain!!!!

10/11/2012 10:09:35 PM

I'm not gonna pretend that I know Tesla's financial situation, but considering how much a drop in the bucket 360M is for DOE and considering how many connections Musk personally has in Silicon Valley, i doubt they will not be able to get over the production slump due to lack of financing. FWIW, here is what Musk says about this:

Quote :

"Now that our financing round is complete, I would like to clear up some misconceptions that arose last week as a result of our filing a public market financial prospectus. SEC rules rightly limit interaction with the press during a financing round to prevent companies from promoting stock. Unfortunately, this made it difficult for me to respond properly when some journalists gained the wrong impression. Public company financing documents are fundamentally about ensuring investors are informed about every possible risk, even those that are highly improbable, and one has to describe those risks using language that is discomforting at best. Consistent with those principles, we described a relatively pessimistic scenario for Tesla, which was incorrectly interpreted by some to be what we thought was the most likely scenario. Most importantly, what did not come across well was that we raised the funds simply for risk reduction. Barring any disasters internally or with suppliers, Tesla is actually on the verge of becoming cash flow positive and will not have to spend any of the money raised, at least until we embark upon a major new vehicle program. In the public call with investors, I tried to make this point, but perhaps should have emphasized it more: we expect Tesla to become cash flow positive at the end of next month. However, given that we do have a global supply chain and that floods, fires, hurricanes or earthquakes can cause supply chain interruptions and halt production, we thought it would make sense to raise capital to protect against such an event. In fact, an important consideration in doing this financing round was that we went through just such a crisis recently with a supplier that had a flood in their factory. This caused a shortfall in shipments and delayed production until we could find another solution. As for the reduced vehicle delivery guidance in Q3 and Q4 of this year, it is unfortunate that we are at the steepest portion of our production ramp. This gives the appearance of being much further behind than we actually are. Our production rate in the last week of September was roughly 100 vehicles, four times greater than our production in the first week of September as we overcame supply constraints. If the calendar were simply shifted a few weeks to the right, Tesla would have exceeded the 500 vehicle delivery target for the third quarter. In fact, I am pleased to report that we completed production of 359 vehicles last quarter (delivering over 250 of those to customers) and have already made our 500th vehicle body. While we are indeed a few weeks later than we would like, this is perhaps not a terrible outcome for a product as advanced and complex as the Model S, particularly given that Tesla is doing manufacturing of full vehicles for the first time with a new team and new suppliers. Finally, there are two important points that should be clarified regarding the loan that Tesla has from the Department of Energy, which only constitutes a third of our capital raised to date: 1. In discussions with the DOE, Tesla has never asked for or even hinted at postponing repayment of the loan. We did suggest that holding nine months worth of principal payments in *advance* in a reserved account was a bit extreme and, moreover, was never part of our original loan agreement. The DOE agreed and reduced the advance payment reserve account to six months. At the risk of being repetitive: Tesla has always made its DOE payments on time and has never asked to delay repayment ever. I don't know how to state this more clearly. 2. The DOE's desire for advance payment of the overall loan stems from a concern that is the complete opposite of what many assume. The DOE believes Tesla will be highly successful and accumulate a large amount of cash, but that we may then choose not to pay off the loan any sooner than is currently required. Far from being worried about our survival, the DOE is highly bullish about our future and doesn't want us to delay early repayment of the loan if we have the cash on hand to do so. The DOE has simply asked if we would be willing to repay the loan early if we have excess cash. The answer is unequivocally yes and I am happy to announce that we will be initiating an advance payment today to prefund the principal payment that is due in March 2013. The purpose of the DOE Advanced Technology Manufacturing Program was to serve as a catalyst for accelerating sustainable transport technology, which is in the best interests of all Americans and ultimately people throughout the world. In the case of Tesla, the result has been a resurgence in American manufacturing ability and the creation of over 3500 high quality jobs. Nonetheless, we have a duty at Tesla, having accepted this loan as a portion of our capital, to repay it at the earliest opportunity. We will do exactly that."

Despite pryderi's ignorant remarks, I really am surprised by the polarization that electric and electric-ICE hybrid cars bring to general public. They are, in fact, well-designed, American-made, high-tech product. Are they overpriced? Sticker price, maybe. Over their lifetime, not so much. Did they benefit from federal money? Yes, but so did many useless DOD programs, and most of the money given to the Auto industry was in form of loans, not grants.

When observing values in US vs other developed countries, we seem to be very obsessed with quantity over quality. Many of us Americans do not develop deferred gratification pattern. Whether it is food, housing, cars, or energy, we'd rather have it big and cheap now than nicer and more sustainable later.


[Edited on October 11, 2012 at 11:23 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2012 11:21:35 PM

I maintain that pure electrics are absolutely stupid, save a very small market for very inexpensive electric city cars.

10/12/2012 12:22:54 AM

here in dc where gas is $5/gal and I spend most of it idling or inching forward, im seriously considering an electric and I like the model S best, in terms of fit/finish and range but I just can't justify spending that much when the driving itself is so awful. it's not like i'm having fun in my 60k car

10/12/2012 4:09:02 AM

^^^the Tesla S has major quality issues as well

10/12/2012 7:28:35 AM

tl-dnr

10/12/2012 7:47:21 AM

^^could you be any more negative? No different than any other new car company.

Quote :

"I maintain that pure electrics are absolutely stupid, save a very small market for very inexpensive electric city cars."

I mostly feel that way, however Tesla is promising a fast charging system that gives you a 300 mile range for 30 minutes of charging. That's fast enough to make an electric car quite practical as someone's only vehicle.

10/12/2012 9:53:19 AM

yeah, that would make it an absolute non-issue day-to-day. IF it could deliver that off of a common 110v outlet, with no need for any non-portable charging gear or anything weird, then it would be workable for taking trips--maybe a minor inconvenience, but you could deal with it and it would be a great trade of for the fuel savings.

...but if you can't take it on an all-day road-trip, it isn't a legitimate "only car" in my book.

10/18/2012 12:21:38 AM

your typical plug is 110v 15amps... that's 1650 watts or 2.2 horsepower...

2.2 horsepower charging for .5 hours means that you'll be able to have 2.2 horsepower on tap for .5 hours or 132 horsepower for 30 seconds.

Basically... i'm letting you know that quick charging on 110 will never happen...
which power companies like so they can sell you power off high voltage gear.

10/18/2012 7:26:38 AM

your typical plug is 110v 15amps... that's 1650 watts or 2.2 horsepower...

2.2 horsepower charging for .5 hours means that you'll be able to have 2.2 horsepower on tap for .5 hours or 132 horsepower for 30 seconds.

Basically... i'm letting you know that quick charging on 110 will never happen...
which power companies like so they can sell you power off high voltage gear.

10/18/2012 7:26:38 AM

saw one of these on my way to work the other day in dc

10/18/2012 7:27:47 AM

^ duh, I should've thought about it like an engineer

10/18/2012 8:36:14 AM

So you have a 15 gallon gas storage tank at home, along with an electric fuel pump, so you can fill up your current car to the top at home in matter of minutes? Of course electric plug-ins will require an infrastructure of high-current charging stations to truly compete with convenience of the current system! However, this infrastructure is much easier to build, as electric stations are cheaper o maintain and can be installed in public parking places where you can go about your business while your car fills up. If you want to think about it as an engineer, think about how much more energy efficient electric powertrain is when compared to gas or diesel. The amount of energy that needs to be stored and transferred is much, much less than with internal combustion engines. Maybe the first generation or two of plug-in can not be the "only" car, but with the current pace of battery technology development, no reason it can't be the only car within a couple of decades.

10/18/2012 5:34:48 PM

I'm the guy that's putting charging stations in parking decks where I work, nothing cheap or easy about getting new 480v circuits

10/18/2012 5:57:08 PM

^^ Sure--I'm just saying that this car is coming to market right now, and the infrastructure to support it and really make it viable is not even CLOSE to being in place.

10/18/2012 6:37:14 PM

Tesla=Innovation. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it...

10/20/2012 3:09:36 AM

^^^ compared to an underground tank it's cheap as balls. I know I work with both.

Lol it'll probably be like it was tesla makes all the cool tech but ge (Edison's company) will be the ones that mass market it.

[Edited on October 20, 2012 at 8:01 AM. Reason : .]

10/20/2012 7:59:38 AM

Quote :

"your typical plug is 110v 15amps... that's 1650 watts or 2.2 horsepower... "

yeah, but remember your standard 3 wire electrical service to US homes is 240V, and your higher energy appliances plug into both 120V wires, just as your home charger would.

similarly, there's no reason why a network of charging stations wouldn't also use 240V.

10/21/2012 10:25:04 PM

i'm guessing you'd need a 480V ckt to get to what most folks would consider "quick charging"

10/21/2012 10:38:01 PM

^^ aside from probably needing more than 240v for real "quick" charging while you grab lunch, the point I'm making is that it isn't here now and won't be soon, at least in meaningful numbers--however, the car will be here soon, and then what?

It's not a cheap city car for people who never need to drive more than a few miles, and/or have a "real" car for when they do. How many people are there who can afford to buy a Tesla-S for short trips, and then another car for actually going places?

10/22/2012 2:02:52 AM

The S Performance is over $90k, so if you can afford it chances are you can afford a second car

10/22/2012 7:44:37 AM

Yeah because everyone is willing to drop a spare 90k on a car they can use sometimes maybe

10/22/2012 8:38:23 AM

if you are seriously looking at a $90k car, you can likely afford a second car

10/22/2012 9:05:03 AM

Not nessasarily

I've considered the new viper... And yes I have other cars but do I want to own a 90k car an insure it and only drive it under certain conditions? Nope..

Like this car. Awesome luxury cruiser except you can't do anything but commute with it.

10/22/2012 9:10:55 AM

oh, there's no question that this isn't ready for mainstream. It's just like any other new tech on the technology adoption lifecycle. For it to truly take off, it's gotta cross the chasm, and extend reach beyond the early adopters. Now the question is whether Elon Musk and co., are making that push too early.




In terms of building out a network of quick charge stations, he announced this a month ago: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-25/tesla-fires-up-solar-powered-charging-stations

Is it a real replacement for a petrol based vehicle? I think we're likely decades away from that. But I'd argue that it's a better alternative fuel vehicle than a hybrid and the currently available plug-ins (volt and leaf).

If i was pulling in 300k a year, i'd most certainly get one to satisfy my inner nerd-- which is where I really see the target market being, as opposed to the greenies.

10/22/2012 9:11:10 AM

Great so we will use a technology that doesn't pay for its self to charge a technology that doesn't pay for itself.

10/22/2012 9:13:09 AM

sure. until he goes bankrupt, or economies of scale invalidate your conclusion

10/22/2012 9:23:55 AM

Lol yay for government subsidies

10/22/2012 10:07:29 AM

You are saying it like government subsidies is a bad thing, and like we are not spending a shitton more of taxpayer money on things we will never ever use or at least personally benefit from. Federal subsidies for EVs are going mostly directly to the consumer in form of tax relief. There are some state and local money directed into early infrastructure. EV manufacturers mostly get government help in form of low-interest loans.

BobbyDigital summed it up nicely. California is currently turning into a petri dish for the EV infrastructure that will show us whether it can become a viable transportation system and profitable business quickly enough. The rest of us can sit here with a dick in our hand and watch while our legislators spend money on a new submarine fleet to help out with the rising cost to fill up the truck.

10/22/2012 12:01:09 PM

As an engineer who's seen solar projects fail time and time again it's worthless tech until a huge breakthrough comes even with the nc subsidy it's still a losing tech.

People think pv cells make power from the sun.. And they do.. Sorta... They are more like sun activated batteries and are only worth a shit for a short period an cant be recharged.

All I'm saying is that these current technologies need to be flushed out more.

Automotive electric motors are sub par right now because no one has really tried to develop light 100hp motors.
Batteries... The same. Not to mention if being a freebie weenie the battery disposal is worse then the emissions from a car in the same time frame not to mention if you get power from a coal plant you aren't gaining anything anyway. Then these solar panels also poisonous when their life cycle is over...


And I'm fine with subsidizing labs to do the research and shit but I just feel like everyone buying an electric car right now is buying snake oil. I guess subsidizing the sales of a flawed product is not ok but subsidizing the development of a good one is ok, in a public setting like universities not funding the development of a private company that WILL FUCK EVERYONE OUT OF THE TECH LATER.

But yeah I'm the idiot..

[Edited on October 22, 2012 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/22/2012 12:52:06 PM