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

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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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:Never going to take off

[Woek]

We're talking about the Model S

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.

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: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.

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

[Trepidity]

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

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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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.

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.

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: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:Can I update the kernel...

[RaceProUK]

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

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:Never going to take off

[mister_playboy]

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

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

[RaceProUK]

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

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: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:Never going to take off

[Hatta]

I prefer the Model M with buckling spring pedals.

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: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.