General

Tesla - $25,000 Sports Car?

Definition of a consumer sports car? A cheap, basic construction, light weight and fast, good handling small car that can be thrown around in the curves, yet because of the likelihood of being trashed is cheap to replace. Hmmmmm the $25,000 Tesla? Not the luxury boat Taycan, that's for sure, it's not a sports car, Porsche doesn't make them any more.
«1

Comments

  • https://search.aol.com/aol/video;_ylt=Awr9IMlF7v1fHy0A83RpCWVH;_ylu=Y29sbwNncTEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3BpdnM-?q=citroen+traction+avant&s_it=searchtabs&v_t=comsearch#id=4&vid=a4537fe3d544982796fa23b33aaa1530&action=view
  • miata comes to mind
  • > @jimglas_98269389 said:
    > miata comes to mind

    **** I'm thinking more "...deuce coupe..."
  • gets rubber in all 4 gears?
  • > @jimglas_98269389 said:
    > gets rubber in all 4 gears?

    **** so said my neighbors in Hawthorne ****
  • I'm not arguing that Tesla is one of the best cars on the market right now. But for $25,000 you can buy a car to suit your needs . Tesla will not be too budget-friendly in my opinion.
  • Call it the Model 2 Q for Model 2 Quick
    M2Q-500 500 mile range 5 second 0-60 mph
    M2Q-400 400 mile range 4 second 0-60 mph
    M2Q-300 300 mile range 3 second 0-60 mph

    Pricing? Same price for all 3 models. ($25,000 FSD included)

    None of the burden of over complexity.
    Plastic owner replaceable fenders, bumpers, hood
    Manual front window sliders, fixed rear windows.
    4 door, high, narrow profile.
    No center console.
    Flat windshield.
    Not a car for high speed long trips, just a safe city car.
    Direct drive AF motors
    4680 structural batteries
    No radio (blue tooth your cell phone to the dash, with voice control).
    Simple, cheap and FAST
    That's all I want.

    "... just my opinion, do your own research blada blada blada ...."
  • Of course this is a bob saltze thread...

    Last time you were on this kick you were trying to sell us on what was little more than a glorified moped with a roof, I think you called it the..."turtle"?

    Look, if you think you can get by with what would amount to little more than a pimped out "Tuk-Tuk" then, by all means, carry on but don't be trying to hock your BS here.

    (And you wonder why I place little to no credibility in what you might have to say)
  • Red, as usual, you're an walking dunce, haven't strayed from the idiot's angle.
  • Blue, I see you constantly bad mouthing me without addressing any of my suggestions. Put your lame brain where your foul mouth is and begin discussing any of my proposals. My take is you finalized the M2
    last September and you're protecting your wrong decisions on that model. Another jelly bean we don't need. Hope Lucid's listening, and will adapt rationally, as you have failed to do.
  • "M2Q-500 500 mile range 5 second 0-60 mph
    M2Q-400 400 mile range 4 second 0-60 mph
    M2Q-300 300 mile range 3 second 0-60 mph"

    except science makes that backwards. The larger battery that gives you acceleration also gives you range.
  • > @lbowroom said:
    > "M2Q-500 500 mile range 5 second 0-60 mph
    > M2Q-400 400 mile range 4 second 0-60 mph
    > M2Q-300 300 mile range 3 second 0-60 mph"
    >
    > except science makes that backwards. The larger battery that gives you acceleration also gives you range.

    lbo, they'd all have the same battery. Differentiated by software. Same price, with one model keeping production as simple as possible. No options, just fast production as each vehicle was the same physically.
    To attain profit they need to be spit out like a candy making machine. Only difference would be the color of plastic fenders, hood and trunk, which could be deleted for adding personal choice after market body parts.
    Thanks for the note.
  • With the battery the single most expensive component, loading up a $20,000 battery into a car that is supposed to cost $25,000 is a fast way to go into bankruptcy. Tesla did install a slightly bigger software limited battery for a few expensive cars, but the volume was very small, and it was a stopgap. They also were not profitable when doing this and it wasn't sustainable.

    Anyway, the market is littered with failed car companies. It's not an easy business to get right, but you're welcome to try if you think your approach will work. Sorry, but I don't see it working for Tesla.
  • "they'd all have the same battery. Differentiated by software."

    Despite how you want it to work, physics says no.
  • What if?

    What if we had a motor 25 percent cheaper to make, with less earth burning materials and was also 25 percent more efficient? Pair that with future batteries @$50/kwh ($2,000 cost) and we'd have such a car.
    First company to do this would be the winner. In a horse race the horse leading at the halfway point rarely wins the race if it hasn't a foolproof plan to lead all the way..... right?

    https://www.magnax.com/technology
  • Tesla's motors are already about 95% efficient (perhaps more now). Getting 25% more efficiency would make them 96.75% efficient. It is not going to do much, but every bit helps. You'd get 1.75% more range, nice, but not earth-shattering.

    As for making a highly optimized, high volume motor 25% cheaper, that seems unlikely unless you are a Tesla competitor, who is already spending 2x of what it costs Tesla to make a motor. Hint, when you outsource a component there are more middlemen that add to the costs. Tesla is one of the few automakers to make their own motors.

    I guess since you're dreaming, why stop at a $50/kWh pack? A $1/kWh would be even better. Not likely, but hey, it's a dream! For that matter, get rid of the vehicle body and save thousands more! Soon you can have a $200 car!
  • TT, this is the first post you have made that doesn't increase my respect for you:


    > @"TeslaTap.com" said:
    > Tesla's motors are already about 95% efficient (perhaps more now). Getting 25% more efficiency would make them 96.75% efficient AF's ARE OVER 97% EFFICIENT HALF THE WEIGHT, AND 25 PERCENT AS EXPENSIVE TO MAKE (ALTHOUGH MAYBE NOT AS DURABLE). It is not going to do much, but every bit helps. You'd get 1.75% more range, nice, but not earth-shattering. 25 PERCENT MORE RANGE BY INCREASED EFFICIENCY, LESS WEIGHT AND ZERO PARASITIC DRAG WHEN AT CONSTANT SPEED BECAUSE ONE MOTOR IN A DUAL MOTOR LAYOUT'S COASTING WITHOUT DRAG.
    >
    > As for making a highly optimized, high volume motor 25% cheaper....BONG, I SAID AF'S 25 PERCENT AS EXPENSIVE TO PRODUCE THAN RF, NOT 25 PERCENT CHEAPER, THAT'S ONE QUARTER THE COST TO MANUFACTURE NOT ONE QUARTER CHEAPER......, that seems unlikely unless you are a Tesla competitor (JUST AN ONLOOKER AND EARTH RESIDENT WHO CARES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT HERE) DO SOME RESEARCH OVER AXIAL FLUX VS RADIAL FLUX MOTORS AND REPOST YOUR COMMENTS PLEASE (SANDY MUNRO'S TEARDOWN OF M3 MOTOR VS MAGNAX'S EXPLODED VIEW OR EVO OR JUST WIKI AXIAL FLUX MOTORS WILL DO), who is already spending 2x of what it costs Tesla to make a motor. Hint, when you outsource a component (TESLA CAN MAKE ANY MOTOR TYPE THEY CHOOSE, SO CAN LUCID), there are more middlemen that add to the costs. Tesla is one of the few automakers to make > I guess since you're dreaming, why stop at a $50/kWh pack (ELON AND DREW'S TARGET PRICE FOR BATTERY COST, DIDN'T YOU WATCH THE BATTERY DAY PRESENTATION DUDE, WHAT'S 44 PERCENT OF $108?
    DIDN'T YOU LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE BATTERY DAY PRESENTATION, DIDN'T YOU GET THE CHARTS MEANINGS ? A $1/kWh would be even better. Not likely, but hey, it's a dream! For that , get rid of the vehicle body and save thousands more! Soon you can have a $200 car.

    BODIES CURRENTLY IN VOGUE ARE MOLDED PLASTIC,
    SAME WITH FENDERS, HOOD AND TRUNK LID. THIS IS FOR EASY, INEXPENSIVE OWNER MAINTENANCE, AND NEGATION OF THE NEED FOR FACTORY PAINTSHOPS.

    JUST BECAUSE ONE COMPANY'S IN THE CURRENT LEAD FOR DESIGN DOESN'T MEAN THEY'LL BE THERE PERMANENTLY.........THE REASON FOR MY POSTS..........
    TO WAKE ELON UP FROM HIS "HENRY FORD" MODE.

    LIKE I SAID, DO SOME OF YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND POST AN APOLOGY.
  • What if a new battery weighed 1 lb and could power your car for 1000 miles and cost only $1... wow, that would be awesome
  • @bob_saltzer_98342246

    Tell you what, why don't you get the peeps at Magnax to retrofit a car with their axial motors, perform a side-by-side comparison against a Tesla and then post the results along with video evidence here for all to see?

    Until then STOP SPAMMING THE TESLA FORUM WITH Magnax BS.
  • > @"blue adept" said:
    > @bob_saltzer_98342246
    >
    > Tell you what, why don't you get the peeps at Magnax to retrofit a car with their axial motors, perform a side-by-side comparison against a Tesla and then post the results along with video evidence here for all to see?
    >
    > Until then STOP SPAMMING THE TESLA FORUM WITH Magnax BS.

    So now, difference of opinion is spamming is it?
    I can see where you're headed if I look down.
  • @bob - sorry if I offended you. Perhaps the motor you are pushing is great. Perhaps not. There are so many scams with misleading facts it's hard to sort out the good stuff. I'm confident that if Tesla sees value in something they will use it.

    When people say something is 25% better or cheaper without any qualifications or to what they are comparing it to, my spider-sense says it's likely BS. Maybe those motors are great, or they are comparing it to a marginally designed and expensive motor such as used in the BMW i3.

    I trust that Tesla has some of the best motor engineers on the planet. It doesn't mean someone else might come up with something better, but I do have a fair amount of skepticism. As others point out, the real test would be for someone to take a Tesla motor (they are available) from a recent car and do a side-by-side performance evaluation.

    In addition, there are environmental tests, longevity tests, packaging requirements, inverter requirements, and thermal considerations. It's quite risky to just assume all the automotive requirements have been met, especially with an untested design. Often when you start considering all the issues, the performance has to be derated and the costs go up.
  • Thanks TT for restoring my faith in humanity. Wasn't pushing anything, maybe just dreaming. When I watched teardowns of i3, Bolt, Jag, and M3 on Munro was appalled at the complexity of RF designs, and all the resources required to build them. Had a vision of a motor following the patents Nikola Tesla got a hundred years ago for the AF motor. Could it be printed using additive manufacturing techniques? Could you size the rotors negating the need for step-down gears? Could you just plug the motor direct drive into the axle shafts? Could the motor just have a sheet metal cover rather than cast aluminum casing? Could the motor coast without parasitic drag? Could I get 5 of these cars with different body styles, instead of one $125,000 jelly bean (old school style). Could I plant the research seed in all car manufacturing gardens?
    Elon says he wants to make cheap EV's, this could be the way to do it? Ideas need be researched, not bashing the one with the idea.
    If any progress is to be made we can't shoot the messenger, else ideas won't be presented anymore? I'm looking 3 or 4 generations forward, is Blue? Is Elon? If not they're where Henry Ford was in 1929, with his statement "you can get any color you want as long as it's black with a 4 cylinder engine (he nearly killed off Ford with Blue's attitude).
    Regards all.....
  • > @bob_saltzer_98342246 said:
    > So now, difference of opinion is spamming is it?
    > I can see where you're headed if I look down.
    >

    Well, that's just it, isn't it?

    It's not a "difference of opinion" when you're on here extolling the virtues of radial flux motors for EV's over that of induction motors/permanent magnet synchronous reluctance motors (as are used in Tesla's) when there isn't yet even one(1) radial flux motored vehicle to afford any real world comparison.

    Instead, it's all in your head and that, @bob, is "spam".
  • > @bob_saltzer_98342246 said:
    > Elon says he wants to make cheap EV's....
    >
    >

    Yes and it's called achieving 'economies of scale', which Tesla has done.

    > @bob_saltzer_98342246 said:
    > If any progress is to be made we can't shoot the messenger, else ideas won't be presented anymore? Ideas need be researched, not bashing the one with the idea.
    >
    >

    Agreed, they ("ideas") do and Elon has which is the reason why Tesla is using the type of electric motors they are, that is, because they are the best suited to an automobile platform.
  • > @"blue adept" said:
    > > @bob_saltzer_98342246 said:
    > > So now, difference of opinion is spamming is it?
    > > I can see where you're headed if I look down.
    > >
    >
    > Well, that's just it, isn't it?
    >
    > It's not a "difference of opinion" when you're on here extolling the virtues of radial flux motors for EV's over that of induction motors/permanent magnet synchronous reluctance motors (as are used in Tesla's) when there isn't yet even one(1) radial flux motored vehicle to afford any real world comparison.
    >
    > Instead, it's all in your head and that, @bob, is "spam".

    Nit wit, you got it backwards, I've been saying Axial Flux motors should be explored along with the current Radial Flux designs.

    Be nice, be happy, don't be so defensive. You act like nobody's got a right to an opinion that's different from yours. I know who you voted for.
Sign In or Register to comment.