Tesla Model-S on the streetz

[jw33]

I understand the looks of the model-S are subjective, but compared to the Mach E???

[Murph Tang]

I would buy a MACH E GT just to bust my S.I.L's ass in his Y type, just because he's always bragging about how fast it is.

Yes the braggadocious of Tesla owners is over the top. Its the same superior arrogance of those who buy a HP car off the showroom floor and automatically faster than anyone.

I guess it goes hand in hand with the entitlement personality of today's times. I can buy it so I should be faster.

[BP]

Funny thing about Teslas, make them disconnect a wheel speed sensor and it's instantly a fair race. Sure they have a lot of horsepower/torque but that's not why they kick ass on the street.

[Big A]

I'll give credit where credit is due, the plaid is an amazing machine, but that warm up/prep time is a non-starter for me. That little hiccup makes it no quicker than the regular Model S as a daily driver. Most of my drives these days are relatively short, and I don't care to sit there for 5 minutes each time I want to go somewhere.

A mildly modified R8 will get you most of the performance from a roll, all of the performance from a dig, not need prep to do it, and with better fit and finish. For the price point I'd personally be looking at a 2-3 year old Mercedes S63 coupe, not as ludicrous as the Tesla, but still AWD, is as comfortable as a car needs to be, and with just a tune it'll faster than most cars I'd ever catch at a light.

[jw33]

The warm up is only for maximum performance or plaid mode. They work just like any other car as far as get in a drive A to B.

[Rick Modena]

We are in changing times, I know what they are doing and where we are going with EV's and also why. It all makes sense, as more of the big three get into them and other start up companies develop and produce them, I'm sure they will be better, nicer and eventually have the looks to match performance, quality and affordability.

I'll drive and own ICE vehicles until I can't drive anymore and when I see a EV that has all of the above, I may bite, but for now, the sound of a 5.0 32v screaming through the Addison tunnel is just muh game...

[bird_dog0347]

I'm the same way, I fully admit they have a massive performance advantage, but they don't sound the same and I love the sound of a V8. Hopefully I never have to buy an EV... but pretty sure my kids will drive them.

[svauto-erotic855]

Brian Feldman, visionary entrepreneur - innovation consultant and robotics specialist
Answered Oct 25, 2014

To expand upon Nathan Kaemingk's answer and put some numbers to it from a vehicle perspective:

Consider the Tesla Model S, which has an available 85kWh battery and a 265 mile range.

Consider a similar gas-powered car, which gets 35 mpg.

Gasoline contains about 33kwh of energy per gallon.

The Tesla uses 320 Wh/mile of energy (85kWh/265 miles)

The gas powered car uses 940 Wh/mile of energy (33kWh/35 miles)

Once the energy is onboard (not counting the efficiency of the power generation, oil refining, or charging), the Tesla is using only about a third as much energy as the comparable gasoline-powered car.

I just noticed your old post in this thread. What is being described is not the Tesla being more efficient. It's simply a demonstration of entropy. The majority of the energy content in a gallon of any type of fossil fuel turns into waste heat that goes out the tailpipe or through the systems that cool the various components of the car. In the case of a Tesla that has a battery charged from an outside power source the energy losses to entropy are remote from the point of energy consumption but those losses are still there. Electric vehicles should be called remote emissions vehicles and not zero-emissions vehicles. Until the entire grid is nuclear, wind, or solar all electric vehicles will be powered by fossil fuels.

[AnthonyS]

I just noticed your old post in this thread. What is being described is not the Tesla being more efficient. It's simply a demonstration of entropy. The majority of the energy content in a gallon of any type of fossil fuel turns into waste heat that goes out the tailpipe or through the systems that cool the various components of the car. In the case of a Tesla that has a battery charged from an outside power source the energy losses to entropy are remote from the point of energy consumption but those losses are still there. Electric vehicles should be called remote emissions vehicles and not zero-emissions vehicles. Until the entire grid is nuclear, wind, or solar all electric vehicles will be powered by fossil fuels.

Electricity is free….. it just comes out of the wall.

You are right. The understanding of the average person on where electricity comes from is laughable. You should go find what they do with broken wind power blades. They are made largely from petroleum products and then buried because they can’t be recycled.

Green energy is little more than a large money making scheme.

[beefed88]

Electricity is free….. it just comes out of the wall.

You are right. The understanding of the average person on where electricity comes from is laughable. You should go find what they do with broken wind power blades. They are made largely from petroleum products and then buried because they can’t be recycled.

Green energy is little more than a large money making scheme.

Isn't it more about a more efficient transfer of energy from the grid to electric cars?

Supposedly there is some good tech on recycling the batteries as well.

[svauto-erotic855]

Isn't it more about a more efficient transfer of energy from the grid to electric cars?


Supposedly there is some good tech on recycling the batteries as well.

It's about tearing down one industry and replacing it with another while at the same time sucking money off the government teat while providing little in return along with replacing cheap energy with very expensive energy that you are forced to buy. There is also a very large degree of how much it expands the control the government will have over individual choices.

[Strychnine]

Electric vehicles should be called remote emissions vehicles and not zero-emissions vehicles

And industry colleague of mine recently had a book published - Racing Toward Zero: The Untold Story of Driving Green - He's an SAE Fellow, owner of Convergent Science (CFD combustion modeling company), currently a visiting professor at Oxford, etc. I'd highly recommend people read his book.

Anyway, on page 1 of the book he uses the same term - "remote combustion vehicle" - along with "emissions elsewhere vehicle." The book is all factual and VERY heavily sourced but the premise of the intro is a hypothetical, alternative reality where the EVs of the late 1800s actually won and went mainstream... and then 100+ years later the pollution, damage, etc from mining, battery production, etc are vilified and a Musk-type character comes along and brings the ICE out of mothballs touting the fact that it can carry it's own energy-dense fuel on board, etc.



Here's a TEDx presentation he gave




FWIW, i'm not anti-EV. I think the best solution will end up being something like ICE+HEV (hybrid)

[Gasser64]

It's always funny to hear the excuses and scare tactics that dying industries try in their death throes.

Think Thomas Edison electrocuting that elephant.

[svauto-erotic855]

It's always funny to hear the excuses and scare tactics that dying industries try in their death throes.

Think Thomas Edison electrocuting that elephant.

Thomas Edison was an egomaniac who did not want to admit that Tesla was right about alternating current being the way to go.

The oil industry is only dead/dying in the minds of people that don't like it. Those same people also say that capitalism is a failed system. The Communist left has been attacking the oil industry for over a hundred years. Don't you remember the hatred they had for Standard Oil? As long as there is oil to pump out of the ground there will be people wanting to buy it.

[Strychnine]

It's always funny to hear the excuses and scare tactics that dying industries try in their death throes.

Facts don't fear monger:

2019 global oil consumption is 4525 Mtoe/a
2019 global oil demand for transportation is 2668 Mtoe/a

In 2020 there were 10 million EVs on the road, displacing 6 Mtoe/a
In 2040 it's expected there will be 600 million EVs on the road, displacing 360 Mtoe/a

In 2019, 98 Mtoe/a of oil were displaced by renewable fuels
In 2040 it's expected that 1071 Mtoe/a of oil will be displaced by renewable products.

Even in 2040, if you take the optimistic EV projections and the optimistic renewable fuel projections, only 50% of the crude oil needed for transportation will be displaced.