Tesla Model S Floats Well Enough To Act As a Boat, According To Elon Musk

the only thing left by mwfischer · 2016-06-20 04:07 · Score: 1

is for it to fly

Re:the only thing left by Rei · 2016-06-20 04:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

It actually has enough power to, versus its weight, if one were to retrofit the drivetrain to turn a prop and affix some reasonably efficient wings and flight surfaces. A typical Cessna weighs a bit over a tonne and has an engine in the ballpark of 120kW or so. Even the cheapest Model S is about 2 tonnes and puts out about 250kW. The high performance versions are about 200kg heavier and pump out vastly more power.
Heck, you could probably fly one with just a big parasail for lift - the L/D ratio of 4-5 is probably good enough, at least for the mid-range versions and possibly the low-end as well. You just need to find a good way to get that motor power going to one or more props.

--
Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
Re:the only thing left by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-20 04:46 · Score: 5, Funny

Oh good lord, don't give them ideas. Now my model 3 is going to be delayed while they work out the kinks in the flight systems and autopilot.
I blame you.
Re:the only thing left by Aviation+Pete · 2016-06-20 08:48 · Score: 1

Wow, eve the aircraft knowledge here is bad!
While your Cessna needs to run its engine on a substantial fraction of its rated power (typically 60% or more), any decent car will only need low double digit kW to cruise. Comparing the rated power is utterly misleading, and your Tesla aircraft would drain its batteries and overheat the motor within minutes.

--
You know it's time for the next revolution when your rulers' names end with roman numerals.
Re:the only thing left by randallman · 2016-06-20 09:53 · Score: 1

Awesome! Thank you!
Re:the only thing left by ceoyoyo · 2016-06-20 10:00 · Score: 1

And yet the OP is correct, it could fly, under it's own power. Perhaps just not for very long. Or add bigger, more efficient wings, fly slower, and you can get the required power down almost as low as you care to go. It's not like he proposed turning it into a helicopter.
Re:the only thing left by Rei · 2016-06-20 23:43 · Score: 1

Try again. The figures I cited are for sustained power on the Model S. The peak power ratings are even higher. For example, the fastest model has a 375kW motor in the front and a 193kW motor in the back, but a maximum sustained power of 397kW, because that's all the battery pack supports. And the battery packs are 60-85kWh, so no, that's not going to just drain in an instant.
Using the Cessna as an example and your figure of 60% and doubled power requirements for the increased weight, we get a power requirement of 144kW for cruising (only 36% of maximum power), which on the 85kW pack is over 35 minutes. Now, of course, you'd be running at full power during takeoff and climb, reduced power on descent, but regardless, your claim of the battery being rapidly drained does not stand up unless by "minutes" you mean "over half an hour". At Cessna-typical speeds that would be a range of about 125km.

--
Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
Re:the only thing left by Gussington · 2016-06-21 00:28 · Score: 1

Even the cheapest Model S is about 2 tonnes and puts out about 250kW. The high performance versions are about 200kg heavier and pump out vastly more power.
Yeah, there's bit more to it than that. A Cessna can run at 80% power for hours on end. Good luck doing that with a Telsa.
Re:the only thing left by rpstrong · 2016-06-21 04:47 · Score: 1

Haven't we put that 'range anxiety' to rest?
Most flights are quite short and a network/fleet of supercharger aircraft (perhaps recycled airliners) will allow for longer trips.
Re:the only thing left by Coren22 · 2016-06-21 05:57 · Score: 1

To be fair, hours are made of minutes...so technically you could say that something drains in minutes if it takes 24 hours to drain.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:the only thing left by Rei · 2016-06-22 05:22 · Score: 1

Never said you'd be making cross-country trips in the thing ;) But short flights, up to half an hour or so? Yeah, it has enough power and battery capacity for that.

--
Monkeywrench Ex Machina.

Not quite. by Type44Q · 2016-06-20 04:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

have big exhaust scoops

Don't you mean "intake snorkel?"

Re:Not quite. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-20 04:32 · Score: 1

Perhaps they were thinking this was the point of stacks? Still.. exhaust "scoops"... lol. Going to have to file that one next to blinker fluid and muffler bearings.
Re:Not quite. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-20 04:53 · Score: 1, Funny

Its a description courtesy of The Guardian, a UK news firm. In the UK everything works backward; cars drive on the left, exhausts provide air for the engine, and healthcare is free
Re:Not quite. by fabioalcor · 2016-06-20 05:23 · Score: 3, Funny

have big exhaust scoops
Don't you mean "intake snorkel?"
Whatever floats your Tesla.
Re:Not quite. by GameboyRMH · 2016-06-20 06:16 · Score: 1

Came here to say this. Intake snorkels are common, I've never seen an "exhaust scoop" (or any kind of raised exhaust on an actual offroad truck, vs. a coal-rolling bro-dozer) and they aren't necessary - a turndown at the exhaust tip will keep the exhaust from flooding under light submersion, and if you go deep, just stay on the gas and the exhaust flow will keep the water out.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Not quite. by amicusNYCL · 2016-06-20 07:44 · Score: 1

No, he's referring to the AK that comes off the Glock.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:Not quite. by Matheus · 2016-06-20 08:46 · Score: 1

Here's a fine read... yes there are both and yes sometimes the exhaust side is useful.
Great Vietnam era story on page 2 as well.
http://forums.off-road.com/jee...
Re:Not quite. by Gussington · 2016-06-21 00:31 · Score: 1

Came here to say this. Intake snorkels are common, I've never seen an "exhaust scoop"
Same. Makes me wonder at the intelligence of the submission/editorial process to have such ignorance on the front page.
Re:Not quite. by Coren22 · 2016-06-21 06:01 · Score: 1

Is that like the AR-15 Assault rifle that was recently used in Orlando?

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Makes sense by NotDrWho · 2016-06-20 04:08 · Score: 5, Funny

Teslas have been floating on government subsidies for years.

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.

Re:Makes sense by bravecanadian · 2016-06-20 04:10 · Score: 3, Funny

Teslas have been floating on government subsidies for years.
Impossible. Elon is a visionary business genius. Everyone in the media tells me so.
Re:Makes sense by Rakshasa+Taisab · 2016-06-20 04:17 · Score: 1

What subsidies?

--
- These characters were randomly selected.
Re:Makes sense by CrimsonAvenger · 2016-06-20 04:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Apparently, the tax credits given to Tesla's customers for buying electric cars now count as subsidies for Tesla.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Makes sense by Tom · 2016-06-20 04:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unlike GM, which got a massive bailout, or VW which is partially owned by the (german) government, or virtually any other big car company who all get this or that benefit package.
You are right. Those are not subsidies. At least not by name.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Makes sense by Nethemas+the+Great · 2016-06-20 05:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Perhaps they're similar to the ones that float the deep water oil rigs.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Re:Makes sense by Paleolibertarian · 2016-06-20 05:07 · Score: 2

And your point would be? A tax credit IS a subsidy in that the taxpayer doesn't have to pay it to the government and in some cases may even get a refund!
Re:Makes sense by cbiltcliffe · 2016-06-20 05:42 · Score: 2

Yup. My first Japanese car (a Subaru) lasted fourteen years. That's longer than both american cars I'd owned previously, put together, twice over, and then some.
So, 14 years.....divided by two cars = 7 years per car.....twice over = 3.5 years per car....."and then some."
So you only got 3 years each out of two American cars? What'd you do? Run them into an overpass abutment when you were driving home piss drunk at 3 in the morning?
I've never had an American car last less than 14 years. And this is in Canada, where they're exposed to all sorts of cold weather related crap: salt, sand, freezing cold starts for 4 months of the year, etc.
You do realize you need to actually change the engine oil on schedule, right?

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Re:Makes sense by barc0001 · 2016-06-20 06:34 · Score: 1

Obviously you're not buying Fords then. 2 of mine were Fords and they were terrible. And after I bought a Hyundai a friend of mine had a 2001 Focus which seemed like an all right car. Then he drove it over to my place one day and couldn't get it started. Turned out it was this problem:
http://www.fordproblems.com/trends/key-stuck-ignition/
And funny you mention Canada... he had it towed to the dealer and since we're in Canada apparently Ford USA was covering those replacements under warranty, but Ford Canada was not. $1000+ later, now his car would let the key turn.
Screw. Ford.
And then there's the 2009 Chrysler Town and Country my sister and her husband eventually had to force the dealer to take back through the lemon law after replacing the nav system 3 times, having the van randomly activate the alarm for 20 minutes at a time, and fail to start a few times for good measure.
Screw. Chrysler.
Haven't had direct experience with GM, but have heard enough from friends to steer clear unless you want a truck. It's no coincidence that nobody in my immediate family owns a North American car any longer. Even my dad who had a 40+ year string of NA vehicles as company cars, first car he bought after he retired was an Acura.
Re:Makes sense by N3wsByt3 · 2016-06-20 06:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

But it's not specially for Tesla, nor is it Tesla's fault the government subsidizes it. It's the governments' fault. And in a democracy where the government is chosen, it is, thus, the citizens' fault. Basically: it's your fault. ;-)
Well, ok, I'm sure you voted for the good guys who never give out subsidies, but still...
Point being, the parent poster was specifically calling out Tesla, and thus implied they were getting some sort of unfair and unethical advantage. But it's not limited to Tesla, and it's debatable whether it's unethical. If the government gave you a taxbreak so you'd only have to pay half your taxes, would you refuse because you thought it unfair? I very much doubt it. I know I wouldn't.
So... is it necessary and a good thing the government masively subsidises stuff like electric cars, solar panels, windmills, etc. Hell no. It costs loads of money and often just keeps non-profitable companies afloat with taxpayers' money. Not saying it's always the case, and maybe Tesla would survive without the subsidies, but that's what it boils down to most of the time.
However, the ones to blame is the government allowing, nay, stimulating such squander. NOT the companies who just make use of the money that is thrown at them.
In my country they're starting subsidising electric cars too, now. It's foolishness. Getting 3000 euro or not for a 50000 euro Tesla for instance, will not deter or stimulate a person rich enough to buy one. I mean, if you're rich enough to buy one in the first place, and they want one, they will buy one, regardless of whether they get a 3000 euro reduction. This is just an added bonus to the rich, which don't really need them. so the theory that it's need to 'stimulate' innovative technologies so they break through on the market, is basically bull. It doesn't really help, and it costs the populace dearly anyway.
When an electric car will go down to 15-20000 euro, and becomes viable for ordinary citizens, THEN it would matter in deciding to buy one or not. But at that time, they'll undoubtedly stop giving subsidies, as they always do. Because it's beginning to cost too much, and the rich elite (many of whom are the same politicians that voted for the subsidies in the first place) has already got one anyway. Of course, the official explanation by then is that 'the goal has been achieved' and thus no more subsidies are necessary.
It's all crap. If a new technology is better than old technology, it will manage to break through with or without taxing your citizens, including the poorest, to pay for a sweet bonus for the rich. There are very few technologies that have inherent advantages, and yet that need heavy subsidies to stay afloat, certainly for longer than a few years. After that, it just becomes a monetary black hole where you pour in taxpayers' money endlessly, so a company which isn't competitive stays afloat while we're paying for it - often doubly so.
It's a distortion of the free market, and I believe the disadvantages of such a system are far bigger than the occasional advantage of having a new technology that might or might not have broken through without it, for the simple reason that most WOULD have broken through eventually anyway, if they're really that good and better than old technology.

--
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Re:Makes sense by N3wsByt3 · 2016-06-20 06:57 · Score: 1

They are not subsidies strictly spoken, but I guess one could call it financial advantages, though. That said, it's not specifically for Tesla, and it's not Tesla that is asking for it; it's just the government that is doing it. So one can hardly blame Tesla for it.

--
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Re:Makes sense by Enigma2175 · 2016-06-20 06:58 · Score: 2

Yup. My first Japanese car (a Subaru) lasted fourteen years. That's longer than both american cars I'd owned previously, put together, twice over, and then some. And it never broke down. The only maintenance I did were the scheduled services recommended in the manual, and replacement of consumables like tires and brake pads. The same can definitely not be said of the Ford or Chrysler. For that matter, I could have gotten a few more years out of the Subaru. But it was due for a new set of brakes plus a timing belt & water pump. The cost of that was more than the value of the car. And I'm more of a city than outdoors person these days, so the mileage penalty of all-wheel drive doesn't make sense anymore.
My rule now is that to even be worth consideration, the VIN must start with the letter "J". Anything else is a non-starter.
Yeah, it would be impossible for a Subaru to have a problem, like "Subaru is recalling 48,500 Legacy and Outback models for total steering failure" . So maybe your anecdotal experience is not the same as data! Funny that you would claim your Subaru is more reliable that Ford, as the data from this dependability study says that Ford beats Subaru in dependability. Neither are stellar, but the data certainly doesn't back up your experience.

--
Enigma
Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-20 07:22 · Score: 1

My first American ride I bought in 1998 is still with me, as it is useful as a secondary vehicle. Other than batteries, spark plugs, and other consumables like tires and brake pads, I've had zero problems with it. My current ride is the same way... only trouble I've had was having to replace the little switch that noted if the parking brake pedal was up all the way.
Japanese cars are good, but American cars are not the shit they used to be, and are on par with everyone else these days.
Plus, it is sort of ironic here in the US about people whining about jobs going overseas, all the while buying import cars.
Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-20 07:39 · Score: 1

Apparently, the tax credits given to Tesla's customers for buying electric cars now count as subsidies for Tesla.
But... it is. A subsidy alters price perception to the customer, by driving down the comparable price it increases sales to the seller.
I mean, this is like chapter 5 in every Intro to Microeconomics course.
Re:Makes sense by ceoyoyo · 2016-06-20 10:06 · Score: 1

Kind of like the tax credits you get for giving money to charity?
That is pretty much a subsidy. It just gives the individual taxpayer the choice about who specifically gets the subsidy.
Note that I think Tesla has done a good job of using those "subsidies" exactly as they were intended: to develop the technology and infrastructure to make modern electric cars more practical.
Re:Makes sense by randallman · 2016-06-20 10:17 · Score: 1

While I mostly agree with you and would prefer a subsidy free solution, you left out an important economic factor. External costs. Hard to measure and define, but very real and econ 101 stuff. Burning stuff pumped out of the ground and into the air has a cost associated with it that the beneficiaries do not pay. One argument FOR tax breaks for stuff is to level the playing field in this respect. The other option to factor in externalities is to tax them as in a tax on pollution.
So just playing devil's advocate. An EV buyer gets a $7500 tax credit. That's $7500 of what they owe the IRS that they don't have to pay. 150,000 miles @ 20 mpg average for a Tesla sized sedan is 7500 gallons of gasoline. That's 7500 gallons not drilled, pumped, transported, refined, transported, pumped, and burned. With some portion of the oil possibly imported from national enemies. That's 22,500 lbs. of CO2 possibly not put into the atmosphere. That's $18,750 not paid for gasoline at $2.50 per gallon. Now where that energy DOES come from will determine how advantageous it is. Though in nearly any case, electricity generation wins out over oil and it is 100% domestic. From an energy perspective It is certainly beneficial environmentally, nationally, and financially. How beneficial? Someone put a number of $7500 on it.
Re:Makes sense by fnj · 2016-06-20 10:41 · Score: 1

The guy you're responding to thinks replacing brakes, timing belt, and water pump is too much of investment based on some utterly irrelevant measure of how much the car is "worth". He is obviously intellectually incapable of rational thought.
Re:Makes sense by N3wsByt3 · 2016-06-20 10:42 · Score: 1

But the point I made was that would happen with or without the 3000 euro bonus one gets for a Tesla. Thus, that the adoption of Tesla's (or electric cars in general) is not particularly stimulated by such a thing, n is merely a bonus to the rich, and by the time it would become a stimulance to buy one or not (for people where 3000 euro actually matter in buying it or not), the subsidies are always cut.
If your devils-advocate-theory would be right, it wouldn't get cut, because you still have all the advantages you proclaim, only massively more so. So it's highly doubtful these kind of bonuses are put out with such a goal.
The second counter is, if it doesn't really stimulates nor deters any additional adoption of those cars at that price-class, you could as well save your money for it. Say everything you say is true: if with the bonus you (well, the government) virtually get as much cars as without it, than save the money and leave it out. Maybe hold it back to where it comes near a point where it WILL make a difference in broad adoption.

--
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Re:Makes sense by gweilo8888 · 2016-06-20 11:20 · Score: 1

These ones:

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/...

US$725M: 20-year 100% sales tax abatement
US$332M: 10-year 100% property tax abatement
US$120M: Transferable tax credits
US$75M: $12,500 per job transferable tax credits (6,000 jobs)
US$27M: 10-year 100% modified business tax abatement
US$8M: Discounted electricity rates for eight years
Re:Makes sense by gweilo8888 · 2016-06-20 11:34 · Score: 1

I'd be willing to bet that Tesla's subsidies aren't small on a per-vehicle basis. Total production of all vehicles worldwide for Tesla is a paltry 125k -- that would be just 4.5 *days* production for Toyota -- and yet in Nevada alone Tesla scored US$1.25 *billion* in subsidies two years ago, much of them front-loaded. That's US$10,000 per vehicle they'd made to date *and* in most of the following two years after the deal was signed thru today.

And that's just one of the subsidies from which Tesla and Musk are profiting. Another is the federal tax subsidy that's putting US$7,500 of yours and my tax dollars per vehicle sold in Tesla's pocket, and which will likely continue to do so through 2018: http://bgr.com/2016/02/12/tesl... -- and there are others, too.
Re:Makes sense by toadlife · 2016-06-20 16:12 · Score: 1

The trucks are okay. My 1994 Ranger lasted 20 years. Nothing major ever went wrong with it and it ran perfectly when I sold it in 2014. My coworker has a 97 Ranger with 375,000 miles on it. He's only had to replace the transmission ($750).
My 2004 Sonata was rock solid though. I still see it driving around town. I ended up buying a Volt to replace it. It's an awesome car so far, but it is a GM, so...pray for me.

--
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Re:Makes sense by Gavagai80 · 2016-06-20 16:46 · Score: 1

Huge dataset you've got there. My '98 Ford hasn't had any significant problems.

--
This space intentionally left blank
Re:Makes sense by dave420 · 2016-06-20 20:56 · Score: 1

VW is partially owned (12.7%) by the German state of Lower Saxony, not the federal government of Germany itself.
Re:Makes sense by cwsumner · 2016-06-21 06:34 · Score: 1

He's talking about the 1980's, when US car manufacturers were still expecting people to buy a new car -every- year. I was there, that's how it was.
The reason they had so much trouble was that the overseas manufacturers were starting to make cars that would last almost ten years. It was a big difference, but the US car makers did not realize that their monopoly was about to be broken. A lot of us thought they got what they deserved.
But that was then. The US cars now are much better. And, the foreign cars are having trouble with car computers controlling everything, when they are designed by the lowest bidder! Yikes! Bug Farms.
Re:Makes sense by Coren22 · 2016-06-21 06:53 · Score: 1

I buy Toyota, they are more American than Ford, GM and Chevy.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Makes sense by david_thornley · 2016-06-21 07:49 · Score: 1

It can also make sense to subsidize an industry to help it get off the ground. Solar panel subsidies increased the demand for the things, and presumably this caused the manufacturing capacity to increase, and economies of scale to kick in. We got a strategically important industry going faster than it otherwise would have.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Makes sense by cbiltcliffe · 2016-06-21 17:07 · Score: 1

Honda has had 15 engines on the Ward's 10 best engines lists over the years. GM has had 29.
Sure, GM's had a few lemons in their time, but so have all the Japanese ones. The Civic del Sol got a "Not Recommended" rating from Consumer Reports, due to "the worst body integrity" in the industry, or something like that. (Been a long time since I read that review, and I don't remember the exact wording.)
J.D. Power's Vehicle Dependability Study for 2013 vehicles, based on complaints for vehicles between 2-3 years old, included at least 3 GM products listed on the "most reliable" side: Buick Encore, Chevy Silverado HD, and Camaro.
Incidentally, GMC, Chevrolet, and Buick all receive better Problems/100 vehicles scores than Honda, Acura, and Infiniti. Buick's score is even better than Toyota's.
http://canada.jdpower.com/pres...
Similarly, J.D. Power's 10 most reliable vehicles for 2016 includes four GM products: Buick Verano and LaCrosse, and the Chevy Malibu and Camaro.
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-...
Another where GM has as many or more cars on the most reliable list as any other manufacturer:
http://www.jdpower.com/cars/ar...
It's funny, because I hear people complain about GM reliability all the time, and they're usually either referring to some neighbour who has an entry level Cobalt (sample of 1) or stuff from 20-30 years ago. These same people who decry old GM reliability would sometimes praise Hyundai reliability, while completely and totally failing to remember the debacle that was the Pony and Excel. Every single one of them burned oil badly after 2-3 years, and virtually all of them had rust perforation holes within 6 years. 80s GM cars, while slow due to overly ambitious emissions regulations for the time (just like most other manufacturers in the world, though, with the strange exception of the Buick turbos) were paragons of reliability compared to Hyundai at the time.

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Re: Makes sense by cbiltcliffe · 2016-06-21 17:09 · Score: 1

Hmmmm.....and Anonymous Coward, not specifying any details, but making outlandish claims. I call bullshit.
Unless, of course, you're talking about replacing the front end time and again after you run into a bridge abutment driving home piss drunk at 3 in the morning....

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Re:Makes sense by cbiltcliffe · 2016-06-21 17:13 · Score: 1

He's talking about the 1980's, when US car manufacturers were still expecting people to buy a new car -every- year. I was there, that's how it was.
The reason they had so much trouble was that the overseas manufacturers were starting to make cars that would last almost ten years.
10 years? Really? Remember the Hyundai Pony? If there is one that still runs, it's because it was bought by a grandma who died the next day, and nobody in their right mind wanted to drive the oil burning POS. There are plenty of 80s GM cars still on the road today, though, which should tell you something.

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Re:Makes sense by N3wsByt3 · 2016-06-25 08:22 · Score: 1

This is the wrong approach, and it suffers from the same things I said earlier. For instance, it would presume the government, in all its wisdom, know which technology it should support with heavy subsidies, and which not. I haven't seen compelling evidence, not even in the last 200 years for such innate wisdom... did you? Saying: 'thanks to that, prices came down'... If you heavily subsidised electric Revolving Ice Cream Cones, no doubt the price will come down too. But so what? The point I've made several times now is: if it's REALLY a far more efficient, advantageous technology, it WILL conquer the (free) market, whether you subsidise it or not. It make take a few years longer, but it will also save billions out of peoples' pockets. In a few circumstances, it might not break through otherwise, but even then: choosing the government as the wise, decisive factor in what is economical the most worthy, is bullocks. So for each sporadic lucky-shot the government had that wouldn't have made it on the free market anyway, you'd have 9 othrs where were fiasco's, costing us billions and billions. So no, thanks: the advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages.
Solar panels and windmills are, in effect, one of the *least* efficient power/electricity providers, if your goal is to have a stable energy for your society.
The truth of the matter is, it's basically one giant waste of taxpayers' money, for no good reason, *but* to provide a bonus to the rich...scuze, me: to 'lower cost'. And where all all these low-cost solarpanels - subsidized with our money - gone to now? Exactly: China. And that's also the main reason (>80%) of why the cost has come down. It's NOT because the rare metals used for it came down, as some seem to think. (In fact, those are sharply rising, due to the demand). It's cheap labor. In China.
So... is that what our own taxmoney is best used for: to kickstart other economies abroad? I don't think so.
"We" didn't get a 'strategically important industry' : the Chinese have. And we paid for it indirectly, through our taxes.

--
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---

Wow the car knowledge here is bad by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-20 04:08 · Score: 5, Informative

"Most internal combustion engine cars are sunk in water when the exhaust becomes flooded, which is why serious off-roaders have big exhaust scoops leading to the roof"

No. Most internal combustion engines are destroyed via hydrolock when (significant) water enters the intake of the engine. Because it can't be compressed, the engine basically explodes internally (pistons, valves, etc, etc). If water enters the exhaust and the engine is running, this is usually not a big deal because the air pressure from the engine will push it back out. Also, the exhaust valves don't suck in air so it will take some serious water pressure to get past those.

Typically, to combat this, the intake will have a snorkel attached to it and that will be as high as possible, thus preventing water entry into the intake. The exhaust may be raised as well (but that is not absolutely necessary) and this is a serious consideration if the engine is to be turned off while submerged (as then water will enter the combustion chamber through the exhaust valves, hydrolocking when you try to start it again).

Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by wbr1 · 2016-06-20 04:28 · Score: 2

Would gas pressure suit you better? You may know have knowledge of exhaust gas pressure since your o-ring is blown out AC.

--
Silence is a state of mime.
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by red_dragon · 2016-06-20 04:29 · Score: 1

If water enters the exhaust and the engine is running, this is usually not a big deal because the air pressure from the engine will push it back out. Also, the exhaust valves don't suck in air so it will take some serious water pressure to get past those.
One only has to look at the wet exhaust systems used in boats for an example of what happens when water enters the exhaust. Hell, they even introduce water in them deliberately.

--
In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by ripvlan · 2016-06-20 04:32 · Score: 1

Right - I think they got the purpose of the "roof" Snorkel wrong. But these guys are Bloggers and not Journalists.
Years ago I remember hearing a warning from a car manufacturer who stated that customers shouldn't drive through deep water because an Electrical engine component was on the bottom of the car. When this component was submerged it would burn out and shut down the engine - and it wasn't an easy replacement (meaning both the part and labor was expensive).
Most modern vehicles float. The Beetle has been doing it since the 1960's. And most can (obviously) hold water back through the door seals for a short period of time. Certainly vehicles like Jeep and Rover can (although with specific purpose in the design).
Hopefully the Tesla doesn't have any exposed circuitry that could be overwhelmed by submersion.
And boy - once a Tesla starts taking on water I'd imagine it'd sink like a lithum rock.
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by Zibodiz · 2016-06-20 04:43 · Score: 1

On older cars, the distributor cap would get damaged by submersion. Not a big deal, but it would definitely leave you stranded. Most modern cars do not float level, if at all, which leads to the classic nose-down 'duck pose' you see cars take in a flood. Aside from the beetle (which had different weight distribution due to the small rear engine), I'm not aware of any common production vehicle that will float level. Front wheel drives are simply too nose-heavy.
And Jeeps actually have terrible door seals. After all, serious off-roaders take the doors off; why bother making them water-tight?
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by funwithBSD · 2016-06-20 04:48 · Score: 1

" Also, the exhaust valves don't suck in air so it will take some serious water pressure to get past those."
Mostly true.
Improperly tuned pipes will suck in air, and thus water, during the scavenging cycle.

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by darthsilun · 2016-06-20 04:51 · Score: 1

On older cars, the distributor cap would get damaged by submersion.
Damaged? Yes, car knowledge here is definitely not great.

You get water in the points, which are inside the distributor, and that will definitely shut you down until they dry out.

A little bit of water dispersal solvent, formula 40, sold under the brand name WD-40, usually helps get you running again.

(And BTW, WD-40 is a solvent, not a lubricant. Spraying it on things like squeaky door hinges is an example of Doing It Wrong.)
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by msauve · 2016-06-20 05:09 · Score: 4, Informative

"once a Tesla starts taking on water I'd imagine it'd sink like a lithum rock."

Which is to say, it would still float? Lithium has a density similar to wood (pine).

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by Paleolibertarian · 2016-06-20 05:17 · Score: 1

Exhaust valves are usually very hot and any water touching them will probably warp them to the point that the engine will stop running due to lack of compression. I once had a motorcycle which got warped valves because the exhaust pipes came off while driving and the cold air entering the short distance between where the pipe attached to the hear and the valve warped it.
It's not a fun thing to repair.
I/C engines run on heat. any excess cooling causes them to run badly, if at all.
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by ripvlan · 2016-06-20 05:58 · Score: 1

okay - you got me :-P
I was of course playing to the notion that Tesla's are said to be very very heavy.
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by cbiltcliffe · 2016-06-20 05:58 · Score: 1

My first car was a 1981 Chevy Malibu with a small block Chevy V8. The distributor was at the top rear of the engine, behind the air intake. I could hit a > foot deep puddle at 50mph, and it wouldn't bat an eye. Sure, it slowed down a lot due to the water pressure against the front tires, but I never once had it cause a miss on even a single cylinder.
The front wheel drives that were becoming popular at the time, though, all had the ignition systems on the front of the engine, behind the grill and radiator, so they got soaked and stalled almost immediately in a torrential downpour which plugged up sewer grates with garbage. In any driving situation that could cause wet ignition to stall out my car, I'd be much more concerned with hydrolock due to the proximity of the intake.
Now, if you're talking about a Ford or Chrysler V8 engine, then the distributor was at the front of the engine, so somewhat more prone to getting wet. Some GM divisions also had it at the top front for their engines - the Buick 231 V6 comes to mind - but these were still much less prone to wet weather stalling than the front-mounted ignitions of a lot of transverse engines of the time.

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by Isao · 2016-06-20 07:19 · Score: 2

In fact, many motorboats exhaust below the water line just fine.
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by magarity · 2016-06-20 07:29 · Score: 1

Typically, to combat this, the intake will have a snorkel attached to it and that will be as high as possible, thus preventing water entry into the intake
I thought those snorkels were just to look tough driving around the city on sunny days. That's where I typically see them in use.
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by Agripa · 2016-06-20 08:02 · Score: 1

You get water in the points, which are inside the distributor, and that will definitely shut you down until they dry out.
A little bit of water dispersal solvent, formula 40, sold under the brand name WD-40, usually helps get you running again.
I know someone who did exactly this because water got into the distributor cap and when he went to start the engine, residual fumes from the WD-40 detonated blowing the distributor cap off.
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by Agripa · 2016-06-20 08:04 · Score: 1

I always had problems because if water got onto the hot exhaust manifold and piping, the steam would get into the distributor, condense, and short it out.
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by budgenator · 2016-06-20 08:26 · Score: 1

Actually it is lubricating, I don't think it has a high shear strength and it's volatiles to non-volatile ratio isn't high so it only leaves a very thin layer of low viscosity lubricant after it dries; this can be an advantage.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by LiquidAvatar · 2016-06-20 10:57 · Score: 1

"once a Tesla starts taking on water I'd imagine it'd sink like a lithum rock." Which is to say, it would still float? Lithium has a density similar to wood (pine).
Ooh, burn!
You know, because Lithium rapidly oxidizes with water...

--
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
-Voltaire
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by pipingguy · 2016-06-20 11:24 · Score: 1

Cracked block due to delta T when water hits engine?
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by stealth_finger · 2016-06-21 03:56 · Score: 1

(And BTW, WD-40 is a solvent, not a lubricant. Spraying it on things like squeaky door hinges is an example of Doing It Wrong.)
Maybe, but it works really well and WD40 is cheap as shit and available everywhere. It's not for making your metalwork in the kitchen nice and shiny either but there you go, a little squirt on a cloth, quick rub and it's shining.

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by internerdj · 2016-06-21 04:02 · Score: 1

Self burning witches!!!!
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by jbgeek · 2016-06-21 09:22 · Score: 1

so it's a witch?
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by cbiltcliffe · 2016-06-21 16:29 · Score: 1

I always had problems because if water got onto the hot exhaust manifold and piping, the steam would get into the distributor, condense, and short it out.
You had a crack in your distributor cap, or old crappy wires.

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by Agripa · 2016-06-22 11:11 · Score: 1

I always had problems because if water got onto the hot exhaust manifold and piping, the steam would get into the distributor, condense, and short it out.
You had a crack in your distributor cap, or old crappy wires.
It was the inside of the distributor cap which was shorting out do to condensation and never the wires. I did regular tune ups and changed the distributor and rotor several times and they all had the problem. For whatever reason, the design was just not sealed well enough.
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by funwithBSD · 2016-06-23 10:19 · Score: 1

Failure is always an option...

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by cbiltcliffe · 2016-06-26 14:08 · Score: 1

In that case, some of them had a rubber seal around the distributor where the cap sits against it. If yours didn't have one, I bet it was supposed to.

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Re:Wow the car knowledge here is bad by Agripa · 2016-06-26 15:43 · Score: 1

It might have been an old (1960s and 1970s) Ford thing. There was no clearance between the distributor and distributor cap for a gasket and the advice I got from someone with an older but unrelated Ford was to always keep a screwdriver and towel in the trunk as they had the same problem.

Incoming... by bravecanadian · 2016-06-20 04:09 · Score: 1

lawsuits..

As soon as people completely wreck their Tesla's or injure themselves doing this..

Re:Incoming... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-20 04:30 · Score: 1

Just because Borat tried it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Elon explicitly said he does not in any way recommend doing it.

Actually... by b0bby · 2016-06-20 04:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think this is incorrect:

Most internal combustion engine cars are sunk in water when the exhaust becomes flooded, which is why serious off-roaders have big exhaust scoops leading to the roof.

I think the snorkels are intakes, not exhaust - you don't want to suck water into your intake manifold.

Re:Actually... by I4ko · 2016-06-20 05:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

It wasn't deep in the video at all. The white juke was no more than its doorsills deep (and was moving albeit slowly as not to cause a wave), which is like 18 cm at most. The air intake on the juke is also quite a bit higher - around 70 cm from the ground if not more (around the same height as the lowest point of the steering wheel). The Testa didn't float at all, it was just driving on the bottom.
Re:Actually... by budgenator · 2016-06-20 08:41 · Score: 1

I know the snorkel kit for M151A2 army jeep attached to the intake, the engine had a sealed ignition system, and there were floor drains which had to be open while fording so the truck would sink to the bottom and not float away. I'm not sure the snorkelling kit was ever used as intended, driving a vehicle while up to your shoulders in water is a tough sell to people who have loaded rifles and hand grenades.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re:Floats unlike Tesla by Rei · 2016-06-20 04:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

What are you talking about? If you're talking about the suspension issue, the NHTSA investigated and found no problem with Tesla suspensions (and furthermore that 93% of the complaints were fraudulent).

--
Monkeywrench Ex Machina.

Re:Batteries by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-20 04:10 · Score: 1

And you can't extinguish a Lithium fire. You just have to wait until it burns out on its own.

Today Teddy Kennedy would drive a Tesla by david.emery · 2016-06-20 04:12 · Score: 2

One of the great parody ads: http://www.funnyfakeads.com/pi...
And the background for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Today Teddy Kennedy would drive a Tesla by cellocgw · 2016-06-20 04:48 · Score: 1

sorta funny -- but one of the few times Lampoon ever was the loser in a lawsuit forcing them to pull something from circulation

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Re:Today Teddy Kennedy would drive a Tesla by david.emery · 2016-06-20 04:56 · Score: 1

They laughed all the way to the bank! I'm old enough to remember this (and was living in Mass at the time). This issue became an instant classic, and they got -tons- of press coverage.

Jay Leno's take by Okian+Warrior · 2016-06-20 04:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

Jay Leno had some interesting things to say about Tesla.

I've noticed the same thing (as Jay): people are falling over themselves to try to bring Tesla down, and I haven't the first idea why.

GM stock price slumped a whopping 1.3% on news of its ignition recall that was actually killing people.

Apple hires some engineers with car experience, everyone guesses that they'll be making electric cars, and "OMG, this could be the end of Tesla!" (The stock drops 10% in a day).

Analyst price targets for Tesla are all over the map, going from $150 to $385.

Jay mentions that "we like noble failures more than we reward success". I think that's true, but it's also baffling.

Re:Jay Leno's take by geekmux · 2016-06-20 04:56 · Score: 2

GM stock price slumped a whopping 1.3% on news of its ignition recall that was actually killing people.
Apple hires some engineers with car experience, everyone guesses that they'll be making electric cars, and "OMG, this could be the end of Tesla!" (The stock drops 10% in a day).
Analyst price targets for Tesla are all over the map, going from $150 to $385.
Removing the opinions of talk show hosts/car collectors for a moment, perhaps what these statements truly highlight is an utter inability to predict a damn thing when it comes to the incredibly unstable stock market.
People equate it to gambling for valid reasons.
Re:Jay Leno's take by PPH · 2016-06-20 05:25 · Score: 2

and I haven't the first idea why.
I do.
Back when electric cars were DC traction motors jerry-rigged into compact cars with a trunk full of lead acid batteries, I got into several conversations with some greenies about what it would take to get the public into them. With some level of extraordinary prescience, I would say, "When electric cars have the comfort, performance and price of IC engine cars, we will buy them. Nobody wants to drive around in a glorified golf cart with open sides and 30 miles range."
The inevitable response was that electric cars were meant to be inconvenient, uncomfortable and uneconomic as the first step to getting people out of private vehicles and into mass transit. Which could eventually control where and when people travel. Pretty much like the Soviet Union at the time issued travel permits.
The modern electric car in general and Tesla in particular have dashed the hopes of the social control freaks to use the inevitable downfall of IC powered private vehicles to direct the population to suit their whims.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Jay Leno's take by Junta · 2016-06-20 05:33 · Score: 1

Analyst prediction of the future in the market is always just wild ass guessing. They can provide some data to help people compare companies in terms of historic and current data, but their projections into the future are like horoscopes.
I'll say that the price deltas make a lot of sense, actually. The perception of GM market value is based mostly on their concrete standing in the market.
For Tesla, the market value of the company is far more speculative about the future. So credible stories about another historically disruptive player coming in taking off 10% is not as surprising. Note that right now, Tesla is perceived as 70% the value of GM, which is actually a hell of a lot given their revenue and market share today. So Tesla's value is built on much fuzzier sentiment.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:Jay Leno's take by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-20 08:03 · Score: 1

I am critical of Tesla. It's not because I want them to fail, as I think what they stand for is great. My criticisms are on several levels:
I think their business model will make them fail, as the point-of-sale market for buying cars is a heavily localized market and Musk refuses to work with a dealer or distributor and I know there are dealerships who would like to work with Tesla. To me this makes no sense, as by leveraging dealerships you can expand globally fast without having to build your own infrastructure like they are forced to do. Teslas also do require maintenance despite what Tesla says, and the dealers can handle that with personalized service.
I think Tesla is going to choke on warranty costs. Tesla is not profitable and is a long ways from being so; their revenue does not even make up their cost of goods plus sales costs, let alone making up for R&D costs or capital investments like the gigafactory. They have no room on their income sheet to handle a large set of warranty costs, and quite frankly we're starting to hit the point now where early Model S's are aging a bit (60,000+ miles) and already there are rumblings that there are problems with the drive train requiring a major overhaul. Are they going to expect their customers to pay for that? Maybe the Model S customers can afford it but something on the order of a full transmission replacement in cost at 60-90k miles is not going to be acceptable for the target market of the Model 3.
They have major quality problems; the Model X launch was just a damned nightmare. Tesla has done what they can to keep it out of the news but it's out there and it was a disaster. Their motors and batteries are good, their drive train appears to have issues, their door handles suck. As weird as it may sound, people buy products for their direct experience and not indirect experience; an electric motor is a cerebral, indirect experience whereas physically interacting with a door handle that doesn't open will keep people from buying the car. People like to highlight how Consumer Reports gave it the best rating they ever gave a car, but they don't mention that Consumer Reports subsequently downgraded to "Not Recommend" because of all teh customer complaints about quality.
And finally, it's the Elonism. If GM had a customer who's wheel fell off and GM offered to pay 50% of the repair if htey signed a non-disclosure agreement, they would be hounded by the press and the mob. But when Tesla does it gets barely a whimper. This is actually why I post; my other reasons are just my opinion but I'm completely confused at the absolute faith people have in Tesla; the community around Tesla is the same as those people who worship and throw money at prosperity gospel preachers despite their obvious contradictions. It's this total pass they're given strictly on faith that confounds me and I actively seek to challenge it. Tesla should not be given a free pass; they should be challenged and tested to make them meet and answer our expectations, especially when it appears they have a long ways to go.
Re:Jay Leno's take by Ogive17 · 2016-06-20 08:11 · Score: 1

I just hate how everything Musk now says is treated as gospel here on /.

I respect the hell out of the guy and what he's working towards.. but can we get rid of the "Tesla is so awesome" article quota? A lot of what is reported here about Tesla is about as innovative as Apple's rounded corner.

I can't find it now but there's an annual get together at a lake in Ohio that celebrates cars that can also travel in the water.

--
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Re:Jay Leno's take by hey! · 2016-06-20 09:24 · Score: 2

Yeah, I don't know what it is with the Tesla hating. But that said, *this* particular bit of hype does deserve to be condemned.
(1) The driver in the video is a moron. You never drive your car into a situation you aren't sure you can drive it out of -- particularly one involving water. People get stranded that way (and often killed, if water is involved).
(2) Because you saw some guy do it doesn't mean your car will do it. If it's not part of the design specifications of the car, the car can't be relied upon to do it. If people routinely drive through deep water with near-perfect success, then sure. But because it happened once doesn't mean you should be the second person to try it.
(3) Tesla owners should not be encouraged by the company to think their cars can act as boats unless the company plans to stand behind that.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Jay Leno's take by samwichse · 2016-06-20 09:29 · Score: 1

Man, I don't know who you were talking to, but I never heard any electric car enthusiast say something like that.
Ever.
Sounds like you really talked to some losers. Most of the electric car/motorcycle converters I've talked to wanted to do it so they wouldn't have to buy gasoline, or wanted to do something different, or liked the idea of how smooth driving an electric is.
Re:Jay Leno's take by PPH · 2016-06-20 13:57 · Score: 1

1980's. And that's not the electric car enthusiasts. That's the socialist/environmentalists. Who are now butt-hurt about how electric cars were not just an interim step to eliminating personal transportation altogether.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Jay Leno's take by PPH · 2016-06-21 02:15 · Score: 1

A lot of car enthusiasts really don't think the Tesla counts as a "real car".

But look at the alternatives. The Google car was designed with the electric golf cart paradigm in mind. Small, cramped. No room for passengers, luggage or groceries. This is the epitome of the "I hate cars" school of design. At least Tesla went for the traditional car look, and the high end of the market at that.
Sure, Tesla (and others) are computers on wheels that take away the 'fun' of driving. But then so are Jeeps. But these vehicles preserve the traditional car (or truck) amenities and don't try to push people to accept the 'car as a transportation pod but nothing more' concept. Tesla, in particular, brought some of the traditional car style and fun to electric vehicles (remember the Tesla roadster). And the 'pod people' thought the electric car platform would demonstrate the inevitability of their vision. And Tesla went and ruined it for them, so they are pissed.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Jay Leno's take by hey! · 2016-06-21 03:11 · Score: 1

What's wrong with that is blurring the line between what the car may be able to do under certain conditions and what users can count on the car to be able to do. In other words in this case the problem isn't the car, but the way the car is being promoted. It's marketing abuse of the safety margins the engineers put into the thing.
As an engineer you could feel really proud that the idiot in question did something stupid with the car you designed and the car didn't let him down. That's because it's a very good car. But when management takes that incident and starts claiming that your very good car can function as a boat, that turns your very good car into a very bad, and probably dangerous boat. And because users are encouraged to have the mindset that the car can do more than it's supposed to, sooner or later someone is going to be let down by that very bad "boat" -- possibly let down with extreme prejudice.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Jay Leno's take by Whorhay · 2016-06-24 09:06 · Score: 1

I googled "profit margin on a model s" and from all the results it would seem that the profit margin for a model S is about 25%. It is actually the R&D and capital investment costs which are keeping their balance sheets in the red for the time being.
I'm by no means an expert but my impression was that the battery packs were the single big expensive item. The motor(s) and differential(s) being of moderate cost compared to the rest of the vehicle. The drive train should be pretty simple as their isn't a transmission or anything like that, and the electric motors are incredibly simple compared to just about any modern internal combustion engine.
The quality of the rest of the car is certainly a critical concern but from everything I've heard they are very quick to fix and replace anything that goes wrong.

Like a duck? by fishwallop · 2016-06-20 04:21 · Score: 2

So the Tesla floats like a duck?
It must be made of wood.
Like a witch.
And what do we do with witches?

Needs propellers by rossdee · 2016-06-20 04:27 · Score: 1

Spinning the wheels with road tires on isn't going to do much
Most amphibious vehicles have propllers or water jets
Remember the Amphicar, the VW schvimwagen and the DUKW

Re:Needs propellers by fnj · 2016-06-20 11:22 · Score: 1

Yeah. You can get away with it in tracked vehicles. The US Marines WWII LVT "Amtrack" propelled itself using the same tracks on water and on land. It could make 6 knots in water. The AAV-7 is similar and is still in use by the Marines. I'm not sure if that one has anything more than the tracks for water propulsion.

Synopsis wrong by MouseR · 2016-06-20 04:27 · Score: 3, Informative

Musk didn't say (less even vouch) for the availability of this "feature". It's not a feature. It's a capability inherent to any car with closed cabin. All cars will float for a brief period of time (which is what Musk said: it will float for a brief period of time).

The batteries and electrical system is isolated enough to sustain sub-bar pressures and will hapilly drive along as the engine is not dependant on any air intake system not being flooded.

Technically, all EVs should be able to do this for a period. DONT drive across the lake.

Ranged-extended vehicles (Gen 1 & 2 Volt, BMW i3, Fisker Karma) dont have this luxury. While the electrics will continue working, any flooding of the ICE will require major repairs.

Disclaimer: I own a Gen2 Volt.

Re:Synopsis wrong by Solandri · 2016-06-20 11:00 · Score: 1

While all cars will float, ICE vehicles are nose-heavy due to the engine location. The front end will pitch down making any attempt to use it as a boat dangerous if not fatal - moving forward will increase water pressure on the top of the hood, forcing the vehicle to pitch nose-down even further.

In an EV, the weight is concentrated in the battery, which is usually evenly distributed across the vehicle's floor. So I would expect it to remain closer to horizontal when used as a boat. With some fairing on the bottom of the front end, you could even attach a propeller and get some decent forward speed out of it.
Re:Synopsis wrong by OrigamiMarie · 2016-06-20 14:43 · Score: 1

Yup, he even followed his "hey isn't this really cool!" tweet with a "DON'T TRY THIS YOURSELF" tweet. He's proud that it worked out, but the car isn't designed for it, he knows it, and he doesn't want people to roll the dice until it fails impressively.

But does it float as well as a Beetle? by pecosdave · 2016-06-20 04:33 · Score: 1

The other unintentional amphibious car.

The newer Beetle is nothing compared to it's ancestor.

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.

Re:But does it float as well as a Beetle? by PPH · 2016-06-20 05:10 · Score: 1

Better ad here.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Floats unlike Tesla by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-20 04:33 · Score: 5, Funny

He's also talking about that one incident where a Tesla ran over a chunk of metal on the highway, resulting in a horrible fire that was isolated to the engine compartment, and required that the driver pull over and shut the car down. (Rather than the much safer standard vehicle alternative of exploding, crashing, and suddenly ceasing to have a working engine while driving at high speeds on a crowded highway). Tesla's total dismissal of the incident is just typical of their head-in-the-sand tactics to ignoring real problems.

Wake up sheeple!

Like to see a Tesla powertrain on an actual boat by swb · 2016-06-20 04:33 · Score: 1

I'm guessing it wouldn't go fast or far, but it might actually be useful enough for inland lake recreational purposes. Especially on a 30' cruiser which probably already has a pair of big block gasoline engines and a 5kw generator. The batteries vs. the engines would be a wash, and the gen set could provide some charging or limp-back drive power.

Exhaust scoops? by Zibodiz · 2016-06-20 04:35 · Score: 1

As a 'serious offroader' myself, I can assure you it's not the exhaust you have to worry about. It's the air intake. Engines have plenty of power to force air out the exhaust while underwater. Sucking water into the engine, however, is something that ICE's really don't like.

Re:Floats unlike Tesla by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-06-20 04:41 · Score: 5, Funny

Hey, whatever floats his car. ;)

--
Ezekiel 23:20

divine gratitude by khidr · 2016-06-20 04:47 · Score: 1

...i am thankful for the dasein... amor fati sempre....

Float? Not quite. by kamakazi · 2016-06-20 04:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

I am sorry, but that car wasn't floating. The wheels and tires on a Tesla are going to have no forward thrust, because the entire wheel will be submerged, meaning the top of the wheel is thrusting backwards just as well as the bottom is thrusting forward.

The low profile tires on the Tesla are going to have minimal thrust anyway, because the tread is not even vaguely paddle like. For reference look at this video of the bigfoot monster truck floating across a lake. Even that truck with duallies on it (total of 8 monster truck wheels), which did float high enough for the big mudders to act like paddles, didn't make as quick forward progress as an old man in a canoe, and was extremely slow to respond to steering input.

The tesla in the video not only has enough power to push a big bow wave, it has enough steering traction to slalom through the other cars on the road. The weight of that car was obviously enough to keep the tires on the pavement at that water depth. I am not denying that the Tesla could float, nor am I denying that it may be water tight enough to float well, but it will be pretty much powerless and uncontrolled while floating.

Mr. Musk is very proud of his car, but on this video I call BS. That is not floating.

--
"Proximity to wonder has blunted our perception and appreciation of it" --Tim Hartnell in 'Exploring ARTIFICIAL INTELLI

Re:Float? Not quite. by msauve · 2016-06-20 05:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

"the entire wheel will be submerged, meaning the top of the wheel is thrusting backwards just as well as the bottom is thrusting forward."

Except they're not open wheel cars, they have fenders and wheel well liners.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Float? Not quite. by kamakazi · 2016-06-20 05:39 · Score: 4, Informative

hmm, that is a point. If the wheel stays up in the fender it may act as a very inefficient impeller, taking in water at the rear of the fender opening, the fender liner acting as the casing of a very poorly coupled pump.
It would work better if it was a fully skirted fender, which they aren't, so most of the water being pumped is going to just blast out sideways, mostly out, because the inside of the wheel well is lower that the outside.
Just guessing, without modeling, I think the thrust would be mostly down, with some backwards.
I don't know my Tesla models that well, but if it is AWD any thruster effect from the front wheels would be less, because of the larger wheel well clearances for turning, and would disappear almost entirely when the wheels were turned left or right at all.
Teslas probably have an advantage in this regard, because they have a pretty taught suspension, and probably won't droop as much as the cars us mere mortals drive, which at full droop can be almost entirely out of the wheel well, below the body of the car.
You are correct, I had not considered the ducting action of the fenders. However I stand by my final judgement that the car in the video is not floating.

--
"Proximity to wonder has blunted our perception and appreciation of it" --Tim Hartnell in 'Exploring ARTIFICIAL INTELLI
Re: Float? Not quite. by joao.cordeiro · 2016-06-20 05:51 · Score: 1

On the other end, the top of the wheel is covered, not allowing any counter force. And with a eletric engine you can speed tye wheels at realy high rpm. I think it is possible.
Re:Float? Not quite. by budgenator · 2016-06-20 09:03 · Score: 1

Dude you want something like This, if you can't pull a water-skier what good is it?

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:Float? Not quite. by Solandri · 2016-06-20 11:20 · Score: 1

Just guessing, without modeling, I think the thrust would be mostly down, with some backwards.
Water is incompressible. The volume flowrate of water the wheel pulls up into the wheel well has to equal the volume flowrate the wheel pushes down, and by Newton's 3rd law there is no net thrust up or down. An impeller works by scooping up a volume of water through a large opening at a low flowrate, and shooting it through a smaller opening at a high flowrate. The difference in in/out opening size is crucial to keep an impeller obeying conservation of mass. I haven't looked closely at the Tesla S, but I suspect the clearance in the front and back of the wheel well is the same.

Forward thrust would be due to the bottom of the tires pushing free-flowing water backwards, pushing the car forwards. The water in the top of the tires would be pushed forwards, but it hits the wheel well and transfers its momentum back to the car (being diverted down in the process), canceling out the backwards thrust from the top of the wheel. In other words, the top half of the rotating wheel draws water up into the wheel well, pushes the water forward (pushing the car backward), but the wheel well then diverts the water down (pushing the car forward the same amount). And the net momentum change for water moving around the top of the tire is zero. But the bottom of the tire is pushing unobstructed water, so it pushes the water backwards, pushing the car forward in the process.

I'm not the biggest tesla fan by burtosis · 2016-06-20 04:51 · Score: 1

The main problem I have with the cars is they are being undersold. The quality of the parts and engineering warrants a much larger price tag and further tesla isn't really profiting on them, rather Musk seems to be trying to achieve market penetration at the cost of profits. It's unlikely they will be able to deliver that quality at that price in any long term way short of pulling an apple and locking them into some kind of service.

Re:I'm not the biggest tesla fan by plague911 · 2016-06-20 05:15 · Score: 1

What you did was restate a simplified/broken version Tesla's publicly stated strategy and phrase it like you uncovered a big secret. Tesla has repeatedly stated that the goal of their current vehicles is not to make a profit but to act as a proving ground for the development of the manufacturing infrastructure. Electric vehicles suffer from a major lack of economics of scale. Thus to make competitive vehicles they sell them for little to no margin. Once scale is achieved Tesla's goal is to be able produce higher value for lower cost vehicles than the equivalent ICE. This will eat into the economics of scale with ICEs and thus destroy their ability to be competitive. Resulting in ONLY electric's being viable consumer vehicles. This strategy is why investors poured billions into them.
Re:I'm not the biggest tesla fan by burtosis · 2016-06-20 05:44 · Score: 1

Never said it was any kind of secret, those are your words. The thing is you may get economies of scale but that does not mean they will continue to provide the same contemporary value. Musk can't ride investor money forever and will need to make a decent margin, eventually without any subsidy beyond what the auto industry typically gets. This will lower quality to value over what is present today and bring it more in line with traditional profit driven companies (pun intended). If you think he is destroying the ICE market, you are free to believe that but it's not a view shared by economists nor market share. Perhaps in 20 to 40 years there will be substantial adoption, but there will be no such adoption anytime soon.
Re:I'm not the biggest tesla fan by tekrat · 2016-06-20 05:57 · Score: 2

You're assuming that Tesla's *only* business model is to sell cars. Well, Elon Musk is a smarter businessman than you are.
Tesla's profits come from their sale of carbon credits and other "green" state and federal regs to other car companies who continue to pump out gas-guzzling SUVs.
http://www.marketplace.org/201...
Also for a while, Tesla was licensing their patents to other manufacturers, but I think that's over now as they opened up the patents.

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.

Re:Batteries by cellocgw · 2016-06-20 04:53 · Score: 1, Insightful

And you can't extinguish a Lithium fire. You just have to wait until it burns out on its own.

What utter nonsense. Lithium is not burning via some Li + Li --> Li_2 reaction in the absence of other elements. Remove the source of molecules (e.g. water) that lithium's combining with and the fire stops.

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw

Re:Batteries by necro81 · 2016-06-20 04:55 · Score: 4, Informative

Electronics in automotive environments tend to be very well sealed, because they are exposed to all kinds of crap. Rain is the least of it: snow, salt, sand, mud, marine air, gasoline, motor oil, washer fluid - all of these would utterly destroy electronics if they were not well protected against it. The electronics enclosures, cabling, and connectors used in automobilies are typically rated to IP55 at least, and typically are IP67. Once you have sealed it well enough to keep out all the crap you'd encounter on the road, you get protection against temporary submersion more or less for free.

Re:Nothing new by the_other_one · 2016-06-20 04:59 · Score: 1

They would only float in TEST mode.

--
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!

Music! by NixieBunny · 2016-06-20 05:07 · Score: 1

My brother used that same piece of fine old music The Blue Danube) in our Typewriter Repairmen underwater robot video. YouTube saw fit to mute the sound due to some copyright claim. Bastards.
http://selectric.org/nurc/introfinal.wmv

--
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.

Re:Batteries by jimbolauski · 2016-06-20 05:09 · Score: 1

Sounds like you are volunteering to suck the water off the lithium batteries when the first idiot takes his Tesla boating.

--
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make

Re:Batteries by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-20 05:10 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes, you can. The stuff is called "Lith-X", and we were trained in its use. Lith-X was applied by the bucket load. For very small fires, like foils, something that resembled a salt shaker was used.
Of only minor interest here: we were working with Lithium-6...

Re:Nothing new by bobbied · 2016-06-20 05:11 · Score: 2

LOL.. When new and the door seals actually worked and the heater channels where not rusted out, yea they could float... My old 65' beetle would have sunk like a scuttled German U-Boat on the high seas when I owned it. A cross wind was more than just an adventure in uncommanded lane changes, it also blew stuff around inside the car because the "door seals" didn't seal anything... Imagine driving this across Indiana in -10 weather.... Can you say COLD, with roasted ankles?

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101

So does this mean.... by bobbied · 2016-06-20 05:14 · Score: 1

Tesla will be flooded with orders now for the Model S?

Yes, folks, Hard to believe I'm here all week... No cover, one drink minimum.. And NO, I'm not quitting my day job..

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101

Re:Floats unlike Tesla by Lead+Butthead · 2016-06-20 05:17 · Score: 3, Funny

In other news, Mr. Musk announced a new line of sneakers that allows wearer to walk on water...

--
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?

Re:Floats unlike Tesla by thegarbz · 2016-06-20 05:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Thank you for your opinion Anonymous Coward. But I'll go with what the NHTSA, and NCAP say about it instead. Not that I don't value your opinion, just that it's utterly wrong and worthless.

Re:Batteries by NatasRevol · 2016-06-20 05:27 · Score: 2

Well, clearly not the first, but whatever.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

Re:Floats unlike Tesla by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-20 05:34 · Score: 3, Informative

WHoooooosh.

Re:Like to see a Tesla powertrain on an actual boa by Junta · 2016-06-20 05:39 · Score: 2

Well 240 hp on a 21 foot boat makes for pretty fun sport boating already...

In general, engines on boats short of yacht class are relatively ancient by automotive standards (e.g. carburetor was the norm until very recently, and engine diagnostics are much less sophisticated for boats)

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.

Re:Floats unlike Tesla by NatasRevol · 2016-06-20 05:40 · Score: 1

Sorry, didn't read your third subclause and second sentence.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

If someone steals a Tesla... by Khyber · 2016-06-20 05:44 · Score: 5, Funny

...do we then call it an Edison?

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

No air, no exhaust, not problem! by gurps_npc · 2016-06-20 06:02 · Score: 1

Now, all we need is for Lotus to come out with an all white version of the car.

Foils, periscope, ejection seat and torpedo optional.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com

Re:Batteries by legRoom · 2016-06-20 06:03 · Score: 2

What utter nonsense. Lithium is not burning via some Li + Li --> Li_2 reaction in the absence of other elements.

That is true, but in the case of Lithium batteries the required oxidizer is an essential component of the battery itself. No outside chemical input is required for the battery to burn or explode; the military has investigated the use of lithium batteries as improvised grenades.

The problem with water ingress would not necessarily be that it serves as a concentrated oxidizer, but rather that it may short out the batteries, causing sufficient local heating to trigger a self-sustaining chain reaction within the batteries themselves.

Big deal... by Dcnjoe60 · 2016-06-20 06:52 · Score: 1

Big deal! Volkswagen Beetles did that years ago. Their slogan was something like "Volkswagen Beetles, definitely float. Just not indefinitely." or something like that.

HIgh intake not exhaust by Jeff1946 · 2016-06-20 07:05 · Score: 2

Off roaders use high intakes mainly to reduce the amount of dust sucked in which will eventually clog the air filter. Obviously it would help going through water. Usually water is flowing and as soon as the car reaches a depth where is will float you are going to go "down the creek without a paddle."

I don't think "floats" means... by Bartles · 2016-06-20 07:41 · Score: 1

...what you think it means, Slashdot. At no point was this car floating. They aren't exactly known for being lightweight, it just drove through the water.

Re:Like to see a Tesla powertrain on an actual boa by swb · 2016-06-20 07:47 · Score: 1

I do a lot of boating on a large inland lake, and from what I've seen the Sea Ray Sundancers of ~30 ft (Sundancer 280s to 320s) seldom run at anywhere near full throttle. I'd guess something like 10-12 mph is pretty common, with about 30-something MPH being wide open on plane.

But on those boats, 30-something is really wide open engine-wise -- usually a pair of V8s (350 or better) running within 1000 rpm of the red line. As you say, the engines on these boats are ancient by auto standards -- Mercury still(?) buys GM iron blocks from a Mexico-based casting operation. But the brand new ones are slightly better, but it's still a shit-ton of power at full throttle -- Sea Ray claim 188 kW per engine for a 4.5L Bravo III. You might get about 15 minutes at full throttle out of a P90 battery. I'd guess if you were willing to tolerate about 15 mph as maximum speed, you might get a couple of hours cruise time.

What I think would be interesting would be a hybrid drive -- a single 100kw generator for charging and drive, coupled with a large battery pack and Chevy Volt-style automatic engine control. On inland waterways and short uses, you could probably stay on battery. It probably wouldn't be any savings over twin 4.5L engines, though. Those weight in around 800 pounds, and the P85 battery is 1200, so a battery + engine would end up weighing more, even if your generator engine was lighter than a 4.5L gas engine.

You'd also have to re-think the hull, the planing and semi-planing hulls would be kind of inefficient for an electric drive meant to operate at low speeds. And at that point, you're kind of back to a trawler-style boat, many of which do well with small single diesels and a top end of 8 knots.

I doubt the battery concept would work with open bow/sport/wakesurfing boats. Those still have big V8s to propel fat wakes or go fast,

Saves lives? by Agripa · 2016-06-20 07:58 · Score: 1

So what Elon Musk is saying is that if Democratic senator Ted Kennedy had driven a Tesla Model S, Mary Jo Kopechne would have lived?

yes, that's correct by YesIAmAScript · 2016-06-20 08:16 · Score: 1

It allows them to sell their car for $7500 more without suffering the reduction in sales that would come with the customer paying $7500 more.

That's a subsidy to Tesla.

What did you think it is? The point of the program is to increase EV adoption by making the cars cheaper to acquire. How could you not see that as a subsidy benefiting Tesla (or any EV seller)?

--
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95

Re:Batteries by TangoMargarine · 2016-06-20 08:42 · Score: 1

They make fire extinguishers for metallic/chemical fires. Just because you can't put it out with water doesn't mean it's somehow invincible.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF

Re:Nothing new by budgenator · 2016-06-20 08:50 · Score: 1

My VW mini-motorhome had a piece of PVC Drain Pipe to replace the rusted out heat duct, worked like a champ! You could also get electric boaster-heaters so the windshield would defrost before you got to work in the morning.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re:Batteries by michelcolman · 2016-06-20 08:52 · Score: 1

Actually, recommended procedure for extinguishing burning lithium batteries in electronic devices is submerging them in water. When they are already burning, short circuits are no longer a problem. Heat is. So you need to cool them down as quickly as possible to stop the chain reaction.

Airplane cabin crews have special bags for electronic equipment fires, they fill the bag with water (or soda) and put the equipment into the bag.

It didn't float by hraftery · 2016-06-20 08:59 · Score: 1

I thought the trifecta of rubbish about "thrust of the wheels", "exhaust scoops" and "flooded exhausts" was enough to sink this story. For some reason I actually watched the video. Turns out the car doesn't even float. At no point is the water even above the wheels, let alone high enough for the car to float. The car remains firmly in contact with the road at all times.

What utter nonsense. Are we being had? There is not a skerrick of substance in this article. Yay for Slashdot.

I'm concerned for the Guardian audience. Reminds me of that time a lady crashed her Jeep into a fountain after watching an ad and believing her car would jump the fountain.

Re:Batteries by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-06-20 09:05 · Score: 1

Sure you can, it's just not easy or practical in most cases.

--
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.

Re:Batteries by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-06-20 09:09 · Score: 1

Liquid helium.

Also, I rather suspect you meant "chlorine trifluoride", not F2Cl2. It's also much scarier than just burning sand; it burns glass and Teflon too.

--
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.

Stolen car? by MrL0G1C · 2016-06-20 09:34 · Score: 1

How comes a person who can afford a 'model s' can't afford a new mobile phone? Any half decent phone on the market for the last 4 years can record at 730p or 1080p.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

Re:Batteries by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-20 10:09 · Score: 1

While many electronics enclosures inside a car can meet IP55 (protection against dust intrusion and the occasional water jet) most of the stuff there is not IP67 (dust-tight and short-term submersion.) To meet that there would need to be actual gaskets on the fuse boxes and such with the covers held closed by screws around the perimeter rather than just some plastic clips.

Re:Batteries by lgw · 2016-06-20 11:48 · Score: 1

Chlorine trifluoride is an amazingly scary compound. Worse than FOOF. It burns asbestos. It burns water. It burns firebricks. It burns "safety equipment, test equipment, and researchers". It emits HF as its combustion byproduct (and an HF leak will clear any lab).

When spilled, there's nothing you can do. Fortunately, it will simply eat its way down towards the center of the Earth through anything it its path until it's exhausted, so spills stay within their initial footprint.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.

Mopar smallblocks had the distributor at the rear. by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2016-06-20 12:07 · Score: 1

Only the big block motors had it at the front, installed at a strange looking angle....

--
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org

Cast iron exhaust manifolds can crack when.... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2016-06-20 12:12 · Score: 1

suddenly hit with cold water, but the engine block doesn't get that hot during operation, being internally water cooled and all..

--
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2016-06-20 13:58 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Dust by Ozoner · 2016-06-20 16:25 · Score: 1

And the snorkels are to reduce dust intake, not water...

At least in Australia.

Ah well...

Re: Batteries by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-20 18:45 · Score: 1

I drive a Nissan Leaf. The engine, drivetrain and power electronics are inside one ip67-sealed unit where a combustion car engine sits. After one year of daily use, the outside of this unit has acquired... a thin layer of dry dust.
No oil and no heat makes a huge difference.

Re:Floats unlike Tesla by Rei · 2016-06-20 23:49 · Score: 1

Right. A blog from a self-admitted contributor to the "Tesla Death Watch"? Great reference there.

Just so you know, the game that he's playing is with the dates. His "references" all date to before the NHTSA closed the case on the Tesla suspensions.

--
Monkeywrench Ex Machina.

Re:Floats unlike Tesla by Gussington · 2016-06-21 00:24 · Score: 1

Ha! I'm going to use that...

Re:Batteries by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-06-21 02:10 · Score: 1

Yep, it burns pretty much anything that can, in theory, burn. Scary stuff.

--
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.

Re:Floats unlike Tesla by rpstrong · 2016-06-21 04:40 · Score: 3, Funny

Or: "I'd like to agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong."

Re:Mopar smallblocks had the distributor at the re by cbiltcliffe · 2016-06-21 16:27 · Score: 1

Well, I'm not really a Mopar kind of guy, so I couldn't have told you for sure. I knew I'd seen the weird angle ones at car shows though, but I suppose a lot of the ones you see there all done up are going to be 440s and 383s and such. I didn't realize it was just the big blocks, that had it at the front, though.
Thanks for the info.

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......

Slashdot Mirror

Tesla Model S Floats Well Enough To Act As a Boat, According To Elon Musk

163 of 238 comments (clear)