2015 Tesla Model S 85d on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Silly dyno, that Tesla doesn't have 2,000 lb-ft of torque

Torque. Lots of torque, right off the line. That one benefit presented by an electric motor over its internal-combustion sibling, and the Tesla Model S delivers it in spades. 443 spades, to be precise, or about as much as a Bentley Continental GT or McLaren 12C. But when one Emmanuel Chang put his electric sedan on a dyno up (way up north) in Edmonton, Alberta, it registered a whopping 2,000 pound-feet!
Of course that number isn't correct, as no car on the road produces that much torque. Even a Bugatti Veyron produces "only" 1,000 lb-ft, give or take. Clearly something's amiss here, but the problem the dyno had in reading the Tesla's torque apparently doesn't come down to its electric powertrain. (Nor does it have anything to do with the northerly latitude or the interference of polar winds.) It comes down to the shiny, ten-spoke alloys.
Apparently this type of dyno measures torque by running horsepower and wheel revolutions through an algorithm. It measures horsepower at the wheel (which, at 436 hp, wasn't far off of Tesla's own rating of 416 hp) and uses a stationary optical sensor interfacing with a reflector on the wheel. Every time the reflector passes the sensor, it counts one revolution. But since the Model S has shiny ten-spoke wheels (and we presume because it was taken outdoors under bright sunlight), the sensor thought that each passing spoke was one revolution of the wheel... when it was, in fact, ten times too much.

The ugly economics of green vehicles

It's fair to say that most consumers would prefer a green vehicle, one that has a lower impact on the environment and goes easy on costly fuel (in all senses of the term). The problem is that most people can't – or won't – pay the price premium or put up with the compromises today's green cars demand. We're not all "cashed-up greenies." In 2013, the average selling price of a new vehicle was $32,086. The truth is that most Americans can't afford a new car, green or not. In 2013, the average selling price of a new vehicle was $32,086. According to a recent Federal Reserve study, the median income for American families was $46,700 in 2013, a five-percent decline from $49,000 in 2010. While $32,000 for a car may not sound like a lot to some, it's about $630 a month financing for 48 months, assuming the buyer can come up with a $6,400 down payment. And that doesn't include gas, insurance, taxes, maintenance and all the rest. It's no wonder that a recent study showed that the average family could afford a new car in only one of 25 major US cities. AutoTrader conducted a recent survey of 1,900 millennials (those born between 1980 and 2000) about their new and used car buying habits. Isabelle Helms, AutoTrader's vice president of research, said millennials are "big on small" vehicles, which tend to be more affordable. Millennials also yearn for alternative-powered vehicles, but "they generally can't afford them." When it comes to the actual behavior of consumers, the operative word is "affordable," not "green." In 2012, US new car sales rose to 14.5 million. But according to Manheim Research, at 40.5 million units, used car sales were almost three times as great. While the days of the smoke-belching beater are mostly gone, it's a safe bet that the used cars are far less green in terms of gas mileage, emissions, new technology, etc., than new ones. Who Pays the Freight? Green cars, particularly alternative-fuel green cars, cost more than their conventional gas-powered siblings. A previous article discussed how escalating costs and limited utility drove me away from leasing a hydrogen fuel cell-powered Hyundai Tucson, which at $50,000, was nearly twice the cost of the equivalent gas-powered version. In Hyundai's defense, it's fair to ask who should pay the costs of developing and implementing new technology vehicles and the infrastructure to support them.

Is Tesla quietly sitting on 3,000 cars?

Tesla's 2014 third quarter financial report mixed some positive news with gloomy messages. On one hand, the electric carmaker posted its best quarter ever in terms of deliveries, including its best single day with 907 EVs delivered. The company also announced expanded production to get even more vehicles out the door by the end of 2015. However, the Model X got delayed yet again and higher prices in Europe were mulled. Dousing the results with a bit more cold water, a Merrill Lynch investor letter claims there's more to be pessimistic about the business than meets the eye.
The Daily Kanban, quoting research meant for Merrill Lynch clients, claims that Tesla had "approximately 3K vehicles stocked in inventory or in transit" at the end of the Q3. That's a fairly large number considering that the company reports selling 7,785 units for the whole quarter. The statement is also surprising because the automaker has a reputation for keeping excess supply low, and there are allegedly waiting lists for Model S sedans. CEO Elon Musk maintains that the automaker has a problem being able to keep up with high demand, as well.
According to Daily Kanban, the letter further states, "China is proving to be more challenging for Tesla to penetrate than expected." The automaker does not break out sales by region in its Q3 financials to check this assertion, however, the company does report the recently opened store in Shenzhen is one of its top-grossing stores worldwide and that there are now 23 Supercharger locations in 10 Chinese cities.