[home][rumors and news][model release matrix][dealer network][desktop calendar][exhaust notes][tov forums][links][search][sponsors][garage][login]

Tire Rack Upgrade Garage
 Search for a Dealer:
 Canadian Flag US Flag
 Honda Acura
 ZIP  
Spied on the Street! 2019 Pilot and Pilot PHEV mule
More.......................
All-New 2019 Honda Insight Brings Style, Sophistication and 55 mpg City Rating
More.......................
It's Official: Honda to supply Red Bull Racing in Formula One from 2019
More.......................
Will the next-gen TLX bring back double wishbones? Or a Plugin Hybrid model?
More.......................
Acura tackles Pikes Peak with 2019 RDX, NSX, and TLX entries
More.......................
Honda Partners on General Motorsí Next Gen Battery Development
More.......................
Trucks Set Records as Core Products Deliver American Honda May Sales Gains
More.......................
First in a Generation: All-New 2019 Acura RDX Arrives in Showrooms June 1
More.......................
General Talk --> Re: News from ze Front (Germany and Europe)
Join Discussion......
RDX --> Re: 3rd Generation Acura RDX Reviews
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: RDX Sales
Join Discussion......
Accord --> Re: Just got a 2.0 Accord Touring
Join Discussion......
Type R --> Re: Odometer
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: F1 - 2018 French Grand Prix - Spoilers
Join Discussion......
Type R --> Re: DC-R
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: 2018 WC
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Honda/Acura loyalist left in the blind spot
Join Discussion......
Insight --> Re: 3rd Generation Honda Insight Reviews
Join Discussion......
Videos --> Re: MS woman goes Dukes of Hazzard in her 9th Gen Civic EX
Join Discussion......
Today's Reading Links --> Re: Nikkei: Battery wars: Japan teams up for next-gen electric cars
Join Discussion......
Today's Reading Links --> Nissan picks Thailand as first export market for unique hybrid
Join Discussion......
Accord --> Re: 2018 Accord 1.5T Sport CVT Impressions
Join Discussion......
Classifieds: Buy & Sell --> Re: 1999 Zanardi NSX 6MT, 2008 CR S2000 for sale
Join Discussion......
First Drive: 2019 Honda Insight
Read Article....................
2019 Honda Insight PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Acura RDX
Read Article....................
2019 Acura RDX Features & Specifications
Read Article....................
PR Photo Gallery - 2019 Acura RDX Advance
Read Article....................
PR Photo Gallery - 2019 Acura RDX A-Spec
Read Article....................

[fancy] [flat] [simple]
TOV Forums > Political Lounge > > Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage

Go to:

Viewing Threshold (What is this?)

Thread Page - 1 2 [3] 4 5
Author
  Post New Thread
RolledaNsx
Profile for RolledaNsx
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-08-2017 11:35
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
PoweredbyHondaX wrote:
The stock has gone down due to a failure to get top safety marks for the Tesla model S.

dumby hits the steering wheel pretty hard!



No, the stock swings up and down wildly because of speculation. Stock traders and bots try to ride the momentum, then sell off quickly, causing temporary bubbles to collapse.

A lot of people I went to college with went to work at Wall St. firms to write computer programs to trade stocks. The average person trying to short term trade on their PC has no idea how outgunned they are. Most people get fucked because they cannot make trading decisions with the speed or accuracy of bots.

Again, any normal person trying to make money off of Tesla stock is either stupid or crazy.



Both are wrong.

The sell off was caused by the news that Tesla's sales flat-lined this year and a report that there will be future production problems(they will not be able to produce 20,000 Model 3 a month,will be tight on 5,000 a month in 2018.....factory line/paint shop just can't do it and there also isn't enough batteries being made to make that many Model 3 a month in 2017,18 or 19)


cksi1372
Profile for cksi1372
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-09-2017 13:50
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
RolledaNsx wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
PoweredbyHondaX wrote:
The stock has gone down due to a failure to get top safety marks for the Tesla model S.

dumby hits the steering wheel pretty hard!



No, the stock swings up and down wildly because of speculation. Stock traders and bots try to ride the momentum, then sell off quickly, causing temporary bubbles to collapse.

A lot of people I went to college with went to work at Wall St. firms to write computer programs to trade stocks. The average person trying to short term trade on their PC has no idea how outgunned they are. Most people get fucked because they cannot make trading decisions with the speed or accuracy of bots.

Again, any normal person trying to make money off of Tesla stock is either stupid or crazy.



Both are wrong.

The sell off was caused by the news that Tesla's sales flat-lined this year and a report that there will be future production problems(they will not be able to produce 20,000 Model 3 a month,will be tight on 5,000 a month in 2018.....factory line/paint shop just can't do it and there also isn't enough batteries being made to make that many Model 3 a month in 2017,18 or 19)




Atomic is pretty right here, this is a pure momentum stock (trades on good/bad news) and doesn't trade on any fundamentals...because they suck. It's a "hope and change" stock and has been for awhile.

It was up roughly 44% this year, but has pulled back roughly 20% in the last week because of "bad news"...weak sales, battery shortages, bad crash test results, etc. It's also trading above median prices the last few months, so gives traders (computers/bots/daytraders/etc.) a perfect reason to sell and take profits...until the next news. Funny how Musk tried to blunt some of this with the news on the Model 3, but didn't work. Look for another leg down in early Aug with earnings release...probably worse loss than last year on an EPS basis.

WS firms do have a big advantage, but a "normal person" could make some money on the stock...they better just follow it like a hawk.


owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-09-2017 18:43
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
atomiclightbulb wrote:
8) I already addressed steam reformation. The problem is that natural gas steam reformation is a short term, small scale solution to an immediate need. Other forms of H2 production are completely possible and we both know it. If the energy source is carbon free, then the end result is carbon free and we both also know that. There is simply no valid scientific argument that H2 can't be produced without producing a spec of carbon. Yes, the same can be said of BEV's, but once you remove CO2 from the equation, it is no longer an issue for either, so there isn't some intrinsic advantage for BEV's here as you continually assert there is.


It is a fair point that if all generation is solar/wind or other hydrocarbon-free source, both BEV and FCEV don't produce CO2 emissions in usage.

The intrinsic advantage of BEV is efficiency. A Tesla Model S rates around 100 MPGe combined, versus 67-68 for the Honda Clarity FCEV. That is a substantial advantage.

It means lower operating cost for the end user, and less need for generation sources.



Another area I forgot to discuss where BEVs have advantage over FCEVs is packaging.

Look at Honda's Clarity: it has 2 H2 tanks, one of which is huge. This larger tank has substantial negative effects for cargo carrying: (1) It reduces the trunk space in the Clarity to 11.8 cubic feet (less than a Civic) and (2) It prevents the rear bench from folding down, making the Clarity less flexible than most cars for carrying long cargo. The size of the tank cannot shrink and maintain the same range for the car unless Honda wants to increase the tank PSI past 10k, which is unlikely. Honda was already getting pushback from H2 fueling vendors on 10k pressure as too high.

A BEV on the other hand can have its battery pack configured in a flat rectangular shape. Nissan's LEAF, Tesla Model S and X, and Chevy Bolt all use this configuration. No obstruction of trunk or folding seats.



Meh. It's great until road shrapnel punctures your flat bottomed battery pack.

You also assume that there is no way to improve the packaging of Hydrogen, which will prove to be false, just as it proved to be false that there were no viable replacements for metals in car construction and battery packs couldn't get smaller, more efficient and more independent to shape.

As for packaging, again, you are trying to over-hype (or should I say add some Musk) to the packaging advantages. I have looked at the Tesla many times, and frankly, for the size of the car, other than the massive trunk, I think you are overstating the advantages.


(1) Road debris puncture has not been an issue since 2014, at least in Tesla vehicles.

All Model S vehicles produce since then have preventive measures, and all vehicles produced prior had retrofits: https://www.theverge.com/2014/3/28/5557092/tesla-adds-titanium-shield-to-model-s-to-prevent-battery-fires

An aluminum deflection bar, titanium plate, and aluminum extrusion have virtually eliminated road debris accidents, and add only 0.1% mass to the vehicle.


(2) I am unaware of any high pressure (10k+ PSI) hydrogen tank geometry that is not cylindrical or spherical in form. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but it is my basic understanding that fabrication and safety issues drive the shape of the tank. JeffX has stated that he doesn't believe the geometry issue will be solved soon.



It hasn't happened yet. Doesn't mean it won't, or that there won't be other issues. Corporate SOP is to downplay and deflect any future possibilities. Time will tell. That said, there have been some Tesla fires unrelated to shield issues, so it is NOT an end all, be all fix.

But since you want to talk about Tesla's insurmountable amount of "research" into their batteries, take a look at these numbers. I didn't provide them before because a simple google search is your friend, but apparently with you, it didn't happen if it isn't linked. So here are your links regarding relative research and costs associated with battery problems:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2013/05/21/boeing-bleeding-cash-as-787-dreamliners-cost-200m-but-sell-for-116m-but-productivity-is-improving/#214eaca45cb5

http://old.seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020858239_787goflyxml.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/dreamliner-trouble-has-cost-boeing-600-million-2013-4

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/faa-says-united-787-battery-fix-cost-28-million

http://www.tradearabia.com/news/REAL_229635.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/boeing-787cost-idUSL2N0DB1EI20130424

https://leehamnews.com/2013/02/06/787-to-cost-boeing-6bn-in-cash-ubs-more-on-lithium-ion-batteries/

http://www.cnn.com/travel/article/boeing-787-dreamliner-investigation-report/index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dreamliner-grounding-could-cost-boeing-dearly/

http://www.cheatsheet.com/stocks/battery-problems-on-boeings-787-dreamliner-are-back.html/?a=viewall

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2013/02/07/will-787-battery-redesign-work/#58e15a5232a6

https://www.wired.com/2013/03/boeing-787-battery-redesign/[url]

[url]http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/mar/13/787-battery-redesign-okd/


http://aviationweek.com/awin/boeing-reveals-787-battery-fix-details

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-dreamliner-cost-idUSBRE90P00220130126

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/22/boeing-repairs-dreamliner-batteries

http://mitsloanexperts.mit.edu/a-systems-engineering-view-of-boeings-787-dreamliner-steve-eppinger/

http://www.aviationtoday.com/2013/06/01/system-design-fixing-the-787s-batteries/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-dreamliner-cost-idUSBRE90P00220130126

The estimated cost for Boeing to R&D, redesign and implement the battery change was about $600 million. Even accounting for the reality that most of that was probably related to building and replacing the batteries, I would bet a fair amount of $$ that Boeing spent more money on R&D ensuring that battery was safe than Musk did at Tesla. Further, the total estimated cost to Boeing is about $5-6 billion.

You assume that $100 million seems like a big number to you, so it must be to everyone else as well, but $100 million in aviation is chump change, and Tesla has nowhere near the engineering experience or engineering resources that Boeing does and Tesla's changes don't have to go through the tens of thousands of FAA regulations and approval processes that ANY FAA part has to go through.

What's really funny is the stink of arrogance that Musk has:

https://www.theverge.com/2013/1/29/3930502/boeing-787-dreamliner-battery-structure-inherently-unsafe-says-elon-musk

As though no other experience engineering organization or team could possible approach the limits of Tesla's modest abilities. Perhaps he should focus his attention on building a business that actually makes a profit in the long term...

P.S. Boeing didn't have any major battery issues after Musk made that statement because the airplanes were already grounded and the new battery development was already underway.

I'll let you go ahead and provide the articles on how much Tesla paid to R&D safe batteries because I couldn't find any numbers for them.

Don't make the assumption that because I don't provide a link doesn't mean I can't substantiate my claims.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-09-2017 19:10
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
9) I am well aware of the Eviation, but thanks. Couple problems: First, it is still a prototype. Second, it is unproven in terms of safety and reliability. It is also unproven as to whether or not they will actually be able to produce it without going bankrupt. Just because they built a concept or a prototype doesn't mean it is going to "work." 600 miles is also a short range for anything bigger than a Cessna 172 and since aviation is all about covering long distances in a single bound at a higher speed, I have my doubts.


My only reason for citing this example was to show possibility that battery plane could work, not that it would definitely replace other forms of aircraft.



10) You tried to provide me with a half-baked aviation history lesson. Don't try and turn it into an ad-hominem crusade now that you tried to "school" me on history and lost. I haven't been aggressive in any way shape or form in this thread. "Flat school" is an expression for "I am going to outperform you soundly."


An ad hominem attack would be saying you are wrong because of some attribute that you have.

I said that you were un-necessarily aggressive. I did not say that you were incorrect in your assertions because of this.


11) Tesla has spent a dearth of resources trying to figure out how their cells will behave compared to Boeing. Tesla's "research" on the matter was probably in the couple million dollar range, where Boeing probably had to spend upwards of $100 million. I can assure you that the aviation industries study and expenditures are ORDERS of magnitude higher than Tesla's and they still can't explain it, so neither can Tesla. They might have you fooled, but they don't have me fooled. The bottom line is that LiIon batteries are NOT stable, and they are unpredictable as to when they are going to go up. This is precisely why they are being increasingly limited on airplanes, in cargo, etc. All King's men can't figure out how to put Humpty back together again, and I promise Musk can't either. This is what I am talking about with "blind allegiance," "fanboyism" etc. You make a completely absurd comment, obviously not backed up by any sort of legitimate research, about how much resources Tesla had poured into doing something that nobody has. And yet, they haven't.


(1) Pure speculation with no supporting evidence.
(2) Just because entity A spent more much more $$$ than entity B, and did not succeed, does not mean than entity B cannot succeed on a lower budget. This is a pretty bad logical stumble.




12) As for car fires, another straw man to avoid the real thrust of the discussion.

A) I never said that regular electrical systems couldn't catch fire.

B) I never said that regular electrical system couldn't catch fire.

C) What I DID say was that a car with hundreds (or thousands) of LiIon cells is less predictable than normal methods of fire, which was in response to your attempt to assert that all cars with gasoline are ticking time bombs. But you avoid the real point I was making which is that the conditions under which a gasoline fire will occur are VERY logical, consistent and predictable. We know with 100% certainty what will cause a gasoline fire or explosion. Same with Hydrogen. They are predictable. Li-Ion issues have not been, and when you have a several hundred volt system relying on a huge battery pack that gets repeatedly and heavily heat cycled, the risk is not predictable. The 787 is a good example. Boeing conducted huge amounts of R&D into that battery pack. They constructed it to higher standards than Tesla could possibly imagine (MVSS is squat compared to the FAR's for quality standards). They spent years testing it. It still went up and they still didn't know why and couldn't predict when. Just like Samsung, the stupid standup cart things that got banned, or the completely dormant batteries that brought down a UPS 747-400. There are endless reports of Li-Ion devices catching fire when they were within all engineering parameters of temperature, age, use, condition. Do a google search.


The 787 pack and Samsung Lithium Polymer packs are not directly comparable to a Tesla battery pack. The Tesla pack is specifically designed to mitigate cell malfunction.

Every cell is individually fused and will break electrical contact with the rest of the pack if it begins to overheat. The liquid coolant loops quickly move heat away from cells.

Again, your assertions are not backed up with evidence. It is only your conjecture that Boeing spent more on R&D and therefore must be better at validation than Tesla. More $$$ thrown at a problem doesn't guarantee better results.


13) Your assumptions about FCEV's are purely biased conjecture.

You know as well as I do that early adopters and greenies don't buy this type of technology because it is attractive. They buy it for the technical value, the support for their belief in energy and because everybody knows how "green" they are.

The Prius didn't sell well until it stood out (and not in a good way).

Many Tesla buyers don't buy it just because it looks good. They buy it because people know its a Tesla.


Tesla's goal is not just to win the "greenies". Their goal is and always has been promotion of BEVs from niche to mainstream, and you can't do that with just "greenies".

Tesla needed $ from customers and investors to build their business. They needed to sell an expensive car first to get customer cash and build investment hype (yes, hype sells... and I will fully acknowledge that the Roadster prototype and Model S prototypes were hyped up to generate excitement).

You can't hype with a car that looks and performs at a mediocre level.

If you want people to imagine a BEV world, it's got to be better than an ICE world. That means nice looking cars, not aero-blobs or weirdmobiles.




So your assumption is just that, an assumption. Plus, Honda isn't looking to massively explode the market. They aren't looking to stand on a stage and sell fireworks and endless promises. They are doing what they always have done. They took a fuel cell and make it work in a lab. Then they made it work on the road. Then they made it work on the road in the hands of real users. Now they are making it work in the hands of real users at a price that isn't in the stratosphere. They will continue to hone and refine the technology into a gas engine replacement that is well rounded enough to actually replace gasoline. In the meantime, the demand will grow, the infrastructure will grow and people will notice. I don't think the hideous styling will slow the early adopters one bit.

Most of the automakers have admitted that BEV's are a short term stop gap and most of the BEV's are going to be designed for relatively short range, urban use.

Of course, I can also turn your betamax hyperbole back on you... Assuming that the BEV is "better" doesn't necessarily mean it will win... According to you, FCEV is more like VHS.


FCEV adoption is low. Lower than BEV. VHS was the widespread format.

We will see, but I don't think that FCEVs will take off. The enthusiasm gap between Honda Clarity and Tesla Model S is very wide. If Model 3 takes off, it is Game Over for Honda FCEV.



1) Eviation is a poor example. Just because they can build a prototype doesn't make it feasible. Period. So some research into aviation history. Eviation isn't the first company to propose or build a prototype electrical airplane. It doesn't mean it can work, it means they can build a concept and prototype. Until it has worked, it hasn't. Period.

It isn't possible until it is actually possible and feasible.

Stop hanging onto the ideology of the technology and examine the feasibility of it. Eviation hasn't succeeded yet. Neither have any of the others.

2)I'm not being aggressive in any way shape or form. I am getting tired of you rehashing the same old shit while denying anything else anyone is saying and then claiming that they can't counter your points, which are often directly provided propaganda from either Musk himself or some Musk humper.

3) I know full well what an ad hominem attack is. You were headed in that direction because rather than address the point that was made, you started to focus it on me as a person. I am not being "needlessly" aggressive. You just attempted to "school" me on a segment of history where you were outgunned. I called you on, let you know you were being condescending and then flatly called that I was going to put you in your place on the history of it (again to counter your Musk Kool-Aid).

4) Now you are moving the goal posts. I just buried you in links related to Boeing's costs.

Your first flaw was in asserting that there was no supporting evidence. Now you have your supporting evidence. I'll provide evidence that Tesla isn't 100% on all of their failures either in the next post.

I also never said that just because Boeing spent more meant that Tesla couldn't be successful on less money. That is you creating another straw man to attack.

My response about cost was in relation to your DIRECT statement that Tesla was safe because they had spent $100 million to prove it and when I replied that Boeing has spent orders of magnitude more and still couldn't say with 100% certainty what was causing the fires, you deflected it and challenged my assertions that it was unlikely they had spent more than Tesla. You just got stomped on that too. Not only did Boeing spend more money, but they have more engineers with more average experience and engineering resources that would embarrass Tesla. They also have a much larger body of experience and data in their field of expertise.

So, let's refocus on what I actually said:

Boeing has more engineering resources than Tesla. Period.

Boeing spent more money investigating battery failures than Tesla. Period.

Boeing still couldn't conclusively identify what the problem was, so I call into question Tesla's assertions that they have. Period. Didn't say they were wrong, I said I didn't buy it based on the rest of the universe.

5) They ARE directly relatable to Tesla because LiIon batteries all share common characteristics. Boeings design was intended to control and deal with thermal overrun too. It didn't work. In some cases, it hasn't worked with Tesla either. There is some advantage to the way Tesla attempts to manage heat, but frankly, if heat were the only issue, then most single cell portable devices shouldn't have a problem.

However, small Li-Ion cells have failed, big ones have failed, stored and inactive ones have failed and they have all usually failed in circumstances where they SHOULD not have failed. The only Tesla fire that really SHOULD have happened and was completely explainable was the one in WA where the debris punctured the cell. The supercharger car in Norway and the others should not have happened. They were not predictable fire situations, nor were Boeings, nor were Samsung's.

6) I don't need a lecture on Tesla's long term goal. But the reality remains that the majority of people who early adopt these technologies are greenies and one of the things they look for is a car that screams "look how environmentally conscious I am."

I did NOT say that there was no appeal to these products outside of screaming for attention or to greenies, I said it was a critical part of their early acceptance. Do you honestly think it is coincidental that the #1 selling car in California is a Prius vs a Civic or Camry Hybrid? Do you think its a coincidence that most of Tesla's early sales and success was centered in "environmentally aware" areas of the country, or that the Supercharger network was expanded in California first, or that The Clarity and Mirai exist only in California for now?

The short answer is no. In the markets where they will be deployed, both Honda and Toyota decided that noticeable (but ugly) styling would be a positive. The fact that Tesla decided the same thing, but in an ATTRACTIVE way, isn't coincidence either. The Tesla stands out in traffic, it just isn't in a bad way, unlike the Honda and Toyota.

7) FCEV adoption is lower because it couldn't be higher previously. The only FCEV that has been offered on the market prior to the two current cars was the first Clarity which was lease only and only in very limited numbers, since Honda didn't want full scale production due to costs. Now we are building a car that is available for a reasonable cost, so economics dictate that sales will increase because people can't buy what they can't get.

It's like saying that there are no sales of nuclear bombs, so there is no demand...

Finally, you missed the analogy completely. The point was that, according to you, Betamax was superior in every way to VHS even though VHS won out. You know, like how you claim that BEV's are superior in every way, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are going to win.

Once FCEV's become more mainstream and there is actually an infrastructure to support them, you might just be surprised how quickly they are adopted.

With a sub 300 mile range on the Model 3, I don't think I would boldly predict "game over" just yet... The Tesla S isn't absurdly expensive in some trims and it has more range and it still hasn't revolutionized the world, so this would be another exact example of you sucking the Kool-Aid without really taking a look around at the REAL world.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-09-2017 19:23
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
To be clear, I am no NASA shill, nor am I a supporter of the idea that government does everything better, and the Space Shuttle was a joke of a program from the start, but the reality is that NASA did all of the R&D, NASA did a better job of keeping ships together on a per launch basis (and they had systemic safety issues, which caused both Challenger AND Columbia under similar circumstances of causal factors) and then SpaceX largely "downloaded" that technology. Yes, it is public information, but you can't just directly attribute SpaceX's lowered costs to being private business.


(1) It occurred to me last night that comparing NASA's manned spaceflight program to SpaceX's commercial delivery and satellite launch service was apples and oranges. It would be more accurate to compare historic satellite launches to what SpaceX accomplishes today.

(2) Looking at the Thor-Delta family of rockets (many of which NASA used for satellite missions similar to what SpaceX does today), the early years, 1957-1965 had a high incidence of failure:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Thor_and_Delta_launches

Even in the 70's there were still accidents resulting in mission failure:

https://web.archive.org/web/20041118074655/http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4012/vol3/table1.32.htm

(3) I don't have cost figures. However, I think it is fair to say that SpaceX is not alone in having had accidents while launching satellites into space. To claim that SpaceX's record is "unimpressive" is to ignore the reality of the history of satellite launches.



It's only apples to oranges because you don't want to acknowledge all of the cost that NASA had to absorb in order for Tesla to be able to "download" the knowledge and technology.

So yes, it is a VALID comparison, in every way shape and form.

Your second assertion is bogus non-sense and completely non-sequitur. Not only did I already acknowledge NASA's safety record during the 70's, but I provided metrics for it, and then I openly acknowledged that Tesla falls somewhere between the Apollo program and the shuttle program (much closer to Apollo though). No claim was made that NASA didn't experience losses during the 70's. Apollo 13 was a pretty good example of that.

As for Hydrogen tanks, need does drive design. But you assume that there won't be any technology improvements that will allow the tanks to be smaller or more efficiently packaged. You know, sort of like how in the 1990's all of the viable high-powered batteries were big square boxes, and then small cells and new materials (NiMH and Li-Ion) allowed us start developing smaller and more powerful cells, which eventually made Tesla's flat battery pack possible, even though it wouldn't have been 10 years prior?

The flaw in your argument isn't where technology is today. It is that you are unilaterally attempting to convince yourself that technological improvement can only apply to batteries and BEV's and Tesla. The FCEV is already orders of magnitude more usable and feasible than it was even 15 years ago, so to pretend that there is no progress is just stupid and blind.

It would be like me telling you in 1985 that there was no way to store energy so that I could have a TV screen that I could carry with me and run all sorts of computing programs on with a 1080P HD screen, that was less than .5" thick and would run for 10-12 hours non-stop, connect to the internet (what's an internet?) and yet, here I am carrying my iPad around.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-09-2017 19:24
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Oh yeah, not to mention that Tesla isn't realistically liable to meet their projected sales volume anytime soon based on supply issues.
owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-09-2017 19:52
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Some considerations that need to be taken into account on ALL Li-Ion batteries (Tesla's included):

http://www.batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/safety_of_lithium_ion_batteries

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/519921/what-the-tesla-battery-fire-means-for-electric-vehicles/

http://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/10296/Battery-Expert-Weighs-in-on-Teslas-Powerwall.aspx

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/01/economist-explains-19 This is basic chemistry, BTW.

http://www.batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/safety_concerns_with_li_ion

http://247wallst.com/autos/2013/11/20/tesla-boeing-fires-raise-the-issue-of-lithium-battery-safety/

Not all of Tesla's fires were created by hitting road debris either...

There are plenty more if you want them. Don't want you to think I can't find stuff about Tesla's failures, and claim that there is "no point."

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-09-2017 20:47
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
http://www.boeing.com/company/general-info/

To put the scale in perspective, regarding relative capability, Boeing has 50% more engineers than Tesla has employees.

Boeing is also notorious for being one of the companies that hires the best engineers they can find, and they have always been a destination for engineers who perform at the top of their classes.

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-09-2017 22:25
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
It hasn't happened yet. Doesn't mean it won't, or that there won't be other issues. Corporate SOP is to downplay and deflect any future possibilities. Time will tell. That said, there have been some Tesla fires unrelated to shield issues, so it is NOT an end all, be all fix.

But since you want to talk about Tesla's insurmountable amount of "research" into their batteries, take a look at these numbers. I didn't provide them before because a simple google search is your friend, but apparently with you, it didn't happen if it isn't linked. So here are your links regarding relative research and costs associated with battery problems:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2013/05/21/boeing-bleeding-cash-as-787-dreamliners-cost-200m-but-sell-for-116m-but-productivity-is-improving/#214eaca45cb5

http://old.seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020858239_787goflyxml.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/dreamliner-trouble-has-cost-boeing-600-million-2013-4

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/faa-says-united-787-battery-fix-cost-28-million

http://www.tradearabia.com/news/REAL_229635.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/boeing-787cost-idUSL2N0DB1EI20130424

https://leehamnews.com/2013/02/06/787-to-cost-boeing-6bn-in-cash-ubs-more-on-lithium-ion-batteries/

http://www.cnn.com/travel/article/boeing-787-dreamliner-investigation-report/index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dreamliner-grounding-could-cost-boeing-dearly/

http://www.cheatsheet.com/stocks/battery-problems-on-boeings-787-dreamliner-are-back.html/?a=viewall

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2013/02/07/will-787-battery-redesign-work/#58e15a5232a6

https://www.wired.com/2013/03/boeing-787-battery-redesign/[url]

[url]http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/mar/13/787-battery-redesign-okd/


http://aviationweek.com/awin/boeing-reveals-787-battery-fix-details

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-dreamliner-cost-idUSBRE90P00220130126

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/22/boeing-repairs-dreamliner-batteries

http://mitsloanexperts.mit.edu/a-systems-engineering-view-of-boeings-787-dreamliner-steve-eppinger/

http://www.aviationtoday.com/2013/06/01/system-design-fixing-the-787s-batteries/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-dreamliner-cost-idUSBRE90P00220130126

The estimated cost for Boeing to R&D, redesign and implement the battery change was about $600 million. Even accounting for the reality that most of that was probably related to building and replacing the batteries, I would bet a fair amount of $$ that Boeing spent more money on R&D ensuring that battery was safe than Musk did at Tesla. Further, the total estimated cost to Boeing is about $5-6 billion.

You assume that $100 million seems like a big number to you, so it must be to everyone else as well, but $100 million in aviation is chump change, and Tesla has nowhere near the engineering experience or engineering resources that Boeing does and Tesla's changes don't have to go through the tens of thousands of FAA regulations and approval processes that ANY FAA part has to go through.

What's really funny is the stink of arrogance that Musk has:

https://www.theverge.com/2013/1/29/3930502/boeing-787-dreamliner-battery-structure-inherently-unsafe-says-elon-musk


As though no other experience engineering organization or team could possible approach the limits of Tesla's modest abilities. Perhaps he should focus his attention on building a business that actually makes a profit in the long term...

P.S. Boeing didn't have any major battery issues after Musk made that statement because the airplanes were already grounded and the new battery development was already underway.

I'll let you go ahead and provide the articles on how much Tesla paid to R&D safe batteries because I couldn't find any numbers for them.

Don't make the assumption that because I don't provide a link doesn't mean I can't substantiate my claims.


4) Now you are moving the goal posts. I just buried you in links related to Boeing's costs.

Your first flaw was in asserting that there was no supporting evidence. Now you have your supporting evidence. I'll provide evidence that Tesla isn't 100% on all of their failures either in the next post.

I also never said that just because Boeing spent more meant that Tesla couldn't be successful on less money. That is you creating another straw man to attack.

My response about cost was in relation to your DIRECT statement that Tesla was safe because they had spent $100 million to prove it and when I replied that Boeing has spent orders of magnitude more and still couldn't say with 100% certainty what was causing the fires, you deflected it and challenged my assertions that it was unlikely they had spent more than Tesla. You just got stomped on that too. Not only did Boeing spend more money, but they have more engineers with more average experience and engineering resources that would embarrass Tesla. They also have a much larger body of experience and data in their field of expertise.

So, let's refocus on what I actually said:

Boeing has more engineering resources than Tesla. Period.

Boeing spent more money investigating battery failures than Tesla. Period.

Boeing still couldn't conclusively identify what the problem was, so I call into question Tesla's assertions that they have. Period. Didn't say they were wrong, I said I didn't buy it based on the rest of the universe.


You have spent a lot of time typing what amounts to contradictory nonsense.

Let's review again what you actually argued.

YOUR WORDS: "Tesla has spent a dearth of resources trying to figure out how their cells will behave compared to Boeing. Tesla's "research" on the matter was probably in the couple million dollar range, where Boeing probably had to spend upwards of $100 million. I can assure you that the aviation industries study and expenditures are ORDERS of magnitude higher than Tesla's and they still can't explain it, so neither can Tesla."

You actually DID argue that Tesla was wrong. Trying to deny this when the record is clear, is frankly another example of the bullshit you try to get away with.

This is very different from what you say later: "Didn't say they were wrong, I said I didn't buy it based on the rest of the universe."



owequitit wrote:
1) Eviation is a poor example. Just because they can build a prototype doesn't make it feasible. Period. So some research into aviation history. Eviation isn't the first company to propose or build a prototype electrical airplane. It doesn't mean it can work, it means they can build a concept and prototype. Until it has worked, it hasn't. Period.

It isn't possible until it is actually possible and feasible.

Stop hanging onto the ideology of the technology and examine the feasibility of it. Eviation hasn't succeeded yet. Neither have any of the others.

2)I'm not being aggressive in any way shape or form.



I've been here for years, and you've always posted with what many interpret as a nasty and condescending edge. Name calling like "Musk humper" is petty and nasty:

I am getting tired of you rehashing the same old shit while denying anything else anyone is saying and then claiming that they can't counter your points, which are often directly provided propaganda from either Musk himself or some Musk humper.



3) I know full well what an ad hominem attack is. You were headed in that direction because rather than address the point that was made, you started to focus it on me as a person. I am not being "needlessly" aggressive. You just attempted to "school" me on a segment of history where you were outgunned. I called you on, let you know you were being condescending and then flatly called that I was going to put you in your place on the history of it (again to counter your Musk Kool-Aid).


You're also a huge hypocrite, since you engage in ad hominem attacks yourself. "Musk humper" is an obvious ad hom. Just because someone is a fan of Elon Musk doesn't mean that their points are wrong.

Dismissing everything as "propaganda" is basically a convenient way of ducking an argument on the merits.



5) They ARE directly relatable to Tesla because LiIon batteries all share common characteristics. Boeings design was intended to control and deal with thermal overrun too. It didn't work. In some cases, it hasn't worked with Tesla either. There is some advantage to the way Tesla attempts to manage heat, but frankly, if heat were the only issue, then most single cell portable devices shouldn't have a problem.

However, small Li-Ion cells have failed, big ones have failed, stored and inactive ones have failed and they have all usually failed in circumstances where they SHOULD not have failed. The only Tesla fire that really SHOULD have happened and was completely explainable was the one in WA where the debris punctured the cell. The supercharger car in Norway and the others should not have happened. They were not predictable fire situations, nor were Boeings, nor were Samsung's.


http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-short-circuit-cause-for-model-s-norway-fire/k3FGSMuyUW5O1zI4.99

The Norway fire wasn't due to a battery problem. It was from a short circuit in a distribution box.


6) I don't need a lecture on Tesla's long term goal. But the reality remains that the majority of people who early adopt these technologies are greenies and one of the things they look for is a car that screams "look how environmentally conscious I am."

I did NOT say that there was no appeal to these products outside of screaming for attention or to greenies, I said it was a critical part of their early acceptance. Do you honestly think it is coincidental that the #1 selling car in California is a Prius vs a Civic or Camry Hybrid? Do you think its a coincidence that most of Tesla's early sales and success was centered in "environmentally aware" areas of the country, or that the Supercharger network was expanded in California first, or that The Clarity and Mirai exist only in California for now?

The short answer is no. In the markets where they will be deployed, both Honda and Toyota decided that noticeable (but ugly) styling would be a positive. The fact that Tesla decided the same thing, but in an ATTRACTIVE way, isn't coincidence either. The Tesla stands out in traffic, it just isn't in a bad way, unlike the Honda and Toyota.


(1) I have been around the Tesla.com forums long enough to know that the Model S had and still has major appeal precisely because it looks like an ordinary car.

(2) A major complaint about Model X was that it attracted too much attention from the falcon-wing doors.

(3) Tesla's initial sales and Supercharger deployments were in California for cost reasons. The Tesla factory is in Fremont, and corporate offices in Palo Alto. Deliveries and services issues are much more easily dealt with when things are close to home. Tesla was a tiny company back in 2012, and they located in California because (1) that's where their original team and talent were from and (2) The only factory they could buy at a price they could afford was the old NUMMI plant in Fremont.



7) FCEV adoption is lower because it couldn't be higher previously. The only FCEV that has been offered on the market prior to the two current cars was the first Clarity which was lease only and only in very limited numbers, since Honda didn't want full scale production due to costs. Now we are building a car that is available for a reasonable cost, so economics dictate that sales will increase because people can't buy what they can't get.

It's like saying that there are no sales of nuclear bombs, so there is no demand...


Like I said before, in 5 years, if I'm wrong, I'll admit it and move on.


Finally, you missed the analogy completely. The point was that, according to you, Betamax was superior in every way to VHS even though VHS won out. You know, like how you claim that BEV's are superior in every way, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are going to win.

Once FCEV's become more mainstream and there is actually an infrastructure to support them, you might just be surprised how quickly they are adopted.

With a sub 300 mile range on the Model 3, I don't think I would boldly predict "game over" just yet... The Tesla S isn't absurdly expensive in some trims and it has more range and it still hasn't revolutionized the world, so this would be another exact example of you sucking the Kool-Aid without really taking a look around at the REAL world.



(1) There are 2 different things to consider: (i) Technological superiority and (ii) adoption.

My ORIGINAL argument was that even if you are correct, that FCEV is technically superior, the BEV adoption rate is ensuring that FCEVs will be locked out of the passenger automobile market because BEVs are more rapidly becoming the standard for next-generation personal transport.

However, it is my belief that BEVs are superior in most (but not all) ways to FCEVs, and have the adoption advantage.


(2) A base, RWD 75 kWh Model S has a price of $69,500. That's pretty damn expensive. At that price level you can only get black paint and a cloth upholstery interior. At that price level, adoption is going to be limited to high-end buyers. And Tesla's factory only has the line capacity to build about 100k Model S and X combined per year.

Tesla was never going to "revolutionize" the world on a low-ish volume, high priced large sedan.

The Model 3, on the other hand, is supposed to be a high-volume car at the price of a premium mid-size sedan. THAT has the potential to really push the BEV market, because if Tesla does well in that space, it will raise BEV awareness even more.

Arguably, the Chevy Bolt and next-generation Nissan LEAF are direct responses to the Model 3. Note that neither GM nor Nissan have comparable FCEVs in the works to either the Bolt or LEAF.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-09-2017 22:38
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Another reason I hold the stance I do. Let's take a quick peak at Tesla's financial situation:

Since 2004, they have had basically 15 rounds of financing (several designed to save them from oblivion).

They have raised over $4.5 billion since their IPO. The Gigafactory breaks were estimated at $2.4 Billion through 2034. The DOE loans were $465 million (which Tesla did pay off early).

Actually, they have raised $7.244 billion, including the following:

1) IPO in 2010 raises $226 million.

2) $1.02 billion raised in 2013 ($660 billion in Bonds).

3) $2 billion in bonds in Feb 2014.

4) $738 million in stock in 2015.

5) $1.46 billion in stock in 2016.

6) $1.8 billion 5% purchase from Chinese company Tencent in March 2017.

So basically, in the last 7 years, they have had to average more than $1B per year in financing.

This is significant, because their total equity is listed as $4-4.5 billion, which means that they are in fact relying on heavy debt financing to keep the lights on. Not totally unexpected for a startup, necessarily. However, Musk himself has said they need 500,000 total production to be "profitable" and they are nowhere near that. There is a lot of concern that they won't be there anytime soon either since it will cost several more billion and take a few years to get Model 3 to the difference between where they are now, and 500,000 units per year (roughly 400-450K in annual Model 3 production).

But the other component that doesn't follow normal economic logic is that the stock price has continued to skyrocket as volume has increased through multiple stock sells, bond sales, etc. Basic supply and demand dictates that when shares are released in massive quantities, the share price should decrease in proportion to the relative value of the shares. What is also alarming is the fact that Tesla's roughly $50 billion market cap outstrips the value of their assets by roughly 2-1, which means that there is no chance that investors will ever recoup their money if it topples. I understand that stock isn't necessarily an asset driven tool, but it is alarming to see 2x the total value of the company in stock, as logical and reasonable investments won't see that. Speculation stocks and stocks driven by ideological investors WILL see that, and indeed it mirrors what happened in the tech bubble where all of the companies were being driven sky high by the ideology of how they may change the world vs any actual value. At the end people were so desperate to make a buck, they were driving stock values up that didn't even have a tangible benefit to the world and were merely "tech" stocks.

Even more alarming is that not only is Tesla's market cap more than the company, but they are losing almost 25% of their total equity every year. This means they either have to leverage their equity, or continually turn back around to the market for another round of financing. Both have their limits and drawbacks. If Tesla can't make money until they reach 500,000 in annual volume, then they could be looking at another 3-4 years and another 3-4 billion in losses before they even break even. Musk says 2018, but he has missed almost every other major timeline target in the history of the company, so you can understand the skepticism on his claim. Further, per the original Tesla plan, the Model S was supposed to be the mass market volume vehicle. Then it was the 3, and now he is saying in his strategic plan that it will presumably be another model located BELOW the Model 3, which is more affordable than the S, but isn't necessarily an "everyman" model at an expected $42,000 average transaction price. So that pushes the true volume model off another 3-5 years, which allows for more rounds of debt financing based on irrational stock prices.

Then he has already hedged his bets for being able to continue the "hype" machine by announcing that long term they want trucks, busses, vans, semis and every other form of electric transport.

The Nikola One is a vehicle that I find most fascinating for a couple of reasons:

First, it uses a 300kW hydrogen fuel cell to power a 320kWH battery pack that will use 220lbs of hydrogen to achieve a range of about 1200 miles.

Not only would that substantially outperform a battery pack that is required to produce the 1,000HP and 2,000lb-ft, but it gives an effective MPG that is around 50-100% greater than a current OTR truck and it provides the fast fueling and long range benefits of a current diesel vehicle OTR truck. The weight savings are likely significant versus having to carry it all via battery, but also with trucks, rests don't necessarily occur near a charging station (DOT has strict rest requirements and you stop when you time out, regardless where you are), and they can't afford to spend hours and hours charging at a spot where charging can occur. The other significant factor here is that there are so many OTR trucks that the amount of demand they would put on charging stations and power grids would be significant.

The reason I think this technology is interesting is because it doesn't provide much compromise versus current diesel options in terms of range or convenience, and there are enough OTR trucks that if this proved to be feasible, there would be an instant and significant demand to increase H2 production and availability, which would in turn benefit FCEV car uses as well. Alternatively, it can easily be equipped to run CNG with a gas turbine to provide the electrical energy.

It will be interesting to see how that develops because FCEV's make a LOT more sense in situations where money is on the line, weight is an issue and range is paramount. The truck also won't be as limited by Hydrogen storage space.

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-09-2017 22:40
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
As for Hydrogen tanks, need does drive design. But you assume that there won't be any technology improvements that will allow the tanks to be smaller or more efficiently packaged. You know, sort of like how in the 1990's all of the viable high-powered batteries were big square boxes, and then small cells and new materials (NiMH and Li-Ion) allowed us start developing smaller and more powerful cells, which eventually made Tesla's flat battery pack possible, even though it wouldn't have been 10 years prior?

The flaw in your argument isn't where technology is today. It is that you are unilaterally attempting to convince yourself that technological improvement can only apply to batteries and BEV's and Tesla. The FCEV is already orders of magnitude more usable and feasible than it was even 15 years ago, so to pretend that there is no progress is just stupid and blind.

It would be like me telling you in 1985 that there was no way to store energy so that I could have a TV screen that I could carry with me and run all sorts of computing programs on with a 1080P HD screen, that was less than .5" thick and would run for 10-12 hours non-stop, connect to the internet (what's an internet?) and yet, here I am carrying my iPad around.


So basically, you ask me to accept on faith that 10k PSI H2 tanks will miraculously be shrunk to a better form factor than the tube and spherical tanks used today.

Look, if there is research or prototypes of this from Honda or others, point it out.

If you criticize me for believing in nebulous manufacturing projections from Tesla, why should I not criticize you similarly for asking me to accept empty conjecture on how H2 tanks might improve (with no technical reasoning to back it up).

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-10-2017 00:40
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
As for Hydrogen tanks, need does drive design. But you assume that there won't be any technology improvements that will allow the tanks to be smaller or more efficiently packaged. You know, sort of like how in the 1990's all of the viable high-powered batteries were big square boxes, and then small cells and new materials (NiMH and Li-Ion) allowed us start developing smaller and more powerful cells, which eventually made Tesla's flat battery pack possible, even though it wouldn't have been 10 years prior?

The flaw in your argument isn't where technology is today. It is that you are unilaterally attempting to convince yourself that technological improvement can only apply to batteries and BEV's and Tesla. The FCEV is already orders of magnitude more usable and feasible than it was even 15 years ago, so to pretend that there is no progress is just stupid and blind.

It would be like me telling you in 1985 that there was no way to store energy so that I could have a TV screen that I could carry with me and run all sorts of computing programs on with a 1080P HD screen, that was less than .5" thick and would run for 10-12 hours non-stop, connect to the internet (what's an internet?) and yet, here I am carrying my iPad around.


So basically, you ask me to accept on faith that 10k PSI H2 tanks will miraculously be shrunk to a better form factor than the tube and spherical tanks used today.

Look, if there is research or prototypes of this from Honda or others, point it out.

If you criticize me for believing in nebulous manufacturing projections from Tesla, why should I not criticize you similarly for asking me to accept empty conjecture on how H2 tanks might improve (with no technical reasoning to back it up).



Don't try and move the goal posts again, and stop trying to distort my statements to fit your blatantly, and frankly, disgustingly biased agenda.

1) I don't expect you to accept anything on faith. I am simply pointing out that you can take ANY point in history and something that is commonplace and viable today was then impossible.

I have too much of a realistic perspective on science and R&D to just accept on blind faith your absolutely ridiculous claims that storage solutions will never get better, when recent history (last 20 years) tells us it will. Storage has already gone from an average of 5,000PSI with the first FCX to 10,000 with the Clarity, and H2 density has increased from 50Mpa to 70Mpa. Actually the last Clarity also had 10,000PSI storage, so that is a doubling in about 7 years or so. There is also research to suggest that pressurizing a huge round tank might not be the best long term solution, and other methods ARE being studied.

https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review04/st_1_miliken.pdf

https://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage

https://www.trucks.com/2016/11/17/toyota-hydrogen-fuel-cell-truck/

Toyota is studying FCEV big trucks because BEV is not feasible at the weights or ranges needed.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/bmw-plans-hydrogen-fuel-cell-future-1.2271041

BMW is also developing longer term plans for FCEV's (contrary to your previous assertions that automakers are "retreating" from FCEV. So, as I recall, that makes Honda, Toyota, BMW, Ford and GM working toward FCEVs.

Honda's current Clarity is 60% more powerful than the unit it replaces, while also being orders of magnitude cheaper to build. If that isn't progress, I don't know what is. To be clear, it is 30% smaller and 30% more powerful (130kW vs 100kW).

So sorry, but your assertions that there is no progress on FCEV's is totally bogus.

Further, I can highlight just in the last 20 years in aviation, which is a fundamentally conservative industry where alternative ways of doing things have taken over, from engine design, to fuel efficiency, to materials construction. Electronics have seen the same, as have energy generation, construction etc. I can only assume that the same progress will be made mostly everywhere else, so NO, I will not buy your static hype that nothing with FCEV's will ever improve while BEVs will continue to improve by leaps and bounds (especially when battery technology says otherwise).

Now, again, this is why I am an FCEV supporter vs BEV.

1) BEV's main advantage is in short range, urban driving. FCEV's can do that as well as driving longer ranges with a minimum loss of convenience. The Clarity is already beating the Tesla Model S in range, and it is likely it will exceed the Model 3 as well. It already exceeds ALL BEV's actually. Yes, the Tesla is faster. But it is also more expensive, and I can't use a sub-3 second 0-60 nearly as often as I can use the additional range and fueling flexibility. This is why people find a 7-8 second Accord to be reasonably adequate in most situations.

2) In applications of size and weight, FCEV already has an advantage. In the case of OTR trucks and trains, they simply can't carry enough weight in batteries to offset the range issues without destroying operating margins. Especially since they often have certified weight limits, which means any additional weight in batteries comes straight out of payload. By carrying less weight in batteries, a tank of hydrogen and generating their own power on board, the problem is solved. Note the Nikola I mentioned earlier, where the average weight of the tractor is about 2,000lbs less than a diesel tractor, which can translate into as much as $30,000 a month in additional revenue (according to Nikola). Even if that is optimistic, an extra ton per load WILL add up to additional revenue for the operator. It also improves efficiency by increasing the amount carried per truck (imagine the impact for a company like War-Mart).

Further, if you look at where the US actually consumes fuel, then you know that OTR trucking is a HUGE use of our carbon based resources. Not only is the FCEV actually feasible in this role, but it would have a hugely greater impact on CO2 production than a few thousand BEV's running around the urban areas.

3)FCEV's also make more sense in applications such as ships and trains, where the demand for power is well beyond what any BEV needs. Again, you run into immediate weight issues, which the FC mitigates compared to the BEV.

4) The biggest shortcoming of FCEV's has already been beaten to death by you. Fueling infrastructure. The problem is that BEV's didn't have a lot of fueling infrastructure either until there was demand for the vehicles, which drove demand for the charging stations. The same will happen for FCEV, whether you like it or not. It is already happening as hydrogen fueling stations are expected to increase by more than 100% this year. If the technology for OTR becomes feasible, then the demand will increase much faster than it would for BEV's because OTR absolutely depends on widespread and readily available fuel sources. They also purchase enough of it to make it worthwhile, which widespread sale of the cars would support.

5) Finally, you expect ME to take on "blind faith" that the Tesla Model 3 is going to end the fuel cell. Except that it will have a sub 300 mile range, and there are already multiple BEV's on the market that are relatively close in performance and yet, they aren't setting the market on fire. Nor are the mutli-tude of hybrids, or plug-ins. So really, it sounds to me like you are choking on the Musk Kool-Aid in that regard. It might sell well, but I don't see it replacing billions of gas powered cars.

6) You can harp on efficiency all you want, but as I said before, the reality of "green" energy production dictates that supply no longer carries massive volatility and since the end result is completely pollution free (even though CO2 isn't pollution), it doesn't matter if the BEV is a little bit more efficient for 2 reasons.

1) The net result is still zero pollution.

2) The convenience will still offset the loss of efficiency, and there will still be a net gain of roughly 200% versus the current norm of gasoline powered engines.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-10-2017 02:21
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
It hasn't happened yet. Doesn't mean it won't, or that there won't be other issues. Corporate SOP is to downplay and deflect any future possibilities. Time will tell. That said, there have been some Tesla fires unrelated to shield issues, so it is NOT an end all, be all fix.

But since you want to talk about Tesla's insurmountable amount of "research" into their batteries, take a look at these numbers. I didn't provide them before because a simple google search is your friend, but apparently with you, it didn't happen if it isn't linked. So here are your links regarding relative research and costs associated with battery problems:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2013/05/21/boeing-bleeding-cash-as-787-dreamliners-cost-200m-but-sell-for-116m-but-productivity-is-improving/#214eaca45cb5

http://old.seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020858239_787goflyxml.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/dreamliner-trouble-has-cost-boeing-600-million-2013-4

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/faa-says-united-787-battery-fix-cost-28-million

http://www.tradearabia.com/news/REAL_229635.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/boeing-787cost-idUSL2N0DB1EI20130424

https://leehamnews.com/2013/02/06/787-to-cost-boeing-6bn-in-cash-ubs-more-on-lithium-ion-batteries/

http://www.cnn.com/travel/article/boeing-787-dreamliner-investigation-report/index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dreamliner-grounding-could-cost-boeing-dearly/

http://www.cheatsheet.com/stocks/battery-problems-on-boeings-787-dreamliner-are-back.html/?a=viewall

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2013/02/07/will-787-battery-redesign-work/#58e15a5232a6

https://www.wired.com/2013/03/boeing-787-battery-redesign/[url]

[url]http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/mar/13/787-battery-redesign-okd/


http://aviationweek.com/awin/boeing-reveals-787-battery-fix-details

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-dreamliner-cost-idUSBRE90P00220130126

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/22/boeing-repairs-dreamliner-batteries

http://mitsloanexperts.mit.edu/a-systems-engineering-view-of-boeings-787-dreamliner-steve-eppinger/

http://www.aviationtoday.com/2013/06/01/system-design-fixing-the-787s-batteries/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-dreamliner-cost-idUSBRE90P00220130126

The estimated cost for Boeing to R&D, redesign and implement the battery change was about $600 million. Even accounting for the reality that most of that was probably related to building and replacing the batteries, I would bet a fair amount of $$ that Boeing spent more money on R&D ensuring that battery was safe than Musk did at Tesla. Further, the total estimated cost to Boeing is about $5-6 billion.

You assume that $100 million seems like a big number to you, so it must be to everyone else as well, but $100 million in aviation is chump change, and Tesla has nowhere near the engineering experience or engineering resources that Boeing does and Tesla's changes don't have to go through the tens of thousands of FAA regulations and approval processes that ANY FAA part has to go through.

What's really funny is the stink of arrogance that Musk has:

https://www.theverge.com/2013/1/29/3930502/boeing-787-dreamliner-battery-structure-inherently-unsafe-says-elon-musk


As though no other experience engineering organization or team could possible approach the limits of Tesla's modest abilities. Perhaps he should focus his attention on building a business that actually makes a profit in the long term...

P.S. Boeing didn't have any major battery issues after Musk made that statement because the airplanes were already grounded and the new battery development was already underway.

I'll let you go ahead and provide the articles on how much Tesla paid to R&D safe batteries because I couldn't find any numbers for them.

Don't make the assumption that because I don't provide a link doesn't mean I can't substantiate my claims.


4) Now you are moving the goal posts. I just buried you in links related to Boeing's costs.

Your first flaw was in asserting that there was no supporting evidence. Now you have your supporting evidence. I'll provide evidence that Tesla isn't 100% on all of their failures either in the next post.

I also never said that just because Boeing spent more meant that Tesla couldn't be successful on less money. That is you creating another straw man to attack.

My response about cost was in relation to your DIRECT statement that Tesla was safe because they had spent $100 million to prove it and when I replied that Boeing has spent orders of magnitude more and still couldn't say with 100% certainty what was causing the fires, you deflected it and challenged my assertions that it was unlikely they had spent more than Tesla. You just got stomped on that too. Not only did Boeing spend more money, but they have more engineers with more average experience and engineering resources that would embarrass Tesla. They also have a much larger body of experience and data in their field of expertise.

So, let's refocus on what I actually said:

Boeing has more engineering resources than Tesla. Period.

Boeing spent more money investigating battery failures than Tesla. Period.

Boeing still couldn't conclusively identify what the problem was, so I call into question Tesla's assertions that they have. Period. Didn't say they were wrong, I said I didn't buy it based on the rest of the universe.


You have spent a lot of time typing what amounts to contradictory nonsense.

Let's review again what you actually argued.

YOUR WORDS: "Tesla has spent a dearth of resources trying to figure out how their cells will behave compared to Boeing. Tesla's "research" on the matter was probably in the couple million dollar range, where Boeing probably had to spend upwards of $100 million. I can assure you that the aviation industries study and expenditures are ORDERS of magnitude higher than Tesla's and they still can't explain it, so neither can Tesla."

You actually DID argue that Tesla was wrong. Trying to deny this when the record is clear, is frankly another example of the bullshit you try to get away with.

This is very different from what you say later: "Didn't say they were wrong, I said I didn't buy it based on the rest of the universe."



owequitit wrote:
1) Eviation is a poor example. Just because they can build a prototype doesn't make it feasible. Period. So some research into aviation history. Eviation isn't the first company to propose or build a prototype electrical airplane. It doesn't mean it can work, it means they can build a concept and prototype. Until it has worked, it hasn't. Period.

It isn't possible until it is actually possible and feasible.

Stop hanging onto the ideology of the technology and examine the feasibility of it. Eviation hasn't succeeded yet. Neither have any of the others.

2)I'm not being aggressive in any way shape or form.



I've been here for years, and you've always posted with what many interpret as a nasty and condescending edge. Name calling like "Musk humper" is petty and nasty:

I am getting tired of you rehashing the same old shit while denying anything else anyone is saying and then claiming that they can't counter your points, which are often directly provided propaganda from either Musk himself or some Musk humper.



3) I know full well what an ad hominem attack is. You were headed in that direction because rather than address the point that was made, you started to focus it on me as a person. I am not being "needlessly" aggressive. You just attempted to "school" me on a segment of history where you were outgunned. I called you on, let you know you were being condescending and then flatly called that I was going to put you in your place on the history of it (again to counter your Musk Kool-Aid).


You're also a huge hypocrite, since you engage in ad hominem attacks yourself. "Musk humper" is an obvious ad hom. Just because someone is a fan of Elon Musk doesn't mean that their points are wrong.

Dismissing everything as "propaganda" is basically a convenient way of ducking an argument on the merits.



5) They ARE directly relatable to Tesla because LiIon batteries all share common characteristics. Boeings design was intended to control and deal with thermal overrun too. It didn't work. In some cases, it hasn't worked with Tesla either. There is some advantage to the way Tesla attempts to manage heat, but frankly, if heat were the only issue, then most single cell portable devices shouldn't have a problem.

However, small Li-Ion cells have failed, big ones have failed, stored and inactive ones have failed and they have all usually failed in circumstances where they SHOULD not have failed. The only Tesla fire that really SHOULD have happened and was completely explainable was the one in WA where the debris punctured the cell. The supercharger car in Norway and the others should not have happened. They were not predictable fire situations, nor were Boeings, nor were Samsung's.


http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-short-circuit-cause-for-model-s-norway-fire/k3FGSMuyUW5O1zI4.99

The Norway fire wasn't due to a battery problem. It was from a short circuit in a distribution box.


6) I don't need a lecture on Tesla's long term goal. But the reality remains that the majority of people who early adopt these technologies are greenies and one of the things they look for is a car that screams "look how environmentally conscious I am."

I did NOT say that there was no appeal to these products outside of screaming for attention or to greenies, I said it was a critical part of their early acceptance. Do you honestly think it is coincidental that the #1 selling car in California is a Prius vs a Civic or Camry Hybrid? Do you think its a coincidence that most of Tesla's early sales and success was centered in "environmentally aware" areas of the country, or that the Supercharger network was expanded in California first, or that The Clarity and Mirai exist only in California for now?

The short answer is no. In the markets where they will be deployed, both Honda and Toyota decided that noticeable (but ugly) styling would be a positive. The fact that Tesla decided the same thing, but in an ATTRACTIVE way, isn't coincidence either. The Tesla stands out in traffic, it just isn't in a bad way, unlike the Honda and Toyota.


(1) I have been around the Tesla.com forums long enough to know that the Model S had and still has major appeal precisely because it looks like an ordinary car.

(2) A major complaint about Model X was that it attracted too much attention from the falcon-wing doors.

(3) Tesla's initial sales and Supercharger deployments were in California for cost reasons. The Tesla factory is in Fremont, and corporate offices in Palo Alto. Deliveries and services issues are much more easily dealt with when things are close to home. Tesla was a tiny company back in 2012, and they located in California because (1) that's where their original team and talent were from and (2) The only factory they could buy at a price they could afford was the old NUMMI plant in Fremont.



7) FCEV adoption is lower because it couldn't be higher previously. The only FCEV that has been offered on the market prior to the two current cars was the first Clarity which was lease only and only in very limited numbers, since Honda didn't want full scale production due to costs. Now we are building a car that is available for a reasonable cost, so economics dictate that sales will increase because people can't buy what they can't get.

It's like saying that there are no sales of nuclear bombs, so there is no demand...


Like I said before, in 5 years, if I'm wrong, I'll admit it and move on.


Finally, you missed the analogy completely. The point was that, according to you, Betamax was superior in every way to VHS even though VHS won out. You know, like how you claim that BEV's are superior in every way, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are going to win.

Once FCEV's become more mainstream and there is actually an infrastructure to support them, you might just be surprised how quickly they are adopted.

With a sub 300 mile range on the Model 3, I don't think I would boldly predict "game over" just yet... The Tesla S isn't absurdly expensive in some trims and it has more range and it still hasn't revolutionized the world, so this would be another exact example of you sucking the Kool-Aid without really taking a look around at the REAL world.



(1) There are 2 different things to consider: (i) Technological superiority and (ii) adoption.

My ORIGINAL argument was that even if you are correct, that FCEV is technically superior, the BEV adoption rate is ensuring that FCEVs will be locked out of the passenger automobile market because BEVs are more rapidly becoming the standard for next-generation personal transport.

However, it is my belief that BEVs are superior in most (but not all) ways to FCEVs, and have the adoption advantage.


(2) A base, RWD 75 kWh Model S has a price of $69,500. That's pretty damn expensive. At that price level you can only get black paint and a cloth upholstery interior. At that price level, adoption is going to be limited to high-end buyers. And Tesla's factory only has the line capacity to build about 100k Model S and X combined per year.

Tesla was never going to "revolutionize" the world on a low-ish volume, high priced large sedan.

The Model 3, on the other hand, is supposed to be a high-volume car at the price of a premium mid-size sedan. THAT has the potential to really push the BEV market, because if Tesla does well in that space, it will raise BEV awareness even more.

Arguably, the Chevy Bolt and next-generation Nissan LEAF are direct responses to the Model 3. Note that neither GM nor Nissan have comparable FCEVs in the works to either the Bolt or LEAF.



I'm glad you have been here for years... I have too.

I am the way I am because people like you do nothing but try to discredit anything I say just because. Then you cry about links, and when provided, you try to find some semantical contradiction that allows you to ignore the actual point I made.

And sorry, but when someone gets to the point where they completely ignore ALL aspects of reality, including Tesla's ABYSMAL financial performance, continuously lapsed goals, subsidies and financial breaks, repeated turns to the market for money to continue hiding the massive losses, the overinflated nature of the stock and the relative dearth of product and development to support the above, then there simply is no other way to define it outside of "blind loyalty." Musk humper is ultimately what it amounts to because there is no rational basis for it. They are simply accepting him as such a superior human that other mere mortals can't possibly understand the future. It is equivalent to BEV Scientology. Take it offensively if you want. It is no different than being a Honda applogist or blind fanboy.

2) Nice try, but the only one with contradictory statements is you.

I just proved my point. My original point was that Boeing spent orders of magnitude more to research their battery issues than Tesla. They spent roughly $600 million (on top of their original R&D). I'm waiting for you to provide those numbers that prove this false. You originally denied that Boeing spent more and you originally denied that it was possible that Tesla wasn't as sure about it as you said they were. I haven't contradicted myself at all. When you provide the Tesla numbers, I am confident it will be a small fraction of $600 million, and Boeing couldn't determine with certainty what caused the failures. Neither could the NTSB or the FAA. You also made a statement about Tesla's engineering resources, to which I countered that Boeing has 50% more engineers than Tesla has employees...

I'll be waiting for those numbers...

3) I didn't say every point Musk supporters made was wrong. That is another baseless assumption on your part and frankly a poor attempt to try and devalue MY points. Just because I use a word like "Musk-humper" also doesn't mean I am a hypocrite or that my points are wrong.

Also, it is funny you attacking me for ad-hominem attacks when I have attacked propaganda directly as such (grandiose claims of technological superiority, future market penetration not supported by any form of evidence, product claims that are likely to be missed, financial metrics that are hand picked to look a certain way) all fall under the umbrella of propaganda. If that offends you, I can't help it.

Short of that, I have stuck to addressing your assertions about Boeing's battery expenditures, Tesla's awful balance sheet and spending habits, real comparison between your claims and actual measured data, issues with ALL Li-Ion cells, and the TRUTH about FCEV's when it was counter to your hand chosen metrics and information. There really hasn't been anything ad hominem about any of my points. Calling propaganda propaganda isn't ad hominem. Using the term Musk-humper also isn't ad hominem as it wasn't focused toward you specifically. It was a general statement related to people who are unrealistic about Musk's status and ability in the universe and it referred mostly to blind investors that pour money into an ideology versus something tangible and measurable. That's fine, if they want to put their money into pyramid scheme and take that risk, I could care less. But I am going to take issue when they try to correct me on why I should believe what they do.

4)I didn't say the fire in Norway was caused by the battery. What I DID say was that not all of Tesla's problems were the result of road debris impact as protected by the shield installation.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/tesla-under-fire-after-explosive-crash-n722541

This article paints a slightly different picture than the version you linked... Sounds like it might have been more inconclusive than Tesla wants to admit. Of course, with fire investigation, the biggest problem is that you can't investigate the evidence that no longer exists...

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/01/20/tesla-model-s-fire-not-caused-by-supercharger-investigators-say/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3743588/Tesla-car-catches-fire-promotional-event-France.html

http://fortune.com/2016/08/16/tesla-model-s-fire/

How about the one that caught fire in France, or the one in Toronto where "no cause was found" but Tesla claims that it wasn't the charger, the battery or the electrical receptacle which were all "undamaged"? Of course, I didn't see pictures of that, so how do I know?

I simply made the statement that all of Tesla's fires were not related to the need for reinforcing plates...

5) NUMMI is another matter entirely because there is evidence that suggests Toyota was strong-armed into giving it to them for cheap (just like the received DOE funds when they were on the verge of bankruptcy, when that is illegal). But whatever, we are saving the world right?

Second, it was also because the majority of initial sales were in California and other areas like NY because that is where the highest adoption of alternative fuel vehicles is. It wasn't just because the factory was in Fremont.

Also, people may think it looks ordinary, but Tesla has enough recognition and awareness in the marketplace that the vast majority of people I have ever talked to know exactly what it looks like. And it DOES stand out in traffic, whether Tesla owners think it does or not. At least in their case, it stands out in a GOOD way versus a "look at how hideous I am with my overstyled scoops and vents" like the Clarity and Mirai. However, my point here also still stands. Early adopters want to be noticed.

6) You haven't moved on in the last 5 years even though FCEV's have increased in power, range, cost, and penetration (they are actually now being sold on the market rather than just as an experiment). Hydrogen fueling stations are also seeing massive double to triple digit increases, which is one of the specific things you have pointed in the past to highlight Tesla's Supercharger success.

That is in addition to the fact that Tesla has missed multiple deadlines, multiple financial metrics and hasn't come close to many of the promises that existed 5 years ago, so you'll forgive me for not taking this at face value.

However, based on most manufacturer timelines, you should see at least the number of FCEVS double or triple in the next five years, as most manufacturers were targeting 2020-2025 timeframes. There is also pretty good likelihood that between Nikola and Toyota you will see commercial truck applications emerge (Nikola says 2019).

You've already seen a 200% increase in the options on the market since 3 years ago, and they aren't extremely limited run models that are simply there to accumulate miles, so really it is an infinite increase. It is as significant as when the Tesla Model S hit the market technologically.

7) I know what point you were trying to make. I simply flipped it around on you to prove a point about your grandiose claims. The same ones you are demonstrating here.

A) BEV adoption rate is FAR from anything that is going to guarantee that FCEV's get "pinched" from the marketplace. I would hardly call a few % points of the total market as some conclusive victory, especially since the lack of BEV penetration is precisely because the of the convenience tradeoffs that FCEV's don't have. I don't know what world you live in, but there is literally ZERO data that proves FVEC research is decreasing, FCEV deployment is decreasing, market penetration is impossible, or that BEV adoption is so widespread as to preclude a change in technology. That is just you swallowing the Kool-Aid again and trying to convince yourself that is what the market looks like. The reality is that as of today, and possibly for the next couple of decades or longer, NOTHING is replacing gasoline and NOTHING is going to see major market penetration.

Tesla sold around 100,000 cars last year out of 17.5 million industry wide. That is WAAAAAY less than 1%. Even if Tesla manages 500,000 per year and actually becomes profitable, it is STILL less than 3%. TOTAL electric car penetration of the US is about 1%, so let's spare ourselves the "BEV's have closed a gap that FCEV's can't possibly overcome" hyperbole.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/04/us-electric-car-sales-59-january-2017/

Finally, perhaps BEV's prove to be a stop gap for the FCEV, just like 8 tracks were a stopgap between records and cassettes. I'm sorry, but you are way downplaying the limitations of BEV's in multiple roles.

As for your Model 3 assertions, do some research on Musk's strategic vision. He envisions another car below the 3 which will be the "volume" model. Presumably to be called the Model Y (because nothing says hype like a lineup that spells "S3XY"...):roll eyes:

He has also admitted that the average price for the Model 3 is expected to be $42,000, which is going to be far above the price to achieve mainstream penetration like an Accord or Camry, which averages about $10-20K less. "Mainstream" is price sensitive and $42K average ain't going to make it. Considering the base model of the Model 3 will be about equivalent to a Honda Accord V6 in performance, but with a shorter range, I wonder how much an even lower model will lose in performance and range...

So while the Model 3 will certainly improve Tesla's fortunes, there is a lot of stuff that still has to happen for it to be the runaway success you say it will be.

Also, this is Musk pushing the target off further in the distance, presumably to keep the hype machine going. I did some research into it based on our previous conversations, and the Model S was supposed to be "mainstream" but they later revised that and it came out expensive. Then it was the Model 3. Now he is saying it is still coming. That is in addition to his promises for development of trucks, vans, busses and OTR trucks which will certainly keep the hype machine running long enough for him to amass his fortune and keep the money flowing.

Sorry, but based on his methods, I agree with Jeff. It is all a bunch of hype. And people don't spend enough time actually looking around to see that because they don't want to. I have no problems with the cars or the technology per se. I DO NOT agree that it is better than FCEV in any metric that matters, and I do take issue with the grandiose claims that both he and his supporters make.

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-10-2017 06:40
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
I'm glad you have been here for years... I have too.

I am the way I am because people like you do nothing but try to discredit anything I say just because.


Perhaps you should stop making things up then.

Did you ever think there's a reason people here push back on your posts?

When you do things like (1) claim that HP supported Apple's IPO, when they did not, and further claim that an HP employee was the tiebreaker between Jobs and Wozniak, which is untrue, and further

(2) Attack SpaceX's safety record by attributing an Orbital Sciences rocket explosion to their record, and claiming, again FALSELY, that SpaceX used Russian refurb rocket engines from the Cold War,

Why shouldn't anyone question your credibility?

If you want people to stop this, then STOP MAKING THINGS UP.


owequitit wrote:
Honda's current Clarity is 60% more powerful than the unit it replaces, while also being orders of magnitude cheaper to build. If that isn't progress, I don't know what is. To be clear, it is 30% smaller and 30% more powerful (130kW vs 100kW).


http://hondanews.com/honda-automobiles/channels/fuel-cell-vehicles/releases/2017-honda-clarity-fuel-cell-specifications?page=2

"2017 Honda Clarity Fuel Cell Specifications
Power Output 103kW"

That is 3 kW more powerful than the previous FCX Clarity: http://world.honda.com/FCXClarity/specifications/ Type PEMFC (Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell)
Max. output(kW) 100

The fuel cell hasn't gotten more powerful, although it is more power dense. The overall powertrain max output is 30% higher, but this is likely due to the battery having more output to bolster the electric motor, since the fuel cell on the 2017 model cannot sustain 130 kW.


Then you cry about links, and when provided, you try to find some semantical contradiction that allows you to ignore the actual point I made.


This is just you making excuses for saying one thing in one post, and then saying something completely different to try to dance around the invalid point you previously made.

Sorry, you don't get a pass on this.

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-10-2017 18:05
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
It's only apples to oranges because you don't want to acknowledge all of the cost that NASA had to absorb in order for Tesla to be able to "download" the knowledge and technology.

So yes, it is a VALID comparison, in every way shape and form.

Your second assertion is bogus non-sense and completely non-sequitur. Not only did I already acknowledge NASA's safety record during the 70's, but I provided metrics for it, and then I openly acknowledged that Tesla falls somewhere between the Apollo program and the shuttle program (much closer to Apollo though). No claim was made that NASA didn't experience losses during the 70's. Apollo 13 was a pretty good example of that.


You stated that you weren't impressed with SpaceX's record in this thread. I had to go back to the other thread because I didn't remember your argument with respect to safety.

But again, there are currently no other private commercial space launch companies in the US that sell similar services at the same price as SpaceX.

ULA is extremely expensive in comparison, Orbital ATK doesn't have the same capabilities, and Blue Origin has yet to go fully commercial. Being impressed or not is obviously subjective, so I cannot convince you to be impressed, but I think it is wrong to belittle SpaceX for their accomplishments.

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-10-2017 18:23
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:I also never said that just because Boeing spent more meant that Tesla couldn't be successful on less money. That is you creating another straw man to attack.

My response about cost was in relation to your DIRECT statement that Tesla was safe because they had spent $100 million to prove it and when I replied that Boeing has spent orders of magnitude more and still couldn't say with 100% certainty what was causing the fires, you deflected it and challenged my assertions that it was unlikely they had spent more than Tesla. You just got stomped on that too. Not only did Boeing spend more money, but they have more engineers with more average experience and engineering resources that would embarrass Tesla. They also have a much larger body of experience and data in their field of expertise.


I can't let this slide either.

NOWHERE did I claim that Tesla spent $100 Million on Lithium Ion battery research.

The "$100 Million" figure appears IN YOUR POST in THIS THREAD @ 06-29-2017 00:38.

This is yet another example of you making things up.

And you have the nerve to complain that people try to discredit you?

You've been caught making up:
(1) That HP backed Apple's business and IPO (untrue, HP rejected Woz's designs, and it was investment banks that underwrote Apple's IPO)
(2) That an HP employee was the tiebreaker between Jobs and Wozniak (untrue, it was a former Atari Engineer named Ronald Wayne who held the final 10% in the original Apple partnership)
(3) That SpaceX had "3" catastrophic accidents (untrue)
(4) That SpaceX used Russian refurb engines from the Cold War Era (untrue, that was Orbital Sciences, now Orbital ATK)
(5) That I claimed Tesla spent $100M and more than Boeing. (untrue, see my post @ 06-29-2017 21:33)

If you're going to attribute to me arguments THAT I NEVER MADE you can be darn sure I'm going to call you out on it.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-10-2017 21:00
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
I'm glad you have been here for years... I have too.

I am the way I am because people like you do nothing but try to discredit anything I say just because.


Perhaps you should stop making things up then.

Did you ever think there's a reason people here push back on your posts?

When you do things like (1) claim that HP supported Apple's IPO, when they did not, and further claim that an HP employee was the tiebreaker between Jobs and Wozniak, which is untrue, and further

(2) Attack SpaceX's safety record by attributing an Orbital Sciences rocket explosion to their record, and claiming, again FALSELY, that SpaceX used Russian refurb rocket engines from the Cold War,

Why shouldn't anyone question your credibility?

If you want people to stop this, then STOP MAKING THINGS UP.


owequitit wrote:
Honda's current Clarity is 60% more powerful than the unit it replaces, while also being orders of magnitude cheaper to build. If that isn't progress, I don't know what is. To be clear, it is 30% smaller and 30% more powerful (130kW vs 100kW).


http://hondanews.com/honda-automobiles/channels/fuel-cell-vehicles/releases/2017-honda-clarity-fuel-cell-specifications?page=2

"2017 Honda Clarity Fuel Cell Specifications
Power Output 103kW"

That is 3 kW more powerful than the previous FCX Clarity: http://world.honda.com/FCXClarity/specifications/ Type PEMFC (Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell)
Max. output(kW) 100

The fuel cell hasn't gotten more powerful, although it is more power dense. The overall powertrain max output is 30% higher, but this is likely due to the battery having more output to bolster the electric motor, since the fuel cell on the 2017 model cannot sustain 130 kW.


Then you cry about links, and when provided, you try to find some semantical contradiction that allows you to ignore the actual point I made.


This is just you making excuses for saying one thing in one post, and then saying something completely different to try to dance around the invalid point you previously made.

Sorry, you don't get a pass on this.



1) I "changed" my mind. You know, like you did with the definition of "subsidy?" So if you want to call everyone on mistakes, then you better be mindful of your own.

2) I may have incorrectly attributed that engine failure, but the statistic is in tact (which is really the bigger point). Space X has had 3 failures in 38 launches, which makes it slightly better than Apollo and far worse than Space Shuttle.

Stop trying to derail semantics to keep your veil of Musk alive and well. I made a direct comment about Space X's safety record. You can't refute it, so you try to distract from it with comments about cost (which weren't on the table) and then by focusing on semantics that don't change the metric in question.

3) Perhaps I read the wrong metric, but again, I am going to drag you right back to the STRATEGIC point, which was:

The Clarity has improved output from a Cell stack that is 30% smaller than the previous model and is cheaper. Since the FCX, output has increased from 86kW to 103kW, while shrinking 20% and losing 40% weight respectively to the Clarity FCX and then shrinking another 30% for the current car while gaining approximately 10-15% efficiency, so again, large and tangible improvements in performance, size, output and most importantly, cost.

The BIGGER point is that your assertions that FCEV's are going nowhere are flat wrong. If you want to focus on semantics to try and convince yourself otherwise, go for it.

4) The ORIGINAL conversation on Li-Ion batteries started when I called into question Musk's assertion that they KNEW their setup was completely safe in all conditions. You then threw out the (still unspecified) amount of research Tesla did to "prove their batteries were safe" and I questioned that because I KNEW Boeing spent more and put more resources into it and they can't prove it. I also knew the OTHER history of Li-Ion cells, some of which are the same as those Musk puts under his floors. You cried foul, I probably ascribed a guessed amount to both, and then you got pissed off about the fact that someone had the audacity to question your blind faith in Musk's claims. Since that time you have tried to assert that Musk has tons of engineering resources (Boeing has more), you have tried to assert that Boeing can spend more and not discover anything when Musk is magically able to solve a problem using his "Muskness" (not completely impossible, but unlikely given the level of Boeing's resources, and the amount of direct oversight from the government), and the level of regulation and testing involved in certification in BOTH cases. Then you went on a tirade about the validity of numbers, and the lack of links, so they were provided for you because you didn't want to believe it without links.

So again, I am going to point you right back at the REAL nature of the disagreement:

Show me what immense resources Musk spent vs Boeing because I call bullshit on your assertions that Musk can guarantee his Li-Ion batteries are completely safe when nobody else can, including battery engineers. We know Boeing spent $600 million on the Dreamliner battery, and I am still waiting for Musk's unbeatable research and engineering numbers.

*You can get pissed of about the "validity" of my claims about Musk all you want, but you and I both know that I wasn't trying to "invent" numbers. You run through these threads (sometimes 3 at a time) and rehash the same shit over and over and over (while talking about how it is drumming up interest in Tesla LOL) and it gets impossible to keep track of what you have actually thrown out there because like Musk you try to obfuscate reality underneath grandiose claims and hand-picked links so that hopefully nobody will see the veil of hype you are trying to pull over.

So my root point still stands. Nobody else can explain all of the battery problems, so it is highly likely Musk can't either. Like it, dislike it, I really don't give a shit. Companies have spent BILLIONS on research into why Li-Ion cells are failing under conditions where they shouldn't be and still can't answer the questions (and that doesn't include government efforts).

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-10-2017 22:24
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:I also never said that just because Boeing spent more meant that Tesla couldn't be successful on less money. That is you creating another straw man to attack.

My response about cost was in relation to your DIRECT statement that Tesla was safe because they had spent $100 million to prove it and when I replied that Boeing has spent orders of magnitude more and still couldn't say with 100% certainty what was causing the fires, you deflected it and challenged my assertions that it was unlikely they had spent more than Tesla. You just got stomped on that too. Not only did Boeing spend more money, but they have more engineers with more average experience and engineering resources that would embarrass Tesla. They also have a much larger body of experience and data in their field of expertise.


I can't let this slide either.

NOWHERE did I claim that Tesla spent $100 Million on Lithium Ion battery research.

The "$100 Million" figure appears IN YOUR POST in THIS THREAD @ 06-29-2017 00:38.

This is yet another example of you making things up.

And you have the nerve to complain that people try to discredit you?

You've been caught making up:
(1) That HP backed Apple's business and IPO (untrue, HP rejected Woz's designs, and it was investment banks that underwrote Apple's IPO)
(2) That an HP employee was the tiebreaker between Jobs and Wozniak (untrue, it was a former Atari Engineer named Ronald Wayne who held the final 10% in the original Apple partnership)
(3) That SpaceX had "3" catastrophic accidents (untrue)
(4) That SpaceX used Russian refurb engines from the Cold War Era (untrue, that was Orbital Sciences, now Orbital ATK)
(5) That I claimed Tesla spent $100M and more than Boeing. (untrue, see my post @ 06-29-2017 21:33)

If you're going to attribute to me arguments THAT I NEVER MADE you can be darn sure I'm going to call you out on it.



1) There was less separation than you want to pretend, and I already said THREE TIMES that I "changed my mind." Think subsidy.

2) See Mike Markulla.

3) One:

http://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-problem-falcon9-crash-landing-2015-1

Two:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/spacex-rocket-crash-lands-on-drone-ship-again/

Three:

https://www.space.com/29119-spacex-reusable-rocket-landing-crash-video.html

Definition of catastrophe:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catastrophe

With relation to space, air, sea and land transport, an accident is considered catastrophic if it leads to a loss of life, or the loss of a major asset, which would apply in the case of the Falcon 9 crashes, since they are intended to be reused and could not be.

P.S. There have actually been at least 4 (and I didn't look that hard):

http://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-explode-2014-8#ixzz3BAcrJ3JL

I didn't use that one because it was a development flight. However, it should be noted that I DID use development flights when considering the Apollo program losses, as well as the Shuttle (Challenger was the first loss). Like it or don't, I actually rounded the SpaceX stats in YOUR favor.

So, I will say it again. SpaceX did, in fact, have at least 3 catastrophic losses, which puts their success rate between Apollo and the Space Shuttle.

I made the mistake of thinking the one in Texas exploded due to its Russian surplus engine.

However, in searching, I also found this one:

https://www.space.com/33929-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-explodes-on-launch-pad.html

And look how open to "free market" Musk is until he sees an opportunity to pad his coffers...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/07/07/why-spacex-lost-its-bid-to-ban-russian-rocket-engine-debate/#3bb158cf5f52

4) The $100 million dollar issue still stands, even though I probably inserted the numbers after your ridiculous claims that Musk's limited R&D facilities did something that hundreds of other bigger and better R&D facilities can't do.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-10-2017 22:35
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Some more interesting reading about the myth of Tesla:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/4-key-threats-to-teslas-plan-for-electric-car-dominance/ar-BBDYaJ1

http://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/2088013/under-teslas-bonnet-lies-cause-lithiums-price-surge

It will be interesting to see what effect a five fold increase in volume will have on vehicles, as $600 a car isn't insignificant, especially as the segments they put products in get more price sensitive...

Interesting to note that the Clarity has a 1.7 kWh battery vs the 75-100 kWh battery in some Tesla BEV's. Wonder what happens when we need billions of BEV's. Seems like it might be better to refine renewable hydrogen rather than strip mine the Earth of Lithium.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-10-2017 23:47
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
It's only apples to oranges because you don't want to acknowledge all of the cost that NASA had to absorb in order for Tesla to be able to "download" the knowledge and technology.

So yes, it is a VALID comparison, in every way shape and form.

Your second assertion is bogus non-sense and completely non-sequitur. Not only did I already acknowledge NASA's safety record during the 70's, but I provided metrics for it, and then I openly acknowledged that Tesla falls somewhere between the Apollo program and the shuttle program (much closer to Apollo though). No claim was made that NASA didn't experience losses during the 70's. Apollo 13 was a pretty good example of that.


You stated that you weren't impressed with SpaceX's record in this thread. I had to go back to the other thread because I didn't remember your argument with respect to safety.

But again, there are currently no other private commercial space launch companies in the US that sell similar services at the same price as SpaceX.

ULA is extremely expensive in comparison, Orbital ATK doesn't have the same capabilities, and Blue Origin has yet to go fully commercial. Being impressed or not is obviously subjective, so I cannot convince you to be impressed, but I think it is wrong to belittle SpaceX for their accomplishments.



Again economics didn't enter the equation. We were discussing, and I was very specifically, sticking to the safety aspect because that is where the thread went.

SpaceX's safety record leaves a lot to be desired. But, I am going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't condone airlines killing people, companies spilling chemicals and oil spills in the interest of cost savings, so I am curious why you are so quick to pull the "SpaceX is cheaper" card when it involves Musk?

If a safety record sucks and leads to catastrophic problems, then it sucks and leads to catastrophic problems. I don't make exceptions for my personal heroes.

Now, let's talk about the hype in SpaceX's claims:

http://www.airspacemag.com/space/is-spacex-changing-the-rocket-equation-132285884/

http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-real-cost-savings-for-customers/

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/air-force-budget-reveals-how-much-spacex-undercuts-launch-prices/

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/661330.pdf

http://fortune.com/2017/06/17/spacex-launch-cost-competition/

https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/16/us-air-force-spacex-ula-launch-costs/

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/boosters_bits/2014/05/ulas-per-launch-costs-rival-spacex-and-its-a.html

Current estimates put SpaceX's actual launch cost about 1/2 of that of ULS. The problem is that ULS has a much better safety record. Of course, you would expect that cost to go somewhere, and admittedly ULS HAS lowered costs since SpaceX started competing for contracts.

Here is the sticking point to Musk's claims. Inconvenient for SpaceX, I know, but the reality is that on more expensive and sensitive projects it is actually cheaper to pay ULS to do it based on their record.

If I am launching a $300 million satellite, than it might be worth it to pay the difference to have ULS launch it. Considering that some satellites cost in the billions of dollars, ULS becomes a no-brainer from a risk standpoint.

http://nation.time.com/2012/05/21/how-much-does-gps-cost/

http://www.globalcomsatphone.com/hughesnet/satellite/costs.html

https://www.space.com/28926-air-force-launches-gps-satellite.html

https://www.space.com/19794-navstar.html

So there are a couple of big questions.

1) How is SpaceX going to improve their launch record while keeping their costs low? ULS' launch record over a couple of decades didn't happen by mistake or luck.

2) How much does it REALLY cost SpaceX to launch a satellite? Are they sandbagging to gain market share? If not, what do cost projections look like going forward?

3) I am skeptical of Musk's overly simplistic design claims (which makes easy fodder for his blind faithful) based on the fact that if it were easy to just use the same parts over and over, surely someone else would have thought about it based on the fact that it has been done all over every industry. Of course, they talk upfront about how Musk's focus is more on cost, versus performance.

4) How well does SpaceX do going forward, considering they seem to be limited to LEO missions? Sure, they can scale it up, add payload, add thrust, add performance, add capability. Guess what? That ALL adds cost. So if Musk builds a rocket with identical performance and identical safety to, say the Delta, what are SpaceX's costs?

5) I'll say this flat out. SpaceX better drive that success rate about 100 times higher if he is serious about commercialization of space. If aviation has taught us anything, it is that consumers don't accept a false pretense of safety.

As I have asserted here before, SpaceX's success record leaves a lot to be desired.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-11-2017 00:23
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
I believe this is the link Jeff posted awhile back. I'll just post it here again:

http://www.lawsofhype.com

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-11-2017 18:27
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Further debate is pointless, because you refuse to debate on a factual basis. The discussion goes nowhere because anytime you are caught stating untrue things, you continue to dig in and post more untruths.

Whether this is deliberate trolling on your part, or simply oversight, I do not know, but I'm no longer willing to put up with it.

Here's why:


owequitit wrote:
2) See Mike Markulla.


Again, you are making things up.

(1) Mike Markula was an employee of Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel Corp. prior to joining Apple Computer Inc., with a specialty in marketing and distribution. Markkula's joining Apple was a condition of Sequoia Capital (the VC firm owned by Don Valentine) financing Apple. (pages 196-197 of Steve Jobs, by Walter Issacsson)

(2) You are confusing the original partnership of Apple (which was Jobs, Wozniak, and Ron Wayne), with the Corporation that succeeded the original partnership.



3) One:

http://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-problem-falcon9-crash-landing-2015-1

Two:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/spacex-rocket-crash-lands-on-drone-ship-again/

Three:

https://www.space.com/29119-spacex-reusable-rocket-landing-crash-video.html

Definition of catastrophe:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catastrophe

With relation to space, air, sea and land transport, an accident is considered catastrophic if it leads to a loss of life, or the loss of a major asset, which would apply in the case of the Falcon 9 crashes, since they are intended to be reused and could not be.


This is a disingenuous argument, because the rocket landing was not part of the customer's mission to put a satellite in space or make a cargo delivery. It was SpaceX's R&D. They knew that many returning first stages would crash until they had tweaked the control algorithms enough for a good landing.

What you are doing is like attributing a test aircraft crash to the safety record of the final production model. The first-stage landing systems on Falcon 9 were experimental, although the rocket's ability to place a payload in orbit was not experimental.


4) The $100 million dollar issue still stands, even though I probably inserted the numbers after your ridiculous claims that Musk's limited R&D facilities did something that hundreds of other bigger and better R&D facilities can't do.


Amazing.

Again, spending more $ doesn't guarantee a better result.

Only time will tell which one of us is correct in predictions. If FCEVs win, I'll accept it and move on. If BEVs win, will you?

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-12-2017 06:43
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
1) I "changed" my mind. You know, like you did with the definition of "subsidy?" So if you want to call everyone on mistakes, then you better be mindful of your own.


I had assumed that you were being sarcastic about this in previous posts. I am sorry if this was an incorrect interpretation of what you wrote.

Dren
Profile for Dren
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-12-2017 07:16
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
If you prepaid for one of these last year you might receive it when the Ford Bronco render gets an MMC.


owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-12-2017 20:42
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
Further debate is pointless, because you refuse to debate on a factual basis. The discussion goes nowhere because anytime you are caught stating untrue things, you continue to dig in and post more untruths.

Whether this is deliberate trolling on your part, or simply oversight, I do not know, but I'm no longer willing to put up with it.

Here's why:


owequitit wrote:
2) See Mike Markulla.


Again, you are making things up.

(1) Mike Markula was an employee of Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel Corp. prior to joining Apple Computer Inc., with a specialty in marketing and distribution. Markkula's joining Apple was a condition of Sequoia Capital (the VC firm owned by Don Valentine) financing Apple. (pages 196-197 of Steve Jobs, by Walter Issacsson)

(2) You are confusing the original partnership of Apple (which was Jobs, Wozniak, and Ron Wayne), with the Corporation that succeeded the original partnership.



3) One:

http://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-problem-falcon9-crash-landing-2015-1

Two:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/spacex-rocket-crash-lands-on-drone-ship-again/

Three:

https://www.space.com/29119-spacex-reusable-rocket-landing-crash-video.html

Definition of catastrophe:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catastrophe

With relation to space, air, sea and land transport, an accident is considered catastrophic if it leads to a loss of life, or the loss of a major asset, which would apply in the case of the Falcon 9 crashes, since they are intended to be reused and could not be.


This is a disingenuous argument, because the rocket landing was not part of the customer's mission to put a satellite in space or make a cargo delivery. It was SpaceX's R&D. They knew that many returning first stages would crash until they had tweaked the control algorithms enough for a good landing.

What you are doing is like attributing a test aircraft crash to the safety record of the final production model. The first-stage landing systems on Falcon 9 were experimental, although the rocket's ability to place a payload in orbit was not experimental.


4) The $100 million dollar issue still stands, even though I probably inserted the numbers after your ridiculous claims that Musk's limited R&D facilities did something that hundreds of other bigger and better R&D facilities can't do.


Amazing.

Again, spending more $ doesn't guarantee a better result.

Only time will tell which one of us is correct in predictions. If FCEVs win, I'll accept it and move on. If BEVs win, will you?



1) I have posted more "facts" than you have in this thread. From Tesla's financial's to Musk's outrageous claims about SpaceX. No, my argument hasn't been 100% correct, but then again, neither has yours, and where I messed up, I was going mainly from memory. I also accepted the correction.

2) Great, Mike Markkula wasn't HP. He was associated with Intel and a couple of other big companies, like the other big backers of Apple.

And your facts are not QUITE correct either. Markkula fronted Apple their first $250K, helped them secure venture capital financing, was the 2nd CEO of Apple, and continued to serve on the company's board until he helped return Steve Jobs to power.

However, again, you are trying to dive deeper and deeper into semantic bullshit to try and avoid the REAL thrust of the argument which is that Apple was a viable company at IPO and Tesla has not been since. Apple's performance supported the stock price history and Tesla's does not. Apple was a "forward thinking" and revolutionary company for its time and it still had stock priced based on financial performance (as did Microsoft, Intel, etc).

Tesla's price is over-inflated and not driven by rational investing. Period. There are also signs that demand for Tesla's current products is leveling off (look at sales data).

2) Wrong. This is you trying to move the goal posts away from a standard definition of transportation catastrophe because you don't like it.

In order for a reusable space vehicle to be considered to have "successfully" completed a mission, it must also return to Earth for reuse. Which Tesla failed to do at least 4 times and which NASA also failed to do 3 times (1 Apollo and 2 Space Shuttle).

If the premise of the mission is being able to return for another go, then it requires a return for another go. That is a standard in any round-trip, transportation mission. Period. If SpaceX splashes their rockets on landing (they didn't ALL crash on landing, so don't pretend they did, and that was already linked as such), then they don't get the economics of reusing them. That is also a fact. If an airplane crashes when it is empty, it is still considered an airplane crash.

Further, I provided multiple direct links to cost and they are nowhere near 10% as hyped by Musk repeatedly. They are closer to 50% after ULS adjusted their costs. They will have to reduce costs by a factor of 5 in order to meet targets. Their safety record won't necessarily ever be the same.

Also, it would appear in this case that more money DOES, in fact, equal a better result based on the relative safety records of SpaceX vs ULS. At $300 million to billions a pop, it doesn't take many satellite splashes to lose money on the back end by trying to save it on the front end; lowest government bidder strategy be damned.

3) This has nothing to do with Boeing's relative R&D vs Tesla's.

But, I am still waiting for all of that research that was released by Tesla on their battery safety... Don't forget the costs...

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-12-2017 23:03
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
2) Great, Mike Markkula wasn't HP. He was associated with Intel and a couple of other big companies, like the other big backers of Apple.

And your facts are not QUITE correct either. Markkula fronted Apple their first $250K, helped them secure venture capital financing, was the 2nd CEO of Apple, and continued to serve on the company's board until he helped return Steve Jobs to power.

However, again, you are trying to dive deeper and deeper into semantic bullshit to try and avoid the REAL thrust of the argument which is that Apple was a viable company at IPO and Tesla has not been since. Apple's performance supported the stock price history and Tesla's does not. Apple was a "forward thinking" and revolutionary company for its time and it still had stock priced based on financial performance (as did Microsoft, Intel, etc).

Tesla's price is over-inflated and not driven by rational investing. Period.


First, I want to remind you that in this thread, multiple times, I explicitly stated that Tesla's stock price appeared to move up and down with no regards to the fundamentals of the company. See my post @ 06-23-2017 11:04, where I specifically advised people against any investment. Given my statements on the stock early in the thread, I am frankly puzzled as to why you continue to badger me about Tesla's stock price.

I really don't care about it other than as a curiosity with regards to its abnormal volatility.

Whether an investment "pencils out" is dependent on financial modeling and educated guesses on risk. In other words, it's entirely subjective. The financial institutions that participated in Tesla's IPO, and the various funds that hold Tesla's shares, would have conducted their own analysis of Tesla's business plan. The major outside holders of Tesla stock have decided that the risk of losing it all is worth the potential reward of whatever future outcome they project. Tesla may not "pencil out" in your analysis, but it did to someone else. Your assertion that Tesla is not viable is subjective, as is the opposite assertion that Tesla is viable.

And just to be clear, I have no clue what will happen to Tesla in the long run.

The only projection I make is that BEV will emerge as the preferred automotive architecture that will succeed ICE. The trends I see from automakers are pretty clear on this, regardless of Tesla's ultimate fate.

And as always, if technological breakthroughs change the facts on the ground, I'll adjust my projections accordingly.



There are also signs that demand for Tesla's current products is leveling off (look at sales data).


Tesla can only build 100,000 total Model S and X combined on their present manufacturing line. There is no way to know if sales have truly leveled off, because there is no way to test that hypothesis.

If Tesla was building at a rate of 120k annually and cars were piling up unsold, I might agree with you.



2) Wrong. This is you trying to move the goal posts away from a standard definition of transportation catastrophe because you don't like it.

In order for a reusable space vehicle to be considered to have "successfully" completed a mission, it must also return to Earth for reuse. Which Tesla failed to do at least 4 times and which NASA also failed to do 3 times (1 Apollo and 2 Space Shuttle).

If the premise of the mission is being able to return for another go, then it requires a return for another go. That is a standard in any round-trip, transportation mission. Period. If SpaceX splashes their rockets on landing (they didn't ALL crash on landing, so don't pretend they did, and that was already linked as such), then they don't get the economics of reusing them. That is also a fact. If an airplane crashes when it is empty, it is still considered an airplane crash.

Further, I provided multiple direct links to cost and they are nowhere near 10% as hyped by Musk repeatedly. They are closer to 50% after ULS adjusted their costs. They will have to reduce costs by a factor of 5 in order to meet targets. Their safety record won't necessarily ever be the same.


Here's my perspective:

Falcon 9 started out as a disposable orbital launch vehicle, just like Atlas and Delta. It was and is an evolving product, having gone through v1, v1.1, Full Thrust, and other revisions.

SpaceX initially didn't know exactly how to make the 1st stage of an Orbital Launch Vehicle return to a landing zone, intact and dry. This is obviously a much different problem than the Space Shuttle.

In order to figure out the correct configuration of control hardware and software, they had to do a lot of trial and error. The company had ideas for making the landing work, but there's no way to actually make it work without trying different things.

First,

What you characterize as "catastrophic accident", was necessary R&D for SpaceX to iterate their design to get it to actually be reusable in some mission profiles

There is a long list of landing tests and attempts. From 2013 through the first half of 2016, most of the landing attempts resulted in total loss of the 1st stage booster:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_first-stage_landing_tests#Ocean_touchdown_attempts

Some of the 1st stages were ditched into the ocean on purpose (there was no drone ship to attempt recovery). In later times the 1st stages crashed into the drone ships. But all of this was for the purpose of gathering data to improve the product.

By my count, SpaceX lost ten(10) 1st Stage Boosters in their landing experiments involving boostback burns. They lost an additional 2 boosters when trying out parachutes in 2010.

If you watch SpaceX mission recaps: https://www.youtube.com/user/spacexchannel/videos, they clearly state in the earlier videos that the landings are "experimental".

Can a product be declared truly "reusable" if the company has not certified it as such, and explicitly tells the public that the landing attempts are experimental?

The missions were to place cargo in orbit.

The experimental landings to gather data and test tweaks to the grid fins, maneuvering thrusters, and software, were distinct from the mission of placing cargo into orbit. SpaceX never expected to recover those early boosters. They wanted data on how to reach their goal of getting the booster to actually land in 1 piece. Whether the 1st stage made it back to base or not after a successful burn, had no effect on whether the cargo was successfully deployed for the customer.

In other words, the mission can succeed even if the experiment afterwards doesn't work out.


Second, If you refer back to the Wikipedia page I linked above, note that SpaceX made "no attempt" to land Falcon 9 stages this year on 3 occasions. The Falcon 9 is not always a "reusable" space vehicle, because some mission profiles require the vehicle to expend all its fuel getting cargo to a high orbit, leaving no fuel for a boostback burn.

I don't think one can reasonably argue that failure to recover a Stage 1 booster on that kind of mission is a "catastrophic" failure.

I think this is a reasonable and fair explanation of why I (and SpaceX for that matter) do not consider experimental landing failures to be a catastrophe.


Third A failure on most of these missions (because reusability either not available, as in the case of Falcon 1 or early Falcon 9 without landing hardware, or was still under development) was losing the customer's cargo. By my count, that happened a total of 5-6 times.

Three(3) Falcon 1 rockets exploded at various stages of flight between 2006-2008, resulting in loss of customer cargo.

Falcon 9 had one(1) partial loss of cargo in 2012 (main payload made it to correct orbit, secondary payload did not make it), and two(2) additional losses: one ISS resupply ship launch failed due to a faulty part from a supplier, and another rocket exploded on the ground during fueling due to a problem with super chilled fuel.



Also, it would appear in this case that more money DOES, in fact, equal a better result based on the relative safety records of SpaceX vs ULS. At $300 million to billions a pop, it doesn't take many satellite splashes to lose money on the back end by trying to save it on the front end; lowest government bidder strategy be damned.

3) This has nothing to do with Boeing's relative R&D vs Tesla's.

But, I am still waiting for all of that research that was released by Tesla on their battery safety... Don't forget the costs...


(1) SpaceX is 10 for 10 this year in terms of launches. They learn from their failures.

(2) Again, Tesla's packs are designed under the assumption that some of the Lithium Ion cells will go bad. The fusing, cooling, and venting systems are designed to deal with the failure of the small cylindrical cells inside the pack.

You legitimately state that LiIon batteries do go bad and have fire hazard. Tesla specifically designed the pack to handle that inevitability. Obviously I don't have access to their proprietary data or internal costs, but in the public record, Tesla has a number of patents describing how they handle battery volatility: http://uautoinsurance.com/b/tesla-battery-fire-patents-cm475/

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-13-2017 00:09
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
owequitit wrote:
2) Great, Mike Markkula wasn't HP. He was associated with Intel and a couple of other big companies, like the other big backers of Apple.

And your facts are not QUITE correct either. Markkula fronted Apple their first $250K, helped them secure venture capital financing, was the 2nd CEO of Apple, and continued to serve on the company's board until he helped return Steve Jobs to power.

However, again, you are trying to dive deeper and deeper into semantic bullshit to try and avoid the REAL thrust of the argument which is that Apple was a viable company at IPO and Tesla has not been since. Apple's performance supported the stock price history and Tesla's does not. Apple was a "forward thinking" and revolutionary company for its time and it still had stock priced based on financial performance (as did Microsoft, Intel, etc).

Tesla's price is over-inflated and not driven by rational investing. Period.


First, I want to remind you that in this thread, multiple times, I explicitly stated that Tesla's stock price appeared to move up and down with no regards to the fundamentals of the company. See my post @ 06-23-2017 11:04, where I specifically advised people against any investment. Given my statements on the stock early in the thread, I am frankly puzzled as to why you continue to badger me about Tesla's stock price.

I really don't care about it other than as a curiosity with regards to its abnormal volatility.

Whether an investment "pencils out" is dependent on financial modeling and educated guesses on risk. In other words, it's entirely subjective. The financial institutions that participated in Tesla's IPO, and the various funds that hold Tesla's shares, would have conducted their own analysis of Tesla's business plan. The major outside holders of Tesla stock have decided that the risk of losing it all is worth the potential reward of whatever future outcome they project. Tesla may not "pencil out" in your analysis, but it did to someone else. Your assertion that Tesla is not viable is subjective, as is the opposite assertion that Tesla is viable.

And just to be clear, I have no clue what will happen to Tesla in the long run.

The only projection I make is that BEV will emerge as the preferred automotive architecture that will succeed ICE. The trends I see from automakers are pretty clear on this, regardless of Tesla's ultimate fate.

And as always, if technological breakthroughs change the facts on the ground, I'll adjust my projections accordingly.



There are also signs that demand for Tesla's current products is leveling off (look at sales data).


Tesla can only build 100,000 total Model S and X combined on their present manufacturing line. There is no way to know if sales have truly leveled off, because there is no way to test that hypothesis.

If Tesla was building at a rate of 120k annually and cars were piling up unsold, I might agree with you.



2) Wrong. This is you trying to move the goal posts away from a standard definition of transportation catastrophe because you don't like it.

In order for a reusable space vehicle to be considered to have "successfully" completed a mission, it must also return to Earth for reuse. Which Tesla failed to do at least 4 times and which NASA also failed to do 3 times (1 Apollo and 2 Space Shuttle).

If the premise of the mission is being able to return for another go, then it requires a return for another go. That is a standard in any round-trip, transportation mission. Period. If SpaceX splashes their rockets on landing (they didn't ALL crash on landing, so don't pretend they did, and that was already linked as such), then they don't get the economics of reusing them. That is also a fact. If an airplane crashes when it is empty, it is still considered an airplane crash.

Further, I provided multiple direct links to cost and they are nowhere near 10% as hyped by Musk repeatedly. They are closer to 50% after ULS adjusted their costs. They will have to reduce costs by a factor of 5 in order to meet targets. Their safety record won't necessarily ever be the same.


Here's my perspective:

Falcon 9 started out as a disposable orbital launch vehicle, just like Atlas and Delta. It was and is an evolving product, having gone through v1, v1.1, Full Thrust, and other revisions.

SpaceX initially didn't know exactly how to make the 1st stage of an Orbital Launch Vehicle return to a landing zone, intact and dry. This is obviously a much different problem than the Space Shuttle.

In order to figure out the correct configuration of control hardware and software, they had to do a lot of trial and error. The company had ideas for making the landing work, but there's no way to actually make it work without trying different things.

First,

What you characterize as "catastrophic accident", was necessary R&D for SpaceX to iterate their design to get it to actually be reusable in some mission profiles

There is a long list of landing tests and attempts. From 2013 through the first half of 2016, most of the landing attempts resulted in total loss of the 1st stage booster:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_first-stage_landing_tests#Ocean_touchdown_attempts

Some of the 1st stages were ditched into the ocean on purpose (there was no drone ship to attempt recovery). In later times the 1st stages crashed into the drone ships. But all of this was for the purpose of gathering data to improve the product.

By my count, SpaceX lost ten(10) 1st Stage Boosters in their landing experiments involving boostback burns. They lost an additional 2 boosters when trying out parachutes in 2010.

If you watch SpaceX mission recaps: https://www.youtube.com/user/spacexchannel/videos, they clearly state in the earlier videos that the landings are "experimental".

Can a product be declared truly "reusable" if the company has not certified it as such, and explicitly tells the public that the landing attempts are experimental?

The missions were to place cargo in orbit.

The experimental landings to gather data and test tweaks to the grid fins, maneuvering thrusters, and software, were distinct from the mission of placing cargo into orbit. SpaceX never expected to recover those early boosters. They wanted data on how to reach their goal of getting the booster to actually land in 1 piece. Whether the 1st stage made it back to base or not after a successful burn, had no effect on whether the cargo was successfully deployed for the customer.

In other words, the mission can succeed even if the experiment afterwards doesn't work out.


Second, If you refer back to the Wikipedia page I linked above, note that SpaceX made "no attempt" to land Falcon 9 stages this year on 3 occasions. The Falcon 9 is not always a "reusable" space vehicle, because some mission profiles require the vehicle to expend all its fuel getting cargo to a high orbit, leaving no fuel for a boostback burn.

I don't think one can reasonably argue that failure to recover a Stage 1 booster on that kind of mission is a "catastrophic" failure.

I think this is a reasonable and fair explanation of why I (and SpaceX for that matter) do not consider experimental landing failures to be a catastrophe.


Third A failure on most of these missions (because reusability either not available, as in the case of Falcon 1 or early Falcon 9 without landing hardware, or was still under development) was losing the customer's cargo. By my count, that happened a total of 5-6 times.

Three(3) Falcon 1 rockets exploded at various stages of flight between 2006-2008, resulting in loss of customer cargo.

Falcon 9 had one(1) partial loss of cargo in 2012 (main payload made it to correct orbit, secondary payload did not make it), and two(2) additional losses: one ISS resupply ship launch failed due to a faulty part from a supplier, and another rocket exploded on the ground during fueling due to a problem with super chilled fuel.



Also, it would appear in this case that more money DOES, in fact, equal a better result based on the relative safety records of SpaceX vs ULS. At $300 million to billions a pop, it doesn't take many satellite splashes to lose money on the back end by trying to save it on the front end; lowest government bidder strategy be damned.

3) This has nothing to do with Boeing's relative R&D vs Tesla's.

But, I am still waiting for all of that research that was released by Tesla on their battery safety... Don't forget the costs...


(1) SpaceX is 10 for 10 this year in terms of launches. They learn from their failures.

(2) Again, Tesla's packs are designed under the assumption that some of the Lithium Ion cells will go bad. The fusing, cooling, and venting systems are designed to deal with the failure of the small cylindrical cells inside the pack.

You legitimately state that LiIon batteries do go bad and have fire hazard. Tesla specifically designed the pack to handle that inevitability. Obviously I don't have access to their proprietary data or internal costs, but in the public record, Tesla has a number of patents describing how they handle battery volatility: http://uautoinsurance.com/b/tesla-battery-fire-patents-cm475/



Yup, and then you turn immediately around and start beating the Musk drum again.

Tesla hasn't come close to doing what you claim, and there are ZERO metrics to assert that will change. They haven't done what Musk has claimed either. Fact.

SpaceX has not done what Musk has claimed (despite downloading everything from NASA) and there is nothing that suggests that they will see that sort of savings. Reusing rocket parts isn't like producing an infinitely cheap gadget. There is too much structural cost that has little to do with the rockets themselves (just like aviation), which is probably why he is approximately 3-5 times more expensive than he wants to be. Also, ULS isn't giving nothing in return for the extra money they charge. They can lift bigger payloads higher and they get them there with a much higher safety history. Fact.

If it were as easy as making interchangeable rocket parts, surely someone else with a brain would have figured that out long ago, not to mention if reusing parts was the end all be all, NASA probably wouldn't have spent more on the Shuttle than a capsule program. Fact.

The bottom line is that you drink Musk's Kool-Aid and I don't. He is a bunch of hyped up, overinflated programs that frankly have under-performed HIS promises, as well as their stock prices. But hey, he is laughing all the way to the bank, so you just keep telling yourself whatever you need to keep your charade of utopia alive.

*Still waiting for Tesla's research data on Li-Ion batteries.

atomiclightbulb
Profile for atomiclightbulb
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 07-13-2017 06:40
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
Yup, and then you turn immediately around and start beating the Musk drum again.

Tesla hasn't come close to doing what you claim, and there are ZERO metrics to assert that will change. They haven't done what Musk has claimed either. Fact.


People have disassembled Tesla battery packs to see for themselves. A computer hacker called wk057 posted this: https://skie.net/skynet/projects/tesla/view_post/20_Pics+and+Info:+Inside+the+Tesla+100kWh+Battery+Pack, and discussed the various mitigation measures that Tesla implements.

wk057 is also known for hacking Tesla's firmware and revealing the existence of the 100 kWh battery pack before it became an option.

I agree that I don't have specific safety data or costs, but most companies don't publish that sort of thing because it is proprietary.


SpaceX has not done what Musk has claimed (despite downloading everything from NASA) and there is nothing that suggests that they will see that sort of savings. Reusing rocket parts isn't like producing an infinitely cheap gadget. There is too much structural cost that has little to do with the rockets themselves (just like aviation), which is probably why he is approximately 3-5 times more expensive than he wants to be. Also, ULS isn't giving nothing in return for the extra money they charge. They can lift bigger payloads higher and they get them there with a much higher safety history. Fact.


This is true, but SpaceX is making progress. They certainly haven't achieved the cost savings they want, but it's been less than 2 years since they first recovered a 1st stage booster.

A lot of experimentation on components durability (like the rocket engines themselves and the control grid fins) needs to happen before they have a final product that they can re-use multiple times at reduced costs.


If it were as easy as making interchangeable rocket parts, surely someone else with a brain would have figured that out long ago, not to mention if reusing parts was the end all be all, NASA probably wouldn't have spent more on the Shuttle than a capsule program. Fact.


This is a poor argument, because someone has to be the first to invent it.

NASA went down the wrong path with the Space Shuttle. I'm sure there was plenty of politics involved too (though I'd have to look up just how many jobs and congressional districts were involved).



The bottom line is that you drink Musk's Kool-Aid and I don't. He is a bunch of hyped up, overinflated programs that frankly have under-performed HIS promises, as well as their stock prices. But hey, he is laughing all the way to the bank, so you just keep telling yourself whatever you need to keep your charade of utopia alive.

*Still waiting for Tesla's research data on Li-Ion batteries.


I do not view Musk as infallible. The problems with Model X are proof that he is human and makes mistakes.

The fact that you resort to nasty name calling (you keep calling me a "Kool-Aid" drinker) only reinforces your reputation here at ToV for abusive behavior.

JeffX
Profile for JeffX
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-21-2018 12:36
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
atomiclightbulb wrote:
JeffX wrote:
Each market where the subsidies are yanked, the sales collapse. Musk is good at generating capital, conning the clueless (gov't), and preaching to his cult, but he's truly terrible as a CEO. This will become evident when the losses on the Model 3 puts Tesla into bankruptcy or forces them to be aquired.


As for Model 3, you cannot say with certainty that it will cause Tesla to fail. Tesla's losses and cash burn over the past few years have mostly come down to (1) huge R&D costs (2) huge SG&A due to expansion of sales, service, and charging network (3) massive investment in manufacturing.

Had Tesla simply decided to stay a small, low volume boutique manufacturer and make modest improvements to Model S over time, they could have been profitable. The company's ambition to become a mass manufacturer is what has been so costly.

If Tesla succeeds in bringing Model 3 to mass market, the economies of scale will give them a chance to be profitable as a larger carmaker. Neither success nor failure is a foregone conclusion.


Is the recently announced $80k Model 3 going to be enough to save Tesla's bacon? Or will the Model 3 bankrupt the company, since (as I have long predicted) they cannot build them profitably at the much ballyhooed $35k pricepoint? 35k is the pricepoint which undoubtedly generated the bulk of the "off-the-hook" demand for the Model 3 in the first place.

The Model 3 introduction has been disastrous, and I don't think that can be disputed. To add insult to injury, Consumer Reports just announced that they tested the 3 and it did not earn their recommendation. For one thing, apparently the brakes are terrible, and they also seem to hate the dangerous display pad on the dash.



rev2damoon
Profile for rev2damoon
Re: Tesla - facts behind the mirage    (Score: 1, Normal) 05-22-2018 08:31
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
^I just read an article about this $80k Model 3. Here's what Musk says...

"Cost of all options, wheels, paint, etc is included (apart from Autopilot),"†Musk tweeted. "Cost is $78k. About same as BMW M3, but 15% quicker & with better handling. Will beat anything in its class on the track."

LOLOL...Even if this was true I wonder if the folks who ponied up their deposit for the $35k model give a rat's rear end...And what percentage of deposit makers are we talking here? I'm thinking a huge one.


 
Thread Page - 1 2 [3] 4 5
Go to:
Contact TOV | Submit Your Article | Submit Your Link | Advertise | TOV Shop | Events | Our Sponsors | TOV Archives
Copyright © 2018 Velocitech Inc. All information contained herein remains the property of Velocitech Inc.
The Temple of VTEC is not affiliated with American Honda Motor Co., Inc. TOV Policies and Guidelines - Credits - Privacy Policy
29 mobile: 0