86k miles for each motor. That's pretty terrible. It's pretty common for ICE vehicles to not need major service until 100k or more. Total engine failure is pretty uncommon barring a collision or damage from neglect (or poor design).
Put another way, 14 motors over 10 years is 8.5 months per motor. At a rough estimate, you're getting somewhere around 2-4 thousand hours per motor.
Imagine replacing the engine in your car every 9 months. Or the transmission, or clutch, or any major mechanical component. We'd call that car a lemon.
On the other hand, 2.5 years per battery pack isn't too bad. With the kind of abuse shown here, I'd expect them to last closer to one year.
The model S has two motors, so you're off by a factor of two. Each of the two motors is smaller than the gearbox, so I'd say it would make more sense to compare it with a fairly small ICE part, not with the much larger engine.
But even that doesn't make much sense, because what happened is that he got a series of duds until they found the problem and fixed it. Taking the average lifetime of a dud and a good engine, as you do, isn't going to tell you much about either of the two kinds.
Allegedly there was a design flaw for that model, so their could have been a lot of dud parts until the problem design was fixed. Also, TFA:
> Some early Tesla Model S EVs were known to have issues with their rear motors. This particular Tesla suffered from this. The rear motor was replaced thirteen times, so if we include the original that it came with, that's fourteen motors over the course of about 1.2 million miles.
> Most of the replacement motors were actually refurbished units and the problem there is that Tesla didn't know the real issue so it didn't know how to properly fix the motors. Some of these replacement motors failed very quickly. Some were covered under warranty, while others were not.
It tells us that Tesla shipped early, perhaps too early in the development process, and that Tesla was willing to do a lot of replacing. The former doesn't surprise me.
Many ICE cars have several electric motors, e.g. to lower/raise the windows. Why would you expect the electric motors in an EV to behave like the ICE rather than the electric motors in an ICE in terms of maintenance requirements? "Expect replacement after x hours of operation" etc.
Only off by a factor of two if he was pro-actively having both motors replaced when one blew. Otherwise, he's still been in the dealership on average more than once a year.
I genuinely would like to know more about how the material for EV batteries is acquired. If society proposes we all switch to electric cars, then we should know about all the externalities. Not just the ones that are local and convenient for Westerners to think about.
It depends on the chemistry of the particular battery, we're always inventing new ones for better prices or characteristics.
Lithium is often mined from saltwater pumped out of the ground and evaporated in ponds. We can also extract it from seawater if desperate, so there's a price ceiling. It's only a few percent of the battery by mass.
Iron is mined, along with the nickel, manganese, aluminum, and so on. Steel is alloyed from several mined elements.
Cobalt is also mined but has a lot of negative externalities so we've moved to chemistries and cathodes that are cobalt-free or use relatively little.
The main problem with cobalt is that it is mined in a country that has little regard for human or child rights, and is also very poor (so people starve if they don't work). By moving away from cobalt, those kids will just starve instead, it also doesn't seem like the right solution. We could always just ask Belgium to solve the mess they made.
> Cobalt is also mined but has a lot of negative externalities so we've moved to chemistries and cathodes that are cobalt-free or use relatively little.
Who is “we” in this sentence? Is there any way to guarantee “cruelty-free” cobalt? Or are the world’s manufacturers forced to source it from mines in conflict zones?
I'm impressed not just by how shamelessly blatant your attempt to redirect this conversation is, but that you do it by suggesting your damage is irrelevant because of an implied but unsubstantiated horrendous act.
That's an interesting statistic to compare with because it roughly matches up with 100x what a human being breathes out over a lifetime (15 tons or so).
With a Model S getting 3 miles per kWh, and the average of the US grid getting 0.857 pounds of CO2 per kWh, the Model S would’ve produced 343k pounds of CO2. That’s a 78% emissions reduction from the 1.543 million lbs emissions from a 07 Tundra. And that’s with the current lackluster US grid currently only using 60% fossil fuels. In a decade, when coal has been phased out and solar ramp up has caused renewables to be a majority of the grid, I expect that 343k pounds to achieve another 75% reduction.
That’s an average though, you can use your own solar panels to charge your Tesla and achieve practically zero emissions.
Both Tundra and Tesla motors are surprisingly expensive (especially considering there are TWO of them). But it still looks like you can get at least 3 Tesla motors for the price of a single Tundra motor.
I'll spot you some maintenance and transmission work and let's call it 4 to 1. Still off by a factor of 3, but at least not an order of magnitude.
The thing is though that you're comparing a statistical anomaly against a different statistical anomaly and you can't do that math. It does not make sense.
You have a guy who has driven a truck a long way and what's notable is how well the truck has put up with it (versus everyone else who has tried to treat a Tundra the same way), versus another guy who is notable for driving his car a similar distance, full stop.
There's going to be a couple Tesla drivers out there that get 300k miles out of one pair of engines. They just haven't made the news yet.
We had a neighbor get over 500k with 5 oil changes in that lifetime before the motor fell over. His attitude was that oil changes were a scam. I've seen a few other Tundras still going strong after 15 years, but not with that many miles on them yet.
> he does take it easy in his Model S. He does not drive the car for long distances without giving it and himself a break. He says he only covers about 62 miles at a time before pausing for a while. [...] For starters, the owner is retired.
Article also says 130.000 miles per year average, that's 360 miles per day. That alone is 6 breaks per day assuming he drives 7 days per week. The guy is practically half his life in the car (like a truck driver).
According to the article that model had motor problems, many of the replacements were refurbs, and it took Tesla a long time to figure out the actual problem.
I expect the failures were pretty bursty and front-loaded.
If he just had the 14th motor put in, that's a little over 90k miles per motor.
If he's just about to need his 15th motor, that's 85k miles per motor.
Maybe that's okay considering the relative cost of replacing an electric motor versus an ICE drive train, but it doesn't sound great. I would have expected 120k per motor at least.
My dad used to do about 100km (at least) a day before he retired. He lived in Vicksburg MS and commuted round trip to a nuclear plant in Port Gibson MS about 30 miles away.
TFA explains the reasoning behind the motor replacements (design flaw).
When the world can support an EV Otto, let me know, because we're nowhere close yet on the automotive side. (We are at 30% of electricity from renewables globally.)
You might be surprised where oil comes from, and how many countries like China have lots of electricity they can bring on line but have to import most of their oil via ship, and then refine it. Going EV is more about economic security, but China is also worried about its environment.
I wonder how many miles are on the final motor after Tesla figured out what the design issue was. Nice to get the stat that battery pack is $10k and good for 300k miles.
> Most of the replacement motors were actually refurbished units and the problem there is that Tesla didn't know the real issue so it didn't know how to properly fix the motors. Some of these replacement motors failed very quickly.
I'd be trading my car in for a different brand if this happened to my car!
49 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 106 ms ] threadIt didn't go the distance. It's on its 14th motor and fourth battery pack.
Put another way, 14 motors over 10 years is 8.5 months per motor. At a rough estimate, you're getting somewhere around 2-4 thousand hours per motor.
Imagine replacing the engine in your car every 9 months. Or the transmission, or clutch, or any major mechanical component. We'd call that car a lemon.
On the other hand, 2.5 years per battery pack isn't too bad. With the kind of abuse shown here, I'd expect them to last closer to one year.
The model S has two motors, so you're off by a factor of two. Each of the two motors is smaller than the gearbox, so I'd say it would make more sense to compare it with a fairly small ICE part, not with the much larger engine.
But even that doesn't make much sense, because what happened is that he got a series of duds until they found the problem and fixed it. Taking the average lifetime of a dud and a good engine, as you do, isn't going to tell you much about either of the two kinds.
Why would size matter? Without a motor/engine a car goes nowhere. It makes sense to compare engine to motor in that context.
> But even that doesn't make much sense, because what happened is that he got a series of duds until they found the problem and fixed it.
14 duds in a row?
> Taking the average lifetime of a dud and a good engine, as you do, isn't going to tell you much about either of the two kinds.
You're right. But taking the 14 duds vs the usual 0/1 for a production ICE car going the same distance certainly tells us a lot.
> Some early Tesla Model S EVs were known to have issues with their rear motors. This particular Tesla suffered from this. The rear motor was replaced thirteen times, so if we include the original that it came with, that's fourteen motors over the course of about 1.2 million miles.
> Most of the replacement motors were actually refurbished units and the problem there is that Tesla didn't know the real issue so it didn't know how to properly fix the motors. Some of these replacement motors failed very quickly. Some were covered under warranty, while others were not.
Many ICE cars have several electric motors, e.g. to lower/raise the windows. Why would you expect the electric motors in an EV to behave like the ICE rather than the electric motors in an ICE in terms of maintenance requirements? "Expect replacement after x hours of operation" etc.
Again, that's a lemon.
Batteries are also increasingly recycled, either as units or as their components.
Lithium is often mined from saltwater pumped out of the ground and evaporated in ponds. We can also extract it from seawater if desperate, so there's a price ceiling. It's only a few percent of the battery by mass.
Iron is mined, along with the nickel, manganese, aluminum, and so on. Steel is alloyed from several mined elements.
Cobalt is also mined but has a lot of negative externalities so we've moved to chemistries and cathodes that are cobalt-free or use relatively little.
Carbon, oxygen, and phosphorus have many sources.
> Cobalt is also mined but has a lot of negative externalities so we've moved to chemistries and cathodes that are cobalt-free or use relatively little.
Who is “we” in this sentence? Is there any way to guarantee “cruelty-free” cobalt? Or are the world’s manufacturers forced to source it from mines in conflict zones?
Hope you’re just unaware of the situation and need to be educated, and not just willfully ignorant.
That’s an average though, you can use your own solar panels to charge your Tesla and achieve practically zero emissions.
I'll spot you some maintenance and transmission work and let's call it 4 to 1. Still off by a factor of 3, but at least not an order of magnitude.
The thing is though that you're comparing a statistical anomaly against a different statistical anomaly and you can't do that math. It does not make sense.
You have a guy who has driven a truck a long way and what's notable is how well the truck has put up with it (versus everyone else who has tried to treat a Tundra the same way), versus another guy who is notable for driving his car a similar distance, full stop.
There's going to be a couple Tesla drivers out there that get 300k miles out of one pair of engines. They just haven't made the news yet.
Article also says 130.000 miles per year average, that's 360 miles per day. That alone is 6 breaks per day assuming he drives 7 days per week. The guy is practically half his life in the car (like a truck driver).
A negative one. So the motor in a Tesla does not last for long.
I expect the failures were pretty bursty and front-loaded.
Maybe that's okay considering the relative cost of replacing an electric motor versus an ICE drive train, but it doesn't sound great. I would have expected 120k per motor at least.
So, let's assume that the car is being driven much harder than the guy claims. Should that result in 14 motor replacements?
TFA explains the reasoning behind the motor replacements (design flaw).
I'd be trading my car in for a different brand if this happened to my car!