Elon Musk Answers Tesla Owners Questions At 2015 NAIAS – Video


Elon Musk providing some much needed information!

Elon Musk providing some much needed information!

Tesla Model S 60 kWh owner, KmanAuto, attended the 2015 NAIAS.

While he was there, one of the events that took place was Elon Musk answering Tesla owners’ questions.

This video holds quite a lot of solid information!

There’s several Model X mentions, as well as comments on the Model 3.

KmanAuto was able to chat with Elon for a few seconds, as well as get a picture with Tesla’s CEO.

If you were able to ask Elon Musk any question related to Tesla Motors, what would it be?

Bonus video: KmanAuto checking out the Tesla Motors’ display at the 2015 NAIAS:

Category: Tesla

Tags: ,

46 responses to "Elon Musk Answers Tesla Owners Questions At 2015 NAIAS – Video"
  1. Rob Andrews says:

    What did he say about batteries (video cut out)

    1. Jouni Valkonen says:

      No “breakthrough” batteries expected in near term. But small incremental improvement expected in technology, mass production methods and recycling of old batteries.

      1. Lindsay Patten says:

        It would have been interesting to hear his thoughts on what factors changed in the next generation of LG Chem batteries to allow the large increases in range being predicted. It would take ten years for a 7% drop/year to cut prices in half so there’s something else significant at play.

  2. Kosh says:

    “Probably 3 year away…”

    2015+3 != 2017

    1. Tech01x says:

      Nah, he’s been giving this speech for a while. Most likely he forgot the calendar flipped.

      The timing of the Gigafactory construction is pretty much laid out and Tesla can’t afford to have a Gigafactory online without a Model 3 for those cells. Unlike the Model X where they could be late since they are production constrained on the S, the Model 3 cannot be late.

      1. Nicklas says:

        It’s simpler than that:
        End of 2015 – that is one year away
        End of 2016 – that is two years away
        End of 2017 – that is three years away

      2. tftf says:

        The final phase 5 of the Gigafactory won’t be finished until Dec 2017 (official documents from Yates construction company).

        Therefore volume production of Model 3 looks likely to bein in 2018 even if there are no delays with the car. Itself.

        1. tftf says:

          PS: And that’s just the construction, the factory won’t crank out batteries at full output (about 500k cars/year) until 2020.

        2. Bonaire says:

          Unless Model 3 requires the newly shaped cell sizes, and even if so, Panasonic can make cells in Japan for the first run of Model 3. It is more important to get Model 3 out there than save the cash on the first few battery packs. Sell them as Signature models and charge a bit more for the privilege of first ownership.

          The surge of Model 3 sales would really happen a year or two after first run. Nobody can really properly estimate the demand for Model 3 other than say it will be big. 100k a year big? More? Nobody knows.

        3. Tech01x says:

          Gigafactory is made is phases and will produce cells before the last of the construction of the last phase is done. Full nameplate capacity isn’t expected until 2020 – this was part of the original PDF presentation.

          1. Jouni Valkonen says:

            And since that original Gigafactory presentation, things has gone smoothly and Gigafactory is ahead of schedule.

          2. tftf says:

            I wrote above that it will be at full capacity by 2020.

            Yes, staged cell production will start sooner obviously (and likely pilot runs before that).

  3. Open-Mind says:

    Since Elon commented on C02 levels, this simple question is sort of on-topic, and something I’ve not been able to find an answer to…

    What is the best/optimal percentage of C02 in the atmosphere?

    Presumably it’s less than the 0.04% (400PPM) or so that it is now.

    And it absolutely must be above zero so that life can survive on Earth.

    So what is the desired target within that range, and how was that determined?


    1. ffbj says:

      My elementary understanding is that the amount in the oceans, which absorb CO2, is the most important. The oceans are near absorption capacity, and once that is reached then the CO2 in the atmosphere will shoot up. No need to even worry about targets or optimum values since they will probably never be seen again for centuries, if then.
      If you go back to pre-industrial revolution times 1800ish and use that as a base value, to where it was in the 1950’s, anywhere in that range, you would probably be in optimum parameters for what would be considered reasonable amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are well past that point.

      1. Nathanael says:

        In fact, ocean acidification (caused by too much Co2 in the oceans) is a bigger problem than global warming.

    2. Ambulator says:

      Carbon dioxide levels were at 280ppm before we started increasing them. Some would like to return to that, but it sounds too cold to me. One organization touts 350 as the maximum desired for the long term, which sounds fine to me. Even 450 might be all right if we approached it slowly.

      But we’re going up 2ppm per year, and 450 would only be 25 years away at that rate. That’s scary.

      1. Open-Mind says:

        Selecting the levels from 100 years ago seems rather arbitrary to me. Scientists say that during Earth’s 4.5 billion years C02 levels have varied from half their current levels up to 20X current levels. The last century is just a small spec on that timeline. How do we know that 100 years ago was the best situation? That seems very coincidental to me.

        For example, plants thrive at higher C02 levels up to about 1200ppm which is the target level inside commercial greenhouses. Since scientists say that CO2 is a relatively weak green house gas (compared to water vapor and clouds), what if the benefits of more C02 were to outweigh the small amount of extra heat? I was hoping there was some actual science behind the answer to that question. But it seems like someone just picked the conditions 100 years ago and decided that was optimal. And now that’s the basis for wanting to alter society for 7 billion people? I must be missing something.

        1. Chris O says:

          What you’re missing is the agenda’s of enormous money and power that ride on the anthropogenic climate change agenda. It’s basically about globalization.

          1. pjwood says:

            No, what we’re hearing is an emissions agenda, that unquestionably has helped bring about 400PPM, and has no proof that we get a free pass.

            If car numbers, like finance numbers, like environmental numbers matter in their significance, saying things like “billions of years ago CO2 was ~400PPM” would be brought into perspective, if instead you focus on the merely 100’s of thousands of years we were in a window of ~200-280PPM. Relatively speaking, we just blitzed out of this range, past 400PPM, in just ~150 years. I go “Hmmmm”, when I observe that. Having temperature evidence that says almost a 2 degree average rise (not some 17 year cherry pick), should also make you go “Hmmm”. Not seasonal area, but the volume of pole ice should make you go “hmmm”.

            If you say “no cause, and effect, here”, over so short a spec of global time, then, hey, I’m all ears as to what you believe is causing the factual, observed, warming. I assuming folks have come to terms, that carbon’s accumulation is anthropogenic. We can refuse any science we want.

            People can argue we’re going to fast with carbon policy, though I don’t know how since its price is still ZERO. What there is little room for is the folks in the room who believe in either zero$, or believe that geo-engineering is something mankind ought to be doing (IOW, “its good for plants”).

            1. Open-Mind says:

              “No, what we’re hearing is an emissions agenda, that unquestionably has helped bring about 400 PPM, and has no proof that we get a free pass.”

              According to scientists, C02 was once 7000 PPM, then it went back down. And they say plants thrive best at 1200 PPM and are ok up to 2000 PPM. And people are ok up to 4000 ppm. I’m not suggesting we go to those levels, but I would like to understand why anything above 400 PPM is so bad. Apparently global warming is the main concern. Assuming that’s the case …why are we only focused on reducing energy from oil and coal? There are several other societal changes that could also address the problem, yet they are never suggested. It’s almost like there is some other motive at play.

              “People can argue we’re going to fast with carbon policy, though I don’t know how since its price is still ZERO.”

              That is a false statement, since carbon credits cost real money, and they are a source of tremendous wealth, influence, and power:


              So how about we ignore the politics for now, and stay focused on the science?

              1. hsparra says:

                From the October 8th issue of the journal Science:

                “The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,”

                So, first concern would be all the costal cities that below this level. In the US think LA, San Diego, New York, Boston, DC, Miami, and Houston. Ok, so with DC there might definitely be some upside.

                Recent studies on CO2 levels and plants show that plants do indeed to better. However, the plants that do better tend to be what we call weeds and are of the inedible variety. Our food crops, which are sort of wimpy plants, tend to produce more green at the cost of less fruit and tend to be more susceptible to disease and pests. Yields declined and most of our food producing plants were less productive.

                Reducing energy from coal and oil is not the only changes suggested. However, coal and oil are large contributors to CO2 emissions, either directly or indirectly. There have been suggestions to investing in technologies to make using oil and gas cleaner. Societal changes suggested include radical ideas such as people having small houses, living closer together, and using more public transportation. Each of those is a major change if people were to undertake any of them. Other changes suggested include producing food close to where it is consumed, and to live closer to where you work, and even invest in infrastructure to promote biking or walking to work.

                As far as carbon credits, some places you have to participate and some places participation is voluntary. Or current economic system does not handle negative externalities very effectively. Pollution is an example of a negative externality. When I purchase power I do not pay for any negative effects from pollution that communities down wind from the plant experience. This is an example of a negative externality. Carbon credits are a way to place a cost on the CO2 emitted using a market based mechanism. Now if you don’t believe the vast majority of scientists in regards to climate change then you think it is all bunk anyway. Yes people can and do make money in carbon credits. Of course, to pay less in those situations were participation is mandatory, companies take actions to emit less, which means they have to pay less. Heck, start planting trees which remove CO2 and you can possibly get some income from those emitting a lot of CO2. I would not be surprised if there are speculators in some carbon markets.

              2. Lindsay Patten says:

                “Assuming that’s the case …why are we only focused on reducing energy from oil and coal? There are several other societal changes that could also address the problem, yet they are never suggested. It’s almost like there is some other motive at play.”

                Can you elaborate on this? Are you talking about geoengineering? As I understand it the problem is caused predominantly by the release of carbon from fossil fuels into the atmosphere so it seems natural to me that the emphasis on coal, oil and gas only makes sense. The problem is not energy use per se, it is the release of carbon that was previously stored in stable form underground. The problem is the greenhouse effect, not the release of energy by humans.

                1. Open-Mind says:

                  “Can you elaborate on this? Are you talking about geoengineering? ”

                  Things such as …

                  1) Control population growth, since energy usage is proportional to population.

                  2) Target the cement industry, since it alone creates huge amounts of C02.

                  3) Plant more trees and shrubs that will absorb CO2.

                  4) Live communally, reducing the need to use energy and travel.

                  The governments that mandate carbon taxes rarely mandate any of the above.

          2. hsparra says:

            “What you’re missing is the agenda’s of enormous money and power that ride on the anthropogenic climate change agenda. It’s basically about globalization.”

            I was surprised when I first heard this line of reasoning. Sure, 1000’s of scientist have a secret agenda to fleece the public by making up a hoax along with fake science. Oh, and they probably have secret meetings which only a few, super sleuths were able to find out about and penetrate. And people actually fall for this. Perhaps the scientist are hiding all the mounds of data that show that anthropogenic climate change is false. They must all be liars, fakes, deceivers, charlatans, and are engaged in a colossal fraud. Or, if not that, they are just mistaken. Just like those that talked about smoking increasing the risks of lung cancer. Bah, there was/is another huge hoax.

            I would argue far more money and power ride on the other side of the debate. Not only in the extractive industries, but in refining, transportation, power generation, and everything that gives us all the nice conveniences this great source of concentrated energy enables. The existing power structure and economy are have been largely influenced by this cheap source of portable energy. Much of what we have now has been built using hydrocarbons for energy. The numbers I have seen on the economic size of the green energy sector, organics, and other “greeny” areas are puny compared to other areas of the economy.

            Oh, and all that research money, the vast majority goes into basic research, which could just as easily show there is no anthropogenic climate change.

        2. Priusmaniac says:

          Since species take millenia to adapt to a new environment, trying to preserve them is equivalent to avoid imposing changes that are faster then millenia on them. There is also the question of acidification of the sea water that is at least, if not more, as important as the temperature change since plankton can’t form shells in to acidic water and plankton is the basis of the sea food chain. The other important aspect is the sea level rise that occur when polar ice melt, the sea level is litteraly proportional to the co2 level. So if you want Holland, London, New-York, Boston, Tokyo etc under water you must place it somewhere above 500 ppm. If you want to be able to cross the English Chanel on foot, you must place it bellow 150 ppm. You choose, but don’t forget the inertia of the system which is about thousand years between the level set and the actual sea level stabilisation.

          1. Kandi1 says:


            One thing people tend to forget is that man is extremely good in adapting. Man can survive extreme climate. Man can end up in a 9m2 room and accept it (when some wild animals would just let themselves die).

            But there is a catch. Our adaptive skills comes from a strong lack of sensibility to our environment (it’s quite logical). So we tend to underestimate the difficulty other species (fauna and flora) have to adapt. More, 80% of land (non-oceanic) species live in the tropical zone. A zone with very small changes between seasons (between summer and winter the temp diff can be 2, 3 Celcius degrees). A zone where species do not know how to adapt to big temperature changes then.

            So expect all most beautiful and fragile species to simply go extinct. Would you give them tens of thousands of years to evolve (the natural non-human speed of climate change), they would evolve into new species. But not at current speed. Did you know that even forest can pack their bags and move to better climate? But only a few feet by generation.
            So if we keep business as usual, Man and cuckroach will survive with no problem and rule the place. A great gift for our children!

            1. Lindsay Patten says:

              I think it’s also important to keep in mind that even if mankind survives an awful lot of individual people will suffer and a lot die along the way.

            2. Nathanael says:

              Biggest problem is our food species. Most of them are really quite delicate. Sure, with much higher Co2, humanity will survive, but the collapse of the ocean and land food chains mean most of us will starve to death.

              Not fun. Best avoided.

              1. Open-Mind says:

                “Biggest problem is our food species. Most of them are really quite delicate.”

                Science shows that plants thrive at higher levels of C02 up to 1200 PPM. If the herbivors that eat those plants have more food, they should thrive. And the carnivores and omnivores should also thrive since they also have more food. It seems that CO2 levels would need to go above 2000 PPM before they start to threaten that ecosystem.

          2. arne-nl says:

            Hear hear!

  4. ffbj says:

    Oddly the coincidence of falling oil prices and going to Texas might actually benefit Musk’s case in that state. With 20k layoffs coming from the oil patch that is going to be enough of a shocker to even get branch-water and whiskey sipping, cigar smoking, cowboy boot wearing lawmakers to sit up and take notice.
    That is from and economic point of view you don’t want all your eggs in one basket. Diversified economies weather storms better.
    If Musk can make some inroads in Texas I would be surprised, but the timing, is about the best it could be.

    1. sven says:

      Musk reportedly is building a hyperloop test track in Texas and considering staging pod races there. Oy vey!


  5. kdawg says:

    I’m glad to hear him say that “they are probably going to do something more radical” with the Model 3 vs. just making it a smaller Model S. The Model S is somewhat boring to me, so the more radical the better, as long as it’s still functional.

    1. Sublime says:

      I wonder if it’ll be as radical as the Mercedes F015 concept. His numbers about car and pack size don’t seem to add up unless the aerodynamics get significantly better than even the Model S.

    2. hsparra says:

      I would like to see Tesla’s take on “more radical.” While the Model S is neat a smaller version could be kinda of boring, although it would hopefully still be pretty nice. I am interested to see how the Model 3 compares to the Bolt and the next generation Leaf.

    3. Stuart22 says:

      The fact he asked whether the Model 3 should be this or should it be that is pretty revealing…. they haven’t even settled on a final design!

      Has Tesla peaked and are beginning to decline? Delays with the Model X are hurting; GM’s surprise reveal of the 200 mile Bolt shifted the media spotlight away from Musk. Tesla stock value drops after his Detroit appearance, Musk is resorting to appearing on Jeopardy! to keep the free publicity train from derailing.

      1. Rick Danger says:

        You’re funny!

    4. Big Solar says:

      I’d like to see it be an EVOS on skateboard platform!

  6. kdawg says:

    And we have confirmation that the Model 3 has 3 horizontal bars in the name.

    1. IDK says:

      Like the “E” in Tesla…thought he had a slight smile when he said that.

  7. Alaa says:

    Did you notice the bodyguards? The were told to move away from the camera.

    1. Just being sensible. The man was in Detroit after all.

  8. Chris O says:

    My question would be: could you stop micromanaging the design process so cars have a chance of hitting the market without too much delays?

    Falcon doors indeed….

    1. Jouni Valkonen says:

      It is no use to get new models on markets early, if there is not batteries to even satisfy the demand of existing models.

    2. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      Right, because we know that the cause of the delay was the falcon doors, rather than, say, the AWD system and then deciding that given the issues with AWD they could also have more of AutoPilot ready.

  9. Bill Howland says:

    No comment this time on the CO2 issue, since I’ve commented before, however EV ceo’s do use the issue to help sell them. Even Ghosn, who initially avoided the issue, then discovered there was no downside currently to becoming an advocate. Lutz just says “he’s been told to shut up”, hehehe.