Elon Musk tweeted that the Tesla Model 3 drive unit and body is designed like a commercial truck for a million-mile life. Current battery modules should last 300k to 500k miles (1500 cycles). Replacing modules (not pack) will only cost $5000 to $7000.
The Tesla Model 3 will keep going and going like the Energizer Bunny for a million-mile life. This would be five times more than regular cars which usually fail before 200,000 miles.
It should only cost about $12,000 for two battery pack replacements to enable a Tesla Model 3 to last 1 million miles.
In July 2018, Tesloop, a Tesla taxi company, said a Model S cars had passed the 400,000-mile mark and they expect it to last another 600,000 miles.
Self-driving cars may also increase vehicle life expectancy by reducing accidents. The biggest safety flaw in automobiles is human drivers: Ninety-four percent of crashes are due to human error according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Autonomous cars are meant to react faster than people and the vehicles’ cameras and sensors allow them to see more of the road, all of which could reduce accidents by 90 percent.
Model 3 drive unit & body is designed like a commercial truck for a million mile life. Current battery modules should last 300k to 500k miles (1500 cycles). Replacing modules (not pack) will only cost $5k to $7k.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 13, 2019
The average Uber ride costs $2 per mile today. Regular cars usually last for about 200,000 miles. A taxi based on regular cars could charge $1 per mile and generate $200,000 in revenue over their lifetime. A Tesla Model 3 would be able to generate $1 million in revenue with $49,000-62,000 in cost (assuming a $37,000-50,000 price and $12,000 for two battery pack replacements).
SOURCES- Twitter Elon Musk, AARP
Written By Brian Wang
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
A late reply, but never the less:
“Integral differential” (“with what?”)
… with the motor-and-tranmission itself.
“No need for a torque converter” (“but isn’t it sturdy?”)
… nominally, yes. But it has seals, liquids, things to eventually leak, oxidize, degrade, fail…
“No separate transmission housing”
… drop “housing”, and it makes more sense.
“ Coaxial differential drive shafts”
… is not much of a point.
“¼ to ⅛ the engine-transmission-linkage volume”
… because virtually all e-cars have fixed one-ratio gearboxes. No complex assortment of toothed shafts, multiple gears, yada, yada.
“ Inertial energy recovery “for free” “
… OK, its about efficiency
“No idling rotation decoupling requirement” (“how does this improve…?”)
… eliminates torque converter; indirectly, super-high torque DC motor eliminates multiple ratio gearbox.
“Pulsed compliance joints nearly-eliminated” (“what is this?”)
… All those pops of the cylinders… requires elastic(-ish) joints and high torque moment compliant intersystem gaskets.
________________________________________
Anyway, I think most of the points remain valid.
Just saying,
GoatGuy ✓
“No gravitational operation preference (upside down is fine)”
(10) OK, but surely this does not affect reliability?
“Entirely re-manufacturable (bearings, gaskets, perm magnets)”
(11) Why should there be any difference between the degree of remanufacturing between an IC-car and an EV-car?
“Emissionless operation Lack of increasingly caustic operating fluids”
(12) Not relevant for reliability
If we sum this up, we have a lot of points where it is not apparent that EVs are gaining something from reliability (1) (3) (4) (10), points that not relevant for reliability (7) (10) (12), points that are simply not clear (5) (6) (8) (9) and points where the logical explanation is lacking (11). It is also a question of just how often these parts break down..
Don’t get me wrong, I would like for EVs to be vastly more reliable compared to IC-cars, and there seems to be an “edge” for the former, but the difference does not seem to be very big…
A late reply, but never the less:
“Integral differential”
(1) Integral with what? And why should an integral differential be less prone to failures than a separate differential? Presumably, it’s the gears or bearing themselves that malfunction, not the shell..?
“No mechanical / electrical shift linkages”
(2) Sure, no gearbox no need for a shift linkage
“No need for a torque converter”
(3) Sure, but isn’t the torque converter sturdy, since a fluid is transmitting the torque (no wear)?
“No separate transmission housing”
(4) You are talking about the passive shell surrounding the torque converter / clutch. Does this really break often?
“ Coaxial differential drive shafts”
(5) I don’t really get any hits on this when I google. What is this, and how is it relevant?
“1/4 to 1/8 the engine-transmission-linkage volume”
(6) Why would it be smaller, and what is it?
“ Inertial energy recovery ”for free” “
(7) Yeah, but we are talking reliability, not energy efficiency…
“No idling rotation decoupling requirement”
(8) How would this increase the reliability of the EV? Could be, but it is not clear just from listing it…
“Pulsed compliance joints nearly-eliminated”
(9) OK, what is this? A way to glue surfaces? And why is this relevant and why would EVs have less of it?
5 Amazing Flying Cars You Must See What Rule The World In Future. 9:15
Switching to aluminum did not improve the fuel mileage much, and it cost them a lot. They got 1.5mpg improvement (16.85mpg-15.35mpg) based on the 4 years before the change and 4 years after on Fuely involving data for more than 100,000,000 miles. I am all for using lighter materials, but they needed to do this hydraulic thing instead…aluminum or titanium later. The fuel improvement with the hybrid would have been massive. Even if they only got 30mpg, it would have nearly doubled the fuel mileage. I also like the idea of a carbon fiber backbone. That can save a lot of weight. But the aluminum saved them 707lb (they claim slightly more, but the engines are not the same). Though, some weight savings was from a stronger steel lighter frame. They made it 13% lighter and got 9% fuel savings. So weight is not the biggest factor. The biggest gains are to be had in the powertrain, unsprung weight, and aerodynamics. 30-40mpg would have given them 70% of the market, I think. I believe they would now be selling over 2 million F-150s a year. The World might even want them. Yes, they could have done both, but converting to aluminum was very expensive. I read it somewhere but could not find the figure. I think it was well over a billion dollars and they lost a lot of sales while they were retooling. And there was a modest backlash at first, as aluminum does not have a good reputation…and people were hesitant. I think it has proven itself, and the buyers are OK with it.
I drive a Volvo 740.
It has the B230 “redblock” motor, which is good for 500k miles w/o a rebuild. With a rebuild, it can run for 500k more.
The weak point in the drivetrain is the transmission. It is only good for 300k miles. I have spares.
They are rustproofed to last. My 26 y/o car is just now starting to show some rust which I will fix.
Million mile cars were made in the 80’s and 90’s. It’s not difficult. You just have to design and build for them.
Your point falls into the former catagory. manufacturing ease, this is not just about the workers, its about having a reliable, high degree of quality control and repeatability. that is why tabs and pre-drilled holes are used. because those are stamped out and do not rely on worker skill. replacing a skilled worker is a huge deal, replacing a plastic tab is not.
They still find defects of course, like with any process but every effort is made on the front end to minimize issues like that. to the detriment of the final owner sure…but noone will complain if its 5 grand cheaper because of simplified manufacturing process using a line worker with 2 years training instead of 10 years training.
I’m not sure it would cost any more to use screws in the case of automotive interiors. All that stuff(dash, headers, console, trim) is installed by people, and lining up screws with holes, or just installing self drilling, tapping screws is easier than lining up tabs with slots, which is how most car interiors are secured. Then there is the chance that after the assembly line, the interior must be disassembled to correct a manufacturing. It’s defect, or install something missing at manufacture. It’s not unusual for a plastic tab to break during disassembly. I used to work in a truck manufacturing plant, and there was a whole department called “offline” dedicated to finding defects, and correcting them before delivery.
Also, it’s completely compatible with changing to Al. No reason you can’t do both.
Obviously you do one, get the sales bump, and then do the other when it seems appropriate. So maybe Ford WILL roll hydraulic hybrids out at some point.
they should be, but they are instead designed for 2 things, manufacturing ease and manufacturing cost. customers are unwilling, on average to pay the premium that would be needed to think about easy consumer maintenence.
I’d say it would be already a huge mercy for most customers if only interior cosmetic maintenance was needed between 100k mile battery evaluations. stereos etc. come from a day when car technology moved much slower than consumer electronics, we may actually be seeing the reverse situation with Teslas.
If true, he should be fired, technically.
Car companies deliberately make cars that obsolesce a lot sooner in order to sell more. It is his fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to do the same at Tesla. I suppose sales for taxis and ridesharing could be models that last longer, as those are capital expenses for the business involved. But that much longer is financial and market suicide for Tesla and it’s well-connected-with-Congress competitors.
Yes. I had forgotten. That was one of the things I liked about it. It was just a different transmission and should have been easy to substitute.
Ford should have just bought the other companies involved. It would have cost far less than converting to aluminum. And they would have sold a lot more F-150s. And of course they could have put this tech in other vehicles like SUVs, vans, larger pickups with little or no modifications to the transmission.
I wish Tesla would do something like DeLorean did with stainless steel body, but with stainless steel interior too, except for the seats. My butt couldn’t take that for hours on end. It would be nearly indestructible.
Something that has always bothered me about car interiors. I hate that fasteners are not easily accessible. It would be nice to be able to easily take apart the dash to replace malfunctioning instruments, install a stereo, or a sun damaged dashboard. Cars should be designed so they are easily repaired.
Nah, get some after market seats from Recaro. They’re better than any OEM. Just joking, They’re way overpriced. Seriously, unless you get them from a scrapyard, you’ll be able to buy better aftermarket seats for less than from Tesla. There’s a more or less standard steel frame you put on the floor of the car, and bolt seats to it.
Another downside to having motors in the wheels is the significant increase in unsprung weight it entails. The higher the unsprung mass the worse pretty much every aspect of vehicle performance becomes. That’s why manufacturer’s strive to keep unsprung mass as low as possible.
Maybe in-wheel motor architecture could become a hit with rural off-road vehicle drivers, by increasing reliability and reducing maintenance costs.
That is an excellent video.
Privately made youtube educational videos are one of the best things about the 21st century so far.
That ford hydraulic hybrid had nothing to do with transmitting power to the wheels with hydraulics. The article shows a picture and labels the old fashioned rotating steel shafts running to each wheel.
the hydraulic motor is safely within the automatic gearbox.
From the GM website “At General Motors, we are in the midst of a company transformation to win in our core automotive business and the future of personal mobility. Our vision is to create a world with Zero Crashes, Zero Emissions and Zero Congestion. The latest step in this journey is the development of our next-generation battery electric vehicle architecture, which will pave the way for General Motors’ all-electric future.”
Yes, AEVs can reduce crashes by 90%, eliminate emissions and end traffic congestion. Traffic congestion will be virtually eliminated because at times of peak traffic, rideshare can reduce car numbers by 50% and, as well, roads have vehicle capacity trebled when all traffic is autonomous vehicle. The future of most transit looks bleak. Hooray!
The only weirder accident would probably involved some exotic $500,000 sports car…
Ford claimed 40 mpg from a hydraulic research F-150, so there must be a way to make this reasonably efficient. https://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/02/ford-f-150-used-to-develop-40-mpg-hydraulic-hybrid-powertrain.html
A big chunk of that was regeneration, but they also said “The gain is not as much on the highway, but it’s significantly better.”
I don’t know how much is lost in a regular drivetrain not counting the engine, but it probably is not massive. If the hydraulic system is “significantly better”, I think that means hydraulic is not too bad.
I also find it very disappointing that they did not put this into production.
Be serious. I could make up a description for such a threefold-death for a petrol car if I wanted to. But I won’t because it’s just childish.
Subways still have the advantage of not using the roads. In a crowded city that can give significantly faster travel times compared to a car, no matter who or what is driving said car.
To some extent this is becoming true of buses too, because of the rise of bus lanes. But this is really a government intervention, which you just barred.
The actual Elon quote in the article says that the driveline is specced like a commercial truck and that is why it should last 1000000 miles.
Tesla isn’t saying that the driveline/wheels etc will last longer than a car because it is electric or autonomous (NOT the same thing, why do people use this as a synonym?) but they are saying they will last the same distance as a truck, because it is a truck spec part.
On the other hand I am with you on stuff like door handles and window winders. Having spent yesterday evening taking one apart to try to work out what was wrong… it seemed like sagging hinges causes the door to sag down which causes the lock mechanism to move up which caused the handle rod to come off the handle which then got jammed in the window lifter and pushed the glass out of the rails which caused…..
At no point was the engine type a factor.
Integral differential
No mechanical / electrical shift linkages
No need for a torque converter
No separate transmission housing
Coaxial differential drive shafts
1/4 to 1/8 the engine-transmission-linkage volume
Inertial energy recovery ”for free”
No idling rotation decoupling requirement
Pulsed compliance joints nearly-eliminated
Reduction in count of subsystem sensors
And certain benefits that are harder to value…
No gravitational operation preference (upside down is fine)
Entirely re-manufacturable (bearings, gaskets, perm magnets)
Emissionless operation
Lack of increasingly caustic operating fluids
Dunno… apart from that, not much I guess.
GoatGuy
This should save me and even potentially make me some bucks in the long run although I doubt I will let my baby be abused in a tesla robotaxi network.
Not my field, but could electric-pneumatic overcome the problems of leaky hydraulics? Could still leak, but it would be a lot cleaner and easier to repair. Don’t know about transmission loss comparison though.
Good luck getting parts or service on a Tesla after its out of warranty.
Do take a look at this video.
It is actually excellent.
And … “exciting”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APhRPSdmdmk
The fellow that made the video is seriously handicapped, still his presentation is great.
Hmmm… I’m many things, but not an electromagnetic motor expert. While I understand how reluctance motors work, the reluctance effect is one very much analogous to frictional brake-pad action, turning work into heat. Same for the RM. For modest sized motors, the surface area is high enough and thermal conductivity high enough that for reasonable power-dwell cycling, overheating is mostly avoided. But scale that and things get out of hand.
The significant upside of using REMs (rare earth magnets), is that the field-energy they store is heat-free. No need to induce an electric current in the rotor in order to build the magnetic field upon which the stator coils can push/pull the rotor around. Less losses, less heating, higher efficiency, larger opportunity to make a compact multi-hundred-kilowatt motor.
Just noting
GoatGuy
Well, the motor on my car has never broken down, but the CV-joint has, as has the steering column, so I’m not sure that replacing the ICE with an electric motor would do. Of course, this may be an atypical pattern, and most cars might statistically have an engine problem before having a problem with the suspension, steering system, brakes and CV-joints.
Data on the frequency of malfunctions could answer this problem. All I have to offer, is that the most frequent reason for break downs of the S60 volvo some ~20 years ago was indeed the front CV-joints. This only proves that this was the dominant problem for some car at some time.
Goatguy, what exacly is the simplification of the electrical drive train compared to the ICE drive train? No gearbox, only a permanent reduction, yes.. What else?
I like your idea, but I see two drawbacks. One is the reduced system efficiency, and the other is the high pressure hydraulics.
Let us assume we don’t go above 100 bars. Would a 1-inch diameter pressure hose be sufficient to produce 50 kW in one wheel? Well, inch (interior diameter) pressure hose would have ~5 cm2 cross section. Each cm2 would be “pushed” by 1000 N (~100 bars) so the whole hydraulic surface would push with 5000 N. Now, you need 50 kW ==> 50 000 NM/s ==> hydraulic surface moves with a speed of 10 m per second. Or, equivalently, each wheel hub would receive 5 litres of fluid per second (and 5 litres would be pumped away). This might be feasible, but it still “feels” a bit on the high side.
Would it be possible have a “reduction” of the “turbine” in the wheel that allows for fairly high RPM (1280) at a flow of 5 liters per second of hydraulic fluid? Well, you would have to “consume” 0,23 liters per turn, while at the same time being able to produce more than 1250 NM of torque @100 bars. Possible? Don’t know.
One thing is for sure. Torque vectoring might be difficult. If you want to increase the pressure from 50 to, say, 90 bars within a fraction of a second to increase the RPM of one wheel, it’s going to be difficult. Tubes will flex and it will be difficult to control your hydraulic pump so rapidly (or at least I think).
Break is what you meant, not brake.
However, the number of things to break is so much fewer on the powertrain of an electric car that it statistically has a lower likelihood — absolute — that it’ll require an unending string of expensive mechanical failures and/or remediations.
The point that you make about “other things” breaking down at a frequency not-dissimilar to conventional ICE cars is likely. I personally know 5 Model S owners, 3 model 3 owners and quite a few Chevy Bolt owners. Electric window malfunction isn’t uncommon, as well as idiosyncracies of the heater/AC functions and post-going-thru-huge-puddles ventilation problems. They’re still working those kinks out.
Just saying,
GoatGuy ✓
There is yet another way to produce more torque. Use a version of a portal gear drive, where you attach a smaller diameter electrical motor to the portal gears directly. Sure, the portal gears also weigh something (increased unsprung mass), but at least you would have solved the problem of insufficient torque…
Would the “disk” motor work? Or would the lack of “thickness” in the disks increase the induced current resistive losses to to untenable levels? Hard to tell, but I don’t think anybody really tried to make an electric motor with enormous torque and moderate speed. You could always attach a cheap reduction to a fast motor… I don’t think we have seen the final answer to the question of how much torque an electrical motor in this limited volume can produce.
I don’t think the lack of torque is a problem, really, but the cost might be. The protean drive can deliver 1250 NM per wheel, which equates to (assume 85 cm diameter wheel) a maximum of 2940 N of maximum force per wheel. Put on four such wheels on a 2300 kg vehicle, and you can climb about 45 degree slopes or accelerate with 0.5 g. Not bad, if you ask me.
Is there any way to reduce the weight and increase the torque of the in wheel electric motor? Well, you cannot increase the diameter, but you might be able to increase the magnet area. You could, for instance, make a reluctance motor where the round aluminum core would be replaced by, say, 5 “slices”. Each slice would resemble the disk of a disk brake. You would then have “interdigital” electromagnets between the “disks” to produce the rotating magnetic field. This geometry would increase the magnetic area from 2pi*R*width = 2*3.14*0.3m*0.1m = 0.19m2 to 2x5xpi*[Rout^2-Rin^2] = 2*5*3.14*[0.3^2-0.1^2] = 2.51 m2 (I have counted the disk area twice since there is a magnet on both sides). As you see, this change in geometry would increase the area by a factor of more than 10 (and presumably, the maximum torque by a factor of 10). Also, using a reluctance motor would dispense with all the rare earth magnets, and produce a large cooling surface.
Uh… no. For many reasons.
№ 1, hydraulic energy delivery requires pumping high pressure fluid thru pipes; economics require the pipes to be fairly narrow in cross-section; narrow pipes introduce a substantial amount of flow-resistance through viscous turbulent hydrodynamics.
№ 2, hydraulic motors are NOT “continuously variable” ratio devices. They can be “stepped” in a way analogous to conventional multispeed transmissions by having N expansion sections on the same shaft, and switching the flow to 1, 2, 3 … n sections in steps. The more sections at the same time, the higher the mechanical ratio (and slower the RPM) of the motor stage. However, trying to coax continuously variable mechanical leverage out of these things entails very-high turbulence hydraulic fluid flow … which generates a LOT of heat, which is an engineering challenge to slough off.
№ 3, coupling an electric high-RPM motor directly to a wheel drive differential is basically trivial; modulating the motor’s field windings to give any-RPM variable torque force is electronically quite straight forward. The net result is that with near-zero mechanical transmissions losses, high RPM motors “mate” quite well with either 2 or 4 wheel drive mechanisms. Near-zero maintenance as well.
Just saying,
GoatGuy ✓
The reason (discussed with a Tesla insider) most of the electric-car companies don’t use in-wheel motors is because they require much larger powerful rare-earth magnetic fields, one of the most expensive components of the modern generations of traction motors. Tesla, Chevy, Leaf and so on utilize smaller motors which can really take advantage of high RPMs to deliver their astounding motive power.
At 100 MPH, the Tesla Model 3 motor is spinning at over 11,500 RPM. (9:1 ratio, 2.1 m/revolution tires, 44 m/s groundspeed). By comparison, the in-wheel motors would only be revolving 1280 RPM. Since power (as opposed to torque) is related to rotational rate × torque, well … the torque would have to be that much higher to produce the same propulsive power. And in at least 2 if not 4 of the wheels.
I just spent an afternoon driving around in a Chevy Bolt. What a fun car. I think electric cars are really the best answer for the future of driving. However, the industry really needs to deliver on super-rapid recharging. I’m not sure how they’re going to go about it, as unlike liquid fuels (which common pumps squirt out at well over 10,000 “miles per hour”), just trickle out of power lines so weakly. Even the vaunted SuperCharge stations don’t squeak out more than 300 miles per hour of charge time.
Just saying,
GoatGuy ✓
I got an email today stating that Model 3 leasing is now available. Based on that, production must be exceeding sales, as profit on sales is universally higher. Used EVs have notoriously low resale relative to new price, so leases are likely to yield low profits.
The average model 3 drive train(polyphase motor/inverter) will last far more than 1 million miles. By charging slowly(avoid supercharging, and extending overnight charge time), limiting charge level to between 25%, and 75% of true battery capacity(the car limits maximum and minimum charge level itself), and avoiding high temperatures(avoid parking in the sun on hot days), the battery pack should last longer than Musk’s estimate which likely assumes these guidelines won’t be followed.
There are all sorts of interesting implications if taxi/ridesharing fares get anywhere near that low. For one thing, it basically kills mass transit, baring outside government intervention; who would ride the bus or subway when the ride share is cheaper & more convenient? Exisiting ride sharing services are already taking a bite out of mass transit as it stands. It also will cause significant changes to car ownership patterns; while the peak use issue will probably cause most households to still want at least one car, it will increase the number of people who choose not to buy a car, and also cause households to owner fewer cars; no need to buy a teenager a beater car if they can cheaply Uber.
The inverter-polyphase motor powertrain of a modern EV is nearly the same as what drives the spindles of modern CNC machine tools. Automotive drives are much higher power, but other than that the similarity is striking.
Machine tools like this can operate three shifts a day seven days a week for years with minimum preventative maintenance, like changing hydraulic oil, and cutting fluids, cleaning heat exchangers, and checking axes for backlash, and repeatability, and checking cooling fans for operation. By keeping the machinery cool, ideally operating in an airconditioned, dust free shop, and keeping heat rejection heat exchangers clean, and the electronics in the control cabinets cool, and dry by keeping the doors closed, a modern CNC lathe can easily run around the clock for a decade.
When they do require repair, failures of spindle or axis controllers are rare, with about half of the failures due to lightning strikes, failures of the motor almost never occur. Problems that require repair are generally with covers inside the machining area that keep coolant, and metal chips confined, indexing tool turrets, or tool changers and magazines.
Based on this, a properly maintained, and thus cool EV drive train would last millions of miles. The drive train in these cars will be the last thing to go.
seems appropriate that a young yuppee urbianite would sacrife themselves to the wicker burning man god of the celts by driving a tesla…
An alternative that should avoid all these issues would be electric-hydraulic. Hydraulic motors are efficient and very light, you don’t need axles, differentials, CV-joints, and you can run the whole thing off one electric motor, or whatever number you want.
There would be more mechanical loss moving fluid around, but you also get your unsprung mass down and your electric motor(s) is jostled less. You should still be able to near instantly control the power to each wheel. But it also would cost more than an in-wheel motor set up. And there are more things that can go wrong.
If you are driving on very smooth roads with in-wheel motors, the added unsprung mass should not be terrible on range. If the roads in your area are not so wonderful, your losses could be large.
The cool thing about a tesla, is the 3-fold death: Its the only car that I know of where you can be: crushed, burnt alive, and electrocuted all at the same time.
Probably the same thing as a detailing. They are not going to put in new seats and carpet for $200.
@rderkis
Be that as it may, electric drive train is not a prerequisite of autonomous cars. If you are correct, then any autonomous car – EV or ICE – will have better longevity than car driven by a human. But how large would this difference be? By the way, tires should not last longer due to regenerative breaking. Brakes, yes, tires no. Also, do you have any source quantifying how much of the wear of a typical car is due to abuse and how much is due to normal-use-wear? Another point is that city driving is not yet autonomous in a tesla, and that is where you have a lot of breaking, accelerating and turning, i.e. wear.
Also, my point is that Tesla engineers do not manufacture ALL the mechanical parts (or correct me if I am wrong). And all the myriad of other mechanical parts are just as likely to break in a tesla as in an ICE car, since they come from the same (external) manufacturers. Right?
So the chassis, motor, power electronics and battery – that they do design and manufacture – could have a fantastic quality, but suspension, differentials, CV-joints, steering column, brake disks, window lifts, headlights, doors, trunk, side mirrors, roof hatch, etc would have the same quality as in any other car. I.e. a tesla should have about the same quality as a run of the mill ICE…
@Jay Jay
Is the combustion engine really the main source of vibrations in the car? And if so, are these vibrations really the main source of wear?
I have a hard time believing that engine vibrations are the main source of wear for the CV-joint. At least for the wheels, the main source of vibration *must* be the road, and the CV-joints are connected to the wheels. The differential is simply worn out by material grating against each other. No difference electric/combustion engine. And what about the steering column, are you saying it would be worn in a different manner in an EV..? Doors? Doesn’t make sense.
And what about electric components? I would figure that all electric motors in the window lifts are worn our by overheating in the windings, not by vibrations from the combustion engine. So there seems to be no difference between the electrical car and the combustion engine car.
Jay Jay, please site a source for your claim that the lack of vibration in an EV will make it last longer. Your comment doesn’t make sense.
Not to say your wrong but I don’t think your any more knowledgeable than me on the subject. The autonomous car drives safer and I am guessing that because it is autonomous it will be much gentler on a car. For example why do you need wipers? And brakes and tires will last longer without a human unintentionally abusing them.
Brakes and tires will last longer with regenerative braking. Etc.
And lastly if things are engineered with real quality in mind, like Tesla engineers try to do they can last a LOT longer.
Hope it does. Will save me a lot of dough.
During the 2020s, there will be considerable downward pressure on AEV taxi fares. $1 per mile fares maybe be OK for now but not for long. Uber expects AEV taxi fares will drop to under $0.50 per mile. For 2030, I expect AEV taxi fares to be approximately $0.20 per mile. For 2030, RethinkX in their 2017 report titled Rethinking Transport 2020-2030 expect AEV taxi fares to cost approximately $0.16 per mile. Also, in their report RethinkX expect that rideshare fares could be under $0.10 per mile.
Nope, they don’t have contained explosions trying the rattle the car apart – BEV will last considerably longer than an ICE car.
The electric motor by itself can have a fantastic service life, and that is why I believe that there is potential for electric cars to last a long time. But, as I mentioned in my last post, there are so many mechanical and electrical parts in a car that can brake down, that this would hardly make any difference.
But what if you used in wheel motors? I know about the unsprung mass problem, but in wheel motors now weigh about 35 kg, which is more than a regular wheel assembly (about 20 kg?), but still not so much that it cannot be accepted. Using in wheel motors would eliminate axles, differentials, CV-joints. As an added benefit, you could make an SUV with very high ground clearance since you do not have an axle to the wheel. The wheel-hub could be on a “pillar”.
The only drawback (besides the unsprung mass issue) is the low guaranteed design life of a in wheel motor. Protean designs their in wheel motors for 300 000 km only. But then again, if you could have 300 000 km absolutely hassle free, with no break downs…. I’d go for it.
Lots of other things brake. Take CV-joints, for instance. Does Tesla design and manufacture their own CV-joints? No? What about suspension? Electric window lifts? Locks on the doors? And even the 4 wheel drive Teslas don’t have 4 motors, which means that there is a differential coupling that can get worn out. How about this detail?
So, a Tesla will probably brake down just as often as a regular car. But I am willing to be corrected, if there is any empirical user cost analysis of Teslas versus regular cars.
If interior gets dirty theres something called a “recond”.. for $200.
Seats should smell lovely after 1,000,000 miles. You generally need new seats and carpet after 400,000 miles, or you are just driving in filth. My sister had a pickup with million miles…stunk unbelievably.
Maybe buy the replacement seats early and save them. You never know when a model will be discontinued. Maybe 2 driver seats.
Seat belts get grungy too. There is probably some way to clean them.
Keep the windshield wipers fresh, so the windshield will last.
Most people who buy Teslas have good money and would not put up with filth and would just get a fresh one after 3-10 years.
Sounds like a great used car though as long as the owner did not go to the gym every day and not shower and change until they got home.