Realist isn't happy

[lolachampcar]

funny you should mention the at night thing.
I've got some pals from the ECU tuning days in Germany and used to constantly get videos of high end cars doing 200 mph at night on the AB. I thought they were nuts but they insisted it was the only safe time to do it. I just thought of the debris field associated with 4000lbs @200 mph and the lack of a carbon survival cell

I guess MS is just no good for night time high speed runs on the AB or lapping days at Watkins Glen. I think I'm ok with that. "Horses for courses"

 

[Realist]

Nigel,

Honestly, what do you want to show me with these statistics? In fact they clearly underline my statement.

Denmark, Switzerland, France and Finland have fewer fatalities on motorways. On all roads only Finland is better. But do you seriously want to compare these countries with Germany?

We live in the middle of Europe. Germany is a country with massive transit traffic, people are traveling from the north to the south, east to the west. We have more trucks and cars on our roads than anyone else. Yet the number of fatalities on all roads (which is the only number that matters) is lower than on our direct neighbors.

There are motorways in Finland, where you won’t see a single car for hours. And what’s more, most countries chase a fee for using the motorway. Therefore many people don’t use it. Austria, France, Switzerland, Italy, Spain. They all charge a fee for using the motorway. We don’t.

I travel on the Autobahn every day and I seriously believe that it’s the most advanced and best motorway in the world. Almost every sector has an active speed control system depending on the amount of traffic. When unlimited, overtaking happens in a swift and controllable manner. Also it is possible to go flat out. I have driven various performance cars over the years and I have maxed almost all of them. You can do that on the Autobahn. So therefore people don’t have to get crazy on “normal roads” in order to test the performance of their car. A so called “Autobahn race” is less risky than any drag race at traffic light in an urban zone.

But this is not the point why the Model S is just so unpractical here. Most people on the left lane cruise between 160-200 kph. That speed is drivable 2/3 of the time. No electric car will be able to do that without a serious range drop. There is one guy in my city with a Fisker Karma and I usually see him on the right line going 100kph, slipstreaming trucks and constantly monitoring the range monitor.

It’s a beautiful car though.

 

[Yggdrasill]

While electric cars aren't currently excellently suited for Germany, that will change. You need just two elements:

- Two speed transmission. This will almost double the top speed, which will silence the speed fanatics in Germany. First available on the next gen Roadster?
- Battery swapping. Tesla would be stupid to not set up battery swap stations along the highest speed autobahns. If you're travelling at 160 mph/256 kmph you'd need to stop for 1-2 minutes approximately every 38 minutes*, which would be quite alright for most people.

* A Model S uses about 32 kW at 80 mph, so at 160 mph you'd need around 128 kW. At that speed you'd expend 81 kWh in about 38 minutes.

 

[NigelM]

Honestly, what do you want to show me with these statistics? In fact they clearly underline my statement.

Ummm, no they don't. You made a blanket statement that German "Autobahns are the safest on the planet" and that statement is clearly not correct. As you say yourself "Denmark, Switzerland, France and Finland have fewer fatalities on motorways."

There is one guy in my city with a Fisker Karma and I usually see him on the right line going 100kph, slipstreaming trucks and constantly monitoring the range monitor.

That's because he's burning gas.

Most people on the left lane cruise between 160-200 kph. That speed is drivable 2/3 of the time.

Yeah, right. I'm not going to bother with the rest.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Also, when it comes to traffic safety in the Nordic countries compared to Germany, conditions are in favour of Germany.

- We drive on ice and snow several months each year.
- Our countries are less population-dense, which means we live further apart from each other, and need a greater amount of road per capita. This means we also have fewer taxpayers per km of road to cover the building of new roads and maintenance.
- Our countries are more challenging for building roads. Land slides, avalanches, moose, etc all need to be factored in. The freeze/thaw-cycles also ruin new road surfaces in a couple of years.

As a result, Norway's roads are ranked 84th out of 134 countries in the Global Competitiveness Report, and we *still* have just 6.1 deaths per billion vehicle-km whereas Germany has 7.2 deaths per billion vehicle-km (WHO). (Or 3.9 vs 5.6 according to the IRTAD Report linked to earlier.)

 

[Realist]

As a result, Norway's roads are ranked 84th out of 134 countries in the Global Competitiveness Report, and we *still* have just 6.1 deaths per billion vehicle-km whereas Germany has 7.2 deaths per billion vehicle-km (WHO). (Or 3.9 vs 5.6 according to the IRTAD Report linked to earlier.)

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.VEH.ROAD.K1

Germany has more than twice as much vehicles per km road than Norway. So obviously there have to be more accidents. Just look at the map.

Any direct neigbor with comparable geography has less vehicles per km on the road and more fatalities. So what?

 

[Yggdrasill]

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.VEH.ROAD.K1

Germany has more than twice as much vehicles per km road than Norway. So obviously there have to be more accidents. Just look at the map.

Any direct neigbor with comparable geography has less vehicles per km on the road and more fatalities. So what?

Why would more cars mean more accidents per car? It doesn't. More cars means that there's more spending power available to build better roads, and better roads means fewer accidents.

 

[NigelM]

Why would more cars mean more accidents per car? It doesn't.

You're right. Common sense would suggest that more cars means slower traffic which should equal less fatalities.

 

[Realist]

Why would more cars mean more accidents per car? It doesn't. More cars means that there's more spending power available to build better roads, and better roads means fewer accidents.

No it means more traffic not more spending power.

Hasn't Norway been generating a massive budget surplus for years? I think you are one of of the richest countries in the world per capita.

 

[Krugerrand]

No it means more traffic not more spending power.

Oh, so the people of your country have figured out how to drive more than one car at a time? I would like to know how to do this. Currently I own 3 vehicles and a tractor (down from 5 and a tractor) and I've still not managed how to drive more than one of them at a time.

 

[dsm363]

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.VEH.ROAD.K1

Germany has more than twice as much vehicles per km road than Norway. So obviously there have to be more accidents. Just look at the map.

Any direct neigbor with comparable geography has less vehicles per km on the road and more fatalities. So what?

So with twice as many vehicles on the road you recommend driving faster? Especially since not all cars can travel at 200+kmh you get cars with vast speed differences making things even more dangerous.

What exactly is your main point here? I think you've made it clear EVs are not yet the perfect perpetual motion machines that offer unlimited travel like ICEs do but they would still work for many and Germany and even more in other counties.

 

[lolachampcar]

I would reconsider the thought that a transmission will aid in sustained high speeds in a BEV. It is true that electric motors do have rpm constraints (back Emf related) but the real issue is one of power consumption. If drag goes up by the square of speed then BEVs are a long way away from doing any sustained high speed driving unless the Cd is reduced significantly. I'm willing to concede the high speed driving ground to ICE for the foreseeable future.

 

[Yggdrasill]

I would reconsider the thought that a transmission will aid in sustained high speeds in a BEV. It is true that electric motors do have rpm constraints (back Emf related) but the real issue is one of power consumption. If drag goes up by the square of speed then BEVs are a long way away from doing any sustained high speed driving unless the Cd is reduced significantly. I'm willing to concede the high speed driving ground to ICE for the foreseeable future.

It is an issue. Unless you also have battery swapping. And Tesla just so happens to already have a working prototype. I know I at least would be fine with pulling into a battery swap station every 38 minutes, if I feel like driving at 160 mph. (How often would I be doing this, really? Even if I lived in Germany, I'm thinking not too often.)

With higher capacity battery packs, the swapping would be needed even less. With a 200 kWh metal-air / li-ion battery pack, in the Model S battery pack format, you'd need to stop every 1.5 hours, when driving at 160 mph. That means that you'd be across Germany (north-south) with two battery swaps, and this is an extreme example. There's no way you'd be able to sustain 160 mph for 4 hours straight. And you'd probably need to stop for gas about two times if you were driving at 160 mph in a gasoline car.

- - - Updated - - -

No it means more traffic not more spending power.

Hasn't Norway been generating a massive budget surplus for years? I think you are one of of the richest countries in the world per capita.

Yes, we are "rich", but if you adjust for purchasing power, we aren't so "rich". Here, an unskilled road worker can earn 50-100k USD per year - that makes roads expensive. And a Big Mac costs 9.63 USD, so living is expensive for that road worker.

The good thing about being rich is comparatively cheap imports, so that an unskilled road worker might be able to afford a Model S. Anything that isn't imported is expensive. (Importing roads is hard.)

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

…] (Importing roads is hard.)

Before you know it, you can have people from Eastern Europe building your roads. It’s happened here (in Sweden)… They are probably already driving a lot of the trucks on your roads…

See: Race to the bottom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Realist]

It is an issue. Unless you also have battery swapping. And Tesla just so happens to already have a working prototype. I know I at least would be fine with pulling into a battery swap station every 38 minutes, if I feel like driving at 160 mph. (How often would I be doing this, really? Even if I lived in Germany, I'm thinking not too often.)

The battery swap is one of the most stupid things I have ever seen. I wonder how many Model S owners will really use that.

There is one major blow to this supercharger solution. How do I know if the supercharger system isn't actually occupied? Adding 300km range in 40 min is a best case scenario.

I claim the following:

Even with all superchargers working I can travel faster across germany in a 18hp 40 year old Fiat 500 than in a Tesla Model S.

I wonder if anyone accepts that challenge Should start another thread....

 

[Yggdrasill]

The battery swap is one of the most stupid things I have ever seen. I wonder how many Model S owners will really use that.

Great argument! But I guess it is softened by your plea to ignorance.

Yes, I agree that you don't know how many people will use battery swapping. In Germany the number is likely to be higher than elsewhere, as the autobahn, which allows for higher speeds, necessitates a way to quickly replenish range. As such, battery swapping fills a niche.

You wouldn't need many of them - maybe 20 total in Germany, basically an insignificant investment. The profit model also seems to be present. In Germany it should be possible to get people to opt into battery-rental programs. With for instance a battery rental program with unlimited miles, unlimited battery swaps and unlimited supercharging, costing in the area of 300 USD per month, with 25k USD knocked off the 85 kWh Model S up-front cost, it would be quite attractive. A P85+ would cost significantly less than an M5 up-front and cost less to run. It would also be more convenient both day-to-day and on long trips.

There is one major blow to this supercharger solution. How do I know if the supercharger system isn't actually occupied? Adding 300km range in 40 min is a best case scenario.

Tesla is adding sufficient overcapacity for this not to be an issue. Superchargers aren't very expensive. And with 8 spaces and around 30 minutes per charge, a space will open up on average every 4 minutes, if they all happen to be occupied.

I claim the following:

Even with all superchargers working I can travel faster across germany in a 18hp 40 year old Fiat 500 than in a Tesla Model S.

I wonder if anyone accepts that challenge Should start another thread....

Sorry, you won't get a rise out of me. I think you're quite aware of the result of such a "challenge".

 

[lolachampcar]

I'm voting for a thread name change....
Realist is on a Roll

 

[aronth5]

Realist
Lets move on. We all understand the Model S is not a good car for you.

Three questions:
1. What percentage of German's would you estimate fit the Model S driver profile. (i.e. 95+% of their daily mileage falls within the MS's range)
2. What percentage of these drivers fall in the top 15% of German wage earners?
3. Based on the numbers from 1&2 what is the estimated number of potential German buyers?

This profile fits nicely into what we see here in the states and easily explains why demand exceeds supply. A very simple formula for Tesla's success.

 

[Realist]

I think you're quite aware of the result of such a "challenge".

I think it would be a fair challenge. A 1960 Fiat 500 has not more than 200km range and 100 kph topspeed.

 

[dsm363]

I think it would be a fair challenge. A 1960 Fiat 500 has not more than 200km range and 100 kph topspeed.

So the Model S in the future with battery swap stations would be slower? I'd like to see the math on that.

You never seem to answer any questions people bring up. Again, how is more cars on the road and driving faster safer?