Gullwing doors are back...sort of [Archive] - DMCTalk Forum

DMCVegas

02-10-2012, 11:42 AM

Perfected?

I'd absolutely agree to that. DeLorean:

Managed to keep the door sills much lower than other cars.
Kept the opening span short.
Kept the hinges internal.
Pulled off a non-powered mechanical opening assist solution.
Overlapped the doors correctly to avoid severing a passenger's leg durring a side impact.
Properly implemented side strikers to also avoid intrusion into the passenger compartment.
Due to the mechanical assist were able to remove concerns about weight.

I said it over on Jalopnik, and I'll say it here too: Those aren't "Falcoln Doors". They're just a piss-poor copy of Chevrolet's Aero Vette doors they did back in the 60's.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/1970s-chevrolet-corvette-concept-cars-7.jpg

No one is going to buy this crap-box from Tesla. First off GM already has been cranking out the Chevy Volt, and buyers for that are quite scarce. And the reason being is that with new technology, you can't sell that to people needing a dependable family car. No one wants to have a break-down with their spouses and kids in the car and put their safety at risk. The other reason of course is that most people with kids don't have the kind of cash on hand to throw at a car like this. And those that do are gonna buy SUVs and spend the difference on fuel costs.

Plus aside from the novelty doors, this is honestly a boring-ass car. Style will always trump price. But like the revived GTO of just a few years ago, people who want special cars want ones that stand out in a crowd so they can show off. This just looks like a Toyota with a door kit someone installed. And since it's on the BACK, the one thing that would get you attention you'll never be able to use unless you're hauling more than 3 people at a time. So what's the point? To use inflated engineering prices to simply justify the extra cost?

Worst of all for this car are the doors. No one except journalists who know jack about cars is going to call these "Falcon" doors. Everyone will just call these Gullwing doors. Couple that with the fact that Tesla has consistantly missed their prior production dates, and DMCH already has debuted the nrg DMCEV at SEMA, and no one is going to take this car seriously. Everyone will just say that Tesla ripped-off DeLorean. And no one wants to drive a car that's called a "rip-off".

Victor

02-10-2012, 01:09 PM

In my taste, the most beautifull gullwing door was the one from the Porsche Tapiro. Aslo design by Giugiaro, the door's window extended on the roof ! but it had also a window inside a window. For me who live in a mildly cold climat, it must be very nice to have the sun coming through the side and top at the same time!

Tamir A.

02-10-2012, 02:51 PM

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/tesla-model-x-reveal-photos-pricing-specs-one-084221974.html

In this article the company's creator, Elon Musk makes a funny remark about DeLorean. Excerpt below:

When later asked about inevitable comparisons to John Z. DeLorean's infamous car, Musk replied: "If I had a dollar for every time somebody compared me to DeLorean, I wouldn't have needed an IPO."

Karin

02-10-2012, 03:55 PM

Our gull wing doors are indeed unique undoubtedly. Even if they decide to put falcon wing doors on a Tesla, it's still the same. Clearly a copy that's never gonna fly.

I wonder if anyone is still attempting to make those suicide doors or death doors, as what my dad calls them.

tyb323

02-10-2012, 04:42 PM

Rolls Royce makes suicide doors still. Also, been to many an auto show, and most concepts have gullwings, and none of them make it into production with them

dvonk

02-10-2012, 06:12 PM

I wonder if anyone is still attempting to make those suicide doors or death doors, as what my dad calls them.

suicide doors are so awesome. many awesome classic cars have suicide doors: 1948 Tucker, 1936-38 Hudson Terraplane, 1948-50 Mercury sedan, 1963-69 Lincoln Continental sedan, the list goes on... :hihi2:

[/offtopic]

Rich

02-11-2012, 01:46 PM

Thanks for starting this thread, Ryan.

So the progression of gullwing-doored production cars will then be the MBZ 300SL coupe, Bricklin SV-1, DeLorean DMC-12, MBZ SLS AMG and this Tesla Model X - if the X's rear door design makes it to production.

8368836783668365

These will be the first gullwing rear doors, of course. Tesla will need to get the "powered articulation" thing right - the Bricklin's powered door lifts were not a success.
837183698364

From a popular motoring blog:
"The prototype's doors are interesting. Unlike 'ordinary' gullwings, the Model X's powered articulation allows them to stay close to the car's flanks as they rise, making ingress and egress in tight parking spots a snap. You just step into the vehicle and sit down; no ducking and squirming necessary. Musk, a father of five boys, made a point of demonstrating how much easier this will make installing child seats. The opening's unusually long length also helps accessing the Model X's twin, third-row seats (there's seven seats, all told). Frankly, the whole thing is an intriguing -- but complicated solution -- and it'll be interesting to see how all this works out in the real world (think, rain storms; kids getting their razor scooters caught in the hinges). And speaking of hinges, in a roll-over scenario, the hinges between lower door halves the upper and will free, letting you climb out (no explosive bolts ala the gullwing door Mercedes-Benz SLS)."

ryanjm

02-11-2012, 07:17 PM

No one is going to buy this crap-box from Tesla. First off GM already has been cranking out the Chevy Volt, and buyers for that are quite scarce. And the reason being is that with new technology, you can't sell that to people needing a dependable family car. No one wants to have a break-down with their spouses and kids in the car and put their safety at risk. The other reason of course is that most people with kids don't have the kind of cash on hand to throw at a car like this. And those that do are gonna buy SUVs and spend the difference on fuel costs.

Plus aside from the novelty doors, this is honestly a boring-ass car. Style will always trump price. But like the revived GTO of just a few years ago, people who want special cars want ones that stand out in a crowd so they can show off. This just looks like a Toyota with a door kit someone installed. And since it's on the BACK, the one thing that would get you attention you'll never be able to use unless you're hauling more than 3 people at a time. So what's the point? To use inflated engineering prices to simply justify the extra cost?

Worst of all for this car are the doors. No one except journalists who know jack about cars is going to call these "Falcon" doors. Everyone will just call these Gullwing doors. Couple that with the fact that Tesla has consistantly missed their prior production dates, and DMCH already has debuted the nrg DMCEV at SEMA, and no one is going to take this car seriously. Everyone will just say that Tesla ripped-off DeLorean. And no one wants to drive a car that's called a "rip-off".

Wow, Robert. You've been in the DeLorean community for a long time, and ordinarily you give good information and have valuable things to say, but I could not disagree with you more on this.

You say that no one is going to buy Tesla's "crap box." OK, maybe you don't care for the styling (I'm not too excited by it either, but then again, SUVs in general don't appeal to me). To each their own on that. It's subjective. (You say "style will always trump price"? OK, check out Tesla's Model S (http://www.teslamotors.com/models)) But to say no one will buy it because the Volt hasn't sold well? I don't get it. How is that comparison fair? The Volt is A) not a pure EV -- it's a hybrid with a 40-mile electric range, and B) radically overpriced compared to the cars in its class.

And your comment about reliability and the car breaking down is just plain ignorant and wrong. You do realize that Tesla's configuration has almost no moving parts and nothing to service, right? No oil to change, fuel injectors to flush, nothing. You'll rotate and replace tires, change the windshield washer fluid, and stop in once a year for a battery pack checkup. That's it. They've got over 2000 Roadsters on the road that have logged millions of miles (http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/28/tesla-roadsters-rack-up-10-million-miles/). They seem to be working just fine.

You also wrote, "most people with kids don't have the kind of cash on hand to throw at a car like this." The Model X is expected to range in price from $60k-$80k, depending on options. You claim to read Jalopnik, so maybe you saw this article (http://jalopnik.com/5883926/the-tesla-model-x-looks-like-a-fat-electric-delorean) that mentions the price and also the car's high-performance quickness: 0-60 in 4.4 seconds. At that price and at that acceleration the Model X is competing against BMW's X5 and Porsche's Cayenne. And I'd say plenty of people with kids have the kind of cash on hand to throw at cars like that, seeing as how the Cayenne was Porsche's top-selling model in 2008 (http://www.douglasautomotive.com/pdf/082808_auto.pdf). I sure as hell see plenty of them each and every day on the roads here in the Bay Area in 2012.

You also say that, "you can't sell [new technology] to people needing a dependable family car. Well, about 6,500 reservation holders of Tesla's 7-passenger Model S family sedan disagree with you (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-28/tesla-s-musk-says-model-s-sold-out-should-turn-profit-in-2013.html). And that's 6,500 people before a single car has hit the road.

Next, you say that "Tesla has consistently missed their prior production dates." Really, since when? You mean over five years ago when they were first trying to get the Roadsters out the door? OK, fine, but they've sold every one they ever made since, and the Model S -- due out this July -- has always remained on schedule. The car is real. I've ridden in it, as have a slew of automotive journalists.

Finally, your comment about DMCH's nrg EV is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. For all your negativity about Tesla and their ability to produce cars, how many DMC EVs has DMCH produced? One. And at the $100k price they're asking, how many people are going to want a limited-range (~100 miles) version of a 30-year-old car that, for all we know, might irreversibly alter the construction of a classic? I love DMCH and have done business with them for 12 years, but at this stage the DMC EV is little more than a publicity stunt (an effective one, I might add). Maybe that soon won't be the case, but as of today Tesla's vehicles are a LOT more real than DMC's EV.

In short, I'm not trying to argue with you, and I apologize if it comes off that way. I'm just genuinely miffed at why this car and Tesla as a company seem to actually OFFEND you with their very existence.

Perhaps you're just reacting in defense of the DeLorean because you love it. I know what you mean: it frustrates me that Tesla CEO Elon Musk indirectly bashes gullwing doors in this interview (http://gigaom.com/cleantech/hands-on-video-with-teslas-electric-suv-the-model-x/), saying that they swing out enough that you risk hitting other cars and trumpeting his "falcon doors" as a better solution because they only swing out one foot. We all know, of course, that the DeLorean's doors need only...one foot in order to open. But I would think that many DeLorean owners and enthusiasts would be ROOTING for Tesla, because philosophically, they have a lot of the same paradigm-shifting goals that the original DeLorean Motor Company did:

-Build an ethical car. DMC: stainless steel trumps the industry norm of planned obsolescence. Tesla: electric cars get us off of OPEC/foreign oil.
-Safety. DMC: original prototype was the DSV, and the production car is remarkably safe. Tesla: no engine and the batteries in the floor means larger crumple zones. Their Model S sedan is expected be one of the only cars to have a five-star crash rating in every category.
-Looks legitimately COOL. DMC: still beautiful today. Tesla: it's hard to argue that the Model S (http://www.teslamotors.com/models) isn't infinitely sexier than the Leaf, Volt, or even the BMW and Mercedes ICE luxury sedans it's up against.

Hell, the similarities between the DMC-12 and the Tesla Roadster are almost eerie: they're both two-seater sports cars built by American start-ups, in the UK, with Lotus technology, with an aim to shake up the automotive industry. Kinda neat, right?

If I come off as a staunch Tesla defender in this post, it's because I am! Just as I am a staunch DeLorean defender. As I said, I'm genuinely rooting for Tesla because they remind me a lot of what JZD wanted and tried to do with DMC in the '80s. Tesla is an American car company (the first in a long, long time to have an IPO (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-29/tesla-motors-raises-226-million-in-first-ipo-of-u-s-carmaker-in-54-years.html)) that's leading the way on something (in this case, electric vehicle technology) in the automotive industry. When was the last time we, as the inventing country of the automobile, have been able to take pride in something like that?

Look, the original DeLorean Motor Company is dead. That is, there will never be any more cars. It's up to us to maintain them and protect them as we (collectively) have done for 30 years. Tesla, however, is alive and well and, to me, they embody a lot of the original DMC's spirit. I, for one, am rooting like hell for them to succeed.

P.S. Holy cow that was a long post. :shocked: My apologies for dumping that novella on everyone. :-)

dvonk

02-11-2012, 10:53 PM

does anyone know how these Tesla doors--and the MB SLS AMG for that matter--are lifted? pneumatic struts only, or struts plus additional assistance (e.g., torsion bars or whatever)?

ryanjm

02-12-2012, 12:26 AM

does anyone know how these Tesla doors--and the MB SLS AMG for that matter--are lifted? pneumatic struts only, or struts plus additional assistance (e.g., torsion bars or whatever)?

Looks like the Tesla doors are motorized only (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1202_tesla_model_x_prototype_ride/photo_21.html). Meanwhile, I've been in the SLS and they use two HUGE struts on each door to aid in manual opening and closing (nothing motorized).

Semi-related story: After the owner of the SLS was kind enough to let me sit in his car, I watched him drive away. He was not a very tall man, and he had to lift his butt out of his seat to reach up for the door handle to pull the door down closed. I laughed out loud. For a $200k supercar, the SLS doesn't even have simple pullstraps that a $30k DeLorean does. To me, it seems like arrogance on the part of the AMG team at Mercedes to not even LOOK at the last car to have done gullwings (the DeLorean) and have a look and see what lessons they could learn from how DMC did it, either right and wrong...That, or they didn't have any 5'1" office assistants try and get in the car at the factory like DMC did when they realized they needed pullstraps. :hysterical:

Dracula

02-12-2012, 02:37 AM

When was the last time we, as the inventing country of the automobile, have been able to take pride in something like that?

I have to disagree with this. The Cugnot steam-tricycle and tractors that he sold the French Military are the first automobiles and the first commercial self-propelled vehicles.

If we go by patent status, Karl Benz holds the first issued patent for the concept of the automobile.

I also have several qualms with Tesla, but that's another matter and I'm not known for being drawn to cars based on the premise of fuel economy.

Rich

02-12-2012, 11:03 AM

does anyone know how these Tesla doors--and the MB SLS AMG for that matter--are lifted? pneumatic struts only, or struts plus additional assistance (e.g., torsion bars or whatever)?

Tesla X: Struts + assistance. Based on Ryan's photo of the door-closing button and a press photo showing the door in mid-position with only a driver in the car, Tesla X rear doors seem to have an open-close remote assist similar to a minivan liftgate remote. The doors also have a front and rear strut, again similar to a remote liftgate. Setting aside the articulation that hardware should be relatively off-the-shelf nowadays. Photo shows the struts. Unlikely that the X has door torsion bars.
8410

One reason the SLS and the Tesla X wouldn't need torsion bars is that their doors are relatively light compared to a D's door. They are shorter in front-rear length and aren't steel or SS.

Rich

02-12-2012, 11:11 AM

After the owner of the SLS was kind enough to let me sit in his car, I watched him drive away. He was not a very tall man, and he had to lift his butt out of his seat to reach up for the door handle to pull the door down closed. I laughed out loud. For a $200k supercar, the SLS doesn't even have simple pullstraps that a $30k DeLorean does.

Ditto on this one, plus notes about the MBZ fixes.

I, too, have seen a SLS AMG driver get in, then grab his door only on his third butt-launch attempt.

Mercedes says they are going to work up a pull-strap retrofit - sound familiar?

Beyond that there is an aftermarket solution for the SLS AMG doors - an electric assist kit. More than just a door-popper here:

Kicherer Electronic Wing Door Kit AMG SLS (http://www.legitlifestyle.com/repostitory/kicherer-offers-electronic-wing-doors-for-mercedes-benz-sls-amg/)

dvonk

02-12-2012, 10:24 PM

Tesla X: Struts + assistance. Based on Ryan's photo of the door-closing button and a press photo showing the door in mid-position with only a driver in the car, Tesla X rear doors seem to have an open-close remote assist similar to a minivan liftgate remote. The doors also have a front and rear strut, again similar to a remote liftgate.

ah yes, i had forgotten that many modern minivans and SUVs have powered liftgates. i think my mental image of a minivan is my parents' old Chrysler from the '80s... alot has changed since then. if i had thought about it for a minute i couldve answered my own question. :lol:

thanks for bringing me back to the present.

DMCVegas

02-13-2012, 11:25 AM

In short, I'm not trying to argue with you, and I apologize if it comes off that way. I'm just genuinely miffed at why this car and Tesla as a company seem to actually OFFEND you with their very existence.

No worries at all! People disagree, and there has been more than one time that after talking with someone I've come away from the conversation with a totally different opinion because they swayed me. I'm never too proud nor too afraid of being wrong that I'd defend innacuracies for the sole sake of pride. ;)

Anyhow...

Admittedly I have a very negative viewpoint of Tesla motors. I stopped by their Houston showroom in the Galleria Mall one day on a whim, and things did not go quite so well. The attitude of the salesmen against other EVs, as well as their lack of knowledge was absolutely appalling. I don't expect a salesman to know exact torque specs of every bolt in a car. But I absolutely DO expect however a salesman to know basic questions like if I have a 220V charging option do I need Tesla to install a specific unit to be hardwired, or would it plug into an existing outlet in my garage? If the longer range model is able to achieve it's longer distances because of a bigger battery pack, what effect does that have on braking? Are the brakes upgraded to compensate? etc. Is this car based off of a Toyota or existing platform where I can easily get replacement collision parts? What's the damn life expectancy of the battery pack, and what does a replacement set cost? I wasn't trying to play stump the salesman, but I had questions. Sure some of them were different from your average owner, but others were were just basic selling points that should have been known. Worst of all was when the guy just walked me over to the kiosk to enter my e-mail information and just dumped me there and moved on to other people without asking if I had any other questions. No thanks. If that's the kind of sales support that Tesla has, I can only imagine what their technical support must be like...

I would however disagree greatly here on many of your points.

ALL vehicles have moving parts. Sure we can get into the nitty gritty of door hinges (BTW, how do those rear doors open if the battery is dead?) and tiny parts, but the drivetrain still has lots of moving parts that need service. Motors wear out, there are wheel bearings, brake pads and rotors, differentials that require servicing, etc. Unless this thing is a maglev car, it's gonna need service beyond checking the batteries. Of course they probably do that during the yearly checkup, but just keep it hidden so that you don't know about it...

The price has shot up now by$20K to top out at $100K! (http://jalopnik.com/tesla/) So much for those other entry-level estimates. Money is of absolute concern to people. So much so that one only needs to look at General Motors acquisition of AmeriCredit (http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2010/Sept/0929_americredit) which was a move for GM Financial to go have more cash and access to sub-prime auto loans so that they could sell more cars. GM knows that people are hurting. Speaking of GM financial, they too are the ones that will make or break Tesla. Not everyone is going to pay cash for this car, some will finance. If GM Financial however bans loans for Tesla products like they did in the past for DeLorean, Yugo, and Daewoo, it will be a death-kneel for Tesla because Capital One and all other auto lenders will follow suit, thus making it even harder for Tesla.

Money is however a key concern for car buyers. The types of people who can afford a Tesla are NOT the types of people who care about operating costs of fuel and maintenance. They care about safety and reliability. So that really isn't a big incentive for those people who can afford the car to go after it. Styling is another because the car doesn't really have any radical styling that makes it stand out either so that buyers can show off. You know a Bentley when you see it. You know a Lamborghini. Hell, you even know a damn Prius. Tesla's cars just blend in too well. And when you spend that kind of cash, you want to be able to show it off. In other words you need a huge "WTF?!? Factor" when it comes to styling in order to at least get people to forget about the price. Fisker Karma is a better example of this when it comes to EVs.

With the kind of buyers whom this car is targeted at, sales will be horrible because they honestly can't afford it. I could buy a car at half the price, drive it for 10 years, and still come out ahead financially even when you figure in maintenance and fuel costs. So your average driver isn't going to opt for this. Hell, lots of wealthy ones won't either. Rich people don't get and stay rich because they throw their money around. They stay rich because they find ways to save all of their money.

As for the reservations for Tesla, it doesn't mean anything. Smar Car comes to mind as the perfect example of this. (http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2009/03/25/lower-gas-prices-and-bad-economy-make-smart-car-orphans/) When gas prices started hitting $4 a gallon in the U.S. and even $5 in some places, Smart was able to boast 30,000 reservations where people had plunked down a $99 deposit. Next thing you know the fuel prices dropped, and the overwhelming majority of those reservations were abandoned leaving the brand-new cars unwanted on lots across the nation. Though along these lines, I do believe I read that a few reservations for the DMCEV have already been sold...

As for the reliability, that is still a concern. As cited with the Chevy Volt, people still have great reservations about EV vehicles being unproven technology, especially since the Lithium-Ion battery packs started rupturing because no one had any safety procedures in place to inspect the packs. And even so with pure EVs such as the Nissan Leaf, sale there have greatly fallen off as well. Still though you've got to think of the math that Tesla is using. If you have 2,000 cars that have collectively logged 1,000,000 miles, that only figures into about 500 miles on each car. That's really not that impressive. It's especially not hard at all to hit "several million miles". Comparing the Porsche and BMW too is an apples-to-oranges comparison like you cited with my volt comparison. Compared to other EVs the Tesla may have an advantage, but it can't beat gasoline-powered vehicles. Even with EVs it's a challenge.

The DMCEV may be a bit slower by a half-second in getting to 60mph, but it looks a whole helluva lot better doing it. And that's the thing: It stands out. Plus you also know that DMC now has a small network of dealers and service centers around the U.S. Where are you supposed to buy Teslas at, let alone get them worked on? The DMCEV is pretty much just a facelift of an existing car, but that also give it an advantage of a large parts bin. Not only does that figure into operating costs, but insurance costs as well. Once again placing the Tesla into a more expensive category.

It's not that I'm biased against Tesla, I just prefer the styling and engineering of the DeLorean. It's already familiar to me. It's the same as if you tried to sell me a Chevy S-10 that was a converted EV. I know the vehicle and like the styling, thus am more apt to buy it as such. Don't get me wrong, I don't hope that Tesla fails. Best of luck to them, but they make a boring car. Tesla is only beautiful IMO if you're the kind of person who is inexplicably in awe and willing to pay $12,000 extra for a Camry when Toyota slaps a fancy trim kit on it and calls it an Lexus ES.

If I were going for performance, DMCEV all the way. If I wanted convenience and affordability, I'd definitely pick up a Chevy Volt (it has that rear end that reminds me of a Subaru SVX). Tesla since killing off their roadster isn't anywhere on my list because nothing they offer fits my needs or desires. Speaking of the roadster, google "tesla delayed" and see the myriad of hits you get showing how Tesla keeps setting back their production dates for cars. If Tesla can come up with something original and inspiring, you bet I'd buy one. They just don't do anything for me.

As for becoming oil-free, it ain't gonna happen. We don't just rely upon oil for fuel. Plastics, fertilizer, and other chemicals are just too dependent upon the amounts we consume.

Doesn't mean jack-squat that the original De Lorean Motor Company is dead. Hell, the original General Motors is dead too. That hasn't stopped another company from springing up, taking their name, and slapping it on new cars, has it?

Ryan

02-13-2012, 12:17 PM

tl;dr

ryanjm

02-13-2012, 08:51 PM

No worries at all! People disagree, and there has been more than one time that after talking with someone I've come away from the conversation with a totally different opinion because they swayed me. I'm never too proud nor too afraid of being wrong that I'd defend innacuracies for the sole sake of pride. ;)

Anyhow...

Robert,

I greatly appreciate your well-considered reply. Sadly, those seem to be hard to come by on most Internet message boards. :cool1:

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on a lot of this -- and I apologize for being primarily responsible for steering this thread a bit off course -- but I did want to address a few of your comments.

1) I'm sorry to hear that you had a negative experience during your visit to Tesla's Houston store. Your questions were certainly reasonable and anyone whose job it is to sell cars for Tesla should've been able to answer them for you in a clear and complete manner...especially when, as someone who has spent a LOT of time looking into Tesla and learning what they're all about, I feel like *I* could've answered most of your questions for you if we had met in that store. To that end, I would encourage you, if you're still curious, to visit this Tesla forum (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/forum.php) and browse around. Its members are mostly very knowledgeable owners and enthusiasts -- not unlike DMCtalk -- and there you can learn all about interesting stuff like regenerative braking (and how it actually prolongs your brake life), battery pack replacement, etc.

2) Yes, all vehicles have moving parts, but the point was that, on Tesla's platform, you've got an A/C motor, a computer to govern everything, a radiator, and coolant to manage the temperature of the battery pack -- thus, compared to an ICE vehicle, exponentially fewer moving parts and potential points of failure. And this system has been in place for years with the Roadster, so if any major flaw was going to rear its head -- like the Volt recall you mentioned -- it would've happened already. In fact, the one major issue Tesla had with their system was that they originally tried a two-speed transmission on the first few Roadsters, and those failed miserably. They switched to a single-speed transmission and have had no significant issues since.

P.S. Your concern about not being able to open the Model X's rear falcon doors in the event of a dead battery is an excellent thing to bring up. I hadn't thought of that before! (I sure hope Tesla has, hehe). Of course, if you find yourself having depleted a 300-mile battery despite the car's repeated warnings (the Roadster will actually cut the car's horsepower in half once you get down to 20 miles remaining and tell you to charge up ASAP), then you're doing it wrong. I think the same can be said of a 100-mile DMC EV.

3) The price hasn't "shot up" (at least you did admit to a negativity towards Tesla, because this comment is laced with it, hehe). That was always going to be the price for the fully loaded, AWD, high-performance version of Model X. It will, however, still start at $60k. Thus, my previous comment about Model X's competition being the BMW X5s and Porsche Cayennes of the world still stands, because those vehicles get over six figures too.

I agree with you about people with that kind of money not caring as much about fuel and operating costs, but those kinds of "trendsetters" are the Joneses of their social circles, i.e. their friends have to keep up with THEM. They like being the first on the block to have the new, cool thing, and Tesla and their technology are the new and cool thing. And you say they also care about safety and reliability. Again, I pointed out how Tesla is set to receive a five-star crash rating in every category. That's for Model S, though. I'm sure their goal is the same with Model X, but I don't know if they'll get there.

You also mention styling, and this is where, again, I think we just have to agree to disagree. Tesla makes "a boring car"? The Roadster is distinct -- yes, it's based off a Lotus Elise, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a head-turner. Model S evokes a lot of Maserati stylings, and Model X...well, I'm with you there. Not very exciting, IMO. But I suppose those falcon doors will draw lots of attention. Those doors are your "WTF?" factor, as you put it, for Model X. But again, styling is all subjective, so nobody's wrong here.

4) Since we've both thrown the term "apples to oranges" around, I'd say plunking down $99 on a SmartCar is hardly the same as dropping a $5,000 reservation on a Tesla, wouldn't you agree? It's pretty damn easy to walk away from a $99 reservation depending on which side of the bed you woke up on that day, but I'd say the folks with Tesla reservations are pretty serious about following through on it. To say it "doesn't mean anything" is a bit harsh. I'd say it means something. If Tesla had 65 reservations instead of 6,500+ they'd be screwed! Instead, however, their outlook is very good for the time being. And some think the Model X is a good thing, too (http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57374536-76/teslas-model-x-finally-an-electric-car-we-all-want/).

5) You cite declining sales of the Leaf. That could be for a number of reasons, but I'd imagine that among them is range anxiety, the all-time mountain to climb for EVs. Nobody wants to get stuck somewhere with a dead battery, and the Leaf only goes 100 miles. Then again, that's as far as DMC's EV is set to go. Tesla is way, way ahead of any other manufacturer on this right now, with their 300-mile packs in the Model S and 2000+ Roadsters out there with 230-mile packs.

6) To your rebuttal asking me to Google "Tesla delayed"? Well I did, and those links all either point to the far future for their third-generation car or, as I'd guessed in my last post, the initial Roadster delays from years ago. Nothing about what Tesla is doing RIGHT NOW -- the stuff that's going to make or break them, i.e. the Model S and the Model X -- has been anything but completely on schedule. Of course, nothing matters until they actually start delivering cars this July.

7) Every time you've brought the DMC EV into the conversation, I've respectully disagreed with you. Again, agree to disagree, I guess. :tongue: Honestly, I think you and I just come at this from two different, opposite angles. I don't believe either of us is right or wrong. For instance, you say you'd rather have a DeLorean or a Chevy S-10 with electric guts in it if you're going to go down the EV road. I can understand that. I've spent a lot of time in DeLoreans and Tesla Roadsters. And nothing, NOTHING compares to the love and attention you get from people when you drive a DeLorean. As for the S-10 part? Well, perhaps Toyota's upcoming RAV-4 EV with Tesla guts in it (http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/tesla-powered-toyota-rav4-e-v-to-be-built-in-canada-not-california/) would be the car for you :-).

For me, at $100k I would rather have a built-to-be-electric Tesla Roadster with established, leading tech, a 230-mile range, and fast-charging options. And the other part of it for me is that I'm very much a purist when it comes to the DeLorean. I prefer to keep the car looking and behaving original. I don't draw that line at the concours level (I put a modern sound system in my car as well as many modern updates and fixes), but I am just not someone who would ever transform my DeLorean to such a radical degree -- especially not for that price, when the range is so limited and the guts of the car are still 30 years old.

And if we're going to keep the comparison going to your point about DMC's service facilities, Tesla has a lot more stores (http://www.teslamotors.com/buy/stores) than DMC does, with more on the way. And on top of that, they'll come to you to service your car with their Ranger program (http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/coming-your-neighborhood-tesla-mobile-service-rangers-make-house-calls). Does that cost money? Yes, $1 per mile they travel. However, it's a service and a way to get your car taken care of if you don't live near a Tesla facility. If you want your DMC serviced -- be it the DMC EV or a regular ICE DeLorean -- you're going to have to ship your car there or drive it. You're lucky you live in Houston. I'm not as lucky being in San Francisco. I had to send my car 400 miles each way to DMC CA twice last year.

Again, I'm a huge supporter of both Tesla and DeLorean, and that's why I keep writing million-word message board posts, hehe. We're DeLorean people -- part of our duty/responsibility with these cars is to dispel myths and correct misconceptions. I don't have to tell you about that, you've been in this community for almost as long as I have (maybe longer, I'm not entirely sure; I bought my DMC in 1999 and I remember you from the early DML days). That's what I'm trying to do here. I'd do the same thing if someone were bringing DeLorean into a discussion on some other board I visit.

I appreciate you reading, and even if you have no interest in buying a Tesla, perhaps I've helped clarify a fact/point or two about them for you. If not...well, thanks for reading anyway. :tongue:

DMCVegas

02-15-2012, 01:31 PM

Robert,

I greatly appreciate your well-considered reply. Sadly, those seem to be hard to come by on most Internet message boards. :cool1:

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on a lot of this -- and I apologize for being primarily responsible for steering this thread a bit off course -- but I did want to address a few of your comments.

Yeah, we'll probably have to agree to disagree on allot of this. But that's alright. Faceless conversations are always difficult to conduct across the internet since most people are more concerned about a perceived "win" in an argument or debate than the accuracy of the topic itself. So just because we disagree doesn't mean that we're going to become mortal enemies or anything, let alone won't agree about other things.

It's good to know that there will be a decent enough support network of Tesla dealerships, though that dollar-per-mile fee if you're out in the sticks is still a bit too pricy. And that I feel really is a big part of the problem here. If people were more willing and able to pay for those luxury features more often, than the Luxury brands themselves would crank out far more cars than they currently do. Fully-loaded mid range cars are going for half of just the introductory price of the X here, and even fully-loaded luxury cars still come out cheaper. Sure there may be fuel savings to make up for the initial cost (future road taxes not withstanding), but Americans don't have that mentality to see through that. The iPhone being a prime example where you could save a couple hundred dollars or more on your monthly service over it's average or longer life if you paid a higher up-front cost for the initial purchase of the phone. Nope, people didn't like that. So they reduced the initial start-up cost, upped the monthly service fees by about $10, and people have been happy as a clam ever since. They're paying more for the same phone and service, but the perception is such that they're happier. Still though it's allot of money for one of these cars that I would speculate most people will not be willing to part with.

$5K is certainly a much higher reservation price for the Tesla, but until those people actually take delivery of their vehicles and money changes hands, there is no guaranteed sale. Also what are the terms? Is that money refundable? Hell, is it a viable tax-write off as a poor investment as well?

Range anxiety is certainly a factor. And a good amount of this depends upon where exactly it is you live. Since moving to Houston, just running around on a Saturday afternoon doing errands or just pleasure driving, it's not uncommon to rack up well over 100 miles in a single day. For commuting the range is excellent, but at that point this car becomes all that it's worth: A commuter. That's just no good for a car that I either A: Want to show off, or B: Perhaps really enjoy driving. So why wouldn't I just buy a cheaper vehicle strictly for commuting, or at least get something else that I can drive more often? Granted every community is going to be different, but not by much with the big cities where this vehicle's intended use is for.

The other concern that I have here is with the Lithium-Ion battery pack(s). What's the warranty on these, as well as the expected lifespan? Dealing with Li-Ion batteries on a daily basis I've seen that they only last about 2-3 years before they're consumed and no good anymore. 24-36, hell even an extremely optimistic 48 months of service is going to be shorter than the average length of auto loans that people will be taking out on these vehicles. In the mean time as time goes on and the charge capacity of the batteries decrease, so does the mileage. A Tesla that goes 230 miles today I can guarantee you will not have that range a year or two from the day you bought it. People have this twisted tendency to not pay their loans on cars that don't work right. It's a twisted notion because you signed that contract promising to pay, but it's the one that people have. If that happens then consumer financing for these cars will absolutely dry up, and buyers will become separated from cars. It will kill Tesla like it did DMC, Yugo, and Daewoo.

As for the DMCEV, I just see it as a different version of the DMC-12. Originality doesn't concern me one bit. I was more disappointed that Pontiac put pig-snout hood scoops on the new GTO in it's second year of production than I am about the DMCEV. And as far as EV cars go, I'm not in the market at all for one. The concerns cited above that I have about the Tesla are not strictly biased towards Tesla. These are concerns I have about ALL EVs including the DMCEV. Worries about massive future repairs that are so costly they're to be deemed financially catastrophic to me such as a massive battery replacement are the reason that I avoid many cars. GM 3800 V6 engines, and Mazda Renesis rotary lumps are prime examples cars that hold these same types of concerns that I avoid accordingly.

Rich

02-17-2012, 04:46 PM

And back to the Tesla X's doors, here's another question that will be answered as the Model X develops beyond the prototype stage:

Will the driver be able to drive this car with the rear doors open?
Setting aside the wisdom of driving a gullwing car at any speed, however low, at least a D driver has that option. If the designers of the Model X wanted to interlock the doors with the car's drive system it's likely they could prevent the car from being driven without both rear doors closed. Or they could set a max. "creep speed" if either door is up.

Further, if there will be a door-speed interlock will the rear doors be auto-locked once the car is under way? Without a selectable lock-defeat option?

Am not interested in whether the safety nannies will require it or not, only in whether the car will be so equipped - will it be locked down, so to speak? Time will tell.

DMCVegas

02-18-2012, 11:14 AM

Who knows. Though a better question would be other than perhaps a parade, why would you want to? I once drove over a bump with my drivers door open and heard a nasty crack. Ever since then whenever I flex the door I can hear it creak. Don't know if it's a support, or the glass seal creaking but it's not a comforting sound.

The other reason was the one time I went to a McDonalds and almost decapitated a excited employee who leaned out to see my car. In any case I don't imagine that it would be too healthy for these Aerovette doors with their extra hinges, and God only knows what internal gears and mechanicals.

DMCVegas

02-22-2012, 11:30 AM

SoCalDMC12

02-22-2012, 01:43 PM

Here's the information about Tesla's battery replacement:

$12K Battery replacement for a consumed Li-Ion battery pack after 7 years.
$40K Battery replacement for a neglected/consumer damaged battery pack.

http://jalopnik.com/5887265/tesla-motors-devastating-design-problem

I just read that article. Pretty interesting, and perhaps a bit worrisome. It sounds like they need to update their warrantee policy, provide better owner education, and (most importantly) better safeguard their batteries.

I wonder if plug-in's like the Fisker or the Volt have this problem. I assume that either could fire up their gas engines and give their batteries a little juice if the charge level falls too low.

DMCVegas

02-23-2012, 12:30 AM

Technically anything that uses a Lithium Ion battery is subject to this same problem. Be it a car, or mobile electronic device such as your phone or laptop. However once a battery of this type becomes damaged it's cheap enough to simply replace. That's not quite the case with an entire car.

And if this is any indication of things to come, Tesla has pretty much screwed themselves and sealed their own fate. (http://jalopnik.com/5887499/who-is-trying-to-smear-the-tesla-battery-problem-whistleblower)

ryanjm

02-26-2012, 01:13 PM

dvonk

02-26-2012, 07:21 PM

hm, i thought that 'bricking' story sounded a bit odd...

DMCVegas

03-01-2012, 12:16 AM

No wonder you seem to have a major bias against Tesla, Robert: you keep linking to Jalopnik, a site with a clear agenda against the company.

We both wrote miles of text exchanging our views on Tesla, and I was content to leave it where we left it, i.e. at the "agree to disagree" stage. I genuinely appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts on the subject. The thread could've easily turned into yet another pointless Internet message board flame war, but your thoughts were rational and clearly well thought-out. But since this thread has continued, I feel like I should offer the other side of the argument:

"Bricking" debunked. (http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/plug-it)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery

I utilized the Jalopnik articles because they were the ones that supported my position. The influence is not the other way around. But if you would like, here are some non-Jalopnik Links that also state the same facts about Lithium-Ion batteries:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/everyday-tech/lithium-ion-battery.htm

And still there are many other links. The fact of the matter is that once Li-Ion batteries go below a specific charge point, most conventional battery chargers cannot recharge the units (Mazda Miata's Panasonic Battery anyone?). As a safeguard Advanced Li-Ion battery packs will have internal fail-safes that will sever electrical connections to whatever external device the battery pack is charging. That does NOT however mean that the internal battery pack is completely dead. What it does mean is that the the internal power dropped below a safe level, and that the Li-Ion battery is NOT infact "dead" as in having a complete 100% discharge. It's simply dormant. At this time the battery is only feeding the fail-safe system that is preventing it from draining further by severing it's physical connections. The same system that as soon as it detects an external power source will then restore said connection in order to replenish battery life.

What you have to remember, and this is absolutely key in understanding Tesla's supposed "debunking" fluff piece here, is that this holds true with all Li-Ion batteries. Same with your laptop. It's a fail-safe to prevent absolute premature failure of the unit, otherwise there would be a whole lot more consumer complaints about failed batteries out there. Which brings me to my next point.

The article that Tesla writes here is absolute bullshit. Tesla states that the battery level can drop to 0% without any sort of failure. What they don't say is how that specific is measured, nor what that is a specific measurement of. In order to avoid playing a guessing game, I'll be blunt: "0% Battery" is simply a consumer perception. It is NOT an actual indication of true battery power that is CONTAINED within the Li-Ion cell themselves. It is only a measurement of AVAILABLE power for the vehicle. So in other words, albeit very crude words, let's say you've got an 85kW battery pack. At 85kW it's 100% charged. Let's then say that at 3kW worth of power remaining is when the fail-safe kicks in to prevent the complete discharge. At that point we have an 82kW range. So say roughly at about every 1.21 Kilowatts of power drained from the battery, it's capacity drops by 1%. THAT is where you get the "0% charge" number from. And I know that it's obviously quite a bit more complicated when you figure in amperage and voltage, but I'm just strictly speaking in laymen's terms here to get the general idea across. The "0%" battery charge that Tesla references is not in regards to actual voltage contained within the battery. It's strictly a reference point for actual usable voltage that the car needs to run. Same theory as a lead acid battery. If your headlights are dim and you don't have enough cranking amps to turn the engine over, you call that a dead battery. It's not really dead though, is it? You've got enough power for some dim lights, but it's dead in the since that it does not contain enough of a usable charge. Same thing with Tesla. 0% on a Tesla battery means no usable charge, but does NOT mean 0.00V on the battery.

Now Tesla's wording certainly implies that their battery is 100% discharged to the average consumer, since that's how they're going to interpret that. But interpretation doesn't always mean culpability. How a person interprets Tesla's wording may not necessarily be their fault. However that of course doesn't mean that they're fully protected from a lawsuit against them. Still though I would challenge Tesla to change the wording from 0% to "completely discharged" or "0.000V" when regarding depleted battery capacity. And I'll bet you they'd never ever do it. Because they know that Lithium Ion batteries WILL brick when completely discharged.

Reread Tesla's entire "debunking" statement from top to bottom with the intention of finding out what happens when a battery is completely discharged to the point where it is completely devoid of any voltage, and you'll see the thing in an entirely different light. More specificly, here's a quote directly from this article:

Of course you can drive a Model S to 0 percent charge, but even in that circumstance, if you plug it in within 30 days, the battery will recover normally.

Fine. So what happens if you DON'T plug the thing in within 30 days? Ask them that.

It's not that I have anything against electric or hybrid cars. They absolutely have their purposes. I like the Chevy Volt for instance. But I don't even think that Chevrolet properly informs their customers of potential issues with the Volt. What happens if you do have that commute that is less than 30 miles and you never need to fill up on gas? What happens when that gas turns into varnish and ruins the entire fuel system? And I don't have a problem with the cars that Tesla makes. I don't however think that Tesla is being 100% honest with their customers however, and it's going to be a big problem later on when it comes back to bite them.

dvonk

03-01-2012, 12:41 AM

...I don't even think that Chevrolet properly informs their customers of potential issues with the Volt. What happens if you do have that commute that is less than 30 miles and you never need to fill up on gas? What happens when that gas turns into varnish and ruins the entire fuel system?

ive always wondered about this. i guess well have to wait and see...

SoCalDMC12

03-01-2012, 01:20 AM

ive always wondered about this. i guess well have to wait and see...

My understanding is that the Volt automatically turns the gas engine on every so often to use up the gas in the tank.

Rich

03-01-2012, 01:27 AM

I like the Chevy Volt for instance. But I don't even think that Chevrolet properly informs their customers of potential issues with the Volt. What happens if you do have that commute that is less than 30 miles and you never need to fill up on gas? What happens when that gas turns into varnish and ruins the entire fuel system?

Answer: Chevrolet does inform the owners of this potential problem and the car itself prevents the fuel-aging problem to the extent possible. A Volt that's driven in EV-only mode long enough will send a message to the driver and will run the combustion engine periodically, even if it's not needed for propulsion during such drives, in order to consume stale fuel over a period of time. Unless the owner hacks the software or stops using the car the fuel won't age and ruin anything because it be consumed and have to be replenished. And if a Volt is stored a long time then the consequences are similar to those of any other gas-powered car in storage. And out of warranty.

dmc6960

03-01-2012, 09:05 AM

So say roughly at about every 1.21 Kilowatts of power drained from the battery, it's capacity drops by 1%.

I see what you did right there...

DMCVegas

03-01-2012, 09:21 AM

I see what you did right there...

It was an interesting coincidence.

100 ÷82 = 1.21

ryanjm

05-05-2013, 10:41 PM

Chris4099

05-06-2013, 03:08 PM

I mentioned in another thread, but I got a Model S! VIN 9381 that I was supposed to pick up today actually, but had to postpone due to a last minute business trip (I'm currently in Austin). I didn't start following Tesla that closely until very recently, but it's pretty obvious they listen to their customers. With such a software based car, they are constantly adding/tweaking features based on user feedback. They are making all sorts of changes to their service plans and warranty too. For example, you can no longer "brick" your battery. If you do, they replace it for free during the 8 year battery warranty! Clearly they learned from the Roadster incident where they got so much bad press from just a few incidents.

Basically, how it works is as you start to get low, it will reduce the amount of power you can drain from it and slow down the performance. According to one owner I know, it will keep reducing the power until the call goes to a crawl and then stops altogether. After that, the main pack is disconnected to preserve what's left. You can keep it in this state for months before the battery is dead. Of course Tesla will assist you in getting it to a charger long before that happens. In fact, you can tow it yourself and if you get to a charger in a few weeks, you can bring it back yourself easily enough. Wait too long and the 12v system goes dead too at which point in needs a "jump start" in order to start the computer back up and then start charging from a normal charger. You really have to work now to get it bricked.

If anybody lives near a dealership, they should take a test drive. It's crazy fun to drive and makes it obvious why so many people enjoy driving EVs over regular gas cars.

DMCVegas

05-10-2013, 01:16 AM

Hey Robert,

This thread just popped into my mind again for some reason, and so I'd love to ask: one year after we had a spirited discussion, do you feel any differently about Tesla? Things have changed quite a lot since this thread started. They've got thousands of cars on the road now, they're profitable, they're going to pay off their DoE loan early, they've won numerous major awards including Motor Trend COTY (unanimously), and their stock has been soaring.

Curious if you've had a chance to drive one as well. Because one drive and...well, you'll definitely feel something ;)

Would love to hear your thoughts either way!

Electric motors have full torque right from take-off. What kind of vehicle one is mounted into doesn't really change the factor very much.:dunno:

I'm honestly still not all that impressed with Tesla. Especially after this article right here:

Tesla’s Model S Lease and Financing Program Expensive, Misleading (http://blog.caranddriver.com/teslas-model-s-lease-and-financing-program-expensive-misleading/)

Turning their first profit is good, but they're not quite out of the woods yet. $11M is a healthy profit, but still they've racked up something like $1B in debt over the years. So they've got quite a ways to go. Who knows who has been buying these cars either. With the termination of the S model, there really isn't an affordable version of the Tesla for average buyers.

It also turns out that rather from the manufacturing of cars, Tesla is making money by flipping pollution credits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323628804578348271881455116.html

Give you or I those credits from the government and let us resell them and we'll suddenly have profitable businesses too. And of course this defeats the purpose of environmental protection, but you know, whatever.

I don't have a problem with Tesla. I believe that Elon Musk is a douche, and isn't totally honest about his company, but I don't really have much interest in the car itself. It's forgettable. If Toyota and others are interested or even partnering, it's probably to let Tesla take all the financial risk on R&D so they can swoop in eventually and reap the data.

Not joking, I'd honestly rather have this car here:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ryXY0lWF5TI/TmCis_j4FBI/AAAAAAAAE0M/CXnhF0CCK3U/s1600/1990+Yugo+Cabrio.jpg

Would have bought it too if my damn alternator belt didn't give out on the way to the auction. It's got way more style to me. And I like attention when I drive. That's something that the current Tesla lineup can't give me.

Chris4099

05-10-2013, 10:12 AM

I'm honestly still not all that impressed with Tesla. Especially after this article right here:

Tesla’s Model S Lease and Financing Program Expensive, Misleading (http://blog.caranddriver.com/teslas-model-s-lease-and-financing-program-expensive-misleading/)

A lot of those terms are standard for leases (such as high mileage). I agree the web site showing the $500 per month is misleading (lots of negative feedback from even the die hard fans), but anybody would quickly see more accurate numbers once they go through the calculator. Should they actually start the lease process, then would know exactly what they are getting into. The web site has since been updated with better numbers and wording. Of course they could just not turn it in and keep the loan going or privately sell the car at which point a lot of that doesn't matter. Or you could just skip that program altogether like I did.

Who knows who has been buying these cars either. With the termination of the S model, there really isn't an affordable version of the Tesla for average buyers.

Tesla has no plans to discontinue the Model S (or soon Model X) in the foreseeable future. In fact in a few years they plan to have a Gen 3 car in the $20K range. They really plan to build hundreds of thousands of very affordable cars per year in the long run. That's why their factory is so large yet only at about 15% capacity.

I will say one thing that really bugs me about the price. Everyone thinks I'm buying a 100K car. I'm really buying a 62.5K car that can be optioned to over 100K. Big difference! Kind of like how many people think the same thing with the DeLorean being worth a lot more then they really are.

It also turns out that rather from the manufacturing of cars, Tesla is making money by flipping pollution credits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323628804578348271881455116.html

Give you or I those credits from the government and let us resell them and we'll suddenly have profitable businesses too. And of course this defeats the purpose of environmental protection, but you know, whatever.

It should be noted those credits are sold on the free market between manufactures. The $250M is just a guess on their potential worth. Because of this, Tesla does not report their future profits based on them as they don't even know what they can sell them for. So they are not part of Tesla's future plans to maintain themselves as a profitable company.

Then there are the things that Tesla is doing that is completely different which are really cool. If you like the loaner Tesla they give you while yours is being serviced, you can keep it! They just crunch some set numbers based on mileage of both vehicles and a few other parts to determine the cost. Pay it and it's yours to keep. There's also the fact that the service centers are now to be run without a profit (completely opposite what other car manufactures do). This insures that you get the best experience possible while the car is being serviced. Because this is a brand new company that's not forced into 100 year old business models, they are doing it all from scratch to make the experience much better and far more modern. This is all very exciting stuff and can really shake things up if it continues to succeed.

ryanjm

05-17-2013, 01:20 AM

Chris4099

05-17-2013, 11:52 AM

I picked up my Model S on Monday and have put over 200 miles on it so far. This car is just phenomenal! I test drove the P85 version at the show room but got the 60 version which is a bit slower, however it's still equally as fun to drive. I just can't scare my passengers at the same level when I floor it! LOL

When it comes to attention from the public, the DeLorean definitely gets more. I still get points and looks from others while driving the Tesla, but I have yet to see a cell phone come out and take a pic while driving (something all us D drivers are all to familiar with). Still, I'm the talk of the office and all my coworkers, family and friends want to ride in the Tesla. They all find it fantastic!

Haven driven the Leaf (a nice and perfectly capable EV) as well, it just doesn't compare to a Model S. Even if you disregard all the features of the Tesla that come with a premium sedan versus a commuter car, the Tesla just drives better. I truly believe everybody should take a test drive of any EV. If they did, then they would most likely "get it". It's more then a car for geeks or "hippie tree huggers", it's just a great way to drive. When I picked up my girlfriend from her downtown office yesterday, I drove 45 minutes in stop/go traffic. The single peddle driving made it even easier to drive then an automatic and the drive was just not as frustrating. Then when I took her to the airport this morning, I drove it for over an hour on the freeway and was not nearly as tired as I would be from driving a normal car. There's something about the lack of engine noise and vibration that just makes it more calming and relaxing to drive. If you want to have your heart pumping, then just floor the peddle and you'll get that excitement too. Best of both worlds. :)

Required pic:
19106

Exolis

05-17-2013, 02:51 PM

I really hope Tesla takes off and looking at the market trend, EVs are taking off. Working for Nissan, I have driven and worked on the car and it's a really nice car. It won't be as nice as the Model S, but with the Price difference, that can be expected. But Hell, long as there is more interest in EVs, the better they will become with competition driving improvements.

EVs are exciting to drive, even though the Leaf is a small car, not designed to go fast, it does have quick take off. I imagine Model S to be 10x more exciting. Plus range anxiety goes away quite fast.

NightFlyer

05-17-2013, 09:17 PM

Tesla sucks - acting like they're going to do something that hasn't been done in a while. First off, I'm not going to hold my breath for production gullwing doors on any Tesla. Second, unlike what Tesla would have us believe, it has been done fairly recently on quite affordable production cars:

Autozam AZ-1 (and you thought that the DeLorean had small toll windows):

http://hubgarage.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/190975/July_21_2008_224_detail.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-0x6tNMCnv8k/TYrK20AopnI/AAAAAAAAAZ0/jLnoRKMgb-4/s1600/mazda-autozam-az-1_1.jpg

Toyota Sera (not quite gullwing, but pretty cool and unique none-the-less):

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Toyota-Sera.png

I'd personally rather have either of these cars over anything offered from Tesla - or even Robert's sweet Yugo convertible!

One thing I really like about both of the above designs is the way the door glass extends into the roof part of the doors. I'm currently looking into importing a Sera.

Chris4099

05-17-2013, 09:35 PM

Tesla sucks - acting like they're going to do something that hasn't been done in a while. First off, I'm not going to hold my breath for production gullwing doors on any Tesla. Second, unlike what Tesla would have us believe, it has been done fairly recently on quite affordable production cars:

You do know Tesla never said they are making a gullwing or currently have plans to? The Model X has falcon wings. Similar but different and I think so far unique to any car. If you don't know the difference, go to Tesla's website and see it for yourself. As for it being made, its highly likely to happen. Its based on the same platform as the Model S, so they have a lot less work to do over the S. With the prototypes already built, they are probably in the final stages of adjustments and testing.

NightFlyer

05-18-2013, 12:36 AM

You do know Tesla never said they are making a gullwing or currently have plans to? The Model X has falcon wings. Similar but different and I think so far unique to any car. If you don't know the difference, go to Tesla's website and see it for yourself. As for it being made, its highly likely to happen. Its based on the same platform as the Model S, so they have a lot less work to do over the S. With the prototypes already built, they are probably in the final stages of adjustments and testing.

'Falcon wings' - come on. Seriously?!?!

That's little more than Madison Ave marketing puffery! Do the doors not have hinges that attach to the center of the roof? Do the hinges not pivot the doors upwards at a 90 degree angle?

Answer to both questions: YES.

Thus call them whatever you like, but they are in fact little more than gullwing doors with an extra fold at the door/roof separation line. Nothing else. Big whoop tie-doo! As Robert pointed out earlier, it's essential the same door design utilized by the AeroVette concept car. Hardly anything new or revolutionary.

What I don't like is how deceptive Tesla is in their advertising / media campaigns, how over-the-top cocky and arrogant Musk is, and how they're given special treatment (money and salable carbon credits) from the government (taxpayers), and yet were still allowed to go public while at the same time also being allowed to withhold crucial data (like actual sales) from the taxpayers and shareholders! Honestly, if you don't find their business practices highly questionable, then perhaps it's time to take a closer look.

Example: Tesla claims to have turned a profit since 2009, and yet in the last annual report they show a loss per share of $2.69 - how does that work exactly? They have net tangible assets of $124,700,000, but a market cap of 10.54B - that's an INSANE bubble reminiscent of the recent real estate market and crash!

And this was just reported earlier today by a financial publication:

In a near 180 degree turn, Tesla CEO Elon Musk went from telling Morgan Stanley that the company had no plans to raise capital, only to initiate a second offering for $830 million or so. Musk noted that the efforts were mainly to establish a cash inventory for security against an ”unexpected supply interruption” or “risk event.”

Along with this by a different financial publication:

Tesla is planning to use $452.4M of the $1.08B the company raised in a debt and equity offering to pay back to the government for its Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loan, reports Bloomberg, citing two people familiar with the matter that say the company is planning to pay back the loan in full next week.

Hmm... second offering of public stock means stock dilution, to the tune of almost or even over 1 (existing share) : 1 (new share issued), or 100%. Not to mention the reason given for the second offering is inconsistent between financial publications. And yet, the share price has more than doubled in the last month on relatively moderate volume. Not to mention insider sales have out paced insider buys by over 3:1 over the last 6 months - with the Musk family doing a majority of the selling. The stock is clearly being pumped, which usually happens right before the dump.

And let's not forget all the lawsuits - both against Musk/Tesla and those frivolous ones initiated by him/the company (ie: Top Gear/Jeremy Clarkson)

Finally, I don't believe that they ever paid a single penny to Nikola Tesla's estate for the use of his surname - a travesty in and of itself!

I may be wrong - but something about Tesla just smells to the extreme! Oh well, if they really do pay back their government loan, at least the taxpayers won't be stuck holding the bag this time around.

Just my 2 cents :wave:

Chris4099

05-18-2013, 11:45 AM

'Falcon wings' - come on. Seriously?!?!

That's little more than Madison Ave marketing puffery! Do the doors not have hinges that attach to the center of the roof? Do the hinges not pivot the doors upwards at a 90 degree angle?

Answer to both questions: YES.

Thus call them whatever you like, but they are in fact little more than gullwing doors with an extra fold at the door/roof separation line. Nothing else. Big whoop tie-doo! As Robert pointed out earlier, it's essential the same door design utilized by the AeroVette concept car. Hardly anything new or revolutionary.

All I can say is they have a different hinge setup and move on a vertical plane, not in an arch. This to you may mean it's still the same and therefore upsetting to call it something else, but for me it's not. Just like I don't consider butterfly doors to be the same and therefore I'm just fine with them being called that too.

What I don't like is how deceptive Tesla is in their advertising / media campaigns, how over-the-top cocky and arrogant Musk is, and how they're given special treatment (money and salable carbon credits) from the government (taxpayers), and yet were still allowed to go public while at the same time also being allowed to withhold crucial data (like actual sales) from the taxpayers and shareholders! Honestly, if you don't find their business practices highly questionable, then perhaps it's time to take a closer look.

You do know Tesla has no advertising campaign right? All sales have been through word of mouth, foot traffic at the stores and web site. As for him being cocky and over-the-top, that's just the way some CEO's are and what gives them the drive to make a billion dollar corporation succeed (just like Steve Jobs, Richard Branson and others). I'm sorry you take it so personally. At least know he only makes $33K per year at Tesla and only really benefits though his stock in the company.

And as previously noted the carbon credits are sold on the open market between companies and don't go back to the government. If a car company simply produced at least a CA complaint EV like Ford, Mitsubishi, Toyota and BMW, then there would be no market for this.

Regarding them holding car sales figures, I don't see the big deal. They've already announced they produce 500 cars a week and this has been confirmed by many owners using their VINs. For example, my VIN 9361 was produced just over 2 weeks ago while somebody picking up their car at the factory a few days ago got VIN 10,5XX. It was big news since it came with firmware 4.5 installed which has a lot of new features that many of us are looking forward to getting over the air soon. So we know Tesla is building 2,000 cars a month and since they build to order (no lots with unsold cars for Tesla), it's a pretty safe bet to assume they sell 2,000 cars per month. The only interesting bit of information that's held back is the number of reservations. But since those aren't technically firm car orders, I can see why they don't release that. Too many people would probably freak out over the cancellations that naturally happen with any reservation system.

Example: Tesla claims to have turned a profit since 2009, and yet in the last annual report they show a loss per share of $2.69 - how does that work exactly? They have net tangible assets of $124,700,000, but a market cap of 10.54B - that's an INSANE bubble reminiscent of the recent real estate market and crash!

Please provide a source of this 2009 claim. Being a publicly traded company at that time, I'm pretty sure that would have been illegal. It was very clear that this past quarter was their first profitable quarter.

I'll skip over most of the stock offering since what you posted is mostly speculation and rumor. I'll wait and see how this turns out before actually passing judgement.

And let's not forget all the lawsuits - both against Musk/Tesla and those frivolous ones initiated by him/the company (ie: Top Gear/Jeremy Clarkson)

Finally, I don't believe that they ever paid a single penny to Nikola Tesla's estate for the use of his surname - a travesty in and of itself!

Considering Tesla took a financial hit from that Top Gear report and could prove they were intentionally dishonest about the report, I believe they had a right to be upset and good justification for a lawsuit. However the UK courts disagreed and that lawsuit is now over.

As for paying the Tesla estate, they are not required to. Just like DMCH doesn't pay JZD's estate for using his name or old company name. Tesla named themselves after Nikola Tesla as a tribute to him since it was his discoveries that made the underlining motor technology possible. After all, how many people really knew about Nikola Tesla over 10 years ago. Before then he was just a minor footnote, but now he's almost a household name again. If I'm wrong and his family is upset, please provide a source and I'll be happy to correct myself.

NightFlyer

05-19-2013, 02:55 AM

All I can say is they have a different hinge setup and move on a vertical plane, not in an arch. This to you may mean it's still the same and therefore upsetting to call it something else, but for me it's not. Just like I don't consider butterfly doors to be the same and therefore I'm just fine with them being called that too.

According to every encyclopedia, dictionary, etc, the term 'gullwing door' describes the location of the door hinge mount to the body of the car on the roof, and the movement of the door upwards to permit ingress and egress. Doesn't matter how exactly the hinge operates, so long as the hinges are located on the roof and they move the door up. Obviously, you've drank the PR kool-aid on this and nothing I can say will change your mind to the contrary, but seeing as how you raised the issue...

To me, simply tweaking/altering an age-old design and acting like you've re-invented the wheel and need to call it something new just seems somewhat deceptive and narcissistic. But that's me. To each their own!

You do know Tesla has no advertising campaign right? All sales have been through word of mouth, foot traffic at the stores and web site. As for him being cocky and over-the-top, that's just the way some CEO's are and what gives them the drive to make a billion dollar corporation succeed (just like Steve Jobs, Richard Branson and others). I'm sorry you take it so personally. At least know he only makes $33K per year at Tesla and only really benefits though his stock in the company.

Yeah... what exactly do call the press conferences, unveilings, press releases, PR campaigns, frivolous lawsuits, lashing out at critics, etc? You may call it 'publicity,' but in the end, it's just another form of advertising, is it not? And while some of it may be free, Tesla has also spent a pretty penny on much of it - just look at the annual report.

Ummm, maybe I take it personally because Musk has a net worth of $2.7B-$4.5B, and yet was only willing to personally invest $100M of his own money in Tesla, while taking a $.5B interest free loan from me and the rest of the taxpayers that has yet to be repaid. Musk/Tesla keeps on claiming that it will be paid back soon, but so far, it's all talk and no action. I'm not holding my breath either, as the highly questionable numbers in the books and the inconsistent stories being spun in the media by Musk about the financial condition of the company just leaves me with a seriously bad feeling about the whole thing. If things do go wrong and Tesla eventually goes the way of Fisker, Solyndra, A123, etc, Musk will only lose $100M while the taxpayers will lose $.5B - that's not right, is it?

And as previously noted the carbon credits are sold on the open market between companies and don't go back to the government. If a car company simply produced at least a CA complaint EV like Ford, Mitsubishi, Toyota and BMW, then there would be no market for this.

CARB is a joke. If they really wanted to clean up CA's air, perhaps they should start by restricting air travel in and out of the state.

Regarding them holding car sales figures, I don't see the big deal. They've already announced they produce 500 cars a week and this has been confirmed by many owners using their VINs. For example, my VIN 9361 was produced just over 2 weeks ago while somebody picking up their car at the factory a few days ago got VIN 10,5XX. It was big news since it came with firmware 4.5 installed which has a lot of new features that many of us are looking forward to getting over the air soon. So we know Tesla is building 2,000 cars a month and since they build to order (no lots with unsold cars for Tesla), it's a pretty safe bet to assume they sell 2,000 cars per month. The only interesting bit of information that's held back is the number of reservations. But since those aren't technically firm car orders, I can see why they don't release that. Too many people would probably freak out over the cancellations that naturally happen with any reservation system.

As an involuntary investor, I'd like to know if my investment is actually a good one or not! People trusted the word of Bernie Madoff without looking into the details, remember? How did that work out? In this case, Musk won't even let us see the details. If you're taking public money, you should at least be transparent with the company's finances - that's just ethical common sense.

If all these cars are being produced, purchased, registered, and driven, as you claim, then how come I've yet to see a single one on the road? I see more DeLoreans roaming the streets than I see Teslas. And VIN's can be easily manipulated.

Please provide a source of this 2009 claim. Being a publicly traded company at that time, I'm pretty sure that would have been illegal. It was very clear that this past quarter was their first profitable quarter.

Google it. In 2009, Tesla experienced a single $1M quarterly profit, mainly via accounting gimmicks, but experienced an overall loss for the year. Ever since, Musk has been constantly claiming 'this year, we should start turning a consistent/regular profit.' It hasn't materialized, although I will give credit in that he appears to have reduced or slowed the amount of losses - that is of course if the books are to be trusted, and without sales figures, who can really say for sure?

I'll skip over most of the stock offering since what you posted is mostly speculation and rumor. I'll wait and see how this turns out before actually passing judgement.

What speculation and rumor? I quoted inconsistencies that Musk relayed to varying financial media outlets. And all the figures come direct from their last annual report. Come on - while you're entitled to own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts. The quotes and figures I cited represent objective fact, whether it suits your opinion or not.

Considering Tesla took a financial hit from that Top Gear report and could prove they were intentionally dishonest about the report, I believe they had a right to be upset and good justification for a lawsuit. However the UK courts disagreed and that lawsuit is now over.

Umm... obviously Tesla couldn't even substantiate the basis of its legal claim, let alone prove any facts to a certain burden of proof, as its case was tossed - TWICE!!! And the BBC stated in their official press release dealing with the lawsuit that it was a Tesla representative who had calculated the range that the car would experience on the Top Gear test track, and as quoted by Clarkson on the show!

Broder (NY Times), Edmunds, C&D, etc have all had similar experiences about the range of the vehicles in real world driving conditions and in dealing with inconsistencies from Tesla representatives. And every time an automotive journalist fails to experience the range claimed by Tesla in tests/reviews, Musk is out there in the media whining like a baby claiming that the evil auto journalists are costing his company hundreds of millions. PLEASE!!! Do you honestly believe there's a media conspiracy against Tesla/Musk?!?!

Now, Musk won't let any auto journalist near his cars for more than 2 minutes at a time and unless it's agreed upfront that the published review will only be positive and glowing, such as with Consumer Reports.

Sorry, but that's just pathetic! DeLorean didn't restrict auto press access or go whining about how auto journalists were costing his company millions after a few reporters said that his car was heavy and slow, did he?

Musk is an ASS and it constantly appears as if he's trying to hide something. Sorry, but that just doesn't instill confidence in me. Instead, it screams of a scam just waiting to unfold.

As for paying the Tesla estate, they are not required to. Just like DMCH doesn't pay JZD's estate for using his name or old company name. Tesla named themselves after Nikola Tesla as a tribute to him since it was his discoveries that made the underlining motor technology possible. After all, how many people really knew about Nikola Tesla over 10 years ago. Before then he was just a minor footnote, but now he's almost a household name again. If I'm wrong and his family is upset, please provide a source and I'll be happy to correct myself.

Not the same situation by a long shot! DeLorean started a company and voluntarily used his surname in the company's name, thus, his surname became a part of the corporate assets. And he was fully aware of this. DMCH bought the corporate assets, which included the name.

Musk, on the other hand, started a company using someone else's famous/prominent surname without permission. That would be like you deciding that you wanted to start a company that makes harpsichords and calling it the Mozart Harpsichord Company without asking the estate/family for permission.

You appear to be an owner and a fanboy - and that's great! I hope you enjoy your car - I honestly do :rock_on:

But Musk and company need to come clean with their books and take criticism like adults instead of like whining babies.

As for the cars - well, they really don't serve my needs or budget at the present.

Chris4099

05-19-2013, 02:04 PM

Yeah... what exactly do call the press conferences, unveilings, press releases, PR campaigns, frivolous lawsuits, lashing out at critics, etc? You may call it 'publicity,' but in the end, it's just another form of advertising, is it not? And while some of it may be free, Tesla has also spent a pretty penny on much of it - just look at the annual report.

You said advertising and media campaigns. I was simply correcting you in that they've only done media campaigns. Sure they spend some money to deal with the media as any retailer/manufacturer should. They just don't advertise.

Ummm, maybe I take it personally because Musk has a net worth of $2.7B-$4.5B, and yet was only willing to personally invest $100M of his own money in Tesla, while taking a $.5B interest free loan from me and the rest of the taxpayers that has yet to be repaid. Musk/Tesla keeps on claiming that it will be paid back soon, but so far, it's all talk and no action. I'm not holding my breath either, as the highly questionable numbers in the books and the inconsistent stories being spun in the media by Musk about the financial condition of the company just leaves me with a seriously bad feeling about the whole thing. If things do go wrong and Tesla eventually goes the way of Fisker, Solyndra, A123, etc, Musk will only lose $100M while the taxpayers will lose $.5B - that's not right, is it?

Again, not right. He was worth about a billion after selling Pay Pal. He then invested most of his money in SpaceX and Tesla. Most of his current net worth is based on his 32% stake in Tesla. If it fails, he looses that money. As for the loan, they've already made a 13M payment in December (contrary to your "yet to be repaid" statement). I did find a more official quote regarding their plan to repay the loan in full next week with their additional stock offering. So I apologize for my previous statement. But what you didn't mention was they he will also purchase 100M in is own cash. Therefore his total out of pocket investment into the company will be 200M and no government loan will be involved. Shouldn't that make you happy? :)

CARB is a joke. If they really wanted to clean up CA's air, perhaps they should start by restricting air travel in and out of the state.

That's not a reasonable or valid solution to help move us off foreign energy and put us on domestic renewable energy.

As an involuntary investor, I'd like to know if my investment is actually a good one or not! People trusted the word of Bernie Madoff without looking into the details, remember? How did that work out? In this case, Musk won't even let us see the details. If you're taking public money, you should at least be transparent with the company's finances - that's just ethical common sense.

All I can say to that is Tesla applied for and met all requirements of the loan as set forth by the bipartisan bill that was put into law by our elected officials in 2007.

If all these cars are being produced, purchased, registered, and driven, as you claim, then how come I've yet to see a single one on the road? I see more DeLoreans roaming the streets than I see Teslas. And VIN's can be easily manipulated.

LOL, that statement reminds me of this article as to why so many people shorted Tesla stock:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/york-hedge-funds-lost-shirts-100000529.html
In short, people outside of the heavy sales areas assumed that because they didn't see any, that they weren't selling. They completely failed to realize this is a big ass country and you only ever see a very small percent of the total cars on the road in your lifetime. In the first 5 days of ownership, I've seen 2 other Tesla's on the road. My co-workers that live in the bay area see them several times during each commute. Fun fact, the Tesla store in Menlo Park just sold 150 cars over last weekend.

Google it. In 2009, Tesla experienced a single $1M quarterly profit, mainly via accounting gimmicks, but experienced an overall loss for the year. Ever since, Musk has been constantly claiming 'this year, we should start turning a consistent/regular profit.' It hasn't materialized, although I will give credit in that he appears to have reduced or slowed the amount of losses - that is of course if the books are to be trusted, and without sales figures, who can really say for sure?

OK, I see the confusion here. Tesla was not a pubic company back in 2009. The recent profit was their first one since going public. Therefore both statements are accurate. As for the one in 2009, they weren't public yet and were not under the same guidelines and restrictions they are now. For all we know they could have honestly expected to remain profitable. Still not so sure why you are so upset about what a private company said about their potential future profits.

Broder (NY Times), Edmunds, C&D, etc have all had similar experiences about the range of the vehicles in real world driving conditions and in dealing with inconsistencies from Tesla representatives. And every time an automotive journalist fails to experience the range claimed by Tesla in tests/reviews, Musk is out there in the media whining like a baby claiming that the evil auto journalists are costing his company hundreds of millions. PLEASE!!! Do you honestly believe there's a media conspiracy against Tesla/Musk?!?!

I never said there was a media conspiracy. All I can say is in both the NY Times and Top Gear, Tesla had logs from the cars showing that what was reported was not what actually happened to the cars. In the end with Broder, the editor stated there were "Problems With Precision and Judgment". Many have since recreated the road trip with no issues at all. Fun fact, many Tesla owners now refer to the following act as "to Broder"

To purposely or with willful ignorance run down the battery pack of an electric vehicle to the point that it no longer moves the vehicle. Note: This is an extreme form of turtling an electric vehicle that is either a planned act or involves extreme negligence or outright idiocy to accomplish.

Now, Musk won't let any auto journalist near his cars for more than 2 minutes at a time and unless it's agreed upfront that the published review will only be positive and glowing, such as with Consumer Reports.

Sorry, but that's just pathetic! DeLorean didn't restrict auto press access or go whining about how auto journalists were costing his company millions after a few reporters said that his car was heavy and slow, did he?

Need to see you provide a quote to backup that claim of only allowing positive reviews. However, all media cars are heavily logged thanks to the Top Gear incident. But even then that's not the case when a publication purchases a vehicle for long term testing such as Edmunds or even CR. Also, the only time Tesla "whines" about bad reviews is when the publication either intentionally or unintentionally publishes false information. I'm sorry you don't like the concept of libel in print. There are plenty of articles that points out the minor faults of the car and Tesla doesn't sue them. In fact, Tesla seems to be interesting in the faults the media and owners find so they can address them. For example, my car is improved door handles for those just a couple of months ago.

Musk is an ASS and it constantly appears as if he's trying to hide something. Sorry, but that just doesn't instill confidence in me. Instead, it screams of a scam just waiting to unfold.

If this is a scam, it's the best one ever! Putting all of his time and effort into actually building over 10,000 cars using thousands of US works to build them. And the end result is sitting in my driveway as one of the best vehicles I've ever driven. He's scum alright. LOL

Musk, on the other hand, started a company using someone else's famous/prominent surname without permission. That would be like you deciding that you wanted to start a company that makes harpsichords and calling it the Mozart Harpsichord Company without asking the estate/family for permission.

You appear to be an owner and a fanboy - and that's great! I hope you enjoy your car - I honestly do :rock_on:

Again, unless you can show a claim that Tesla's family is not happy about this, you've got nothing. And as already mentioned, what's done was not illegal. Also considering Edison was a fan of a DC motor cars, I'm sure Tesla would have approved of a company now making cars AC motor electric cars and putting DC systems to shame.

As for me being a fanboy, you are right. I've invested a good chunk of my money in one of their cars. I consider it worth every penny. Just like my DeLorean, I feel the need to defend false clams made about it. For some reason, you appear to have the exact opposite motivations in wanting Elon Musk to fall and take the company with him.

DMCVegas

05-19-2013, 08:12 PM

Well Robert, I don't know what else Tesla can do in order for you to give them some credit. :confused: Heck, even since my last post, Consumer Reports -- a universally respected, independent evaluator -- gave the Model S the highest score it's ever given a car (http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/05/09/tesla-model-gets-consumer-reports-top-score/2BFM8t3Oy3oLhNZ34l0FRM/story.html), and it's first 99/100 since a Lexus in 2007!

What can Tesla do to impress me? Nothing. I don't like Tesla at all. I think that Elon Musk is this generation's Malcolm Bricklin in relation to how his intention with the SV-1 was to build cars for the guy who doesn't know shit about cars, like himself. I am paraphrasing this quote so it's not 100% exact, but that is what he said. Musk doesn't know much about cars, and thinks that he can somehow just keep on farming out knowledge akin to how a software company might be run. It doesn't work that way.

As for any reviews of the car, I can't fully trust those either. Aside from the "chilling effect" that Tesla is casting over negative reviewers of it's product from Top Gear to the guy back east. Most manufacturers don't take kindly to poor reviews of their product. Do such a thing, and they'll cut you off from future invites and exclude you from press junkets. Ferrari is well know for this too, and even takes it to the extreme of silencing owners of their own products. Tesla as we've seen takes this to the next level: Give a bad review and they'll sue your ass.

Respectfully, you're wrong about all electric cars being created equal. Read any thorough article about Model S -- or drive one yourself -- and you'll learn about how impressive the car's handling characteristics and ride quality are precisely because its electric-from-the-ground-up design allows all of its weight (and thus center of gravity) to be in the floor of the car and equally distributed -- something you won't find in any other manufactured or converted electric vehicle. Meanwhile, your claims about Toyota are baseless conjecture on your part. You're also wrong about Model S not being an attention-getter. Have you been around any to observe it? Doubtful. I see them almost daily here in the SF Bay Area, and many drivers and pedestrians point and look at the car with big smiles. One look at a Tesla owners' board (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/15059-Proper-Response-to-Thumbs-Up-while-driving) and you'll hear a lot of "people checking me out" stories that will sound very familiar to any DeLorean owner.

Some people may like the car, some may not. Me personally I equate Tesla to the Kia school of design: Take a rich car and try to cheaply copy it. Kia did that with Mercedes and Jaguar, and Tesla is doing that with Maserati & Aston Martin. Again though it's personal preference, so it's a moot point. My preference is what it is just as yours is.

No where did I EVER state that all EV cars are created equally. Why on earth would I say that? There are plenty of EVs out there, and they all suit different needs of different drivers. What does however make Tesla's attempt seemingly pathetic is their self-defeating engineering. EVs are all about range. What in the hell is the point of the "Falcon Doors"? Not why would you have them on a car, but why in the living hell would you put them onto the back only? More importantly is why on earth would incorporate such a complex design into a EV? Electric cars are all about range, and given their unconventional "refueling" option have much more in common with aircraft. Specifically here we're talking about weight reduction. The more you haul, the more power you exert, and the shorter your traveling distance is going to be. Bullshit crap bolted onto the car like motor actuators, wiring, structural reinforcements, etc. for crap like those damn doors is nonsensical. DeLorean implemented Gullwings without motors and extra crap, why can't Tesla? An even better question is why bother with them at all so that you can increase the range of the vehicles. But more about Tesla and Elon Musk's BS in a second here....

It's just too bad that you can't seem to root for a new American car company to succeed. It's a bit ironic to me that your attitude -- which sadly you're not alone in -- is the exact same type of antagonistic attitude people had (and some still have) towards the DeLorean, which everyone on this board works so hard to defend. Both are iconoclastic car companies that sought to cause a paradigm shift in the auto industry. JZD couldn't quite get there. Elon Musk is doing it. Right now. And that's one reason I'm so enthusiastic about Tesla: they remind me a lot of DeLorean. Fortunately, most of the skeptics -- the major car magazines/websites, Consumer Reports, and Wall Street -- seem to now be very optimistic about the company.

John DeLorean never made it as far as Tesla. I say good for them, and it's worth celebrating!

First off John De Lorean wasn't trying to "shake up" the auto industry. He knew from history that people like Tucker and Kaiser couldn't compete with mainstream cars against Detroit. Hell, he even knew this from his past experience with Packard. In the words of rapper Too $hort, De Lorean's strategy was "Get in where you fit in". The DMC-12, DMC-44, & DMC-80 were all niche vehicles that were intended to capture specific segments where competition was very low. These two men are in no way related.

Trying to attack me as being unpatriotic is a tired strawman argument. Try again. Hell, I'm not even anti-EV. Ever heard of Phoenix Motorcars? Probably not, so allow me to present them to you...

http://www.autospectator.com/uploads/Phoenix/SUT/Phoenix_sut.jpg

Based out in Ontario, California, Phoenix has been toiling away on EV SUTs like the one you see above, and has already sold a few to Southern California Edison. Let's just take a look at the specs on this vehicle. (http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/sut-specifications.php)

Here are some highlights:

70 mile range.
1,000 lbs. payload capacity.
30-minute off-board charging.
All Wheel Drive

70 miles doesn't seem too bad when you consider you're driving around a ½-Ton Crew Cab pickup akin to an F-150 or any other full size pickup that also has AWD. But read that again. 30 MINUTE OFF-BOARD CHARGING! You read that right. Drain the battery and within a half an hour you can be back on your way again. How is that possible? Easy. Where Tesla keeps hiding behind the bullshit excuse of waiting for Lithium Ion battery technology to evolve, Phoenix skipped right over that. It is a sacrifice though. Whereas Tesla uses the 2-Phase 280V charging, Phoenix Motorcars uses a 3-Phase 500V charging station. CHΛdeMO (http://www.chademo.com/) has been pushing for this and Japan along with many other countries are already moving over to this system. Imagine no matter what kind of EV you drive getting an 80%+ charge within 30-60 minutes? How well would that work for shopping or especially long driving trips when Travel Centers/Truck Stops have these charging stations available to finally make long-range EVs possible?

So already out of the gate, Tesla is using an antiquated charging technology in their cars.

While I do like EVs and think that they will indeed represent a good chunk of transportation in the future, I also am a firm believer that Tesla has done more harm to the public perception of EVs than anyone else. Between the dishonesty in their price quotes to the boondoggle with $40,000 replacement batteries in their roadsters, Tesla is a piss-poor representation of Electric Vehicle manufacturing. Right now they're the darling of Wall Street because of the surge in stock prices, but perception can so easily change and probably will... See Elon Musk is throwing lots of cash at his pet project here thanks to his ego. I think that Toyota recognizes this and is not only benefiting from the publicity (albeit limited since Toyota is very careful in their safe distancing from Tesla) but the R&D that's happening on Tesla's dime. The moment that Tesla either crashes and burns or that enough of a break-through is discovered, the partnership will be dissolved as Toyota walks away with the spoils and leaves Tesla to rot.

Chris4099

05-19-2013, 09:07 PM

Wow, these posts are getting long.

What can Tesla do to impress me? Nothing.

This right off the bat saves me a lot of typing. The guy built a car company that's currently producing cars at maximum capacity and yet there is still waiting list. The car seems to be one of the most well reviewed, yet somehow Elon Musk is a terrible person. I really don't get it. But you seem to be set in that line of thinking, so I'll leave it at that.

70 miles doesn't seem too bad when you consider you're driving around a ½-Ton Crew Cab pickup akin to an F-150 or any other full size pickup that also has AWD. But read that again. 30 MINUTE OFF-BOARD CHARGING! You read that right. Drain the battery and within a half an hour you can be back on your way again. How is that possible? Easy. Where Tesla keeps hiding behind the bullshit excuse of waiting for Lithium Ion battery technology to evolve, Phoenix skipped right over that. It is a sacrifice though. Whereas Tesla uses the 2-Phase 280V charging, Phoenix Motorcars uses a 3-Phase 500V charging station. CHΛdeMO (http://www.chademo.com/) has been pushing for this and Japan along with many other countries are already moving over to this system. Imagine no matter what kind of EV you drive getting an 80%+ charge within 30-60 minutes? How well would that work for shopping or especially long driving trips when Travel Centers/Truck Stops have these charging stations available to finally make long-range EVs possible?

So already out of the gate, Tesla is using an antiquated charging technology in their cars.

If you are going to technically bash something, at least have an understanding of what it is. Clearly you have never heard of the Tesla Supercharger:
http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger

While CHAdeMo is 50kWh, the supercharger is 90kWh! It gives a 150 mile range in 30 minutes! Couple that with the 200+ mile range of a Model S, you can drive for about 3 hours non-stop (not every hour) and take a pit stop for a bite to eat and fully charge the car back up and be on your way. Did I mention they are free for all Tesla Model S owners with Supercharging enabled cars? So you can go on a road trip and not pay fuel costs. Granted the network isn't nearly as large as CHAdeMo, but Tesla is expanding it (owners have found many locations where permits have been filed by Tesla to install them in locations not mentioned yet in the web page). Also when Tesla starts planning on selling to Japan, they've made it very clear they will have a CHAdeMo adapter there to use Japan's massive CHAdeMo network. It's just too bad it's not as fast at charging the battery as Tesla's chargers are. :) Oh, Tesla says they will make an announcement this coming week regarding the Superchargers. Rumor has it they will up the charging rates to 120kWh (the hardware in place is already capable of it, just limited to 90kWh at this time).

I still stand by my previous statement, test drive a Tesla and then tell me it's crap and damaging to EVs.

DMCVegas

05-19-2013, 11:59 PM

This right off the bat saves me a lot of typing. The guy built a car company that's currently producing cars at maximum capacity and yet there is still waiting list. The car seems to be one of the most well reviewed, yet somehow Elon Musk is a terrible person. I really don't get it. But you seem to be set in that line of thinking, so I'll leave it at that.

Waiting lists mean jack. Smart had 30,000+ reservations for the Fortwo that they geared up for. Then the price of oil and gasoline subsequently dropped and almost ALL of their reservations dried up. Waiting lists look great on paper, but until a sales transaction is completed and cash has exchanged hands nothing at all has changed.

If you are going to technically bash something, at least have an understanding of what it is. Clearly you have never heard of the Tesla Supercharger:
http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger

And clearly neither had the salesman at the Tesla showroom in the Galleria when I visited.

While CHAdeMo is 50kWh, the supercharger is 90kWh!

Which charging system are you talking about? CHΛdeMO has various systems including a 90kWh and even a 100kWh prototype that debuted last year. All apart of the evolving J1772 standard.

And this is directly at the heart of why I don't like Tesla. They keep repackaging existing products and claiming the development behind them as their own. DMCH caught allot of flack over the DMC-EV. People criticized it as nothing more than a conversion rather than a new product. Tesla is doing the exact same thing with Lotus' and Toyotas. And with this too they're doing the same thing. "Tesla Supercharger" quick-charging system developed by Tesla? Nope. Just repackaging the J1772 standard, and again claiming credit for other people's work as their own. I didn't care for Fisker either, but at least they put more effort into their own development than Tesla ever did, which is probably why they actually hit economic hardship.

Chris4099

05-20-2013, 12:43 AM

Waiting lists mean jack. Smart had 30,000+ reservations for the Fortwo that they geared up for. Then the price of oil and gasoline subsequently dropped and almost ALL of their reservations dried up. Waiting lists look great on paper, but until a sales transaction is completed and cash has exchanged hands nothing at all has changed.

We'll just have to wait and see then. But for now they are producing 500 cars a week and people still have to wait 2-3 months. They haven't even started producing the Europe-spec cars and that's supposed to account for approximately 25% of total sales.

Which charging system are you talking about? CHΛdeMO has various systems including a 90kWh and even a 100kWh prototype that debuted last year. All apart of the evolving J1772 standard.

Now what system are you talking about??? CHAdeMo is a DC based quick charge system where the onboard charger is bypassed and the batteries are directly charged with a much larger stationary charging system. J1772 is an AC based standard for connecting line power to electric cars and their onboard chargers. If you look at a Leaf, you'll see two separate plugs. A J1772 and CHAdeMo. I'm not aware of any production cars or charging stations out there that support anything more then 50kWh. Can you provide a list?

And this is directly at the heart of why I don't like Tesla. They keep repackaging existing products and claiming the development behind them as their own. DMCH caught allot of flack over the DMC-EV. People criticized it as nothing more than a conversion rather than a new product. Tesla is doing the exact same thing with Lotus' and Toyotas. And with this too they're doing the same thing. "Tesla Supercharger" quick-charging system developed by Tesla? Nope. Just repackaging the J1772 standard, and again claiming credit for other people's work as their own. I didn't care for Fisker either, but at least they put more effort into their own development than Tesla ever did, which is probably why they actually hit economic hardship.

I really don't understand what you are saying here since you are getting different standards mixed up. Let me clarify a few things for you. The Tesla has its own proprietary connection. They did this because at the time there was no standard AC and DC combo outlet (more on this later). So they utilized the J1772 protocol (an open SAE standard) and made their own connector for it. That's why you can use a basic adapter for utilizing public J1772 charging stations with a Model S. When you then go to Tesla Supercharger, it negotiates with the car and it switches to a DC charging mode. This is unique to Tesla and not compatible with other cars. These Tesla stations are also made by Tesla. They consist of a stack of 12 10kWh chargers that are normally in the cars. They were modified to work together and output up to 120kWh and are then connected to two charging stations (which limits their charge to just 60kWh if both are being used at the same time).

It may be possible you were thinking of the SAE J1772-2009 plug (aka the franken plug). This is where they took the J1772 plug and added two more pins to it for the DC power. This is the closest to Tesla's plug in that it's a single plug that handles both. However, no car currently in production uses it and there are only 2 charging stations in the US that use it. It will be interesting to see how this turns out since it's in direct competition with CHAdeMO.

Where are you getting this idea that Tesla is converting Toyotas? The Roadster, sure it was made by Lotus and then shipped over here and had a Tesla made drive train and battery pack added, but the Model S is built from scratch in their own factory (with only a few parts "off the shelf"). If you are thinking of the current Rav4 EV, that's Toyota made, but they then install a Tesla manufactured (from their Fremont, CA plant) battery and drive train. Tesla designed and developed their own AC motor and battery management system. Also Fisker pretty much outsourced all their engineering and manufacturing. This was one of their reasons for failure. Tesla has done all their own R&D for EV specific components and it's their "bread and butter". It's what allowed them to partner with other car companies and manufacture EV drive trains for them since they are considered the world leader in that particular tech.

ryanjm

05-20-2013, 01:07 AM

@Nightflyer,

You know, hopping into this thread six pages in with the first words out of your mouth being, "Tesla sucks" is not a jumping off point for any intelligent discussion.

It's very sad that the state of our general discourse in this country nowadays -- even one in our little DeLorean corner of the Internet -- is one of such uncompromising vitriol. No one can ever admit that the other person in the discussion has a point because, heaven forbid, it doesn't line up with your original line of thinking. It's OK to change your mind. It's OK to evolve your opinion.

To lead by example, I'll concede a point in this thread: yes, Solyndra was a terrible investment by the Department of Energy. Anyone that would've taken a halfway deep look into their books would've seen that it was a house of cards waiting to crumble. It's sad that so much money was wasted on that.

However, it's unfair to lump Tesla in with the Solyndras and Fiskers of the world for at least one reason: Tesla was not a startup. Tesla had been building Roadsters for a while when they got their $465m loan. They had a product and a long-term plan that went as follows: expensive supercar --> economies of scale leads to luxury sedan --> economies of scale leads to $30k mass-market car in 2016-2017. The loan they received was specifically to build a factory -- in America -- and build the Model S in support of that plan. They are in phase 2 of that plan, and that plan is working.

Also, before we get too deep down the "involuntary investor" rabbit hole, you do know that it was George W. Bush (http://legalpronews.findlaw.com/article/0btMfNqcyvaNk?q=U.S.+Congress), NOT Obama, that enacted the program that gave Tesla their loan, right?

To that point, let's say for just a second that your hatred for Tesla isn't a giant waste of your time and energy. What I don't get is this: if you're so up in arms about being an "involuntary investor," wouldn't you WANT Tesla to succeed so you could "get your (taxpayer) money back"? Or would you rather them fail so that you could hate the government more? (Remembering, again, that it was Bush who signed the ATVM loan bill into law.)

You also go on to scream about Elon Musk being an "ass," which is irrelevant to the conversation (besides, many people said the same about our own beloved John DeLorean, who, while a brilliant engineer, was someone pretty widely regarded as an egotistical guy). All I know is Musk runs THREE successful companies (SpaceX and SolarCity being the other two), one of which has won every major car award there is and another that was awarded the exclusive contract from NASA to make shuttle runs to the International Space Station. And if the Nikola Tesla estate has issues with Tesla Motors using the name (got a link for your claim that they used the name without permission, BTW?), that's a matter between the family and the company. Why should you or I care? And you'd think they'd have raised a stink about it by now if it were an issue anyway, considering that Tesla is a decade-old company. I'd wager that all of that was signed off on quietly by both parties 10 years ago.

How about your claim that "Musk won't let anyone see the finances"? Um, yes he does. In fact, Tesla just did, in their Q1 earnings report. Here's the report, detailing cars sold, revenues, margins, profits, etc. (http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ABEA-4CW8X0/2486566662x0x661989/ee71d11b-3563-489c-9471-9319fd963626/Q1%2013%20Shareholder%20Letter.pdf)

You also claim that Consumer Reports was only given a car to review if they agreed to give it a good review? Are you serious? You do know that CR doesn't accept advertising and that they bought their own Model S as they do with every single car they review (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/about-us/no-commerical-use-policy/index.htm), right? Do a little research and maybe you won't look so ridiculous next time.

Your most ludicrous statement of all, and the one that undermines any points you're trying to make, is that somehow there's a vast VIN-manipulating conspiracy and that thousands of Tesla Model S cars actually AREN'T on the road and HAVEN'T been sold. This is laughable, man. Come on. Just because you haven't seen one in Sunfield, Michigan (population: 578 ), doesn't mean they don't exist. That's like saying Hawaii isn't a real place because you've never been there.

And if you want to argue the semantics of gullwing doors, fine. That was the original point of this thread, after all. :grouphugg: So OK, let's call Tesla's Model X "Falcon wing" doors gullwing doors. The original point was that this will be the first time gullwings are produced en masse since the DMC-12. Yes, you posted pics of other cars with gullwings, but I had never heard of either of those cars, let alone seen one, and I'd wager a guess that 99.9% of anyone you'd ask has never heard of them either. How many of each of those cars has been built? (Maybe they're all in Sunfield, Michigan!) Tesla plans on building 20,000 Model X's a year. Point being, gullwings will be back on the road again in a way where you'll get to see them on a regular basis -- a feat not seen since the DeLorean.

I will champion DeLorean -- and Tesla -- as long as they are worth championing, and I enjoy doing so because they're both American car companies who are trying to change the automotive world for the better. They're far, far more than just cool-looking cars. Join me, won't you? I promise it'll be fun.

ryanjm

05-20-2013, 01:28 AM

@Robert (DMC_Vegas)

Re: your statement that Elon Musk is not "a car guy" and therefore he must not know what he's doing:
Steve Jobs wasn't a phone guy either.

Re: your claim that the Tesla Galleria salesman had never heard of superchargers:
You mean when you went there over a year ago when we first started this thread, and the superchargers didn't even exist yet? Take a look at the link Chris gave you and you'll see that they've started rolling them out on the coasts and are planning to move inward with additional stations.

Re: your argument against my claim that John DeLorean wasn't trying to change the automotive world:
Read DeLorean's autobiography! In it, he clearly states that he was sick of all of the planned obsolescence of Detroit cars during the '70s and wanted to build a car that, like a Rolls Royce, would outlive its owner. The 25-year stainless steel body warranties were part of this. He absolutely wanted to change the game. He was not simply out to exploit untapped niches in the marketplace.

And finally, your quote:
"What can Tesla do to impress me? Nothing. I don't like Tesla at all"
means that, like Chris, there's nothing more for me to say. It's been nice chatting with you, even if you might not agree. I genuinely appreciate the time you've taken to make so many posts in this discussion. I hope you give a Model S a test drive someday, just for the heck of it.

At least we can both agree that we really like DeLoreans and that there has never been, isn't, and never will be another car like it ever again. :thumbup:

DMCVegas

05-20-2013, 08:36 PM

@Robert (DMC_Vegas)

Re: your statement that Elon Musk is not "a car guy" and therefore he must not know what he's doing:
Steve Jobs wasn't a phone guy either.

Touché.

I loved the Tesla roadster, and really wanted one. That is up until the whole crap with the $40K battery replacement. Then there is the not-so-honest advertising of ownership costs. However the worst part was Elon Musk's hostility towards the DMC-12. And here is his exact quote and link:

“Why did DeLorean fail?…Because it was a shitty sports car... (http://gigaom.com/2008/07/10/the-story-of-teslas-founding-feud/)

Honestly I too appreciate the conversation, it's always pleasant to debate things back and forth. If anyone else here like Tesla, that's fine by me. I think everyone should pursue their dreams and desires, especially when it comes to cars being a gearhead myself. But the DMC-12 was and still is my dream. Ownership hasn't always been fun. Not because of the car, but because of the massive amounts of shit I've gotten from people over the years about owning one. So I don't take very kindly to someone calling my dream and my efforts "shitty". Fuck Elon Musk. I hope he fails, and that's a pretty good possibility for him. I still love the Roadster, but everything since then is crap cobbled together and marketed under dubious information that isn't represented properly. Everytime I hear his name or see his ugly ass anywhere, this is who pops into my mind:

http://1000words1000days.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/DiplomaticImmunity1.jpg

Again, if you want a Tesla, or more importantly, if you want to financially and socially support the guy who thinks you drive a "shitty car", and in all likelyhood looks down on you because of that choice, go right ahead.

Chris4099

05-21-2013, 01:12 PM

I loved the Tesla roadster, and really wanted one. That is up until the whole crap with the $40K battery replacement. Then there is the not-so-honest advertising of ownership costs.

And just to update everyone regarding bricking batteries. The Model S has been designed to avoid that. You can leave it unplugged for years and it will still be OK. And if you do somehow brick it, they now cover that under warranty. As long as you don't physically damage the battery, it's covered. Here is the exact wording from the warranty guide on what voids it.

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.

Say what you will about Elon Musk and Telsa Motors, they learn from their mistakes and fix them. I wish more car companies were like that.

DMCVegas

05-21-2013, 03:12 PM

And just to update everyone regarding bricking batteries. The Model S has been designed to avoid that. You can leave it unplugged for years and it will still be OK. And if you do somehow brick it, they now cover that under warranty. As long as you don't physically damage the battery, it's covered. Here is the exact wording from the warranty guide on what voids it.

No where in your quote does it state that you can completely drain the battery down to 0% charge and it still be covered by warranty. Likewise, what is this massive breakthrough in battery technology that Tesla has pioneered to prevent the permanent chemical change in a battery?

Just because it's not specifically nor explicitly mentioned in the warranty (or at least what you've posted) doesn't mean that a legal disclaimer covering Tesla's liability in merely stops at what is mentioned within any documentation. Usually there is legalese included to cover such incidents within a limited warranty. And look, there is!

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/model_s_new_vehicle_limited_warranty.pdf

Tesla clearly states that the warranty includes, but not limited to what is listed in this warranty document.

More to the point however is this little tidbit in the Tesla Model S Owner's Manual...

CAUTION: If the Battery’s charge level falls to 0%, you must plug it in. If you fail to do so
within a month, you can permanently damage the Battery. This damage is not covered
by the warranty.

Again, this is directly from the owner's manual that can be found right here:
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/ms_owners_guide.pdf

And it can be found on this (https://www.teslamotors.com/mytesla/manuals/) page which is where the most recent documentation is.

Article writer's interpretation and even Elon Musk's own words are not legal binding contracts. These documents however are. Show me legal documentation that states complete depletion of the battery doesn't constitute misuse, abuse, or is otherwise covered by Tesla.

Oh, BTW. If you do have a battery that fails legitimately under warranty, you're not getting a new one. Tesla themselves states in that first document that you're only entitled to a refurbished battery that at best only has to meet the same consumed charge capacitance of the failed battery right before the fault was found. Even under the best of circumstances, in 8 years when you need a new battery, it's going to cost you upwards of $12,000 for a new one (of which it doesn't state that labor is included in that price). Why would I keep financing a used car?

Chris4099

05-21-2013, 04:13 PM

Starglider

05-21-2013, 05:12 PM

The battery replacement cost is really not a big deal considering how much you save on engine maintenance (and eventual rebuild) vs an ICE car. People fixate on it because it's a single expensive payment, but ICE engines have much higher ongoing/yearly expenses than a battery + motor.

DMCVegas

05-21-2013, 07:52 PM

The owner's manual has not been updated accordingly yet. If you look at it's copyright, you'll see it's 2012 (before they revised the battery warranty). The warranty that you linked to is version 2 and has a copyright of 2013 indicating it's a more recent version. In that warranty, it lists the conditions in which the warranty is no longer valid. It's the list I previously posted and nowhere does it state the 1 month condition. I suspect when they come out with a newer version of the manual, that clause will be removed.

Not my problem! Until Tesla posts some legal documents on their site stating otherwise, the warranty coverage is as stands. I didn't cherry-pick one document to simply back my statement up. I found the most recent and proved it with the table of contents link showing ALL of their documentation. So again, their lawyers disagree with you and Elon both. Especially since those magic words, "...including, but not limited to..." are included in on even the document that you've cited.

I don't understand what the big deal is here. It's pretty normal practice to get refurbished wear/tear parts of equal or greater value when being replaced (look at any tire warranty). Why should I be entitled to a brand new battery after 1-8 years simply because my existing one suffered a total failure?

http://rlv.zcache.com/citation_needed_bumper_sticker-p128912061722662976z74sk_400.jpg

Out of curiosity, whom else is engaging in this same practice to make it "normal"? Honest question.

Again, I don't understand this. After 8 years the warranty is over, but there's no reason I will NEED a new battery. Roadster capacity loss is approximately 1-2% per year and that's with an older generation of battery packs. The Model S should have less. With version 4.5 coming out soon, I'll be able to restrict charging to say 65% versus the default 90%. This means for my daily driving I can keep the charge/discharge right in the "sweet spot" of the middle of the battery (and temporarily bump up to 90-100% for road trips). This should reduce the capacity loss even further. I really don't anticipate needing a new battery for 15+ years. Even then on the Model S, that still gives me the range of a brand new Leaf. More then enough for around town driving and commuting. Just no good for road trips anymore. At that point I can decide on replacing the battery pack or just selling the car to a person that needs a commuter only.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/004/592/my-brain-is-full-of-fuck.jpg

Where do I even start with this statement...

First of all, Litium Ion batteries do in fact have a finite lifespan. A given battery has a general number of charge cycles that it will go through until it is consumed and no longer used. For instance, if you deplete a battery 20% before recharging back to 100%, and do that 5 days in a row, that counts as a single battery cycle. Save for completely depleting the battery down to absolute 0% (which Tesla like many Li-Ion batteries don't allow you to do. Even if the car shuts off because you've driven too long without a charge, it still has about 5%-8% in reserve to keep the battery from being destroyed) no harm comes to your battery at all. This is not a lead acid battery that gets damaged by "deep-cycling". So if you have a commute that say consumes 40% of your battery's charge, it makes no impact upon the lifespan of the battery if you go from 100% to 60% on a daily basis versus 70%-30%.

Secondly, batteries don't last forever. Again, let me repeat that. BATTERIES DO NOT LAST FOREVER! THEY WILL EVENTUALLY NEED REPLACEMENT! If you're trying to argue semantics that on the 8th anniversary of ownership that your battery ISN'T going to instantly go bad, that's a pretty thin argument. The reason that the warranty only goes 8 years is because by that time the manufacturer expects it to go bad and no longer be usable at some point very soon after.

Thirdly, whomever you try and shop this used vehicle around to, either a private party or ESPECIALLY a professional dealer is going to know that the battery is going bad. Whatever the natural depreciated price of the Tesla Model S will be as compared to a new car, you get to then drop the asking price by ANOTHER $8K-$12K or more! Doesn't matter if you sell it to someone who wants it as a short commuter or whatever. That battery is going to go bad and it's not gonna go anywhere at all.

Which finally brings me to this:

The battery replacement cost is really not a big deal considering how much you save on engine maintenance (and eventual rebuild) vs an ICE car. People fixate on it because it's a single expensive payment, but ICE engines have much higher ongoing/yearly expenses than a battery + motor.

What the hell kind of car are you driving that a regular engine which undergoes all proper maintenance needs a damn rebuild after 8 years! Let alone one that with everything combined costs more than $12,000?!? SERIOUSLY! You've got 30 year old DeLoreans putting around with engines that are more than 3 decades old and run just fine without ever needed a complete teardown and rebuild. Besides that, it really is apples to oranges because EVs for proper usage are for the most part geographically restricted for their year-round operation. Gasoline, Diesel, LPG, & CNG don't care how cold it is outside. They're gonna catch fire and keep an ICE running no matter where they are. So especially if you live in a cold-ass climate where your Tesla is almost useless in the winter, you still need a vehicle with an internal combustion engine to keep going and have to pay for it's fuel and upkeep as well. Where are the savings then? Oh, and that warranty clock doesn't get paused just because you're not using your car. The clock is still ticking...

Even considering a vehicle that gets about 25MPG and considering the EPA's annual fuel cost estimates, the comparison of monetary savings based upon fuel alone is only about $2K-$3K at best. Throw in eventual depreciation and the Tesla actually becomes more expensive! And that's assuming cash purchases that doesn't even consider the additional interest you'll pay if you finance.

Chris4099

05-22-2013, 12:06 PM

Not my problem! Until Tesla posts some legal documents on their site stating otherwise, the warranty coverage is as stands. I didn't cherry-pick one document to simply back my statement up. I found the most recent and proved it with the table of contents link showing ALL of their documentation. So again, their lawyers disagree with you and Elon both. Especially since those magic words, "...including, but not limited to..." are included in on even the document that you've cited.

We've both sited the warranty doc which clearly does not list that as a reason for voiding the warranty. I'm no lawyer, but I would imagine that when having two documents in conflict, the one that's either more specific or newer takes priority. Since the warranty guide pretty much outlines the warranty in question and is the latest documentation, I would consider that the one to go by. Not sure what more I can say about that other then I'm the one with the car and have no concerns about it.

Out of curiosity, whom else is engaging in this same practice to make it "normal"? Honest question.

Well, I did specifically mention car tires in my last post. There's also the Nissan Leaf:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf

But even with the new warranty, Nissan says the fix may only restore a diminished battery's capacity to nine bars out the twelve of a new car...

I'm sure the other EVs have similar language in their warranties, but I don't feel like doing your research. I've personally experienced it with other products too that degrade with use such as my solar panels:
http://www.solarworld-usa.com/solar-for-home/products-and-services/~/media/Global/PDFs/solarworld-usa-limited-warranty.ashx

When replacement products are supplied, there is no entitlement for the use of new products or those which are as good as new. On the contrary, SolarWorld is authorized to also supply used and/or repaired products as replacements.

Where do I even start with this statement...

First of all, Litium Ion batteries do in fact have a finite lifespan. A given battery has a general number of charge cycles that it will go through until it is consumed and no longer used. For instance, if you deplete a battery 20% before recharging back to 100%, and do that 5 days in a row, that counts as a single battery cycle. Save for completely depleting the battery down to absolute 0% (which Tesla like many Li-Ion batteries don't allow you to do. Even if the car shuts off because you've driven too long without a charge, it still has about 5%-8% in reserve to keep the battery from being destroyed) no harm comes to your battery at all. This is not a lead acid battery that ets damaged by "deep-cycling". So if you have a commute that say consumes 40% of your battery's charge, it makes no impact upon the lifespan of the battery if you go from 100% to 60% on a daily basis versus 70%-30%.

This is not correct. L-Ion does get impacted by where the charge/discharge happens within the battery. That's why Tesla defaults the maximum charge to 90% and even says charging to 100% harms battery longevity. There's a reason Volts and other hybrids only use the middle 60% of a battery capacity. More info here:
http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=261882&cid=NL_Newsletters+-+DN+Daily&dfpPParams=ind_184,industry_auto,aid_261882&dfpLayout=article&dfpPParams=ind_184,industry_auto,aid_261882&dfpLayout=article&dfpPParams=ind_184,industry_auto,aid_261882&dfpLayout=article

The wrong charging techniques can also shorten a battery's life. Lithium-ion battery packs need to stay as close as possible to
a 50 percent charge, he said, usually going no higher than 80 percent and no lower than 20 percent. Moreover, electric car owners should
refrain from doing too many "fast charges," in which an EV battery can be recharged in under an hour.

Other studies have confirmed using the middle 50% versus the top 50% increases the number of cycles by 3.3x. Also note the end of the article they refer to the battery life as having 80% or more of it's original capacity.

Secondly, batteries don't last forever.
....
The reason that the warranty only goes 8 years is because by that time the manufacturer expects it to go bad and no longer be usable at some point very soon after.

I never said they last forever. Only that at currently seen rates, they should last over a decade. Yes, they are highly unlikely to fail within 8 years but that doesn't mean they start dropping dead at 9 years because of an 8 year warranty. Just like cars still go well beyond their 3-4 year warranty. Manufacturers have more factors on warranty length then just expected lifetime of the product. Also note that Tesla is the only one to both heat and cool the battery pack, both of which add a tremendous amount of life to the batteries (see article above). Remember, this is what Tesla does and have invested most of their R&D into. Assuming you get 2% annual loss (high for a Tesla, but let's just assume that), after 10 years I'm still running at an EPA rated 144 mile range. 20 years I'm at 108. And this is with the small 60kWh battery pack option!

Thirdly, whomever you try and shop this used vehicle around to, either a private party or ESPECIALLY a professional dealer is going to know that the battery is going bad. Whatever the natural depreciated price of the Tesla Model S will be as compared to a new car, you get to then drop the asking price by ANOTHER $8K-$12K or more! Doesn't matter if you sell it to someone
who wants it as a short commuter or whatever. That battery is going to go bad and it's not gonna go anywhere at all.

That would only happen if batteries go completely bad after a certain period of time. With degradation being gradual, they could still have plenty of life left (remember at 50% capacity, I'm still beating out a new Leaf). Sure a brand new battery would increase the value of the car (just as a new engine would in a 100K+ mile car), but how much an original battery devalues the car has yet to be seen. All I can say is with the current predicted lifespan, your situation is less likely to happen then mine. Even Ford agrees with me regarding their EV:
http://www.king5.com/on-tv/driving-nw/Ford-Focus-Electric-is-not-like-the-Volt-156397255.html

The thinking is after a dozen years you’ll be tired of the car and will sell it to a college student who just needs a reliable runabout for city use, just like any other 12-year-old car.