5 ms·

This manner of cost estimation is not convincing to me, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone. There are plenty of small things that cost a lot of money,

This manner of cost estimation is not convincing to me, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone. There are plenty of small things that cost a lot of money, because, perhaps, of the precision or techniques required to manufacture them or their components, or the dearness of the materials that compose the minority of the object. TL;DR: What is a sub-one ounce object made mostly of silicon that costs more than a thousand dollars. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116938 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116...

btian 13y ago
It doesn't cost $1000. What you're paying for is R&D. Just like a Windows 8 DVD doesn't cost hundred of dollars to make
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  The implicit claim being that Tesla does not factor in R&D when they charge consumers for replacements?
  - btian 13y ago
    No, just pointing out that processed silicon does not cost Intel anything close to $1000. Also I doubt R&D cost for an electric motor is high because the technology is mature.
pravda 13y ago
>TL;DR: What is a sub-one ounce object made mostly of silicon that costs more than a thousand dollars. (intel i7) In that case, you are paying for the IP, not the silicon. The Tesla motor is a simple design, no magnets, no brushes. I assume they are hand-built. Some, but not too much precision machining required. Think about how much precision goes into a 2TB hard drive that costs $100 retail.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  I often come to the wrong conclusion when "just thinking" about it, especially in domains where I am not even a novice. Also, the fact that I don't find listings for 500hp brushless motors for <10k online calls into question the results of your thought experiment. I can see where you get your belief -- I wasn't questioning that it is a reasonable one to hold. But I am asking for evidence that compels me to a confidence level I'd actually bet on. Data will be required. Thought experiments are not sufficient. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing you for failing to provide data. It may not be publicly available. And it is not your duty to give me this. But that is what I am asking for, and if you don't have it, you don't have what I want, your duty or no.)
  - ericd 13y ago
    You're making an assertion that runs counter to the common wisdom that electric cars will require less maintenance, so the burden of proof is on you. The fact that you can't find brushless motors online that retail for less than $10k is not convincing, because it's a new use case, a unique design, and they're not selling them outside of cars. You don't know what the pricing is. As far as materials, that amount of copper isn't going to help it get to $10k. EDIT: Oh sorry, I mistook you for the originator of this thread, jesusmichael. He asserted that, not you.
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      I never made that assertion. I'm only asking questions. "Common wisdom" does not create a burden of proof for detractors, especially if the common wisdom is never, that I can find, backed up with evidence. That is absurd. It would be like saying that the burden is on non religious people to prove that Jesus is not god because billions of people think he is.
      - ericd 13y ago
        Yeah, sorry about that, I got you mixed up with another poster. But I do think that it's backed by evidence. There's no multi-gear transmission, and while there are moving parts, and other than the wheels/brakes, they aren't bathed in liquids that need regular changes and they aren't subjected to combustion and various other destructive forces that an ICE is constantly subjected to. There's relatively little force transmission hardware needed. The motors themselves should be relatively low-friction, and mechanically are much, much simpler than internal combustion engines (compare a breakdown of the parts of an ICE vs. electric motor, they're in completely different leagues). Air-fuel mixture control, turbochargers, and all manner of other chemical energy management systems are replaced by solid state electronics.

btian 13y ago

It doesn't cost $1000. What you're paying for is R&D. Just like a Windows 8 DVD doesn't cost hundred of dollars to make

jamesaguilar 13y ago
The implicit claim being that Tesla does not factor in R&D when they charge consumers for replacements?
- btian 13y ago
  No, just pointing out that processed silicon does not cost Intel anything close to $1000. Also I doubt R&D cost for an electric motor is high because the technology is mature.

pravda 13y ago

>TL;DR: What is a sub-one ounce object made mostly of silicon that costs more than a thousand dollars. (intel i7) In that case, you are paying for the IP, not the silicon. The Tesla motor is a simple design, no magnets, no brushes. I assume they are hand-built. Some, but not too much precision machining required. Think about how much precision goes into a 2TB hard drive that costs $100 retail.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
I often come to the wrong conclusion when "just thinking" about it, especially in domains where I am not even a novice. Also, the fact that I don't find listings for 500hp brushless motors for <10k online calls into question the results of your thought experiment. I can see where you get your belief -- I wasn't questioning that it is a reasonable one to hold. But I am asking for evidence that compels me to a confidence level I'd actually bet on. Data will be required. Thought experiments are not sufficient. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing you for failing to provide data. It may not be publicly available. And it is not your duty to give me this. But that is what I am asking for, and if you don't have it, you don't have what I want, your duty or no.)
- ericd 13y ago
  You're making an assertion that runs counter to the common wisdom that electric cars will require less maintenance, so the burden of proof is on you. The fact that you can't find brushless motors online that retail for less than $10k is not convincing, because it's a new use case, a unique design, and they're not selling them outside of cars. You don't know what the pricing is. As far as materials, that amount of copper isn't going to help it get to $10k. EDIT: Oh sorry, I mistook you for the originator of this thread, jesusmichael. He asserted that, not you.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    I never made that assertion. I'm only asking questions. "Common wisdom" does not create a burden of proof for detractors, especially if the common wisdom is never, that I can find, backed up with evidence. That is absurd. It would be like saying that the burden is on non religious people to prove that Jesus is not god because billions of people think he is.
    - ericd 13y ago
      Yeah, sorry about that, I got you mixed up with another poster. But I do think that it's backed by evidence. There's no multi-gear transmission, and while there are moving parts, and other than the wheels/brakes, they aren't bathed in liquids that need regular changes and they aren't subjected to combustion and various other destructive forces that an ICE is constantly subjected to. There's relatively little force transmission hardware needed. The motors themselves should be relatively low-friction, and mechanically are much, much simpler than internal combustion engines (compare a breakdown of the parts of an ICE vs. electric motor, they're in completely different leagues). Air-fuel mixture control, turbochargers, and all manner of other chemical energy management systems are replaced by solid state electronics.