Slashdot Mirror

Actually if you wanted to kill yourself at 113mph Volvo would be the most likely to stop you. Do yourself a favour and decapitate yourself. Failing at committing suicide and leaving you a permanent half or full vegetable is a horrible situation to be in.

https://www.autoevolution.com/... That's an Audi doing more than 113mph, and they aren't known for their safety ... unlike Volvo.

So apparently now cars are going to be like smartphones or other electronic gadgets -- everything is too-cleverly designed such that you can't repair individual components

There's something to what you say. But on the other hand, Tesla designed the Model 3 to have a greatly reduced parts count and simplified design.

Sandy Munro and his team famously tore down and analyzed a Tesla Model 3, and he was quite impressed by the design. Initially he made some negative comments but lately he said he "had to eat crow" and that the car is a "symphony of engineering". His only real complaint is that the car body is too complex and heavy; Elon Musk replied on Twitter saying the car body definitely could be simpler but the weight was due to the car being designed to be so safe.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/23/second-tesla-model-3-teardown-highlights-strengths-opportunities-for-tesla/

Tesla cars have computer-controlled everything. I can't find the link where I read this, but I read that they use a star-topology wiring data network for control, plus a power bus. For the Model Y, they are rumored to be going to a single cable per gadget, implying power and data together in a star topology. A conventional car has around 5000 feet of wiring (1500 metres) but this story claims that Model Y will need only 328 feet of wire. 328 feet converts almost exactly to 100 metres so I wonder if someone gave a ballpark estimate of 100 metres (nice round number) and some reporter uncritically converted that to an exact number of feet.

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/elon-musk-tesla-model-y-will-require-only-328-feet-of-wiring-119717.html

Tesla's modular design is really impressive in the battery and drive train. A Model 3 "drive unit" is a motor plus gearbox plus axles and suspension. To remove it is incredibly simple: four bolts, two cables (data and power), two glycol coolant hoses, and two brake hoses. A motor swap for a Model 3 will take much less labor than most engine or transmission repairs on a conventional car.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-drivetrain-design-elon-musk-master-plan/

And Tesla is trying to provide a good repair experience. They have a program where they set up Tesla body shops and keep those stocked with parts. For people lucky enough to be near one of these Tesla body shops, a Tesla repair can be amazingly fast.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-in-house-body-repair-shop-model-3-damage-25-hours/

Early adopters have it worst, and it can cost something like $900 to repair a door handle on a Model S. But Tesla is doing an amazing job of ramping their operations and making their cars as simple as possible to build and to repair.

Seriously. Stop assuming things: current model TT is 1515kg.

• Audi TT, 2000 - 1465kg

• Audi A4, 2017 - 1445kg

Yes, these are the exact cars we have.... Correct engine, correct body type. Surprise! The TT is heavier! (Maily due to the haldex system, but that is of no concern for this discussion)

You have to understand that the Audi range below the A6 (and the TT is basically an A3. Don't kid yourself) are all very very similar in pretty all aspects. That is the a reason I allowed this comparison, but then I am quite familiar with their lineup.

As for the cost, well, we bought them both new. You'd also be surprised to hear that the Audi TT was 35000€ (full option) new in 2000, and the Audi A4 was 42000€ in autumn last year. Adjusted for inflation, for my country the Audi TT would cost about 50000€. More expensive, but not in a shocking way. Given the A4 has 150HP, and the TT has 225HP, we'd need to adjust the A4 to an +200HP engine. Base price of the A4 Avant S-Tronic 150HP (what my wife has): 35850€. Base price of the A4 Avant S-Tronic 2.0 TFSI S-tronic iwth 252HP: 44000,00€. (Neither being Quattro, which the TT is... well kinda, again: Haldex system) The difference between the two models (assuming all options remain equal): 8150€. Needless to point out that this would elevate the price of the A4 to the inflation adjusted price of the TT.

TL;DR: the cars are a totally valid comparison.

• Audi TT, 2000 - 1465kg

• Audi A4, 2017 - 1445kg

Yes, these are the exact cars we have.... Correct engine, correct body type. Surprise! The TT is heavier! (Maily due to the haldex system, but that is of no concern for this discussion)

You have to understand that the Audi range below the A6 (and the TT is basically an A3. Don't kid yourself) are all very very similar in pretty all aspects. That is the a reason I allowed this comparison, but then I am quite familiar with their lineup.

As for the cost, well, we bought them both new. You'd also be surprised to hear that the Audi TT was 35000€ (full option) new in 2000, and the Audi A4 was 42000€ in autumn last year. Adjusted for inflation, for my country the Audi TT would cost about 50000€. More expensive, but not in a shocking way. Given the A4 has 150HP, and the TT has 225HP, we'd need to adjust the A4 to an +200HP engine. Base price of the A4 Avant S-Tronic 150HP (what my wife has): 35850€. Base price of the A4 Avant S-Tronic 2.0 TFSI S-tronic iwth 252HP: 44000,00€. (Neither being Quattro, which the TT is... well kinda, again: Haldex system) The difference between the two models (assuming all options remain equal): 8150€. Needless to point out that this would elevate the price of the A4 to the inflation adjusted price of the TT.

TL;DR: the cars are a totally valid comparison.

Maybe they do have better engineers. At least in this particular niche.

They have some real good engineers there alright.

"That's always the conundrum in such metrics. For example, it is actually well known that more powerful motorcycles are safer than underpowered ones. WHY? Because they ensure the ability to move quickly when needed in order to avoid accidents."

There's more to it than that. In Japan and some European markets, you require a certain level of experience to ride motorcycles of a certain displacement; for example, you must have a 500 cc license for at least X years before you can move up to 1000 cc.
https://www.autoevolution.com/...

This is one of the reasons that you see a lot of 500 cc bikes that are actually 499 cc, or 1000 cc that are 998 cc.

It also means that people riding bigger displacement bikes have more experience, which could also mean that they are much safer.

AI is a tool just like any other one, and blaming toolmakers is not a new thing. In most accidents, be it a medical one or a car/train/airplane crash, there are more than one factors in play, and determining who is responsible is far from straightforward. Currently, this is governed by a complex mesh of standards, regulations and ToS-es. Those are already very confusing: if you put unusually large tires on your car and then speed, can you sue the manufacturer because the speedo underreported? And now with automation gaining foothold everywhere, things are changing faster than government regulators could react.
Solving this problem would require a massive overhaul of our current legal system. I kinda like the idea of cascading responsibility. In a medical example, a patient wronged would first sue the doctor for every mistake he believes was made. The doctor then could start a cascade suit against the hospital if he believes he was supplied with improper equipment or hospital conditions are to blame. If he wins, the hospital would take his place in the suit for the mistakes that they were proven to be liable of. They could also start their own cascade against the manufacturer in a similar fashion. At the end of the day, the patient wouldn't have to figure out who is actually responsible (an almost impossible task), the members of the chain would settle that somehow. And the system ensures that someone is always left picking up the tab.

This used to be true, but has changed somewhat after the E46s (model year 1998-2005), E90's (2006-2011) and F30s (2012-present). For example, the E46 328ci did have an inline 6 cylinder 2.8L. The E90's started introducing turbos. And most of the F30s have a turbocharged 4 cylinder that displaces less than 2L (source), the 335 has a turbocharged 6. It used to be reliable and have that direct correlation to some aspect of the car, now it's just a rough estimate of comparable performance, 318 < 328 < 330 < 335.

Never in a month of sundays did that car roll. If it rolled then Tesla needs to start selling their paint products as a magical no mud sticks and can't be scratched. It has impacted something at the front and then it had bounced a few times through the dirt.

The tesla is a great car but it isn't magical.

http://www.autoevolution.com/n...

So you think hammers are trivial ?

http://s1.cdn.autoevolution.co...

I saw one of the BMW electrics as one of the pace cars that led the Chicago Marathon last Sunday. They're pretty sweet looking.

There was also one of those new BMW supercars at the head of the race. Black on black and it looks amazing.

http://www.autoevolution.com/n...

Look, pretty much all cars split in half when they hit a pole at 100 MPH.

http://articles.latimes.com/20...
http://www.autoevolution.com/n...
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news...

How much are you betting that in that last article, the driver of the Maxima wasn't driving 100 MPH? Most highway limits are 65 MPH, you're talking 50% faster, which is perhaps not a "huge difference" but it's not negligible. It also doesn't matter if the car splits in half, as long as the driver is protected within the cage (look at how F1 cars crumple when they crash, without a pole, but protect the driver). What matters more is someone probably not wearing a seat belt...

If Chevy Volts were bursting into flames, we'd be hearing about it. There's a whole swath of American politicians ready to pounce on anything negative regarding the Volt because, you know, Obama.

You mean like this earlier Slashdot Story? Or like this Volt that burned down the owner's garage and house?

It just takes a little searching in your favorite search engine to find that it has happened to a Volt as well, and in fact was worse.

Either way from the 3 incidents it seems like Tesla cars are safer than average.

Most conventional cars don't do well hitting trees at high speeds. As for "conventional" supercars: http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/emergencies/driver-killed-as-speeding-ferrari-hits-tree-in-dubai-1.1208954

Some don't even need to hit a tree to fall apart and burn:
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/lamborghini-splits-brooklyn-collision-article-1.1465610
http://www.autoevolution.com/news/lamborghini-aventador-crash-in-brooklin-splits-car-in-half-67419.html

Too bad I'm not in a position to buy Tesla stock.

416 horse power and it can only do 132 mph is nothing to brag about.

My car can do 140 mph....eventually

FTFY

Oh, I thought you said cat... considering they have a terminal velocity of 60mph, that would be impressive....

(note: the cheetah's land speed is also around 60mph -- getting a cat going faster for any length of time would be difficult)

416 horse power and it can only do 132 mph is nothing to brag about.

My car can do 140 mph....eventually

FTFY

On top of that, unless it was a different car than the one here, it couldn't have gone 145 mph, because the top speed was only 137 mph. 145 mph is 232 km/h, and most speedometers don't even go that high, so I wonder how it was accurately measured, especially in 1993 when GPS units weren't common.

He only said he was going 145 MPH just south of Jacksonville, FL. He didn't say it was going forward, or was even on the road.

I'll grant that he might need a cliff the height of which might not exist around there, but nothing's saying a Toyotondassan Maxicivicsentra can't fall that fast.

On top of that, unless it was a different car than the one here, it couldn't have gone 145 mph, because the top speed was only 137 mph. 145 mph is 232 km/h, and most speedometers don't even go that high, so I wonder how it was accurately measured, especially in 1993 when GPS units weren't common.

416 horse power and it can only do 132 mph is nothing to brag about.

My car can do 140 mph with only 200 horse power.

You don't have to be going at 200mph for a race to be interesting. As long as everyone has a similar specced vehicle, it's the way drivers handle braking, acceleration, lines through the corners and overtaking that makes a race interesting.

I really enjoy watching Touring Cars and rallies, but don't find F1 as entertaining. Touring cars tends to have packs of cars jostling for position and not so afraid to get up close and personal with each other. Rallying is of course just spectacular with all the drifting and varying terrain. I think it takes even more skill than being a good F1 driver. DTM is fun to watch too, it's like a mix between Touring Cars and F1.

you're describing karting.
not formula. not a manufacturers competition.

touring cars have _some_ differences too and le mans cars for example are extremely interesting tech. in dtm and some other touring car racing they add weights if you're beating the others so that tunes the field down. and rally was much more interesting with the stupid b class cars.

however you might enjoy this new formula-e-mcclaren - because all the drive trains come from the same company. how the fuck is this supposed to advance technlogy if there is no drivetrain competition? it's just another single manufacturer series. who the fuck watches any of the ferrari-only series with exactly identical cars? not too many people.

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/all-green-formula-e-buys-42-racecars-52008.html

Why does Tesla need to do something that other cars that were considered don't have to do?

Porsche has been selling around 2000 Boxsters per year for the last few years in the US, while Tesla has shipped 1000 Model Ss since they started making deliveries in June.

Those numbers seem pretty comparable to me.

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/tesla-celebrates-building-of-1000th-model-s-frame-51201.html

They actually did in 1995, but without success. Just found this as a reference on wikipedia: http://www.autoevolution.com/news/audi-reveals-updated-logo-10315.html

According to this article diesel is expensive and electric is expensive making the resulting hybrid REALLY expensive. If you still want one it looks like the Peugot they reference is a go although not in the US.

If you truly want to go the diesel/electric route you could order this kit and build a striking auto (technically a 3 wheel motorcycle) that gets over 200 miles to the gallon. And at ~$20,000 for the build it is still economical. I just wish they would have followed through with their plans to manufacture and sell these bad boys!

You think they drive gold plated supercars now like common savages? They drive diamond-encrusted cars. That launch out of their mega-yachts.

Yeah, well, the money for such things isn't available these days. What are you going to do? Not start wars in the middle east? Stop letting a handful of rich executives scoop up all the world's money? Who will buy the mega-yachts and supercars, or the mega-yachts with supercars inside? Won't somebody think of the supercar-launching-mega-yacht builders!?