Strider wrote..

That is the problem w/ the current generation in that the car will manage its pack to death by using power to keep the temp within range until the battery is flat.

That sounds like it could and should be addressed with revised software; when the SOC gets below a certain point, stop trying to manage the temperature of the pack. This will be bad for the ultimate longevity of the pack, but would be A Good Thing if it keeps at least some packs from getting bricked.

-Uwe-

Quote:

Better yet, why not just use a radioisotope thermal generator to supply power to an EV?

RTGs are great at providing steady power of a period of decades, but they're effectively impossible to throttle up or throttle down, and their power-to-weight ratio sucks. (Power-to-weight is not the same as total energy-to-weight; the latter is good).

Cars need an energy source which can provide very "peaky" power. An RTG would work as a means of recharging batteries, but is not suitable as a direct power source for a car.

-Uwe-

I love the justifications that show up when someone starts pointing to the embedded costs on these things.

Transmissions (manuals anyway) don't break unless abused. And modern engines aren't exactly all that fragile either.

But then again I already demolished the "better thermodynamic efficiency" argument, and there's no rebuttal possible there. All an EV does is shift where the inefficiency takes place.

Never mind that we don't have to get liquid hydrocarbons out of the ground as we do it today.

Greenies are so much fun with their justifications -- the problem is that on any sort of actual analysis their arguments immediately turn into a puff of smoke.

Tesla Liar wrote..

Genesis: Tesla already has Roadsters with packs over 4 years old and 100,00 miles with greater than 80% capacity remaining.

The first delivery of a Tesla was in 2008 to the chairman of the company and through September 10th of that year fewer than 30 cars had been delivered. Perhaps you can provide some documentation on that claim, seeing as the Chairman has the first car and his JUST hit the 4-year mark and basically none of the others have, never mind the early car transmission problems that would have precluded reaching the aforementioned 100,000 miles...... The 2010 model year production started coming off the line in mid-2009 and thus there is less than three years on any of those chassis at this point in time.

Stretching the truth a bit here eh?

I have a severe dislike of bull**** around here, and if you think you can continue in that vein on my forum you're wrong. I expect a retraction if you expect to continue to have posting access, and I expect it now.

Have you ever met a battery you really liked? I spend more time dicking around with batteries for the electrical stuff around the house than I do pumping gas. I will wait for a diesel hybrid.

UWE: You are correct. In their next car (Model S due out this summer) they have taken steps to prevent the bricking that is possible on the Roadsters. Unknown if they will be able to back-port this fix to Roadsters.

Genesis: My point is that the initial $40k cost of the battery is included in the cost of the car and in lieu of the engine and transmission and so your $0.66/mile figure is wildly high. At the $13k replacement cost (and prices have been dropping over time) you can pay for replacement packs with the money saved over buying gasoline.

My information on the high-mileage cars was gathered from the Tesla forums and the unofficial Tesla forums that there are Engineering mules and at least one customer with over 100,000 miles. This person: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/one-year.... from a member's report on the Tesla Motors Club forum who passed 100k miles in September, 2011 and has over 80% of its range remaining. http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthrea.... So you're correct that the cars aren't that old but there are some with high mileage.

As you posted the cars are still new and only time will tell. You make sweeping statements about how there is no way these batteries will last when the FACT is that no one really knows at this point. Owners are participating in a grand experiment. I'm about to step outside my wheelhouse here but Tesla uses a different Li-Ion chemistry than consumer electronic devices that has very little standing degradation when kept within its environmental envelope.

All that to say, I will retract my statement and apologize for exaggerating the facts in regards to the ages of the cars. But if in a couple years we revisit this topic and a significant number of cars are at 5+ years and 80%+ capacity I ask you to retract your statement that they don't have a "prayer in Hell" of doing such a thing. Conversely if few to none of the packs make it that long I'll update my stance as well. That's all we can ask in civil society, to have the stones to change our views when presented with the facts.

Quote:

All that to say, I will retract my statement and apologize for exaggerating the facts in regards to the ages of the cars.

"Exaggerate" -- yeah, right.

The facts are that given the ACTUAL age of the vehicles the 80% charge retention is about right. Unless you believe in magic, where by the loss of capacity will halt on its own and chemical processes will magically not happen any more, the gradual degradation will continue to take place, pretty much as I laid out.

In fact, what you've now admitted to is that my figures are roughly accurate.

Quote:

You make sweeping statements about how there is no way these batteries will last when the FACT is that no one really knows at this point.

Oh but we do know. There are a bunch of vehicles with about two years and 80% remaining on the clock, exactly as one would expect.

So much for the "magical" capability of Tesla's "management" system.

You're hanging by a thread around here.