Did I say weeks? I meant months.

Discussion in 'Tesla' started by bwilson4web, Mar 7, 2019.

  1. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    A more recent tweet suggests the real time intervals are "2-4 months", not "2-4 weeks." <GRINS>

    Source: Tesla produces first batch of standard Model 3 vehicles - Electrek

    Less than a week after having launched the new base versions of the Model 3, Tesla has already produced the first batch of Model 3 vehicles with the standard battery.

    The long-awaited standard version of the Model 3 is not only available to order, but it’s now also rolling off the assembly line.

    Electrek was able to confirm with a source familiar with Tesla’s production that the automaker produced an initial batch of over 500 standard Model 3 vehicles over the last two days.

    Today, Tesla has 550 standard Model 3 vehicles ready to ship.
    . . .
    Elon just said that Tesla shouldn’t reach volume Model 3 standard battery pack production until ‘mid-year’.

    Source: Tesla shouldn&#039;t reach volume Model 3 standard battery pack production until &#039;mid-year&#039;, says Musk - Electrek

    That makes more sense. I assume production of the new version is going to be fairly low in the coming months.

    After all, they have been presenting the base Model 3 has been dependent on Tesla slashing its retail costs and as we reported last weekend, Musk admitted that they are just starting a review of the operations that will last for a few weeks.

    Actual meaningful savings probably won’t happen for a few months – when Tesla is going to start producing the $35,000 Model 3 in volume.

    With the increasing numbers of options now available for Model 3, I am starting to be curious about the mix of sales – especially when it comes to the battery packs.

    Before launching the Model 3, Musk estimated the average sale price at around $42,000 once all options would be available.

    Bob Wilson
  2. TeslaInvestors

    TeslaInvestors Active Member

    Whoops! They are both right! 550 Sr Model 3 in 2 days ( 275/day) is way more than the market can absorb.
    Elon may be right this time. Sr Model 3 will not reach "volume" production by summer. My guess is, it will never.
    BECAUSE IT DOESN'T NEED TO. Otherwise, Tesla has to cut the model 3 price even more.
    Who knows what ELon will have to shutter to do that? May be the Tesla headquarters?
    Who needs an expensive HQ in Palo Alto if working from home is the new thing? (/s)
  3. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    My only regret was napping when Elon announced the $35k Model 3. Soon as I saw it, I ordered but I was 4 hrs late.

    One thing I noticed is how the Tesla skeptics are so critical of any Musk management decisions. This goes beyond an alternative narrative or business plan. In the absence of facts and data that Musk has ... did the critics get fired or Musk run over their dog or totally defeat their favorite ride?

    Their criticism has an unhealthy ‘stalker’ odor, an emotional trend, that suggests a mental problem needing treatment.

    Bob Wilson
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2019
  4. TeslaInvestors

    TeslaInvestors Active Member

    Elon announced the $35k Model 3 three years ago! I'd say you are pretty late.
    BTW, laughing at Teslemmings is in itself a therapy! It is comedy gold.

    Enjoy the car, my friend! Once it is with you and not at the service center.
  5. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    Tesla taking orders on Thursday, February 28, I acted knowing it was real. My only minor question is whether or not I'll get my car by the end of June. Of course, I'm not expecting any tax credit that may be available in 2020.

    I sympathize with your frustration at not getting a Tesla Model 3 before the fool cell mistake. Isolated in parts of California and stuck in a ghetto of limited refueling options ... in a car of modest performance. I truly am truly sorry for you. Living in Huntsville Alabama, I don't envy your situation.

    Bob Wilson
  6. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    Perhaps you might want to reword this reply?

    Bob Wilson
  7. Domenick

    Domenick Administrator Staff Member

    That was unacceptably over the line and now he's banned.
  8. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    If you could block his postings to this and the subordinate forums, it would be OK with me. I'm just not comfortable with turning off 'his water.' A 30 day suspension might help his judgement?

    Bob Wilson
  9. Domenick

    Domenick Administrator Staff Member

    Their "contributions," with the smallest of exceptions, have been pretty much limited to the Tesla sub-forum. He's been banned from the news website for some time and it was strongly suggested the same action be taken here. I've ignored his insults and most of the mud throwing because it's sometimes good to have sharply opposing points of view, but the proverbial camel's back has been broken.

    I could revisit the decision in a month or so, at your request.
  10. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    Please do, a "time out." I'm not hanging here to mute the 'honorable competition.' We can agree to disagree but sometimes . . . <sigh>

    Bob Wilson
  11. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    Curious, SMS communications from a different Tesla contact:
    • Sunday March 10 - "please populate any lien holder" ... I replied that I could not find the title and applied for a replacement. Meanwhile, I uploaded an image of the replacement title application on Monday that shows no liens. The Alabama clerk predicted 2-4 weeks for a replacement.
    • Wednesday March 13 - "confirm you are paying in cash" and "not financing the vehicle" and "confirm you are accepting the trade in offer" ... I explained that I had already gotten tentative loan approval and shared the loan officer's name and phone number. I confirmed I want to trade in the Prius Prime.
    • Wednesday March 13 - "get the exact dollar amount?" and "picking up in California?" ... My bank will approve a loan for $40k, $30k, and $20k and monthly payments over 60 months. I pointed out I need a 'Bill of Sale' with VIN number, final dollar amount, and where to send payment. As for delivery, when I decided to take the Tesla trade-in, we need to deliver in Nashville or my home in Alabama which ever is cheaper and quicker.
    So I wrapped up everything into a follow up e-mail and sent to Tesla customer service. I'm relaxed as anytime there is a change of 'team member' there will be a certain amount to catchup. This is not uncommon with long distance communications.

    Bob Wilson
  12. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Hmmm... is it possible that I may actually agree with Mr. Shorty Pants here?

    I've often wondered just how much demand there will be for the absolute bottom-tier, no-options, $35,000 Standard Range (SR) Model 3. Won't most buyers, in fact the overwhelming majority of buyers, want at least one option which will push the price higher? Other auto makers don't make many units of what are called "stripper" cars; units with no added options at all. And I've seen it argued, plausibly, that auto makers aren't artificially restricting the market for stripper cars; it's that very few buyers actually want a car with no added options.

    I don't see why it would be any different for the Model 3, doubly so because right along with the $35k, no-options Standard Range Model S, Tesla introduced the "Standard Range Plus" trim level, to entice buyers to buy something better "for just a few thousand dollars more!" :)

    Also, there's that whole "You can have your $35k Model 3 in any color you want, so long as it's black" thing. (Thank you, Henry Ford! ;) ) If you want any other color, it's a option that you have to pay for. And a pretty pricey option, too! I'm a Tesla fan, but I still call that price gouging.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2019
  13. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    I would welcome an honorable opposition. It would be refreshing to have some real debate about Tesla's problems and Elon's excesses. There is certainly a lot of fodder for discussion/ debate there.

    There are people who have an honest negative opinion of Tesla and its cars; I've seen them posting on other forums, most notably the Tesla Motors Club forum.

    I don't think the person in question qualifies. Just my opinion, but I'm pretty sure that others share that opinion. I think his repeated descriptions of Tesla as a "scam" company have been well over the line. That's completely indefensible and, on a forum for EV enthusiasts, is obviously intentional trolling. I'm glad that Domenick finally kicked him out.

    YMMV -- Your Mileage May Vary
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2019
  14. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Good luck in dealing with all the paperwork, and the "tilting at windmills" battle with the bureaucracy!

    Keeping fingers crossed that Tesla doesn't make you wait for the official replacement of your trade-in car title before approving the sale.

  15. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    Source: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1121855_which-tesla-model-3-would-you-buy-take-our-twitter-poll:
    • 15% Base model, $35k
    • 25% Standard Range Plus, $38k
    • 12% Mid Range
    • 48% Long Range (or higher)
    Note, I did not participate in the survey, just sharing the report. However, I did add two of three options.

    My reading of the 'Standard Range Plus' is a better sound system, electric adjustable seats, and +20 mile range (i.e., 240 vs 220.) Although the extra 20 miles, ~10% would be nice, the extra $3k was not worth it(*). So I went with these options:
    1. $1.5k for metal blue paint - this helps find the car in a car lot. I would have preferred the $2.5k white, too much. Part of the paint price is reconfiguration of the paint shop from black to blue and running a batch.
    2. $3k for current Autopilot - granted it is pure profit, it is also a mandatory requirement for us. There is a future Autopilot with a navigation link but it isn't clear this makes sense for us. I'm happy to be in my lane following a semi-trailer or RV or towed boat/trailer.
    I agree but we've seen two, fuel-cell advocates locked from over emotional postings including this last one. When they brought dispassionate news about their favorite technology and cited a source, they were of value. But attacking personalities, well they needed a time-out. Curiously, there is a hydrogen generation technique that if scaled, would make sense:
    • bio-engineer a photosynthesis organism that emits hydrogen
    • one that be grown in large, CHEAP, areas using otherwise unusable water (i.e., salt)
    In effect, a solar powered, hydrogen generator that is cheaper than photovoltaic cells. It could be bio-engineered or inorganic but must not make an intermediate electric or commercially usable fuel gas. This may yet be possible.

    In engineering, GOOD, FAST, CHEAP, I've picked two. <grins>

    Bob Wilson

    * - I have mapped out an EV route between Huntsville AL and Stillwater OK or Coffeyville KS. There is a ~275 mi gap between Little Rock AR and Tulsa OK which the extra 20 miles would not bridge the gap. However, my BMW i3 EV experiments revealed there is a 6-unit, ShorePower.com, station at a truck stop midway at Ozark AR. In 2-3 hours at a charge rate of 30 miles/hour, I can eat a meal, nap, and stretch to add enough charge to reach either Tulsa or Little Rock.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019
  16. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Sure, it's possible to get cost-effective generation of H2, altho the method you describe would require lots of acres to generate H2 on an industrial scale; note the energy source is solar power, and sunlight must provide the energy both to power the bacteria's metabolism and generate the hydrogen. (And one limitation would be just how densely the bacteria can be packed without poisoning themselves with their own waste.)

    But as I've said many times: Even if generating the H2 was free, the cost, energy required, and infrastructure required for the rest of the long supply chain required to get highly compressed H2 into your fool cell car would still make it impractical. Generating the H2 is just the first of many steps, all of which take energy and add to the cost.

    bwilson4web likes this.
  17. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    I was thinking of the salt ponds in San Francisco bay, the great Salt Lake, and the Salton Sea. We also have a lot lands east of the Rockies that might support a bio-solar farm IF they can be built and operated cheaper than today's photo voltaic cells (PVC). It only makes sense if there are no intermediate electricity or carbon-based fuel steps (i.e., methane or alcohols.)

    My past analysis has suggested the source, either methane or electricity, was the major cost factor. It needs to be a direct to hydrogen generation. Distribution certainly is part of the cost but I'm not sure it is enough to solve the $3 hydrogen to $1 electricity per mile problem.

    Bob Wilson
  18. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Okay, let's say we seed the entire Great Salt Lake with H2-generating algae (or more precisely, cyanobacteria), and turn it into a giant H2 generator. Now... how do you collect the gas from that vast an area? I don't see how that would be practical.

    Other proposals I've seen for using specially bred cyanobacteria to generate H2 involve tanks with plastic covers, pumps, and plumbing. Lots of plumbing. As I've said pretty often, the cost of infrastructure is part of the problem. Of course you could use pools instead of tanks, but you'd still need them to be covered so you can collect the H2. And even if you used pools... well, perhaps it would be possible to ecologically balance each individual pool, but given how difficult that is to maintain over long periods of time, in practice I suspect you'd wind up installing plumbing to carry micronutrients to every pool and carry at least some volume of waste water away.



    Sunlight is free. Tanks, pumps (and the electricity to run them), plumbing, and maintenance for acres and acres of tanks (or pools) are not. And even cheap land where pools are or will be located, probably isn't free, unless it's a government project using public lands.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019
    bwilson4web likes this.
  19. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    This is where a fuel-cell advocate could be useful. They have the personal interest to follow a technology and could bring insights of new developments and pilot projects. I just don't have an interest to follow fuel-cell technology.

    To be perfectly blunt, "nothing but water exhaust" has become the dead-end mantra. So instead of focusing on efficient hydrogen generation, they are content to stick with steam-methane or <shudder> electrolysis.

    Bob Wilson

    ps. I personally don't want to go down the rabbit hole but I would approach the 'pond' problem with hexagonal, open bottom, cells. This becomes the collector and only maintenance of a minimum water level is necessary. BUT this is how I would approach the problem.
  20. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Well, I won't pretend to be all that knowledgeable about the particular field of using cyanobacteria to generate H2. But based on what I know about biology in general, I'd say basically we'd have two choices: An open system or a closed system.

    * * * * *

    A closed system would use tanks, or sealed pools with a waterproof liner, designed to keep out competing bacteria and other forms of life, so the cyanobacteria that we want to generate the H2 would be able to grow in peace, limited only by the amount of micronutrients needed to provide the chemicals needed to form their bodies, plus a certain amount of new water (not necessarily clean water; additional waste water could be pumped in) carried into the tanks or ponds to flush out the bacteria's waste products.

    Advantages: fairly concentrated production site. Not all that much land required. Small area makes oversight and maintenance easier.

    Disadvantages: Rather expensive in terms of infrastructure (plumbing, pumps, filters etc.) required, and probably labor intensive maintenance. Also, requires electricity to run the pumps.

    * * * * *

    An open system would use naturally occurring ponds or pools and could have the sort of cheap, "open cell" collection system you describe.

    Advantages: It's very cheap. No plumbing required (assuming rain and/or streams will keep the pools filled), and no pumps except for collection of the H2. Very little maintenance required except as noted below.

    Disadvantages: Since we can't concentrate the bacteria in optimum growth conditions, it's going to take a lot more acres of ponds or pools to generate the same amount of hydrogen. With a much larger area, monitoring the entire generation site is going to be much more difficult. But the primary disadvantage is that bacteria specifically bred to produce H2 are going to be at a competitive disadvantage compared to literally every other form of life, so in practice we could assume the "good" bacteria will die off periodically and have to be re-seeded. If the bacteria can't even compete well enough to reproduce and force out other bacteria... well then, it won't work at all. So let's assume, for the sake of argument, that these bacteria are specially bred to withstand conditions that most naturally occurring bacteria can't survive, so they won't have that much competition, and any infestation by competing bacteria will be slow. I won't try to specify what the conditions would need to be; Mr. Google says that there are even some "salt-loving microbes" inhabiting the Great Salt Lake! Maintaining rather extreme growth conditions might take a lot of maintenance, and possibly some expensive chemicals or minerals. Obviously we would want to minimize the cost of that.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019
    bwilson4web likes this.

Share This Page