Tesla's Major Design Flaw May Cost You $40,000

[Turbio!]

Quick and easy example, my parents live 500mi away from me my wife and son, every so often we like to get together. Thus far the Tesla has the largest range of any EV, but, they quote range under ideal conditions. The Tesla went 230mi at 25mph, while being a lightweight 2 seater, on flat ground. You live in Denver according to your profile, what happens to that hundred mile range driving around the Rockies when it's below freezing outside and snowing? 80 miles? 60?

I live in Nashville, that 20 mile average commute isn't quite the same here, thousands of people commute to Nashville from Kentucky. I don't, 99% of the time I drive 5 miles to work, and then 5 miles home, most stores are 2 miles away. However, I don't make enough money to afford t.

Every car does not work for every person in every situation. An EV is just like a Wrangler, an Elise, a Corvette, an F-350 duallie, or a limousine. It's very good at a specific job, and being all things to all people isn't it.

However, I could replace my commuter beater with an EV with absolutely no compromise or hassle. That's my situation. And I could pretty easily make that my only car and join ZipCar, if I didn't like cars and want to own my truck. I personally think RE-EVs with a smaller and less costly battery and a generator to pick up the slack when needed is just more cost-effective, but a LOT of people could do just fine with an EV as a primary car. Probably most.

I believe fuel cell vehicles are the way of the future, once they work out the problems with them, short term I am a proponent of switching to Hydrogen ICE, much fewer problems to work out.

Hydrogen fuel cells are dead as a doornail and have no future at all, for a variety of good reasons. The whole concept is nothing BUT problems to work out. They're uneconomical, there's no infrastructure, it's hard to store and transport, generating hydrogen from water is a massive waste of energy, generating hydrogen from fossil fuels is a waste and offers no advantage over just burning them in the car or using them to generate energy...there is no future in that technology, except as greenwash.

[Brendan@bwalkauto]

Will the Tesla Model S or Model X have the same shortcomings as the Tesla Roadster in terms of parasitic losses and resultant battery life when not connected to EVSE? As Tesla attempts to move mass market are we going to see the rate of bricked cars skyrocket? Or have they addressed the design to be more fault tolerant? Time will tell how durable the LEAF is.

From that starting point, Tesla has consistently innovated and improved our battery technology. For example, a Model S battery parked with 50 percent charge would approach full discharge only after about 12 months. Model S batteries also have the ability to protect themselves as they approach very low charge levels by going into a “deep sleep” mode that lowers the loss even further. A Model S will not allow its battery to fall below about 5 percent charge. At that point the car can still sit for many months. 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.

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/plug-it

Only time will tell how durable any car is.

[freedomgli]

Since when was the Tesla itself intended to be a commuter car?

I never said the Roadster was intended to be a commuter car. As for the Model S and Model X, I don't see any other practical purpose for a vehicle with such a limited range other than commuting back and forth to work or perhaps short errands on the weekends.

And if we take Tesla's marketing pitch at face value, it would appear that they have gotten wise and implemented the type of battery management in the Model S to address much of the criticism they're currently taking for not putting it in the Roadster to begin with.

[Turbio!]

I never said the Roadster was intended to be a commuter car. As for the Model S and Model X, I don't see any other practical purpose for a vehicle with such a limited range other than commuting back and forth to work or perhaps short errands on the weekends.
.

The base Model S has a 160mile range at 60mph, presumably assuming ideal circumstances. Given that most people only commute back and forth to work and run short errands on the weekends, that sounds okay to me. I can't think of the last time I drove more than 100 miles in a given ordinary day.

[freedomgli]

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/plug-it
A Model S will not allow its battery to fall below about 5 percent charge. At that point the car can still sit for many months. 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.

That is a contradictory statement. If the Model S will not allow the battery to fall below ~5% charge, then how can you drive a Model S to 0 percent charge? And if you're at 0% charge then the battery is fully discharged. So a fully discharged battery can be recharged and recover normally if done within 30 days but if you wait any longer than the cells are damaged and cannot be recharged and recovered normally? Or is Tesla's datum point for referencing percent charge moving around depending on whether they're talking about accessible charge vs. actual charge?

[Brendan@bwalkauto]

That is a contradictory statement. If the Model S will not allow the battery to fall below ~5% charge, then how can you drive a Model S to 0 percent charge? And if you're at 0% charge then the battery is fully discharged. So a fully discharged battery can be recharged and recover normally if done within 30 days but if you wait any longer than the cells are damaged and cannot be recharged and recovered normally? Or is Tesla's datum point for referencing percent charge moving around depending on whether they're talking about accessible charge vs. actual charge?

Every EV uses available charge as their reference point. 0-100% SOC is what's available, and there is capacity above, and below that reference in the pack.

What Tesla is saying here is that parasitic drain won't pull the battery below 5% SOC, but if you access the reserve feature, you can drive the thing down to 0% SOC, and then have 30 days to charge it back up before you cause permanent damage.

The base battery in the Model S does 160 mi, which is more than enough for most people. If you drive 15k a year (national average), that's just over 40 miles a day. That's more than enough range for the average commuter.

If you do have longer trips and don't have a second car, or want to rent a car for long trips, you can purchase a bigger pack, and have more range. I personally would save the money, and rent a car for long trips.

[freedomgli]

^^^ Thanks for the clarification.

[NashGTI]

There is really just as little infrastructure for EVs right now if used on a massive scale, the electrical grid is tapped out essentially. Also you have to figure on where all the electricity is going to come from in the first place let alone how it will get to every house in the country on a scale large enough to accomodate the charging of 2 vehicles per household

The idea for disbursement of small quantities of a portable fuel source is already there in gas stations, people are used to that. Once wide scale power is available via fusion it makes more sense to route increased energy demand to a few places (hydrogen generation) than beef the entire country up electrically.


One interesting option that hasn't been talked about here is the concept being used by Michael Csyz for his electric racing motorcycles of a replaceable battery pack, something where you can easily swap battery packs to extend range.

[Chris_V]

There is really just as little infrastructure for EVs right now if used on a massive scale, the electrical grid is tapped out essentially. Also you have to figure on where all the electricity is going to come from in the first place let alone how it will get to every house in the country on a scale large enough to accomodate the charging of 2 vehicles per household

That's been covered. We actually have extra capacity in most grid systems for the overnight recharching of EVS using smart chargers. SC Edison has already determined that even in Southern California, with it's issues with brownouts, the current grid could accomodate changing HALF the cars in southern California to Electric right now.

Soemthing you fail to take into account, as do many people, is production capacity of EVs. You can't MAKE enough EVs to replace even half the cars in southern California right now. Even if ALL manufacturers switched to ALL electric production, it would take 30 YEARS to replace all the cars in the US. Even if they sold every EV they currently make, it would take 200 years to replace all the gas powered cars in the US with leafs and Volts and Fiskers and Teslas. There is NO WAY to overtax the grid with an overnight rush of EV production and sales. You simply can't make enough to SELL enough to cause a problem, even at full production capacity. It's a non-argument.

[Brendan@bwalkauto]

^^^ Thanks for the clarification.

There is really just as little infrastructure for EVs right now if used on a massive scale, the electrical grid is tapped out essentially. Also you have to figure on where all the electricity is going to come from in the first place let alone how it will get to every house in the country on a scale large enough to accomodate the charging of 2 vehicles per household

Generally speaking, each home running a few HDTV's and computers during peak hours is harder on the grid than an EV. For reference, the LEAF charging is similar to plugging in a curling iron, and you usually do all of the charging in the middle of the night, when the grid is at a fraction of it's capacity.

DOE is running a program called the EVProject, and they're giving away free Blink chargers and doing up to $1,200 of the install, and all they want is to collect your charging habits, and then send it off for further study. Basically, they're determining what impact there will be on a very local scale, but so far, it's appearing to be a non issue at projected EV household penetration.

Also, charging during peak hours when the grid might be taxed is expensive, and is against everything EV owners are trained to do.

One interesting option that hasn't been talked about here is the concept being used by Michael Csyz for his electric racing motorcycles of a replaceable battery pack, something where you can easily swap battery packs to extend range.

That's a very interesting concept, and I hope it takes hold. It'll be tough though, as various OEM's will have to universally agree on a battery type. It was rumored for years that the current wave of EV's would take part of that, but it hasn't taken hold yet.

[RacingManiac]

That's a very interesting concept, and I hope it takes hold. It'll be tough though, as various OEM's will have to universally agree on a battery type. It was rumored for years that the current wave of EV's would take part of that, but it hasn't taken hold yet.

Are the plug-in charger currently standardized?

I can see the standardization itself will take forever to achieve, considering even currently every company seems to be developing their own battery pack with even varying chemistry. And when you take into consideration of going full EV we are looking at a substantial amount of battery that has to be designed to be readily accessible and removable...that'll take more than just the packs themselves to be standardize, the cars will have to be to a pretty large extent...

[Turbio!]

There is really just as little infrastructure for EVs right now if used on a massive scale, the electrical grid is tapped out essentially. Also you have to figure on where all the electricity is going to come from in the first place let alone how it will get to every house in the country on a scale large enough to accomodate the charging of 2 vehicles per household

The grid isn't tapped out. Not even close. The problem isn't that we don't have enough capacity, it's that the grid isn't flexible enough and there are too many bottlenecks. EVs could even help even out demand by charging in off-peak hours. In fact, using EVs in a vehicle-to-grid setup could stabilize the grid and free up capacity.

However, if your concern is that we don't have enough capacity, then you need to run screaming from hydrogen - because it uses many, many times more energy per unit of distance traveled than charging a battery does. Making hydrogen is hugely energy inefficient - so much less of the energy required to make it ends up as heat, instead of being used to propel a car. Simply using that energy to charge a battery and run an electric motor uses less energy. Changing energy from one form to another is wasteful. We don't have energy to waste, even if there's plenty of capacity on the grid.

The idea for disbursement of small quantities of a portable fuel source is already there in gas stations, people are used to that. Once wide scale power is available via fusion it makes more sense to route increased energy demand to a few places (hydrogen generation) than beef the entire country up electrically.

No. You can't store or transport hydrogen economically, like I said. It'd have to be produced on-site where it's used to refuel, or at least locally. It can't be transferred using the pipelines and tankers like we have now, and you couldn't leave it in your car - it'd evaporate and leak out. And people are also used to plugging their phones and appliances in.

[NashGTI]

That's been covered. We actually have extra capacity in most grid systems for the overnight recharching of EVS using smart chargers. SC Edison has already determined that even in Southern California, with it's issues with brownouts, the current grid could accomodate changing HALF the cars in southern California to Electric right now.

Soemthing you fail to take into account, as do many people, is production capacity of EVs. You can't MAKE enough EVs to replace even half the cars in southern California right now. Even if ALL manufacturers switched to ALL electric production, it would take 30 YEARS to replace all the cars in the US. Even if they sold every EV they currently make, it would take 200 years to replace all the gas powered cars in the US with leafs and Volts and Fiskers and Teslas. There is NO WAY to overtax the grid with an overnight rush of EV production and sales. You simply can't make enough to SELL enough to cause a problem, even at full production capacity. It's a non-argument.

There are a couple issues with that too though, one is that it assumes the entire country goes to sleep at 10pm, the other is that you again are saying people will be able to only have to charge the cars overnight. Several people work nights and would therefor have to charge there cars during the day, and its not an inconsequential number of people either. The other group is the people who's commute is far enough that they would have to plug in during the day.

As for replacement, granted it would take a while, but this thread has been about the wide spread adoption of EVs for the last couple pages, so it would be a safe assumption that more EVs would be available, and at the rate that fuel prices are climbing, it seems a safe bet that people will switch over more readily if the product is available. Like we've said, there is a large percentage of people that the EV makes sense for if it was just put into production in a manner that they're interested in.


The adoption of a standard battery pack wouldn't be any more problematic than the adoption of OBD2, once battery technology can support the idea of easily replaceable batteries.

[Brendan@bwalkauto]

Are the plug-in charger currently standardized?

The Level 1 and 2 chargers (120V and 240V) are the SAE standard J1772 now. Some older EV's (Rav4 EV use inductive paddle chargers, and the first Roadsters have a different plug). The Level 3 chargers (440V) aren't standard yet. Japan has gone with the Chademo charger, which is separate from the J1772 plug. SAE wants to make a Level three charger that's concentric, and will have one master plug (insert the J1772 in the center, or the level three over the whole thing). Nissan is leading the charge with the Chademo, and is hoping the speed to market will sway the standard to their favor. It's really a non issue though, as if the plug head changes, you can modify the car to accept the new plug (assuming it's not larger than the charging port door though).

I can see the standardization itself will take forever to achieve, considering even currently every company seems to be developing their own battery pack with even varying chemistry. And when you take into consideration of going full EV we are looking at a substantial amount of battery that has to be designed to be readily accessible and removable...that'll take more than just the packs themselves to be standardize, the cars will have to be to a pretty large extent...

That's the issue. Different sizes, different places to put them, how to easily remove them, and finally, get everyone to agree on many factors. I just don't think it's going to happen to be honest.

As for replacement, granted it would take a while, but this thread has been about the wide spread adoption of EVs for the last couple pages, so it would be a safe assumption that more EVs would be available, and at the rate that fuel prices are climbing, it seems a safe bet that people will switch over more readily if the product is available. Like we've said, there is a large percentage of people that the EV makes sense for if it was just put into production in a manner that they're interested in.

It's a non issue, no matter what your gut tells you. Don't forget either that many people who have EV's generally are Green in general, and run PV on their homes. A huge percentage of my LEAF customers run enough PV on their roofs that their LEAF doesn't really cost them anything to charge. And at the owners meetings, those who aren't running PV are asking constantly about it.

The adoption of a standard battery pack wouldn't be any more problematic than the adoption of OBD2, once battery technology can support the idea of easily replaceable batteries.

OBD2 wasn't all the OEM's at a roundtable sitting together to figure out what mutually worked. It was mandated by the Government. That's apples to llamas.

[Turbio!]

There are a couple issues with that too though, one is that it assumes the entire country goes to sleep at 10pm, the other is that you again are saying people will be able to only have to charge the cars overnight. Several people work nights and would therefor have to charge there cars during the day, and its not an inconsequential number of people either. The other group is the people who's commute is far enough that they would have to plug in during the day.
.

Neither group is big enough to be meaningful as far as grid charging goes. Most people with super-long commutes are not in the target market for EVs, and those willing to give it a try would be best served with a Volt. People with night shifts could charge during the day and it would be barely a blip compared to all the TVs, computers, and hairdryers running during the day.

As for replacement, granted it would take a while, but this thread has been about the wide spread adoption of EVs for the last couple pages, so it would be a safe assumption that more EVs would be available, and at the rate that fuel prices are climbing, it seems a safe bet that people will switch over more readily if the product is available. Like we've said, there is a large percentage of people that the EV makes sense for if it was just put into production in a manner that they're interested in.
.

Even so, the US auto fleet doesn't turn over fast enough for it to matter. Even if 5% of all new car sales were electric, it'd take over 20 years before even 1% of the cars on the road were electric. There is no conceivable way that EVs will represent a significant chunk of electricity demand, on or off peak, for decades.

[NashGTI]

No. You can't store or transport hydrogen economically, like I said. It'd have to be produced on-site where it's used to refuel, or at least locally. It can't be transferred using the pipelines and tankers like we have now, and you couldn't leave it in your car - it'd evaporate and leak out. And people are also used to plugging their phones and appliances in.

What?

[NOLA_VDubber]

What?

*economically

Between compressing the fluid and transporting it via truck, you've wasted a ton of energy just moving and storing the fuel. The energy loss over long runs of high-voltage transmission line is almost negligable when compared to what it takes to long-haul hydrogen.

As what's been said earlier, hydrogen is DOA