Tesla Model 3

[flyingcheesehead]

The Ford Fusion Energi has been a perfect gateway drug for me - I wouldn't have bought an EV without having a gas engine so I didn't have to worry about range at the time, but now I love driving electric so much that I'm going full EV (BEV) next time.

 

Most everyone I know with any sort of hybrid or EV feels the same way. The problem is that most electric vehicles are ugly, small, don't have enough range, don't have good performance, or some combination thereof.

 

Tesla has demonstrated that they can build EVs that are attractive, comfortable, have good range and excellent performance... So, I stood in line at a Tesla store on Thursday and dropped $1,000 to reserve a vehicle I'd never seen.

 

After the reveal, I'm even more excited. It is everything we've come to expect from Tesla at a reasonable price... And the early reservation numbers show that people want what Tesla makes!

 

This should be a major wake-up call to the rest of the manufacturers. If Ford were to make a 250-mile Fusion Electric, I would consider it. However, Ford and the other established manufacturers have two major areas they need to address:

 

1) Charging infrastructure. Tesla has invested and is continuing to invest in the Supercharger network. This is key to EV adoption. Nobody wants to be restricted to their own geographic area, even if they rarely take road trips. The infrastructure of CHAdeMO and SAE-CCS L3 stations is almost nonexistent outside of coastal areas. 

 

2) The dealers. They need to educate both sales and maintenance staff at the dealers on how to do their thing with EVs, and also how to not be a pain in the ass. I chose the Ford Fusion Energi via online research, but I had to go to FIVE different Ford dealers before I found one I could tolerate!

 

Considering Ford could have tried to make the dealer experience better at any point, I don't think they're motivated to do so, thus I don't think we'll see any change here.

 

Tesla is a disruptive company, and the established manufacturers need to sit up and take notice (and innovate) or they will be left behind. Tesla is, right now, where Apple was in 2007 and Detroit is mostly doing a good impression of Nokia, Microsoft, et al at that point. Now, Apple has completely changed the cell phone industry, Nokia is gone, and Microsoft is a shadow of its former self. What will the car industry look like in 10 years?

 

[stevedebi]

The Ford Fusion Energi has been a perfect gateway drug for me - I wouldn't have bought an EV without having a gas engine so I didn't have to worry about range at the time, but now I love driving electric so much that I'm going full EV (BEV) next time.

 

Most everyone I know with any sort of hybrid or EV feels the same way. The problem is that most electric vehicles are ugly, small, don't have enough range, don't have good performance, or some combination thereof.

 

Tesla has demonstrated that they can build EVs that are attractive, comfortable, have good range and excellent performance... So, I stood in line at a Tesla store on Thursday and dropped $1,000 to reserve a vehicle I'd never seen.

 

After the reveal, I'm even more excited. It is everything we've come to expect from Tesla at a reasonable price... And the early reservation numbers show that people want what Tesla makes!

 

This should be a major wake-up call to the rest of the manufacturers. If Ford were to make a 250-mile Fusion Electric, I would consider it. However, Ford and the other established manufacturers have two major areas they need to address:

 

1) Charging infrastructure. Tesla has invested and is continuing to invest in the Supercharger network. This is key to EV adoption. Nobody wants to be restricted to their own geographic area, even if they rarely take road trips. The infrastructure of CHAdeMO and SAE-CCS L3 stations is almost nonexistent outside of coastal areas. 

 

2) The dealers. They need to educate both sales and maintenance staff at the dealers on how to do their thing with EVs, and also how to not be a pain in the ass. I chose the Ford Fusion Energi via online research, but I had to go to FIVE different Ford dealers before I found one I could tolerate!

 

Considering Ford could have tried to make the dealer experience better at any point, I don't think they're motivated to do so, thus I don't think we'll see any change here.

 

Tesla is a disruptive company, and the established manufacturers need to sit up and take notice (and innovate) or they will be left behind. Tesla is, right now, where Apple was in 2007 and Detroit is mostly doing a good impression of Nokia, Microsoft, et al at that point. Now, Apple has completely changed the cell phone industry, Nokia is gone, and Microsoft is a shadow of its former self. What will the car industry look like in 10 years?

 

I actually disagree. I don't think electric cars are viable without subsidies. Until fossil fuels become scarce, ICE cars are still more profitable. When oil runs out there will be a need for alternatives. I don't know when that will happen - it was predicted for 1985, 1995, 2005, 2020, and I don't know what the current date is (but I wouldn't bet on it, whatever the number). And remember, oil can be synthesized; it does not have to come from fossil sources.

 

And I would not count on the supercharger network being free for long. From what I have read, it was not promised to all Tesla owners. The statement at the opening of the 3 was not definitive. Nor will that base model have all the bells and whistles - unless you fork over more like 60K than 35K.

 

Tesla is completely different from Apple. Apple didn't require a fundamental change in the structure of the economy. To go electric would, and I don't see any effort on the level required to make that happen.

 

Not that I don't admire their technology. I just don't think it is viable at this point in time. It is nice, but the alternatives are cheaper and more convenient.

Edited April 5, 2016 at 04:06 PM by stevedebi

[openair]

I actually disagree. I don't think electric cars are viable without subsidies. Until fossil fuels become scarce, ICE cars are still more profitable. When oil runs out there will be a need for alternatives. I don't know when that will happen - it was predicted for 1985, 1995, 2005, 2020, and I don't know what the current date is (but I wouldn't bet on it, whatever the number). And remember, oil can be synthesized; it does not have to come from fossil sources.

 

Profit, cheap and convenient are quickly taking a back seat to climate change issues. There are other reasons, like our children's future, to reduce fossil fuel use.

[stevedebi]

Profit, cheap and convenient are quickly taking a back seat to climate change issues. There are other reasons, like our children's future, to reduce fossil fuel use.

Nope, not going to happen. It only takes a quick hit on the economy for folks to go back to what is important, like food production and affording the basics. We can make fossil fuels cleaner, and maybe switch to natural gas, for example, but the tech isn't going anywhere unless there is a switch to nuclear energy or a break through on some other energy we don't yet know. But "alternative sources" are not providing enough energy to work economically, as Germany (in particular) is learning.

 

This isn't a science forum, but all this stuff is based on models that were disproved around 2004 or so, based on mid troposphere temperatures. And I've not seen hard data to back up the hype. Instead, the data is being massaged to conform to the theories, not vice versa. Quite upsetting from a scientific point of view, in my opinion.

 

And to top it off, what would those trillions of dollars do? Reduce temperatures by a few thousandths of a degree. That same dough could really help mitigate whatever is going to happen.

Edited April 5, 2016 at 07:28 PM by stevedebi

[PJFW8]

As an owner of a 2013 CMax Energi and now a  2016 Fusion Energi, both of which are great, I will never buy a vehicle other than a plug-in or pure EV. And I have owned Audi, Mercedes, Lexus and a number of high performance cars. They are obsolete. I am addicted to electric torque and quiet power.  I reserved a Tesla 3 on 3/31. I know some hate cars and want us to walk, bike and eat artisan bread, but I love cars and freedom. I will gladly pay for a great car. EV is the future. My deposit is refundable! Hopefully Ford will step up. I know they can build a far superior car to any Tesla. It is a question of will and economics. They do have an obligation to their stock-holders!

[flyingcheesehead]

As an owner of a 2013 CMax Energi and now a  2016 Fusion Energi, both of which are great, I will never buy a vehicle other than a plug-in or pure EV. And I have owned Audi, Mercedes, Lexus and a number of high performance cars. They are obsolete. I am addicted to electric torque and quiet power.  I reserved a Tesla 3 on 3/31. I know some hate cars and want us to walk, bike and eat artisan bread, but I love cars and freedom. I will gladly pay for a great car. EV is the future. 

 

Amen!

 

My deposit is refundable! Hopefully Ford will step up. I know they can build a far superior car to any Tesla. It is a question of will and economics. They do have an obligation to their stock-holders!

 

 

Ford knows more about how to build cars than Tesla, without a doubt. However, Tesla has clearly shown a willingness to think outside the box and bring a lot more innovation into the car itself and not just the electric drivetrain, and has also demonstrated an excellent commitment to their customers after the sale. That is a huge differentiator in this industry. Nobody likes the experience of buying a car from a dealer, and nobody likes the process of trying to get good service after the fact. The mere presence of lemon laws demonstrates that.

 

I also don't think the existing auto industry has the will to make a good EV that would compete with the Model 3 yet. The problem isn't the vehicles, it's the lack of infrastructure. The only other manufacturer who has a 200-mile affordable EV announced at this point, GM, has already flat-out stated that they are not going to invest in any DCFC infrastructure. Nissan and BMW are partnering to install a meager 500 CCS/CHAdeMO stations, and they're not being strategically placed along the interstates, most of them are being put into cities, where there is often L3 already in place.

[stevedebi]

Amen!

 

 

 

Ford knows more about how to build cars than Tesla, without a doubt. However, Tesla has clearly shown a willingness to think outside the box and bring a lot more innovation into the car itself and not just the electric drivetrain, and has also demonstrated an excellent commitment to their customers after the sale. That is a huge differentiator in this industry. Nobody likes the experience of buying a car from a dealer, and nobody likes the process of trying to get good service after the fact. The mere presence of lemon laws demonstrates that.

 

I also don't think the existing auto industry has the will to make a good EV that would compete with the Model 3 yet. The problem isn't the vehicles, it's the lack of infrastructure. The only other manufacturer who has a 200-mile affordable EV announced at this point, GM, has already flat-out stated that they are not going to invest in any DCFC infrastructure. Nissan and BMW are partnering to install a meager 500 CCS/CHAdeMO stations, and they're not being strategically placed along the interstates, most of them are being put into cities, where there is often L3 already in place.

Tesla has a good business practice, but they are not able to stay in business without government subsidies, on the vehicles and on their financing. When they are self sufficient and have a range similar to ICE at similar prices, then I may consider them.

[flyingcheesehead]

Tesla has a good business practice, but they are not able to stay in business without government subsidies, on the vehicles and on their financing. When they are self sufficient and have a range similar to ICE at similar prices, then I may consider them.

 

 

What do you mean? They paid off their gov't loans already, and probably over half of the people reserving the Model 3 will not even get the federal tax break. 

 

Let's get rid of all subsidies for the oil/gas industry and other aspects of the traditional car industry as well as those for electric cars, and see who's cheaper then.

[stevedebi]

What do you mean? They paid off their gov't loans already, and probably over half of the people reserving the Model 3 will not even get the federal tax break. 

 

Let's get rid of all subsidies for the oil/gas industry and other aspects of the traditional car industry as well as those for electric cars, and see who's cheaper then.

As to oil/gas subsidies, that is a level field for all car companies, not just an individual one.

 

Look, the company is still losing money. That cannot go on forever.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/10/tesla-is-hemorrhaging-money-despite-millions-in-govt-subsidies/

 

I found this in the LA Times

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

Edited April 7, 2016 at 07:28 PM by stevedebi

[meyersnole]

Tesla has frequently acknowledged that they will not be profitable until the model 3 is successful. To date the company has a large amount of ramp cost to make the company successful. The cost to build an electric fueling network is not taken on by other private interests as there are not enough cars to justify the investment. They also need to build the facilities to create cars at the rate of demand. The good news is that once the investment is made, hopefully the maintenance of that network will prove much more financially manageable. We are also now seeing investment from more established in the industry since the market for this type of transportation has been justified.

 

As to solar panels. Today we have much more efficient panels then we had a decade ago. So much more efficient that we now have significant lobbied interest from the established power companies to remove or even tax installations by private citizens.

 

Dirty fuels are are subsidized in many ways, one is by the shift of the healthcare burden to public or or private interest. These industries are also regulated in a manner that they are guaranteed a profit (although limited) and subsidized for expansion.  

[stevedebi]

Tesla has frequently acknowledged that they will not be profitable until the model 3 is successful. To date the company has a large amount of ramp cost to make the company successful. The cost to build an electric fueling network is not taken on by other private interests as there are not enough cars to justify the investment. They also need to build the facilities to create cars at the rate of demand. The good news is that once the investment is made, hopefully the maintenance of that network will prove much more financially manageable. We are also now seeing investment from more established in the industry since the market for this type of transportation has been justified.

 

As to solar panels. Today we have much more efficient panels then we had a decade ago. So much more efficient that we now have significant lobbied interest from the established power companies to remove or even tax installations by private citizens.

 

Dirty fuels are are subsidized in many ways, one is by the shift of the healthcare burden to public or or private interest. These industries are also regulated in a manner that they are guaranteed a profit (although limited) and subsidized for expansion.  

Well, as I often say, time will tell. But even after the charging stations are built, they have to be powered, which costs money - and reducing fossil fuels, or taxes of carbon and that sort of thing, will increase electricity costs. I think the days of "free" supercharging are limited.

[meyersnole]

I think the days of "free" supercharging are limited.

 

As they should be...

 

Mobile phones were once free to get us to sign up, now that everyone has one we are gladly paying retail for them every 2 years. 

 

Carbon tax will raise the price electricity and speed the migration to renewables. Once the renewable infrastructure is in place the price may settle.

[murphy]

The original plan for the superchargers was to have solar panels at every site.  They also need batteries so they work at night.  That's not likely to happen until the Gigafactory is in full operation.

[flyingcheesehead]

As to oil/gas subsidies, that is a level field for all car companies, not just an individual one.

 

Um... You mean, it's a level field for all car companies EXCEPT TESLA.

 

Look, the company is still losing money. That cannot go on forever.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/10/tesla-is-hemorrhaging-money-despite-millions-in-govt-subsidies/

 

I don't see them as "losing money" I see them as "making major investments toward future profits." And I have a hard time believing anything from any source where the first word is "liberal" (or "conservative" for that matter).

 

 

I found this in the LA Times

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

 

Again, a way-inflated hype story. Their figure includes several things that are not government subsidies to Tesla:

 

1) Every subsidy to SpaceX and SolarCity

2) SpaceX's launch contract with NASA, which is a payment for a service, not a "subsidy"

3) All past and future EV tax credits to Tesla's customers

 

These aren't things that are being given to Tesla. What was given to Tesla and other car manufacturers was a loan to help them through the dark days of the Great Recession, and Tesla not only paid it off, with interest, they did so faster than any other manufacturer.

[stevedebi]

Um... You mean, it's a level field for all car companies EXCEPT TESLA.

 

 

I don't see them as "losing money" I see them as "making major investments toward future profits." And I have a hard time believing anything from any source where the first word is "liberal" (or "conservative" for that matter).

 

 

Again, a way-inflated hype story. Their figure includes several things that are not government subsidies to Tesla:

 

1) Every subsidy to SpaceX and SolarCity

2) SpaceX's launch contract with NASA, which is a payment for a service, not a "subsidy"

3) All past and future EV tax credits to Tesla's customers

 

These aren't things that are being given to Tesla. What was given to Tesla and other car manufacturers was a loan to help them through the dark days of the Great Recession, and Tesla not only paid it off, with interest, they did so faster than any other manufacturer.

No, I mean that Tesla chooses to not participate in the ICE subsidies. They are available, but they perfer an electric paradigm. It is still a level playing field for all manufacturers.

 

Profit/loss is profit/loss. The bottom line is that they cannot remain in business unless they turn a profit. It will be interesting to see how the Model 3 turns out. And long term, if they have to replace batteries under the 10 year / 150K warranty, that will also cost. Plus the cost of their supercharging network infrastructure and continuing electric costs? That is a lot of overhead, and the profits for a 35K car are going to be less than for a 100K car.

 

But as I said, time will tell. By 2019 they will be out of subsidies, and have to make or break their business by themselves. As it should be - economics should drive the market.

Edited April 8, 2016 at 03:50 PM by stevedebi

[meyersnole]

 

But as I said, time will tell. By 2019 they will be out of subsidies, and have to make or break their business by themselves. As it should be - economics should drive the market.

 

Subsidies are part of the economics. 

 

Do not agree that a company that is being successful (doing something right) should have to compete on an unlevel playing field to prove their worth. It is in society's best interest for an alternate mode of transportation to take hold. If for nothing else than the better air quality that would be the result. If we could further diminish our dependence on oil and partner this shift with domestic renewable energy then think of all the wars we could avoid and the saving in national treasure that would result. 

 

We do not have, or nor have we had a free market in the USA. We have a regulated market, and there are plenty of examples where the best solution loses by design. I am not stating that PHEV or BEV is the best solution in this statement, just one I chose with my dollars. 

[stevedebi]

Subsidies are part of the economics. 

 

Do not agree that a company that is being successful (doing something right) should have to compete on an unlevel playing field to prove their worth. It is in society's best interest for an alternate mode of transportation to take hold. If for nothing else than the better air quality that would be the result. If we could further diminish our dependence on oil and partner this shift with domestic renewable energy then think of all the wars we could avoid and the saving in national treasure that would result. 

 

We do not have, or nor have we had a free market in the USA. We have a regulated market, and there are plenty of examples where the best solution loses by design. I am not stating that PHEV or BEV is the best solution in this statement, just one I chose with my dollars. 

Air quality? Not with the current power plant sources we have. And at the moment (and probably for the foreseeable future), we are not dependent on foreign oil, unless we want to be. They were considering exporting oil before the market slumped.

 

Sorry, I stand by my statement. The playing field for cars is level - Tesla just isn't interested in playing on it.  Not that I expect them to, that is their business model. But until oil naturally depletes (and there is no choice), the economics are not really there.

[flyingcheesehead]

No, I mean that Tesla chooses to not participate in the ICE subsidies. They are available, but they perfer an electric paradigm. It is still a level playing field for all manufacturers.

 

Oh puhleeze. That's like having a subsidy on Android and saying Apple "chooses not to participate in the Android subsidy" by developing iOS. 

[flyingcheesehead]

Air quality? Not with the current power plant sources we have. And at the moment (and probably for the foreseeable future), we are not dependent on foreign oil, unless we want to be. They were considering exporting oil before the market slumped.

 

Sorry, I stand by my statement. The playing field for cars is level - Tesla just isn't interested in playing on it.  Not that I expect them to, that is their business model. But until oil naturally depletes (and there is no choice), the economics are not really there.

 

First of all, yes, air quality is still improved even if we do nothing but burn coal at our power plants, which we don't.

In addition, as the grid gets cleaner, the cars get cleaner, immediately. An ICE car won't ever be cleaner than it is the day it rolls off the assembly line.

 

Finally, it is in society's best interest to accelerate the move to electric cars. The "free market" won't catch up until we run out of oil. Given that there are still a number of other things that we still can't do without oil, and oil is a finite resource, it doesn't make any sense to keep burning so much of it on something where we have an alternative. If it was announced tomorrow that we'd be out of oil in a month (or even a year), holy cow there would be one hell of a war.

[stevedebi]

First of all, yes, air quality is still improved even if we do nothing but burn coal at our power plants, which we don't.

In addition, as the grid gets cleaner, the cars get cleaner, immediately. An ICE car won't ever be cleaner than it is the day it rolls off the assembly line.

 

Finally, it is in society's best interest to accelerate the move to electric cars. The "free market" won't catch up until we run out of oil. Given that there are still a number of other things that we still can't do without oil, and oil is a finite resource, it doesn't make any sense to keep burning so much of it on something where we have an alternative. If it was announced tomorrow that we'd be out of oil in a month (or even a year), holy cow there would be one hell of a war.

As I said, you don't have to get oil from fossils, it can be synthesized. And yes, the free market will eventually catch up, and it will be economic compared to gas.

 

In my opinion we don't have an alternative yet, at least one that is as cheap and convenient as gasoline.

[stevedebi]

Oh puhleeze. That's like having a subsidy on Android and saying Apple "chooses not to participate in the Android subsidy" by developing iOS. 

Two different vendors. It is more like having subsidies on battery powered phones vs solar powered phones. But in any case, yes, I think you have it exactly. Subsidies are available based on the needs of the economy.

[flyingcheesehead]

As I said, you don't have to get oil from fossils, it can be synthesized.

 

 

How much energy does that take? And aren't they still using some natural base stocks?

 

We may not be to the alternative as cheap and convenient as gasoline, but Tesla is getting us close, and I'm willing to spend a bit extra to have the extra enjoyment of electric driving. As are 325,000 of my newest friends. ;) 

[openair]

How much energy does that take? And aren't they still using some natural base stocks?

 

Certainly isn't as cheap or convenient as foreign oil and fracking or we wouldn't be importing, causing earth quakes and polluting ground water instead.

 

BTW, I wonder how Steve quantifies the yet unknown and ever increasing health and property costs associated with fracking and fossil fuels in general in their "cheaper and more convenient."

Edited April 11, 2016 at 09:04 PM by openair

[stevedebi]

Certainly isn't as cheap or convenient as foreign oil and fracking or we wouldn't be importing, causing earth quakes and polluting ground water instead.

 

BTW, I wonder how Steve quantifies the yet unknown and ever increasing health and property costs associated with fracking and fossil fuels in general in their "cheaper and more convenient."

No, because I don't particularly believe the health scares. We are still putting far more pollution out with EV cars than the newest ICE vehicles, or hybrid vehicles. Those news stories were based on "calculated" costs, not actual costs; there are no hard numbers.

 

I agree that it isn't economically feasible to make oil synthetically yet, just as I think it isn't economically feasible to have an electric car - yet. Although I read of a battery technology that has recently been invented that has a lot of promise for lowering costs and making electric more competitive. This isn't the article I read, but this is the tech:

 

http://ipfrontline.com/2016/02/biosolar-applies-for-patents/

 

Look, I'm not "anti-electric". I just think the economics are not there. I love driving EV in my Energi, for as long as the battery lasts. Then I love getting 40 MPG on the highway - using ICE.

[openair]

No, because I don't particularly believe the health scares. We are still putting far more pollution out with EV cars than the newest ICE vehicles, or hybrid vehicles. Those news stories were based on "calculated" costs, not actual costs; there are no hard numbers.

There are no hard numbers yet you state hybrids and Ev's cause more pollution like it's a fact based on numbers. I state it's not true based on the same non hard numbers.

 

Synthetics are also more expensive than oil sands. Investment in oil sands has declined to a low not seen in 70 years since the price of oil has fallen this low. While investments in EV tech and renewable green energy continue to grow. Those seem like hard numbers to me. I wonder what other numbers these investors are looking at...

Edited April 11, 2016 at 11:23 PM by openair