Tesla Model 3

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Tesla Model 3

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

RUKI

1405 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 422

#1526326 5-Apr-2016 13:31

jonherries:
Reading the linked article suggests that the Tesla battery pack is no worse than any other...

It is not about being better or worse. That was not the point. However, just because you've mentioned it - my opinion - they are MUCH worse. In a sense that the individual cells contain battery management circuits - small chips responsible for overcharge/undercharge control. All those ICs are inside the pack and there are tons of them. I've got dosens of failed battery packs from laptops where ICs (designed by TI) had failed not the Li cell themselves. I am absolutely confident that it is a weakest point in Tesla Battery Pack not the cells. I am getting Tesla Power Wall for free - they claimed 10 years. I have doubts....We'll see..

jonherries: ... Also Tesla battery packs were originally designed to be hot-swapped. Presumably this remains in place ....

No it's not and the other company who introduced that long time ago is no longer in business (Musk blame them and suggests his technology is better). Auto industry did not took on the "swap" idea. $500K investment in every swapping station :-( and noone in their sober mind would like to swap their brand new pack for a unknown degraded although charged one. Would you? Capturing the remaining capacity in degraded pack is possible via BMS. Musk's business model suggests they will compensate you for the battery value difference. Really? Instead of the new pack they may give you another charged one but with say 50% reduced capacity (and range) and reimburse you some $$ for that? Not cool.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1526366 5-Apr-2016 14:30

RUKI:

Auto industry did not took on the "swap" idea. $500K investment in every swapping station :-( and noone in their sober mind would like to swap their brand new pack for a unknown degraded although charged one. Would you? Capturing the remaining capacity in degraded pack is possible via BMS. Musk's business model suggests they will compensate you for the battery value difference. Really? Instead of the new pack they may give you another charged one but with say 50% reduced capacity (and range) and reimburse you some $$ for that? Not cool.

The way around these issues is that Tesla own the batteries. When you swap, you pay only for the difference in energy content between the one you're taking out and the one you're putting in. Of course, it could leave you in a tricky situation where a good battery has taken you from A to B, but the replacement you put in at B hasn't got enough juice to get you back to A (or any other recharge station).

wellygary

8813 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5295

#1526376 5-Apr-2016 14:51

frankv:The way around these issues is that Tesla own the batteries. When you swap, you pay only for the difference in energy content between the one you're taking out and the one you're putting in. Of course, it could leave you in a tricky situation where a good battery has taken you from A to B, but the replacement you put in at B hasn't got enough juice to get you back to A (or any other recharge station).

Swapping is dead,

http://fortune.com/2015/06/10/teslas-battery-swap-is-dead/

June 2015

"It’s clearly not very popular,” Musk said.

Even though Tesla has since invited all Model S owners in California to try the battery swap program, Musk expects the entire customer base will behave similarly to the initial sample group.

“People don’t care about pack swap,” Musk said. “The superchargers are fast enough. Based on what we’re seeing here, it’s unlikely to be something that’s worth expanding in the future unless something changes.”

bfginger

1330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 191

#1528070 7-Apr-2016 23:13

Few people who buy a Model 3 will have driven a high powered rear engine RWD before. Tesla's traction control better be as good as they think it is.

If $6.2/100km RUCs are re-enacted on EVs it will mean New Zealand is disincentivising driving them. It could cost hundreds more per year for RUC plus ACC surcharge plus electricity to run an EV than for fuel on a Fiat Panda at present prices. The Panda sells new for only $14,990 too.

You can buy a used i-Miev for just $12,000. With oil having to be imported and costing more than electricity it shouldn't become cheaper to run the Panda because of taxation distortions.

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#1528086 8-Apr-2016 01:28

Why is it a distortion? Road user charges are built in to the petrol price for petrol vehicles and ACC assessment is independent of fuel.

bfginger

1330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 191

#1528744 8-Apr-2016 20:21

It's a distortion because the way road user charges are set in New Zealand sees everything from city cars to small trucks being taxed as small trucks without further distinction. The i-Miev and Panda are the same weight but before considering the cost of electricity the amount of taxation the i-Miev would receive over a year would be nearly equal to the tax-inclusive annual cost of fuel for the Panda. The Panda receives a de facto tax incentive for being fuel efficient while the energy efficient i-Miev would receive the same tax disincentive as a non commercial diesel vehicle.

ACC charges ought to become included in the EV RUC from 2020 as risk is relative to the number of km the car is driven and not how long it is licenced.

The lower cost of electricity and an equability of RUC between small and heavy passenger vehicles would mean a large shift in the market further in the direction of powerful cars like the Model 3 and massive SUVs. While electricity may be cheaper, the cost could easily become higher overall with savings shifted to being spent on more expensive and deadly vehicles.

Road user charges for electric vehicles should be based on the weight of the vehicle and the power consumption of the engine.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Scott3

4177 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2990

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1528826 8-Apr-2016 23:22

gzt: Why is it a distortion? Road user charges are built in to the petrol price for petrol vehicles and ACC assessment is independent of fuel.

Every road vehicle under 3.5 tonnes except for those which use Fuels taxed at the source (Petrol/LPG/CNG) or those temporally exempt (Electric till 2020), must pay Road User charges at $62/1000km (inc GST.
Exercise tax on petrol is 67c/Liter +GST (0.77c/L inc) for light vehicles (heavy petrol vehicles (rare) have this refunded ans have to pay road user charges). Recreational boaties have to pay too despite not using the roads.
LPG/CNG is taxed at a much lower rate (effectively subsidized)

Because diesel RUC's are driven by km traveled, and petrol tax is driven by liter burned, there is a cross over in terms of tax efficiency.

Any petrol vehicle that burns less than 8.04L/100km (including the GST impact) in the real world will pay road user less tax than the diesel vairent of the same model.
Any Light vehicle where the petrol version would burn more than 8.04L/100km will be more tax efficient with a diesel engine.

As such a 2016 Prius (rated at 3.4L/100km petrol), would pay less than half the road user tax as a (no longer available) VW Polo Bluemotion (3.8L/100km diesel).

Although this analysis ignores the non-tax implications of fuel choice, the tax implications have had a very material impact on the NZ vehicle market.

It is very rare to see small cars in diesel. This is despite very well reviewed diesel small cars such as the Suzuki swift diesel having been available.
High Fuel consumption vehicles (Heavy, Large, Poor aerodynamics) such as full frame SUV's, Utes, and Vans are typically diesel. Many of the popular twin cab utes are not even offered with a petrol engine (Ford ranger). The Nissan Patrol SUV was previously popular in NZ, but very few of the current (petrol only) model have sold (and at a rated petrol consumption of 14.5L/100km I can see why)

I quite like how petrol tax incentives more efficient vehicles, however the diesel RUC system clearly favors petrol engines in smaller cars. I used to dislike this, but seeing the situation in Europe (where there pro diesel tax policy's are widely considered to be a mistake) I think this has caused us to "dodge a bullet" so to speak. (in regards to the poor air quality that has plagued paris, londen etc in recent years, trading lower CO2 emissions for worse urban air quality, and worse resident health is a bad trade to make.)

I pretty sure the government will either extend the current EV tax exemption, or rework the road tax scheme so it don't massively favor efficient petrol cars over efficient cars using other fuels.

If the current RUC scheme applied to EV's an EV would pay $6.20/100km for RUC + Electricity fees, a 2016 Prius would pay (using 3.4L/100km of $1.80/L petrol) would pay $6.12/100km total for fuel including road user tax. Plug in hybrids would have to go through the refund process so the didn't get double taxed.

Clearly this would majorly damage the market for low end EV's in NZ. Not a good look for a government has used EV's as a defense for criticism that's it's massive RONS road building program will either encourage driving and hence emissions of be underutilized in a more energy/emissions constrained future. Also we have done precious little to work towards our pairs climate change obligations, given our unusually green power grid, a strong Pro EV policy would be a good look.

KiwiME

217 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 80

#1530158 11-Apr-2016 18:38

Scott3: I quite like how petrol tax incentives more efficient vehicles, however the diesel RUC system clearly favors petrol engines in smaller cars. I used to dislike this, but seeing the situation in Europe (where there pro diesel tax policy's are widely considered to be a mistake) I think this has caused us to "dodge a bullet" so to speak.

My thoughts exactly - a total accident though. But the bullet that has not been dodged is that there is no mechanism in place here to remove older, polluting diesels off our roads. The particulates emitted are a crime to our health and there is no incentive for owners to rebuild injectors or otherwise to maintain these as long as they still run.

I'm continually amazed by how the time after time our government fails to exploit policy that would make us one of the most environmentally-progressive countries in the world.

Scott3

4177 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2990

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1530289 11-Apr-2016 22:04

KiwiME:

But the bullet that has not been dodged is that there is no mechanism in place here to remove older, polluting diesels off our roads. The particulates emitted are a crime to our health and there is no incentive for owners to rebuild injectors or otherwise to maintain these as long as they still run.

By in effect forcing smaller & mid size cars to petrol we have far fewer diesel cars than would otherwise be the case.

As it is its only relay the euro brands, the utes, and the large suv's with a large portion of diesel power

I followed a fairly modern (2008 - 2012 body shape) Diesel Corolla a few weeks ago. Let out a puff of smoke every time it accelerated. (obviously something wrong with it)

Imagine if as is common European cities, every taxi, and the majority of the the hatchbacks, sedans, wagons, and compact suv's that are favored by city dwellers had the same drive-train... And we had the same lax regulatory environment we do now.

That said there is some seriously low hanging fruit in regards to cleaning up vehicle emissions. When I was in LA (which has strict emission's testing requirements) and a preference for non-diesel power trains, it was really nice not to have vehicles puff smoke in your face.

Although I am far right leaning politically, I must say that our current governments environmental policy is sorely lacking. They don't seem to have any introduced any policy that will contribute to us meeting our obligations since signing the pairs agreement. In addition there is significant evidence that poor urban air quality contributes to poor health outcomes.

SQLGeek

135 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 32

#1621303 2-Sep-2016 11:26

Received a nice little card from Tesla yesterday

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6