Tesla Model S

[Joseph22]

Your friend's power plug at home got no circuit breaker ah?

He say charge phone battery so small already can explode??

 

He even say "what if" because no one have this before.

[Vratenza]

Your friend's power plug at home got no circuit breaker ah?

 

 

maybe his friend got direct line to the powerplant......dun play play

[Kusje]

He say charge phone battery so small already can explode??

 

He even say "what if" because no one have this before.

 

Then what about those folks who import stuff from Amazon or bring back from UK/China? Singapore customs should stop them too?

 

 As long as he is charging thru the wall plug, I think there is a max current.

[Joseph22]

maybe his friend got direct line to the powerplant......dun play play

He just tell me. Remember the sbw case? Small battery explode kill 2 person. This car so big, how much impact we won't know.

[L_club23]

He say charge phone battery so small already can explode??

 

He even say "what if" because no one have this before.

Hmm your friend uses electricity? Or does he still think it is the "work of the devil"?

[inlinesix]

Then what about those folks who import stuff from Amazon or bring back from UK/China? Singapore customs should stop them too?

 

 As long as he is charging thru the wall plug, I think there is a max current.

 

I think his friend think too much.

 

The charging station for Testa should be running on 450V.  I thinks It has to be certified by EMV for installation.  Otherwise, it would be illegal.

[Vratenza]

He just tell me. Remember the sbw case? Small battery explode kill 2 person. This car so big, how much impact we won't know.

[Joseph22]

Then what about those folks who import stuff from Amazon or bring back from UK/China? Singapore customs should stop them too?

 

As long as he is charging thru the wall plug, I think there is a max current.

How I know. I am not my Friend.

[Sturtles]

For another car with the same cost without cevs, what will the arf be?

 

 

Its the same.

 

To get a good deal during your car purchase, its best you know how each tax and rebate is calculated.

 

To not know means you will not likely recognise a good deal when it comes, and take 'high loan' for a raw deal, like one fellow forummer has said

[Nhyone]

VICOM says the car uses 444 watt-hour / km.

 

From Tesla Model S RWD spec (wiki), the 70 kWh battery has a range of 370 km, so does that mean the average should be 189 watt-hour / km?

 

That would mean 94.5 g/km and a rebate of $30k (<95 g/km).

Edited March 5, 2016 by Nhyone

[Tayspiderx]

Think they tested the vehicle under insane mode

[Yeshe]

A Friend of mine say lta shouldn't approve. The exact word be say.

 

"this car is fr a new brand right? no agent in spore, no proven safety track, etc. skali anything happen how to find the warranty"

 

I say warranty his problem and he reply.

 

"but if the car blow up or cause whole island power failure how?"

Your friend only know how to tok cock.

[Daywalker]

Here is my personal understanding of the different types of cars out there...

 

1)  Normal

 

CAR RUN BY:                     Combustion Engine

External Power Point:       Not Applicable

 

 

2)  Hybrid 

 

CAR RUN BY:                      Combustion Engine + Electric Motor

External Power Point:        No

eg Lexus CT, Honda Civic Hybrid

 

 

3)  Hybrid (Plug-in)

 

CAR RUN BY:                       Combustion Engine + Electric Motor

External Power Point:         Yes

eg. BMW i8, Porsche Panamera e hybrid, Toyota Prius(new)

 

 

4)  All Electric

 

CAR RUN BY:                        Electric Motor

External Power Point:          Yes 

eg. Tesla S, BMW i3 (with added option of charging by 9L motorcycle engine)

 

 

Most marques are gearing towards (3) or (4) in future lineups.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Daywalker

[1fast1]

Here is my personal understanding of the different types of cars out there...

 

1)  Normal

 

CAR RUN BY:                     Combustion Engine

External Power Point:       Not Applicable

 

 

2)  Hybrid 

 

CAR RUN BY:                      Combustion Engine + Electric Motor

External Power Point:        No

eg Lexus CT, Honda Civic Hybrid

 

 

3)  Hybrid (Plug-in)

 

CAR RUN BY:                       Combustion Engine + Electric Motor

External Power Point:         Yes

eg. BMW i8, Porsche Panamera e hybrid, Toyota Prius(new)

 

 

4)  All Electric

 

CAR RUN BY:                        Electric Motor

External Power Point:          Yes 

eg. Tesla S, BMW i3 (with added option of charging by 9L motorcycle engine)

 

 

Most marques are gearing towards (3) or (4) in future lineups.

 

That's a nice, concise summary. 

[1fast1]

So the LTA essentially back-calculated the power output  and compared to known power to emission rates to derive the Co2 emission figure and slapped a 15K surcharge on the Tesla....

 

 

 

Nice one scholars!

 

I'm curious about one thing (apologies if it's been addressed in this thread, 'cos I didn't read it all): what if Nguyen had installed solar panels to power the car?

 

Would he have been able to claim that his car was totally carbon neutral? Or at least get a discount on the levy?

 

Or will the scholars insist on even more ridiculous arguments like claiming that the manufacture of the solar panels themselves took fossil fuels, etc.? (Which, by the way, were already built in, with profit, into their price, on which the gahmen does get to charge GST!)

 

Solar's already being used here, check out: http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/more-sporeans-using-solar-power-trim-bills (Jeanne's very pretty, lucky husband).

[1fast1]

More to the point, even without the consideration of solar panels, there is some real sloppy logic at play here on the part of the gahmen.

 

They are taxing this zero emissions (on the road) car based on emissions theoretically generated by centrally generated electricity (for the power grid).

 

But that's really strange also. Because the cost of those emissions should've been built into the price of electricity! In fact, we're often given the excuse of rising oil prices for the periodic rises in the cost of electricity.

 

So, since Nguyen will be paying Singapore Power for the electricity used by his car, he's already paying for the use of those fossil fuels and any emissions generated at source.

 

By taxing his car "extra", it's essentially double taxation. Now I know this concept is nothing new in Singapore, especially for vehicular taxes, but it's especially stark here.

 

What the gahmen is essentially saying is that the use of a unit of power to run a television set, a computer, a gaming station, an aircon, or a freezer etc. is more emissions-friendly than the use of the same unit to power this fully electric car.

 

Does that make *any* sense at all?

 

Frankly, I would respect this gahmen a lot more if they just dropped all the hypocritical pretence and came out and just said it. Something to the effect of:

 

"Look, you know we don't really care about the environment. We do the bare minimum we can to honour treaty commitments we entered into so that we can look good and still appear highly relevant and progressive-minded on the world stage. At the end of the day, we just want your money, so cough it up!"

 

They still wouldn't get my vote, but at least they'd have my respect for brutal honesty. Because their position essentially comes down to "what's wrong with collecting more money?". As it always has.

 

But I do lament the fact that they're still very unimaginative in not seizing a crucial opportunity here - to transform Singapore into an electric-car heavy city. Their control of overall vehicle ownership via COE quotas already guarantees there will be no gross proliferation in total numbers of vehicles, so any increase in electric vehicles will be offset by a decrease in fossil-fuel powered vehicles. By aggressively rewarding electric vehicle ownership, the gahmen can make a serious impact on our vehicular landscape over the next decade, especially as newer models of electric vehicles emerge. Because of the multiple levels of fiscal control here, the SG gahmen is in a unique position -relative to other countries - to drive (if you'll forgive the pun) this transformation.

 

How would that benefit the gahmen? Well, it'll make them look even better on the world stage. Tourists coming here will ooh and aah at the density of zero emissions vehicles plying our public roads and praise the gahmen's vision. This gahmen likes good publicity and global ego stroking, right?

 

Of course, the downside is a temporary loss of revenue for them. I say temporary, because inevitably, they'll claw everything back with interest once enough "transformation" has occurred. They'll resume the increase of taxation on electric vehicles gradually so that their revenue streams return to what they were before. And the people would LPPL have to pay this because the petrol alternative would've become even more expensive by then. I would expect nothing less than this of this gahmen, for whom the collecting of money is a chief preoccupation. But at least, a permanent change (for the better) would've been effected in our vehicular landscape, there's still that.

 

So, on the whole, I am disappointed that they lack even the vision to ride this wave as it's cresting.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Turboflat4

[orion2006]

Totally agree... it just feels like warped logic that carbon emissions "from" the car is now bring transferred upstream to the electrical supply.

 

If they take this approach, then hybrid cars should be taxed on "carbon emissions" from the manufacturing of the batteries.

 

More to the point, even without the consideration of solar panels, there is some real sloppy logic at play here on the part of the gahmen.

 

They are taxing this zero emissions (on the road) car based on emissions theoretically generated by centrally generated electricity (for the power grid).

 

But that's really strange also. Because the cost of those emissions should've been built into the price of electricity! In fact, we're often given the excuse of rising oil prices for the periodic rises in the cost of electricity.

 

So, since Nguyen will be paying Singapore Power for the electricity used by his car, he's already paying for the use of those fossil fuels and any emissions generated at source.

 

By taxing his car "extra", it's essentially double taxation. Now I know this concept is nothing new in Singapore, especially for vehicular taxes, but it's especially stark here.

 

What the gahmen is essentially saying is that the use of a unit of power to run a television set, a computer, a gaming station, an aircon, or a freezer etc. is more emissions-friendly than the use of the same unit to power this fully electric car.

 

Does that make *any* sense at all?

 

[Alpha78]

More to the point, even without the consideration of solar panels, there is some real sloppy logic at play here on the part of the gahmen.

 

They are taxing this zero emissions (on the road) car based on emissions theoretically generated by centrally generated electricity (for the power grid).

 

But that's really strange also. Because the cost of those emissions should've been built into the price of electricity! In fact, we're often given the excuse of rising oil prices for the periodic rises in the cost of electricity.

 

So, since Nguyen will be paying Singapore Power for the electricity used by his car, he's already paying for the use of those fossil fuels and any emissions generated at source.

 

By taxing his car "extra", it's essentially double taxation. Now I know this concept is nothing new in Singapore, especially for vehicular taxes, but it's especially stark here.

 

What the gahmen is essentially saying is that the use of a unit of power to run a television set, a computer, a gaming station, an aircon, or a freezer etc. is more emissions-friendly than the use of the same unit to power this fully electric car.

 

Does that make *any* sense at all?

 

Frankly, I would respect this gahmen a lot more if they just dropped all the hypocritical pretence and came out and just said it. Something to the effect of:

 

"Look, you know we don't really care about the environment. We do the bare minimum we can to honour treaty commitments we entered into so that we can look good and still appear highly relevant and progressive-minded on the world stage. At the end of the day, we just want your money, so cough it up!"

 

They still wouldn't get my vote, but at least they'd have my respect for brutal honesty. Because their position essentially comes down to "what's wrong with collecting more money?". As it always has.

 

But I do lament the fact that they're still very unimaginative in not seizing a crucial opportunity here - to transform Singapore into an electric-car heavy city. Their control of overall vehicle ownership via COE quotas already guarantees there will be no gross proliferation in total numbers of vehicles, so any increase in electric vehicles will be offset by a decrease in fossil-fuel powered vehicles. By aggressively rewarding electric vehicle ownership, the gahmen can make a serious impact on our vehicular landscape over the next decade, especially as newer models of electric vehicles emerge. Because of the multiple levels of fiscal control here, the SG gahmen is in a unique position -relative to other countries - to drive (if you'll forgive the pun) this transformation.

 

How would that benefit the gahmen? Well, it'll make them look even better on the world stage. Tourists coming here will ooh and aah at the density of zero emissions vehicles plying our public roads and praise the gahmen's vision. This gahmen likes good publicity and global ego stroking, right?

 

Of course, the downside is a temporary loss of revenue for them. I say temporary, because inevitably, they'll claw everything back with interest once enough "transformation" has occurred. They'll resume the increase of taxation on electric vehicles gradually so that their revenue streams return to what they were before. And the people would LPPL have to pay this because the petrol alternative would've become even more expensive by then. I would expect nothing less than this of this gahmen, for whom the collecting of money is a chief preoccupation. But at least, a permanent change (for the better) would've been effected in our vehicular landscape, there's still that.

 

So, on the whole, I am disappointed that they lack even the vision to ride this wave as it's cresting.

 

In summary, it's all about money and taxes. With Singapore being a petrochem hub, will the G piss off the big oil companies by pushing for all electric cars? Go figure.