undefined | Better HN

0 pointsethanbond11y ago0 comments

> nor can he raise the price of gas.

I think this is one of two fundamental flaws in your reasoning. First, yes, R&D is incredibly, incredibly expensive. I don't think anyone doubts that, and I find it just hysterical that x or y "social startup" can burn through far more money than that and never have to answer questions about the value of their R&D.

We know what Tesla is doing, and we know that it's difficult. It should be no surprise that it's expensive as hell. This isn't to say I'm betting on their success, it's to say that "R&D is expensive" isn't an argument against Tesla or its potential for success.

Quite the opposite, it seems their model has done a decent job of offloading a lot of R&D costs by, as I said, selling automobiles on the side.

Now, the second flaw ("nor can he raise the price of gas") isn't that the statement is false. He can't. But the laws of thermodynamics paired with the laws of economics can, and will, forever. Further, when it does happen, the success of his cars (or "toys of the idle rich") is irrelevant: he owns the infrastructure and he owns the IP necessary for everyone else to leverage the inevitable growth in fuel prices.

Also, to address the battery capacity loss argument:

http://www.pluginamerica.org/surveys/batteries/tesla-roadste...

Independent study on the Roadsters.

126 vehicles (of 2500 produced) reported a total 3,198,749 miles traveled. Tesla's projections said the battery would have 100,000 miles driving range, so at 50,000 miles the projection was to have 70% capacity. In reality, an average Roadster has 80-85% original capacity after 100,000 miles. That said, there was considerable variation between batteries' health, so take that as you will.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

drzaiusapelord11y ago· 2 in thread

I already addressed this:

n practice we're seeing ~25% loss of capacity at 40k miles in LEAF real world testing. 30% loss at 50k miles is the accepted norm. Capacity goes down annually after that. It seems that some cars are doing better, but play cars owned by the rich that get very few miles like the early Tesla sportscars. Real world daily-drivers like the LEAF experience the exact decay that was predicted. Lithium-ion isnt some new hot tech we don't understand. We understand it very well.

ethanbondOP11y ago

Two completely different cars show different rates of deterioration: "Must be because rich people drive one of them."

I just told you the actual numbers, 100,000 miles at 80-85% capacity. You can't just say "get very few miles." I just told you how many miles.

drzaiusapelord11y ago

Its the same battery tech. The only difference is that daily driving, which is the typical use case, wears them out faster. Probably due to getting the batteries hotter as they run longer, in traffic, etc.

Its still lithium-ion. It will behave the same way regardless of brand or celebrity CEO worship.

>I just told you the actual numbers

From a non-daily driver two seat sports car. Other sources follow the LEAF's numbers. My buddy's Porsche runs fairly well and its 30 years old. That doesn't mean you can have a 30 year old daily driver.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse