Lexus needs to Stop BS-ing around
#1
Lexus needs to Stop BS-ing around
Make a electric car already. Enough with this hybrid nickel metal nonsense. Home come Tesla can get it done? How come Lightning GT in England will have Lithium-Titanate batteries that have no overheating hazard, can be charged up in 10 minutes, and drive the car for 250 miles???
Toyota, look at Lightning GT, put that same technology in the LFA, make it a electric supercar and you will have a huge hit. Yeah the Lithium Titanate batteries cost a ton now because they are not mass produced yet. Yeah the 100% electric LFA would cost $300,000. So? It will probably cost that much anyway while making Putin richer and polluting the air.
Enough already. Make an electric supercar and a Rolls Royce competing electric limo by putting the same 700 horse power electric motor with Lithium Titanate batteries in a large size luxo sedan.
You would instantly be a revolutionary company. Yes, even more than you are now. Huge hit everywhere. Get it done. If you won't, my next car will be a Tesla Model S, not a Lexus.
Toyota, look at Lightning GT, put that same technology in the LFA, make it a electric supercar and you will have a huge hit. Yeah the Lithium Titanate batteries cost a ton now because they are not mass produced yet. Yeah the 100% electric LFA would cost $300,000. So? It will probably cost that much anyway while making Putin richer and polluting the air.
Enough already. Make an electric supercar and a Rolls Royce competing electric limo by putting the same 700 horse power electric motor with Lithium Titanate batteries in a large size luxo sedan.
You would instantly be a revolutionary company. Yes, even more than you are now. Huge hit everywhere. Get it done. If you won't, my next car will be a Tesla Model S, not a Lexus.
#3
Tesla and especially Lightning are niche car makers and their combined car sales so far are not even close to 1,000 units annually (I think Lightning GT and Venturi Fetish have yet to deliver a car to their first customers) so they can do something like that.
In order for Lexus to make mainstream EV that will sell in hundred of thousands yearly they need to do A LOT of testing because they cant afford mistakes and huge recalls. But believe it they are already doing all kinds of tests, they are not sitting still on this issue.
In order for Lexus to make mainstream EV that will sell in hundred of thousands yearly they need to do A LOT of testing because they cant afford mistakes and huge recalls. But believe it they are already doing all kinds of tests, they are not sitting still on this issue.
#6
Yes they never needed the Detroit offices at all. They have enough orders and there new sedan they are coming out with. OTOH look at Aptera taking orders and Integrity building a new plant in Tennessee both electric cars. I went to order with Aptera and was turned down Reason California is first.
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think you mean the COMPETITION needs to stop BSing around. Lexus is first with luxury hybrids, first with all this new tech and making the most advanced cars in the world. No one else is even close. The HS250h will only extend this.
Toyota only has one plug in car in Japan for testing pretty much. We don't have the tech to make a mass produced electric car that is affordable yet.
Toyota only has one plug in car in Japan for testing pretty much. We don't have the tech to make a mass produced electric car that is affordable yet.
Trending Topics
#8
I've read a couple of articles recently that said Tesla is really struggling and there are questions as to whether or not they're going to make it. They've only delivered 60 of the 1,200 cars that have been ordered.
#9
funny i come across this.. i was listening to the morning show at work and they brought up that it is almost nearly impossible for us (toronto at least) to switch over to electric cars altogether.. apparently the generators are in cool down mode over night and with everyone charging their cars while they sleep the system will overload.. to accommodate for it, it will cost "billions of dollars in infrastructure upgrades just to get 10% of the driving population to be able to drive electric cars"
then again.. we have to start somewhere
then again.. we have to start somewhere
#10
The infra structure in the US isn't that much better for an electric car either. What I see to be accepted is the development of a self contained power source that can be "re-fueled" in a similar manner as we visit a gas station. In-out. Battery wors fine in conjunction with a gas motor for now. So better alternate fuels will continue to promote this type of layout.
With as many drivers there are...the dense areas will likely have problems with electricity demands. A summer in So. Cal with heat and a bunch of plug-in...that would bring us many power outages. I can hear...re-set your thermostat and don't charge your car on these days.
With as many drivers there are...the dense areas will likely have problems with electricity demands. A summer in So. Cal with heat and a bunch of plug-in...that would bring us many power outages. I can hear...re-set your thermostat and don't charge your car on these days.
#13
Isn't Tesla on the verge of bankruptcy? Yup!
Making a technology possible is a lot different than bringing it into production, selling a lot of them, and actually bringing in necessary profit.
Toyota could make an all electric car but bringing it to market at a realistic price is a whole other story.
Just look at the Volt. Looking at about $40K and GM will still lose money on it.
There's a reason these cars aren't on every street.
#15
Some information on the aforementioned Tesla...
The New York Times
November 30, 2008
Digital Domain
Only the Rich Can Afford It. Should Taxpayers Back It?
By RANDALL STROSS
THE Tesla Roadster is an electric car that goes fast, looks sensational and excites envy. The seductive appearance, however, obscures some inconvenient truths: its all-electric technology remains woefully immature and don’t-even-ask expensive. If enough billionaires step forward to inject additional capital to keep the doors of its manufacturer, Tesla Motors, open, I’m happy for all parties.
If investors pass up the opportunity, however, why should taxpayers fork over the capital that Tesla needs? The Roadster is not much more than a functioning concept car that sells for $109,000. The company is requesting $400 million in low-interest federal loans as part of the $25 billion loan package for the auto industry passed by Congress last year.
The program is intended to encourage automakers to improve fuel efficiency, but should it be used for a purpose like this, as the 2008 Bailout of Very, Very High-Net-Worth Individuals Who Invested in Tesla Motors Act? Can you conceive any way that federal dollars could be put at greater risk — and for no equity in return, keep in mind — to benefit fewer people?
Tesla Motors, a privately held company based in San Carlos, Calif., has spent almost all of the $145 million in capital it has raised to date. It says it will soon receive another round of $40 million from its private investors to sustain operations.
In the start-up ecosystem of Silicon Valley these would be respectably large numbers, but in the automotive world, fully developing an entirely new line of technology can easily run $1 billion. That is what General Motors’ first attempt at an electric vehicle, the EV1, was estimated to have cost to develop in the 1990s.
Tesla says it cannot move forward on plans to bring out a second-generation car, a less expensive sedan seating five, without federal funds. It’s also counting on rapid improvements in the core component of its powertrain — a thousand-pound pack of lithium-ion batteries — but such improvements don’t happen at the pace Tesla needs them to happen.
Tesla’s backers in Silicon Valley can be forgiven for hoping for a miraculous technical breakthrough, because Moore’s Law makes miracles appear in the Valley every day: costs drop by half every two years, again and again and again. The law is actually a rule of thumb, not a scientific law, and is based on the recurring doubling of transistors placed on an integrated circuit.
Unfortunately for Tesla, batteries are based on chemistry and have nothing to do with Moore’s Law. Lawrence H. Dubois, chief technology officer at ATMI, a semiconductor industry supplier, said, “With batteries, you can’t just squeeze more energy into a smaller and smaller space the way you can squeeze more transistors.”
Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla, said his company would benefit from what he called “a weak Moore’s Law,” referring to the 8 percent annual improvements in the price performance of lithium-ion batteries. But 8 percent, compounded, would bring too few benefits, too late to Tesla: it would take nine years to halve the price of its battery pack.
The company would not be saddled with such costly components had it not elected to pursue a design that endows its car with both high performance and a long range between charges — 244 miles, Tesla says. Earlier this month at the Los Angeles auto show, BMW unveiled its all-electric Mini E, with a smaller battery, a motor with about 20 percent less horsepower than Tesla’s and a shorter range, 150 miles. BMW believes that current technologies used in the all-electric vehicles have not been tested enough in real conditions to be ready to be sold to the public. It will begin by leasing for one year a fleet of 500 Mini E’s for $850 a month each. At the end of the lease term, the cars will be returned to BMW for testing.
Tesla would have needed a much smaller battery pack had it forsaken the all-electric design and instead offered a plug-in hybrid, a more affordable design that many auto manufacturers are readying for production, like that for the Chevrolet Volt. An electric motor provides the primary motive force, and a small internal combustion engine serves as an auxiliary source of power to extend the range that the car can go between charges. The battery need be no bigger than what is necessary to provide enough juice to go 40 miles, the maximum daily round-trip commuting distance for 78 percent of surveyed households, according to a widely quoted Department of Transportation study in 2003.
Tesla pitches all-electric cars as the greenest form of personal transportation, eliminating vehicle emissions and helping to wean the United States from its dependence on foreign oil. The cars reduce air pollution indirectly, to whatever degree the power generation on the grid uses energy sources other than coal. And for households that install their own power-generating solar panels, electric cars can rightfully claim to attain truly zero emissions today.
LAST week, I visited the Tesla showroom in Menlo Park, Calif., and took the Roadster out on the highway. As I headed back to the showroom and waited at red lights, ready to hit the accelerator and fly, I realized that I was experiencing a guilty pleasure derived not just from the speed available at my touch but also from temporarily possessing something that shouted to the world its exclusiveness.
Tesla says it is assembling about 15 cars a week and has delivered only about 80 to date. Many of those have gone to the Valley’s billionaires and centimillionaires who are Tesla investors as well as early customers; these include Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the co-founders of Google, and Jeff Skoll, co-founder of eBay. The company’s principal financier is Mr. Musk, who attained considerable wealth as a co-founder of PayPal.
I wonder how Tesla’s course has been influenced by at least some of its investors being helplessly smitten by the world’s quietest dragster.
Mr. Musk said: “I’m not doing this because I think the world has a shortage of sports cars.” But his customers must be loaded with green in order to go green.
Randall Stross is an author based in Silicon Valley and a professor of business at San Jose State University. E-mail: stross@nytimes.com.
November 30, 2008
Digital Domain
Only the Rich Can Afford It. Should Taxpayers Back It?
By RANDALL STROSS
THE Tesla Roadster is an electric car that goes fast, looks sensational and excites envy. The seductive appearance, however, obscures some inconvenient truths: its all-electric technology remains woefully immature and don’t-even-ask expensive. If enough billionaires step forward to inject additional capital to keep the doors of its manufacturer, Tesla Motors, open, I’m happy for all parties.
If investors pass up the opportunity, however, why should taxpayers fork over the capital that Tesla needs? The Roadster is not much more than a functioning concept car that sells for $109,000. The company is requesting $400 million in low-interest federal loans as part of the $25 billion loan package for the auto industry passed by Congress last year.
The program is intended to encourage automakers to improve fuel efficiency, but should it be used for a purpose like this, as the 2008 Bailout of Very, Very High-Net-Worth Individuals Who Invested in Tesla Motors Act? Can you conceive any way that federal dollars could be put at greater risk — and for no equity in return, keep in mind — to benefit fewer people?
Tesla Motors, a privately held company based in San Carlos, Calif., has spent almost all of the $145 million in capital it has raised to date. It says it will soon receive another round of $40 million from its private investors to sustain operations.
In the start-up ecosystem of Silicon Valley these would be respectably large numbers, but in the automotive world, fully developing an entirely new line of technology can easily run $1 billion. That is what General Motors’ first attempt at an electric vehicle, the EV1, was estimated to have cost to develop in the 1990s.
Tesla says it cannot move forward on plans to bring out a second-generation car, a less expensive sedan seating five, without federal funds. It’s also counting on rapid improvements in the core component of its powertrain — a thousand-pound pack of lithium-ion batteries — but such improvements don’t happen at the pace Tesla needs them to happen.
Tesla’s backers in Silicon Valley can be forgiven for hoping for a miraculous technical breakthrough, because Moore’s Law makes miracles appear in the Valley every day: costs drop by half every two years, again and again and again. The law is actually a rule of thumb, not a scientific law, and is based on the recurring doubling of transistors placed on an integrated circuit.
Unfortunately for Tesla, batteries are based on chemistry and have nothing to do with Moore’s Law. Lawrence H. Dubois, chief technology officer at ATMI, a semiconductor industry supplier, said, “With batteries, you can’t just squeeze more energy into a smaller and smaller space the way you can squeeze more transistors.”
Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla, said his company would benefit from what he called “a weak Moore’s Law,” referring to the 8 percent annual improvements in the price performance of lithium-ion batteries. But 8 percent, compounded, would bring too few benefits, too late to Tesla: it would take nine years to halve the price of its battery pack.
The company would not be saddled with such costly components had it not elected to pursue a design that endows its car with both high performance and a long range between charges — 244 miles, Tesla says. Earlier this month at the Los Angeles auto show, BMW unveiled its all-electric Mini E, with a smaller battery, a motor with about 20 percent less horsepower than Tesla’s and a shorter range, 150 miles. BMW believes that current technologies used in the all-electric vehicles have not been tested enough in real conditions to be ready to be sold to the public. It will begin by leasing for one year a fleet of 500 Mini E’s for $850 a month each. At the end of the lease term, the cars will be returned to BMW for testing.
Tesla would have needed a much smaller battery pack had it forsaken the all-electric design and instead offered a plug-in hybrid, a more affordable design that many auto manufacturers are readying for production, like that for the Chevrolet Volt. An electric motor provides the primary motive force, and a small internal combustion engine serves as an auxiliary source of power to extend the range that the car can go between charges. The battery need be no bigger than what is necessary to provide enough juice to go 40 miles, the maximum daily round-trip commuting distance for 78 percent of surveyed households, according to a widely quoted Department of Transportation study in 2003.
Tesla pitches all-electric cars as the greenest form of personal transportation, eliminating vehicle emissions and helping to wean the United States from its dependence on foreign oil. The cars reduce air pollution indirectly, to whatever degree the power generation on the grid uses energy sources other than coal. And for households that install their own power-generating solar panels, electric cars can rightfully claim to attain truly zero emissions today.
LAST week, I visited the Tesla showroom in Menlo Park, Calif., and took the Roadster out on the highway. As I headed back to the showroom and waited at red lights, ready to hit the accelerator and fly, I realized that I was experiencing a guilty pleasure derived not just from the speed available at my touch but also from temporarily possessing something that shouted to the world its exclusiveness.
Tesla says it is assembling about 15 cars a week and has delivered only about 80 to date. Many of those have gone to the Valley’s billionaires and centimillionaires who are Tesla investors as well as early customers; these include Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the co-founders of Google, and Jeff Skoll, co-founder of eBay. The company’s principal financier is Mr. Musk, who attained considerable wealth as a co-founder of PayPal.
I wonder how Tesla’s course has been influenced by at least some of its investors being helplessly smitten by the world’s quietest dragster.
Mr. Musk said: “I’m not doing this because I think the world has a shortage of sports cars.” But his customers must be loaded with green in order to go green.
Randall Stross is an author based in Silicon Valley and a professor of business at San Jose State University. E-mail: stross@nytimes.com.