Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
Aren't batteries of this type using up all world stocks of certain materials?
I read that Lithium and Cobalt are becoming scarce, and that is likely to run up costs.
The same as when Tesla put huge batteries in Australia and elsewhere.

It's actually the electric motors that use a lot of rare earths, not the batteries.

Maybe, I don't know about other brands, but Tesla doesnt really use them in their motors much. They have two basic motor designs and neither if them use much of the exotic materials.

Tesla moved to permanent magnet motors with the model 3, and the S and X new powerplant will no longer be induction with the last powerplant tinkering, too (which just makes sense).

So yes, they do use a lot.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/11/tesla-model-3-motor-in-depth/

Ugh, as usual you are a wealth of missinformation. The new motor does not use lots of rare earth magnets....some yes, but not much. Here is a whole article about it. It would be nice if you backed you assertions first before you made them.

I don't know where in that article you get that PMSRM motors like the one on the model 3 use "not much" rare earth magnets.

PMSRM use approximately 40% less neodymium per kw compared to, say an IPM-hybrid kind like the one on the BMW i3..... but then again Tesla is putting more powerful motors so the difference per unit is significantly reduced.

Whether or not ICE vs EV has a worse manufacturing CO2 footprint is largely irrelevant, we need to tackle the problem of vehicle lifespan, because there's a huge carbon footprint for BOTH types in the manufacturing. Don't get me wrong, cars are more maintenance free than they've ever been, but a lot of people are used to getting new cars every 3-4 years, if not 5-7 years. We can do far better!

Hopefully the rise of fully autonomous vehicles will push down car ownership and the robo-taxi companies will need longer lasting vehicles, pushing vehicular lifespan to the same kind of range as passenger aircraft or buses (multiple decades).

Average lifespan of cars isn't 12 - 15 Years? Modern engines don't last 200-300000 km ?

I wouldn't want some smart-phone like lifespan for something that weighs more than 1 ton....

 1hadhq wrote:
Average lifespan of cars isn't 12 - 15 Years? Modern engines don't last 200-300000 km ?

I wouldn't want some smart-phone like lifespan for something that weighs more than 1 ton....

I'm not just talking about how long a car might last, it's the willingness of people to replace a perfectly good car because it's 4+ years past new. Generally those cars are bought and used by someone else and are in the market for the length you mention. Current e-vehicle battery warranties seem to be about 8 years on average and Tesla is touting 90% capacity for 160k miles and 500k mile lifespan - probably under ideal conditions which never happens. So e-vehicles seem to be built to last on similar time scales as IC cars - few cars will see 15 years without transmission/engine troubles that would be cheaper to replace the vehicle, I imagine battery replacement will be a similar breakpoint.

Average commercial aircraft are in service for 30 years of near continuous use, compared to cars that are generally used only for a fraction of the time. Public transit vehicles have a turnover rate of 12 years in the USA because subsidies encourage it, in Australia it's 23 years, and even further where nations will keep stuff operational until it dies.

Now imagine if we could expect people to consider a car 'new' for its first full decade, and that car is in the market for an average of 25-30 years. Bad for the car industry to be sure, but probably good for the environment.

 1hadhq wrote:
Average lifespan of cars isn't 12 - 15 Years? Modern engines don't last 200-300000 km ?

I wouldn't want some smart-phone like lifespan for something that weighs more than 1 ton....

They'll last much more than 3-4 years and it's not uncommon to see 12-15-year old cars on the road but there's definitely been a shift in the last decade or so towards people replacing their cars more often than they used to. Partly this seems to be the increase in hire-purchase deals that encourage people to "buy" new and trade in every 3-5 years but it also seems to just be a change in general attitude that lots of people don't want to be driving and "old" car. I remember growing up my parents had cars they would keep for 10 years or more and that was not unusual at all.

It's an interesting topic to discuss as far as sustainability and the environmental impact goes. Newer cars are more efficient, with lower emissions, but if the average lifespan of a car is decreasing (note, we don't know for sure it is) that needs to be taken into account as part of its lifetime impact.

I think people replacing cars sooner may also be due to leasing becoming more common. I am one of those that replaces a car every 4-5 years because I just like newer stuff. I like the idea of a lease for that reason, and leases also tend to have lower monthly payments .. but so far haven't ever gone that route because I drive more than 15k miles a year and that's pretty much the max for any lease. Plus I'm messy, so they'd get me for over the mile limit charges and a hefty detailing bill at the end.

jouso wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
Aren't batteries of this type using up all world stocks of certain materials?
I read that Lithium and Cobalt are becoming scarce, and that is likely to run up costs.
The same as when Tesla put huge batteries in Australia and elsewhere.

It's actually the electric motors that use a lot of rare earths, not the batteries.

Maybe, I don't know about other brands, but Tesla doesnt really use them in their motors much. They have two basic motor designs and neither if them use much of the exotic materials.

Tesla moved to permanent magnet motors with the model 3, and the S and X new powerplant will no longer be induction with the last powerplant tinkering, too (which just makes sense).

So yes, they do use a lot.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/11/tesla-model-3-motor-in-depth/

Ugh, as usual you are a wealth of missinformation. The new motor does not use lots of rare earth magnets....some yes, but not much. Here is a whole article about it. It would be nice if you backed you assertions first before you made them.

I don't know where in that article you get that PMSRM motors like the one on the model 3 use "not much" rare earth magnets.

PMSRM use approximately 40% less neodymium per kw compared to, say an IPM-hybrid kind like the one on the BMW i3..... but then again Tesla is putting more powerful motors so the difference per unit is significantly reduced.

"With two of the major issues of the reluctance machine having been addressed, you take the plunge and start working with this design. The first thing you are able to do is discard that expensive copper rotor in the legacy motor and replace it with a far cheaper ferrous metal rotor. Probably steel. And probably silicon steel. You just saved a ton of money. Next, although the rare-earths are expensive, they are going into the stator, not on the rotor as with a traditional permanent magnet motor, so you’re going to be augmenting the electromagnets with relatively smallish permanent magnets. Your chosen design has some issues with acoustic noise, but you feel that it’s worthwhile to pursue this design because it’s the simplest and least expensive motor to build, yet highly efficient and powerful (especially with those rare-earths). Good job!

So, the first puzzle piece in the theory that Tesla has put a switched reluctance motor in the Model 3 is the magnets. We know they’re in there, and now we know that one of the latest breakthroughs in motor design is the inclusion of rare-earths in the stator of the reluctance machine. This is huge. It has brought the reluctance machine out of mothballs!

Another clue that the Model 3 motor is not using those rare-earths in a conventional permanent-magnet motor design is that the car does not do regen all the way down to 0 miles per hour. For example, the Bolt has a conventional 3-phase PM motor which allows it to do regen to 0 MPH. I saw this for myself last year when I test drove a Bolt — you can stop without applying the brakes. We’re calling this puzzle piece #2."

If you read the article they show that they are using substantially less rare earth magnets, like I said they use some, but not a lot compared to other manufacturers. Hence "relatively smallish permanent magnets".

 Andrew1975 wrote:


If you read the article they show that they are using substantially less rare earth magnets, like I said they use some, but not a lot compared to other manufacturers. Hence "relatively smallish permanent magnets".

Which is what I said, a tesla model 3 motor uses approx. 40% less neodymium per kw than other permanent magnets (mostly going to the Halbach array). Your article was written at a time when no actual engine had been torn down by press and competition.

40% is indeed a lot, but a lot of that difference is eaten up because Tesla engines have more output. The problem with halbach arrays is they're complicated to manufacturer, which probably can explain the relatively higher rate of motor failure compared to other electric cars.

Already halfway through 2018 Tesla had already imported half a million pounds of Chinese-sourced parts which most analysists identify being mostly neodymium and other rare-earth magnets.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/18/neodymium-china-controls-rare-earth-used-in-phones-electric-cars.html

Even being rather conservative and figuring only half of those being magnets, it leaves us with approx. 1.000.000 kg of neodymium. That's good enough for 1.000.000 BMW i3 (which has approx 1kg of neodymium in it) or 750.000 Nissan Leafs (leaves? whatever) which is about 10 years of production for the Nissan.

Which is why shifting to magnets has been widely thought to be straining world supply (and a possible answer on why Tesla is building a Chinese factory).

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/teslas-model-3-motor-neodymium/

I read that Tesla is building a factory in China so that they can build their cars and sell them there domestically there, to increase production and not have to deal with shipping them across the ocean. China is really big on EV now, there's a few chinese companies making EVs, I think EV is gonna be a bigger biz over there than it is here.

jouso wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:


If you read the article they show that they are using substantially less rare earth magnets, like I said they use some, but not a lot compared to other manufacturers. Hence "relatively smallish permanent magnets".

Which is what I said, a tesla model 3 motor uses approx. 40% less neodymium per kw than other permanent magnets (mostly going to the Halbach array). Your article was written at a time when no actual engine had been torn down by press and competition.

40% is indeed a lot, but a lot of that difference is eaten up because Tesla engines have more output. The problem with halbach arrays is they're complicated to manufacturer, which probably can explain the relatively higher rate of motor failure compared to other electric cars.

Already halfway through 2018 Tesla had already imported half a million pounds of Chinese-sourced parts which most analysists identify being mostly neodymium and other rare-earth magnets.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/18/neodymium-china-controls-rare-earth-used-in-phones-electric-cars.html

Even being rather conservative and figuring only half of those being magnets, it leaves us with approx. 1.000.000 kg of neodymium. That's good enough for 1.000.000 BMW i3 (which has approx 1kg of neodymium in it) or 750.000 Nissan Leafs (leaves? whatever) which is about 10 years of production for the Nissan.

Which is why shifting to magnets has been widely thought to be straining world supply (and a possible answer on why Tesla is building a Chinese factory).

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/teslas-model-3-motor-neodymium/

Nope. you said "So yes, they do use a lot" They don't, they use very little in comparison to other motor designs. I'd love to see where you are getting your info on model 3 motor fail rates and your stats on how much rare earth the motor uses.
Not the mention that rare earth magnets are just another boogey man. Far less damaging to the environment than oil production.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:


If you read the article they show that they are using substantially less rare earth magnets, like I said they use some, but not a lot compared to other manufacturers. Hence "relatively smallish permanent magnets".

Which is what I said, a tesla model 3 motor uses approx. 40% less neodymium per kw than other permanent magnets (mostly going to the Halbach array). Your article was written at a time when no actual engine had been torn down by press and competition.

40% is indeed a lot, but a lot of that difference is eaten up because Tesla engines have more output. The problem with halbach arrays is they're complicated to manufacturer, which probably can explain the relatively higher rate of motor failure compared to other electric cars.

Already halfway through 2018 Tesla had already imported half a million pounds of Chinese-sourced parts which most analysists identify being mostly neodymium and other rare-earth magnets.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/18/neodymium-china-controls-rare-earth-used-in-phones-electric-cars.html

Even being rather conservative and figuring only half of those being magnets, it leaves us with approx. 1.000.000 kg of neodymium. That's good enough for 1.000.000 BMW i3 (which has approx 1kg of neodymium in it) or 750.000 Nissan Leafs (leaves? whatever) which is about 10 years of production for the Nissan.

Which is why shifting to magnets has been widely thought to be straining world supply (and a possible answer on why Tesla is building a Chinese factory).

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/teslas-model-3-motor-neodymium/

Nope. you said "So yes, they do use a lot" They don't, they use very little in comparison to other motor designs. I'd love to see where you are getting your info on model 3 motor fail rates and your stats on how much rare earth the motor uses.
Not the mention that rare earth magnets are just another boogey man. Far less damaging to the environment than oil production.

So, if they use 40% less per kw, but the engines are roughly double the power (Leaf vs Model 3 it's 147 vs 286) you end up putting MORE neodymium than the other. It's just math, and import data doesn't lie.

As per reliability:

How about this Chinese operator of Teslas (the biggest in China) that claims on any given time 20% of their cars are out of service?

Chinese car hailing company demands compensation from Tesla in Times Square, NYC
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1147807.shtml

Or this Dutch electric car rental company which has been forced to close because 50% of their Teslas don't work and can't be repaired in time.

https://www.ec-rent.nl/

cease our activities.
Due to increasing technical difficulties, and the lack of timely parts supply by Tesla Motors, we could not longer operate half of our Tesla rental fleet since mid-december 2018. Because this situation is no longer maintainable and a solution does not seem to be within reach, we had no other option than to stop all of our rental activities.

Or this small taxi company in Sweden, also forced to close.

https://www.mestmotor.se/recharge/artiklar/nyheter/20190403/eltaxibolag-i-konkurs-byter-tesla-mot-audi/

"Nothing has worked. Tesla does the worst cars. It has been too much wrong, for poor quality and when the closest workshops are in Stockholm, the costs have become unreasonably high. In the end, we did not see any opportunity to continue with these cars but chose to put the company into bankruptcy at its own request, "says the marketing manager and vice president Mohammed Al-Nasser to the newspaper .

jouso wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:


If you read the article they show that they are using substantially less rare earth magnets, like I said they use some, but not a lot compared to other manufacturers. Hence "relatively smallish permanent magnets".

Which is what I said, a tesla model 3 motor uses approx. 40% less neodymium per kw than other permanent magnets (mostly going to the Halbach array). Your article was written at a time when no actual engine had been torn down by press and competition.

40% is indeed a lot, but a lot of that difference is eaten up because Tesla engines have more output. The problem with halbach arrays is they're complicated to manufacturer, which probably can explain the relatively higher rate of motor failure compared to other electric cars.

Already halfway through 2018 Tesla had already imported half a million pounds of Chinese-sourced parts which most analysists identify being mostly neodymium and other rare-earth magnets.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/18/neodymium-china-controls-rare-earth-used-in-phones-electric-cars.html

Even being rather conservative and figuring only half of those being magnets, it leaves us with approx. 1.000.000 kg of neodymium. That's good enough for 1.000.000 BMW i3 (which has approx 1kg of neodymium in it) or 750.000 Nissan Leafs (leaves? whatever) which is about 10 years of production for the Nissan.

Which is why shifting to magnets has been widely thought to be straining world supply (and a possible answer on why Tesla is building a Chinese factory).

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/teslas-model-3-motor-neodymium/

Nope. you said "So yes, they do use a lot" They don't, they use very little in comparison to other motor designs. I'd love to see where you are getting your info on model 3 motor fail rates and your stats on how much rare earth the motor uses.
Not the mention that rare earth magnets are just another boogey man. Far less damaging to the environment than oil production.

So, if they use 40% less per kw, but the engines are roughly double the power (Leaf vs Model 3 it's 147 vs 286) you end up putting MORE neodymium than the other. It's just math, and import data doesn't lie.

As per reliability:

How about this Chinese operator of Teslas (the biggest in China) that claims on any given time 20% of their cars are out of service?

Chinese car hailing company demands compensation from Tesla in Times Square, NYC
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1147807.shtml

Or this Dutch electric car rental company which has been forced to close because 50% of their Teslas don't work and can't be repaired in time.

https://www.ec-rent.nl/

cease our activities.
Due to increasing technical difficulties, and the lack of timely parts supply by Tesla Motors, we could not longer operate half of our Tesla rental fleet since mid-december 2018. Because this situation is no longer maintainable and a solution does not seem to be within reach, we had no other option than to stop all of our rental activities.

Or this small taxi company in Sweden, also forced to close.

https://www.mestmotor.se/recharge/artiklar/nyheter/20190403/eltaxibolag-i-konkurs-byter-tesla-mot-audi/

"Nothing has worked. Tesla does the worst cars. It has been too much wrong, for poor quality and when the closest workshops are in Stockholm, the costs have become unreasonably high. In the end, we did not see any opportunity to continue with these cars but chose to put the company into bankruptcy at its own request, "says the marketing manager and vice president Mohammed Al-Nasser to the newspaper .

Tesla has bigger motors than some not all, you've never given where you are getting this 40% from. It is nice of you to cherry pick probably the smallest electric motor on the market though.

As far as these companies claiming that their Teslas don't work we have very little info on that. I'll trust Tesloop who runs a car service in California and is very open about their experiences with Tesla, the good and the bad, they are calling these reports junk. They have had very little issue with their cars. Oh and maybe if you run a car rental service, a buisness which is notorious for abusing cars.....maybe don't use a car that you can't service or has no service anywhere near you...thats just common sense. You have no list on why these cars are not working, could be user abuse, could be someone tore up the interior, could be a million different abusive issues that come with renting cars to strangers. Not one of them says its a motor issue. Quit reaching.

The level of customer damage is going to be pretty constant across all models, though; so why is getting them repaired only a problem with one specific brand?

 Andrew1975 wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:


If you read the article they show that they are using substantially less rare earth magnets, like I said they use some, but not a lot compared to other manufacturers. Hence "relatively smallish permanent magnets".

Which is what I said, a tesla model 3 motor uses approx. 40% less neodymium per kw than other permanent magnets (mostly going to the Halbach array). Your article was written at a time when no actual engine had been torn down by press and competition.

40% is indeed a lot, but a lot of that difference is eaten up because Tesla engines have more output. The problem with halbach arrays is they're complicated to manufacturer, which probably can explain the relatively higher rate of motor failure compared to other electric cars.

Already halfway through 2018 Tesla had already imported half a million pounds of Chinese-sourced parts which most analysists identify being mostly neodymium and other rare-earth magnets.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/18/neodymium-china-controls-rare-earth-used-in-phones-electric-cars.html

Even being rather conservative and figuring only half of those being magnets, it leaves us with approx. 1.000.000 kg of neodymium. That's good enough for 1.000.000 BMW i3 (which has approx 1kg of neodymium in it) or 750.000 Nissan Leafs (leaves? whatever) which is about 10 years of production for the Nissan.

Which is why shifting to magnets has been widely thought to be straining world supply (and a possible answer on why Tesla is building a Chinese factory).

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/teslas-model-3-motor-neodymium/

Nope. you said "So yes, they do use a lot" They don't, they use very little in comparison to other motor designs. I'd love to see where you are getting your info on model 3 motor fail rates and your stats on how much rare earth the motor uses.
Not the mention that rare earth magnets are just another boogey man. Far less damaging to the environment than oil production.

So, if they use 40% less per kw, but the engines are roughly double the power (Leaf vs Model 3 it's 147 vs 286) you end up putting MORE neodymium than the other. It's just math, and import data doesn't lie.

As per reliability:

How about this Chinese operator of Teslas (the biggest in China) that claims on any given time 20% of their cars are out of service?

Chinese car hailing company demands compensation from Tesla in Times Square, NYC
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1147807.shtml

Or this Dutch electric car rental company which has been forced to close because 50% of their Teslas don't work and can't be repaired in time.

https://www.ec-rent.nl/

cease our activities.
Due to increasing technical difficulties, and the lack of timely parts supply by Tesla Motors, we could not longer operate half of our Tesla rental fleet since mid-december 2018. Because this situation is no longer maintainable and a solution does not seem to be within reach, we had no other option than to stop all of our rental activities.

Or this small taxi company in Sweden, also forced to close.

https://www.mestmotor.se/recharge/artiklar/nyheter/20190403/eltaxibolag-i-konkurs-byter-tesla-mot-audi/

"Nothing has worked. Tesla does the worst cars. It has been too much wrong, for poor quality and when the closest workshops are in Stockholm, the costs have become unreasonably high. In the end, we did not see any opportunity to continue with these cars but chose to put the company into bankruptcy at its own request, "says the marketing manager and vice president Mohammed Al-Nasser to the newspaper .

Tesla has bigger motors than some not all, you've never given where you are getting this 40% from. It is nice of you to cherry pick probably the smallest electric motor on the market though.

I got it from my Tesla-driving neighbour is an electrical engineer who works in electric motors. He sent me this table from a paper comparing different technologies which could reduce neodymium use in motors.



Reduced NdeFB is literally the BMW i3 motor, and the others were built for similar specs, active material being ofc neodymium. Bottom line is, if you want to save the environment, don't drive cars selling themselves on 0-60 times.

Buy a Ford Fiesta, or even better, a used car.

As far as these companies claiming that their Teslas don't work we have very little info on that. I'll trust Tesloop who runs a car service in California and is very open about their experiences with Tesla, the good and the bad, they are calling these reports junk. They have had very little issue with their cars. Oh and maybe if you run a car rental service, a buisness which is notorious for abusing cars.....maybe don't use a car that you can't service or has no service anywhere near you...thats just common sense. You have no list on why these cars are not working, could be user abuse, could be someone tore up the interior, could be a million different abusive issues that come with renting cars to strangers. Not one of them says its a motor issue. Quit reaching.

They speak directly of mechanical issues, the rant of the Dutch rental company is open to everyone on twitter if you want to check it out.

Again, no other manufacturer has anything close to these issues. No one. Anywhere.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The level of customer damage is going to be pretty constant across all models, though; so why is getting them repaired only a problem with one specific brand?

This is pretty simple.

1. Its easy to damage electric cars if you abuse the battery by not charging it properly. Something EV owners know about, someone renting one probably does not.

2. Tesla's infrastructure is not adequate to handle that kind of service in the area. if someone gets into a fender bender in norway or china getting the car repaired is going to be an issue. Probably best not to start a Tesla rental company until Tesla has a real footprint in the region. Until we have more info we wont really know the issue. However Tesloop has been running in Califorina for 5+ years and is doing very well and are very pleased with the abilities of the cars. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/17/tesloop-shares-lessons-learned-in-400000-miles-in-a-tesla/

3. If you don't have a ford dealership anywhere near you.....might not be a good idea to start a Ford rental company unless you can do the repairs yourself. If these claims had any merit there would be law suits not bluster, but i guess we will see what happens with them.

4. Until we know why the cars are not operable, we really just don't know. Its not hard for me to believe that 20% of a rental companies cars got into accidents that caused cosmetic damage that made them unrentable. As we know Tesla has a major spare parts issue even in the US much less globally. I've never denied this.

Reduced NdeFB is literally the BMW i3 motor, and the others were built for similar specs, active material being of neodymium. Bottom line is, if you want to save the environment, don't drive cars selling themselves on 0-60 times.

Buy a Ford Fiesta, or even better, a used car.

So I'm still not seeing where your info comes from? There is no mention of the Tesla motor just a switched reluctance motor. You don't have any data to back your claim. You got a paper from your neighbor? Thats a super reliable source! Who did the study? where is the actual data? I could have typed a similar chart in MSword. This is worse than someone using wikipedia for christs sake, how is such a strong and well put together study not even able to standardize between UK pounds and US dollars on a chart? Oh wait i've done the math...your impeccable source just used the wrong sign.....they uses pound instead of dollar a few times....accuracy counts in REAL science papers. If any of my papers had such glaring problems I would have gotten an F! I'm just going to call your source spurious as best.

But for arguments sake lets say the numbers are accurate. Even then it shows that the Tesla uses less than other manufacturers almost half. $188 of neodymium is what 4 pounds of material at $110,000 a US ton...you are right thats crazy! How many gamers have more rare earth in their plastic dudesmen?

Even then, you appear to believe Rare earth metals are somehow more damaging to the environment than oil production.....which is nonsence. Lets say your average car gets 300,000 miles at 30mpg per gallon, thats 10,000 gallons of gas. Each gallon is 20 pounds of Co2, so thats 200,000 pounds of Co2, just coming out of the tailpipe, not even including the pollution it takes to get the oil out of the ground and to the car. Your argument is terrible.

For reference "For an average American car (26 miles per gallon), Shindell estimates that the air pollution emissions altogether cost us $1700 in damages per year. In comparison, emissions from energy to power an electric Nissan Leaf would cost us $840 even if purely powered by coal, and $290 if fueled by electricity supplied entirely from natural gas. These costs would become negligible if the electricity came from renewable or nuclear power. Electric vehicles (EVs) are clearly the winners in this cost comparison."

Also I'm not buying a car to save the planet. I bought a car because I like it. For my situation it made financial sense (MUCH cheaper in the long run vs a comparable ICE car), I like how it drives (better performance than a similarly priced ICE car), I like how it works (less maintenance than an ICE car), I like waking up to a fully fueled car in the morning. The fact that its better for the environment is gravy. I'm not a hippy.

I've consulted my expert (my dog) and here is his report

Now of course this isn't really my dog, if he were really that talented I'd have enough throw away money to buy something stupid that could beat my Tesla on a track....but his report appears to me to be as based on fact and siteable research as yours.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The level of customer damage is going to be pretty constant across all models, though; so why is getting them repaired only a problem with one specific brand?

This is pretty simple.

1. Its easy to damage electric cars if you abuse the battery by not charging it properly. Something EV owners know about, someone renting one probably does not.

2. Tesla's infrastructure is not adequate to handle that kind of service in the area.

I'm glad we agree. That is, in fact, the point everyone has been making.

I've consulted my expert (my dog) and here is his report

Now of course this isn't really my dog, if he were really that talented I'd have enough throw away money to buy something stupid that could beat my Tesla on a track....but his report appears to me to be as based on fact and siteable research as yours.

Rodney the wiener dog respects this detailed report.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The level of customer damage is going to be pretty constant across all models, though; so why is getting them repaired only a problem with one specific brand?

This is pretty simple.

1. Its easy to damage electric cars if you abuse the battery by not charging it properly. Something EV owners know about, someone renting one probably does not.

2. Tesla's infrastructure is not adequate to handle that kind of service in the area.

I'm glad we agree. That is, in fact, the point everyone has been making.

Right but for the original poster living in the US this is not an issue, so the point "everyone" is trying to make is mute. If for instance I have a problem with my car Tesla will give me a loaner until the issue is solved. Be smart, don't buy a car if you don't have service relatively near you. If I bought a Hyundai EV Kona in California (the ONLY place they sell and service them) Im pretty sure I'd be screwed if I brought it to PA with me. In this instance the problem is not the car or particularly the service itself, its with assuming Tesala will stretch its fledgling infrastructure to support your business. In short dumb business owners make dumb business decisions. Tesloop and many other EV rental companies have figured out how to make it work and are pleased with the product.

Starting a Rental business with Teslas where there is no close service center is a poorly thought out business plan. If you make poor business decisions in one area....its likely you make them in others and probably shouldn't run said business in the first place.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Right but for the original poster living in the US this is not an issue, so the point "everyone" is trying to make is mute.

This discussion is a global discussion, so ignoring any data regarding the rest of the planet to focus on the US simply because it corroborates your street teaming for Tesla would be akin to being a moot point.

Moot.

If you're going to attempt to outsmart your opponents in a debate like this, attaining a correct grasp of your own language would be essential.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Starting a Rental business with Teslas where there is no close service center is a poorly thought out business plan. If you make poor business decisions in one area....its likely you make them in others and probably shouldn't run said business in the first place.

Some would say rolling a product out internationally without the infrastructure to support it would be a poor business decision. One wonders if maybe THAT company shouldn't run said business in the first place...

Yeah. If you come up with a new Widget that requires some new fangled Gizmo to operate, it would be prudent of you to ensure a supply of Gizmos so people can actually use your Widget. And making a Widget 2.0 when you can't supply an adequate support system for your existing Widget customers is irresponsible at best.

 Andrew1975 wrote:


So I'm still not seeing where your info comes from?

From a peer-reviewed work on electric motors by James D. Widmer at the Centre for Advanced Electric Drives at Newcastle University, presented at the IEEE IVEC.

There is no mention of the Tesla motor just a switched reluctance motor.

Except from Tesla themselves? And the cleantechnica article you posted. And everyone who has dissected the Tesla motor which by now are quite a few people already (check Sandy Munro videos, for instance)

If you knew what a Halbach array is, you'd know that it uses a lot of magnet surface.

Nice summary of all your interventions in this thread.

Right but for the original poster living in the US this is not an issue, so the point "everyone" is trying to make is mute.

Is Florida in the US?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-is-cranking-out-model-3snow-it-has-to-service-them-11549810800

The Fort Lauderdale, Fla., resident damaged his bumper in a low-speed collision and then had to wait three months for the repair shop to get the spare parts from Tesla and fix his car

3 months to repair a flat tire?

https://twitter.com/kansasgrad/status/1116064036741943298

6 months for body work

https://twitter.com/rockhead85/status/1101463501468401664

4 months (and going) after just 2 weeks



And more:



And more:



The list goes on, it's nowhere near isolated or closer to any other manufacturer.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Right but for the original poster living in the US this is not an issue, so the point "everyone" is trying to make is mute.

This discussion is a global discussion, so ignoring any data regarding the rest of the planet to focus on the US simply because it corroborates your street teaming for Tesla would be akin to being a moot point.

Moot.

If you're going to attempt to outsmart your opponents in a debate like this, attaining a correct grasp of your own language would be essential.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Starting a Rental business with Teslas where there is no close service center is a poorly thought out business plan. If you make poor business decisions in one area....its likely you make them in others and probably shouldn't run said business in the first place.

Some would say rolling a product out internationally without the infrastructure to support it would be a poor business decision. One wonders if maybe THAT company shouldn't run said business in the first place...

You and others have turned the discussion global. I was answering questions for someone in the US! I have no experience with Tesla anywhere else. As far as Tesla supporting businesses overseas......again I can't comment on that except to say again if you buy a product and rely on it for business, you should make smart decisions on what products you buy and what infrastructure there is for those services. I could list a bunch of European Tesla rentals that are doing just fine! I'm still gonna say its a problem with that business and poor decisions made by it.

As for another posters widget theory. Do we know that Tesla went around selling cars around the world based on using them as rental cars to run your business and saying they had a support network....I kind of doubt it. One of these companies was a crowd sourced company run by a guy who has no experience in renting cars.

Yeah, parts are hard to come by, I've admitted this over and over, even in the US. In that case they give you a loaner.....cry me a River Phoenix!

The peer reviewed work missed the (pounds/dollar) typo sounds like its been reviewed pretty well!

Look just find a siteable report from a reputable source that says what the motor is made of and how those rare earth metals are worse than pollution from an ICE car and we are all good! Right now you are cryinig about 4 pounds of material in an automobile......is it uranium? NOPE! I mean, its really only fair play, I give completely verifiable info, I'm going to hold you to the same standard! I find it very interesting that your report names types of motors but not specific motors. Like all Ferrite permanent motors have the exact same specs! Again your sources have been as credible as my dogs.

Oh and now tweets are a credible source of information......coll I'll go eat some handgerbers while I bring up lists and lists of happy Tesla twitter customers and rental companies from Twitter and Facebook. Theres always a bitch somewhere no company makes everybody happy. The Model 3 is a best seller in many places and also has a very high satisfaction and loyalty rating....I think those numbers speak volumes about just how wrong some of you are.

The original question's still there- this is a discussion about what people think of electric cars in general. Tesla's reliability is a weird quality to have to worry about in an EV- one of their main draws is supposed to be a lack of maintenance compared to ICE vehicles.
I don't imagine any of these sources will be credible enough for you, but consumer reports downgraded the Model 3's recommendation.
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-reliability-owner-satisfaction/tesla-model-3-loses-cr-recommendation-over-reliability-issues/

And Tesla admitted the lack of support structure with this pledge to increase its service branch.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-repair-service-rangers-double-capacity-parts-distribution-2019/

It seems like the maintenance is a really persistent, well documented issue.
https://www.hotcars.com/problems-with-tesla-nobody-talks-about/

No one's arguing about the speed and power, or it's impressive technological breakthroughs, but for the actual consumer, these issues are very on topic for anyone considering an electrical video- and it does not seem like they are limited to a few anecdotal twitter users. I found all this in maybe 15 minutes, and my depth of knowledge pales in comparison to yours, Andrew.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Look just find a siteable report from a reputable source that says what the motor is made of and how those rare earth metals are worse than pollution from an ICE car and we are all good! Right now you are cryinig about 4 pounds of material in an automobile......is it uranium? NOPE! I mean, its really only fair play, I give completely verifiable info, I'm going to hold you to the same standard! I find it very interesting that your report names types of motors but not specific motors. Like all Ferrite permanent motors have the exact same specs! Again your sources have been as credible as my dogs.

That's some goalpost moving there. You were the one saying Tesla's motors don't have barely if any magnets on them citing an article written even before the motor was in full production (and which didn't really say what you interpreted from it).

Munro clearly says the motor has a Halbach array in his model 3 teardown video. A Halbach array on a 200+ hp motor is a giant chunk of neodymium magnets, period.

No one cries about 4 pounds of anything. I'm just challenging your baseless claim about Tesla motors not having barely any magnets.

jouso wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Look just find a siteable report from a reputable source that says what the motor is made of and how those rare earth metals are worse than pollution from an ICE car and we are all good! Right now you are cryinig about 4 pounds of material in an automobile......is it uranium? NOPE! I mean, its really only fair play, I give completely verifiable info, I'm going to hold you to the same standard! I find it very interesting that your report names types of motors but not specific motors. Like all Ferrite permanent motors have the exact same specs! Again your sources have been as credible as my dogs.

That's some goalpost moving there. You were the one saying Tesla's motors don't have barely if any magnets on them citing an article written even before the motor was in full production (and which didn't really say what you interpreted from it).

Munro clearly says the motor has a Halbach array in his model 3 teardown video. A Halbach array on a 200+ hp motor is a giant chunk of neodymium magnets, period.

No one cries about 4 pounds of anything. I'm just challenging your baseless claim about Tesla motors not having barely any magnets.

Barely is subjective I guess. A Halbach Array can take many forms and have different arrangements. On my end I have an article stating that they use a small amount......on your end you have........wait what do you have? A unsiteable peer reviewed paper full of typos that you got from your neighbor.....and conjecture based on what other motors do. Tesla does things very different. For instance on my M3P i have 450 horsepower from 2 motors. One has no permanent magnet at all the other even by your math uses 40% less permanent magnets than other comparable motors. So My Telsa has somewhere around 25% of the magnetic material that other manufacturers will use to get 450 horsepower. I'd say 75% savings is a significant amount (hence barely any).....and thats even by your figures which I believe are spurious. Not to mention that the Models X, S, Roadster and I believe even the Semi have No permanent magnets........Yeah I'm going to stand by my assertion that compared to other manufacturers Tesla uses barely any of the rare earth metals that you are all in a twist about.

And lets face it the only reason you are pushing the amount of magnets is because you think they are bad for the environment, which again is a pretty baseless claim when compared to the technology they are replacing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
The original question's still there- this is a discussion about what people think of electric cars in general. Tesla's reliability is a weird quality to have to worry about in an EV- one of their main draws is supposed to be a lack of maintenance compared to ICE vehicles.
I don't imagine any of these sources will be credible enough for you, but consumer reports downgraded the Model 3's recommendation.
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-reliability-owner-satisfaction/tesla-model-3-loses-cr-recommendation-over-reliability-issues/

And Tesla admitted the lack of support structure with this pledge to increase its service branch.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-repair-service-rangers-double-capacity-parts-distribution-2019/

It seems like the maintenance is a really persistent, well documented issue.
https://www.hotcars.com/problems-with-tesla-nobody-talks-about/

No one's arguing about the speed and power, or it's impressive technological breakthroughs, but for the actual consumer, these issues are very on topic for anyone considering an electrical video- and it does not seem like they are limited to a few anecdotal twitter users. I found all this in maybe 15 minutes, and my depth of knowledge pales in comparison to yours, Andrew.

Yes did you actually read why consumer reports removed the recommendation though? First of all its a pretty big accolade in the first place to even get a recommendation! It was removed not based on reliability issues but fit and finish issues which have already been addressed by Tesla, not reliability issues where you are going to get stuck on the side of the road.

I've already admitted repeatedly they Tesla has infrastructure and support issues. Many legacy car companies do when they release a new vehicle. Tesla is having an even harder time because they are a smaller company, they will grow into it.

The Hot cars article is so full of crap....i don't even have the time to address it.

Do you know what a recall is, its when a company has to recall their products because there is a major issue. ALL car companies do it, some quite a bit more than others, with cars that they have been making for years and years.....Do you know how many recalls Tesla has had?

https://qz.com/1243140/teslas-recall-record-is-better-than-most-major-car-companies/

Its very easy to go in the internet and find all kinds of crazy bad info about Teslas and EVs in general.....there is a lot of pressure against them. A lot of people don't even understand EV tech, I can easily find a bunch of reports that somehow claim EVS are worse for the environment that ICE cars.....but any real investigation quickly proves that thats a bunch of horseGak. Look at your sources and look at what they really are saying. Teslas and EVs are not perfect yet for everyone on the planet and every situation....but they will get there.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

I've already admitted repeatedly they Tesla has infrastructure and support issues. Many legacy car companies do when they release a new vehicle. Tesla is having an even harder time because they are a smaller company, they will grow into it.

No, they are a garbage company. . . Size plays no bearing in it. Business schools have been pumping out numerous case studies over the years since Tesla was founded, and they've all come to largely the same conclusion: Tesla is a fething trainwreck, and the prime reason why it is so, is because of Elon Musk.

But I suppose you'll never see things that way, since you've been white knighting the company from the beginning.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

I've already admitted repeatedly they Tesla has infrastructure and support issues. Many legacy car companies do when they release a new vehicle. Tesla is having an even harder time because they are a smaller company, they will grow into it.

No, they are a garbage company. . . Size plays no bearing in it. Business schools have been pumping out numerous case studies over the years since Tesla was founded, and they've all come to largely the same conclusion: Tesla is a fething trainwreck, and the prime reason why it is so, is because of Elon Musk.

But I suppose you'll never see things that way, since you've been white knighting the company from the beginning.

So then you should have no problem linking us to one of them......or are you just repeating what you have heard somewhere else? Probably a big fan of chasing Alpha.

I'm sure Elon is very upset about how you feel...probably wiping his tears with $100 bills as we type. I'll agree the guy doesn't know when to shut up sometimes....but hey, when you've done so many things that people say can't be done, maybe you get to act like that.

Imagine if for the last 100 years we had been driving electric cars.....and then someone just now invented the ICE car......we'd be absolutely appalled by the thing shooting poison gas everywhere and having to stop at some filling station everyday just to make it go and having to change the oil all the time....the idea is ridiculous.

Just some fun links here. http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html
https://www.fuelfreedom.org/gallon-gas-actual-cost/

Elon Musk may be an idiot. Tesla may be a badly run company. That doesn't make the Tesla a bad car. If the Tesla is a bad car it doesn't make EVs a bad idea.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

I've already admitted repeatedly they Tesla has infrastructure and support issues. Many legacy car companies do when they release a new vehicle. Tesla is having an even harder time because they are a smaller company, they will grow into it.

No, they are a garbage company. . . Size plays no bearing in it. Business schools have been pumping out numerous case studies over the years since Tesla was founded, and they've all come to largely the same conclusion: Tesla is a fething trainwreck, and the prime reason why it is so, is because of Elon Musk.

But I suppose you'll never see things that way, since you've been white knighting the company from the beginning.

.

hello I am here to white knight for elon

I'd buy a telsa if I don't go with an SUV for my next vehicle

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Elon Musk may be an idiot. Tesla may be a badly run company. That doesn't make the Tesla a bad car. If the Tesla is a bad car it doesn't make EVs a bad idea.

Killster has the way of it. A friend of mine loves his, primarily because of the ease of "refueling" and the driverless features.

Here's my only issue. If I want to go to a competition in Arkansas, and I live in Austin, I can't use an electric car. Once that is fixed and the price comes down then we are good to go.