Author Topic: The Case Against TESLA  (Read 832 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24746
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
The Case Against TESLA
« on: December 02, 2017, 10:56:18 AM »
Interesting
 

Offline dr.diesel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2003
  • Country: us
  • Cramming the magic smoke back in...
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2017, 11:14:21 AM »
Competition is coming, and will be coming very strong.

Musk had better have some whoppers left hiding up his sleeves.

Online ataradov

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3700
  • Country: us
  • I informed you thusly
    • Personal site
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2017, 11:22:25 AM »
Musk had better have some whoppers left hiding up his sleeves.
They are producing patents faster than they are producing cars. In the end, they may not be able to sell actual cars, but I bet they will be able to sell IP for quite some time.
Alex
 

Offline dr.diesel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2003
  • Country: us
  • Cramming the magic smoke back in...
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2017, 11:26:42 AM »
To add:

No doubt that Musk "reinvented" the electric car, without his genius the electric craze would have taken another 5-10 years perhaps.  But now that the big manufacturers are gearing up, IMHO, hasn't the fun kinda expired?

I'd much rather see Musk concentrate on SpaceX, very cool stuff happening here, with the opportunity to continue doing great things for decades..   :-+

Offline floobydust

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 803
  • Country: ca
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2017, 11:28:47 AM »
It's easy to bash the company, especially investors who demand profitability while building a company and an industry.

Tesla Motors is pushing an application of existing technology, sure the self-driving is proprietary but the batteries are a staple item, for years. The motor, the VFD, nothing terribly special there. They are left to making cars and have little experience there, let alone competing with sluggish dinosaurs like Ford, GM, VW.

I think Tesla Motors knows things are going to take longer that expected. Firing 700 people (2%) due to slow Model 3 production, obviously a cost-cutting mass layoff because you don't sack "inept" people en masse.

Very fragile, a new battery technology or a competitor getting up to speed- I don't think Tesla Motors would survive.
If they made all their own batteries, had superior battery tech, then they could rule.
But for now, I think his company's (profit) comes down to manufacturing and they ain't doing well there.

 

Online ataradov

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3700
  • Country: us
  • I informed you thusly
    • Personal site
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2017, 11:29:12 AM »
But now that the big manufacturers are gearing up, IMHO, hasn't the fun kinda expired?
They are also producing batteries. And cars may just be a way to consume initial batches to figure out all the quirks.

All those other car makers will have to get batteries somewhere.
Alex
 

Offline floobydust

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 803
  • Country: ca
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2017, 11:33:45 AM »
All those other car makers will have to get batteries somewhere.

So it's come down to battery supply?
Shortages, best price, best tech etc.?
 

Online phil from seattle

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 79
  • Country: us
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2017, 11:46:32 AM »
Lots of naysayers about Tesla. But the video is simply recapping what they are saying.  It doesn't focus on the advantages Tesla has. 

Probably the biggest is the SuperCharger network. A supercharger is the fastest way to charge an EV. You can drive a Tesla from coast to coast via SCs. For a Bolt or other EV to do this, you need to map out the route very carefully and use slow chargers.  A Tesla will tell you where the SCs are and how to get there.  No other EV maker has this. No other major car maker is even talking about putting a network together. And, tesla is adding SCs at an accelerating rate. While most cars are driven within 25 miles of home, road trips have been a major stumbling point for EVs.  Also, the SC network is being built up in urban areas to serve apartment/condo/co-op dwellers that don't have home charging.

The megafactory. This has the best chance of driving down battery costs faster than any other maker and will be able to supply batteries for the eventual production demands. The majors have all been nibbling around the edges of this but without a captive supply, they aren't really being serious. It's a core to building high volume EVs - not a good idea to outsource it.

The fact that Tesla has missed production goals of the M3 is not surprising. Elon also overstates things.  They are clearly having growing pains to ramp to their production number.  Late yes, but you can be dead certain they are working to get there.

The demand for Teslas is still very much there. In the consumer's minds, they are very desirable vehicles.
 

Online blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 7787
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics PhD Candidate
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2017, 12:05:22 PM »
Musk had better have some whoppers left hiding up his sleeves.
They are producing patents faster than they are producing cars. In the end, they may not be able to sell actual cars, but I bet they will be able to sell IP for quite some time.

Who cares about patents? Know how is always more important than right to make things.
Patents only work for a specific set of claims and is only honored by certain countries and jurisdictions (i.e. software patent only works in US and a few other countries), and even in appropriate field and in a protected country, practically the law can't cover small players, so patents only work for battle between big players.
I always like the case of SD card patent -- everyone uses SD card in their designs, and so far I've never heard anyone (small player, of course) actually pays a red cent to SD Holdings.

They are also producing batteries. And cars may just be a way to consume initial batches to figure out all the quirks.
All those other car makers will have to get batteries somewhere.

There's no moral in the business world. If GM orders 1M car worth of batteries, Panasonic will sell whatever their Tesla collaboration battery to GM.
Also, expect Chinese/Korean battery makers such as BYD or ATL or SDI to clone Tesla 1270 technology in a few years.
BTW, A123 has the safe, high power LiFePO4 technology matured a few years ago, if there's a need, those A123 cells can also compete 1270 on urban models which doesn't care about range, but values more about lifetime and acceleration power.
SIGSEGV is inevitable if you try to talk more than you know. If I say gibberish, keep in mind that my license plate is SIGSEGV.
 

Offline floobydust

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 803
  • Country: ca
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2017, 12:07:36 PM »
Isn't the Tesla Semi just spreading them too thin?
Do you let manufacturing catch up, or keep forging ahead with new applications for EV technology?

The 100-megawatt battery farm, was officially activated in South Australia today.
I hear it uses Panasonic and Samsung batteries. Maybe it's not all about cars as the blogger never mentioned it.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24746
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2017, 12:12:47 PM »
Isn't the Tesla Semi just spreading them too thin?
Do you let manufacturing catch up, or keep forging ahead with new applications for EV technology?

The market demands publicly listed companies continue to announce new stuff like this, they have no choice.
 

Offline IanMacdonald

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 378
  • Country: gb
    • IWR Consultancy
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2017, 04:52:45 AM »
None of the 'Green' ideas are new, they are all revivals of old ideas.



I remember when I was young, visiting museums with trams.

Windmills were used to drive industrial machinery prior to the invention of steam. 

The bicycle originated in Victorian times, mainly for those who couldn't afford a horse. (Horses were and still are quite expensive to maintain)

Even solar PV is a spinoff of 1960's space tech. Not exactly out of date, but not original either. 

The main thing about all of these old ideas is that they were abandoned for a reason, and the people who want to revive them often haven't properly researched the reasons why they were abandoned. The assume that because they have an improved version of the old tech, everything will be fine. However, they may have overlooked a fundamental gotcha which is not overcome by the improved performance of their new version. As happened with Edinburgh's trams. 
 

Offline floobydust

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 803
  • Country: ca
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2017, 06:22:31 AM »
One reason why they didn't make it in the early 1900's, the cost of the batteries:
"The Edison battery was not lead-acid. It was a rechargeable nickel-iron battery that was an upgrade, very expensive ($600) considering that a whole car (Model T) could be bought for that price."
Source: http://www.twinkletoesengineering.info/wells_auto_museum/baker_electric_technology.htm#Detroit%20Electric%20cars

I think the battery pack in the Model 3, standard 50 kWh is 2,976 of 2170 cells and 74 kWh ‘long range’ battery pack is 4,416 cells. I'm not sure how to estimate the pack's cost, but this is a zillion cells?
 

Online wilfred

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4580
  • Country: au
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2017, 09:24:45 AM »
None of the 'Green' ideas are new, they are all revivals of old ideas.

I remember when I was young, visiting museums with trams.

Windmills were used to drive industrial machinery prior to the invention of steam. 

The bicycle originated in Victorian times, mainly for those who couldn't afford a horse. (Horses were and still are quite expensive to maintain)

Even solar PV is a spinoff of 1960's space tech. Not exactly out of date, but not original either. 

The main thing about all of these old ideas is that they were abandoned for a reason, and the people who want to revive them often haven't properly researched the reasons why they were abandoned. The assume that because they have an improved version of the old tech, everything will be fine. However, they may have overlooked a fundamental gotcha which is not overcome by the improved performance of their new version. As happened with Edinburgh's trams.

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make. Is it that because something can be improved and made cheaper it shouldn't be?
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2860
  • Country: gb
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2017, 09:45:04 AM »
The main thing about all of these old ideas is that they were abandoned for a reason, and the people who want to revive them often haven't properly researched the reasons why they were abandoned.
Often their reason for new people working on these technologies is the complete opposite of what you said. People often research why these things were abandoned, find that other advances have removed the blockage, and find that further progress can be made. For example, batteries may still suck, but they are so much lighter, denser and cheaper than a few decades ago that anything that was blocked by poor batteries is certainly worth revisiting today.
 
The following users thanked this post: kony

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 6374
  • Country: lv
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2017, 10:03:56 AM »
Even solar PV is a spinoff of 1960's space tech. Not exactly out of date, but not original either. 

The main thing about all of these old ideas is that they were abandoned for a reason, and the people who want to revive them often haven't properly researched the reasons why they were abandoned. The assume that because they have an improved version of the old tech, everything will be fine. However, they may have overlooked a fundamental gotcha which is not overcome by the improved performance of their new version. As happened with Edinburgh's trams.
OK, then you could as well say that it's stupid to use LEDs for lighting because they sucked 50 years ago. And PV shouldn't be used for space tech because it sucked in 19th century.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24746
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2017, 09:00:01 PM »
Beware annoying endless jump cuts to music and stock footage!
 

Offline IanMacdonald

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 378
  • Country: gb
    • IWR Consultancy
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2017, 02:21:44 AM »
Often their reason for new people working on these technologies is the complete opposite of what you said. People often research why these things were abandoned, find that other advances have removed the blockage, and find that further progress can be made. For example, batteries may still suck, but they are so much lighter, denser and cheaper than a few decades ago that anything that was blocked by poor batteries is certainly worth revisiting today.

I'd say that the opposite often arises, that someone finds a way to improve an old idea and automatically assumes this will solve the problems with it.

In the case of trams there were two really serious gotchas - The services in the road had to be relocated, and that the rails are a death trap to bicycles. Possibly not too clever for motorcycles or horses either.

In the case of wind energy, early promoters actually claimed that intermittency wouldn't be a problem if they were deployed continent-wide.  :bullshit: Turns out that's not the case, and if they'd asked any aviator or met man they'd have known that high pressure regions can span vast areas. (I suspect they did know but were careful not to let slip to politicians)

They're now trying to push more wind investment on the strength that backup batteries will solve the intermittency. Thing is, that might be possible, or might not be, but it's jumping the gun because batteries on that scale haven't been developed yet. Let's see proof that it is feasible this time!  :=\

Electric cars, the elephant in the room seems to be that electricity supplies are going to be barely enough for ordinary needs if we have to go 100% renewable, and yet they want to shift the transport energy demand onto that source as well? Let's be sensible now, this is trying to get not one but two quarts out of a pint pot.   :-DMM 
 

Offline T3sl4co1l

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9325
  • Country: us
  • Expert, Analog Electronics, PCB Layout, EMC
    • Seven Transistor Labs
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2017, 03:04:53 AM »
Electric cars, the elephant in the room seems to be that electricity supplies are going to be barely enough for ordinary needs if we have to go 100% renewable, and yet they want to shift the transport energy demand onto that source as well? Let's be sensible now, this is trying to get not one but two quarts out of a pint pot.   :-DMM

But, it's gotta be done some day -- maybe not today, but within decades -- because we'll very, very quickly be asking to turn that pint of oil into a quart, then a gallon, then a barrel...

Regarding oil use: keep in mind, about 20%* of what we burn in transportation goes into feedstocks: plastics, fine chemicals, all the stuff that makes our world soft, comfortable and, above all, affordable.

*I don't remember exactly, somewhere in this ballpark.  Look it up!

If that goes away, and we don't have biological or artificial-carbon-fixing substitutes lined up, we're really boned.

Tim
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electronic Design, from Concept to Layout.
Need engineering assistance? Drop me a message!
 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2937
  • Country: nl
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2017, 03:35:48 AM »
It's easy to bash the company, especially investors who demand profitability while building a company and an industry.

You underestimate investors, they mostly just "demand" revenue to start growing fast enough to justify the valuation. Which was based on near future explosive growth. That was their gamble, they now want to win.

That "demand" is only as unreasonable as Tesla's valuation.
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2860
  • Country: gb
Re: The Case Against TESLA
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2017, 03:51:50 AM »
Often their reason for new people working on these technologies is the complete opposite of what you said. People often research why these things were abandoned, find that other advances have removed the blockage, and find that further progress can be made. For example, batteries may still suck, but they are so much lighter, denser and cheaper than a few decades ago that anything that was blocked by poor batteries is certainly worth revisiting today.

I'd say that the opposite often arises, that someone finds a way to improve an old idea and automatically assumes this will solve the problems with it.

In the case of trams there were two really serious gotchas - The services in the road had to be relocated, and that the rails are a death trap to bicycles. Possibly not too clever for motorcycles or horses either.

In the case of wind energy, early promoters actually claimed that intermittency wouldn't be a problem if they were deployed continent-wide.  :bullshit: Turns out that's not the case, and if they'd asked any aviator or met man they'd have known that high pressure regions can span vast areas. (I suspect they did know but were careful not to let slip to politicians)

They're now trying to push more wind investment on the strength that backup batteries will solve the intermittency. Thing is, that might be possible, or might not be, but it's jumping the gun because batteries on that scale haven't been developed yet. Let's see proof that it is feasible this time!  :=\

Electric cars, the elephant in the room seems to be that electricity supplies are going to be barely enough for ordinary needs if we have to go 100% renewable, and yet they want to shift the transport energy demand onto that source as well? Let's be sensible now, this is trying to get not one but two quarts out of a pint pot.   :-DMM
I think you are confusing engineering, where there is typically good reason to re-evaluate old problems when new solutions become available, and marketing, whose job is to push anything on any sucker who will buy.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf