[son_of_siggy]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

It takes you 5-20 min to fill your tank with gas??? I didn't even wait that long during hurricane Sandy and those lines were epic. You fill up when you're on the way somewhere. You don't make special trips to fill up with gas...

Also, if you're so fuel conscious, why do you drive a CTS-V?

Travel time to and from the gas station is included, and yes sometimes it takes 5-20 minutes to fill up by the time I count going out of my way, filling up, getting back to the route, etc. We also live in a town with 20k people and 1 gas station. I'm sure if you actually timed your fill-ups, not from when you actually put the filler into the tank, but inclusive of detour, waiting in line, entering the card, etc it would add up to more than 5 minutes.

And not everyone lives directly in line with a gas station where it's convenient to fill up on the way to/from work. But again, we adjust our lives and make behavior modifications to make things more efficient, and we'd learn to do so with an electric car. What's more efficient than filling up at home? I get home, get out of the car, grab the cord from the wall and snap it in. In about 10 seconds I'm filling up. And once the technology is there to actually decrease the fill time, and/or increase the range people will be falling over themselves to not go to the gas station.

I don't drive a CTS-V anymore. I just haven't updated my profile. I'm all for performance cars as well, which is why I'm a big fan of the Tesla. I'm not a tree-hugging go-electric everything type of car enthusiast. I still enjoy the 10mpg muscle car or whatever the flavor might be. I just try and offset it with someone that is as efficient as the other car is powerful. I'm also not the type to say we should pull government funding for future innovations, or not take risks investing in risky/undeveloped technology. And this early into electric cars I think it's ludicrous to simply write them or the technology behind them off. Look how much the ICE engine has developed in the past 100 years.

And FWIW the CTS-V was a Gen 1. Not that 26mpg is fantastic, but a stretch more than the 18-19 the new monsters get.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by son_of_siggy

Why not? We don't know where the next innovation is. And frankly the "having to remember to charge" is a cop-out. You have to remember to fill your tank with gas. You have to remember to change the oil, spark plugs, air filter, etc in your car. All things you don't have to do with electric.

The only separation at this point is that charging can take 2-3 hours, whereas filling up takes 5-20 minutes depending on travel time, waiting in line, etc. With adjustments to how you operate it's a non issue. And frankly, for the 15 bucks a month I pay in electricity, versus the 200 a month I was paying in gas, I'm happy to make the adjustments. And when gas hits 6 a gallon, or wherever it will be in 3-4 years, I'll be even more okay with adjusting my schedule to charge.

Technology WILL get there. Look at how far things have come in the last 5 years.

It's not in battery technology if you are looking for a fuel source that matches the energy density of gasoline. It's just not physically possible. Battery technology is a different chemical process than petrochemical fuel. A battery is an energy storage device, not an energy storage fuel. You have to add energy to the battery for it to re-dispense it at a later date and there are losses associated with that process. With fuel oils the energy has been stored in it over eons of time. The losses come with using it. I'd much rather see R&D dollars spent on increasing the efficiency of the internal combustion engine rather that make very small and expensive incremental advances in battery technology that will never reach the same level of energy density as fuel oils. If R&D was spent on increasing the ICE efficiency to say 90% rather than the current 60% now, the electric car would be more moot than it is now. IN the last five years not much has progressed. Yes, engineers have learned a great deal about battery management and developed support systems to maximize the balance of battery life vs. storage and energy delivery, but the actual energy density of storage batteries has not made a quantum leap, which is what you are really talking about. We'll not even address the cost per BTU of battery vs. fuel oils; it's not even close.

The only reason the Tesla is deemed successful is because it has a huge heavy battery. The real range of the 85KvW battery is 230 miles, which for most commutes probably is just fine, but the difficulty lies in extended range driving. It's great that Elon Musk will build charging stations along major traffic corridors (with huge tax breaks), but what about the people who drive off-grid? The car (assuming a single car family) does not work in that situation. Your response will be, "okay, then just rent a car in those few times a year you need a long-range automobile." Well that car will be ICE driven, so what then, is the point? And driving from DC to New York and stopping somewhere along the NJ Turnpike for an hour's charge (while I eat lunch?), well that's just not realistic. I'm going to want to gas up in 5 minutes, wash my hands, grab a sandwich, and be on my way. You compare $15/month electrical cost vs. $200 gasoline cost, but that not nearly the entire equation. You have to look at lifecycle cost, and the ICE-powered automobile wins hands down.

I've looked into the Tesla as a replacement for my E90 and my 160 mile round trip commute. I have other cars for long-range distances, so my off-grid travel is not an issue. The Tesla would fit great in my commute scenario because I basically run my E90 five days a week to work and don't drive it on the weekends any long distance. But running the cost numbers on it, the cost model is not beneficial; the Tesla is just too expensive to operate even with gas at near $4 a gallon. To operate my E90 vs. a Tesla S to 194,000 miles the Tesla costs about $15K - $20K more in lifecycle cost. It's just no comparison, and that assume no battery replacement for the Tesla.

You say wait until gas goes to $6 a gallon. Well when will that be? And will Tesla even be in business when that time comes? You want me to buy a $70,000 electric car now that costs at least 25% more to run as compared to an ICE auto just in the hopes Tesla will be in business 4 years from now when gas is maybe $6 a gallon. Sorry, not willing to take that gamble.

I'll go with the Chevy Volt. It fits the average American commute of 40 miles daily miles driven (in electric mode) far better as an extended-range electric car than does the pure-electric Tesla S.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by son_of_siggy

Travel time to and from the gas station is included, and yes sometimes it takes 5-20 minutes to fill up by the time I count going out of my way, filling up, getting back to the route, etc. We also live in a town with 20k people and 1 gas station. I'm sure if you actually timed your fill-ups, not from when you actually put the filler into the tank, but inclusive of detour, waiting in line, entering the card, etc it would add up to more than 5 minutes.

And not everyone lives directly in line with a gas station where it's convenient to fill up on the way to/from work. But again, we adjust our lives and make behavior modifications to make things more efficient, and we'd learn to do so with an electric car. What's more efficient than filling up at home? I get home, get out of the car, grab the cord from the wall and snap it in. In about 10 seconds I'm filling up. And once the technology is there to actually decrease the fill time, and/or increase the range people will be falling over themselves to not go to the gas station.

I can honestly say that I don't believe I have ever had to drive out of my way to fill up my car. I think that the vast majority of the regularly driving public has a gas station on the way to the majority of their destinations. I don't think I could find a 20mi route within a 100mi radius of my home that doesn't have several stations. Where do you live that you pass them so rarely? That seems very strange to me. I lived in rural New Hampshire for 4 years during college and even there you would pass gas stations regularly.

[flyinb501]

Originally Posted by son_of_siggy

God forbid the government invest in technologies that could one day change the world and how we operate within it. I think people in general have very little idea of the number of innovations and technologies we use everyday that started via government investment.

There are a lot of great articles out there, from both sides of the political coin, that highlight some of the innovations that have occurred based on government-funded research and development.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...nded-research/

It's easy for stuff like this to make news because government is an easy target, but overall these investments have been profitable in the long haul. Good news like that is rarely reported.

If it was worth investing in, it would attract plenty of private investment just like everything else. Government has no business investing in these companies and has regularly picked the loosers as of late.

[b0bab0i]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

You're comparing the Karma to the Model S?
The Model S wasn't for sale when the Karma came out, so there's no comparison.
The model S still isn't for sale now in europe (at least not where I live).

Karma & Model S are direct competitors.
Luxury Electric Sedans.

[KingOfJericho]

There's a $30,000+ price difference between a base Karma and base Model S

[son_of_siggy]

Originally Posted by flyinb501

If it was worth investing in, it would attract plenty of private investment just like everything else. Government has no business investing in these companies and has regularly picked the loosers as of late.

This has proven to be untrue time and time again. Private investment generally doesn't get into unproven technology. There are TONS of articles out there about the need for government to invest in startup technology because of this. Many of these articles cite the things we use now that have come out of such things, like . . I don't know, the internet, GPS, optical recording, Google . . .

You read about the losers that are picked. Rarely does the news focus on the winners. This should be obvious by how many crime stories they play every evening when there are just as many good things going on that could be reported.

[stealth.pilot]

Originally Posted by ptack

I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla also doesn't survive. Battery technology just isn't there yet.

No offense but get your head out from under a rock.

Honestly that's as off target as saying Rolls Royce won't survive because Maybach went under. One is brilliant and the other a product of incompetence. Tesla is going to thrive.

Tesla has a fantastic product, a brilliant operations setup and top notch management. I have an order down on one and I'm not easily taken by upstarts. The Model S crushes the BMW 550i in every way except road trips that are over 300 miles round trip. In my own car I have only exceeded the daily capacity of the battery twice a year, and for those scenarios I have another car.

Read my review here:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=664294

[b0bab0i]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

There's a $30,000+ price difference between a base Karma and base Model S

Only 5% of Owners chose to buy the base 40kwh battery. That's so little that Tesla decided not to build them. Those customers will be getting 60kwh batteries that are limited to 40kwh range and power.

http://www.dailytech.com/Tesla+Motor...ticle30245.htm

[ErvGotti]

Originally Posted by son_of_siggy

Why not? We don't know where the next innovation is. And frankly the "having to remember to charge" is a cop-out. You have to remember to fill your tank with gas. You have to remember to change the oil, spark plugs, air filter, etc in your car. All things you don't have to do with electric.

The only separation at this point is that charging can take 2-3 hours, whereas filling up takes 5-20 minutes depending on travel time, waiting in line, etc. With adjustments to how you operate it's a non issue. And frankly, for the 15 bucks a month I pay in electricity, versus the 200 a month I was paying in gas, I'm happy to make the adjustments. And when gas hits 6 a gallon, or wherever it will be in 3-4 years, I'll be even more okay with adjusting my schedule to charge.

Technology WILL get there. Look at how far things have come in the last 5 years.

I'm curious to where you live that you pay $15 dollars a month in electricity? Hell that's how much I get charged for "distribution fee". I live in a decent sized apartment about 1000 Sq feet, set my thermostat to an efficient 68 degrees, turn off lights when not in use, hardly use my surround sound, unplug unused appliances, and in general try not to unnecessarily run up my bill and I still pay about $85 bucks a month.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by b0bab0i

Only 5% of Owners chose to buy the base 40kwh battery. That's so little that Tesla decided not to build them. Those customers will be getting 60kwh batteries that are limited to 40kwh range and power.

http://www.dailytech.com/Tesla+Motor...ticle30245.htm

The 60kwh starts at $62,400. I never mentioned a 40kwh. My buddy has an order in for a Tesla so I get constant updates on them. My point was that one car sells for a 40% premium over the other so they're not really direct competitors. Not sure what you were getting at in your reply...

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by stealth.pilot

No offense but get your head out from under a rock.

Honestly that's as off target as saying Rolls Royce won't survive because Maybach went under. One is brilliant and the other a product of incompetence. Tesla is going to thrive.

Tesla has a fantastic product, a brilliant operations setup and top notch management. I have an order down on one and I'm not easily taken by upstarts. The Model S crushes the BMW 550i in every way except road trips that are over 300 miles round trip. In my own car I have only exceeded the daily capacity of the battery twice a year, and for those scenarios I have another car.

Read my review here:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=664294

I think the Tesla S is a fantastically engineered product, but so was Beta video tape. The issue is simply this: Tesla is trying to compete against a 100+ year old technology that has been improved upon every year of it's existence by funding the product creates on it's own. The automobile was a new transportation technology that basically competed against the horse. It was a far superior technology that offered immediate and gainful benefits over the horse at a lower total operating cost and rapidly took over as the leading transportation medium. The Tesla S does the opposite of that. It offers a more expensive device, with less range, and longer refueling time. It offers no immediate beneficial gain over the ICE-powered automobile.

The business case for the Tesla S does not bode well for a successful outcome. Tesla will need serious financial support for a long time for the product lifecycle cost to come anywhere near that of an ICE-powered automobile. The technology of electric cars will have to be subsidized by very wealthy entities until such time the lifecycle cost of it matches that of the technology it is competing against. It will be an artificial market place created by Government policy that will make it a success; that is the only way it will work. IMO, as a tax payer, it is not worth it.

In your specific case you state you have another ICE-powered car for trips over 300 miles, what does that say about the technology? It says it is not ready to replace the ICE-powered automobile.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

The 60kwh starts at $62,400. I never mentioned a 40kwh. My buddy has an order in for a Tesla so I get constant updates on them. My point was that one car sells for a 40% premium over the other so they're not really direct competitors. Not sure what you were getting at in your reply...

Well $64,400 including the $7,500 tax credit, which is limited to the first200,000 units, of an ever-growing population of plug-in electric automobiles: the Volt, the Prius Plug-in, the Fisker (oh wait...), the Tesla, the Leaf, the C-max, Fusion plug-in...

[stealth.pilot]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I think the Tesla S is a fantastically engineered product, but so was Beta video tape. The issue is simply this: Tesla is trying to compete against a 100+ year old technology that has been improved upon every year of it's existence by funding the product creates on it's own. The automobile was a new transportation technology that basically competed against the horse. It was a far superior technology that offered immediate and gainful benefits over the horse at a lower total operating cost and rapidly took over as the leading transportation medium. The Tesla S does the opposite of that. It offers a more expensive device, with less range, and longer refueling time. It offers no immediate beneficial gain over the ICE-powered automobile.

The business case for the Tesla S does not bode well for a successful outcome. Tesla will need serious financial support for a long time for the product lifecycle cost to come anywhere near that of an ICE-powered automobile. The technology of electric cars will have to be subsidized by very wealthy entities until such time the lifecycle cost of it matches that of the technology it is competing against. It will be an artificial market place created by Government policy that will make it a success; that is the only way it will work. IMO, as a tax payer, it is not worth it.

In your specific case you state you have another ICE-powered car for trips over 300 miles, what does that say about the technology? It says it is not ready to replace the ICE-powered automobile.

Have you driven a Tesla?

I'm a big fan of the internal combustion engine. My last three cars have been V8 high performance cars. I've owned 3 M Cars. And yet I believe that an electric powertrain is far superior. I would kill for an M5 built with Tesla chassis and powertrain technology - it's that good.

On your point about 300 mile+ trips. A 911 is capable of doing those technically but I wouldn't ever dream of taking one on a trip of that length becasue it just isn't comfortable enough for long drives. Does that mean nobody should pick a 911 over an M5? No because for many it is fit for purpose. The Tesla electric car is fit for such a wide range of purposes it is suitable to be a primary car in my opinion. I used to have an M3 and never drove it more than 90 miles from my home because it wasn't a great road trip car. Was still my primary car at the time, and I didn't ditch it for range issues.

[son_of_siggy]

Originally Posted by ErvGotti

I'm curious to where you live that you pay $15 dollars a month in electricity? Hell that's how much I get charged for "distribution fee". I live in a decent sized apartment about 1000 Sq feet, set my thermostat to an efficient 68 degrees, turn off lights when not in use, hardly use my surround sound, unplug unused appliances, and in general try not to unnecessarily run up my bill and I still pay about $85 bucks a month.

$15 a month for charging the car, not for my total electricity bill. But the rest of the bill would be there anyways, so the difference between before and now with the car is $15.

[b0bab0i]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

The 60kwh starts at $62,400. I never mentioned a 40kwh. My buddy has an order in for a Tesla so I get constant updates on them. My point was that one car sells for a 40% premium over the other so they're not really direct competitors. Not sure what you were getting at in your reply...

Cousin actually has one. Majority of owners own P85 model. Tesla was a direct competitor to the Fisker Karma. Most people who have Tesla's cross shopped both cars. You can go check on teslamotorsclub.com. Doesn't matter anymore though, Fisker is done.

You have any proof that they weren't direct competitors? Both are luxury Electric Vehicles.

[Soorena]

Honestly the Karma was a total junk. Fisker should go back doing what he can do best, and that's designing.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by stealth.pilot

Have you driven a Tesla?

I'm a big fan of the internal combustion engine. My last three cars have been V8 high performance cars. I've owned 3 M Cars. And yet I believe that an electric powertrain is far superior. I would kill for an M5 built with Tesla chassis and powertrain technology - it's that good.

On your point about 300 mile+ trips. A 911 is capable of doing those technically but I wouldn't ever dream of taking one on a trip of that length becasue it just isn't comfortable enough for long drives. Does that mean nobody should pick a 911 over an M5? No because for many it is fit for purpose. The Tesla electric car is fit for such a wide range of purposes it is suitable to be a primary car in my opinion. I used to have an M3 and never drove it more than 90 miles from my home because it wasn't a great road trip car. Was still my primary car at the time, and I didn't ditch it for range issues.

No, I haven't yet driven a Tesla. From what I've read about them, they seem to offer excellent performance, which is why I think as an engineering design study put to practice, and well manufactured at that, it's an excellent car. My issue is not with the car itself but rather the business case for it. If it wasn't for the current ICE technology, we'd all probably be driving them, but the internal combustion engine back in the late 1800's was the better technical solution and won out over electricity. The current state of the electric car market (and keep in mind Fisker was an extended range electric car like the Chevy Volt is) is basically the Nissan Leaf and the Tesla S (yeah, there's a conversion of some small Chinese-market sedan too). The leaf is $35K and offers 90 miles of range. The Tesla S is about $70K and offers 230 miles of range, neither car comes close to offering what the ICE-powered automobile does for anywhere near the price.

I've been down this road with an electric vehicle as an early adopter; well actually my Father was, but I was the one who used the vehicle the most. So back in the early 1970's, General Electric developed and manufactured an electric garden tractor called the GE Electrak (google it). In 1973 my Dad bought the E15 model, which was equivalent to a 15-horsepower gas model. GE basically took and existing garden tractor transaxle from a tractor maker at the time - I can't remember the company now, and mated GE's then-golfcart drive technology (motor, motor controller, and charger) to it in a robust garden tractor frame. I still have the machine today, although it is defunct (it really just died about 5 years ago).

It had the mower deck in the front rather than underneath, which was a way better design for mowing and blade maintenance. The Electrak offered several electric attachments such as an electric chainsaw, small electric welder, and a small hand-held tiller, and electric weed-eater that ran off the 36 Volt-DC "PTO". With the torque offered with by the electric motor, the machine could also use ground-engaging devices like a snow plow and multi-gang soil tiller. The E15 model could cut 2.5 to 3. acres of grass on a charge and I never remember once when I ran out of juice cutting the lawn, and we had almost 2 acres of yard. And if it did, you could just re-charge it in a few hours to finish up. In my opinion it was a far superior product to gas-powered garden tractors of the same era, and even ones of today; but alas the business case didn't pan out. It cost about 50% more than comparable gas-powered garden tractors at the time, and it had a perceived range issue (just like the Tesla). It was on the market for 3 years.

For me if the Tesla S could cost $15,000 less in total lifecycle cost and I could be convinced the battery would last 200,000 miles, I'd get one in a heartbeat; but like I said before I have a few other vehicles in my fleet to use as a unlimited-range vehicle. If I could only afford to have one car, the Tesla would not be it.

If you look into the details on Tesla's website, the car needs a $600 check every 12,000 miles (which you can pre-pay as a package deal for a small discount) and the battery is only warranted for 125,000 miles (the 85KwH size) and as a customer you can pre-pay upfront (monthly finance) for a future $10,000 battery replacement. Also, to use the company's free super-charging stations, you have to have the 85KhW battery sized model or the 60KwH size model with the supercharger equipment (which is an optional extra cost item). All these things make me suspect of the viability of the company. Wouldn't you just hate to buy a $70,000 electric Tesla, finance the battery replacement, only to have the company go bankrupt in 4 years? The reason my GE Electrak doesn't still cut the grass? Maintenance support; I can't economically repair it anymore.

[ErvGotti]

Originally Posted by son_of_siggy

$15 a month for charging the car, not for my total electricity bill. But the rest of the bill would be there anyways, so the difference between before and now with the car is $15.

Ah ok I misunderstood that, I was like WTH I'm getting jipped.

[vzm3]

Originally Posted by blutattoo

I see what you did there

[stealth.pilot]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

No, I haven't yet driven a Tesla.

There is your problem. Why don't you go test drve one? Tesla, unlike all the other electric cars have actually revolutionized the chassis design and the integration of technology within a car. It is like the iPhone in 1997. Even if you don't want an electric car, you owe it to yourself to have a drive if you have an ounce of intellectual curiosity.

Regarding your warranty concerns, I can tell you that I very much doubt these M5 engines will last beyond 125,000 miles. If you look at the failure rate on the N63 it's pretty high. At best that engine (the other BMW 4.4l twin turbo V8) has a 150k mile lifecycle. The S63 is a higher performance version of that and likely to last even less time.

Also a 10 year old 125k mile M5 is largely fully depreciated so not much to lose anyway. Tesla may offer same economics, may be better. My guess though having thoroughly looked at that car is that it has to be more reliable. There is simply very little to fail - its a much simpler design with fewer parts.

Regarding your range concerns and the argument that it can't be the only car. First it depends on the person. Between the ages of 21 and 35 I never drive further than the round trip range of the Tesla. It's only recently I began doing road trips. In the past I would fly from Miami to even to close places like the Keys, Tampa, or Orlando. So range doesn't affect everyone. Second, there are on average 2.28 cars per household in the US. So yeah it's not suitable for those poor families with only one car, but they likely can't afford one anyway.

[Red Bread]

Excellent points, and if the battery for a Tesla is only $10k, that's a good bit less than probably all of it's near competitors engines or even transmissions would cost to replace.