I don't think the Tesla batteries are as bad as you think they are. Supposedly they are legally landfillable (even though that's not what they're doing with them). And as of the last thing I read the materials in the batteries right now are about 10% reuse 60% recycle, which I'm sure will be improved upon.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Tesla Model S Aces Safety Tests But Catches on Fire
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
I don't think the Tesla batteries are as bad as you think they are. Supposedly they are legally landfillable (even though that's not what they're doing with them). And as of the last thing I read the materials in the batteries right now are about 10% reuse 60% recycle, which I'm sure will be improved upon.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
It's actually worse than I thought...
The Tesla Model S has a battery pack that weighs in at 1200 lbs.
A 20 gallon gas tank weighs 120 lbs.
That's like carrying around an obese family of 4 everywhere you go. A good chunk of your range (and all the power that had to be generated to charge the battery) going to carting the battery pack around.
The model S weighs about the same as its gas competition (A6, E-Class, 5-Series)
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
When it could weigh significantly less and likely blow them away on handling...
Erm . . . Its supposed to have really great handling
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Not as great as if it weighed 1000 lbs less...
Dude. It has a 1200 pound battery 8 inches off the road. The center of gravity is really low, which really improves handling over a standard car's weight distribution. It weighs the same as the other cars in its class. I dunno what kind of unicorn farting rainbow car you want, but it sounds pretty sweet to me.
Val_Parthen
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 6
Elon Musk has a good blog post about the fire today: Model S Fire
Seems like pretty extenuating circumstances... I'd still buy one.
Seems like pretty extenuating circumstances... I'd still buy one.
Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
K how much does your gasoline powered car engine and transmission weight?
model s is
2108 kilograms
bmw 7 series(similar overall size although 7 series is more luxurious)
1840 kilograms
difference 268 kilograms / 591 lbs
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Engine and transmission by themselves? Not sure. Curb weight for my entire car is 3,300 lb (1,497 kg) though.
And that's with a 5.0L v8, automatic transmission, and none of the option fiberglass replacement bits. Not super-light by any means, but still 1347 lbs (611 kg) lighter than the Tesla S
Good job, you found a petrol-powered brick to compare the Tesla against
I have no idea how weight efficient the BMW 7 series is, but 268kg is quite a difference, actually. If you drive an econobox, have you ever felt how sluggish it is with 3 or 4 passengers? That's because 250-300kg of extra weight actually takes a lot more power to shift.
Didn't you mean Fire-nza
LOL...I thought they sad it was protected. To me, 1/8" plate is nothing more than a flimsy cover that can be ripped off.
i was wrong is a 1/4" plate... so it was double what i thought it was....
and btw the Model S has better 0-60 then every car in its class
wile it was weigh a bit more its VERY VERY low
the CG is slow low in testing they couldnt get it to roll over
the Model X may end up the most roll over resistant SUV ever
good thing its electric powered and that weight means nothing... oh and it has the best CG and weight distribution of any car ever
and turns better then every car in its class and accelerates better then every car in its class
and its top speed is only limited by wheel size and the spur/main gear ratio
go test drive one its roller-coaster like acceleration
here is what Car and Driver thinks about how it drives
http://youtu.be/1kCG-WqpVnI?t=10m56s
http://youtu.be/1kCG-WqpVnI?t=10m56s
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,993
Well it did reduce weight by removing an engine and replacing it with electric motors, it then put that weight back by putting in batteries to give it what is arguably fucking phenomenal range for an all electric car. Could you ditch 600 pounds of weight? Sure, halve your range then, 900 pounds of weight gone? No problem... now you have 1/4 the range.
I swear every electric car topic that comes up always devolves into some form of "I'm better than you" syndrome. Either it doesn't have enough range, or it's unsafe on the freeway if you get hit by a truck, or it looks stupid, or it has too much weight.
Synful Serenity
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 1,256
Agreed.....god forbid we all use windmills or solar panels than upset the clean shiny fossil fuel balance. Because it's not like it costs anything or uses any resources to drill for that oil, turn it into gasoline, and ship it all over the world. Tanker trucks must get infinity miles to the gallon taking the gas to thousands of stations every day....Tesla's got it all wrong, they should've been pouring their research dollars into tanker powertrains!
https://www.factoryfive.com/kits/type-65-coupe/ I WILL get this post right. Also from not form.
Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
Well how big do you think the tesla model s is, it's a fucking long, wide and tall car. Far sporter then the that bmw series but less luxurious.Engine and transmission by themselves? Not sure. Curb weight for my entire car is 3,300 lb (1,497 kg) though.
And that's with a 5.0L v8, automatic transmission, and none of the option fiberglass replacement bits. Not super-light by any means, but still 1347 lbs (611 kg) lighter than the Tesla S
Good job, you found a petrol-powered brick to compare the Tesla against
Wouldn't be as much of a drain as electric motor and different transmission means it would be slower but not by much and you wont get any jerkiness. Sure if they could somehow remove the weight of the batteries it would go like stink but then electric cars would be every sports car just need to swap out power sources once it drains.
I was just stating a fact, I really don't care one way or the other. It's simply the fact of the matter that whether you are designing for speed, efficiency or cornering performance, the primary objective is to lower weight first and then secondary to move necessary weight downward and balanced between the front and rear wheels. The only real limit on that is if you remove so much weight from the bottom of the vehicle that it hits a limit of wanting to tip over, but that's not a limit you'll typically hit on a sedan. So when someone says it's ok that a vehicle is heavy because the center of gravity is low, I feel the need to just throw out there that the primary design concern with weight is it's magnitude and secondly it's location.
People take this shit way too personally, I'm a car enthusiast and I still think most cars are just a wank. Never understood why people can't figure that out and stop taking shit personally. Street cars are a wank because we've turned them from objects that get us from point A to point B in to status symbols and luxury devices. If we weren't obsessed with those things, we could use a fraction of the power we currently use to cart ourselves around. The absurdity of using a 2 ton vehicle with several hundred horsepower to move what will typically only be 1 person or a small group of people. Regardless of whether that vehicle is electric or gasoline powered, I still find it pretty damned absurd. Race cars are also a wank because ALL race classes are limited in some way. Even the premier racing class, F1, is what it is because that's what the rules dictate, not what is actually fastest.
Yet somehow in all of that, people still manage to take this shit way too personally.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
The Tesla S is 195" long, 77" wide, and 57" tall.
My car is 195" long, 73" wide, and 50" tall.
So aside from riding a hell of a lot higher, they have the same footprint... and I'm still hauling around 1347 fewer pounds.
So, there goes the "It's a big car! That's why it's heavy!" argument. Next?
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
And for reference, the Tesla S center of gravity is 17.5" from the ground. This is low, but it isn't staggeringly low. There are regular old sedans and sportscars that are within the same range (again, without being nearly a ton overweight)
Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
you do realize if you assume a cube and multiply that out that's a difference of 17% in volume. That difference in weight is 28% and i bet your car wont have the ride quality, luxury or be able to pull 0-60 in 4.6secs. apples or oranges.The Tesla S is 195" long, 77" wide, and 57" tall.
My car is 195" long, 73" wide, and 50" tall.
So aside from riding a hell of a lot higher, they have the same footprint... and I'm still hauling around 1347 fewer pounds.
So, there goes the "It's a big car! That's why it's heavy!" argument. Next?
Which old sedans? sports car yes but they scrape the bottom of the road, the tesla has a normal road height except at freeway speeds which it lowers itself. btw 17.5 inches is for the base model with a smaller battery pack and 17.5 is about the same as a ford GT and a vette z06 irrc. so yes in a sedan this is a very low center of gravity when considering it's ground clearance.
Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
It's lower then a BRZ, LFA, Cayman, 911 GT3, Ferrari 360 Modena, GT-R, Evo as low as a Z06 and a ford GT really 17.5" isn't that low? and it has better clearance.
Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
The point is to argue against the weight of a power train of a gas powered car vs Tesla's car unless your taking into account things like luxury and size of body your argument isn't refined and so your making a hasty generalization so a poor argument. Try again without an anecdote of my car this
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Not sure why you're pointing this out... A difference in volume != a difference in solid mass.
You're also not taking into account ride height, which can be changed with wheels / suspension and has nothing to do with the actual "size" of the chassis. The Tesla has quite a bit of room to be lowered, which would bring the two "height" figures closer without any other changes.
Yeah, it'll have me on the drag strip without question. Its torque figures thrown the curve.
Actual track racing, the Tesla behaves more like a boat... I've test-driven one, and it already feels like a boat taking corners at 40. It doesn't "feel" easy, it feels like it's going to rip its own tires off.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Basically, the car is heavy... You can lower the center of gravity and throw all the power you want at it. It'll get faster in a straight line, but you cannot change the fact that you have to shift all that additional mass.
Synful Serenity
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 1,256
The P85+ with the stiffer suspension and 21" wheels that are also wider is anything but a boat, it feels like it's on rails and you can throw it into curves and no sway or dip like a good sporting German. The 0-60 is also conservative, best case it can be done in 3.9s, but because there's no transmission, no turbo lag, and the full torque is instantaneous, under 100mph on the highway you pretty much will overtake anything at any time if you floor it. Drag or on a track is a different story, but everyday driving nothing else is going to vault forward 60 - 80mph on a dime and pass someone the way it can.
Parmenides
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,578
It's not easy getting republicans and democrats to agree... but nuclear power seems like a total win-win for both parties. I don't understand why we aren't just going crazy on nuclear power like France.
For every day driving, once you get to that sort of power, it really doesn't make a lot of difference and comes down to preference more than anything. I'd guess my car can probably get 0-60 in the low 4s range (haven't tried to time it, just a guess based on power/weight/balance/tires). It is very rarely safe or practical to unleash that sort of power in every day driving, and it wouldn't make a hell of a lot of difference to me if it was 3.5s or 4.5s or 5s. When I try and gun it from 60-80mph to overtake someone half the time I end up at 90mph because it happens so fast and I'm not looking at the speedo when overtaking someone like that
Take away the transmission and you'd take away half the fun for me. Would it be faster? Yeah, but like I said, at those sorts of power levels on the street, it more comes down to preference than anything else. I could have bought an even faster car for less money if I wanted, I bought the one I got because that's what is the most fun to me.
Track use is another ball game, and since there aren't really any "open" forms of racing, I don't think it really makes a difference. The fun of racing isn't having the fastest car in the world, it's using everything you have available within the rules to make a car which is faster than the other cars in the same class.
China will have a working Thorium based reactor running some time next year
and they have a ton of the stuff just sitting in piles from all the rare earth mining