https://electrek.co/2018/12/07/tesla-co ... elon-musk/

I find this interesting! Tesla bought NUMMI (a joint venture of GM and Toyota) in Fremont, California many years ago and now it's producing over 300,000 vehicles per year. If they bought the GM plants in Detroit/Hamtramck (Michigan), Lordstown (Ohio) and Oshawa (Ontario), that would give them a giant boost in capacity.

I think electric vehicles have come a long way; I just think that the range per charge needs to be higher, which I know will come with time. I live in the rural midwest and 95% of my driving is highway driving, so I'd be interested in an electric vehicle whose range is at least 500 miles on the highway. We also need to continue to upgrade the charging infrastructure throughout the country to make electric vehicles more attractive and viable.

300 miles is a good size for a charge, what you actually need is fast charging available as widely as gasoline. There's a company called NedFast in the Netherlands who are rolling out their network of superfast chargers, and Tesla will eventually double the capacity of Superchargers.

If you can go from 20 per cent to 80-90 per cent charge in 15 minutes or so, that changes the game again.

This might do you perfectly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnkigJErMm4

BTW Tesla is now worth more than Daimler AG. Elon's little car company is worth a few billion more than the Mercedes Benz outfit....

Let us hope so for the jobs and to help our diminished industrial might. Without factory jobs, we are nothing as we have learned over the last thirty years or so.

Channex757 wrote:

300 miles is a good size for a charge, what you actually need is fast charging available as widely as gasoline. There's a company called NedFast in the Netherlands who are rolling out their network of superfast chargers, and Tesla will eventually double the capacity of Superchargers.

If you can go from 20 per cent to 80-90 per cent charge in 15 minutes or so, that changes the game again.

This might do you perfectly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnkigJErMm4

BTW Tesla is now worth more than Daimler AG. Elon's little car company is worth a few billion more than the Mercedes Benz outfit....

For how long?
production isn't really at 300k units per year ( as stated further up ) and it is going up and down.

I think Tesla will build in a (securely) right to work state. It is easier to train new people, even engineers and scientists, than it is to deal with the UAW. It is probably easier to design autonomous, long range electric cars than it is to negotiate with the UAW. That is one challenge I do not expect Elon Musk to beat.

Flighty wrote:

I think Tesla will build in a (securely) right to work state. It is easier to train new people, even engineers and scientists, than it is to deal with the UAW. It is probably easier to design autonomous, long range electric cars than it is to negotiate with the UAW. That is one challenge I do not expect Elon Musk to beat.

I've never really grasped all this animosity in the USA when unions are mentioned.

What Tesla could do is take on a plant and build cars, but not recognise the UAW. If that is actually feasible. Another union could be the official body for the location. There are several possible scenarios for buying factories in the former GM locations and trying to stop unwarranted production interference by militant unions.

That seems to be the issue here. The former GM factories being shuttered seem to be in Right To Strike locations. Are they worth Tesla's attention over a greenfield site in China or Alabama, for instance?

Channex757 wrote:

Flighty wrote:

I think Tesla will build in a (securely) right to work state. It is easier to train new people, even engineers and scientists, than it is to deal with the UAW. It is probably easier to design autonomous, long range electric cars than it is to negotiate with the UAW. That is one challenge I do not expect Elon Musk to beat.

I've never really grasped all this animosity in the USA when unions are mentioned.

What Tesla could do is take on a plant and build cars, but not recognise the UAW. If that is actually feasible. Another union could be the official body for the location. There are several possible scenarios for buying factories in the former GM locations and trying to stop unwarranted production interference by militant unions.

That seems to be the issue here. The former GM factories being shuttered seem to be in Right To Strike locations. Are they worth Tesla's attention over a greenfield site in China or Alabama, for instance?

I will explain it to you about Union Hatred here, Greed and avarice and the stupidity of those who support the greed and avarice. The Southern part of our country is known for it. Screw me, I like it.

GM could also not sell the plants, as that would be helping a mortal competitor !

Also to consider is Trump's continued threat of imposing high tariffs on European cars. If that happens, US made cars will be hit back with the same.

Channex757 wrote:

300 miles is a good size for a charge, what you actually need is fast charging available as widely as gasoline.

True but........

Channex757 wrote:

If you can go from 20 per cent to 80-90 per cent charge in 15 minutes or so, that changes the game again.

.........that's still not competitive, IMO anyway.

Even excluding acquisition (which in the real world, can't be ignored), what you'll need to finally tip the scales for those outside of the coastal big cities:
Electric cars designed such that regular everyday folks can easily eject a drained battery, then install a charged battery, such that their car gets an instant full charge in the same 3-5min it takes to fill up the gas tank.

Aesma wrote:

Also to consider is Trump's continued threat of imposing high tariffs on European cars. If that happens, US made cars will be hit back with the same.

They are "hit" already. And they've never been "unhit". Few sales.
BMW is the biggest car exporter in the US.
Tariffs? and they will close that part of their shop in the US

First order objective is protecting uncompetitive local producer. "voters" via the workforce.
This was done with steelproduction in the past.
It turned the US steel industry from lagging into fully uncompetitive.

Channex757 wrote:

Flighty wrote:

I think Tesla will build in a (securely) right to work state. It is easier to train new people, even engineers and scientists, than it is to deal with the UAW. It is probably easier to design autonomous, long range electric cars than it is to negotiate with the UAW. That is one challenge I do not expect Elon Musk to beat.

I've never really grasped all this animosity in the USA when unions are mentioned.

What Tesla could do is take on a plant and build cars, but not recognise the UAW. If that is actually feasible. Another union could be the official body for the location. There are several possible scenarios for buying factories in the former GM locations and trying to stop unwarranted production interference by militant unions.

That seems to be the issue here. The former GM factories being shuttered seem to be in Right To Strike locations. Are they worth Tesla's attention over a greenfield site in China or Alabama, for instance?

I try to be fair. Union organizing is a human right. I do not think closed shops are a human right. Far from it.

There was a time when Detroit was the world's wealthiest city. It was the silicon valley of the age. Workers took that structure for granted, including Detroit city workers. The only place that led to is bankruptcy and liquidation. My understanding is that British automakers had a similar experience.

I think well paying jobs is a great thing; in fact, I celebrate them.

LAX772LR wrote:

Even excluding acquisition (which in the real world, can't be ignored), what you'll need to finally tip the scales for those outside of the coastal big cities:
Electric cars designed such that regular everyday folks can easily eject a drained battery, then install a charged battery, such that their car gets an instant full charge in the same 3-5min it takes to fill up the gas tank.

Or....

I've seen proposals for a non-gasoline Range Extended drivetrain. A large battery plus a get-you-home hydrogen fuel cell. Most people will find it easy to live with the 400 miles of the Rivian or 300 miles of the Next Generation cars, but just in case there's a fuel cell available to get the driver home.

Charge times are actually not too bad. If you redesign the station to a rank of Supercharger type stalls, by the time you have gone into the shop and bought some stuff (and maybe even paid for your juice) that's ten minutes wasted. Another ten won't kill, and it's only going to get faster, Most people will charge at home anyway. Turn gas stations into genuine service stations and the whole system works as it can even be franchised with cafe facilities and small general stores.

Shell are dabbling with it in London for the new London Cab drivers to top up whilst working, although most find that vehicle to have adequate range.

Flighty wrote:

I think Tesla will build in a (securely) right to work state. It is easier to train new people, even engineers and scientists, than it is to deal with the UAW. It is probably easier to design autonomous, long range electric cars than it is to negotiate with the UAW. That is one challenge I do not expect Elon Musk to beat.

There is no law that you have to have the UAW at your plant in a non right to work state. Honda has managed just fine for decades in Ohio.

When looking at Detroit or any other union location I keep thinking back on how Henry Ford told people that he paid a good wage so his employees could buy the cars they built. We seemed rot have lost that thinking. Now we get propaganda about how nasty unions are. And at the same time companies are pushing down the buying power of low level workers, crushing pensions, cutting back support on health and significantly increasing the bonuses and other goodies at the top levels.

Personally I would Telsa negotiate a joint production agreement with GM, using GM's factories and production employees. GM had a similar agreement with Toyota years ago ao they should be available to work out a fair deal. It also gives Telsa the ability to establish service facilities all over the country - down to most mall towns. That also expands the potential scope of charging facilities throughout the country that the "recharging issue" dissipates tot he point that it no longer an issue.

While Telsa is an interesting option I believe that they need means of significantly improving (cutting) costs via economies of scale. At the top of the list for much higher volumes would be 2 or 3 SUVs. Ford and GM are already moving from sedans to SUVs. I drive a Buick Encore - cheap to drive. The. I had my upper right lobe cut out because of lung cancer the Encore was a blessing. Surgery on Monday morning and I moved to a rehab center Thursday morning, Pain level on a scale of 1 - 10 was 12.5 and I was loaded with pain meds. The dismissal staff at the hospital pushed the wheelchair to the passenger's door and I was able to stand, turn slightly and easily sit down. Same at the rehab facility. The staff was all over the place to help, but I turned with the help of the grab bar, stood and rotated slightly to sit down.

Ever since then I look at a lot of sedans, think they are very designed and would catch my eye when I was young. Now I could care less. I need ease of entry and exit, especially when going through some medical "challenges". I went years before needing that ease, but a lot of people hit that need when they were a lot younger.

I simply believe that the SUVs are gaining market share because they do add ease. They are more logical than a sedan which is why sedans might be loosing sales.

All this boils down to Tulsa needing SUVs in the line up. The 3 Buick SUV sizes are intelligent approaches and, since the two smaller Buicks are international cars, the two companies working together provides Telsa a lot of help in developing SUVs.

I'd also look at one size larger because of the increased space for luggage on a trip.

Channex757 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Even excluding acquisition (which in the real world, can't be ignored), what you'll need to finally tip the scales for those outside of the coastal big cities:
Electric cars designed such that regular everyday folks can easily eject a drained battery, then install a charged battery, such that their car gets an instant full charge in the same 3-5min it takes to fill up the gas tank.

Or....

I've seen proposals for a non-gasoline Range Extended drivetrain. A large battery plus a get-you-home hydrogen fuel cell. Most people will find it easy to live with the 400 miles of the Rivian or 300 miles of the Next Generation cars, but just in case there's a fuel cell available to get the driver home.

You're combining two expensive cars to make one uber expensive one. Long range electric car costs 50K minimum, fuel cell car costs 80K minimum.

I think range extension is a great concept, but do it like the Volt, with maybe a slightly bigger battery. Everyday trips all on battery, long trips gasoline hybrid.

In France there is a company working on a concept whereas you rent a gas engine on a trailer when you need longer range (Renault Zoe 4.0 has a WLTP range of 300km). The trailer is made for the Renault Zoe :

Aesma wrote:

In France there is a company working on a concept whereas you rent a gas engine on a trailer when you need longer range (Renault Zoe 4.0 has a WLTP range of 300km). The trailer is made for the Renault Zoe :

That is surely far less efficient than simply driving an ICE vehicle.

Ken777 wrote:

When looking at Detroit or any other union location I keep thinking back on how Henry Ford told people that he paid a good wage so his employees could buy the cars they built. We seemed rot have lost that thinking. Now we get propaganda about how nasty unions are.

I mean...I wouldn't exactly call Henry Ford a champion of workers' rights. Or really human rights for that matter.

Ken777 wrote:

When looking at Detroit or any other union location I keep thinking back on how Henry Ford told people that he paid a good wage so his employees could buy the cars they built. We seemed rot have lost that thinking. Now we get propaganda about how nasty unions are. And at the same time companies are pushing down the buying power of low level workers, crushing pensions, cutting back support on health and significantly increasing the bonuses and other goodies at the top levels.

Personally I would Telsa negotiate a joint production agreement with GM, using GM's factories and production employees. GM had a similar agreement with Toyota years ago ao they should be available to work out a fair deal. It also gives Telsa the ability to establish service facilities all over the country - down to most mall towns. That also expands the potential scope of charging facilities throughout the country that the "recharging issue" dissipates tot he point that it no longer an issue.

While Telsa is an interesting option I believe that they need means of significantly improving (cutting) costs via economies of scale. At the top of the list for much higher volumes would be 2 or 3 SUVs. Ford and GM are already moving from sedans to SUVs. I drive a Buick Encore - cheap to drive. The. I had my upper right lobe cut out because of lung cancer the Encore was a blessing. Surgery on Monday morning and I moved to a rehab center Thursday morning, Pain level on a scale of 1 - 10 was 12.5 and I was loaded with pain meds. The dismissal staff at the hospital pushed the wheelchair to the passenger's door and I was able to stand, turn slightly and easily sit down. Same at the rehab facility. The staff was all over the place to help, but I turned with the help of the grab bar, stood and rotated slightly to sit down.

Ever since then I look at a lot of sedans, think they are very designed and would catch my eye when I was young. Now I could care less. I need ease of entry and exit, especially when going through some medical "challenges". I went years before needing that ease, but a lot of people hit that need when they were a lot younger.

I simply believe that the SUVs are gaining market share because they do add ease. They are more logical than a sedan which is why sedans might be loosing sales.

All this boils down to Tulsa needing SUVs in the line up. The 3 Buick SUV sizes are intelligent approaches and, since the two smaller Buicks are international cars, the two companies working together provides Telsa a lot of help in developing SUVs.

I'd also look at one size larger because of the increased space for luggage on a trip.

Ken, I think you are right that Tesla is busily trying to improve their economies of scale! They are the first electric car company (except MAYBE Chevy Volt) to reach real production economies of scale on these battery cars. They are learning all the time and pushing hard.

They are expected to build out their new factory in Reno, NV to assemble the Model Y SUV in 2020. Also a factory in China.

You are not alone finding SUV is the right solution for your needs. Electric cars are still a gadget. For you or me, gasoline cars or SUVs can meet our "needs" at a lower cost (in your case, it really is a need). Wishing you health.

trpmb6 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

In France there is a company working on a concept whereas you rent a gas engine on a trailer when you need longer range (Renault Zoe 4.0 has a WLTP range of 300km). The trailer is made for the Renault Zoe :

That is surely far less efficient than simply driving an ICE vehicle.

Doesn´t have to be.

You have increased drag, but probably not much given the profile, and two more wheels for resistance, probably a fairly light trailer, so not that much either.

Compared to an ICE you get:

- Range extender can be optimized to one performance point
- Essentially a plug-in hybrid with most of the associated efficiency gains (ok, not that much on highways, but this isn´t for every day highway long haulers)

Compared to a long range electrical vehicle you get:

- likely much lower weight on almost all trips, since you don´t haul long range batteries everywhere you go.

Compared to a plug-in hybrid you get:

- no need to haul the ICE around everywhere you go.

The only problem would be that you probably can´t, at least certainly shouldn´t and very likely legally can´t drag that down a highway at 100 -125 miles/hour....

best regards
Thomas

It is very difficult to reuse a brownfield site under new ownership. You are forced to pay for decades of pollution clean up before you can rebuild. EPA will be breathing on your neck. Even if above ground plants look modern and clean, you don't want to know what is underground. I don't think incentives can offset the cost. Hamtramck started in 1985 and Lordstown in 1966.

BTW, Most are Right-to-work states.

Aesma wrote:

In France there is a company working on a concept whereas you rent a gas engine on a trailer when you need longer range (Renault Zoe 4.0 has a WLTP range of 300km). The trailer is made for the Renault Zoe :

Generators are the worst pollutants both in emissions and noise. Why would you haul it around and pollute along the way?

Chevy Volt still is a better option than all these concepts including charging networks and home chargers.

trpmb6 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

In France there is a company working on a concept whereas you rent a gas engine on a trailer when you need longer range (Renault Zoe 4.0 has a WLTP range of 300km). The trailer is made for the Renault Zoe :

That is surely far less efficient than simply driving an ICE vehicle.

I couldn't find efficiency numbers, but I guess it's less efficient, yes. The Nissan concept of giving Hertz points to Leaf buyers has some merit, getting you to rent an ICE vehicle when you need the range.

My parents' vacation home is 555Km away so that's something I consider when looking at electric cars. I don't necessarily need that range, but I need confidence I can make the trip. To be honest a PHEV with a smallish electric range makes the most sense for my use, as my everyday trips are quite short, so a big expensive battery would be a waste most of the time. However many PHEV vehicles are a bit limited in their electric power and top speed, the one that would satisfy me the most is quite ridiculously the Mitsubishi Outlander, and it's also one of the cheapest. Gas only efficiency is horrendous, though.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Aesma wrote:

In France there is a company working on a concept whereas you rent a gas engine on a trailer when you need longer range (Renault Zoe 4.0 has a WLTP range of 300km). The trailer is made for the Renault Zoe :

Generators are the worst pollutants both in emissions and noise. Why would you haul it around and pollute along the way?

A bit uninformed imho.
Smalish cheap petrol generators are the worst pollutants ...

you can have the generator run in its highest efficiency lowest pollutants optimax.

Place I worked for as a student ( mid 80ties) was big in permanent magnet motors driven by VFD electronics.
Beyond various applications they had an articulated city bus driven by wheel hug motors
with a golf diesel engine coupled to a generator and a rotating energy storage/recuperator operating in Starnberg.
Diesel was operating in optimax or was off.
Superclean.

I still think it is fair to say that a purpose built ICE vehicle with a high efficiency transmission is far more efficient than dragging along a generator to charge a battery.

trpmb6 wrote:

I still think it is fair to say that a purpose built ICE vehicle with a high efficiency transmission is far more efficient than dragging along a generator to charge a battery.

Tell that to BMW. Their i3 REX does just that, in range extender mode.

A small, lightweight gas engine running at its optimum speed to charge a battery is hugely more efficient than running a standard gas motor with a lossy transmission. That accelerator pedal isn't connected to the gas engine.

Most of the electricity should be used to drive the car not charge the battery, although it will do that too if there is any excess.

Aesma wrote:

Most of the electricity should be used to drive the car not charge the battery, although it will do that too if there is any excess.

But that is why hybrid cars are so economical. The battery acts as an energy buffer.

The more advanced hybrids do away with the gearbox altogether and use electric drive, which is even more efficient and can use constant speed in the gas unit to optimise fuel consumption.