Right, but they're targeting "luxury" with the S -- what's that without leather? I suppose they could have done what Fisker did and did all the faux-leather stuff
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Ads which illustrate why I am so pissed about Tesla's marketing of the 160
- Thread starter jimbakker666
- Start date
Right, but they're targeting "luxury" with the S -- what's that without leather? I suppose they could have done what Fisker did and did all the faux-leather stuff
EVNow
Well-Known Member
If logevity issues are the reason for not offering QC with the 40 kWh pack - I wonder whether Tesla can offer QC with Bluestar. I think of Bluestar as a car with perhaps 160 to 200 mile range (40 to 50 kWh) - competing in the near luxury segment with Infiniti/Acura. It needs to have QC to build up good volumes.
Norbert
TSLA will win
I'd think that Bluestar will use more advanced battery tech, and have options like the Model S does. Panasonic may have substantially increased their R&D in the last few years. For example, A123 expects be able to half their battery costs within the next few years. This may get their cell into the range where a 40 KWh pack might come close to the current cost, yet have a multiple of the power rate necessary for quick charging. However, for a larger pack, the energy density would also need to increase 2x. That is probably what Panasonic is working on, from the other end.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
A Bluestar type vehicle could go a different way, using a lower energy density but higher C rate, and higher cycle life, cell. With an aerodynamic lightweight body design they could get 150 miles + from a 32-36 kWh pack.
I'm sort of stuck with it. I'm allergic to all the standard automotive "cloth" choices, and some of the fake leathers. If they had seats with 100% cotton, or alpaca, or cashmere, that would be great, but.... not gonna happen.
From what I can tell, Nissan seems more interested in cost reducing their 100 mile range vehicles than trying to be range leaders.
It would be nice to get 150 mile range, as the ~100 is cutting it really close for many drivers, but if they had to add 50% more battery cost in they would price a lot of shoppers out of the equation. I think their goal is to make the cars cost competitive (feature wise) with ICE vehicles without needing incentives. They know a good chunk of people can make do with 100 mile range, so they cater to people with short daily driving routines.
The short range small pack also can be recharged nightly off of typical household outlets (even US 120V@12A 1.4kW).
I don't want that either. Leather gets hot in the summer, cold in the winter and is slippery so you slide around more. Faux leather is even worse. Cloth seats breathes and keep you in place. My experience is that cloth interiors also age better and needs less maintenance.
Personally I feel like cloth seats collect and hold dust more and stain easier. Never really had a problem with overly cold or hot seats, but I garage my cars at night so maybe that's why.
roblab
Active Member
I'm sort of stuck with it. I'm allergic to all the standard automotive "cloth" choices, and some of the fake leathers. If they had seats with 100% cotton, or alpaca, or cashmere, that would be great, but.... not gonna happen.
The Nappa leather, according to Wiki, is sheep or goat, softer. I wonder if it would be an allergen for you.
Thank my lucky stars, no. I'm only allergic to synthetics, so far.
My fiancee, however, is allergic to wool (lanolin) -- but I think sheep *leather* has the lanolin effectively removed from it. But thanks very much for that pointer -- it's something else to check. :-/ Bleah.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
NigelM
Recovering Member
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I think an affordable 150 mile BEV will appeal to a lot more people, even without quick charge. As it is, the 100 mile (73 EPA) Leaf is too limiting purely on range, even with the QC ability (the QC ability doesn't really help that much without stations near where you travel, and even if a station gets built, there's a fairly regular trip I make that I don't want to stop in between for).
As I wrote elsewhere, all charging stations funded by Transnova are required to have extra capacity for future 3-phase charging. Every CHAdeMO station funded by Transnova is essentially also a 44 kW 3-phase charger, only the connector is missing, pending standardization.
I don't get that argument at all. If they wanted to support QC for the 40 kWh pack, they could easily limit the rate to 1C. 40 kW is still quite a bit, and would recharge from 30% to 80% in 30 minutes. They could just as easily have the car refuse to quickcharge more than x times per year. I have to conclude that Tesla does not want to support QC for the 40 kWh pack.
Norbert
TSLA will win
There is more overall strain on a smaller pack during common use, so the warranty is already reduced to 100k miles. Charging at 1C reduces lifetime even for larger packs. But larger packs have more buffer in their mileage, and in their tolerance. So I think they'd have to limit it to 35 kW or even 30 kW, and that isn't worth the trouble. It is not a good compromise, not the kind of thing Tesla wants to sell.
What's so difficult to understand about that?
Last edited:
goyogi
Member
Not only that but cloth will absorb liquids easier and this will be a problem when my passengers pee themselves when I show off the performance of the S.
I'm not so sure that's what Tesla wants to do since charging at 30kW to 40kW would be exactly the speed I would need for the 40kW pack to become my only car and do most every "long-range" trip I would need. The 60kW pack with the Norwegian surcharge would be too expensive. So I would say for this customer that is the difference between a sale or not.
Easy to understand for me and for Tesla, would that product reflect badly on them, not at all.
Cobos
Similar threads
