Tesla Model S, Third Fire

[Robomeds]

Greetings EEVBees:

--There have been a lot of good facts and sources provided in this thread, thanks all. But, to my mind there have been some sociopolitical arguments, which attempt to do magic hand waving over the simple economics of the situation, with inferences like: 1)The USA would not need defense or diplomacy except for ICEs. 2)Energy Companies enjoy a net subsidy which is a loss for the government, so EVs should also be subsidized. Both of the propositions are risible in content and conclusion. And, for Pete's sake! Are people really arguing that the $7,500 grows on trees? So Tesla tax credits are not subsidies, and grow on trees, but Energy Company tax credits are subsidies, and do not grow on trees. Alice! I told you not to clean that damn large mirror at the end of the hall so well! If the EV fundamentalists are relying on this kind of argument, they must really be clutching at straws. This is politics, not mathamatics, it is not even wrong. If it were not for US oil importation the Jehadi's would not be killing anyone. Really? I guess the Western Countries should immediately leave any place that Al Qaeda demands.

--Musk's efforts are very, very interesting. Please read R.A. Heinlein's "The Man Who Sold The Moon". I hope he is successful in all of his endevors. I would love for him to sell millions of Ss. His natural customers are fairly well to do Car Nuts, and EEs. And they get a benefit they would not get if buying a $100,000 boat. I.E. a pass from the Environmental Hand Wringers, and the usual "Filthy Rich" vapor attack. Any argument that tax credits do not have to be added to the debit side of the balance sheet is pure casuistry. However, I do not fault Musk for their existence, other than as voter, perhaps.

--With regard to the numerous contentions that wars and diplomacy are caused by ICEs, I would remind our gentle readers of a couple of things:
1) It is not the Energy Companies, nor economic conservatives who have at every turn stopped, or tried to stop all drilling, mining, pumping and damming in the US.
2) Iraq War I, was fought to get Saddam out of Kuwait, and protect Saudi Arabia, & the Emirates from threatened attack. Involved was a lot more than just the energy supply of the US, it threatened a sudden, chaotic and possibly catastrophic turnover of World Order
3) Iraq War II was fought in part because Saddam was stealing billions a year by selling oil off the books, and by stealing the funds from the Oil For Food program. The torture, rape rooms and brutal reppression of the Kurds (1/3 of the population) continued apace. All these things Iraq agreed not to do as part of the UN Brokered peace settlement. Congress voted on it, twice, and the present (Kerry) and the previous (Rodham-Clinton) Secretary of State, voted yes.
4) Afghanistan, which even President Obama stated was a no choice war, had a lot more to do with 911 than energy policy.

--With regard to stated opinions that, EVs should be subsidized because two Car Companies and the Large Banks were bailed out: This kind of economic activity by the Government (Remember President Elect Obama was demanding that these things be done), is not capitalism, it is more akin to Socialism, or Fascism to be exact. These are not policies advocated by the so called "Small Government Yahoos". Subsidizing the EV because the USA screwed the bond holders, gave 30% of the company to the UAW, then ate 10,000,000,000 in stock losses, seems to me like advocating another stupid, prodigal policy on the basis of foolish consistency.

"Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused. But on a higher level."
Enrico Fermi 1901 - 1954

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[Corporate666]

Are you kidding?!  Do you really think buyers of $70k (base) cars don't pay at least $7500 in federal income taxes each year?   

I know at least two people who own Teslas who didn't get the tax break - so there goes your theory.  One is a retired dot-commer and the other is a marketing guy @ a silicon valley startup who is paid mostly in stock options and has enough deductions (mortgage interest, 4 kids, one with a serious medical condition) that he didn't get the full tax credit.  Point is, you are repeating the $7500 number as if it was a cost per unit that the government pays.  That is wrong, and we both know it.

You are also wrong that a tax credit doesn't result in more costs to the rest of the tax base. 
http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2013/06/new_hampshire_court_agrees_tax.php#.Uru3r7Rn2ZE
The Court sensibly notes that if “money that would otherwise be flowing to the government is diverted” for private ends, that is essentially the same as direct government spending. This shouldn’t be news to anyone familiar with the “tax expenditure” concept—the notion that a $1 million tax break for a specific business is not meaningfully different from government writing a $1 million check to the same business.
The courts don't agree with you.  They agree with me. 

 

You are wrong.  A New Hampshire court is irrelevant to federal taxation issues.  The Supreme Court has already ruled that your stance is wrong, and they are the law of the land. 

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/04/07/the-supreme-court-says-tax-expenditures-aren%E2%80%99t-government-spending/

"Third, there are other errors in your logic - specifically that the $7500 tax credit means a reduction of $7500 in income.  It doesn't... "
No, this is not what I said.  The tax credit means a reduction in the tax bill of $7500.  So if I make say $100k and my tax bill is say $33k then with the $7.5k credit my net tax bill is $25.5k.  What you described is a deduction.  That is my real income is $100k but my taxable income is $92.5k thus I pay ~$31k in taxes. 

You didn't understand what I wrote.  I refer to a $7500 reduction in the *government's* income, which is incorrect.  The erroneous belief is that if the tax credit didn't exist, the government would have $7500 * [#of EV's sold] in additional income.  That is incorrect, as I have repeatedly stated, for two reasons.  First, it is not $7500 per vehicle, and second, one cannot assume either that the $7500 would have been received as tax income or that the economic activity generated by the purchase did not lead to additional revenue for the government.

"  That economic activity leads to substantial revenue for the government "
Here you are getting into picking the winners and losers.  Yes, Tesla so far isn't in the loser camp but what about all those "green" companies that were?  Can we the tax payers have Tesla cover some of those loses?  My argument isn't against Tesla so much as various state and federal governments using public money to help pet companies/technologies.

Additional revenue for the government has nothing to do with picking winners and losers.  The "up to $7500" credit occurs only upon ~$100k worth of economic activity.  Bleating about the $7500 without acknowledging the resulting activity is being disingenuous.

-The tax credit fuels economic activity which would not otherwise have taken place, and that economic activity further reduces the net "cost" of the tax credit, perhaps and even likely into a net positive ROI for the government."
You asked me to prove things.  Well prove that Tesla needs my money to survive.  If we are going to use my money to invest in risky companies I'm going to want VC type terms so I can have the one success cover the several losses.

The reality is that the tax credit costs something like $7.5 billion over 7 years, which works out to about $7 per working household.  Considering that "the rich" pay an massively proportion of all taxes, the vast majority of people complaining about the tax credit are - at best - putting a couple of dollars per year into the program - and that is only if one ignores the resulting economic activity they are getting in return.

I can just as easily say that if I am going to be subsidizing your mortgage that I expect to get free room and board whenever I am in your city, or that if I am going to subsidize your children's education, I expect free labor from them on weekends, or if I am going to subsidize your tax obligations, I should get a chunk of your estate when you die.

[BravoV]

... it threatened a sudden, chaotic and possibly catastrophic turnover of World Order

Yeah .. right, the World Order in the eyes of the biggest gun holder. 

... The torture, rape rooms and brutal reppression of the Kurds (1/3 of the population) continued apace.

Huh ? Kurds ? Since when you care for Kurds ? Do you mean like you do for Jews in Israel ? 

I mean since the Jews experienced hell times with the Nazi very similar to the Kurds, so I assume you will give the same TLC treatment to the Kurds which endured harder & longer times than Nazi period, am I right ?    ... lol

... Afghanistan, which even President Obama stated was a no choice war, had a lot more to do with 911 than energy policy.

C'mon, don't be so thick, its all about securing high value strategic spot which happened to be very close to these bad boys, namely Iran (obviously) and of course with these so called "The PRIMEs" ... China & Russia. 
Also the best part is, its in the heart of "Central" Asia.

Of course the best spot for handling The PRIMEs is Mongolia, but unfortunately its so damn hard, almost impossible I'd say.

See the spot there ? You don't need to be a genius to recognize that particular location is really good one.   

[Corporate666]

I have to laugh at this tripe.  I know Dave doesn't want to turn this place into a political forum, but sometimes bullshit just needs to be called out 

--With regard to the numerous contentions that wars and diplomacy are caused by ICEs, I would remind our gentle readers of a couple of things:
2) Iraq War I, was fought to get Saddam out of Kuwait, and protect Saudi Arabia, & the Emirates from threatened attack. Involved was a lot more than just the energy supply of the US, it threatened a sudden, chaotic and possibly catastrophic turnover of World Order

Yes, Iraq and Kuwait - two major players in the World Order... god help us if those two started fighting, it was definitely a clear and present danger to the USA!  Not.

3) Iraq War II was fought in part because Saddam was stealing billions a year by selling oil off the books, and by stealing the funds from the Oil For Food program. The torture, rape rooms and brutal reppression of the Kurds (1/3 of the population) continued apace. All these things Iraq agreed not to do as part of the UN Brokered peace settlement. Congress voted on it, twice, and the present (Kerry) and the previous (Rodham-Clinton) Secretary of State, voted yes.

Yes, we care a lot about brutality of dictators - except when we are the ones giving Saddam the chemical weapons and telling them where to use them for maximum death and mayhem.  And the torture and rape rooms are atrocious - I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis we killed (many/most of them civilians) are very happy that we got rid of those torture rooms. 

4) Afghanistan, which even President Obama stated was a no choice war, had a lot more to do with 911 than energy policy.

Yes, thank god it was "mission accomplished" shortly after it started and we were able to bring all our boys and girls back home... oh, wait...

--With regard to stated opinions that, EVs should be subsidized because two Car Companies and the Large Banks were bailed out: This kind of economic activity by the Government (Remember President Elect Obama was demanding that these things be done), is not capitalism, it is more akin to Socialism, or Fascism to be exact. These are not policies advocated by the so called "Small Government Yahoos". Subsidizing the EV because the USA screwed the bond holders, gave 30% of the company to the UAW, then ate 10,000,000,000 in stock losses, seems to me like advocating another stupid, prodigal policy on the basis of foolish consistency.

I don't think you quite know what the words socialism and fascism mean.  Socialism is co-operative ownership of the means of production.  Considering the US Gov't took a minority stake in GM of around 25%, which they then dropped to 19%, then to 7% and just a few weeks who dropped to 0%, you'll have a hard time with the "GM bailout = socialism!" angle.

As for the facism angle, that's even less of a starter, I'm afraid.  Fascism is generally extreme right-wing totalitarian/authoritarian control of the populace.  I doubt you could call Obama an extreme right wing type - and you also forget that it was GW Bush that initially bailed out the automarkers by "playing fast and loose with the law" and taking $17 billion in TARP money and giving it to GM/Chrysler.

You also probably don't know that GM generates over $135 billion per year in state and federal revenues (over $90b state, over $45b federal)... so despite the government taking a loss of around $25b on the GM investments, the net/net was overwhelmingly positive.

And that illustrates exactly the problem with tax credit complaining... it focuses on one side of the equation while ignoring the other.

[Robomeds]

I know at least two people who own Teslas who didn't get the tax break - so there goes your theory.  One is a retired dot-commer and the other is a marketing guy @ a silicon valley startup who is paid mostly in stock options and has enough deductions (mortgage interest, 4 kids, one with a serious medical condition) that he didn't get the full tax credit.  Point is, you are repeating the $7500 number as if it was a cost per unit that the government pays.  That is wrong, and we both know it.

If you read what I wrote I did acknowledge that some wouldn't and gave an example (someone who lives off of savings).  Do you honestly believe that is the rule rather than the exception?

You are wrong.  A New Hampshire court is irrelevant to federal taxation issues.  The Supreme Court has already ruled that your stance is wrong, and they are the law of the land. 

Actually I am correct.  The SC cases didn't address if a granted tax credit effectively reduces government revenue.  The NH case did.  If you want to make your claim you need to find a relevant case. 

You didn't understand what I wrote.

You were not clear.

I refer to a $7500 reduction in the *government's* income, which is incorrect.  The erroneous belief is that if the tax credit didn't exist, the government would have $7500 * [#of EV's sold] in additional income.  That is incorrect, as I have repeatedly stated, for two reasons.  First, it is not $7500 per vehicle, and second, one cannot assume either that the $7500 would have been received as tax income or that the economic activity generated by the purchase did not lead to additional revenue for the government.

You are correct that the average will be something less than $7500 ($7490?  $3000?) but unless you can show that on average it is significantly less I think the argument is trivial.  Actually I think one can assume that, at least the buyer would have had to hand that money over.  What you are attempting to argue is an acceleration type principle based on the sale of the car.  Can you show that the same acceleration wouldn't have occurred without the subsidy?

Additional revenue for the government has nothing to do with picking winners and losers.  The "up to $7500" credit occurs only upon ~$100k worth of economic activity.  Bleating about the $7500 without acknowledging the resulting activity is being disingenuous.

Let's not use a condescending tone. 
You are trying to justify the subsidy by claiming it's for the overall good of the economy.  Is it?  Can you show that?  Why is it better to give the buyer that subsidy vs lower the taxes for all?

The reality is that the tax credit costs something like $7.5 billion over 7 years, which works out to about $7 per working household.  Considering that "the rich" pay an massively proportion of all taxes, the vast majority of people complaining about the tax credit are - at best - putting a couple of dollars per year into the program - and that is only if one ignores the resulting economic activity they are getting in return.

So because they only take $7 per household it's OK?  Why don't we not take that $7 and let the cars sink or swim on their own merits?

I can just as easily say that if I am going to be subsidizing your mortgage that I expect to get free room and board whenever I am in your city, or that if I am going to subsidize your children's education, I expect free labor from them on weekends, or if I am going to subsidize your tax obligations, I should get a chunk of your estate when you die.

Actually you are half right.  You are subsidizing people's mortgages but expecting to stay is not reasonable.  I'm not certain it's a good idea to subsidize mortgages either.  I think overall we would be far better if on all levels governments in this country stopped trying to do such things.  However, that is a different topic. 

Anyway, I don't like the non-civil tone you have taken.  It's late.  I'm done. 

[peter.mitchell]

You own a Tesla?

....doesn't mention the single best thing about the car....

Damn that thing looks beautiful!

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

As for the facism angle, that's even less of a starter, I'm afraid.  Fascism is generally extreme right-wing totalitarian/authoritarian control of the populace.  I doubt you could call Obama an extreme right wing type ...and you also forget that it was GW Bush that initially bailed out the automarkers by "playing fast and loose with the law" and taking $17 billion in TARP money and giving it to GM/Chrysler.

--You wish. So I am the first one to get political in this thread. You wish. Leaving aside for the moment the argument about how Fascism is right wing even though for a time it was allied withe the National Socialist Workers Party of the Third Reich and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and Mussolini's statement that "I will always be a Socialist, let  me address the part of your statement about George Bush. If you read my post more carefully you will see that I said "Remember President Elect Obama was demanding that these things be done". This statement does not really comport with your contention that I forgot that Bush was President when the TARP legislation was passed. No cigar. It was not a conservative thing to do, even though O and B were greasing the rails

--The best definition of Fascist State is: One where Government and Business combine to rule. This is why large corporations are in favor of more onerous regulations and politically correct, interpretations of law. It hurts small businesses more than large, and closes Mom and Pop while leaving the big players on the field. How about expanding upon the concept that tax credits are only subsidies when given to Energy Companies.

"In choosing a hypothesis there is no virtue in being timid. I clearly would have been burned at the stake in another age."
Thomas Gold 1920 - 2004

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[EEVblog]

Stick with talking about EV's please everyone. (EV government politics is ok of course)

[dr.diesel]

If you can't beat them, buy them right?

"Veteran trader Yra Harris of Praxis Trading told CNBC this week that he predicts
Tesla may be sold to General Motors in the coming year."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/12/26/gm-ford-tesla/4208273/

Oh boy, wouldn't be too surprised if it actually happened.

[tom66]

I would be quite surprised and seriously hope that does not happen. GM appears to screw up new technology too easily. I think they'd screw up Tesla. Of course GM could try hostile take over, but Tesla's market cap is $18bn. That is a very expensive purchase. (Do they put up 50% or 100%?)

Of all companies to buy Tesla, it would probably be Google, due to their self driving car, but that seems remote anyway, more likely just a partnership (Tesla licensing the Google self-drive system), can't see Google actually wanting to be in the car business.

[free_electron]

  The Tesla is an impressive product.  Too bad they aren't doing it without forcing the non-buyers to help those buying luxury cars.

I will go on calling you out spreading falsehoods.
Read your own post.

And i quote: " the tesla is an impressive product. Too bad they aren't doing it without forcing "

From the way you write this 'they' implies 'tesla' and that is not true!  Tesla doesn't force anyone.
This is a federal government program for ALL electric vehicles.

I didn't say Tesla was forcing this.

will your read your own damn post ? How much clearer does it need to be ?

 

.  What I did say was we the public are helping pay for your car via the tax credits and other incentives/government programs such as the EV credits CA is forcing on car makers (a stupid program from day one). 

yes, i agree to that. But you can't blame Tesla or the other EV makers for that , government decision. That is where you need to be yelli at. Not at the car makers.

So let's be clear.  Tesla is ONLY profitable because various government mandates are supporting the company.

Looks like you need to learn some basic math.
So tesla is profitable because there is a 7500$ tax return ? It doesnt even cover the sales tax!
What you are saying is that:
 number of cars x refund is larger than number of cars x sales price ?
30.000 x 7500 is larger than 30.000 x 100.000 ?
Besides, it aint tesla that gets that 7500. It is money RETURNED to the buyer, that was paid by the buyer in the firstplace. You can only claim it one year later.

[Robomeds]

  The Tesla is an impressive product.  Too bad they aren't doing it without forcing the non-buyers to help those buying luxury cars.

I will go on calling you out spreading falsehoods.
Read your own post.

And i quote: " the tesla is an impressive product. Too bad they aren't doing it without forcing "

From the way you write this 'they' implies 'tesla' and that is not true!  Tesla doesn't force anyone.
This is a federal government program for ALL electric vehicles.

I didn't say Tesla was forcing this.

will your read your own damn post ? How much clearer does it need to be ?

 

.  What I did say was we the public are helping pay for your car via the tax credits and other incentives/government programs such as the EV credits CA is forcing on car makers (a stupid program from day one). 

yes, i agree to that. But you can't blame Tesla or the other EV makers for that , government decision. That is where you need to be yelli at. Not at the car makers.

So let's be clear.  Tesla is ONLY profitable because various government mandates are supporting the company.

Looks like you need to learn some basic math.
So tesla is profitable because there is a 7500$ tax return ? It doesnt even cover the sales tax!
What you are saying is that:
 number of cars x refund is larger than number of cars x sales price ?
30.000 x 7500 is larger than 30.000 x 100.000 ?
Besides, it aint tesla that gets that 7500. It is money RETURNED to the buyer, that was paid by the buyer in the firstplace. You can only claim it one year later.

I'm sorry you are unable to have a civil conversation.  Even worst given that you are wrong and apparently unable to read.  Tesla is profitable because they can sell EV credits thanks to CA.  The $7500 doesn't go to Tesla but it does help sales by reducing the cost of the car to the buyer. 
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/tesla-q2-second-quarter-earnings-elon-musk-subsidies

Since you can afford the car I'm assuming you have skills at something.  Economics apparently is not that something.

[nctnico]

Stay away from coal you must. With electricity generated from coal an EV emits around to 250grams of CO2 per km. As a comparison: my 14 year old diesel car (with a 2 liter engine) produces around 140 grams per km. With the new emission limits in Europe new ICE cars may emit around 90 grams of CO2 per km on average (efficient and less efficient cars combined). Even in areas where electricity production is relatively clean an EV produces 110 grams of CO2 per km. If an EV is supposed to be 'green'  it must be powered from low emission electricity.

I already showed earlier in this thread that the above is bullshit... it's unfortunate that I provided sources and documents to back it up yet you continue to repeat this fallacy knowing it is untrue.

You continue saying my energy bill, CO2 taxes and the EPA efficiency numbers are wrong. The math (you don't seem to get) is really simple: According to the EPA an EV uses about 225Wh per km. Its easy to translate that to a CO2 footprint based on the amount of CO2 needed for 1 kWh. Then compare with CO2 emissions from cars. That is exactly what I'm doing based on real numbers.

[SeanB]

I will say a little on the tax question that IIRC you pay this money up front ( or you have it as part of a loan that you are paying off at whatever rate you got, but the motor dealership got the money up front) and then, 6 months to a year later you fill in your taxes, send them in to the IRS, and then a few weeks, months later you get the final assessment from them with either a request to cough up more money ( my friend just got his love note to pay a shed load more than the rebate in question, with a note saying pay in 30 days or else we come and fetch it and chuck you in jail as a bonus), or you get a note back saying we owe you something, and will pay it at our leisure in the next 6 months or so. Thus you have given the government a 6 month to 2 year loan at ZERO interest, which they in turn used to buy down debt, run departments and fight a war or three around the world. the promise note will be carried over to the next tax period, and will gradually become zero. Not likely that you will actually get cash money out of it, just a little bit of accounting.

BTW Vince, congrats on your new wheels, wish they were available in RHD and sold in Elon's home country. If he needs a few test drivers he can contact me with a loaner.

[tom66]

Tesla Model S coming to UK, with RHD, in 2014. Better start saving up... uh, and get a licence...  Pricing starts at £50k, quite a bit more than US versions...

It'd be nice to see Top Gear give it a fair review, unlike the Roadster. I don't think they can avoid it, given it's outsold so many other cars in its segment, it will most likely do the same in the UK. Hopefully, they will introduce supercharging in the UK before the review. I think the 60kWh is most likely to sell well in UK given the range is sufficient for a London to Leeds route (one I do frequently) with a quick ~20min supercharge at Nottingham/Leicester, for example. I would also like to see a 40kWh option for the UK (as a low-distance city car), but I see that as being unlikely given Tesla have announced no plans.

[nctnico]

Rumor has it that Top Gear has been forbidden to test a Model-S by Elon Musk himself otherwise it would have been around the track already. Ofcourse the moronic test methods of Top Gear will reveal some flaws  I already see Mr. Clarkson trying to deal with the big touchpanel and ending up on some pron site
The previous tests with EVs where not very positive. Ofcourse its funny to watch them looking for a power outlet to charge the car and finding out that it will take hours before they can continue. For an informative review you have to go somewhere else.

[M. András]

Rumor has it that Top Gear has been forbidden to test a Model-S by Elon Musk himself otherwise it would have been around the track already. Ofcourse the moronic test methods of Top Gear will reveal some flaws  I already see Mr. Clarkson trying to deal with the big touchpanel and ending up on some pron site
The previous tests with EVs where not very positive. Ofcourse its funny to watch them looking for a power outlet to charge the car and finding out that it will take hourse before they can continue. For an informative review you have to go somewhere else.

well good luck finding an independent car magazine or test driver to test out cars who tests out every bad and good aspects of the cars

[tom66]

Clarkson used to be like this on EVs: they're slow, you can't use the window wipers you'll run the battery down, they take ages to charge, and they only go 60 miles. On the Nissan Leaf / Peugeot iOn (=i-MiEV) demo they mocked up a 12 hr charge going all around a city and seeing sights... in reality with a fast charger at any CHAdeMO Nissan dealership it would do 30~40 minutes but let's not go there.

The Tesla S85 has enough range to go from London to Leeds with some spare. It can charge 150 miles in 20 mins. It can out accelerate and out run an AM Rapide S... it's not a slow car. Awesome traction control and ABS using regen features. And it has a friggin punked up iPad on the dash. It's a tech geek car, Clarkson does not like so much tech in his vehicles.
 
Ultimately TG is an entertainment show so they will do what pleases the viewers... but TG USA did have a positive review of the Model S and I think the tides are changing... one can only hope... a positive review of the Tesla on UK TopGear gives great credence to an EV future.

Being forbidden to test drive is nothing... Chyrsler didn't want TG to test a new car... Hammond bought one with his own money and kept it after the review... Bentley pulled out on the Albanian bank robbery and TG pretended a Yugo was the same... they will just rent a Model S for the shooting from an owner or luxury car rental or whatever...

[zapta]

Same here, a significant number (1000s) of people do not have garages and park on the street.

So what's your point?
These people don't buy an EV, easy.
My garage is pretty small, so I was limited to buying a car that fitted. It was the main buying decision.
I don't know why people who's lifestyles and usage scenario don't fit EV's, use this as an excuse to complain that EV's are crap.

His point is that the EV approach and over night charging is non scaleable, and thus not an ultimate solution as the proponents claim.

(clarifying his point, not opining on its merit).

[EEVblog]

Rumor has it that Top Gear has been forbidden to test a Model-S by Elon Musk himself otherwise it would have been around the track already.

Yes, and I don't blame them. Because with the Telsa roadster they tested previously, they were fraudulent in showing that the car ran out of battery on the track. It didn't, that part was scripted, and tesla have the proof because they have the car logs. So viewers though the roadster was crap and the share price dropped as a result. They tried to get TG to not show the video again, but they refused.

[mikeselectricstuff]

It can charge 150 miles in 20 mins.

From what size of outlet....?

[tom66]

It can charge 150 miles in 20 mins.

From what size of outlet....?

BS1363 with 400A fuse?
Or 400VDC high current... it's compatible with chademo but only up to 50kW and good luck finding one of those.

[Rufus]

Rumor has it that Top Gear has been forbidden to test a Model-S by Elon Musk himself otherwise it would have been around the track already.

Yes, and I don't blame them. Because with the Telsa roadster they tested previously, they were fraudulent in showing that the car ran out of battery on the track. It didn't, that part was scripted, and tesla have the proof because they have the car logs. So viewers though the roadster was crap and the share price dropped as a result. They tried to get TG to not show the video again, but they refused.

They took TG to court, lost, and paid the BBC £100,000 in costs because the court thought the TG depiction of a 55 mile range thrashing around a track and what happens when the battery runs out was accurate regardless of them not actually letting the battery completely run out.

[tom66]

I don't even know if it's possible to do what Top Gear suggest. To only get 55 miles from the pack means that you have discharged at over 1000Wh/mile (it's a 53kWh pack.) If you are travelling at say, an average speed of 55mph (to make math easier), this is over 55kW continuous. I recall the early Roadster shown in the video was a prototype which is limited by its air cooled motor. 55kW continuous is very hard to achieve without the power limiter kicking in (this was improved in the later versions of the car and also in the Model S but still exists to an extent.) But without Tesla revealing the logs it's only speculation.

It's possible to only get 70 miles out of a Roadster if you drive at 120 mph continuously, or less than that with constant acceleration and braking. But that's unrealistic for real world driving, and that's what Tesla were upset over. Ultimately, Top Gear is an entertainment program, but people trust them for reviews, and I enjoy watching it myself... though personally Clarkson has always annoyed me, it's him just playing a character more than himself.

Take an ordinary petrol car to a track and drive aggressively, you'll get short range too. The difference is you can fill up the range quickly on a petrol car. Improvements in charging, and battery swap (if Tesla actually builds one I'll be surprised) may narrow this gap, but it's simply a limitation of EVs.  Doesn't mean they should be dismissed outright given all of their advantages over ICEs, including, zero gear shift, insane power for cost of motor (and with falling cost in batteries, overall), high torque at 0RPM (electronically limited to prevent gearbox damage!), and convenient recharge at home. Plus, of course, they're potentially greener and emit zero emission at the tail pipe, in the very least, better for city environments.

This is why we will still have ICEs even when 99% of the world is driving an EV (2050~2075?)

[EEVblog]

I don't even know if it's possible to do what Top Gear suggest. To only get 55 miles from the pack means that you have discharged at over 1000Wh/mile (it's a 53kWh pack.) If you are travelling at say, an average speed of 55mph (to make math easier), this is over 55kW continuous. I recall the early Roadster shown in the video was a prototype which is limited by its air cooled motor. 55kW continuous is very hard to achieve without the power limiter kicking in (this was improved in the later versions of the car and also in the Model S but still exists to an extent.) But without Tesla revealing the logs it's only speculation.

Tesla have stated that none of the two cars provided ever got below 25% battery capacity.