Tesla CTO Talks Model S, Batteries and In-car Linux

angry tapir writes "The IDG News Service recently had a chance to speak to JB Straubel, chief technology officer for Tesla, about the Model S all-electric car, its design and technology, and his outlook on electric vehicle technology. He also shed a little light on the car's Linux-based software system."

Comments

Never going to take off

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with the Tesla Roadster, and I've taken a test drive, is that it sits too low to see the traffic signs.

I got pulled over on the test drive, as a matter of fact. The cop asked me if I could see the signs.

Re:Never going to take off

[Woek]

We're talking about the Model S

Re:Never going to take off

[Anonymous Coward]

So? Does that somehow make the Roadster any better?

Re:Never going to take off

[Anonymous Coward]

No. That makes the Roadster off-topic.

Re:Never going to take off

[horza]

The Roadster is a fun sports car. I've been in the petrol version (the Lotus Elise), my friend has one, and you do sit very low to the ground. I wouldn't buy one personally. It's a bit of a pain to get in and out of. The Model S looks amazing though, that model really will take off if priced right.

Phillip.

Re:Never going to take off

[Lumpy]

You have never driven any real sports car have you. Lamborghini, Ferrari,etc. They are not SUV's they sit 2 inches from the ground. The Lamborghini countach could not be backed out of a parking spot without sticking your head out of the window and sitting backwards.

You dont buy a sports car for ease of visibility.

Re:Never going to take off

[Anonymous Coward]

The Model S is actually built on the platform of the Lotus Evora, which is less hardcore than the Elise.

Re:Never going to take off

[K. S. Kyosuke]

No. That makes the Roadster off-topic.

It's no use anyway. Few people will buy Model R anyway, and Model S is going to be quite expensive for normal people. I'm waiting for Model T, something tells me that that could be the one.

Re:Never going to take off

[frontiersman]

The Model S is actually built on the platform of the Lotus Evora...

The Model S is actually designed from scratch and has no Lotus heritage whatsoever. The Roadster has 7% of its parts in common with the Lotus Elise and was built on the same production line.

Re:Never going to take off

[RaceProUK]

Lambos and Ferraris are supercars, designed for people with more money than sense. Sports cars are usually taken to be about $20000-$60000, and usually have pretty good visibility all round.

Re:Never going to take off

[strack]

Henry Ford maybe?

Re:Never going to take off

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. I meant the Tesla Roadster, not the Model S. My bad

Re:Never going to take off

[Dog-Cow]

Can we a get a "-100 Raped and Murdered the Joke" mod?

Re:Never going to take off

[SpzToid]

'Model T' gets modded +5 insightful on slashdot?

In other news: The relevance of insightful Slashdot commentary declines.

Re:Never going to take off

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as soon as we get a "-100 delusional signature in post" mod.

Re:Never going to take off

[drinkypoo]

In other news: The relevance of insightful Slashdot commentary declines.

The moderation system is broken by design and this is one of the results. Funny mods don't give +1 karma so many people use other positive moderations instead of funny to prevent karma rape by people who don't get the joke, or get it but don't like it.

Re:Never going to take off

[mister_playboy]

You also meant the Lotus Elise and not the Evora, right?

Re:Never going to take off

[loufoque]

You, sir, are confusing normal cars with sports cars.

Re:Never going to take off

[RaceProUK]

Sports cars with good visibility, at least good enough to park without leaning out the door/window:
Mazda RX-8
Nissan 370Z
Audi TT
Alfa Romeo Brera
Porsche Cayman
Any convertible sports car

I could go on.

Re:Never going to take off

[binarylarry]

And you forgot the Corvette, which is a sports car that can hang with super cars.

It's a super sports car!

Re:Never going to take off

[RaceProUK]

Good point - it may have leaf springs, but the C6 is a surprisingly capable sports car.

Re:Never going to take off

[0123456]

You have never driven any real sports car have you. Lamborghini, Ferrari,etc. They are not SUV's they sit 2 inches from the ground.

Lamborghini built an SUV. I thought about buying one once, but fortunately common sense prevailed.

Re:Never going to take off

[Hatta]

I prefer the Model M with buckling spring pedals.

Re:Never going to take off

[morari]

Perhaps you're just too used to sitting 12' up in the air in your Hummer? I routinely drive a 1974 Triumph Spitfire, that I would hazard to guess sits much lower than anything Tesla is offering. I've never had a problem with visibility, even with the hardtop on.

Re:Never going to take off

[jonamous]

I have an '11 370z as my daily driver and backing out of a parking spot is neither easy nor safe if you aren't craning your neck out the window. The pillars between the hatch and the main cabin create MASSIVE blind spots that cover the spot where cars would be while you are backing out. I always back /in/ to spaces now so I can pull out without fear of getting run into.

Re:Never going to take off

[SpzToid]

Now, the mods have adjusted it +5 funny, but when I commented originally, the model-T comment was at +5 insightful while my earlier comment has since been modded down (since it makes less sense with the adjustment).

Re:Never going to take off

[trbofly]

They are about to build an SUV again actually. More importantly, Lamborghini built tractors. Talk about a real hipster movement!

Re:Never going to take off

[Anonymous Coward]

The slashdot moderation system may be flawed, but I haven't seen one that does a better job of promoting the good stuff and hiding the bad.

Re:Never going to take off

[Anonymous Coward]

I test drove an RX-8 a while back and it actually had pretty poor visibility. Ended up going the "any covertable sports car" (corvette) route in part because of that.

Re:Never going to take off

[RenderSeven]

And now my friend, the first-a rule of Italian driving. [Franco rips off his rear-view mirror and throws it out of the car] What's-a behind me is not important.

range

[William Robinson]

300 miles is impressive, and probably because they are using Lithium Ion batteries, it should weight less. With gas prices touching sky, I would certainly be interested in this kind of researh ongoing. Some interesting add-ons to this could be PV cells embedded in the body to charge batteries while driving and add couple of hundred miles on the fly.

Re:range

[Woek]

I think you are overestimating the yield of PV cells...

Re:range

[Anonymous Coward]

300 miles is impressive, and probably because they are using Lithium Ion batteries, it should weight less. With gas prices touching sky, I would certainly be interested in this kind of researh ongoing. Some interesting add-ons to this could be PV cells embedded in the body to charge batteries while driving and add couple of hundred miles on the fly.

should read: ...couple of hundred miles on the life of the car.

Re:range

[Lumpy]

you are grossly overestimating the output of PV cells. you would need to tow a 40 foot long trailer of the highest output PV cells to increase the range like that.

and gas prices have not even got off the ground yet. Wait for the $8.00 a gallon and $12.00 a gallon prices. $4.00 a gallon is dirt cheap compared to where it will go.

Re:range

[Pisus]

and gas prices have not even got off the ground yet. Wait for the $8.00 a gallon and $12.00 a gallon prices. $4.00 a gallon is dirt cheap compared to where it will go.

Here in Italy we are very very near $9.36 per gallon... sigh now i use an app to find the cheapest price around a 5 km radius...

Re:range

[tgd]

300 miles is because it has a HUGE battery. The Volt has LiIon batteries, too, and only gets 42 miles (give or take).

The Volt has a 16kw battery pack, of which it uses about 10.4kw to get the 42 miles.

The high end Model S is a 85kw battery pack for ~300 miles. I've seen nothing that talks about what percentage of that it uses to get the 300 miles, but it sounds like its probably nearly identical to the efficiency the Volt gets. GM determined that its battery life is maximized by both actively maintaining the temperature of the battery -- heating and cooling, and only using the middle 2/3 of the battery's storage range.

Now, that means to add 100 miles of range to the Tesla, you'd need to generate about 28 kwh of electricity. (Enough to power 5-6 houses!)

If you can invent PV cells that fit on the roof of a small sedan and can generate that kind of power in a day, I can tell you -- there's a much better market for them.

Problem is, you're two orders of magnitude off.

Re:range

[ledow]

Hell, Europe is "closer" to the oil-producing countries and we're still paying £1.30 / 1.30 Euro a LITRE which is 6 $USD for a US gallon. And you know what? People still pay it, because there is still no viable alternative. Drive anywhere in Europe, it's all the same.

I sat down, did lots of calculations and set my own limit a while back - at £2 per litre, that's $12 for a US gallon, I have to *start* reconsidering the amount of driving I do. Chances are that by the time it hits that, interest rates will have risen to match, salaries will have risen to match, fuel efficiencies will have risen to match, I'll need a new car anyway, and public transport prices will still be as ridiculous as they are now.

And my reconsideration might just be "Well, nothing I can do about it" or even just "Actually, the relative value is still the same". It's not going to be "Oh, wow, I have to go out and spend tens of thousands on a new car with a new fuel, the money for which I'll have "saved" before it ends up as scrap metal." without some hugely drastic amount of physics being changed so that it's viable.

Until anything approaching 60 mpg can be gotten out of a *SECONDHAND* car with ranges of 400-500 miles, where I can fuel up ANYWHERE without having to consult lists of stations and maps, where I can repair the car for no more than an ordinary one and where I can trade in that car for some decent percentage of the original price I paid, then every other technology is going to lose out.

Hell, I did some maths the other day. If you add up the price of every car I've ever owned, every repair I've ever done (not including my own time), and fuel for several years, it *STILL* doesn't come to the price of one of the fancy hybrid cars that they want me to buy. Hell, for some models I wouldn't even get the second-hand price. In the face of such economics, it's no shock that the people who actually travel a lot aren't buying alternative fuel cars.

For £300, I have a car that's lasted 4 years with me and required about £300 of repairs and parts in all that time. It burns £400 a month in petrol but I get 50mpg (UK gallon!). That's almost impossible to compete against with such technology. A complete engine replacement for my car? About £300 off the scrap heap or a grand or two for something "newer".

When alternative fuel will honestly cost me more money than I've ever spent on my current car + fuel for a year before I even start driving it, it's hard to pitch those technologies. And replacing one hundred granny's cars who do 10 miles a month is pointless if you could replace just one heavy road user with a decent car.

Hell, I don't even care about speed, I'd poodle along in the slow lane quite happily, so long as it was motorway-capable (which means at least 60mph by law in my country). But you just CANNOT get close to anything the petrol offers at the moment, and petrol can quite literally double in price and STILL it would be more worthwhile. It would have to literally quadruple or more in price to actually price myself out of using it, and then things like LPG conversion (was quoted £800 for a full conversion last year) would probably get me another doubling of price before I was priced out again.

Petrol is amazingly cheap for what it gives you compared to EVERYTHING else that's at the cutting edge of research.

Re:range

[Anonymous Coward]

Get your units in order, man! An amount of energy is given in kWh. Watt is a unit of power (as in unit of energy per unit of time). To get the amount of energy, multiply by the time, hence kWh.

28kWh is enough to power 1000 houses for a very short time or 1 house for a thousand times longer.

This stuff matters if you want to discuss matters on a level above "it's got electrolytes" (which it does, btw).

Re:range

[captainpanic]

Petrol is amazingly cheap for what it gives you compared to EVERYTHING else that's at the cutting edge of research.

You apparently did not do the actual maths.

Electric: 0.09 euro/kWh, or about 0.025 euro/MJ
Gasoline: 1.5 euro/liter, or about 0.047 euro/MJ

In other words, the energy for electric costs half that of gasoline, and that's still excluding the much higher efficiency of the electric car. Per driven kilometer, it is even more extreme.

If you don't like electric for it's limited range and slow charging times, sure. But despite the expensive batteries, it's getting damn close to the gsaoline cars.

Re:range

[Anonymous Coward]

+1.
Units are a mess in the GP.

28kWh would not power my (1300 sq.ft.) house for an entire day (I average 41 kWh per day).

Re:range

[Anonymous Coward]

Chances are that by the time it hits that ... salaries will have risen to match

ROFL. I stopped reading here.

Re:range

[FireFury03]

Hell, Europe is "closer" to the oil-producing countries and we're still paying £1.30 / 1.30 Euro a LITRE which is 6 $USD for a US gallon.

Yep, and the UK government keeps telling the oil industry to slash prices because they are "harming the economy". The oil industry tells them to go to hell each time, and you know what - I don't blame them since 64% of the petrol price is tax and the government still keeps increasing the tax. It *is* harming the economy, but if the government is serious about doing something about that they should be cutting the tax instead of expecting the oil industry to take the hit all by themselves.

and public transport prices will still be as ridiculous as they are now.

Part of the problem here is that public transport get taxed on their fuel just like the public. Every time the government says "we need to raise fuel tax to encourage more people onto public transport", they increase the tax that public transport pay for their fuel as well, so all the bus fares go up to cover it. If taxes are going to be as high as they are at the moment, we need them to be used in investing in infrastructure (that means giving public transport a break instead of taxing them heavilly, maintaining the pothole riddled roads, improving the rail infrastructure, etc.).

The british train prices are beyond belief - if you book 2 weeks in advance you can get a good deal, but if you book within a week of travelling then things get much more hit and miss. If you have to make a last minute decision to go somewhere then forget about using the train. I frequently take a late night train which costs £14.50 each way if I book 1-2 weeks in advance (commically the first class tickets for *the same train* are £175 a pop); meanwhile if I leave it to a day or 2 before travelling, the ticket will cost me £80 each way. I can do the *round trip* for £55 in the car (and it takes almost half the time), so unless I'm in a position to plan a couple of weeks in advance it doesn't make any sense to take the train. The rising prices would all make some sense if the train capacity was very limited, but these are late night trains which are practically empty - by offering tickets at these unrealistic prices, they just ensure that it is emptier, even though they still have to pay the fixed costs of actually running the service.

And before anyone says that I'm comparing apples and oranges since I haven't considered the cost of owning a car in the above prices: no, I haven't considered the cost of owning a car because the public transport is so bad that I (and most other people) have to have a car anyway, so it is legitimate to just compare the fuel cost of running your existing car against the cost of taking public transport.

It's not going to be "Oh, wow, I have to go out and spend tens of thousands on a new car with a new fuel, the money for which I'll have "saved" before it ends up as scrap metal."

My take on this is that not only are electric cars still pretty expensive, but the batteries wear out and will be expensive to replace. If I buy a brand new petrol car, it will still be running in 15 years time and it'll still be running in 150,000 - 200,000 miles, probably without having had significant repair work done on it. Can the same be said for an electric car? I doubt it.

Then there's the range - yes, 300 miles is a reasonable range, but there are times that I do journeys longer than that and I can't just spend 2 minutes at a petrol station refuelling an electric car. For this reason alone, I'm not convinced that the current form of electric cars are going to replace petrol ones for the majority of the population. Driving into the fuel station and having the entire battery pack replaced with a fully charged one would give you the equivalent "recharge rate" of a petrol car (and with the batteries essentially just "on loan", the cost of replacing them when they w

Re:range

[FireFury03]

You apparently did not do the actual maths.

Electric: 0.09 euro/kWh, or about 0.025 euro/MJ
Gasoline: 1.5 euro/liter, or about 0.047 euro/MJ

In other words, the energy for electric costs half that of gasoline, and that's still excluding the much higher efficiency of the electric car. Per driven kilometer, it is even more extreme.

If you don't like electric for it's limited range and slow charging times, sure. But despite the expensive batteries, it's getting damn close to the gsaoline cars.

You apparently didn't read the parent's post properly, where the comparison was the total cost of ownership, not just the fuel cost.

Re:range

[MMC Monster]

Someone has to buy these first models, so that less expensive ones can be made in the future.

The Tesla models are for those people. And people with that sort of money tend to want the amenities seen in more expensive cars.

In a decade these things will trickle down in price and become more common.

Re:range

[drinkypoo]

Until anything approaching 60 mpg can be gotten out of a *SECONDHAND* car with ranges of 400-500 miles, where I can fuel up ANYWHERE without having to consult lists of stations and maps, where I can repair the car for no more than an ordinary one and where I can trade in that car for some decent percentage of the original price I paid, then every other technology is going to lose out.

And that's why Diesel is doing so well everywhere but the USA, where cars like that are outlawed on one pretext or another.

Re:range

[thomasw_lrd]

This is Tesla's whole business model. Build expensive cars for people with more money than average. Keep refining the technology, and build a cheaper car. Rinse and Repeat until everyone can afford to buy a Tesla Model C (Cheap).

Re:range

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, and the UK government keeps telling the oil industry to slash prices because they are "harming the economy". The oil industry tells them to go to hell each time, and you know what - I don't blame them since 64% of the petrol price is tax and the government still keeps increasing the tax. It *is* harming the economy, but if the government is serious about doing something about that they should be cutting the tax instead of expecting the oil industry to take the hit all by themselves.

Yeah, those poor oil companies who have, even adjusted for inflation, been making record profits as oil prices have skyrocketed might have to actually have less profits. I think I'll have to cry myself to sleep tonight over their pain.

Re:range

[Gadget_Guy]

So what? Because you don't want one you think the whole electric car industry should pack up and go home? Every time electric vehicles are discussed around here, somebody always pipes up with this sort of calculation, as if their personal needs should dictate the use of a technology. Yes, if you were not going to buy a new car, then one of these models is not for you. Yes, if you don't drive much then there won't be any fuel savings.

There are nearly 150,000 new cars sold in the UK every month. You might not want to buy a new car, but a lot of other people do. Those are the people who it is hoped will head down the alternate fuel route.

Re:range

[Bigby]

Are you saying trickle down economics works? And you are saying that on /.?

Re:range

[SydShamino]

This is the opposite of trickle down economics. Trickle down says that you should give money to rich people first, so that eventually it finds its way to poorer people.

Tesla's model is to take money from rich people first, to fund research that eventually helps poorer people too. That sounds a lot more like a progressive stance when put that way, right?

Re:range

[DuckDodgers]

No, he's saying that new technologies are introduced in luxury products and then gradually become mainstream. In cars that was true of power-adjustable seats, power windows, stability control, side curtain airbags, automatic transmissions with more than four gears, automatic transmissions that use electronic clutches instead of a torque converter (like the Audi DSG - first available on their top models, now available on some cars that cost less than $30,000), touch screen systems, DVD players, and so forth.

Likewise the Tesla Roadster was $100,000. The Model S starts at $57,500 before tax incentives, although if you purchase a charging station and a few other features it will probably really cost closer to $65,000. The longest range version of the Model S starts around $75,000 although you can add luxury and high performance features to drive the cost up to $100,000. Hopefully Tesla gets better at managing their production processes and high sales volume, technological advances, and (if we are lucky) competition between component vendors will all drive down their costs. Maybe in five years the successor to the Model S will deliver an equivalent product to their current $75,000 version for $50,000.

Even at $75,000, if the battery pack can maintain 75% of its charge up to 200,000 miles it's about as cost-effective to own as a $55,000 sedan with equivalent performance and a traditional gasoline engine. The Tesla Model S requires about 0.3 kwh of charging per mile driven, so as long as the price of electricity rises more slowly than the price of gasoline the long term savings are good. On the other hand, if you're looking to save money it will never pay off compared to a used car or a new Prius (or even a new Fiat 500, Honda Civic, etc... ) but of course those vehicles are substantially slower.

Re:range

[DuckDodgers]

They're not outlawed. The emissions standards are difficult to meet, but they can be meet. The real problem in the US is that taxes on diesel fuels are higher than on gasoline. So the diesel engine vehicle might use 40% less fuel, but since your cost per gallon is 30% higher the savings are negligible.

Also remember that the United Kingdom uses "imperial gallons" for measurement, which are 20% larger than US gallons. Every so often someone mocks the poor fuel efficiency of economy cars on the US market without realizing the difference.

Re:range

[sunking2]

You aren't actually closer. The US gets most of its oil from Mexico and South America.

Re:range

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, Europe is "closer" to the oil-producing countries and we're still paying £1.30 / 1.30 Euro a LITRE which is 6 $USD for a US gallon.

Lucky you. 1.7e here in Finland =)

Re:range

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm missing something, but you're saying that you bought a car four years ago that cost only £300 and yet gets 50 imperial gallons to the mile? What car is this?

Doing a little converting so my American brain can grasp this it comes out to about $470 dollars that you paid for the car and it gets about 41 miles to the gallon. Here I have never even heard of a car that got above 40mpg before the year 2010. So one again, what is this uk super car that was made at least four years ago and gets above 40mpg and yet costs under $500? I want one.

Re:range

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla's model is to take money from rich people first

When put that way, it does sound more progressive. I see the business model as Convince the rich people to give them money to fund further research, by offering them a bleeding-edge look-at-what-I've-got piece of technology with all the bells and whistles that the look-at-me crowd wants, because the look-at-me crowd has money, while the I-just-want-to-get-to-work crowd doesn't have that kind of disposable cash.

Re:range

[timeOday]

and gas prices have not even got off the ground yet. Wait for the $8.00 a gallon and $12.00 a gallon prices. $4.00 a gallon is dirt cheap compared to where it will go.

I'm very skeptical of that now because of the huge increase in natural gas production in the last few years. Gasoline and natural gas aren't fully interchangeable of course, but there is already a compressed natural gas Honda Civic, for example.

I have mixed feelings about natural gas. I'm sure it will delay the adoption of wind, solar, and electric cars. But it's so much better than coal, and mostly better than gasoline.

Re:range

[mcgrew]

Yes, but much of that price goes to your health care. Here, my health insurance premiums far outstrip my gasoline consumption. If I didn't have to buy healh insurance I wouldn't mind paying $10 per gallon.

Re:range

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm missing something, but you're saying that you bought a car four years ago that cost only £300 and yet gets 50 imperial gallons to the mile? What car is this?

Doing a little converting so my American brain can grasp this it comes out to about $470 dollars that you paid for the car and it gets about 41 miles to the gallon. Here I have never even heard of a car that got above 40mpg before the year 2010. So one again, what is this uk super car that was made at least four years ago and gets above 40mpg and yet costs under $500? I want one.

Diesel VW Rabbit (Golf in Europe) got over 40 miles per U.S. gallon back in the 1980s.

Re:range

[asavage]

It doesn't change your point but Canada supplies the most oil to the USA. 2x more than Saudi Arabia and 3x more than Mexico who are 2nd and 3rd in supplying the US with oil.

Re:range

[nazsco]

So much unit idiocy... Can uk and us stop acting like that soon? That post could have been half the size without calling out an explanation for every unit of measure.

Re:range

[cayenne8]

Until they bring back the Tesla Roadster for an electric car that isn't downright fugly and get it in the price range of a vette....I'm not interested.

Re:range

[mcgrew]

Hell, Europe is "closer" to the oil-producing countries

If you mean closer to the oil producing countries than the USA is, you're wrong. The US is an oil producing country, but we use all we produce. Most of what we import comes from Canada.

Until anything approaching 60 mpg can be gotten out of a *SECONDHAND* car...

I bought my car used, it was five years old. It had a rated mileage figure of 35 mpg, I got 36 out of it once while driving 50 mph because I'd had a flat and was driving on a donut spare. So that's obviously doable, once we get 60 mpg cars.

where I can repair the car for no more than an ordinary one

Except for the batteries, electric cars should be far less expensive to maintain than gasoline engines.

Hell, I did some maths the other day. If you add up the price of every car I've ever owned, every repair I've ever done (not including my own time), and fuel for several years, it *STILL* doesn't come to the price of one of the fancy hybrid cars that they want me to buy.

That's now, but look at history to see what tomorrow will bring. When telephones were new, they were very expensive, only businesses had any real use for them (and few businesses at that), and they were a rich man's toy. Fifty years later everyone had one.

In 1964 a computer cost millions of dollars. Nobody ever dreamed there would be at least one in almost every home. It may be a while, but the price of electric cars will come down, range will go up, as will availability of charging stations. The future will see cheap electric cars.

Re:range

[fnj]

You apparently did not do the actual maths.

Electric: 0.09 euro/kWh, or about 0.025 euro/MJ
Gasoline: 1.5 euro/liter, or about 0.047 euro/MJ

In other words, the energy for electric costs half that of gasoline, and that's still excluding the much higher efficiency of the electric car. Per driven kilometer, it is even more extreme.

If you don't like electric for it's limited range and slow charging times, sure. But despite the expensive batteries, it's getting damn close to the gsaoline cars.

Your numbers are suspect. Here are the actual figures for electric cost:

Austria 0.18 euro/kWh
Belgium 0.19
Denmark 0.26
France 0.13
Germany 0.24
Italy 0.25
Netherlands 0.24
Spain 0.18
Sweden 0.18
UK 0.13

I didn't consciously cherry pick those numbers, and Estonia and Bulgaria are the only ones I see under 0.10. I'd say the true figure is at least twice what you claim, wiping out your supposed cost advantage.

Re:range

[SomePgmr]

Just curious, is Italy taxing gas to pay for healthcare, or did you mean our federal fuel subsidies could otherwise pay for healthcare?

Re:range

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, I read somewhere (Wired, maybe?) that to stay afloat they were licensing some of their technology to the likes of companies like Toyota. That and the the improvements resulting from steady demand of drivetrain grade batteries hopefully will yield cost gains across the industry for the further development of the whole market of EVs.

Re:range

[proud american]

This is the opposite of trickle down economics. Trickle down says that you should give money to rich people first, so that eventually it finds its way to poorer people.

Tesla's model is to take money from rich people first, to fund research that eventually helps poorer people too.

You are completely wrong.

Tesla isnt a government entity taking money against people's will. They are a company selling a premium product to wealthy people. They are reinvesting that money to refine their product and make more money. If they are successful this will have an economic ripple effect that will produce more jobs. The government has been supporting this by taking money from others to provide loans to the company and tax incentives to the wealthy buyers. If that isn't trickle-down economics I dont know what is.

Tesla will produce an inexpensive car when (1) it can be done profitably and (2) they want to be in the business of dealing with many low-margin customers instead of few high-margin ones.

Re:range

[Anonymous Coward]

Electricity cost is mostly irrelevant to this discussion. Currently the battery costs much more per kWh stored over its lifetime than the electricity that is stored. Current LiIon batteries add about 0.80EUR/kWh to the cost of the energy. A typical ratio between electricity consumption and fuel consumption of a similar car is 0.3: 20kWh/100km is roughly equivalent to 6.7liters/100km. An electric car therefore costs about (20kWh/100km)*(0.8EUR/kWh+0.2EUR/kWh)=20EUR/100km. Even with free electricity, an electric car still costs 16EUR/100km due to the cost of the battery. A comparable car with a combustion engine costs (6.7l/100km)*(1.5EUR/l)=10EUR/100km.

Re:range

[7-Vodka]

I'll freely admit that I'm unfamiliar with trickle down economics, but this is slashdot so I feel completely entitled to chime in.

Trickle down says that you should give money to rich people first, so that eventually it finds its way to poorer people.

It seems to me you are vastly mis-characterizing trickle down economics. A better way to put it would be:

Trickle down says that you should let very productive individuals keep the wealth they earn so that they will be motivated and empowered continue to be productive and generate wealth or provide services that benefit others as well.

There's no giving of money to anyone. I'm not sure if you're familiar with a hard day's work, but that's what free market economics rewards. The idea is to let people keep what they earned through their own sweat instead of coming to take it at gunpoint by mob rule.

Of course you could go back to your illogical caricature if it's more comforting to you.

Re:range

[bill_mcgonigle]

Tesla's model is to take money from rich people first, to fund research that eventually helps poorer people too. That sounds a lot more like a progressive stance when put that way, right?

No, the 'progressive' stance is to take the money from the rich people so they don't have it to spend on Tesla cars. The Government should be in the car R&D business, where it will be done unencumbered by the evils of capitalism (aka Tesla).

To be fair, the DoE gave Tesla low-interest loans, so there's a bit of fascism going on here, not just capitalism. But to be extra-fair, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 has completely screwed up the banking system in the US, which made those loans necessary in the first place. Nasty, nasty mess.

Re:range

[AmiMoJo]

My take on this is that not only are electric cars still pretty expensive, but the batteries wear out and will be expensive to replace. If I buy a brand new petrol car, it will still be running in 15 years time and it'll still be running in 150,000 - 200,000 miles, probably without having had significant repair work done on it. Can the same be said for an electric car? I doubt it.

This is a myth that embarrassingly seems to have started with Top Gear, a show not exactly known for it's fair and balanced take on EVs.

A typical battery pack will be guaranteed for around 8 years. That doesn't mean it will be dead after 8 years. Tesla say at least 90% capacity left IIRC. Even then you don't have to replace the whole thing, just the relatively small number of failing cells. So in that respect the overall lifetime is expected to be comparable to a petrol engine and require about as much money spending on parts for maintenance.

Then there's the range - yes, 300 miles is a reasonable range, but there are times that I do journeys longer than that and I can't just spend 2 minutes at a petrol station refuelling an electric car.

300 miles at 70MPH (ideal conditions) will take over 4 hours to drive. If you don't take a 30 minute break after 4 hours you are an idiot.

Sure, lack of charging points is a problem. It will eventually get better, but for now just borrow your partner's car or rent one. He says in the interview that this is a transitional vehicle and that the key point really.

Re:range

[Anonymous Coward]

kWh = 1,000 Watt Hours = 1,000 Joules/Second * Hours = 1,000 Joules/Sec * 3600 Sec = 1.0e3 Joules/Sec * 3.6e3 Sec = 3.6e6 Joules = 3,600,000 = 3.6 million Joules. So your quote is 0.18 euro/3.6 million joules (for Australia). Original poster said, MJ (Mega-Joules, or 1 million Joules). So, the ratio is 1/3.6. So, you have 0.18 / 3.6 ~ 0.05/MJ. Which is just about twice what the grandparent said (0.025Eur/MJ). So, you were spot on when you said, "I'd say the true figure is at least twice what you claim...". I was about to say you weren't using the same units, but, as can be seen from the above, you must've already done the conversion.

Re:range

[cfvgcfvg]

The Roadster is approx 80 square feet. A 100 watt panel is 8 square feet. If you covered the car you could get a full kilowatt, or 8 kilowatt-hours while at work. This is enough for a 20% charge on the smaller battery or 30 miles, more than enough for the average commute.

Re:range

[Yvan256]

And the future is now!

Re:range

[Man Eating Duck]

This is the opposite of trickle down economics. Trickle down says that you should give money to rich people first, so that eventually it finds its way to poorer people.

Tesla's model is to take money from rich people first, to fund research that eventually helps poorer people too. That sounds a lot more like a progressive stance when put that way, right?

While I don't know anyting about economics, my impression seems to back you up. I saw a Tesla Roadster for the first time in my life today. It looked amazing. I spotted it while out on the town in Oslo, Norway, I can tell you that it turned a few heads. It looks like a muscle car (which it is), what also drew attention whas that it was completely silient.

Here, driving one is a statement saying "I have money and my second car is a Porsche (my third is a Bentley, and my driver will pick us up)", at least as of yet. I hope that it'll be available as a decent second-car-as-a-sports-car for people who would otherwise buy a Porsche or a Jaguar.

Re:range

[Anonymous Coward]

The Hybrid cars will not become cheaper. Not everyone can have an electric car- there is not enough lithium on the planet to achieve this. As resources become more scarce - they will only be available to the rich and as such industry must make much more money from less resources, in order to attempt to make the resource last as long as possible, or at least until vastly abundant power and mineral resources are found and proven to be 100%+ renewable.
It is foolish to think that making everyone a cheap car is sensible, at least it makes more sense to make half as many cars for double the price. It is a lot less work and pollution for the same return.....

To solve the problem, you need to live where you would normally like to take a holiday and be able to work there within walking distance or use a bike - assuming that both these methods of transport remain cost effective :)

Re:range

[FireFury03]

This is a myth that embarrassingly seems to have started with Top Gear, a show not exactly known for it's fair and balanced take on EVs.

A typical battery pack will be guaranteed for around 8 years. That doesn't mean it will be dead after 8 years.

I will wait and see if that proves accurate. I've seen similar claims for other LiIon powered technologies which have not come to pass.

300 miles at 70MPH (ideal conditions) will take over 4 hours to drive. If you don't take a 30 minute break after 4 hours you are an idiot.

I usually swap with my partner rather than taking a break - when you have a 13 hour drive you tend not to want to waste a lot of time stopping. Your 30 minute break only gets you half capacity too, so you've got a further 30 minute break every 2 hours thereafter.

I'm not trying to take anything away from their accomplishments, but for me I don't think they are there yet.

Re:range

[Anonymous Coward]

You were making a good argument, why did you have to ruin it with the name calling at the end? I've driven from Portland, Oregon to LA in 20 hours before with no break of more than maybe 10 minutes. It isn't that hard. An electric vehicle would make a trip like that unfeasible, and that's before considering the lack of places to charge up would require extensive planning. Even if they were as common as gas stations are now, you'd still have to factor a considerable amount of charging time.

Re:range

[Caetel]

Electric: 0.09 euro/kWh, or about 0.025 euro/MJ

You're funny. In the UK, the absolute least you'll be paying is EUR 0.15/kWh, and the cost of electricity has increased 25% in 4 years.

Re:range

[Caetel]

£1.35/L (the average price here) is pretty much EUR 1.70/L

Re:range

[IrquiM]

So this is why Norway, after US, is their 2nd most imporant market?

Re:range

[Lumpy]

There are already cheap electric cars. they have existed for quite a while now.

The Dynasty IT, the GEM, the Zap Xebra to name a few that are cheap and have existed way before the volt and tesla.

Also a friend has a 1984 LE-Car that was an electric conversion that he has owned for 30 years. There are several companies that will take an existing small car and do a complete electric conversion for a LOT less than buying a manufactured one.

Re:range

[Lumpy]

"Until anything approaching 60 mpg can be gotten out of a *SECONDHAND* car with ranges of 400-500 miles, " 1999-2002 Honda insight. Any VW TDI ... Honda civic VX , The Honda CRX, you have a LOT of choices for 60mpg used cars you can get for cheap.

Re:range

[Lumpy]

A honda CRX can be found for 300 pounds and get's 60mpg highway. it will be a rust bucket, but it will get 60mpg.

Re:range

[mcgrew]

Europe's gasoline is a lot higher than ours for two reasons, one is that the crude they use is slightly more expensive, but mostly because the taxes on their gasoline are a LOT higher than ours. All of Europe has universal, government-paid health care, which of course comes from taxes.

I have some ability to control how much fuel I use, I have no control whatever over health care costs.

Re:range

[SydShamino]

Of course they aren't a government entity, but the OP was comparing their behavior to a government, albeit in an incorrect way. I provided a better comparison.

Re:range

[SydShamino]

You make a false assumption that those individuals are very productive. You also presume that individuals naturally have the right to pay no taxes, which is laughably false.

FUCKIN GOD DAMN HIPPIES

[Anonymous Coward]

electricity is for faggots give me sumodem red blooded oil cars!

Re:FUCKIN GOD DAMN HIPPIES

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but it's the year of Linux on the dash board!

Re:FUCKIN GOD DAMN HIPPIES

[Lumpy]

Actually it is. the number of Android car stereos are exploding on the market. Why pay extortion to microsoft for the inferior windows CE when you can use the free android version of Linux.

Re:FUCKIN GOD DAMN HIPPIES

[FireFury03]

Actually it is. the number of Android car stereos are exploding on the market. Why pay extortion to microsoft for the inferior windows CE when you can use the free android version of Linux.

I tend not to like electronics in my car that explode...

Re:FUCKIN GOD DAMN HIPPIES

[corychristison]

Sometime i wish i never opted out of the mod point program. This made me chuckle. +1 to you.

So I read the article...

[Areyoukiddingme]

Are there any regular readers of IDG here? Are their articles normally such total fluff pieces? 'cause that was such a fluff piece I'm still trying to dig out from under all the marshmallows. Seriously, journalism about electric cars is still at the level of "the entertainment console computer is independent of the drive train computer"? Like, I dunno, every OTHER car on the road with a touchscreen in its console? "Ooo. Aaaaaa."

Yeesh.

Re:So I read the article...

[xs650]

The electric car people make Apple Fanboys look like rational people.

Re:So I read the article...

[nazsco]

Like anybody reads the linked articles. They're just conversation starts.

you FAIL It

[Anonymous Coward]

as one of the W00t pr0-hIomosexual the facts and

Eyes on the road

[DrXym]

I wonder what the safety implications are of packing a 17 inch tablet into a vehicle for people to play with when their eyes are supposed to be on the road. Even if Tesla were to disable stuff like the browser, twitter, facebook, videos etc while the car is in motion, what impact does it have on safety if the driver still has to screw around with a large flat glass screen to find the AC control, or to change radio stations, or look down for other reasons? In most vehicles they'd have a physical dial or switch in a fixed position which they could locate without taking their eyes off the road. Here there is no tactile feedback - just glass, no certainty of where buttons are since the screens change or move around. It sounds pretty dangerous really.

Re:Eyes on the road

[Imbrondir]

Depends on their menu design. With a huge tablet and a well designed menu, it's quite possible to get an overview at just a glance, and get a lot done by pressing a button or two.

Compare this to many modern cars (like Audi and BMW) where they seem to prefer a complex menu, 5" screen, controlled by a wheel. Operating these still require 100% focus on screen. They also still have some normal one-use buttons, but are the teslas absolutely stripped from all buttons?

Re:Eyes on the road

[Trepidity]

Slashdot story from earlier this week: Touch Interfaces In Cars Difficult To Use

Re:Eyes on the road

[cayenne8]

I'd rather just mount my own tablet....so I can watch videos while driving on longer trips, and not have to bother with trying to bypass the manufactures installed video prevention crap.

With a nice 4G connection, I can even stream netflix while on a long road trip.

Re:Eyes on the road

[suutar]

I suspect tablet-ish control systems won't get really popular until the surface gets rigged to give tactile feedback. I recall seeing a couple of articles about progress in this area. Once you can again feel when you're in the right spot without looking, having a reconfigurable panel will be pretty cool.
Of course, if vocal command systems (siri et al) get more common and sophisticated, that may reduce the need for the touch-feedback system. I don't think it'll eliminate it completely, though.

Re:Eyes on the road

[mcgrew]

With a huge tablet and a well designed menu, it's quite possible to get an overview at just a glance

Which is still more dangerous than finding a knob by feel.

I don't want a linux based "software system"

[Viol8]

I don't want a Windows based one
I don't want an OS/X based one
I don't want a BSD based one

What I want is a system specifically designed to run a CAR. Not some desktop kernel thats been massaged and kicked into shape until it can do an ok job at it. I want a kernel thats been designed FROM THE GROUND UP to run a vehicle. Is that too much to ask these days?

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if you think about it again, you'll find out that the components that make your car go and stop and turn into corners shouldn't be run by an operating system at all. You'll want low level code for the controls and the loops delivering information about the state of the control to a device that makes it human readable.

Those devices could be looking like a dashboard you're used to, or fed into a central information system that will present the data in various ways.

Tesla's Model S does have 2 screens to present all the data generated by the car. The one mentioned in TFA is the one in the middle console and is a pretty impressive thing of it's own. You could do perfectly fine without that one though - it's a piece of design. The other one, which IMO is a lot cooler is the one replacing the dashboard. It's got all the info you need to drive the car, and for instance displays a smaller version of the navigation so you don't need to take your eyes off the road.

The following video I found will give you an impression on how those features work out in the Model S: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agP9NVD9KjU

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason it wouldn't make sense to use the _Linux kernel_ would be if your hardware is too small / underpowered for it to fit

Linux isn't a "desktop kernel" or a "server kernel" or a "phone kernel" or a "tablet kernel" or a "set top box kernel" or a "satellite navigation system kernel" or anything else like that. It's a general purpose OS kernel, because it turns out the tradeoffs you're imagining do not exist.

Microsoft spent /years/ telling people that the "different" needs of desktops and servers had meant they had to make custom NT kernels that were different. Then somebody figured out how to unlock a Windows NT "desktop" machine to be a "server" by changing a registry entry and showed it had all been bullshit. Of course it's bullshit. Imagine if somebody told you that you needed a different and more expensive calculator to add up how much gold you have than for iron or wood. You'd see through that bullshit immediately right? The same for kernels. They're general purpose, no need to have a special expensive one for each use.

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[OlivierB]

the article is not that long so you could have at least skimmed through it. The Tesla guy makes a key point in saying that Linux runs the entertainment system and dahsboard (google maps, speedo, etc.). The cars propulsion system (i.e. what runs the motors, battery, brakes, etc..) is completely separate. The linux front-end can crash completely and the car will continue to drive just fine. RTFA

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[nzac]

RTFA...

For the control and motor and things like that, we don't have operating systems. They run in a lower level and are actually running C code, so we have engineers upstairs writing in the C programming language, building the control loops from scratch.

Linux is for running the UI. The article covers your concern quite well.

Calling Linux a desktop kernel does not contribute to credibility of your rant.

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[Viol8]

I wouldn't call a non working dashboard "just fine" , would you?

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[Anonymous Coward]

What about a QNX based one?

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[arth1]

I wouldn't call a non working dashboard "just fine" , would you?

Certainly "just fine" for driving purposes.
If you can't safely drive the vehicle without the dashboard, either the car is fundamentally broken, or you are.

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[frontiersman]

What I want is a system specifically designed to run a CAR.

The Model S has a webkit-based browser, plays MP3's, etc, etc. I'm glad Tesla did not write their own OS which then runs on 100,000 cars. I'd much rather have an OS that has been running on 100 million CPU's for many many years. The low-level stuff (controlling the power to the ~300kW motor) doesn't use Linux.

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[frontiersman]

AFAIK both the center console and the dashboard display are controller by the same computer. It's the low-level stuff that doesn't use Linux.

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[tippen]

Being a good general purpose OS kernel doesn't mean it appropriate for _all_ purposes. Control systems are generally better off using an RTOS.

Linux has certainly gotten much better in the last few years, but it's not a one-size-fits-all best answer.

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[jellomizer]

So you wan't to add 10 years of development and bug fixing to make Kernel to do nearly the same thing as the other Kernels out there.

Most of these kernels are for general purpose. And they all need to do the following.
1. Memory Management. App 1 and App 2 are both running. lets make sure they don't use the same memory space.
2. Get App 1 and App 2 to multi-task. and Make sure one doesn't kill the other.
3. Interface with the hardware. So the programmers don't need to do System level coding for everything.

Linux was probably chosen because it has an active and large group of people who know more about the kernel and can make a custom OS around it.
BSD would be my second bet.
Windows is possible however Tesla would need to license and work with Microsoft.
OS/X kernel is based on BSD anyways.

The Kernel isn't the OS. The Kernel is only part of the Full OS. That is why there is a difference between Google Android and GNU/Linux. OS/X and FreeBSD. In theory you could take the Windows Kernel and make an OS that isn't Windows.

The Kernel Handles a lot of the lower level stuff. And OS has a lot more then a kernel.

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[Ginger Unicorn]

I'm not sure what impact the status of either the in-car entertainment system or a piece of interior trim would have on the performance and handling of a car.

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[h4rr4r]

BeHold:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTLinux

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[Viol8]

As long as you don't need to know what speed you're going or how much charge you've got left in the battery then sure.

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[hey!]

Linux is a desktop kernel?

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[SiChemist]

OS X uses a mach kernel with a BSD userland and a custom Apple GUI on top. (I know it's pedantic. I can't help it.)

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[WillAdams]

The irony here is that the embedded OS used in most (still? was last I checked) cars, TRON, was the subject of an effort by the Japanese government to get it onto desktops, but the US FTC complained of it as anti-competitive:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/applications/31855.html

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[Anonymous Coward]

You should meet my uncle. He's got at least three old cars that have that problem.

Not to mention no radio, no heater, no air conditioning, and some of them don't even have seat belts.

Sure, he's not comfortable with the idea of going out on the Interstate, but for local around the town driving? It's fine for what he does.

Heck, on at least one of the vehicles, he has to jump start it since the key-start ignition is out.

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[cayenne8]

As long as you don't need to know what speed you're going or how much charge you've got left in the battery then sure.

Its not like I ever even bother to look at the speedometer these days anyway...until the radar detector goes off.....and I usually see them miles before they do me, so plenty of time to slow down.

ON longer highway trips...the old fashioned CB radio works even better, I know where cops are WAY before I even get near them.

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[fnj]

OS X uses a mach kernel with a BSD userland and a custom Apple GUI on top. (I know it's pedantic. I can't help it.)

Actually, if you want to be pedantic, that's incorrect. OS X uses the XNU hybrid kernel, combining Mach with pieces of the BSD kernel, plus I/O Kit. Yes, the userland is basically BSD with an Apple GUI.

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[Anonymous Coward]

What I want is a system specifically designed to run a CAR. Not some desktop kernel thats been massaged and kicked into shape until it can do an ok job at it.

And I don't want them to waste tons of time developing a new OS, when there is a useful one there for the talking. A free one at that, so much cheaper than developing anything.

And Linux is not a "desktop kernel". The kernel just manages the hardware. You can take a linux kernel, put it in a car computer, and leave out all the rest of a typical linux distribution. Then add a "car app" specifically made for the car.

This sort of thing has happened already. Android is the best known example - a linux kernel without the "linux desktop" stuff that you usually have on a PC running linux.

Besides, I don't think linux will actually "run the car". It'll be a instrumentation display, cheaper than having lots of dials and gauges in hardware. And perhaps controlling some entertainment stuff (i.e. car mp3 player).

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[bussdriver]

TRON rules RT. The only reason to use RTLinux is if you want or need something that linux has and are able to waste the time, RAM, and storage.

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't call a non working dashboard "just fine" , would you?

No, but linux doesn't crash much either. He just sid that the linux stuff could crash and it would not interfere with the driving. (But it would surely interfere with map reading, mp3 playing and so on.)

Linux stays up for years. If you don't run experimental stuff, which a car computer certainly won't, then you expect crashes only when some hardware component fails. Such as the circuit board breaking in a crash, or the computer wearing out after many years of use.

When all you use is linux, you don't expect computer crashes. It is so unusual. Why would anyone put up with a computer that crash once a month or more?

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[suutar]

if it stays down long enough for those to be an issue, I wouldn't be going further than the next exit anyway.

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[AvitarX]

Funny, when my dash-light was out, I found driving on the interstate far easier than around town.

More traffic to flow with, and more consistent speed limits. I was always worried I wasn't going 35 when the only car on a road that feels comfortable up to 50.

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[MikeBabcock]

Then you have no idea what an Operating System is, or how hard it is to maintain.

I don't want a custom-made OS that only has the sixteen engineers GM assigns to it making my car OS. I want my car OS to be as stable as any other Linux device, and that's why so many companies simply use Linux instead. You don't have to write your own drivers or maintain your own file system code or write your own networking socket interfaces. Those have all been done by people who are much better at it than you.

You *want* your car to run custom software on top of a stable OS maintained by those who actually make the chips. Many many hardware companies directly contribute code to Linux for their hardware, or assist with drivers. Do you want your car's OS not benefiting from a TI patch submitted to Linux but which they can't help you with on your car which uses their chips because they don't have the source and don't know there's a bug? Do you trust your car company who just wants to sell you a new car in two years to actually write software that's stable the first time?

Good luck with that.

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[MikeBabcock]

When's the last time you needed a dashboard to safely navigate around a hole, not run into another vehicle or object or to do any other basic driving? The only important bit might be your speed and gas levels, and neither of those is a major safety issue if the dash system suddenly crashes.

Also, I suspect its much less likely to crash than the alternative (a custom OS made by your car company).

Re:I don't want a linux based "software system"

[SiChemist]

You have out-pedanted me. Well done sir!

C code

[spongman]

apparently the control and motor thingies are running C code which is lower-level than the Linux kernel.

not a computer guy, then.

Re:C code

[Fwipp]

It's okay, he's just the "Chief Technology Officer," it's not like you'd expect him to understand the technology being used.

Re:C code

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard about microcontrollers?

They usually don't run operating systems.

Re:C code

[Anguirel]

C Code is Code. It can run higher, equal, or even possibly a little lower level than the kernel (a BIOS could be technically written in C, for example). Most Emebedded C code would run directly on the hardware without any OS or Kernel in between. So no, he's not a computer guy. He's an Electrical Engineer guy, which you are apparently not.

Re:C code

[spongman]

right, because the linux kernel isn't written in C and it doesn't run in ring 0, directly on the hardware. Of course, if you weren't an EE you'd know this stuff.

Re:C code

[Anonymous Coward]

It is lower than an application running on top of the kernel....

Re:C code

[Anguirel]

Pfft, I'm CS. I'm well aware that Linux is (usually) written in C. If I were an EE, I'd probably actually know more about the hardware end. I only care about the algorithm's correctness, not where it runs. I figured things loaded from disk (e.g. the Linux kernel) were loaded by something (e.g. bootstrap code embedded into the hardware, which loads the BIOS from the ROM, which loads the kernel), and that something that could be lower level (e.g. below your Ring 0 - the hardware logic the CPU does when it reads machine code from the registers, which might be complex enough that someone might want to write it in C and let the computer work out how to create the logic gates on the silicon). Of course, I might be mis-remembering what my EE friends said, but it wouldn't surprise me that there was a lower level than the kernel for code to run on, since I know the OSI model has 1.5 layers below the OS kernel.

Can I update the kernel...

[Anonymous Coward]

...without rebooting or parking the car?

Re:Can I update the kernel...

[RaceProUK]

Possibly, though you may still have to close all the windows.

My gawd

[ballpoint]

FTFA:
"something called Linux"
"if the Linux crashes"

Sigh. I really don't see why an article that clearly addresses a "different audience" is posted here.

Re:My gawd

[Anonymous Coward]

The Linux, my The Linux, it cries to me of it's need.It is I, the ubernerd, your destined defender, show me where it hurts!
"Destiny's powerful hand has made the bed of my future and it's up to me to lie in it. I am destined to be a superhero, to right wrongs and pound two-fisted justice into the hearts of evil-doers everywhere. You don't fight destiny, no sir! And you don't eat crackers in the bed of your future or you get all...scratchy. Hey, I'm narrating here!"
  Won't someone take a stand for our beautiful The Linux!?!?!?

Yeah, but...

[Ecuador]

Yeah, but does it run Li... Oh, wait...
Hmm, so, this is a car that runs Linux. I know that if it didn't come with Linux it would be a great thing to run Linux on it and all Slashdot would rejoice etc etc, but is it a good thing now that it comes with Linux already installed? Hopefully it is just for reporting and entertainment, not actually running the car? I mean, when you hit the brakes there is no chance the absd will die because authd exited early or such crap, right?

Re:Yeah, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be much much worse, it could have come with Windows, imagine trying to brake whilst staring at a BSOD and wondering why nothing works from that point on...

Re:Yeah, but...

[Docasman]

Linux is touted to use less system resources... so it should prevent the WAM from overheating,

oh man ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember back before 9/11 when gas was like 99 cents a gallon? All this terrorism stuff sure has been a huge boon for Saudi Arabia!

Re:Rebooting

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, TFA says they come with trunks - no need to do anything to, or replace the existing one...

Pun!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

But if it's running Linux, it totally might [i][b]Stall, man![/b][/i]

QNX?

[aclarke]

It sounds like you want a PlayBook in your dash.

Sweet.

[poofmeisterp]

Now that I've found Linux embedded, I will purchase that item I've refused up until now. It's been grossly expensive, hard to charge where I go, and insanely pricey on repairs. But c'mon. Linux, man! I mean, LINUX! /snark

I sooo want one

[DCFusor]

I traded my hotrod (2010 camaro SS) in for a Volt, and haven't looked back. Even if I had the money for a model S tesla, I can't have one yet - that's the real challenge Elon's outfit has - ramping up production before the bigger base loses interest.
.

FWIW, here in VA, it takes about 200 sq feet of high efficiency solar to charge the Volt once a day. That's around 45 miles worth of range, which gets more than 80% of my own driving done, even though it's a 27 mile roundtrip to the nearest general store for beer/munchies. I can get to the nearest town, do all my errands, come back, still have a little under half my range left. It works for me. Not as sexy as the Tesla, but it's no slouch either and does get a lot of favourable attention.
.

Sure is nice to have that unlimited range due to also having a gasoline engine, tuned just for this use so it can be more efficient than just about any other out there. 40 mpg from a 3800 lb car ain't shabby. I don't use it much, but what it does for you is remove worry if you're going to be pushing the battery only range.
.

For once, GM really leapfrogged everyone else. The GM haters are out in force to dis this car, but that kinda tells you who isn't doing much critical thinking and saves you from time wasted thinking they are OK (kinda like hank hill's comment about body piercing - you know right off someone "just ain't right").
.

I wish Tesla every success, they've "Bet the farm" and gotten a heck of a lot of stuff right. But now they need to transition from a design-only outfit to a major manufacturer - not trivial in real life. Go Elon!

Re:I sooo want one

[CompMD]

A friend of mine bought a Volt too and was talking about how amazing it was. When I said I didn't find the numbers that impressive, he asked about my VW Sportwagen TDI. The VW has better performance, better handling, more cargo capacity, better fuel economy (compared to a Volt using its engine/generator), and more range per tank. He got pissed when he found out the VW cost $20,000 less than his Volt.

For city driving within the electric only range, the Volt wins, hands down. As soon as you drive beyond that however, the cost difference per tank between it and a TDI is almost zero.

That having been said, I agree, go Elon. I would like to see Tesla do well.

Re:I sooo want one

[timeOday]

He got pissed when he found out the VW cost $20,000 less than his Volt.

Huh? The Volt is $41K - $7500 tax rebate = ~$34K. A VW TDI Sportwagen is $27K. That's a $7K difference, not $20K.

Are you by chance directly comparing the price of a used car to a new one?

Now, I agree a diesel engine chugging steadily away is very hard to beat on the freeway. But for people who do mostly city driving, I think the Volt could be very competitive.

Re:I sooo want one

[CompMD]

His Volt was $45k, I saw the sticker. Tax credits aren't immediate. The Sportwagen TDI was $25k. VW recently raised the price as a result of demand. Did you see the part where I said if you're in the electric range the Volt wins hands down? The catch is as soon as you leave the electric range, the efficiency plummets badly. Over the range of a full tank for both cars, the efficiency is nearly equal.

Re:I sooo want one

[DCFusor]

I've driven that, and nope, it's not as fast as the Volt (you MUST be kidding, come and race me!), it costs more daily to run, doesn't handle as well, it's noisier and not as luxurious (by far). Further, it still sends money to people who like to kill us - the true cost of your die-sel fuel is measured in lives and bombs and financial disaster. Even if I had to drive on gasoline, which a do - but only rarely, I'd rather be in the Volt with it's superior, well, just about everything (including safety), but that's me.

I paid 42k for mine, but the way it worked out, I was very little out of pocket, and could get the tax break almost immediately. So, a little under 35k, and mine has every option but the GM NAV system (which sucks anyway). I do have the hands-free phone and all that stuff, leather heated seats...all the caddy niceties.

Remember, you're going to have to rebuild that engine someday, or do at least the normal maintenance, not the once every two years oil change I have to do, that's because the engine runs so little the oil gets stale(!). You have a transmission that has slipping clutches that will wear out, I don't (the Volt has rev-matching and the clutches only drop at zero differential revs). And so forth. TCO isn't known yet, but it's going to come out pretty good I think.

Re:I sooo want one

[DCFusor]

Actually you're about right there. The Volt does have a tiny gas tank - only about 300 miles worth (saves weight and by golly I gotta get out and pee sometimes anyway). My Volt gets right at 40 mpg, not shabby for its weight, on gasoline that costs less than the over-taxed diesel fuel you get better mileage with in a TDI.

Some of this just comes down to taste I suppose. I happen to have a visceral dislike of diesels that sound like they're gargling rocks at idle, and the smell they make. And the jerks that leave them running while at the convenience store around here, stinking up the lot with eye-watering fumes.

This is because we don't get Libyan light sweet crude to work with, and sulfur removal from diesel fuel is difficult and not very effective. Diesel is a lot more popular in Europe because they DO get the light-sweet - and notice how easy it was to get them on board to attack Libya. Cost is partly in lives, not $/gallon. So my taxes are subsidizing you.

Re:I sooo want one

[CompMD]

Taste definitely matters, that's true. Unfortunately, the atrocious diesel vehicles GM sold in the past killed most people's desire to ever own one. You should see how engine technology has changed in the last few years, its really quite eye-opening. Modern common rail diesels to have a bit of clatter, but its not obvious to the average person that they aren't gas. The new emissions control systems, including particulate filters, are superb. You won't see any crap coming out the tailpipe, and they don't smell at all.

The fuel in Europe is far superior to what we get here, but I agree that ULSD is a bit silly. I'm not getting into an argument over militarism, I only brought up purchase cost, and operational cost over the range of a tank.

Thank you for having civil discourse though, it seems that is beyond many.

cold weather?

[FranTaylor]

how does your volt do on a cold day? how is the defroster? how long to melt ice buildup on the windshield?

VW beetles failed to sell in cold weather regions for these reasons. electric cars and air-cooled cars don't have excess heat for the defroster.

How long does it take to boot?

[RogueWarrior65]

I can just see the horror film scene where the scantily clad heroine escapes the scary character to a Linux-based car only to find out that it takes 30 seconds to start.
IMHO, if the Linux development community really wants it to gain acceptance as an operating system for appliances, they really have to get boot times (especially when USB support is enabled) down to the sub-two-second range. That and file systems that work instantaneously after a sudden power loss. None of this graceful shutdown crap.

Re:How long does it take to boot?

[0123456]

Uh, you do realise that Linux is already one of the most commonly used embedded operating systems and you probably have several 'appliances' in your house running it?

Re:How long does it take to boot?

[Zinho]

My TV and Blu-ray player both run Linux, and both take 15 seconds or longer to turn on. This would not be desirable behavior in a car.

Re:How long does it take to boot?

[DrXym]

The trick then would be to not completely turn off. Modern vehicles are never completely off to offer stuff like remote central locking. I assume the model S would be no different. Linux could reside in standby or the engine management system could boot it up amongst all its other tasks when it detects someone unlocking the vehicle or starting the engine.

Re:How long does it take to boot?

[RogueWarrior65]

Yeah, I do realize this. In fact, I happen to be the developer and manufacturer of a product that uses a Linux-based ARM SBC. It's a Technologic Systems product. They do offer systems that boot to Busybox in less than 2 seconds. But if you add USB to the kernel, that takes a further 4-5 seconds before you can run an app that needs to use USB. And don't even think about running Debian. That takes a lot longer to come up.

For a DVR appliance, you have two things: 1) a deep user interface i.e. the TV, 2) constant power. Devices like a sprinkler system, a fancy fridge, maybe a high-end entertainment center, game consoles, etc. They all have these two things. I'm talking about appliances that run off a battery and may be faceless. If it takes more than a few seconds to boot, the user might think something is wrong. Granted, a car will likely have a user-interface display that can show status but even my SBC project takes about 4 seconds before I can even blink an LED (okay, so I could modify the kernel to do that earlier) but a USB-based display needs almost 7 seconds before you see anything. With regards to the car, you should be able to turn the key and go. Anything else gets a big meh from me. With regards to embedded devices, IMHO, good design would have a real power switch and not need user interaction to start or shutdown.

Re:How long does it take to boot?

[AvitarX]

my car takes practically that long too though.if it can start booting before the back-end is finished loading up, I don't think it'd be a problem.

It could even start as soon as the key fob is within proximity.

I think it's about 10 seconds with my '04 economy car to have a fully responsive dash.

Re:How long does it take to boot?

[tap]

I'm a developer of Linux based car radios for a major OEM, so I'm getting a kick of of these replies. Linux can boot fast. A lot has to do with the hardware itself. Managed NAND can take a long time to initialize, SPI NOR flash has a low bandwidth, etc. The manufacturers are asking for things like 1 second boot time. A major concern is how it takes to get the back-up-camera working. I've managed to get a radio booting from POR to userspace in about 220 ms, and getting to done with Linux system startup by 500 ms. The leaves 500 ms for the application software to startup which was enough to meet the customer's requirements.

Not me!!

[cayenne8]

I'm going "anti-green" on the car thing.

Right now...I'm starting to shop around for a mostly restored '74-'76 Pontiac Trans Am, 455 ci 4-speed.

Yep...I'm looking to get between 8-10MPG...and have a hell of a time doing it.

These things are torque monsters, and were the last of the dying breed of muscle cars, insurance, govt. regulations and even then, gas prices were killing them off. But one can be had for a decent price now, and with some resto-mod work, these engines can be bulked up to nearly 500hp, new suspension will have it handle well.

Sure, I guess I could get a new camero...but I'd just be one more shmoe driving the same thing as everyone else. Not to mention....these new cars just don't sound as good as the old big blocks.

So, the hell with green, and high gas prices....I have a decent job...might as well enjoy an old ride while it is still available.

Re:Not me!!

[denvergeek]

I don't see this as necessarily being anti-green. Certainly a project care isn't going to be your every day commuter, just something you take out on evenings/weekends for the fun of it. Plus, the energy to build the damn thing has been already been spent long ago. I would argue that taking the family via airline to Hawaii has a much larger impact than wrenching on an old car and going joy-riding. Or I'm trying to justify my love of wrenching on old cars.

Re:Not me!!

[cayenne8]

I don't see this as necessarily being anti-green. Certainly a project care isn't going to be your every day commuter, just something you take out on evenings/weekends for the fun of it.

Actually, I likely will be commuting most every day in it....this is not going to be a garage queen car. I actually do NOT want to buy a numbers matching, collectors item version of the car...I don't want something I'd worry about ruining the value of when I want to mod something.

Then again...my drive to work is about 8-10 minutes depending on traffic/how early I go to work. I'll likely blow a couple gallons of gas each day I drive to/from work.

I actually don't know much at all about working on cars...but I have friends that do and would help me learn. And I figure this would be a good car to learn on...you certainly don't have to plug it into a computer to figure things out.

Neat little history of the old TA's here ....the ones '74 and older with the SD-455's are VERY expensive these days...so, I'm looking for a regular 455....and will do the mods on it myself. But trying to get one in as good of shape as I can to start with...so I can drive and have fun with it right away...and start to learn as I go along.

LOL....but I was trying to calculate the gasoline bill for this thing, if I was to buy in somewhat close to home (say 400 mi) and drive it home. At 10mpg...that's 40 gallons, and I think for premium the other day, I spent about $3.60/gallon...so, trip home would be about $144.

Man..wish I could have had one of these in the days before $0.70 / gallon gas.....lots of fun then!!

Re:Not me!!

[aztracker1]

classiccars.com
[/self-interest-plug]

Of course there's also oldride, autobuy and autotrader classics.

Re:Not me!!

[dbIII]

Last of the V8 interceptors!

Re:Not me!!

[zwede]

If it only gets 10 mpg highway there's something wrong. 10 mpg city is normal. My 1971 Corvette with a 454 got 15 mpg highway stock. Now with a 5-speed manual (overdrive) and EFI it gets 21 mph highway.

Re:Not me!!

[cayenne8]

If it only gets 10 mpg highway there's something wrong. 10 mpg city is normal. My 1971 Corvette with a 454 got 15 mpg highway stock. Now with a 5-speed manual (overdrive) and EFI it gets 21 mph highway.

I was thinking of my friend's old one he had back in HS.....and that 10mpg likely was city...I don't know what it would get on the highway...but guessing with 4 speed, not likely more than about 15-18 MPG tops on the highway doing 85mph or so?

Re:Not me!!

[zwede]

Depending on the rear gears you probably would want to keep it around 70 mph or so. Without overdrive these cars get noisy and thirsty at higher speeds.

Unless it has really steep (high numerically) rear gears and you keep it at 70 mph it should easily give you 15-18 mpg, even with the 455 engine.

Re:Not me!!

[cayenne8]

Interesting..thanks for the info man!!!

But wow...70mph is gonna feel VERY slow on the HWY.....I usually try to avg about 85mph in my regular car..and that's keeping pretty close with most traffic down here in the south.....especially along I-10....

Re:Not me!!

[zwede]

That's why they make kits to put 5 or 6 speed transmission in them. I got annoyed at buzzing along at 3000+ rpm. The 5 speed cut 1000 rpm off that. Much more relaxing.

Re:Not me!!

[cayenne8]

Intesting.

I will look into it...I'd like to keep the engine and trans close to original, but I'm not 100% hung up on that.....resto-mod is something I'm looking at...

Volt has a gasoline engine.

[Brannon]

Now try again.

Liar.

[Brannon]

VW Jetta Sportwagen TDI price = $25,540
Chevy Volt price = $39,145 (without tax credit), $31,465 (with tax credit)

So, basically, you are a liar--I can see why your friend got pissed.

Re:Liar.

[CompMD]

You quoted a *base* Volt. With any options, the price shoots up fast. His is well equipped, the sticker on his was $45,185. This is trivial to find on Chevrolet's website. You are correct on the Sportwagen's price.

Don't call people liars if you're unwilling to look for truth.

Vaporware?

[Altanar]

Question: Why is this article tagged "vaporware"? I'm starting to think Slashdot readers don't know what that means. How can something be vaporware that's been shipping since June?

Nope, you're still a liar.

[Brannon]

I just went to Chevy's web site and configured a 2013 Volt with every single extra option one can find. Total price including tax credit is $36,000. Do the same thing on a VW Jetta Sportwagen TDI and you get $30,475. There is no evidence to support your assertion of $20,000 extra cost for a Volt. An apples to apples comparison yields around $6,000.

It is totally fine if you like your TDI better--but there's no need to make up numbers so you can pretend that everyone who buys a Volt is some tree-hugging latte-sipping idiot.