BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BIMMERPOST Universal Forums Off-Topic Discussions Board Politics/Religion I think Tesla will be gone in ten years

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      11-30-2017, 11:12 AM   #309
hi_officer
Private First Class
147
Rep
188
Posts

Drives: something fast
Join Date: May 2017
Location: somewhere slow

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Efthreeoh View Post
I'm sorry, but this makes no business sense whatsoever. I've heard this strategy argument with Tesla before. Automotive manufacturing is a serious capital intensive activity and highly competitive. If Tesla is not about building cars, then why is it building cars? If it just about the tech to electrify the transportation sector and power the world with solar energy, then why build the car to promote the tech?

LG is GM's major supplier/partner for the Bolt. GM has over 100 years experience in manufacturing automobiles and is damned good at it. GM has all the infrastructure in place and industry partnerships in place to design, develop and manufacture any type of vehicle they want. The Bolt is a great example of intelligent use of engineering resources and expertise. With it's partnership with GM, LG is becoming one of the major development players in the EV market. Teamed with GM and thru development of the Bolt, the GM/LG team has created an EV that offers the passenger size of the Model S with comparable range at 1/3 the price. IMO LG is actually the company that will be most effective and profitable at shifting the world's fleet of ICE vehicles to electrification.
On point!

I swear there's a word for this............ core competency?
Appreciate 0
      11-30-2017, 11:17 AM   #310
Red Bread
Major General
United_States
3491
Rep
8,446
Posts

Drives: Smog machines
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Exactly. I don't think anyone would argue that Tesla's core competency is building good cars. Far from it. They're about the technology, infrastructure and support. They build cars to showcase it all, but their end game is to sell the batteries, charging stations and in home solutions to other companies, not to build cars. That's why the eMission, Bolt and others ultimately don't matter to Tesla, they don't mind being out of the car game.

However, having just said that, the Model 3 seems like a huge mistake. They should have just stayed as a small volume car manufacturer rather than made the play to become a volume player. I truly think they planned on Apple/Honda or someone else buying the car side before they got here.
Appreciate 0
      11-30-2017, 11:22 AM   #311
seetohey
Private First Class
46
Rep
108
Posts

Drives: 2018 M2 LBB, 6MT. Future: CTR
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 BMW M2  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Efthreeoh View Post
I'm sorry, but this makes no business sense whatsoever. I've heard this strategy argument with Tesla before. Automotive manufacturing is a serious capital intensive activity and highly competitive. If Tesla is not about building cars, then why is it building cars? If it just about the tech to electrify the transportation sector and power the world with solar energy, then why build the car to promote the tech?

LG is GM's major supplier/partner for the Bolt. GM has over 100 years experience in manufacturing automobiles and is damned good at it. GM has all the infrastructure in place and industry partnerships in place to design, develop and manufacture any type of vehicle they want. The Bolt is a great example of intelligent use of engineering resources and expertise. With it's partnership with GM, LG is becoming one of the major development players in the EV market. Teamed with GM and thru development of the Bolt, the GM/LG team has created an EV that offers the passenger size of the Model S with comparable range at 1/3 the price. IMO LG is actually the company that will be most effective and profitable at shifting the world's fleet of ICE vehicles to electrification.
This exactly. I've thought for a long time that LG is going to benefit from this the most as far as advancing the world's current hot topic of battery energy storage systems.
Appreciate 0
      11-30-2017, 11:24 AM   #312
MalibuBimmer
Founder, Knights of the Roundel website
MalibuBimmer's Avatar
United_States
957
Rep
1,726
Posts

Drives: 2015 M4 and 2018 AMG GT
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Santa Monica Mountains, CA

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 Mercedes AMG GT  [0.00]
2018 Audi Q3  [0.00]
2015 BMW M4  [5.00]
If Tesla's goal is to build an electric infrastructure, they have it ass backwards.

The genius of King Gillette was to make a product that needed constant replacement parts. Other industries have followed that paradigm and been very successful. Today, manufacturers of printers make most of their money from the ink or toner but give away the printers.

A company building an electric infrastructure for automobiles should lose money on the infrastructure (Tesla does, big time) but make money on the car (Tesla doesn't, big time).

(King Gillette's old ranch is right down the street from where I live.)
__________________
Previously: 2014 i8; 2013 650i convertible; 2013 650i Gran Coupe; 2013 X1; 2010 550i GT; 2010 535 GT; 2010 Z4 3.5; 2008 535ixt; 2007 M6 convertible; 2006 650i convertible; 1996 Z3; 1980 633CSi; 1978 630CS; 1972 3.0CS; 1971 Bavaria. (1971; 1979-2005 & 2017 - ? -- the Mercedes years.)
Appreciate 1
      11-30-2017, 11:24 AM   #313
Viffermike
Colonel
Viffermike's Avatar
United_States
1726
Rep
2,951
Posts

Drives: '18 black-n-blue 718 Cayman
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Big D

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Efthreeoh View Post
I'm sorry, but this makes no business sense whatsoever.
Yes it does, because Elon doesn't operate with short-term profitability in mind. He never has. He operates with long-term goals, and this is why his investors are so passionate about sticking with him through thick and thin.

Your example regarding LG and GM is a great one to demonstrate what I'm talking about. So is Apple and Foxconn. So is BMW and Toyota. And so on ... Anyway: In those cases, large companies with specific specialties and capabilities partner to create new product. Why? To meet short-term profitability goals. Tesla, meanwhile, has not partnered with anyone for any major R&D or manufacturing: not for electrical infrastructure equipment, not for batteries, not for car plants, not for motor development and assembly. Why? Three reasons:

- To corner its own market in the long term so that when profits come, it does not have to share much of it
- To diversify itself in case one business mode either becomes non-viable or is phased out (such is the nature of cutting-edge tech)
- (This is the big one, and the cornerstone of Elon's philosophy) To demonstrate how products can be developed and made so that the tech trickles down to other manufacturers (i.e., cars) so that those other manufacturers end up reliant on other things Tesla has developed (i.e., Supercharger stations, battery tech)

I'm not an Elon homer; I'm far from it. But one thing I do admire about him is that his business vision is unlike most others' because it looks decades down the road, not years or months. His model is viable because it will take those decades for alternate electric tech (not just EVs) to become mainstream and used worldwide. His goal is to be there when that happens, just as his goal for SpaceX is to be there when that happens (reuseable rockets, travel to Mars).
__________________
--Life is a journey made more exciting with a fast car.--
--Helmets are for closers.--
<<Current: "Blackened" '18 NBM Porsche 718 Cayman ... Gone (but not forgotten): "Blackened" MG '15 228i M Sport w/aFe filter/scoop, Hertz drivers, P3Cars multigauge, other goodies>>
Appreciate 1
Red Bread3490.50

      11-30-2017, 11:32 AM   #314
seetohey
Private First Class
46
Rep
108
Posts

Drives: 2018 M2 LBB, 6MT. Future: CTR
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 BMW M2  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viffermike View Post
Tesla, meanwhile, has not partnered with anyone for any major R&D or manufacturing: not for electrical infrastructure equipment, not for batteries, not for car plants, not for motor development and assembly.
I thought Panasonic is manufacturing batteries at the Gigafactory.
Appreciate 0
      11-30-2017, 11:38 AM   #315
Viffermike
Colonel
Viffermike's Avatar
United_States
1726
Rep
2,951
Posts

Drives: '18 black-n-blue 718 Cayman
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Big D

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by seetohey View Post
I thought Panasonic is manufacturing batteries at the Gigafactory.
The Gigafactory is Tesla's, though, not Panasonic's. Panasonic, IIRC, did jointly develop the batteries with Tesla for the Model 3 and is assisting with manufacture, so I suppose that's an exception made in the face of one of Elon's bad habits: overpromising.

Even so, it's still part of the long-term trickle-down dev philosophy since Panasonic (the world's largest maker of hybrid and EV batteries) is likely learning as much about battery tech as Tesla is learning about making them.
__________________
--Life is a journey made more exciting with a fast car.--
--Helmets are for closers.--
<<Current: "Blackened" '18 NBM Porsche 718 Cayman ... Gone (but not forgotten): "Blackened" MG '15 228i M Sport w/aFe filter/scoop, Hertz drivers, P3Cars multigauge, other goodies>>
Appreciate 0
      11-30-2017, 11:45 AM   #316
hi_officer
Private First Class
147
Rep
188
Posts

Drives: something fast
Join Date: May 2017
Location: somewhere slow

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viffermike View Post
Yes it does, because Elon doesn't operate with ANY profitability in mind. He never has. He operates with long-term goals, and this is why his investors are so passionate about sticking with him through thick and thin.

Your example regarding LG and GM is a great one to demonstrate what I'm talking about. So is Apple and Foxconn. So is BMW and Toyota. And so on ... Anyway: In those cases, large companies with specific specialties and capabilities partner to create new product. Why? To meet short-term profitability goals. Tesla, meanwhile, has not partnered with anyone for any major R&D or manufacturing: not for electrical infrastructure equipment, not for batteries, not for car plants, not for motor development and assembly. Why? Three reasons:

- To corner its own market in the long term so that when profits come, it does not have to share much of it
- To diversify itself in case one business mode either becomes non-viable or is phased out (such is the nature of cutting-edge tech)
- (This is the big one, and the cornerstone of Elon's philosophy) To demonstrate how products can be developed and made so that the tech trickles down to other manufacturers (i.e., cars) so that those other manufacturers end up reliant on other things Tesla has developed (i.e., Supercharger stations, battery tech)

I'm not an Elon homer; I'm far from it. But one thing I do admire about him is that his business vision is unlike most others' because it looks decades down the road, not years or months. His model is viable because it will take those decades for alternate electric tech (not just EVs) to become mainstream and used worldwide. His goal is to be there when that happens, just as his goal for SpaceX is to be there when that happens (reuseable rockets, travel to Mars).
FIFY lol

In all seriousness though, Elon's Achilles heel is that he is TOO forward thinking. Toom much blue sky and not enough actual profitable business. There have been numerous examples of technologies that were ahead of their time, the companies that made them failed, and then another company swoop in and capitalize off of the idea. The first mp3s players, first smartphones, smart watches, downloadable and online video games, and social networking to name a few. It's not always best to be first in the market and spend huge $$ in R&D developing if there is no market, no infrastructure, no efficient operations, etc. Another company will learn from you and eat your cake.

EDIT: Musk is a Futurist trying to be a businessman whereas the other heads of the autos are Businessmen trying to be futurists. It's a race to see who can mend the two first.

Last edited by hi_officer; 11-30-2017 at 11:50 AM..
Appreciate 0
      11-30-2017, 01:51 PM   #317
Viffermike
Colonel
Viffermike's Avatar
United_States
1726
Rep
2,951
Posts

Drives: '18 black-n-blue 718 Cayman
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Big D

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hi_officer View Post
FIFY lol

In all seriousness though, Elon's Achilles heel is that he is TOO forward thinking. Toom much blue sky and not enough actual profitable business. There have been numerous examples of technologies that were ahead of their time, the companies that made them failed, and then another company swoop in and capitalize off of the idea. The first mp3s players, first smartphones, smart watches, downloadable and online video games, and social networking to name a few. It's not always best to be first in the market and spend huge $$ in R&D developing if there is no market, no infrastructure, no efficient operations, etc. Another company will learn from you and eat your cake.

EDIT: Musk is a Futurist trying to be a businessman whereas the other heads of the autos are Businessmen trying to be futurists. It's a race to see who can mend the two first.
Spoken like a classic short-term-gain capitalist. I'm sure you and Thomas Edison agree on much. :: rolls eyes ::

Thing is, Tesla was not the first to market. Not even close. So what's to say it's not going to be 'that' company? Because it's not profitable yet after only nine years with a sale-able product? I'd say it's been damned successful in a highly complex market for only being around for nine years (and really only in mainstream consciousness for a little more than five years).

To wit:
- None of your examples were made by a company in a relative vacuum regarding the tech (Who was on the EV bandwagon when Tesla first emerged? A couple of small specialty companies, along with Honda and Nissan in its home market. That's it. Everyone big had abandoned it temporarily, even GM.)
- None of your examples were sold by a company that also developed the infrastructure you mention above for said product.
- None of those examples were made by a company with entire self-constructed support businesses already in place (But I have an example: Apple with its iPods. And look! Apple is the world's most valuable company almost 20 years later. Part of the reason why? Diversification.)
- None of your examples were made by a company that didn't aggressively attempt to protect the tech it developed for that product. This is arguably Apple's primary weakness -- and one that it finally appears to be abandoning in areas. (Thank you, USB-C!) An example of a company that consistently does this and survives because of diversification and sheer size: Sony. I can't count on two hands how many failures with proprietary tech Sony has had. Though comparably tiny, Tesla has other fish in the water, too.
- There is an example of a company that is the top dog in a segment it basically invented: Facebook. What came before that? MySpace, AOL chat rooms, forums like this one, and the like. None operated like Fb. It was dead original. Now look where it is ... particularly compared to Twitter, which will be dead in five years ...

Keep in mind that Tesla is in businesses other than EVs. That's more important than the EVs themselves.
__________________
--Life is a journey made more exciting with a fast car.--
--Helmets are for closers.--
<<Current: "Blackened" '18 NBM Porsche 718 Cayman ... Gone (but not forgotten): "Blackened" MG '15 228i M Sport w/aFe filter/scoop, Hertz drivers, P3Cars multigauge, other goodies>>
Appreciate 0
      11-30-2017, 02:08 PM   #318
hi_officer
Private First Class
147
Rep
188
Posts

Drives: something fast
Join Date: May 2017
Location: somewhere slow

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viffermike View Post
Spoken like a classic short-term-gain capitalist. I'm sure you and Thomas Edison agree on much. :: rolls eyes ::

Thing is, Tesla was not the first to market. Not even close. So what's to say it's not going to be 'that' company? Because it's not profitable yet after only nine years with a sale-able product? I'd say it's been damned successful in a highly complex market for only being around for nine years (and really only in mainstream consciousness for a little more than five years).

To wit:
- None of your examples were made by a company in a relative vacuum regarding the tech (Who was on the EV bandwagon when Tesla first emerged? A couple of small specialty companies, along with Honda and Nissan in its home market. That's it. Everyone big had abandoned it temporarily, even GM.)
- None of your examples were sold by a company that also developed the infrastructure you mention above for said product.
- None of those examples were made by a company with entire self-constructed support businesses already in place (But I have an example: Apple with its iPods. And look! Apple is the world's most valuable company almost 20 years later. Part of the reason why? Diversification.)
- None of your examples were made by a company that didn't aggressively attempt to protect the tech it developed for that product. This is arguably Apple's primary weakness -- and one that it finally appears to be abandoning in areas. (Thank you, USB-C!) An example of a company that consistently does this and survives because of diversification and sheer size: Sony. I can't count on two hands how many failures with proprietary tech Sony has had. Though comparably tiny, Tesla has other fish in the water, too.
- There is an example of a company that is the top dog in a segment it basically invented: Facebook. What came before that? MySpace, AOL chat rooms, forums like this one, and the like. None operated like Fb. It was dead original. Now look where it is ... particularly compared to Twitter, which will be dead in five years ...

Keep in mind that Tesla is in businesses other than EVs. That's more important than the EVs themselves.
Sorry, but what is your argument? None of what you said pertains to what I said. You are arguing points nobody has made. geesh

You are placing way too much weight on the idea themselves and not the execution of those ideas. The ideas Tesla have aren't even that novel. Why do investors keep investing?? Probably because they're in too deep, they have invested millions and it's too late to back out now so they keep pumping. Tesla increased the semi reservation deposits from $5k to $20k but companies have very little interest. 300-500 miles between charges is almost half the distance a normal Class 8 truck on diesel could go. Plus, the huge battery takes away cargo space. The time to charge is massive compared to a normal fill up. Where is the novel idea here? Am I missing something spectacular that Musk invented, or just a bit more fuel to his Ponzi scheme to keep the model 3 afloat.

I like Teslas ideas, even if they are incremental, but they sure don't know how to operate. 14 years, 9 years, 5 years... that's a long time to be sucking from the angels nipple with basically no progress in operational efficiency or economies of scale.
Appreciate 1
Efthreeoh6564.00

      12-01-2017, 04:53 AM   #319
Efthreeoh
Lieutenant General
United_States
6564
Rep
13,942
Posts

Drives: E90 & Z4 Coupe
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MARLAND

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viffermike View Post
Yes it does, because Elon doesn't operate with short-term profitability in mind. He never has. He operates with long-term goals, and this is why his investors are so passionate about sticking with him through thick and thin.

Your example regarding LG and GM is a great one to demonstrate what I'm talking about. So is Apple and Foxconn. So is BMW and Toyota. And so on ... Anyway: In those cases, large companies with specific specialties and capabilities partner to create new product. Why? To meet short-term profitability goals. Tesla, meanwhile, has not partnered with anyone for any major R&D or manufacturing: not for electrical infrastructure equipment, not for batteries, not for car plants, not for motor development and assembly. Why? Three reasons:

- To corner its own market in the long term so that when profits come, it does not have to share much of it
- To diversify itself in case one business mode either becomes non-viable or is phased out (such is the nature of cutting-edge tech)
- (This is the big one, and the cornerstone of Elon's philosophy) To demonstrate how products can be developed and made so that the tech trickles down to other manufacturers (i.e., cars) so that those other manufacturers end up reliant on other things Tesla has developed (i.e., Supercharger stations, battery tech)

I'm not an Elon homer; I'm far from it. But one thing I do admire about him is that his business vision is unlike most others' because it looks decades down the road, not years or months. His model is viable because it will take those decades for alternate electric tech (not just EVs) to become mainstream and used worldwide. His goal is to be there when that happens, just as his goal for SpaceX is to be there when that happens (reuseable rockets, travel to Mars).
While I always have felt the American measure of business profitability being on a quarter-to-quarter cycle as shortsighted and unlikable, most American businesses do operate with a longer term goal in mind. While what you said could apply to someone like Jeff Bezos, who founded Amazon, his case is a different paradigm than Musk. Musk is trying to break into and disruptively change the personal transportation industry. While one can applaud his future-sightedness, he's taken on a huge chunk of a very large and well established apple with something that is not very new. His supercharger network concept doesn't scale well to his vision of converting the petroleum-based personal transportation system to battery-electric, unless there is a significant increase in battery capacity/energy conversion efficiency that get's EV range into the 400 - 600 hundred mile range and a charge cycle time of less than 1/2 hour. Oh, and at a price that is comparable to an ICE equivalent vehicle. In Bezos' case, he took online shopping to a new level of convenience in the time of relative internet infancy (ironically with Musk's PayPal), where a large amount of other players created a generic infrastructure at great investment cost, which Bezos didn't have to build. Musk is offering nothing more than a different fuel type for a system that is long mature and operating in completed development curve (i.e. it's now very low cost). Bezos is closer to Henry Ford than Musk.

But you talk of Musk's futuristic plans. If we are to believe the hype of the on-coming autonomous EV future that will offer personal transportation as a service rather than a product, Musk's futuristic profitable business model for Tesla is in even more danger, as one of the precepts of the autonomous EV future is far less vehicles on the road and produced. So the market share of Tesla's EV cars will vastly shrink in the future rather than grow. The investment markets are all about growth. The completely autonomous EV future (i.e. personal transportation as a service) is many decades away, probably more than 30 years. Tesla is bleeding massive red ink today. Most automotive companies are profitable only because of their sheer size. The EV market share is a bit over 1% in the USA and maybe 3% in the rest of the world. The only reason Telsa hasn't yet folded is because Government's are artificially creating an EV marketplace via environmental legislation and heavy financial subsidies rather than by natural market forces. Pull the environmental law and tax subsidies and Tesla's share value drops like a rock. Environmental laws and tax law can be changed with a pen and far faster than the development of technology and manufacturing capability.

My 2 cents.
__________________
A manual transmission can be set to "comfort", "sport", and "track" modes simply by the technique and speed at which you shift it; it doesn't need "modes", modes are for manumatics that try to behave like a real 3-pedal manual transmission. If you can money-shift it, it's a manual transmission.
Appreciate 1
      12-01-2017, 05:02 AM   #320
Efthreeoh
Lieutenant General
United_States
6564
Rep
13,942
Posts

Drives: E90 & Z4 Coupe
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MARLAND

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viffermike View Post
Spoken like a classic short-term-gain capitalist. I'm sure you and Thomas Edison agree on much. :: rolls eyes ::

Thing is, Tesla was not the first to market. Not even close. So what's to say it's not going to be 'that' company? Because it's not profitable yet after only nine years with a sale-able product? I'd say it's been damned successful in a highly complex market for only being around for nine years (and really only in mainstream consciousness for a little more than five years).

To wit:
- None of your examples were made by a company in a relative vacuum regarding the tech (Who was on the EV bandwagon when Tesla first emerged? A couple of small specialty companies, along with Honda and Nissan in its home market. That's it. Everyone big had abandoned it temporarily, even GM.)
- None of your examples were sold by a company that also developed the infrastructure you mention above for said product.
- None of those examples were made by a company with entire self-constructed support businesses already in place (But I have an example: Apple with its iPods. And look! Apple is the world's most valuable company almost 20 years later. Part of the reason why? Diversification.)
- None of your examples were made by a company that didn't aggressively attempt to protect the tech it developed for that product. This is arguably Apple's primary weakness -- and one that it finally appears to be abandoning in areas. (Thank you, USB-C!) An example of a company that consistently does this and survives because of diversification and sheer size: Sony. I can't count on two hands how many failures with proprietary tech Sony has had. Though comparably tiny, Tesla has other fish in the water, too.
- There is an example of a company that is the top dog in a segment it basically invented: Facebook. What came before that? MySpace, AOL chat rooms, forums like this one, and the like. None operated like Fb. It was dead original. Now look where it is ... particularly compared to Twitter, which will be dead in five years ...

Keep in mind that Tesla is in businesses other than EVs. That's more important than the EVs themselves.
This is the problem, everyone keeps comparing Musk's ideas to Facebook and Apple. Building physical transportation systems and moving digital information are two completely different things and actually are fighting against one another.

And if you remember, Musk famously said he wasn't going to enforce Tesla's patents. Talk about not protecting intellectual property...
__________________
A manual transmission can be set to "comfort", "sport", and "track" modes simply by the technique and speed at which you shift it; it doesn't need "modes", modes are for manumatics that try to behave like a real 3-pedal manual transmission. If you can money-shift it, it's a manual transmission.

Last edited by Efthreeoh; 12-01-2017 at 08:27 AM..
Appreciate 0
      12-01-2017, 06:07 AM   #321
Obioban
Emperor
1055
Rep
2,444
Posts

Drives: 05 M3, 04 M3iT , 01 M5, 17 i3
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: West Chester, PA

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2017 BMW i3  [0.00]
2005 BMW M3 Coupe  [0.00]
2004 BMW M3 Wagon  [0.00]
2001 BMW M5  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by hi_officer View Post
300-500 miles between charges is almost half the distance a normal Class 8 truck on diesel could go. The time to charge is massive compared to a normal fill up.
While that's true, it's also not that relevant-- the truck has more range than drivers are legally allowed to drive in one stint, and can recharge sufficiently for another stint in less time than the driver's legally mandated break period.

As in, trucks are a different situation than driving cars a long distance-- truckers are required to pull over and take long breaks, be they powered by diesel or batteries.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      12-01-2017, 08:21 AM   #322
Efthreeoh
Lieutenant General
United_States
6564
Rep
13,942
Posts

Drives: E90 & Z4 Coupe
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MARLAND

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obioban View Post
While that's true, it's also not that relevant-- the truck has more range than drivers are legally allowed to drive in one stint, and can recharge sufficiently for another stint in less time than the driver's legally mandated break period.

As in, trucks are a different situation than driving cars a long distance-- truckers are required to pull over and take long breaks, be they powered by diesel or batteries.
Except they change drivers in a lot of delivery services. Fed Ex does I know for sure.
Appreciate 0
      12-01-2017, 08:29 AM   #323
Obioban
Emperor
1055
Rep
2,444
Posts

Drives: 05 M3, 04 M3iT , 01 M5, 17 i3
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: West Chester, PA

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2017 BMW i3  [0.00]
2005 BMW M3 Coupe  [0.00]
2004 BMW M3 Wagon  [0.00]
2001 BMW M5  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Efthreeoh View Post
Except they change drivers in a lot of delivery services. Fed Ex does I know for sure.
Most delivery service trucks aren't semis.

Nor do they have to be a replacement for every type of truck, especially in the first generation, to be a viable product. Lots of trucks are single drivers driving long distances with government mandated breaks. If their claims pan out, the Tesla semi will allow them to do that more cheaply, and one driver to lead a convoy of autonomous follow trucks (further lowering costs).
__________________
Appreciate 0
      12-01-2017, 08:52 AM   #324
hi_officer
Private First Class
147
Rep
188
Posts

Drives: something fast
Join Date: May 2017
Location: somewhere slow

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obioban View Post
While that's true, it's also not that relevant-- the truck has more range than drivers are legally allowed to drive in one stint, and can recharge sufficiently for another stint in less time than the driver's legally mandated break period.

As in, trucks are a different situation than driving cars a long distance-- truckers are required to pull over and take long breaks, be they powered by diesel or batteries.
Source?

From what I've read, the law is not dependent on miles driven but rather time. Someone please correct me but I believe a driver can drive up to 11 consecutive hours before having to take a 10 hour break (https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulation...ce-regulations). And since most drivers are paid by the mile, I wonder how often this law is broken.

So, if someone is driving 65mph for 11 hours, that's 715 miles. Tesla's "stated" range is what? 500 miles or so max? And that is IF they are on a route with a super charger.

It may look good on paper, which is Tesla's MO, but almost every time they over promise and under deliver. I'm ALL for EV semis, but Elon has not really shown us how it will become a viable business so I am just skeptical.

And back to my original statement, this is not a novel idea and is just more of the same... hype. Next month Elon will reveal: "Tesla Semis will allow you to drink a beer and murder a prostitute while on TruckerAutoPilot!"
Appreciate 0
      12-01-2017, 08:54 AM   #325
hi_officer
Private First Class
147
Rep
188
Posts

Drives: something fast
Join Date: May 2017
Location: somewhere slow

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obioban View Post
Most delivery service trucks aren't semis.

Nor do they have to be a replacement for every type of truck, especially in the first generation, to be a viable product. Lots of trucks are single drivers driving long distances with government mandated breaks. If their claims pan out, the Tesla semi will allow them to do that more cheaply, and one driver to lead a convoy of autonomous follow trucks (further lowering costs).
I can only imagine what it will be like to be behind a convoy passing another convoy on a 2 lane highway. lol
Appreciate 0
      12-01-2017, 09:30 AM   #326
Obioban
Emperor
1055
Rep
2,444
Posts

Drives: 05 M3, 04 M3iT , 01 M5, 17 i3
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: West Chester, PA

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2017 BMW i3  [0.00]
2005 BMW M3 Coupe  [0.00]
2004 BMW M3 Wagon  [0.00]
2001 BMW M5  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by hi_officer View Post
Source?

From what I've read, the law is not dependent on miles driven but rather time. Someone please correct me but I believe a driver can drive up to 11 consecutive hours before having to take a 10 hour break (https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulation...ce-regulations). And since most drivers are paid by the mile, I wonder how often this law is broken.

So, if someone is driving 65mph for 11 hours, that's 715 miles. Tesla's "stated" range is what? 500 miles or so max? And that is IF they are on a route with a super charger.

It may look good on paper, which is Tesla's MO, but almost every time they over promise and under deliver. I'm ALL for EV semis, but Elon has not really shown us how it will become a viable business so I am just skeptical.

And back to my original statement, this is not a novel idea and is just more of the same... hype. Next month Elon will reveal: "Tesla Semis will allow you to drink a beer and murder a prostitute while on TruckerAutoPilot!"
Truckers are allow to drive for up to 11 hours max, but they're also required to take two breaks of >= 2 hours per day (one of which has to be >= 8 hours).

A speed limit of 65mph doesn't give you an average speed anywhere near 65mph. If you don't believe me, reset the avg speed on your OBC, don't exceed the speed limit on a trip (which is the the norm for semis), and see what your avg is at the end.

The Tesla semi will be good for ~10 hours at a realistic average speed. So, yes, you can't max your hours, if you're doing some weird task that requires it. But for a normal day, 24 hours - 8 hours (mandated long break) = 16 hours. 2 hour mandated break in those 16 hours somewhere. (16-2)/2 = 7 hour shifts, with ~3 hours of battery margin of error either way to play with to not break it down 50/50 if required. Get stuck in a traffic jam (likely over the course of 10 continuous hours of driving), and you'll make it to the 11 hour government allowed max.

Again, though, the overarching point is that it doesn't need to be the best at every kind of trucking to be a viable product (especially in gen 1).

Quote:
Originally Posted by hi_officer View Post
I can only imagine what it will be like to be behind a convoy passing another convoy on a 2 lane highway. lol
Yeah, miserable.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      12-01-2017, 09:38 AM   #327
hi_officer
Private First Class
147
Rep
188
Posts

Drives: something fast
Join Date: May 2017
Location: somewhere slow

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obioban View Post
Truckers are allow to drive for up to 11 hours max, but they're also required to take two breaks of >= 2 hours per day (one of which has to be >= 8 hours).

A speed limit of 65mph doesn't give you an average speed anywhere near 65mph. If you don't believe me, reset the avg speed on your OBC, don't exceed the speed limit on a trip (which is the the norm for semis), and see what your avg is at the end.

The Tesla semi will be good for ~10 hours at a realistic average speed. So, yes, you can't max your hours, if you're doing some weird task that requires it. But for a normal day, 24 hours - 8 hours (mandated long break) = 16 hours. 2 hour mandated break in those 16 hours somewhere. (16-2)/2 = 7 hour shifts, with ~3 hours of battery margin of error either way to play with to not break it down 50/50 if required. Get stuck in a traffic jam (likely over the course of 10 continuous hours of driving), and you'll make it to the 11 hour government allowed max.

Again, though, the overarching point is that it doesn't need to be the best at every kind of trucking to be a viable product (especially in gen 1).



Yeah, miserable.
Yeah, I guess in theory it could work out in some situations, it's extremely dependent on the Megacharger stations, cost of using them and capacity they have when >1 truck is charging, but yeah innovation.

I assume it would've been easier for Tesla to start with the city trucks that delivery in NYC, Chicago, SF, etc. (the mid-size white truck type of thing). It's easier to set up a viable charging network, no need for super long range, and they could possibly benefit from city regulations that want to rid diesel trucks. But what do I know.
Appreciate 0
      12-02-2017, 07:01 AM   #328
Efthreeoh
Lieutenant General
United_States
6564
Rep
13,942
Posts

Drives: E90 & Z4 Coupe
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MARLAND

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obioban View Post
Most delivery service trucks aren't semis.

Nor do they have to be a replacement for every type of truck, especially in the first generation, to be a viable product. Lots of trucks are single drivers driving long distances with government mandated breaks. If their claims pan out, the Tesla semi will allow them to do that more cheaply, and one driver to lead a convoy of autonomous follow trucks (further lowering costs).
Fed Ex uses semi's. A few weeks ago I had some freight delivered to the house. I had to ride with the driver to show him where he could turn around; he was pulling a 28' trailer so he could get up my dead-end rural street. Anyway, getting in the cab (I think it was a Freightliner IIRC), I noticed the truck was very clean and very new looking. I commented as such, the driver responded that the truck was about 1 and one-half years old and had 485,000 miles on it. I was astonished at the great condition of the truck. He went on to explain the truck is driven two (2) 10-hour shifts a day and is driven about 800 miles a day. I'm thinking the Tesla semi may have difficulty with this type of use.

Also, what I'd like to know is the real range, fully loaded, over the mountainous roads of the East Coast, Rockies, and West Coast. Maybe all that was released in Tesla's reveal, but I've really looked into it that far.
__________________
A manual transmission can be set to "comfort", "sport", and "track" modes simply by the technique and speed at which you shift it; it doesn't need "modes", modes are for manumatics that try to behave like a real 3-pedal manual transmission. If you can money-shift it, it's a manual transmission.
Appreciate 0
      12-02-2017, 07:43 AM   #329
garz747
Lieutenant
142
Rep
442
Posts

Drives: 07 Z4MC 01 330i 18 X3 M40i
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Toronto

iTrader: (0)

The supposed range is to be 500 miles which theyre saying is the common haul route.. what worries me is a claim of 0-60 in 5 seconds? Could u imagine these rigs having that ability with all that weight? That could be dangerous in the wrong hands.
Appreciate 0
      12-02-2017, 12:29 PM   #330
Obioban
Emperor
1055
Rep
2,444
Posts

Drives: 05 M3, 04 M3iT , 01 M5, 17 i3
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: West Chester, PA

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2017 BMW i3  [0.00]
2005 BMW M3 Coupe  [0.00]
2004 BMW M3 Wagon  [0.00]
2001 BMW M5  [0.00]
They said 500 miles at the legal weight limit (80,000 lbs) at highway speed (inefficient in something semi sized).

Mountains are less relevant to efficient in an EV than a ICE because the downhills regenerate battery power. Also easier on brakes!

There are certainly jobs where the range will be a deal breaker. But, as they pointed out, 80% of semi routes are 250 miles or less.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:53 AM.




bmw
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST