I really hate these comparisons. What is the Model S trying to be? A luxury car? A sports car? A trip vehicle? Every article I read compares the Model S to some abhorrently expensive vehicle that does some specific thing poorly in comparison to Model S. I'd be much more interested in reading a top to bottom comparison between the Model S and a similar car. Do it with a BMW M3 or something, a reasonably priced luxury car that still tries to tailor to the sporty crowd.
The Rapide is a $150k car that is outperformed by a $25k Ford Mustang. No one has ever gone into the draft room and thought to themselves "If only I could design a vehicle that cost less to produce than the Rapide AND was sportier!". Outperforming it is not an achievement.
On the other hand, most of us already know how the Model S compares to its more natural rivals. The Internet is flush with information including such straight-forward comparisons.
I actually revel in wildcard comparisons that demonstrate just how remarkable the Model S is.
And let's not overlook the obvious: they are both upscale sedans with a penchant for spirited driving. This isn't a sedan vs coupe or sedan vs pickup truck comparison. It is actually conceivable that a Rapide buyer would cross-shop a Model S because of the unique cache of the Model S, and much less conceivable they would cross-shop a Mustang.
At the price point of all these cars they damn well be better amazing. Honestly I could care less about how great cars that cost as much as some homes do. For pete's sake we are talking about cars that cost upwards if not more than 100,000.
Now, when Tesla starts slogging it out in the 30 to 40k range write me, until then they are just skimming off the crowd that with excess money who expect the same in their cars.
Hats off to their accomplishment, but maintaining quality and luxury at that price range is baked into the price.
Elon Musk has stated that as his end goal. He said first he had to make electric cars sexy and sporty[1]. Next he wanted to make a slightly cheaper nice sedan as a high end family car, the Model S[2]. FYI the Model S starts at $71,070 per their website. After that the next goal is the Model X[3], and then a second revision / smaller version of the Model S, which will start around $30,000[4]. So instead of being so sceptical, you should be like holy shit! Elon Musk is a trail blazer and he is doing to the automotive industry what apple did to the personal computer and mobile industry. So far he has delivered on everything he's promised with Tesla and SpaceX, so I doubt he will fail to deliver his stated goal of a 30k car.
Any car in this price range is as much or more a fashion statement than it is anything else. And most reviews of "Tesla vs. Car X" seem contrived to illustrate a preconceived conclusion, whether it's Top Gear who somewhat artificially highlighted the very real range issues with the Tesla or this review which highlights an acceleration capability that you really can't use unless you're on a track.
Operating costs of these cars are meaningless to people who can afford them, so until there's a Tesla in the $20,000--$30,000 range I don't see that as something that's going to factor into a purchase decision for most people.
I personally would never spend more than $10,000 on a car, and I'd have to be having a really weak moment to even spend that. I still find Tesla to be interesting to read about, they are quite clearly the best effort yet at an electric vehicle, but for me they will likely always be just a curiosity, sort of like a Cray supercomputer. Amazing, but really special-purpose.
I dunno — I see the Model S as far less of a fashion statement than most other comparably priced cars. If one wishes to buy an electric car (e.g., because you believe in reducing pollution, because of the lower cost of running due to tax exemptions, etc.) and needs a range of over 200 miles, there are two options: the Venturi Fétish and the Tesla Model S (in some places the tax exemptions do not apply to hybrids, so if you need the range, that's it).
I also wouldn't write off operating costs as a reason — certainly, those who can afford them can likely afford the operating costs of similarly priced ICE cars, but my experience is those with a greater amount of money tend to be more frugal than those with slightly above average income. There's also the difference between wealth and income — purchase power for something like a car may well be done on the basis of wealth, while maintaining it done on income.
I don't know about you, but I take advantage of quick 0-60 acceleration all the time. It's more things like high top speeds that are useless except at a track.
Come on, most of those houses are either in the middle of nowhere or 'needs updating', 'needs work' and so forth. You can buy houses for <$1k in the US if you go to where they're priced at that, but there's a reason why they're that cheap, and they certainly don't represent anywhere near the usual experience.
Here's a list of properties within 3 miles from Liverpool city centre (well, a 'Zoopla mile' is a bit different) for £40-60k ($62-93). I'm sure many will need updating. There's 300+ on the list
If you buy second-hand you can also easily pick up an Aston for cheaper than a new Tesla S, so say the classifieds. I wouldn't recommend leaving it unattended outside your £40k Liverpool house though. Probably best not to drive it into the estate at all.
That construction is on a par with using "literally" to mean "figuratively" (surprisingly common), or "he doesn't know s * * t" when obviously the speaker means "he does know s * * t."
But the Rapide does try to tailor to the sporty crowd. It is marketed as such. It is significantly lighter than rivals like the various Bentley and the Rolls Royce four-doors, and it was tested on the Nordschleife. It performs favorably compared to the BMW M5, and people have compared the two.
I don't think it's fair to compare the Model S with the M3. The M3 (well, the M4) aims to be a compact executive. In terms of wheelbase, the Model S is much closer to the M5 and the Rapide.
I personally cross-shop the Tesla Model S and the Audi S7. A future Model S AWD and an Audi A7/S7 TDI would be an even more direct comparison. They price out (loaded) to within $5k, if you take into account the $2500 federal tax credit and sales tax exemption in WA. The depreciation on a diesel and on a Tesla are probably comparable. Tesla would be clear savings on fuel costs, maintenance, and probably would have more curb appeal at least in SFBA. I'd probably take the Audi A7 3.0 TDI if I needed AWD today.
What I really want is the Tesla S4/S5 or 335is-equivalent, though.
> What I really want is the Tesla S4/S5 or 335is-equivalent, though.
Sorry, I don't think the tech is there. Either the range would suffer (due to more compact frame allowing for fewer cells safely) or the power would be gimped (to allow for lower overall battery capacity).
Electric cars are competing with the entire petroleum-fuel supply chain, and as such, are fighting a david vs. goliath battle.
That Tesla does this, has won consistently, and wins with style is why their stock is up 500% over the past year.
Of course, they've picked their battles, and fighting the S4 or 3 series isn't one of those they're ready to fight (yet). Maybe, like Apple, they never will (Apple ceded the enthusiast/gaming desktop market years ago).
I guess the question is how much they'd gain in acceleration/performance (and thus be able to give up on battery capacity) by making the overall vehicle smaller and (ex-battery) 200-300 pounds lighter, vs. how much space for battery they'd give up. I don't mind if the S4-replacement costs $60-80k (loaded) vs. $80-100k for a Model S.
I'd also take a car which had the same general size and chassis as the Model S but with a larger, more-secure trunk at the cost of seating capacity. My dream car is a 2-seat coupe with a trunk the size of a compact pickup truck bed.
I have been comparing the Model S and the S7 as well. For me the S7 wins the emotional "want-to-buy-it" comparison, but the model S wins the rational "reasons-to-buy-it" comparison. But at this price point the decision is much more emotional than rational, so while I'm not sure I'll buy the S7, I'm pretty sure I won't buy the model S. Maybe next time, though. I like so many of the things Tesla is doing.
Of course here in the Seattle area there are tesla model S cars on every other street so the curb appeal story is a little different.
I want something smaller than a Model S for now. Driving a Model S into SF, and dealing with parking/etc., looks like a pain -- I've driven a Crown Vic, 745i, etc., and I hated it there. I'll solve this by being in ruralish WA by the time I get my Model S AWD. (I also tend to dislike SUVs which aren't trucks.)
You are comparing cars that don't really compete, yet the Tesla matches or outperforms them. I personally like to know that it's faster than X or better equipped than Y or drives better than Z.
It's also not just another drag race. Notice they did the race from a moving 30mph, while the Aston Martin was in second gear. The Tesla only accelerates after the Aston Martin starts spooling up. This is not a from-0-mph which would throw the advantage into the lap of the Tesla.
Maybe putting the Aston into 1st would be more fair, but that's not a realistic real-world test. You don't mill around town in 1st gear. It's a surprising result because having full-torque at all times still helps when you are milling around at local-town speeds. It's not just an electric-car pony trick.
It's true that you don't tend to mill around town in first gear but the title of the post is 'Tesla Model S outperforms Aston' which implies to me that both cars were performing optimally. I bet most people hadn't picked up on the fact the Aston was in the wrong gear for a race. I hadn't until I read your comment.
So you would also be very interested in a shootout between a Tesla and a dirt bike? They don't compete, but if the Tesla can go round a *pavement track better, I guess that's useful?
Fine. So you'd be interested to see the Tesla compared to a WRC car, and you would find it useful to hear that the Tesla can pull higher g's on an asphalt skidpad and has a nicer interior?
isn't it useful to know that it is as refined as a high-end sports car
You got that out of this video? They barely even mention fit-and-finish. The main focus between the two is the acceleration comparison, which says zilch about refinement.
"So you'd be interested to see the Tesla compared to a WRC car, and you would find it useful to hear that the Tesla can pull higher g's on an asphalt skidpad and has a nicer interior?"
Sure, I'd read that article. Throw the Tesla onto a dirt track too, I'd read that as well. Hell, I want to know if it can go upside-down in a sewer tunnel. I don't see the problem here.
The reason these articles are interesting is because they're talking about the Tesla doing well when compared on the other cars' strengths, where you would expect the cheaper car focused on something different to do worse. Obviously an article about how the Tesla is better at something than a car which is very bad at that thing would not be very interesting.
Acceleration isn't really an important strength of the Aston's, and Tesla gets applauded for its acceleration all the time. So which is the one that we expect to do worse?
Then you probably wouldn't be interested in an Aston Martin. If acceleration is your top priority, you can always buy an STI for a third as much, boost the snot out of it, and leave the Rapide in your dust.
The Rapide is no slouch, to be sure, but acceleration falls somewhere in the middle of a larger spectrum of goals for that car.
I think Musk is in need of some good advice on PR strategy. He started public battles with Top Gear and the NY Times over inaccuracies. I think it's more than likely he was right in both cases--those are not the homes of highly objective and sophisticated auto journalism. Top Gear is just entertainment, and the NY Times doesn't bother including the weight of a car in a review, which says something about their thoroughness. Autocar.uk in contrast is extremely respected and diligent.
But engaging the press in a press release war creates the wrong image for the company. Who will hear about it? Viewers of Top Gear and the NY Times. And they won't be likely to guess their beloved news source is in the wrong. You can't win that kind of fight and he should have known better than to try. I can't believe it has been good for Tesla on balance.
Top Gear is the Daily Show of automobile journalism. Although it's entertainment, a surprising number of its viewers would cite it as their primary source of auto news.
Just as with the Daily Show audience, the Top Gear audience isn't thinking very critically about every subject presented. With that kind of audience, it's all about appearances. Merely having heard that there has been a kerfuffle over their prior coverage of Tesla is sufficient for viewers to think, "well, perhaps what I saw about Tesla on Top Gear wasn't quite accurate." In other words, since loud and silly is all that this audience can perceive, I think Musk did the right thing.
I was skeptical of Musk's reaction to the Times, but in net, I think Tesla came out of that looking seriously intolerant of journalistic hijinks. And many people respect that.
I've actually thought the same thing regarding Top Gear for quite a while, and said as much in another offshoot of this thread (prior to reading this).
I was also on the side of it being a slight misstep for Tesla to make as much of an issue of the NYT and Top Gear problems, but in hindsight I think it's paid off for them. There's been so much good press now that people thinking back on the events may have a different opinion than when they first heard about it, and Tesla was less well known.
I love Top Gear. I love it for being loud and silly.
But, whether you and I see it as entertainment is somewhat moot when, like the Daily Show, much of its audience actually gleans the totality of their auto news intake from this entertainment show. Because, frankly, many are not interested in watching the serious news shows, automotive or otherwise.
The better solution would (IMO) to have been to out-Top-Gear Top-Gear in some fashion, and use that exposure to also cover your point of contention.
I think a suitable segment to parody would be the (rocket assisted) Mini Cooper Ski-Jump[1] from the Top Gear Winter Olympics Special[2].
For the low low price of a single Model S, a Merlin engine, and some quality time bodging one onto the other[3], he'd have a guaranteed viral hit in which to make his appeal to the public, as well as, almost certainly, the credibility of producing either a much better jump, or a much larger fireball.
As the saying (sorta) goes: "Never get into a rocket fight with a rocket scientist who owns his own rocket making company."
[3] plus somewhere with a ski-jump they don't really like that much, and whose authorities don't have a problem with a mostly-horizontal rocket flight-plan, which might be tricky.
they won't be likely to guess their beloved news source is in the wrong
It doesn't really matter if their beloved news source is right or wrong, it still paints Tesla as litigious. The only time such suits over reviews expressly supported by the manufacturer go over well is when the reviewer committed gross fabrications or other inaccuracies.
The omissions in their suit speak quite loudly to me. For example, I just went back and rewatched the Top Gear review. They mention the engine overheated in one Tesla, and in the other the brakes failed while it was charging. I notice Tesla only made a big deal about the race track range estimate, which if I recall they didn't even claim was wrong- just misleading. That leaves an especially bad taste in my mouth- it's almost like Tesla is trying to discredit the apparently real failures by nitpicking unrelated minor details.
It all looks even more shady when you consider how few of these sorts of scuffles come up with Top Gear & other car companies.
It was a clash of TV cultures. In America, there's an implicit expectation that your "sponsorship" will elicit positive things, tit for tat. In the UK, they get away with all sorts of blasphemy- they are free to bash the cars that get provided for reviews. If you watch Top Gear UK much, you'll notice they criticize plenty of cars, even ones that were on loan from the manufacturer.
(This is part of why Top Gear America is but a shadow of Top Gear UK)
Top Gear lied. Tesla wasn't expecting special treatment for sponsorship, they were expecting a modicum of honesty. You don't get to put this down to "culture clash" unless you're defining "ethical" and "unethical" as cultures.
I am well aware of what Top Gear is, and that's why I stopped watching it almost as soon as I started, and wondered why the hell anyone else watches it, either. I don't think establishing a past pattern of lies is an excuse for future lies, nor do I think lies presented as facts are "entertaining" in the least. They're just lies, nothing more, nothing less, and they and their peddlers should be treated as such.
I've never heard evidence Top Gear UK lied or slandered Tesla in the review. I believe the contention of the lawsuit Tesla filed was the 55 mile range quote would be misleading to the public because it was based on driving the Tesla around their track at race speeds. (The judge threw it out saying it wasn't misleading at all)
The range quote wasn't even based on a genuine test. The car was never run down to empty, and yet they showed the car being pushed into the garage as if it were.
Judges aren't arbiters of truth, they're arbiters of law. If your standard for truth is "a judge didn't say it was legally defamatory", I hope nobody ever trusts anything you say.
(while driving around the track, cornering) "This car then really was shaping up to something wonderful. But then..."
(cut to Jeremy in the Roadster, a musical cue cutting off the soundtrack, signalling a problem. Jeremy pumps his foot, looks down at his foot and back up with a perplexed look on his face, and says "Oh", with backround noise of the Tesla decelerating.
Jump to outside view of the Roadster rolling to a stop in the middle of the track, with Jeremy narrating "Although Tesla say it will do two hundred miles, we worked out that on our track it would run out after just 55 miles." During this the scene changes to men pushing the Roadster in a hanger.
More narration from Jeremy, "And if it does run out, it's not a quick job to charge it up again."
Make of that what you will, I don't think words do it justice, which is why I included the video[0]. The narration is accurate, but the portrayal clearly implies something more than the narration, making it very to misconstrue what the facts are. The facts are, by the way, that the Roadster never ran out of power, they ran it for a few hours, decided they didn't want to wait for it to run out, and staged that portion.
Now, Top Gear is clearly an entertainment and comedy program, but to act like that's the end of it is also clearly ignoring the reality of the situation. Top Gear is less like SNL than The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. Viewers expect it to not be too serious, but right or wrong, they also expect to be able to get some information from the show, knowing that they'll need to sort through the context to determine whether it was a joke or not.
Keeping all that in mind, to me Top Gear seems to have overstepped slightly here. Then Tesla overreacted with a lawsuit. That's why I said neither seems to have come off well.
Hey, its just a comparison. Nothing wrong with it. Especially TESLA is a new type of car. Such comparisons make much more sense in terms of buyer awareness.
Performance is all well and good but the cost of an aston martin is for fit and finish in all aspects. Notice the panel gaps on the Tesla versus the Aston Martin. Notice how the interior looks a little clunky on the Tesla S versus the hand crafted interior on the AM. Car companies spend decades accounting for fit and finish and Aston Martin had major issues with it in the past. Tesla owners know that their cars are essentially still in beta and allow such things. But eventually that needs to change. And I'm sure it will. It just takes time and $.
Don't get me wrong, I believe Tesla is an incredible company and doing something awesome. But there's more to a car than just performance specs.
Unquantifiable qualia are always the last refuge of arguments like this. I guess a "panel gap" can be measured, but I can't even begin to understand how "clunky" and "hand crafted" are defined (or why they should be in opposition for that matter).
All that stuff is fine, I guess. There will always be luxury markets, and that's where the Rapide is aimed, and I'm sure the purchasers like them just fine.
But that's not where Tesla is aimed. I think there was a Matthew Yglesias post a few days back about exactly this: look at Tesla's stock price. They're looking to be another GM or Toyota or Daimler, not just another spit-and-polish luxury vendor (or Ford subsidiary in this case, I believe).
The real point here is that there's an existing market for performance sedans, performance is something that can be measured objectively, and Tesla's offering competes very well.
As I said above, go check out how Aston Martin builds cars by hand and you'll see the difference. They don't allow imperfections and each engine has the builders name on it. They don't charge $150k a car just because of a luxury badge on the front. That's what I mean by hand crafted.
I am not doubting that there is a difference, nor am I even doubting that the Aston is of higher quality. I am pointing out that while manufacturing method is objective, quality is not. You are talking about two different things.
Better statements would be "Astons are higher quality than Teslas" (subjective), or "Astons are made by hand and Teslas are not" (objective).
Almost nothing in any car, including low production supercars, is actually handcrafted. Hand assembled, maybe, but the parts were almost certainly injection molded or CNC cut or what have you.
The Tesla is aimed, like the Aston, squarely at the male status-obsessed fools who will clamor after such things. Tesla, astonishingly, has convinced people for now that being a niche coach builder entitles it to a market cap in the neighborhood of a real car company.
Soon the commodity nature of electric vehicles will be made more clear as large carmakers stamp out models that are identical in the chassis and drive train, but are different only cosmetically. Oh wait, that sounds like the existing global car business, just at a lower energy state.
This is where cars are headed. That means bad things for Tesla unless someone is dumb enough to buy them out while they are still sexy and very expensive.
For customers it will be awesome, once they figure out all the annoyances that make these cars beyond niche right now. I would rather drive a 991 gt3 to work than one of these things, because I am embarrassed of the strenuous fanboyism at play, and why not just drive any awesome car, like a corvette, or an AMG. Just admit that you are the same as every other base, acquisitive male. You are no better than lawyers or investment bankers. Then you can be free, or at least honest.
It sounds like you don't know much about Tesla's goals. They aren't scared of what you are predicting, they are actively attempting to bring it about. The whole goal is to make a cheap, high quality electric vehicle with good range. First they started with the Roadster to prove the technology. Then they moved to the Model S to work out the kinks in mass production and prove they can produce them at scale. Finally, as stated by Musk in multiple interviews, the goal is to mass produce an electric car for $30k-$40k.
By all indications, what they come up with will be better quality and better featured than the equivalent offering from the traditional auto companies. If they can pull that off, I doubt any investors will end up suffering for it...
There will always be luxury markets, and that's where the Rapide is aimed
That's the point of your parent's comment. Acknowledging that the two vehicles are designed with different things in mind, and thus are sort of like racing apples and oranges.
They mention that in the video. He says "It isn't meant to compete with a car like the aston to be honest, on any level. We just wanted to show how fast it is in a straight line".
It would have been interesting to see how the model S compared to the Aston Martin around a track. Everyone already knows that electric cars accelerate quickly in a straight line.
Admittedly my source is Top Gear UK, but every time they review an Aston Martin or a TVR or another hand-built car they complain about the subtly misfitting finish.
Autocar.uk is an enthusiast news and review site. They are careful about their reviews and it means a lot that Sutcliffe is so excited after driving the Model S. He was a professional racer. Autocar have tremendous integrity and independence unlike many US car mags which ritually praise US models for no reason other than their origin.
But Autocar also do comparisons that don't really mean much, like a track race between an SUV and a trackday special. The rolling start race with the Aston isn't meant to signify anything other than the real world result of the huge torque in an all electric. When the Model S ships in the UK their review will be a must read. This is just a little fun.
The car's not perfect, but it is a massive turning point in automotive history. Electric cars have fumbled at the hands of traditional car manufacturers who have just tried to swap out the engine and think that's it. Tesla has not only completely redesigned the car from the ground up, it's also had to jump start the supporting infrastructure with its super charger network.
That's a huge but necessary undertaking to make it a viable alternative to traditional cars with their vast network of petrol stations.
These comparisons between expensive performance cars are fun but they're only done for entertainment value. Ultimately this car is changing the industry and the fundamentals to how automotive transport is designed and serviced.
If ever there was a collectors car, decades into the future this will be it.
> Electric cars have fumbled at the hands of traditional car manufacturers who have just tried to swap out the engine and think that's it.
Actually if car manufacturers take an existing, good looking car and swap the engine with a battery bank it would be something I would be interested in driving. But instead they somehow make their hybrids and EVs as ugly as possible.
Tesla Model S is revolutionary in the sense that it's very ordinary. Everything in there has been done before. Once it becomes a popular choice, Tesla can make down-graded release of the same technologies at even cheaper prices. The average drive range in Asian cities is a lot shorter than in the US. Think of the possibilities!
If only Tesla manufactured auto-rickshaws which is popular in cities like Bangalore. We would have green, silent and "cool" mobility. We would be still stuck in traffic jams but hell, it would be a walk in the park compared to now.
Tesla Model S is revolutionary in the sense that it's very ordinary
Of course, take heed from the Insight and Prius of the late 90's vs. the Prius of the 2000's. You have to hit just the right mark of ordinary but not too ordinary- if it is too weird, people won't buy, but if it's too normal nobody will notice how progressive and smart and cool you are for buying it.
No one buys an Aston just for the performance. It gets killed in almost every category. It's much more of an emotional connection than anything else. I love them, but know there are countless other cars that can destroy it (911, GTR, etc, etc).
The difference in price between fully charging / fueling is particularly striking. I wonder what this means wrt. electric cars and the environment? What would our emissions look like if all cars were magically electrical tomorrow?
"Electricity is a significant source of energy in the United States and is used to power homes, business, and industry. The combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the nation, accounting for about 38% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 32% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2011. The type of fossil fuel used to generate electricity will emit different amounts of CO2. To produce a given amount of electricity, burning coal will produce more CO2 than oil or natural gas."
A lot of people don't realize the amount of CO2 that electricity produces.
"The Tesla’s state-of-the-art materials, particularly that $30,000 battery, take a massive amount of energy to build–and that energy comes from fossil fuels, particularly coal. In fact, some studies argue that the Tesla battery takes so much fossil fuel energy to make that the car over its lifetime emits more CO2 than a gasoline-powered car."
Yes, and you're forgetting that the Model S has the equivalent of a 2 gallon tank to go ~260 miles. Big expensive stationary heat engines are still more efficient than small cost- and weight-optimized heat engines.
>"In fact, some studies argue that the Tesla battery takes so much fossil fuel energy to make that the car over its lifetime emits more CO2 than a gasoline-powered car."
That car being a Prius, not a comparable full-size sedan.
The study also assumes a vehicle lifespan of 100,000 miles, or about 8 years of driving. I would be quite surprised if an all-aluminum car with few moving parts dies 3 years before the average age of cars on the road today (11.4 years).
The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to over 25 percent in the first half of 2012. Renewable energy share of gross electricity consumption rose from 10% in 2005 to 20% in 2011.
The first link doesn't seem all that relevant (you're citing one number tangentially related to the issue at hand and acting like that constitutes a comparison — surely that would require at least two numbers, if not more).
The second link is a propaganda piece on a guy's blog.
>To produce a given amount of electricity, burning coal will produce more CO2 than oil or natural gas
There are many factors that this statement fails to take into account. Perhaps most importantly, the efficiency at which that energy is turned into useful power to propel the vehicle. Further, this is speaking very broadly about these fuel sources, and so is not directly applicable to specific complex. A quick google search surfaced a DOE primer[1] on EVs that claims that they are both "Energy Efficient" since "Electric vehicles convert about 59–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels—conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels." and "Environmentally Friendly" because "EVs emit no tailpipe pollutants, although the power plant producing the electricity may emit them. Electricity from nuclear-, hydro-, solar-, or wind-powered plants causes no air pollutants." On the latter point, power plant technology is increasingly moving away from dirty coal generation processes in the developed world, so gas powered vehicles will be at an increasingly great disadvantage.
The EPA also uses a method for rating vehicle fuel efficiency of non-petrol burning vehicles called eMPG[2] (effective miles per gallon) that takes into account the energy potential of the ultimate fuel source/sources used by the vehicle and converts them to the MPG (miles per gallon of petrol) scale. Electric vehicles rule the top of the rated vehicles followed by a couple hybrids and deisel compacts. EVs tend to be ~2x more fuel efficient than similarly sized petrol vehicles when compared by this particular method.
Concerning the Model S in particular, the EPA rates it as the most fuel efficient large sedan at 95 eMPG. Speaking generally, the only car class (does not take into account trucks and SUVs) that is led in fuel efficiency according to the EPA is the Midsize Station Wagon class. It is led by the Prius Model V, and the class does not seem to have a pure EV option. Every other class is led in fuel efficiency by an EV.
Finally, according to the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions calculator, the 2013 Tesla model S generates a US average of 250 grams per mile driven of Greenhouse gas emissions compared to the average new car at 500 gpm[3]. So half as bad as the average new vehicle in terms of GHG emissions.
P.S. Sorry for the somewhat poorly structured nature of this comment. It evolved organically along with the research used to produce it.
[edit: I can never seem to remember that the editor eats up single newlines, fixed the footnotes section so that they don't all appear on the same line.]
The Tesla should be very exciting in European countries that have very high taxes on gasoline. It makes an £80,000 a lot more affordable. A full charge takes an hour, and a full tank of gas will cost about £120 according to the video. Unless you value your time more than that, the charge time shouldn't be much of a negative. Especially considering that it's only a problem if you're on a long journey (and a trip from London to Glasgow is only 400 miles), and you can schedule it with lunch anyways (and get a really nice one with the £115.50 you just saved!) It should be a no brainer for anyone in the market for a ~£50,000 car considering the savings. It will be very interesting to follow the coming sales numbers of the Tesla in the European market compared to the US, as the gas savings will be considerably higher.
Let's say you drive 8,000 miles per year and your car gets 20mpg. (All non-metric units mentioned are Imperial: 1 mile = 1,609m, 1 gallon = 4.55L, 1 year = 31,536,000 seconds.)
So for 1 year that's 1,514L. And 1L of super unleaded = £1.43, so you're spending £2,165.02 per year on petrol. You can make your own figures up for insurance and what have you - let's call it £5,000 per year, averaged out. Assuming the Tesla is £80,000, you don't break even until year 6, assuming the Tesla's running costs are £0/year.
If you do drive a lot you'd probably buy some kind of diesel car, so then you could expect more like 30mpg, perhaps, assuming you're going for the equivalent of this 20mpg thing. And the break-even part recedes further into the future, or you can just drive more.
(I've no real feel for what sort of car you'd get for £50,000 though. At a guess: BMW 530d, Jaguar XF, Range Rover TDV6...? Something like that. Are those really the Tesla Model S's natural competitors?)
Elon Musk said that Tesla is intent on delivering an all-electric sedan that’s sized around a BMW 3 Series, has a range of 200 miles, and costs $35,000 - not including any EV incentives - in about 3-4 years. A smaller, high-volume version of the Model S at about half the price.
Well, yeah, the primary purpose of gas taxes is actually to be a simple-to-collect use fee for public roads (sure, the match between "use of public roads" and "consumption of gas" is far from perfect, but it is -- and even moreso was at the time that gas taxes were first implemented -- a lot simpler than putting mile-by-mile toll stations on all public roads.)
So, to the extent that "impact on public roads" becomes more divorced from "consumption of gasoline", gas taxes get worse at performing their primary purpose (they still serve the secondary purpose of internalizing social costs associated with burning gasoline, but that's not their main purpose.)
Consider a graph of electricity sources[1]. About 70% of US electricity comes from fossil fuels, so statistically emissions related to cars would drop at least 30% (I don't know exactly how much cleaner coal and natural gas are compared to petroleum, but they are cleaner).
One reason it would be cool to all switch to electric powered vehicles is that we'd centralize practically all consumer energy to one source (not counting the relative bit of natural gas used for home heating). This means that we'd only have to worry about energy reform of one source.
£4.50 for 260~ miles is very exciting! Really hope they make an affordable version soon, and the UK gets geared up for these (although with a range of 260 miles it could be easily charged from home overnight)
Something that came to my mind is that the whole German economy, and Japanese for that matter, is in for some seriously choppy waters ahead. I think the Japanese are far more ahead than the Germans, but when you consider just how much of the German economy is dependent on combustion engine driven vehicles there have got to be some seriously anxious people in Germany right now. Worse yet for them if they are not anxious as heck.
BMW has already been researching electric vehicles for years - with the first one, the i3, coming soon. I personally don't like the i3's looks, but the i8 looks very promising. Anyhow, BWM has the relevant technology.
VW's position is more interesting. According to them, Diesel is preferrable over electric for a wide range of use cases. And I guess they are right as long as battery technology does not significantly improve.
In the Bay Area, you can join BMW drive now for $20 one-time fee and pay $30/day for rentals (zipcar style) of BMW activee 1 series. (Use TECHSF as the code)
I was going to go pick up one in a few hours to see how it handles. Benefit being free HOV lane access.
There was an incident in which a wrecked Volt caught fire three weeks after a crash test. But if you haven't left your car three weeks after a severe side impact, you probably have bigger problems.
Elon had a Mclaren F1 as a daily driver after he sold PayPal, so I wouldn't be surprised if they came out with a supercar down the road as their tech evolves and batteries get denser. Ultra low center of gravity, flatter torque curve with no transmission, order of magnitude less parts than a Ferrari engine...
They could murder it on the very top and low end of the market.
I know you're kind of generalizing here, but I've been a computer guy and a car guy for decades. I've been in numerous car clubs for the vehicles I've owned and raced. I think you'd be surprised how many car guys are in the computer industry in one way or another. Most modern fuel injected cars have custom programmable computers that allow the competent programmer to get every last bit of performance out of their cars.
what i'm saying is people who never "got it" when it comes to cars are now doing so, because of the S.
i've heard numerous people (i live in LA) and seen numerous comments on the internet say that now they "get it" - that is - they "get" why people would be "into" cars. like it was a huge mystery before, why someone would be passionate about automobiles.
it's mind blowing. how can you not "get" why people are into cars (even if you yourself aren't into cars?)... like, i understand perfectly well why people are "into" things that i'm not.
Technology is really allowing unexpected results in car tests lately. One of my recent favorites was AutoExpress's Mercedes A45 vs CLS63 drag race where the A45 won decisively despite being a mere 2 liter 4 cylinder vs a 5.5 liter V8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPzCbTNpPWg (and I know which one I'll be buying next)
I enjoy reading about the progress Tesla is making, but I will not consider buying any electric car until the price is < $30k and I can at least drive from the bay area to Tahoe and back for a ski weekend on a single charge.
You'd need a pretty big tank to do that using a gas-operated vehicle; it's around 400 miles. My Accord V6 gets 250-300 miles on a tank, the Model S gets around 265.
One key difference is how low you'd be willing to let your remaining range drop. You probably wouldn't feel much fear driving around with 40 estimated miles left in the Accord. But I imagine 40 miles left in a Tesla might cause a little anxiety. The same-numbered range of a gasoline-powered vehicle is lengthened by the high confidence of being able to refuel within a few miles.
So next they need to film them chasing each other in a Bond movie and stick lasers on the wheels, or something, and have lots of explosions. That's how you sell high end cars, right?
Impressive as Rapide is both lighter in weight and more powerful than the Model S (470bhp vs. 416bhp). Both cars have the same amount of torque. (443 lb-ft)
Correct. An electric motor can output its full amount of torque from 0 RPMs; this is where an ICE falls down (and hence, the need for an expensive transmission).
The Rapide is a $150k car that is outperformed by a $25k Ford Mustang. No one has ever gone into the draft room and thought to themselves "If only I could design a vehicle that cost less to produce than the Rapide AND was sportier!". Outperforming it is not an achievement.