Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k
Ditto that.coopasonic wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to give me one.
Would you be upset if it didn't? I mean, I pay for gas now - I really wouldn't mind paying for the electricity I use as long as it is near prevailing rates.Gavin wrote:I wonder if the free charging will apply to the standard $30k cars they want to put out too.
| Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
Unless I happen to find an owner that likes to let complete strangers drive his car, that is unlikely. I'm in Texas.Zaxxon wrote:Ditto that.coopasonic wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to give me one.
I do recommend going for a test drive if you have a Tesla store near you. They're not on commission and don't generally mind giving drives even to folks who can't afford an S. If you're genuinely interested in Tesla and might be convinced that the generation 3 model is for you, that's a win for them.
And once you drive a Tesla, going back to an ICE car is... difficult.
You probably quoted me while I was editing my post. In that battery swapping video he said it would always be free. The battery swapping option is the one that has a fee (but I don't know what that is). So my edit included that.stessier wrote:Would you be upset if it didn't? I mean, I pay for gas now - I really wouldn't mind paying for the electricity I use as long as it is near prevailing rates.Gavin wrote:I wonder if the free charging will apply to the standard $30k cars they want to put out too.
You can test drive in Texas. Just have to go to an event. If you're near Houston or Austin, give them a call.coopasonic wrote:Unless I happen to find an owner that likes to let complete strangers drive his car, that is unlikely. I'm in Texas.
Yeah, if they manage to complete the SuperCharger network as planned in 2015, that will remove a huge mental block for people. That said, I think need for SuperChargers is overstated by most potential buyers. Something like 99% of trips are well within the S's range--and remember, every morning when you leave your house, you're leaving with a full charge. SuperChargers are important for road trips, but Americans tend to think of road trips as something they need the ability to do much more than their reality would support. But this is really just me ranting--the perception by people is that they need the ability to drive anywhere in the country conveniently, so Tesla is working to make that happen.Gavin wrote:I'm glad you guys are excited about this too. One of the biggest barriers has been the lack of quick charging stations and it looks like Tesla Motors is figuring it out. I want them to succeed really badly. Their charging network alone will help encourage this kind of business. 20 minute charging is still a longer time but is a lot more viable than what we had before. Add that to the vehicles ability to switch out batteries in 90 seconds and we could have a very interesting future of electric cars.
Well, it's not exactly free. It's a $2,000 cost built into the price of the car. So I'm not sure if they'll just leave it as a $2k option on the GenIII like they do on the 60 kWh S, or what. That'd be my guess. Musk has confirmed that all future Tesla models will be SuperCharger-capable, but not what the pricing will be.I wonder if the free charging will apply to the standard $30k cars they want to put out too. That's getting really close to being financially viable as something that wipes out the incredible gas prices. Elon's word is that it is and always will be free so I guess that's pretty nice.
Actually, no. It's true that the battery is likely to be expensive to replace (certainly is expensive to replace right now, but no one has to pay to replace them right now), but it's warrantied for 8 years. Data on Roadster batteries (which have a different chemistry; Tesla expects S batteries to last longer), some of which are past 5 years old, suggest that it's likely that S batteries will last quite awhile with a loss of range on the order of a couple-few percent per year. And in 2020 when the first S batteries leave warranty, it's entirely feasible that you will be able to replace it with a 150 kWh battery for half the current cost of an 85 kWh battery.But surely the repair costs will be epic in both time and cash, right? Maybe Musk could ally himself with a car company that isn't succeeding in the energy efficient department to get dealership presence.
Zaxxon wrote: Combine that with the fact that a Tesla has many fewer moving and wear/tear parts compared to an ICE vehicle (no engine, no belts, no mufflers, no transmission, no oil, brakes that get used 10% as often as ICE brakes, etc), and I'm not sure that it's clear that overall maintenance costs will be higher than with an ICE. Tesla contends that they'll be much lower, but I'm not sure the data is there yet to support that claim.
That mental roadblock is important to the success of such vehicles. But you don't seem to disagree with that.Zaxxon wrote:Yeah, if they manage to complete the SuperCharger network as planned in 2015, that will remove a huge mental block for people. That said, I think need for SuperChargers is overstated by most potential buyers. Something like 99% of trips are well within the S's range--and remember, every morning when you leave your house, you're leaving with a full charge. SuperChargers are important for road trips, but Americans tend to think of road trips as something they need the ability to do much more than their reality would support. But this is really just me ranting--the perception by people is that they need the ability to drive anywhere in the country conveniently, so Tesla is working to make that happen.
Actually, he says the supercharger stations are now and always will be free. Point blank. What will cost you is a 90 second battery swap out. Don't know the price.Well, it's not exactly free. It's a $2,000 cost built into the price of the car. So I'm not sure if they'll just leave it as a $2k option on the GenIII like they do on the 60 kWh S, or what. That'd be my guess. Musk has confirmed that all future Tesla models will be SuperCharger-capable, but not what the pricing will be.
8 years? Wow. Add that to the ability to swap the battery out in 90 seconds at the super charger stations and it seems unlikely that you'll ever actually need to replace it.Actually, no. It's true that the battery is likely to be expensive to replace (certainly is expensive to replace right now, but no one has to pay to replace them right now), but it's warrantied for 8 years. Data on Roadster batteries (which have a different chemistry; Tesla expects S batteries to last longer), some of which are past 5 years old, suggest that it's likely that S batteries will last quite awhile with a loss of range on the order of a couple-few percent per year. And in 2020 when the first S batteries leave warranty, it's entirely feasible that you will be able to replace it with a 150 kWh battery for half the current cost of an 85 kWh battery.
Sounds super promising then. That's fantastic.Combine that with the fact that a Tesla has many fewer moving and wear/tear parts compared to an ICE vehicle (no engine, no belts, no mufflers, no transmission, no oil, brakes that get used 10% as often as ICE brakes, etc), and I'm not sure that it's clear that overall maintenance costs will be higher than with an ICE. Tesla contends that they'll be much lower, but I'm not sure the data is there yet to support that claim.
True--single-speed transmission. I mis-typed. I didn't say no motor.LawBeefaroni wrote:Teslas have transmissions. I think they're down to a single speed gearbox now (after problems with previous designs) but they do have transmissions. And while they don't have an engine they do have a motor.
A motor is a much, much, much simpler device than an internal-combustion engine, though. But I don't think you're disagreeing with my overall gist. Right-o.Gavin wrote:That mental roadblock is important to the success of such vehicles. But you don't seem to disagree with that.
You're taking the quote out of context. SuperCharging instances will always be free so long as your vehicle has paid for SuperCharging access. You can fire up the design studio now if you want to verify that SuperCharging access is not free.Actually, he says the supercharger stations are now and always will be free. Point blank. What will cost you is a 90 second battery swap out. Don't know the price.
The laws of physics allow the battery to get swapped out at stations. It's not currently possible for you to take your Model S anywhere and get the battery swapped out (short of Tesla swapping it for a warranty/repair visit). If/when they commercialize that option, I imagine they'll also have to include some form of battery lease option, or else design it so that they hold your battery while you rent the swapped-in battery, and you eventually come swap back into your original battery. That complicates the process considerably, though, so I'm betting on the lease option.But... question... if the battery can get swapped out at stations, how can there be a valid warranty?
Well, ICE's don't have motors so if you say no engine it's only fair to note that the missing engine is replaced by a motor. Much simpler and less prone to breakdown sure, but it's still there. And right, I agree 100% that maintenance should be much less frequent and less costly on a fully electric car than an ICE car. In addition to the points you noted, the key missing ingredient, gasoline/diesel/ethanol/whatever is corrosive and dirty and a key factor in wear and tear on ICE cars.Zaxxon wrote:True--single-speed transmission. I mis-typed. I didn't say no motor.LawBeefaroni wrote:Teslas have transmissions. I think they're down to a single speed gearbox now (after problems with previous designs) but they do have transmissions. And while they don't have an engine they do have a motor.
The flip side on the maintenance point is you aren't going to have the option of going to your friendly local machanic for most tesla service. Everyone knows dealers have the highest service costs and in generally service for expensive cars is expensive. Ask my friend that got a "great deal" on a just out of warranty 5-series.LawBeefaroni wrote:Well, ICE's don't have motors so if you say no engine it's only fair to note that the missing engine is replaced by a motor. Much simpler and less prone to breakdown sure, but it's still there. And right, I agree 100% that maintenance should be much less frequent and less costly on a fully electric car than an ICE car. In addition to the points you noted, the key missing ingredient, gasoline/diesel/ethanol/whatever is corrosive and dirty and a key factor in wear and tear on ICE cars.Zaxxon wrote:True--single-speed transmission. I mis-typed. I didn't say no motor.LawBeefaroni wrote:Teslas have transmissions. I think they're down to a single speed gearbox now (after problems with previous designs) but they do have transmissions. And while they don't have an engine they do have a motor.
True. However, you're also not going to a dealer. You're going to the manufacturer-owned service centers, who have been instructed by Musk to run at break-even and not work toward a profit. Your point that competition may not be there for service providers is true, but the analogy to dealers is not accurate. Unless Musk dies and is replaced by a typical CEO, maintenance prices for Tesla vehicles will be 'at cost'.coopasonic wrote:The flip side on the maintenance point is you aren't going to have the option of going to your friendly local machanic for most tesla service. Everyone knows dealers have the highest service costs and in generally service for expensive cars is expensive. Ask my friend that got a "great deal" on a just out of warranty 5-series.
The site says it's included if the vehicle has an 85 kWh battery. Only the 60 kWh batteries require an upcharge to make them compatible.Zaxxon wrote:You're taking the quote out of context. SuperCharging instances will always be free so long as your vehicle has paid for SuperCharging access. You can fire up the design studio now if you want to verify that SuperCharging access is not free.
Interesting. That'll certainly be interesting to see how they work it out. Perhaps it's just a marketing stunt to get people more confident in the product.The laws of physics allow the battery to get swapped out at stations. It's not currently possible for you to take your Model S anywhere and get the battery swapped out (short of Tesla swapping it for a warranty/repair visit). If/when they commercialize that option, I imagine they'll also have to include some form of battery lease option, or else design it so that they hold your battery while you rent the swapped-in battery, and you eventually come swap back into your original battery. That complicates the process considerably, though, so I'm betting on the lease option.
Well, obviously. The worst possible thing for Tesla resale value is to require service at BMW dealerships.coopasonic wrote:Everyone knows dealers have the highest service costs and in generally service for expensive cars is expensive. Ask my friend that got a "great deal" on a just out of warranty 5-series.
Emphasis mine. There is no additional hardware that needs to be installed for SuperCharging. Again, you're taking the quote out of context--'once enabled' is the key. All Model Ss have the SuperCharging hardware. You are paying either an optional $2k (for the 60kWh model) or an embedded $2k (for the 85 kWh model) in order for Tesla to flip the switch that allows your particular car to access the SuperCharger stations. They are absolutely withholding the function from people who elect not to purchase the access on the 60 kWh model. This has been verified numerous times on various forums--60 kWh owners call Tesla, provide the credit card number, and voila--minutes later they can SuperCharge.Gavin wrote:http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger
Check near the middle of the page just above the FAQ section in a section entitled, "How it works" in white lettering on a gray background with a green graph image in it.
"A properly equipped Model S can charge for free at any Supercharger once enabled, unlike gas stations that require you to pay for each fill-up. Supercharging is included in every Model S with an 85 kWh battery, and can be added to any 60 kWh Model S for $2,000, or $2,500 if enabled after delivery."
This is what they are charging for the hardware that needs to be installed for "supercharging". Otherwise, the 85 kWh battery itself is $10k more expensive whereas the 60 kWh battery would only require around $3,000 to be capable of charging.
Either way, it isn't just a function that the company is withholding from people. Looks like the cost of rapid charging tech. With the average cost of gas per year in America being over $2,000, this isn't a bad thing perse. Though this is for convenience more than anything.
Yep. I wouldn't hold my breath for one in Chicago. Tesla is shooting to fill gaps between major population centers, not build them in population centers. I don't know that that would even be workable. Pretend it's 201X and there are 50,000 Teslas in Chicagoland. There's a SuperCharger downtown (or in Schaumburg, wherever). What are the odds that those 50,000 owners all respect the fact that it's intended for people moving through town and therefore they all leave it alone? Zero. It'd be useless for its intended purpose.LawBeefaroni wrote:FWIW, there are a ton of Teslas on the road here now and as far as I know, there aren't any supercharger locations. The nearest one is in Rockford or something. So in a city where 20 miles is considered a long ass drive, they aren't really that important anyway.
In places where you have to drive 20 miles to get a gallon of milk, now that's where they will change things.
Yeah. It'll be interesting to see how the Europe rollout goes. I've seen estimates that the Model S costs something like half of what its competitors do over there, due to gas/petrol cost, tax incentives, etc.Vorret wrote:I'm salivating at the thought of not paying gas in Quebec, sadly, our government is raking in so much taxes from gas that they'll most likely have to tax electricity somehow.
Our neighborhood Whole Foods and Walgreens both have free plug-in spots for electrics anyway. Lots of businesses are putting these in to draw customers. Don't know about the interface but assuming they work with Teslas there's really no need for the superchargers.Zaxxon wrote:
Yep. I wouldn't hold my breath for one in Chicago. Tesla is shooting to fill gaps between major population centers, not build them in population centers. I don't know that that would even be workable. Pretend it's 201X and there are 50,000 Teslas in Chicagoland. There's a SuperCharger downtown (or in Schaumburg, wherever). What are the odds that those 50,000 owners all respect the fact that it's intended for people moving through town and therefore they all leave it alone? Zero. It'd be useless for its intended purpose.
Yep, same here. They do work with Teslas, just at much slower charge rates (5-20 miles per hour vs 150-300 for SuperChargers). But as you said, you don't really need huge charge rates when not road-tripping. Between a full charge every morning and trickle charging becoming more prevalent, I don't think there's a need for SuperChargers in cities, either.LawBeefaroni wrote:Our neighborhood Whole Foods and Walgreens both have free plug-in spots for electrics anyway. Lots of businesses are putting these in to draw customers. Don't know about the interface but assuming they work with Teslas there's really no need for the superchargers.
Say, $62.82?Carpet_pissr wrote:OK, LB, what's a good price point entry for the stock?
Carpet_pissr wrote:I would probably pick some up at $130. Just need a nice, orchestrated crash cause by the QE tapering to hit the news, and down everybody goes! (temporarily)
It like comparing apples to kamquats, but I have a 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid that had an 8 year, 100k mile battery warranty and the battery had to be replaced at 110k. The new ones are warrantied at 150k/10 years, but just mentioning because battery changes do happen.Gavin wrote:8 years? Wow. Add that to the ability to swap the battery out in 90 seconds at the super charger stations and it seems unlikely that you'll ever actually need to replace it.Actually, no. It's true that the battery is likely to be expensive to replace (certainly is expensive to replace right now, but no one has to pay to replace them right now), but it's warrantied for 8 years. Data on Roadster batteries (which have a different chemistry; Tesla expects S batteries to last longer), some of which are past 5 years old, suggest that it's likely that S batteries will last quite awhile with a loss of range on the order of a couple-few percent per year. And in 2020 when the first S batteries leave warranty, it's entirely feasible that you will be able to replace it with a 150 kWh battery for half the current cost of an 85 kWh battery.
| Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
Going to need to see a few Qs of positive earnings for me (personally) to value this thing. On a big dip I might look at some 2015 LEAPs just to play the TSLA game. But nothing major.Zaxxon wrote:Say, $62.82?Carpet_pissr wrote:OK, LB, what's a good price point entry for the stock?
Check back in 2000 miles.Zaxxon wrote:And since the plural of anecdote is data, I have a 2007 Prius at 108,000 miles whose battery is indistinguishable from new. Both of these cars use NiMH batteries rather than lithium-ion, though, so as stessier said, apples and kumquats.
| Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
Yes.ibdoomed wrote:The only thing I can see is that they are all afraid of other manufacturers going the direct route, is that really the fear here?
Hmm. I can't figure out if that would be good or bad. If it happened, I assume pricing would flatline. So the idiocy of haggling, rebates, incentives, and rimming would end, which is good, but then the manufacturers could just jack prices sky high, like apple, which would be bad. Would the competing companies keep each other in check? Not positive but I'd be inclined to think so.cheeba wrote:Yes.ibdoomed wrote:The only thing I can see is that they are all afraid of other manufacturers going the direct route, is that really the fear here?
Most OEMs aren't interested in sky high prices (though they are interested in maximizing profit). They're more interested in market share, materials flow, and capacities.ibdoomed wrote: then the manufacturers could just jack prices sky high, like apple, which would be bad.
Zaxxon wrote:I think it's partially just the boat-rocking that Tesla is doing by not including the dealership associations and therefore obfuscating the dealers' role in the market if Tesla grows significantly larger, partially Tesla's model of using service as a near-break-even endeavor rather than a/the prime profit center, and partially dealers wanting a cut of the Model S specifically.
The fire news tore the stock a new one over the past month or two, and that's been rather annoying story to watch play out. It's good IMO that NHTSA is investigating to see if there may be a systemic issue, but to me it looks like typical overblown coverage of a new technology. There have been 3 Tesla fire incidents--one including a highly inebriated driver who crashed through a concrete barrier at 90+ MPH and eventually wound up on a tree and two others that ran over heavy tow hitches at highway speeds, causing a lever action upwards into the battery casing at very high levels of force. In all three cases, the drivers walked away with no significant injuries and the passenger cabin was not impacted. In the non-inebriated cases, the car warned the drivers that something was wrong and they had time to pull over safely and get out before the fires even started. Sounds like positive evidence of the S's safety to me, not OMG FIRE!!111!!! freakout time. Even so, Tesla has released a software update that slightly raises the highway ground clearance to reduce the chance of repeats. Meanwhile, Paul Walker's Porsche is in a one-car accident and the entire cabin is so burned that it's difficult to identify the bodies, and many thousands of non-Teslas have erupted into flames since the first Tesla fire. No significant media coverage there.
In short, if you follow Tesla closely it's been a crazy ride lately, but this poster at least is still aspiring to own a Tesla one day.