Jump to content


ebuild is sad to announce its closure - it has become too time and resource intensive to develop, manage and maintain.

However, ebuild will remain on-line in archive mode (ie no posting facilties) for several weeks so that users can use it as an information resource.

Tesla Model 3


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#21 AliG

AliG

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 271 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 02:17 PM

I stand corrected on the CVT Jeremy, it looks like it is constantly variable. but not a CVT.

#22 Kev78

Kev78

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 173 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 02:26 PM

I've always steered clear of range rovers because of the reliability reputation. My mate had a 2.7d that was always in the garage. Lovely cars though. If you have a good one hang onto it :)

The Chinese owners of Volvo will ruin them. Loads of xc90's have leaking rear windscreens and other unacceptable problems. They have dressed it up very nicely to be a rival to the x5 and q7, but the quality has taken a massive step backward compared to the old ugly xc90.

I didn't know the d5 was a 2lt 4 cylinder until I drove it. It was tragic. Dont like the "Lego" floor plan either.

I agree about the sound of BMW 6 cylinder diesels. They sound really good for a diesel.

The new q7 looks very nice. Teslas seem very overpriced and have that weird American/jap hybrid styling that Lexus have.

Edited by Kev78, 01 April 2016 - 02:28 PM.


#23 jsharris

jsharris

    Please ignore all posts by me, some are erroneous

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,461 posts
  • LocationWiltshire/Dorset border

Posted 01 April 2016 - 02:28 PM

View PostAliG, on 01 April 2016 - 02:17 PM, said:

I stand corrected on the CVT Jeremy, it looks like it is constantly variable. but not a CVT.

The problem is that it doesn't fit into any category. For driving licence purposes it's an automatic (although it isn't, as it doesn't have any gears to automatically change!), for road tax purposes they call it a CVT, as it doesn't fit any other category (they also call it an Alternative Fuel Vehicle, when it isn't).

The drive system is so simple that I had to shake my head with wonder at the ingenuity of the designers. There's nothing new in there, just a petrol engine crankshaft with an attached electric motor generator on one side of an in-line differential, a bidirectional electric motor-generator on the other input shaft of the in-line differential, and a drive out to the front wheels as the output.

The engine is an Atkinson cycle engine, so doesn't run over a wide rpm range, but has a few fixed rpm settings. The difference between the front wheel shaft rpm and the crankshaft rpm is made up by changing the speed and direction of the other motor generator, using an electronic variable frequency drive.

It's damned clever, but uses age old technology. Anyone who's jacked a rear wheel drive car up, spun one wheel by hand and seen the wheel on the other side going in the reverse direction can pretty much understand how the Hybrid Synergy Drive works.

#24 Alphonsox

Alphonsox

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,495 posts
  • LocationCounty Down, NI and Forest of Dean, England

Posted 01 April 2016 - 03:02 PM

Most manufacturers will have PHEV versions of their vehicles on sale in the next couple of years - BMW are about to launch 2-Series, 3-Series and X5 variants. Mercedes have announce 10 model variants to be released in the next 2 years. Expect VAG to be pushing in this direction after last years commissions issues, Kia/Hyundai too.

#25 jamiehamy

jamiehamy

    Water Tank Conversion

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 601 posts
  • LocationGourock/Largs

Posted 01 April 2016 - 03:05 PM

View PostAliG, on 01 April 2016 - 02:04 PM, said:


A guy at work was saying that the battery replacement cost would offset the running costs but we looked at the data and it's just not true. The batteries degrade quite slowly and are probably good for 100-200,000 miles. I will almost guarantee that the electronics on the car break long before the battery gives out.


and that is the real issue we should be discussing. Why have a battery powered car that packs in at 100k? There's literally a lifetime of difference between 100 and 200k in car terms.

We all obsess with there new cars,b ut we forget the real problem - cars are made to be chuck away. People don't keep cars long because they are not built to last and because they are status symbols before pack horses for most. All great developing a new car but pointless if it's dead in 10 years and you have to build another.

Says the guys driving a 23year old car with 226k on the clock and the 28year old van with 190k - daily drivers....


It'll never happen, battery development is just a band wagon for most companies, not borne out of a real genuine desire to save the planet - how could it be? In doing so they'd be driving down demand for their own products...


#26 AliG

AliG

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 271 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 03:49 PM

Sorry Jamie, I didn't have time to look up all the data earlier.

The current data suggests that the batteries will retain around 90% of their original capacity at 100,000 miles.

It is hard to say whether degradation will pick up at some point after that. I didn't want to give out too aggressive a number but 150-200,000 miles should be doable to 80% of capacity.

Even at that point the batteries can be recycled and much of the material in them can be harvested.

Including higher energy usage in manufacturing, most of the energy a car uses in its lifetime will be from driving it, an electric car over it's life should use around half the energy of a combustion engined car.

Tesla uses very aggressive battery management strategies. There are three things to avoid - excess use of fast charging, constantly charging the battery to 100% and constantly draining it close to 0. Degradation is very slow in the absence of these things and the vast number of people would only have to fully charge the battery once or twice a year for a 200 mile trip.

Looking at the age and mileage of your cars you are doing 10k a year or less. I think the official sat is that privately owned cars in the UK do around 9,000 miles a year and company cars do around 18-20k.

Thus 150-200,000 miles is 15-20 years usage. According to the data I could find from the RAC, around 50% of cars are scrapped by 14 years old and around 90% by 20 years old. Repair costs simply become unsustainable versus the value of the cars, and passing the MOT gets harder and harder. I don't think electric cars will have materially different longevity to combustion engined cars.

You make an interesting point about batteries at the end of your post. Indeed today, electric cars are mainly economical to use due to tax arbitrage. If electricity had the same tax on it as petrol the running costs would explode. However, battery technology continues to improve steadily. I am not talking about the vapourware new technology claims you read in the papers, but the steadier progress of real world cars. The numbers suggest that this will create cost parity over the next few years.

I spend a lot of time looking at the data at work, I work in investment. The costs of electric cars and solar power continue to fall driven by technological advancement. It is not quite as fast as Moore's Law for semiconductors, but something similar. Meanwhile the cost of finding and extracting fossil fuels tends to rise over time. Thus it is only a matter of time before electric cars and renewable energy become the norm. The best thing of all is to improve efficiency. This has now been happening for some time, hence the end to growth in electricity consumption. An LED lightbulb uses 10% of the electricity of an incandescent lightbulb, an iPhone runs on 1W versus around 250 for a desktop PC etc.

The other advancement everyone is talking about is self driving cars. I am much less convinced there. I think it is only a matter of time before we have automated safety systems in cars. Around a quarter to a third of accidents involve running into the back of another car. These could be eliminated overnight. Imagine the gains in terms of less death on the roads, less injuries, less money wasted putting cars into the position the started in. However, despite hearing a lot about it I am doubtful they can make cars fully automated in the next few years. Many of the tests have been in the US and particularly California where roads are straight and wide. Lets see them work in London or in snow!I note they have just been complaining that the lack of road markings is a problem, well you can't even see the road in snow. Still I think the safety aspect is a wonderful thing. Thousands of people around the world die in car accidents, I would no longer contemplate buying a car without automated safety systems, I hope they are made mandatory soon. As we discuss when we talk about people's love of bling in house building I suspect people are still a lot more willing to pay for a nicer set of alloy wheels than systems that may save their family's lives.

Edited by AliG, 01 April 2016 - 03:56 PM.


#27 gravelld

gravelld

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 655 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 03:59 PM

There are all kinds of social changes that driverless cars would bring. So many challenges though, many of them non-technical.

#28 AliG

AliG

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 271 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 04:14 PM

You're right but it's progress and it is very hard to stop.

I think realistically we are looking around 2025 for this technology to be more mature.

At that point all jobs related to driving become at risk. It is unpleasant for people who work in that industry, but we have gone through similar changes time and again and ultimately the average person has ended up better off. The best way to manage this, in my opinion, is to have a social safety net, not to stand in the way of progress. Uber have said they would be hundred of thousands of driverless cars if they could. More interestingly though is what it would do to the distribution industry. As an aside if they can have cars drive themselves then we really should be able to have trains and tubes drive themselves. They already have driverless trains in Australia where wages soared in the mining industry.

Again as there is so much emphasis on efficiency here, cars are one of the most under-utilised assets on the planet. If you could just dial up a car to come to your house then they could be used massively more efficiently. We have car clubs at the moment, but the nearest one is a half hour walk from my house, this just isn't practical, but if the car came to you! This would be especially true of having second cars for the occasional time you need two, or large cars for the occasional time you have something large to transport.

For an ageing population this could be fantastic in terms of improving their ability to get around. For parents, imagine not having to do the school run.

One thing often talked about is the liability in accidents, I don't think is an issue at all. Laws will be passed clarifying this, the government have already started on this. The cost of the liability will be passed on to the owners whether they pay insurance or the liability remans with the manufacturer and they add the cost to the cars. The cars won't be infallible and the papers will have a field day when the first person is killed by a self driving car. But the statistics tell you that a lot less people will die. On average that's great, but some people will be unlucky.

I think for society the benefits would be large, but the outlook for driving jobs isn't great.

Edited by AliG, 01 April 2016 - 04:15 PM.


#29 gravelld

gravelld

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 655 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 04:20 PM

Yeah, I mean benefits generally!

I expect it will be commercial driving that is the vanguard of this change.

For personal cars, imagine no car parking in cities (car just drives off an parks itself elsewhere), not having to be constant taxi driver for little ones. Country pubs will see more visitors. Obviously those are minor ones off the top of my head!

#30 AliG

AliG

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 271 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 04:24 PM

Biggest benefit for me - My wife can't destroy the wheels on the kerb. It's OK, she doesn't read this!

#31 Roger440

Roger440

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 11:15 PM

View PostAliG, on 01 April 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

You're right but it's progress and it is very hard to stop.

I think realistically we are looking around 2025 for this technology to be more mature.

At that point all jobs related to driving become at risk. It is unpleasant for people who work in that industry, but we have gone through similar changes time and again and ultimately the average person has ended up better off. The best way to manage this, in my opinion, is to have a social safety net, not to stand in the way of progress. Uber have said they would be hundred of thousands of driverless cars if they could. More interestingly though is what it would do to the distribution industry. As an aside if they can have cars drive themselves then we really should be able to have trains and tubes drive themselves. They already have driverless trains in Australia where wages soared in the mining industry.

Again as there is so much emphasis on efficiency here, cars are one of the most under-utilised assets on the planet. If you could just dial up a car to come to your house then they could be used massively more efficiently. We have car clubs at the moment, but the nearest one is a half hour walk from my house, this just isn't practical, but if the car came to you! This would be especially true of having second cars for the occasional time you need two, or large cars for the occasional time you have something large to transport.

For an ageing population this could be fantastic in terms of improving their ability to get around. For parents, imagine not having to do the school run.

One thing often talked about is the liability in accidents, I don't think is an issue at all. Laws will be passed clarifying this, the government have already started on this. The cost of the liability will be passed on to the owners whether they pay insurance or the liability remans with the manufacturer and they add the cost to the cars. The cars won't be infallible and the papers will have a field day when the first person is killed by a self driving car. But the statistics tell you that a lot less people will die. On average that's great, but some people will be unlucky.

I think for society the benefits would be large, but the outlook for driving jobs isn't great.

Trains already can drive themselves. We merely choose not to do it on a widespread basis

I for one am looking forward to self driving cars - but only when im too old to drive myself.

It was interesting to see the recent survey that suggested car usuage would INCREASE by 5-60% when self driving cars become a reality! Basically, lots of people who dont currently use cars, now will.

So while you are correct they are massively under used resource, and there might be less of them, there will, logically be more cars on the road.

View PostAliG, on 01 April 2016 - 12:17 PM, said:

Can't believe no one has mentioned this as Tesla seems pretty popular around here.

They confirmed a base US price of $35,000 for RWD, 0-60 in under 6 seconds and 215mile range. I reckon this translates into around £35,000, maybe a little less in the UK once VAT is included.


It seems that you are getting a roughly similar spec as a BMW 330D for roughly the same price. In the US a BMW 328i with similarperformance is $38,000 and probably has less equipment, although Tesla options are very expensive.

It looks like a real game changer, at work I have some research which suggests that the battery costs are down to $200/kwh and more impressively it has around 30% higher energy density than the current batteries. This would make a big weight saving.

I actually have a model X on order, but I am very concerned re quality issues in the US. I will wait and see, the Audi Q6 looks interesting too.

Electric cars are undoubtedly the future, as we get to 2020 and they see price parity with internal combustion then the market will move very quickly. They are better to drive, the only thing you will miss is the engine noise. Although my diesel car makes a miserable noise so that wouldn't be missed.

Even accepting that the electricity is generated using fossil fuels the engine efficiency is the equivalent to around 120MPG. Of course we should be able to charge them from our PV panels.

If anyone is working on their house plans they need to think about the power usage. I am going for a 3 phase supply. You could very quickly get up to 100 amps charging one of these whilst using you induction hob and oven and boiling the kettle.

Serious question. What happens when you need to go further than its range? For me this kills it dead. I often have to make longish trips for work. I just dont see it as viable for many people. I see them as part of the future, but a long way from being the norm for a very long time.

A customer of mine had a Tesla S. Very impressive. But, being more like Kev78, ive simply ordered a Vauxhall (well HSV really) Maloo with a grossly overpowered V8 to keep my other V8's company :)

I dont see an electric car in my medium term future!

#32 ferdinand

ferdinand

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 02 April 2016 - 06:43 AM

>What happens when you need to go further than its range?

I think the number of occasions when this happens is tiny, for a start.

But you charge it up while you are having a break. How many people drive 300 miles with no reasonable break, or say 200 miles each way in one day?

The other point about work is that, for example, a Tesla S will save you 80% or so of your company car tax over an equivalent Jag. That will be 3k+ a year of actual cash on the £55k versions, plus essentially everything that you spend on fuel.

I probably see a secondhand Tesla S, rather than a Tesla 3, being for me. The only issue for me is that they don't tow.

Ferdinand

Edited by ferdinand, 02 April 2016 - 06:51 AM.


#33 SteamyTea

SteamyTea

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,322 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 02 April 2016 - 07:01 AM

View Postferdinand, on 02 April 2016 - 06:43 AM, said:

But you charge it up while you are having a break. How many people drive 300 miles with no reasonable break, or say 200 miles each way in one day?
I do, frequently.
It takes me 4 hours, on a clear run, to go up country to visit my mother. I start the journey with a full tank of fuel, and generally get back with an empty tank. If I had to add on 4 hours of fuelling time, it would make the journey unbearable and might as well take the MegaBus and then train it out of London and walk the final 3 miles, that only takes 10 hours.

#34 jsharris

jsharris

    Please ignore all posts by me, some are erroneous

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,461 posts
  • LocationWiltshire/Dorset border

Posted 02 April 2016 - 07:33 AM

When I was looking at buying a Nissan Leaf, they were including two weeks a year of free car hire from them for the times when you needed to make longer journeys.

It all comes down to your usage profile, really. If, like me, 90% of your annual driving is a commute each day that is inside battery range (my current commute is 16 miles each way, and I can charge both ends) and you only occasionally make longer journeys, there doesn't seem much point in having a plug-in hybrid like mine (I bought mine for its load carrying space).

The range extender option that BMW offer is one way around the problem, as is the free hire car option from Nissan.

In reality many drivers will worry about battery range when they don't need to (the EV manufacturers have a term for it, "range anxiety"). when I had the Leaf on long term test I never felt that I was going to run out of charge, but was alarmed by the rate with which the "distance remaining" indicator dropped if you booted it. After nearly two years of driving a plug-in hybrid, running most of the time in electric mode only, I've got used to the pessimistic way the "distance remaining" indication works. Quite reasonably it takes a bit of brisk driving as an indication that the rest of the journey is going to driven the same way, and cannot take account of things like congestion or slower lanes ahead that are going to slow you down.

One thing I have rather got used to is the pure, seamless grunt you get from electric drive. With no gear changes, and virtually no sound, you just get this feeling that there is a lot of torque available (which is true, the maximum toque at zero rpm characteristic really does make a big difference to the feel).

#35 daiking

daiking

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,300 posts
  • LocationSouth Manchester

Posted 02 April 2016 - 08:12 AM

I haven't read every post in detail but it reminds me somewhat of building techniques.

ICE cars = brick/block min building regs, fully electric cars = passive house with other stuff in between.

And some car owners are like PH owners who want a massive real fire :D

If you are embracing an alternative technology you need to embrace it not discount it because it doesn't suit 0.1% of your usage.

(This post contains some hyperbole)

#36 Nickfromwales

Nickfromwales

    Short cuts take three times longer.....Fact

  • Moderators
  • 8,182 posts
  • LocationSouth Wales

Posted 02 April 2016 - 08:41 AM

I like doing the school run ;). I enjoy the security of hand delivering my 4 each morning. I doubt I'd ever put them into a vehicle which I hoped would get them there intact.
I agree that the likelihood is that I would be, statistically, more likely to cause an accident, but how would I feel if a driverless car took my kids into an accident that I maybe able to help them survive from? I think the human touch is irreplaceable, warts and all.
Oh, and when we say driverless trains, don't we mean remote controlled?
I bought my old 5-door Pajero when SWMBO popped number 4 out. That replaced my beloved Volvo V70 2.5 straight 5 petrol turbo SE estate, an automatic. What a great car. 10 years old when I had it, and about 15% of its showroom value, which seemed a huge injustice tbh as it still drove silently, and like a limousine. Circa 200bhp too iirc, and flew like a bird with a rocket up its arse.
Honda civic type R, eaten alive, 2.2 coupe Astra turbo, dead, and many more. The only thing that caned me one day, which I couldn't believe, was a Citroen c2 vtr, a little 1.6 thing powered by the devil himself. Literally left my Volvo for dead. :(. How the hell.......
I'm a petrol head so, I too, am bias.
Regards, nick.

#37 SteamyTea

SteamyTea

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,322 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 02 April 2016 - 08:49 AM

I did a quick calculation to find out what the average mileage per kWh of electric cars was, turns out it is about 4 miles.
This is just using the manufacturers figures, so will be the best.
Does anyone have any data about how they perform in the UK climate rather than the LA climate?

#38 joiner

joiner

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 10,718 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands

Posted 02 April 2016 - 09:00 AM

I miss my old Transit. :(

Trouble with Volvos is having to sign up to always pulling out of a side road into oncoming traffic at just the right time to force them to brake. I don't think I could sit there watching the approaching vehicle and get that 50 yard interval just right. And as for accepting motorbike riders as unpaid testers for my Side Impact Protection System, as explained by a Sergeant traffic cop who came out to give the local BMW bike owners club a talk? My conscience just couldn't handle it. :rolleyes:

So, in spite of my reputation as the fastest pensioner in the county, I'm still satisfied with my '08 reg Ford C-Max diesel and its consistent 50+ (in a queue of Sunday drivers 60+ until I overtake them) mpg.

And yes, I'd have a Tesla tomorrow if I ever needed one.

#39 daiking

daiking

    Advanced Member

  • Member Blogger
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,300 posts
  • LocationSouth Manchester

Posted 02 April 2016 - 09:04 AM

View PostNickfromwales, on 02 April 2016 - 08:41 AM, said:

I like doing the school run ;). I enjoy the security of hand delivering my 4 each morning. I doubt I'd ever put them into a vehicle which I hoped would get them there intact.
I agree that the likelihood is that I would be, statistically, more likely to cause an accident, but how would I feel if a driverless car took my kids into an accident that I maybe able to help them survive from? I think the human touch is irreplaceable, warts and all.
Oh, and when we say driverless trains, don't we mean remote controlled?
I bought my old 5-door Pajero when SWMBO popped number 4 out. That replaced my beloved Volvo V70 2.5 straight 5 petrol turbo SE estate, an automatic. What a great car. 10 years old when I had it, and about 15% of its showroom value, which seemed a huge injustice tbh as it still drove silently, and like a limousine. Circa 200bhp too iirc, and flew like a bird with a rocket up its arse.
Honda civic type R, eaten alive, 2.2 coupe Astra turbo, dead, and many more. The only thing that caned me one day, which I couldn't believe, was a Citroen c2 vtr, a little 1.6 thing powered by the devil himself. Literally left my Volvo for dead. :(. How the hell.......
I'm a petrol head so, I too, am bias.
Regards, nick.
I think you're conflating 2 issues there with driverless cars and unsupervised children.

#40 Nickfromwales

Nickfromwales

    Short cuts take three times longer.....Fact

  • Moderators
  • 8,182 posts
  • LocationSouth Wales

Posted 02 April 2016 - 09:23 AM

The 3rd item would have to be an operator-less taser
:D

Edited by Nickfromwales, 02 April 2016 - 09:24 AM.