Tesla going open source?

[Rufus]

My understanding (when it comes to the Tesla supercharging stations in particular) is that they intend to come back and install PV coverings over the charging stalls to help reduce some of the load on the local grid.

You mean to help bullshit their technically illiterate customers? It would take around 420 m^2 of panels to supercharge one Tesla (at 85kW) and that would only be in the middle of the day during the summer. Load reduction on the grid from panels mounted above a charging stall would be too trivial to be worth mentioning.

I talked to one guy there that had 70K miles on his. He supercharged twice a day. Recup'd the cost of the car months ago purely in fuel saving.

70k miles at 30 mpg would be 2333 gallons and at $3.67/gallon that would be $8563.

[free_electron]

I guess he ment projected savings over 8 years. He did that 70k in like half a year or so. And 30mpg ? More like 12 mpg . A similar car to a tesla that is US built will sit at roughly 12 to 15 mpg.

[zapta]

You mean to help bullshit their technically illiterate customers? It would take around 420 m^2 of panels to supercharge one Tesla (at 85kW) and that would only be in the middle of the day during the summer. Load reduction on the grid from panels mounted above a charging stall would be too trivial to be worth mentioning.

Sufficient government subsidies can make anything financially viable.  That's the Tesla business model.

[Poe]

I talked to one guy there that had 70K miles on his. He supercharged twice a day. Recup'd the cost of the car months ago purely in fuel saving.

70k miles at 30 mpg would be 2333 gallons and at $3.67/gallon that would be $8563.

Considering that they are quite expensive luxury cars, claiming savings is a bit odd. 

Rufus,
Although 20mpg at $4 would be more generous to Tesla, it would make your point more effectively.  Most comparable mid sized luxury cars commonly get between 20 and 30mpg (reference Car and Driver) and are significantly cheaper than that $14k delta.

Tesla owners frequently like to compare the Tesla to crazy expensive cars like the S-Class even though the trim level just isn't comparable. 

Now if we really think about cost of ownership, what about battery replacement?  Considering these batteries 'age', you'll want to wear-out the battery before it 'gets old'.  Once enough miles (>200k?) are driven to make up a price difference, my concern would be that the battery would need to be replaced.  This would reset or pushing back the clock.  How many miles does a battery last when supercharged twice a day?  Another consideration is the govt subsities that were mentioned.  Has anyone done this kind of analysis?  I realize the average Tesla owner is fanatical, but if there's any real world data out there about battery replacement cost vs lifespan vs charge history vs etc... it would help people who are on the fence about being able to afford it.

Even though I would have zero access to a charging station, if I had enough money, I definitely would buy one.  I just wouldn't try to justify owning one to others.

   

[miguelvp]

I guess he ment projected savings over 8 years. He did that 70k in like half a year or so. And 30mpg ? More like 12 mpg . A similar car to a tesla that is US built will sit at roughly 12 to 15 mpg.

My Lotus Elise (same frame as the Tesla) does 21 mpg city, 27 mpg highway, unless I step on it then all bets are off.

[Rufus]

I guess he ment projected savings over 8 years. He did that 70k in like half a year or so.

Projected over 8 years... and 1.1 million miles?

70k in 6 months? At 55 MPH average that is 10 hours a day 5 days a week plus an hour for supercharging. Maybe he drives a Tesla for a living he doesn't appear to have time to do anything else.

[zapta]

My Lotus Elise (same frame as the Tesla) does 21 mpg city, 27 mpg highway, unless I step on it then all bets are off.

Elise? It's  a cheapo  compare to the Tesla roadster.

Here is a used one  http://www.teslamotors.com/preowned/25195   ;-)

[SeanB]

Probably a taxi service ( non metered) or a high end small parcel delivery service. Could even be a chauffeur or service technician on call out and do a lot of long trips.

[miguelvp]

My Lotus Elise (same frame as the Tesla) does 21 mpg city, 27 mpg highway, unless I step on it then all bets are off.

Elise? It's  a cheapo  compare to the Tesla roadster.

Here is a used one  http://www.teslamotors.com/preowned/25195   ;-)

Not talking about the price, I'm saying it's the same frame and specs so the 30mpg applies not 12mpg.
But yeah, teslas are expensive mine is cheaper than your average beamer but a blast to drive

[Noise Floor]

Mixed feelings on this, in sum its a good first step.  However until Tesla the company commits their CEO's words to a legal document no car company worth any salt will even begin considering doing something utilizing Tesla's patents.  Even though this move is already self serving (which I don't blame them for at all) Tesla needs to do a lot more to make this an offer that other companies can take seriously.

I don't know how much more clear a commitment can be made. He came out and went on public record with those statements, and it was also posted through his blog, twitter account, and as a news story on the company's website.

It's not about clarity, its about making the commitment a legal one.  It doesn't matter if a CEO says something frankly, what matters is what legal commitments Tesla the company is willing to make, right now all the other companies have is 1 guy's word which has obviously been spun as a PR move.  Musk may have started Tesla and is the CEO, but his comments cannot and will not be considered 100% legally binding.    That said, if another company wants to get serious, they need to pressure Tesla to make it legal, just not sure many will do so given the cost of testing Musk's word.

[retrolefty]

Well certainly any company actually wanting to utilize any of the subject patents would seek out a written agreement with Tesla for some royalty free arrangement. Only then would the company know if they meet the 'in good faith' comment the CEO made.

 Tesla didn't state they were releasing the patents in question to public domain, but rather they implied they would pass on royalty payments in some cases.

 So certainly a PR move but so far nothing showing it was made in bad faith or good faith yet. Only time and actual interest of other companies will determine that.

 

[MacAttak]

You mean to help bullshit their technically illiterate customers? It would take around 420 m^2 of panels to supercharge one Tesla (at 85kW) and that would only be in the middle of the day during the summer. Load reduction on the grid from panels mounted above a charging stall would be too trivial to be worth mentioning.

Of course an awning made of solar panels won't make a huge difference. But the space is otherwise wasted. Car owners would prefer to park in the shade while charging, and the best place for a panel is on a roof. I think we can all agree on those things. Obviously it will only offset a small amount of the power usage, but some is better than none.

It's certainly a better idea than embedding panels under the wheels of parked cars (or in a roadway).

Sufficient government subsidies can make anything financially viable.  That's the Tesla business model.

The "you're on big government welfare!" argument is one I've heard brought up a few times. Tesla did get a loan under a program intended to spur EV technology, but they paid that loan back with interest many years early (and it wasn't a very big loan to begin with). Did I miss something? Was there another larger grant or unpaid loan (especially something that wasn't offered to other auto makers)?

Or is it the tax credit that people get bent out of shape over? The one which was introduced before Tesla even started making cars? Which was introduced precisely because none of the big automakers were even trying to advance alternative fuel vehicles (the tax credits aren't just for EV, they are for all AFV)? And if so, then where was that anger in the late 90's and early 00's when people were getting MUCH larger tax breaks for their 8 mpg Hummers by abusing a technicality of a program that was intended to support small farms? (in case you don't remember: http://www.section179.org/section_179_deduction.html)





My intent with the previous post was simply "hey this is cool!" because while the average car owner won't know an amp from a volt, I happen to have just enough education on the topic to recognize and appreciate the engineering needed to pump that much juice safely without supervision by a trained technician. This *is* an EE enthusiast forum after all.

Am I a "fanatic"? Maybe so. It's a fun car - hard not to be excited about it. Best I've every had - and I've driven a pretty wide range including top-end S Class Mercedes and 7-series BMW, and yes the trim competes favorably with those - especially when it comes to the touch-screen system controls. This is the first one where *anyone* has stopped me simply to ask questions about it (which happens at least once a week). I've seen strangers taking selfies with it in the parking lot. That never happened with my first-run C5 (when there were only a few thousand on the road in '97), nor with any of the 3, 5, or 7 series BMWs, nor with the Mercedes S500 coupe or SL550 convertible.

[MacAttak]

I just stopped at a supercharger station for the first time on a trip to south Georgia this weekend. That sucker was pulling 85 kW!

Do the same with a battery that is down to 30 miles and prepare for a shock ...

At the Gilroy charger with 62 miles left : 369 Volt , 324 Ampere. That's 119 Kilowatts... And we were with 9 cars slurping from the electron-spout...
In europe they are rolling out 160Kw chargers (US charger will follow soon)

I talked to one guy there that had 70K miles on his. He supercharged twice a day. Recup'd the cost of the car months ago purely in fuel saving.

Model S 85Kw - Grey - techPack - Air Suspension - Upgraded Audio - Glass roof

Yeah, I was only down to about 60% charge when I plugged in and took that shot. I think the system also ramps up slowly to max rate and doesn't try to dump full power into the vehicle right away? So the max draw would usually be a few minutes after plugging in (assuming low range to begin with)?

I liked the grey a lot, and was on the fence about grey or black. Ultimately it came down to which looked better with the red calipers (p85+). In hindsight the grey would have been MUCH easier to keep clean.

[zapta]

Tesla didn't state they were releasing the patents in question to public domain, but rather they implied they would pass on royalty payments in some cases.

.. and will require in return access to all the patents of the other company, in other word, cross licensing, so nothing new here.

That's simply a PR stunt.

[Poe]

MacAttak,

Not to start an argument, but 'better than a solar roadway' is a bit of a straw-man argument.  Rufus was simply calling Tesla out about the implied significance of their statements.  Yes, adding solar panels can only help.  Although contrary to insinuations, the significance is minimal.

Your tax-credit comments are a fallacy of distraction as well.  No one said Tesla initiated the tax credit.  Simply that it was instrumental in Tesla's success.  They were frequently close to failure even though they had a number of unbelievable lucky events which were pivotal in their survival/success (Panasonic's over-building of batteries, laptops switching to prismatic cells JUST at the right time, Toyota not releasing full electric Prius model as planned, etc).   It's easy to think they would have folded without that government assistance.  No way they could have gotten any luckier.... which I feel validates the big car companies decision to NOT get into that field before a boutique company like Tesla broke ground.

People get bent out of shape when their tax dollars go to wealthy people buying luxury items (be it fully electric cars, AFVs, metal roofs, or solar panels) under the guise that the artificial assistance will improve technology/process/etc somehow enough to benefit all of society.  That's the core of any hostilities toward tax credits.  I think it's understandable considering that several studies into this form of governing appear to show the opposite.  Please don't make me find the links.

Although I think Teslas are great, I think this 'news' story is a null sum report.  I see it as a potentially good thing if his customers hold him to this openness ideology in all future endeavors.

Meh, time will tell.

[MacAttak]

A straw man is a weak argument put forth with intent to be torn down, which is not what that was. Under pretty much all circumstances, a solar panel on a roof (of anything) is going to be a better idea than one embedded in pavement underfoot/undertire. They are planning to build coverings for these charging stalls anyways, so might as well put panels on top. I didn't say it would fully counter the power draw of these loads, and didn't intend to imply it either. That would indeed have been a crazy assertion. Sorry if the two of you misinterpreted that.

Why are my comments about the tax credit situation a distraction? I didn't bring up the "government subsidy" crap in this thread. If you want to be angry about tax credits (for anything), then redirect your anger towards your elected officials instead of focusing it towards your neighbor who probably still pays more taxes anyways.

The argument about government assistance is silly. They were given a loan (small by automotive industry standards). They paid it back, early, in full, with interest. They went this route because it too much money for any kind of normal bank-financed loan (which would have had similar rates and terms), and the only other option would have been to go after VC funding at a projected annual cost of 30% interest (or more) - which would have been truly reckless and irresponsible.

Compare that to what happened during the same time period with GM. That bailout/bankruptcy/restructuring ended up costing taxpayers something like $12B once the government sold their "investment shares" in the new GM for only half what it was "valued" at when they originally inked the deal. There is no other American car company bigger than GM, so holding up the "big car companies" on a pedestal for the decisions they made during this same period of time just doesn't make any sense at all.

[zapta]

People get bent out of shape when their tax dollars go to wealthy people buying luxury items (be it fully electric cars, AFVs, metal roofs, or solar panels) under the guise that the artificial assistance will improve technology/process/etc somehow enough to benefit all of society.  That's the core of any hostilities toward tax credits.  I think it's understandable considering that several studies into this form of governing appear to show the opposite.  Please don't make me find the links.

To add insult to injury, the government forces Tesla competitors such as Ford and GM to subsidize Tesla http://beta.fool.com/dcawrey/2013/08/06/how-tesla-makes-millions-selling-carbon-credits/42576/

The entire Tesla game is based on politics and multitude of government favors (did I mention the HOV privileges, this by itself values at $10K per car) and is a clear example of crony capitalism.

[Rufus]

Obviously it will only offset a small amount of the power usage, but some is better than none.

Small? More like tiny.  Didn't stop Musk sprouting

"Customers who bought a Model S (85 kWh) will be able to travel for free, forever, on pure sunlight"!!!

Hence my comment about bullshitting the technically illiterate.

[miguelvp]

There was a bill not sure if still in effect aimed to farm subsidies where you could subsidize vehicles heavier than 6,000 lbs if you were a business owner.

So what happened, a lot of dentists got subsidized cadillac escalades.

Found link, seems they didn't fix it after all.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/04/08/how-to-take-a-tax-write-off-for-a-new-porsche-bmw-or-cadillac/

[zapta]

There was a bill not sure if still in effect aimed to farm subsidies where you could subsidize vehicles heavier than 6,000 lbs if you were a business owner.

So what happened, a lot of dentists got subsidized cadillac escalades.

Found link, seems they didn't fix it after all.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/04/08/how-to-take-a-tax-write-off-for-a-new-porsche-bmw-or-cadillac/

Stossel used an electric vehicle subsidy to get a free golf cart ;-)

[mtdoc]

Just the same old politically motivated tripe.

Any post that involves anything to do with solar power,  EV's etc is immediately hijacked.

Try and discuss even the most fundamental engineering issues for one of these topics and the same old politicos come in with "what about my tax dollars" "what about the subsidies!" -- yadda , yadda, yadda...

It's not about US government subsidies. It's about government subsidies to things percieved to be favored more by Democrats or even worse by that evil socialist Kenyan in the White House   

Never any mention of the huge subsidies to ICE automakers, oil companies, the nuclear power industry, etc.   Frankly,  it's intellectually dishonest.

Governments are good at spending our taxes on all sorts of things. What else is new?

It's really become quite predictable and boring. Why not just stick to the engineering and technology?

[zapta]

[

... Never any mention of the huge subsidies to ICE automakers, oil companies, the nuclear power industry, etc.   Frankly,  it's intellectually dishonest.

Subsidies and entitlement are immoral.  As for the ones you mention, you need to normalize by the number of users, not absolute numbers.

quote author=mtdoc link=topic=32455.msg472692#msg472692 date=1404368028]
... Why not just stick to the engineering and technology?
[/quote]

This thread is not technical, it's about a business announcement by a CEO of a certain company.  Some question his extensive reliance on government's favors.

[MacAttak]

Subsidies for technological advancement are not immoral. There is no morality involved there, unless your morals revolve 100% around money allocation. It IS against pure capitalism though - or at least a perverted form of pure capitalism that focuses exclusively on near-term gains, which maybe is what you are confusing with morality. In fact, we can all thank government subsidies for the industry we enjoy today. Power distribution would NOT have been possible without government funding. Neither would most of the advancements in the semiconductor industry (thank you NASA) or the Internet being used right now to have this discussion (thank you DARPA).

Entitlements are a mechanism for addressing the observed basic inequalities in the fundamental quality of life. Making sure children don't starve and stuff like that. I'm curious about what form of "morality" prohibits that?

What's immoral is going to war for oil under the guise of liberation. Or knowingly and willingly poisoning the air your children will breathe (when there are known ways to reduce it, without even needing to change your standard of living). There is no system of morality on this planet that says you should do that. Unless again we are talking about pure egocentric capitalism.

[Poe]

...
Am I a "fanatic"? Maybe so.
...

Seriously though, could anyone explain the differences between Tesla's fast charging standard and the others out there?  The article I posted was light on details.

The author's comments on power grid strain is interesting.  If the Level 3 chargers (100KW) put a strain on the grid, dictate line upgrades and charge more for energy due to additional high power draw (vs energy usage) charges... wouldn't we need a massive infrastructure .  Also interesting are the comments about how crucial an "Open" standard is.  It's almost like Elon was reading this on the crapper and had an epiphany.

The solar thing got me thinking about peak demand.  Do Tesla charging stations have large battery banks to offset peak power usage?  I have seen 'kinetic batteries' (flywheels) successfully used for electric trains in Germany.  They get charged while slowing the train down and then tapped to accelerate the train.  Maybe they would have an application here to offset peak power usage in these chargers?

[zapta]

Subsidies for technological advancement are not immoral. There is no morality involved there, unless your morals revolve 100% around money allocation.

'allocation', that's an interesting word, everything belong to the collective and the collective allocates it.

It's immoral because you are taking from person A to give to person B.

Entitlements are a mechanism for addressing the observed basic inequalities in the fundamental quality of life.

For socialists the goal is equality of outcome. For free people the goal is personal liberty.

What's immoral is going to war for oil under the guise of liberation.

Yet another fallacy. China consumes oil without going to wars. They are just willing to buy from everybody that sells.

... Or knowingly and willingly poisoning the air your children will breathe (when there are known ways to reduce it, without even needing to change your standard of living). There is no system of morality on this planet that says you should do that. Unless again we are talking about pure egocentric capitalism.

Overall freedom and technology improved our lives significantly in the last 100 years so no need to idealize primitive life styles.