Tesla Recalls More Than 29K Wall Chargers

Indirectly, yes you did





While you did not say implicitly you could get "chicks" with a vette, by instantly comparing the chicks you could get with a Tesla you made the connection that cars are for getting women.

I have no idea what goes on in your head.
 

You can't drive over the Sierra mountain passes in a Tesla (not 80, that doesn't count).

Can't drive highway 36 in a Tesla.

Plenty of other roads that are great driving just don't have chargers anywhere near. Parking at a motel overnight and begging to suck down a shitload of power doesn't count, I can refill a car in 5 minutes. A lot of these places are hard enough to drive without running out of gas between stations, never mind batteries.
 
Electric cars are so dangerous, gas cars cannot catch on fire! :p

Sounds like Tesla is doing the responsible thing though, hopefully none of the chargers actually do catch on fire and that people realize this is just precautionary and that there's nothing wrong with Teslas or electric cars in general.

There's not much details but the gist I'm getting is that this risk is in the event of certain voltage fluctuations. So basically if the charger is being subjected to voltages it was not intended. They are definitely going above and beyond by making sure their device operates correctly (or perhaps shuts off) in those conditions.

If I had the money I'd probably look into buying a tesla, or other electric car. I love the idea of never having to gas up again, and the fact that I'd be cutting my carbon footprint.

One already did catch fire, and the fact that they didn't have a thermal fuse in their charger makes me wonder what kind of halfbaked engineering they're doing over there.

"We're going to suck down 25-40 amps through this plug, and it will always be fine, GG. Risk? Whatever."

They're not going above and beyond anything. They seemed astonished to learn that some home wiring or receptacles have higher than optimal resistance and get hot, due to corrosion, loose connections, or other reasons. Fucking pathetic.
 
You can't drive over the Sierra mountain passes in a Tesla (not 80, that doesn't count).

Can't drive highway 36 in a Tesla.

Plenty of other roads that are great driving just don't have chargers anywhere near. Parking at a motel overnight and begging to suck down a shitload of power doesn't count, I can refill a car in 5 minutes. A lot of these places are hard enough to drive without running out of gas between stations, never mind batteries.

To be fair, I do know at least one person who does do the former. The latter? Well, I made it from Redding to Eureka on one tank, in a sizeable SUV and had at least 1/3rd of the tank left, so I'd say it's possible.

Though would I want to run out of charge in that small pull-up gas station in the middle of woods? Specifically the one with 5-6 old trucks parked out front? Specifically the one I passed on the way to Eureka? The one that made me decide I'd finish the trip on one tank? Hell no.






Note: All of the above assumes best case charging and discharging scenarios.
 
If I had the money I'd probably look into buying a tesla, or other electric car. I love the idea of never having to gas up again, and the fact that I'd be cutting my carbon footprint.

It really depends on where your electricity comes from. If your power is generated with Coal, you're probably increasing your footprint. If it comes from nuclear, wind, solar or hydroelectric, then you're clearly lowering it.

To me, the Model S is the first electric car that is semi-practical, but as I and others have pointed out, it depends on how often you make long trips. I think when we get to the point where an electric car can go 400-500 miles without charging, you've got a winner.

The battery exchange for the S is nice, but if your trip A->B->C->D->A, an exchange may not be possible (because you have to go back and get your original battery).

With that said, I seriously doubt many Model S owners are a 1 car household. If you can drop 100k on an S, then you probably have a gas or hybrid that you have for long trips.
 
If I had a spare 100k to spend on toys, I'd definitely consider a tesla.

I wouldn't and couldn't have a Tesla as my only mode of transportation...But with the tax credits I could easily buy a used Minivan/SUV or whatever for long road trips.
 
It really depends on where your electricity comes from. If your power is generated with Coal, you're probably increasing your footprint. If it comes from nuclear, wind, solar or hydroelectric, then you're clearly lowering it.

To me, the Model S is the first electric car that is semi-practical, but as I and others have pointed out, it depends on how often you make long trips. I think when we get to the point where an electric car can go 400-500 miles without charging, you've got a winner.

The battery exchange for the S is nice, but if your trip A->B->C->D->A, an exchange may not be possible (because you have to go back and get your original battery).

With that said, I seriously doubt many Model S owners are a 1 car household. If you can drop 100k on an S, then you probably have a gas or hybrid that you have for long trips.

Yeah in my case it's all hydro electric, so all renewable. Too bad it's so expensive, because I'd heat my house with it. Gasoline is even more expensive so electric car would still save money. I have literally a 5 minute commute. 2 minutes if I get lucky enough and the traffic light is green. Other errands around town are typically no more than a 15-20 minute drive. I forget how many km you can do on a single charge but I recall it's quite high up there (for an electric) so it would work nicely for pretty much all the driving I do. Though I wonder how good those batteries are at -50.
 
Yeah in my case it's all hydro electric, so all renewable. Too bad it's so expensive, because I'd heat my house with it. Gasoline is even more expensive so electric car would still save money. I have literally a 5 minute commute. 2 minutes if I get lucky enough and the traffic light is green. Other errands around town are typically no more than a 15-20 minute drive. I forget how many km you can do on a single charge but I recall it's quite high up there (for an electric) so it would work nicely for pretty much all the driving I do. Though I wonder how good those batteries are at -50.


I do wonder about that, while I don't live in Winnipeg (brrrr) the weather in Quebec can get quite nasty at times.
 
Yeah in my case it's all hydro electric, so all renewable. Too bad it's so expensive, because I'd heat my house with it.

Direct electric heat is always expensive and inefficient.

Have you looked into a ground source heat exchanger though? (Often incorrectly called geothermal).

It uses a heat exchanger (like an air conditioner) with the cold side buried underground where it is permanently in the 50s (fahrenheit). It is powered by electricity, but much more efficient than direct resistance based electric heat.

And the bonus is, you automatically get a central air conditioner in the summer, and when it is in use during the summer, if you install an optional desuper heater, your hot water is free!
 
Only the stock market being close today is preventing Tesla from setting yet another high. :p
 
One already did catch fire, and the fact that they didn't have a thermal fuse in their charger makes me wonder what kind of halfbaked engineering they're doing over there.

"We're going to suck down 25-40 amps through this plug, and it will always be fine, GG. Risk? Whatever."

They're not going above and beyond anything. They seemed astonished to learn that some home wiring or receptacles have higher than optimal resistance and get hot, due to corrosion, loose connections, or other reasons. Fucking pathetic.

Here comes Aluisious, unstable forum hater of Elon Musk! This is a model unbiased poster, everyone.
 
Alusions, are you suggesting that any car fire indicates "half baked" engineering? Did you know that nearly 200,000 gasoline cars catch fire every year in the US? That's an awful lot of terrible engineering from all manner of manufacturers....

Or we could admit that all cars can catch fire and that Teslas are no different.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040550522 said:
The only performance category where it doesn't keep up fully, is that it is governed at 130mph.

its not governed its a artifact of the gearing battery voltage and motor setup
the motor has RPM per volt rating so the motor can only go so fast based on the voltage fed to it that + the gearing + wheel size = top speed
if you put bigger wheels on it you get get a bit more speed but at the cost of range
 
300px-Golfcart.JPG


The Model S is a cool car, yeah. And a hint of the future.



...it's just not a race prepped Corvette ;)

a fully lightened Model S would be more like this just bigger
more like this
TraxxasXO-1ChromeMambaXL21.jpg
 
Alusions, are you suggesting that any car fire indicates "half baked" engineering? Did you know that nearly 200,000 gasoline cars catch fire every year in the US? That's an awful lot of terrible engineering from all manner of manufacturers....

Or we could admit that all cars can catch fire and that Teslas are no different.

I'm not taking sides, but you'd really have to divide the total gasoline cars on the road by the number of fires, or divide the number of fires for each particular model design (which typically spans several model years) by the fires for that model to see make a semi fair comparison.

If you take total cars on the road, I suspect gas cars will come out better (if for no other reason than Model S is a low volume car). If you limit it to cars that were built in the last 2-3 years, then we have a better comparison. Assuming the Model S fires were not 2 car accidents, then it'd probably be fair to throw out any fires related to accidents involving another car.

It'd probably be better to wait a few years to see if these are flukes or there's a trend, but if you must look now, then I think the above is a fairer comparison than throwing out 200k car fires/year.
 
I'm not taking sides, but you'd really have to divide the total gasoline cars on the road by the number of fires, or divide the number of fires for each particular model design (which typically spans several model years) by the fires for that model to see make a semi fair comparison.

If you take total cars on the road, I suspect gas cars will come out better (if for no other reason than Model S is a low volume car). If you limit it to cars that were built in the last 2-3 years, then we have a better comparison. Assuming the Model S fires were not 2 car accidents, then it'd probably be fair to throw out any fires related to accidents involving another car.

It'd probably be better to wait a few years to see if these are flukes or there's a trend, but if you must look now, then I think the above is a fairer comparison than throwing out 200k car fires/year.

Tesla by rights should have more fires by now

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/reports/vehicles.shtm

Approximately one in seven fires responded to by fire departments across the nation is a highway vehicle fire. This does not include the tens of thousands of fire department responses to highway vehicle accident sites.
Unintentional action (32 percent) was the leading cause of highway vehicle fires.
Eighty-six percent of highway vehicle fires occurred in passenger vehicles.
Sixty-one percent of highway vehicle fires and 35 percent of fatal highway vehicle fires originated in the engine, running gear, or wheel area of the vehicle.
The leading factor contributing to the ignition of highway vehicle fires was mechanical failure (44 percent).
Insulation around electrical wiring (28 percent) and flammable liquids in the engine area (18 percent) were the most common items first ignited in highway vehicle fires.
 
Alusions, are you suggesting that any car fire indicates "half baked" engineering? Did you know that nearly 200,000 gasoline cars catch fire every year in the US? That's an awful lot of terrible engineering from all manner of manufacturers....

Or we could admit that all cars can catch fire and that Teslas are no different.

No, I'm not suggesting that. You should try reading and logical thought.
 
It just doesn't make any sense to me to spend very much on a car. It'd be like buying a sports model curling iron or a high performance cup of microwavable rice. I think I'd much rather save the difference in monies and get interest and investment value from it than own something that does exactly the same thing (get me from my home to where I work or to the mall and then back again) for a lot less dollars. I mean, you still have to stop at every single traffic light, wait behind every other car, and you can't go faster than the speed limit without putting innocent people around you in life threatening danger so why even want something that goes fast and costs more when you're not allowed to do it anyhow?

Tell that to the millions of people who buy new vehicles ever year. It doesn't make sense to you because, I'm going out on a limb here to say that maybe because you've never done it.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040548046 said:
That's because you are comparing apples and oranges.

I recall doing the math (I did NPV cash flows on the cheapest model at launch).

This is from memory as I can't find my spreadsheets.

The base model was $49,995 new after the $7,500 federal credit.

Factoring in fuel savings and auto loan interest rates, I found that the monthly costs would be similar to a $35,000 conventionally powered luxury car.

Savings would likely be even higher due to the fact that it is VERY low maintenance due to having so many fewer moving parts compared to a conventionally powered vehicle.

.

A lot of what-ifs in that analysis there.

1. Your real market price is $57k, if you're honest you base your costs off of that price instead of being a deadbeat using federal subsidies aka asking your fellow Americans to cover part of the cost of your car.

2. You're assuming low maintenance on a car with new technologies and thus fewer places that know how to work on them or will have spare parts. Along with guessing what long term battery costs will be. Do we have a strong stable, getting cheaper supply chain of batteries?

3. Fuel rates won't mean much when the gov, fed and states start charging you by the miles you drive and not how much gas you buy. That or they'll toss on a new tax/fee/penalty onto electricity rates. There are several state governments already testing mileage systems for all automobiles, not just trucks (that already have various tax systems in place for them as others have mentioned). That GPS module will track you everywhere you go and your fuel cost savings go up in smoke as it were. Politicians are already complaining that all those hybrid drivers are costing them tax money because they pay less in gas taxes. This has happened before with the energy star green efficiency movement with electronics or water conservation movements. Those goverment given monopolies complain and then raise rates when people are using less of their products like they were told to.

4. You're assuming the price of electricity stays the same or is outpaced by gasoline. Electricity costs are going up all the time and the Feds are not too keen on letting new power plants get built, they're shutting down many. Cheap coal or nat. gas, even hydro setups are being regulated out of existence. Forget new nuclear, unless the Feds want more uranium for missles. Thorium based nuke plants? Nah, that would be smart. Increased demand but less supply for a growing populace with more electronic goodies doesn not equal better deal. How many more plants will be needed just to meet demand for all these new electic cars? How will that pencil out in this carbon footprint debate?

I'm all for improving technolgy but so many people just blindly buy into this mantra that its a great deal. The tech isn't there and quite possibly never will be until you create an engine that makes it ultimately as efficient as a liquid fuel system.
 
Tell that to the millions of people who buy new vehicles ever year. It doesn't make sense to you because, I'm going out on a limb here to say that maybe because you've never done it.

I'm not sure how millions of new car buyers are relevant to his argument about buying a Model S. Furthermore, he's clearly correct that you'd be better off buying a cheaper car (lets say a 30k car, which can still buy a nice car) and make more buy investing the 60-70k you save.

Where his argument fails is that the people buying a Model S are largely people who make more money than they can spend, even after heavily investing in a 401K, IRAs and general stock accounts.

If I was the typical Model S buyer, then his argument would be dead on, but I doubt there are many on my salary buying a 100k car.
 
Tell that to the millions of people who buy new vehicles ever year. It doesn't make sense to you because, I'm going out on a limb here to say that maybe because you've never done it.

Male doctors can't have a qualified opinion about the delivery of babies because they've never given birth. Also, million of people are dumb every year.
 
Not sure if serious..

MODEL S, BEST SELLING LARGE LUXURY CAR IN AMERICA

Tesla sales beating Mercedes, BMW and Audi

More than 25,000 Model-S on the road

I'll be buying the <40K model in 2016 or as soon as available. At current electricity costs I'd save $3000/year on fuel alone driving a Tesla. Not to mention I get to drive a sweet sports-car.
The <40K model will not be the sports car or have the fanfare of the Model S. I can see the Upscale spill over has worked. I guess the Tesla S is the first $80,000+ car you looked at seriously and are assuming its Tesla and not the $40,000 more in cash that makes it what it is.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040550522 said:
I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

Do I need to post the video of it outrunning the 550hp V12 Aston Martin Rapide S again?

Published 0-60 times are 4.2s Most people manage only 4.6 or so, but there are reports of some pulling off perfect launches and getting it down to 3.9. And since you never have to downshift (it's one gear only) that brutal acceleration is available at any speed.

With its battery along its base, it has an incredibly low center of balance (on par with a recent Corvette) and amazing body stiffness making it out handle most things out there.

The only performance category where it doesn't keep up fully, is that it is governed at 130mph.

I don't think you have no idea what you're talking about, I know you have no idea what you're talking about.

So it has a low CG on par with a Corvette, but weighs 1300 pounds more, and you think it's going to keep up with one on a track given equal driver skill.

NO. Come back when you've got some lap times. I'll give you some freebees:

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/laguna_seca.html

Model S is 10s behind a Stingray, 10s behind a Shelby, over 8s behind a Boss, 5s behind an M3, over 2s behind a 135i.

BUT, it did manage to beat the Ford Focus. By less than half a second. gg

Track performance for what it is is pretty impressive. But what it is is nearly 5000 pounds, and it isn't yet capable of violating the laws of physics. These videos of it hanging with <car_x> on a track are great for Tesla owners to masturbate over but otherwise really only serve to mislead people that know squat about cars and racing.
 
I don't think you have no idea what you're talking about, I know you have no idea what you're talking about.

So it has a low CG on par with a Corvette, but weighs 1300 pounds more, and you think it's going to keep up with one on a track given equal driver skill.

NO. Come back when you've got some lap times. I'll give you some freebees:

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/laguna_seca.html

Model S is 10s behind a Stingray, 10s behind a Shelby, over 8s behind a Boss, 5s behind an M3, over 2s behind a 135i.

BUT, it did manage to beat the Ford Focus. By less than half a second. gg

Track performance for what it is is pretty impressive. But what it is is nearly 5000 pounds, and it isn't yet capable of violating the laws of physics. These videos of it hanging with <car_x> on a track are great for Tesla owners to masturbate over but otherwise really only serve to mislead people that know squat about cars and racing.


Sorry but that is a useless metric unless you have the same 'skilled' driver in each of the vehicles. Just because drive A is faster in car X than driver B in car Y, does not make car X faster/better/whatever than car Y.

Show me stats like that where the only variable that changes is the car, then it will actually mean something.....


It's closer to 4.5k lbs than 5k lbs, and have you seen the dyno graphs of an electric car? It's effing ridiculous, so while those much higher HP lower weight cars are working their way up to max power, the Telsa is already there every time you push the throttle.
 
Sorry but that is a useless metric unless you have the same 'skilled' driver in each of the vehicles. Just because drive A is faster in car X than driver B in car Y, does not make car X faster/better/whatever than car Y.

It's a hell of a lot more useful than a youtube video, which is all whatshisname is going off of.

Show me stats like that where the only variable that changes is the car, then it will actually mean something.....

It's hardly my fault there are very few laptimes and no same day same driver tests for Teslas anywhere. Until and unless that changes, the best data we have says you're an idiot if you think a Model S is going to beat a car like a Corvette on a roadcourse.
 
Also, that lap time comes from an event where there were numerous Teslas with numerous drivers. To insist that the best time produced is meaningless you'd have to insist that every single driver there was terrible, which is a pretty ridiculous assumption.
 
It's a hell of a lot more useful than a youtube video, which is all whatshisname is going off of.



It's hardly my fault there are very few laptimes and no same day same driver tests for Teslas anywhere. Until and unless that changes, the best data we have says you're an idiot if you think a Model S is going to beat a car like a Corvette on a roadcourse.


His post said it had a low CG, equivalent to a corvette. You read that as it would beat a corvette on a road coarse. So tell me again who the idiot is?
 
And actually, now that I look closer, that time was set by a Tesla factory driver with 15 years racing experience in a Tesla factory owned car, sooooo......

The factory drivers for every car I've ever seen turn better times than the MT or C&D boobs (or even seriously good drivers like Pobst) that generate many of the numbers on fastestlaps, so if anything the time gaps would get larger, not smaller.

Far from a useless metric. If anything the Tesla has the advantage as far as these numbers go.
 
His post said it had a low CG, equivalent to a corvette. You read that as it would beat a corvette on a road coarse. So tell me again who the idiot is?

Maybe try reading the thread before running your yap.

That isn't really indicative of anything other than vastly varying driver skill (or the Corvette driver was just out for the track equivalent of a "Sunday drive" and wasn't pushing it). An S couldn't keep up with a stock base Corvette, let alone a race prepped one.

Zarathustra[H];1040550522 said:
I think you have no idea what you are talking about.
The only performance category where it doesn't keep up fully, is that it is governed at 130mph.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040550522 said:
I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

Do I need to post the video of it outrunning the 550hp V12 Aston Martin Rapide S again?

Published 0-60 times are 4.2s Most people manage only 4.6 or so, but there are reports of some pulling off perfect launches and getting it down to 3.9. And since you never have to downshift (it's one gear only) that brutal acceleration is available at any speed.

With its battery along its base, it has an incredibly low center of balance (on par with a recent Corvette) and amazing body stiffness making it out handle most things out there.

The only performance category where it doesn't keep up fully, is that it is governed at 130mph.

Irrelevant bullshit like this is why bench racing has a name.
 
It's closer to 4.5k lbs than 5k lbs, and have you seen the dyno graphs of an electric car? It's effing ridiculous, so while those much higher HP lower weight cars are working their way up to max power, the Telsa is already there every time you push the throttle.

That's super important for all those race tracks where you fully stop the car each lap :rolleyes:

It's like you have no idea what a downshift is.
 
I read today that Tesla is expected to have about 1% of the market share by 2028. Even if that prediction is true, I don't think that justifies their astronomical stock price. :eek:
 
That's super important for all those race tracks where you fully stop the car each lap :rolleyes:

It's like you have no idea what a downshift is.

whats shift? is what e power cars would say at all
the fact is it doesnt have to down shift or up shift
 
One already did catch fire, and the fact that they didn't have a thermal fuse in their charger makes me wonder what kind of halfbaked engineering they're doing over there.

"We're going to suck down 25-40 amps through this plug, and it will always be fine, GG. Risk? Whatever."

They're not going above and beyond anything. They seemed astonished to learn that some home wiring or receptacles have higher than optimal resistance and get hot, due to corrosion, loose connections, or other reasons. Fucking pathetic.

If only there were a way to keep underspec'd wiring from burning... oh wait there is. It's called a breaker. Does your vaccum have a fuse or breaker in it? Should every appliance? Or is it better to insist that home and commercial wiring be up to spec and use breakers to handle this issue... hmmm...
 
It really depends on where your electricity comes from. If your power is generated with Coal, you're probably increasing your footprint. If it comes from nuclear, wind, solar or hydroelectric, then you're clearly lowering it.
Most studies I've read seem to suggest that EVs (as you pointed out) are best suited to areas services by renewables and nuclear. Nevertheless you are only seemingly marginally behind a Prius in terms of emissions in the state of West Virginia where 95+ (?) % of power is from coal.

So, I don't know about you but I'd rather drive the 'S over a Prius. ;-)
 
If only there were a way to keep underspec'd wiring from burning... oh wait there is. It's called a breaker. Does your vaccum have a fuse or breaker in it? Should every appliance? Or is it better to insist that home and commercial wiring be up to spec and use breakers to handle this issue... hmmm...

Oh and I neglected to mention that Tesla only uses up to 80% of a circuit's rated capacity. So a 50A NEMA 6-50 receptacle would be detected as a 40A circuit in the 'S. This is what I had until I bought the Tesla charger. (The branded charger is so much easier, by the way.)
 
No, I'm not suggesting that. You should try reading and logical thought.

So expecting a house's wiring to meet code and a home's owner to take a minimum of care isn't "logical"? Why should Tesla bear all of the responsibility in keeping people from burning their houses down based on their own negligence?

Ask yourself this: if you plugged a microwave into an outlet that was wired incorrectly and caused a fire, would you blame the microwave manufacturer for not adding a fuse to the plug? (The car has fuses in it, but the type of receptacle does not. Tesla also has fuses in the Universal Mobile Connector.) Tesla's only fault was that they expected their users not to be careless.
 
Yeah in my case it's all hydro electric, so all renewable. Too bad it's so expensive, because I'd heat my house with it. Gasoline is even more expensive so electric car would still save money. I have literally a 5 minute commute. 2 minutes if I get lucky enough and the traffic light is green. Other errands around town are typically no more than a 15-20 minute drive. I forget how many km you can do on a single charge but I recall it's quite high up there (for an electric) so it would work nicely for pretty much all the driving I do. Though I wonder how good those batteries are at -50.

At -23c overnight on several occasions the power was restricted for a short time and the regen was disabled. The car otherwise operated flawlessly. By about 30km I had nearly full regen and completely unlocked power. (Up to 320kW.)

I wouldn't say running a Tesla in such a severe cold (-50c) is the most enjoyable, but only on account of the fact that there's no vehicle where that'd be fun.
 
Back
Top