Slashdot Mirror
Is Elon Musk Greatly Exaggerating Tesla's Battery Technology? (bloomberg.com)
"Tesla's newest promises break the laws of batteries," writes Bloomberg. Long-time Slashdot reader rudy_wayne summarizes their report.
"Elon Musk knows how to make promises. Even by his own standards, the promises made last week while introducing two new Tesla vehicles...are monuments of envelope pushing. To deliver, according to close observers of battery technology, Tesla would have to far exceed what is currently thought possible." The Tesla Semi, which Musk claims can haul 80,000 pounds at highway speeds for 500 miles, then recharge 400 miles of range in 30 minutes, would require "a charging system that's 10 times more powerful than one of the fastest battery-charging networks on the road today -- Tesla's own Superchargers."
The Tesla Roadster is promised to be the quickest production car ever built. But that achievement would mean squeezing into its tiny frame a battery twice as powerful as the largest battery currently available in any electric car. These claims are so far beyond current industry standards for electric vehicles that they would require either advances in battery technology or a new understanding of how batteries are put to use, said Sam Jaffe, battery analyst for Cairn Energy Research in Boulder, Colorado.
But Jaffe reaches an interesting conclusion. "I don't think they're lying. I just think they left something out of the public reveal that would have explained how these numbers work."
The Tesla Roadster is promised to be the quickest production car ever built. But that achievement would mean squeezing into its tiny frame a battery twice as powerful as the largest battery currently available in any electric car. These claims are so far beyond current industry standards for electric vehicles that they would require either advances in battery technology or a new understanding of how batteries are put to use, said Sam Jaffe, battery analyst for Cairn Energy Research in Boulder, Colorado.
But Jaffe reaches an interesting conclusion. "I don't think they're lying. I just think they left something out of the public reveal that would have explained how these numbers work."
He has to do something to keep people investing in his company, and keep the stock price high. Looking at the fundamentals, it's a crazyy buy for the stock. Never turned a profit, losing billions per year, cash-on-hand to keep running until summer next year - and massive commitments for new products and deliveries they have to meet. Add in the track record of never coming close to those delivery numbers - and it's crazy anyone buys the stock. So Musk has to put on the PT Barnum act and drum up more support so they can turn to the last option they have to raise more capital - sell more stock.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Is Elon Musk Greatly Exaggerating
Yes.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
The mega battery charger seems feasible because if the semi will have more batteries, so you can charge each cell at the same rate and still have a faster charging speed.
For trucks and buses that can follow the wires. They can be powered and "recharged" as they move, as well as following the wires automatically. Also, electrified freight rail. "Charging" vehicles while on the go is a solved problem and doesn't require production of large, environmentally-costly batteries.
Making a faster charger is simple, even more so when the battery bank is many small units. You just use one charger per unit in the bank.
As for storing more power per weight, that does take some advances. Graphene has been show to do 'wonders' for battery tech.
With a title like that, you know the article is going to be good for a laugh. Sort of like people who say "physics says..." who wouldn't even recognize the formulae that apply to the problem in question if you wrote them out in front of them.
1) Passengers in the Roadster noted how high its floor is. Aka: it's a double-high pack. Tesla already makes 100kWh packs for the S and X that are single-high. They may need to extend a bit further forward and back because the Roadster is a bit smaller of a footprint (on S and X they only slightly overlap the wheelbase, and on Model 3 they're inside the wheelbase entirely), but there's nothing at all implausible about 200kWh in such a form factor.
2) The megacharger charge port has been filmed by KMan. It has 8 giant pins in what appear to be a 2x4 arrangement, with ground and control pins likely clustered in a side slot on the right. These pins are much larger than those on the supercharger port, and there's a lot more of them. Also note the 2x4 arrangement: there appear to be four separate battery packs, and there 4 separate drive units. It appears that bloody everything on this vehicle is redundant (one assumes that there's at least a charge balancing system between the packs).
3) The means to provide the power to the megachargers is very, very simple: they're battery buffered. Tesla has always been clear on this; they're not drawing that power straight from the grid. More to the point, Semi uses the same battery chemistry as Tesla's grid-battery buffers (NMC). It's an extremely durable chemistry.
4) The article is very reasonable in its assessment of the battery capacity on the 500mi semi - they say 600-1000kWh (I've been working on the assumption of 900kWh, but it could be a bit less). Their estimate on the price, however, assumes that batteries cost $100-$170/kWh retail. Yet the raw material costs for said cells is only about $50/kWh - and that's currently at "spiked" prices which can be expected to drop as the mining industry readjusts to the new demand curve (historic prices would be more like $35/kWh). The whole point of the Gigafactory was to make li-ion batteries - finally - get closer to the cost of the raw materials that go into them. These numbers simply suggest that the Gigafactory has done exactly what it was designed to do.
5) Their estimate of the weight of the battery pack is probably correct (around 5 tonnes). However, in addition to the weight savings from using electric drive units vs. a big diesel / transmission / pollution controls / etc, Tesla always builds light. Don't expect the primary structure to be made of mild steel on this one; expect UHS steel, with 4-5 times the tensile strength, for example. Guillen stated in Europe that it has the same payload capacity as a diesel semi (aka, the tractor is no heavier), and that's probably correct.
Or, to put it another way: none of the "experts" expected the Model 3 SR to come in at almost exactly the same weight as the BMW 330i, with the same performance, more standard features, and a cheaper price. It did. And the LR isn't much heavier than a 330i, and well faster (can't wait to see the specs on the performance package!)
6) Charge rates of 7 cents per kWh: First off, their estimate that charging should cost 40 cents per kWh is just absurd. Pure nonsense. Even Tesla's current generation of superchargers is half that ($0,20/kWh), and they have to pay demand charges. That said, 7 cents per kWh comes across as extremely ambitious... until you start looking into it. And then you realize how much of a game changer it is that Tesla is doing here.
We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
But Jaffe reaches an interesting conclusion. "I don't think they're lying. I just think they left something out of the public reveal that would have explained how these numbers work."
So maybe it's Betteridge after all.
Meanwhile, spyshots and the VIN count on Model 3 show production greatly accelerating.
As for "exaggerating everything" - you mean like promising a battery within 100 days of signing a contract, and delivering it in 55? Promising the Model 3 with 215 mile range, then delivering it with 220, with an option for 310 - a number that's in turn downrated from EPA testing of 334 miles? What exaggerations about vehicle stats and pricing are you thinking of exactly?
We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
...a standard car charging point isn't powerful enough to charge a semi in a reasonable time?
Instead of immediately accusing them of witchcraft, perhaps... they just figured out a way to bundle multiple 'standard' standard car-chargers in parallel, and use those to charge separate battery packs inside a semi, greatly reducing the total recharge time?
It's bigger on the inside.
Or in July stating they can do 20K in December, but then sliding the required rate to March 2018 at the earliest? Oh wait...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Rossi? Andrea Rossi? Is that you?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Tesla may have better optimized software and reduced friction components (within the axle) to take advantage of cruising. The software surely would take advantage of in depth GPS data and analytics gathered by the many Tesla model already on the road. Also Tesla may have improved regenerative braking capabilities.
From the specs, it looks like these two vehicles use solid-state lithium batteries, which are also being put into some other high-end EVs currently in development. Next question.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I'm betting the eight "pins" on the port aren't pins. They are sockets with two contact surfaces.
Eight 120 kWH batteries (five in the 300-mile version) made using the newer 2170 cells wouldn't be much of a stretch of the current technology. This would provide 960 kWH total which is within the range of estimated needs.
Tesla reuses the same AC/DC converter in their superchargers that they use in their vehicles. Current superchargers use 12 of these 11kW AC/DC modules to provide about 130kW (after losses).
If you go with the same theme but update it to use 12 of the 20kW AC/DC modules now used in the model S, the existing supercharger design could be trivially increased to about 216kW after losses.
Eight 216kW superchargers operating simultaneously could deliver 1,728kW - more than enough to provide a 400-mile charge in 30 minutes.
10k nm wheel torque.
We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
Swap the batteries.
Name another car maker who is conscious enough to care about creating healthy environment for humans to live in.
Healthy environment" You say? I'm not saying that they don't, but I don't think that is their ultimate goal
Assuming it was like HP and made any difference where you measured it, which it doesn't, wheel torque would make it even more of an exaggeration
The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. Has Elon Musk greatly exaggerated Tesla's battery technology in the past? From what I've read, Elon Musk has always ended up providing what he claimed albeit a bit behind schedule and over budget. However, once the baseline product is established it seems to improve over time. Jaffe's conclusion that this are factors he is unaware of is a logical one.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The first Toyota Prius model starting being sold in 2003 - long before Musk had even heard of Tesla, let alone decided to get involved in funding them.
That Prius electric technology is so successful it is now integrated into many of Toyota's lines. More importantly, those lines are actually profitable, and aren't over priced, overly limited vehicles, that suck up govt tax payer money to manufacture.
Toyota is driving innovation - worried about Li battery storage density, charge rates, and lifetime, they've started down the path of H2 fuel cell cars, but also maintaining their Li battery development.
Fast forward to today, and everyone from BMW to Nissan sells electric and hybrid cars. And they all do it without Elon's grandstanding and drain on the tax purse.
Elon is a loud, obnoxious marketer, but if you pay attention, you'll see that many car manufacturers are doing more interesting things in this space than he is. It's just that they are based out of California so the press doesn't pay very much attention to them.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
No, idiot.
Wheel torque = engine torque multiplied by overall drive ratio (minus losses). Since the overall drive ratio is typically between 3 and 5 in top gear (and much higher in lower gears), wheel torques are going to be at least 3 times engine torque and possibly more than 20x engine torque (in low gear).
That makes it much more comparable, and not an exaggeration.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Nissan has made twice as many fully electric cars as Tesla has.
Renault and partners have made more than Tesla, I think.
BYD has probably made a LOT more than Tesla has, but exact numbers are hard to come by.
It's a new company, with new capital investment, if Tesla declared any profits and paid taxes on them, the accountants in charge deserve to be beaten to death with the tax code books. People who buy Tesla stock need to know fundamentals because it is a new company. The tax deductible depreciations on new buildings, plant and equipment are massive as is research, design and development. It would doubt they would generate any taxable profit for about a decade and them either major expansion or tax bills would start accruing. The realistic most likely outcomes, Tesla will be bought by an existing automotive or major electronics company (the electric car market is expanding pretty fast and some of the existing players will die or try to buy or merge with Tesla, especially with automotive and electronics and appliances likely to do some odd corporate rearrangements).
When it comes to the new Tesla Roadster performance, weight is key and it really depends on the design weight that is being aimed for and of course when it starts to get really light, the weight of driver and passenger. If they are working on really pulling the weight down, then much higher performance figures are possible.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
yeah, elon's sense of schedule sux.
OTOH, he constantly delivers on the tech and in the right price range.
So, I prefer a guy that produces an EV sedan for 65K on up, and an EV X-over for 70K that is outdoing all of its direct competitors, and now produces an EV sedan for 35K that is worth 35K, vs competitors that produce an EV that sells for 40K and is worth less than 25K.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I don't totally disagree with this, but in fairness you should know the Japanese government very heavily subsidized research at both Toyota and Honda into hybrid engines.
With that said, it was clearly n wise economic exercise.
Derd! Hey derd.
The types of electric motors used in EVs have constant torque vs RPMs. They don't have a power curve, they have a power line. This fact is broadly true across three phase electric motors.
Also: Mechanical advantage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Even without the ~10:1 gearbox the wheel acts as a gear too.
"The first Toyota Prius model starting being sold in 2003 - long before Musk had even heard of Tesla"
Fuck, how did you manage to stuff so much wrong info into so few words? The Prius first went on sale in Japan in 1997 and internationally in 2000; Eberhard & Tarpenning founded Tesla in July 2003 with Musk becoming Chairman in April 2004 & helping to securing financing while also investing millions of his own money.
"That Prius electric technology is so successful it is now integrated into many of Toyota's lines. More importantly, those lines are actually profitable, and aren't over priced, overly limited vehicles, that suck up govt tax payer money to manufacture"
Sure but that Prius tech did fuck all to get anyone excited about EVs or to goad the industry to get off their asses & build electric vehicles that people covet. Those lines are only profitable because Toyota already have profitable cars to offset the losses of the early years. It took them 5 years to get to ~120k sold in the USA which Tesla surpassed in roughly the same amount of time - for a car that cost THREE to FIVE times as much.
Hell, the electric underpinnings barely changed for 10 years, the battery remained the same size & power for about as long and it took a dozen years for them to figure out a larger battery and that it might be a good idea to attach a power cord.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
"It's a new company, with new capital investment, if Tesla declared any profits and paid taxes on them, the accountants in charge deserve to be beaten to death with the tax code books. People who buy Tesla stock need to know fundamentals because it is a new company"
The problem is they're burning huge amount of cash relative to sales and in one of the most cash-intensive & regulated businesses in the world. The bleeding can't go on much longer and their liabilities are adding up quickly. Not making money is fine; but if they're not close to break-even by the end of 2018, after a full year of Model 3 production, then Musk has some explaining to do.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
We were talking about claims of vehicle stats and pricing.
No, that is what you want to discuss. The original claim was:
Elon Musk exaggerates everything in his advantage. It would be highly unusual if he didn't exaggerate a claim in an announcement made to destract from the problems with the Tesla 3.
You responded with media copy details crafted ex post facto.
See there is this shell game going on to misdirect investors and you have become so accustomed to that norm you have started participating yourself!
VW had an electric version of the MK1 Golf, the Rabbit in the early 80s which was an electric car. Peugeot had an electric 206 a decade before Tesla brought out their car.
How many of them were being manufactured back then? I mean, as long as your production is 99,9% ICE cars, you can hardly be called "conscious enough to care about creating healthy environment for humans to live in". Get that dirty shit out of at least cities and then we can talk about it.
Ezekiel 23:20
Name another car maker who is conscious enough to care about creating healthy environment for humans to live in.
The first Toyota Prius model starting being sold in 2003 - long before Musk had even heard of Tesla, let alone decided to get involved in funding them.
A huuuge red herring on your part. It seems that you couldn't plug a Prius in and recharge it before 2010, so Priuses before that had to choke citizens with their generator exhaust before that year.
Toyota is driving innovation - worried about Li battery storage density, charge rates, and lifetime, they've started down the path of H2 fuel cell cars, but also maintaining their Li battery development.
So they still keep getting distracted by building a separate infrastructure for small-scale hydrogen consumers? Then they don't really seem to be conscious enough to care about creating healthy environment for humans to live in, again.
Ezekiel 23:20
Well, they did have a working prototype doing max acceleration 0-70 mph runs all night long without recharging. The numbers they quoted appeared to be real numbers for that prototype.
Unlike Porsche and others who display a stationary model and claim that it will be able to almost match the performance of current production Teslas, some day, when they actually manage to make it work.
I think Tesla did figure out something new, aren't quite able to mass produce it yet, but already did make it in very small volume and are now testing it. They may not make the 2020 deadline (it's still Tesla, after all) but I doubt it will be much later than that. They are getting a lot better at actually producing things, delays on Model 3 are only a couple of months and that's after accelerating the development by a whole year. I expect them to deliver the first token roadsters in december 2020 and start producing them for real in the second half of 2021.
Vin numbers are no indication of actual production.
Its an indication of the productivity of the guy who registers VIN numbers. That guy is killing it!
Another comparison point:
Diesel Locomotive (starting) 9515 ft lbs, and side note with these, they use electric motors (with diesel generators to create the electricity)
"But that achievement would mean squeezing into its tiny frame a battery twice as powerful as the largest battery currently available in any electric car."
Why? A Bugatti Veyron at full speed empties its 100 liter gas tank in 8 minutes.
Has anyone accounted for new battery technology developed with the help of the inventor of the original lithium-ion battery technology? https://news.utexas.edu/2017/0...
Not talking about VIN *registrations*. I'm talking about VINs *spotted on vehicles*.
We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
The unreferenced Wikipedia page is wrong. They forgot about the gear ratio between the wheels and engines. Gearing trades RPM for torque. See a discussion here.
We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
By the way: they finally broke the 1100 barrier (1131 was spotted today). This is interesting because the VINs had slowly ticked up to the lower 500s, then seemed to stop... then suddenly jumped just a couple weeks ago to near 1100, and then had ticked down since then toward the previous high mark. The fact that they're now over 1100 strongly suggests that they've filled in the VIN gap.
Looks like they're up to something like 150 per week right now (and accelerating), which is a huge improvement over where they were before. It's great to see the scaleup finally back on track.
We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
That Prius electric technology is so successful it is now integrated into many of Toyota's lines. More importantly, those lines are actually profitable, and aren't over priced, overly limited vehicles, that suck up govt tax payer money to manufacture.
I know the "Musk is only successful because of subsidies" meme is popular around here but you know that Prius buyers took advantage of tax credits too, right? It's not like Tesla is the only company to "suck up govt tax payer money to manufacture". Toyota gladly accepts subsidies just like all the other car manufacturers. The only place Tesla is unique is that their entire line is eligible for the tax credit instead of a subset like the other manufacturers.
Enigma
If Musk were trying to keep the Tesla stock price high, he could've achieved that more easily by simply not recently going on record telling the media that he thinks Tesla stock is currently overpriced: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/1...
The fact that you think a guy who shouts to the media that his stock is overvalued is putting on a PT Barnum act to raise the stock price shows that you've drifted off hopelessly into conspiracy land.
This space intentionally left blank
July 2017, Musk stated they would make 20K of the Model 3s in December. In October, he stated that they would hit 20K units per month by March 2018 at the earliest.
As far as technology, how about their "autopilot"? Not as functional as many other offerings on the market, and doesn't even see motorcycles, meaning its a hazard to fellow users of the road. Big tech fail there... And we won't even get into the doors of the Model X...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
This is no different approach than companies like Amazon took to dominate. Tesla has 1 of 2 choices. Spend like mad building out the company, while also focusing in lowering costs vs established companies while putting profits later, OR grow slowly focusing on profits, knowing that you will be bought out by established companies. With the first approach, you will either dominate the industry, forcing them to change their approach, OR, you will bankrupt. Musk is in a full out bet the company mode WRT EVs ( and solar ) in which the outcome will be known within 2 years. Tesla will either be in top 5 car makers , or they will be gone ( likely bought by other ). He actually has his cost /car equal or lower than comparable models. At this moment, he needs to focus on M3's fit/finish and make it top notch. This will guarantee the demand for their cars. Then from there, they have to ramp up production to guarantee supply, with profits. If they are doing 1000k / week by Xmas and f/f is decent, I'm pretty sure they will be just fine. Otherwise....
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Generally Porsche tends to be very conservative (read - underestimate) with their numbers. Porsche already has a release date for their Mission-E car - end on 2019, and multiple test-mules have been photographed./recorded running around the 'ring.
15 minute charge to 80% is pretty good,
..........FULL STOP.
Had both a power cord *AND* an electric only operation mode.
Both those features were removed for USDM models because the Japanese (rightly!) thought Americans were idiots and did their part to idiotproof the vehicles in order to ensure people didn't constantly run the batteries down too low, and because the charger required a dedicated breaker to avoid tripping. I forget it if was 110 or 220 and what current, but it WAS an available option/standard for JDM vehicles.
I can't understand your post.
We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
1) Li-ion batteries don't "explode". If you screw up, they can catch fire, but that's not the same thing.
2) Tesla battery packs have individual cells physically isolated and surrounded by non-flammable coolant.
We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
Nor was that ever part of the schedule. Are you really building your argument on something that will be invalidated a few months from now?
We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
EVs are cleaner than fossil fuel vehicles even in parts of the grid where coal dominates.
We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
In the past 8 years Tesla gross revenue has increased by a factor of 400. This is not a software business they can just make new cars appear out of thin air with a license key. They have to add factory space, but tools, hire tons of people and of course, buy a lot more parts and raw materials to make more cars.
Expanding a business like Tesla is a HUGELY capital intensive prospect. It's going to be a money loser until they grow to a size where growth starts to flatten out and scale starts to dominate. Don't confuse losses due to capital investment in facilities with per-unit manufacturing losses. At some point, they will reach a tipping point and their capital requirements will flatten out and their profits will be so big they'll make a grown man cry.
The trick is to stay in business long enough to reach that tipping point. And for that aspect of the business, having a front man like musk who can dazzle the masses like PT Barnum is a very good thing indeed. I predict in 10 years time the idea that "Tesla will never turn a profit" will be laughable.
Car folks have more than one definition for âoebest.â I suggest staying away from used car sales folks.
Your argument is tantamount to saying basically "Why bother shitting in the toilet? It doesn't change the amount of shit. We might as well just shit on the living room couch, on dinner table, and in fact wherever we happen to be at that moment. We might as well just shit everywhere because that's easier."
Yes.
>> The types of electric motors used in EVs have constant torque vs RPMs
Not even close.
Er, I meant... you know what I meant
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yep. And have you noticed how big and heavy a Diesel locomotive motor is? Its pretty much the entire size of and much of the weight of the entire locomotive. FYI the diesel part is just an electricity generator. It never drives the wheels directly. The electric motor is always driving the wheels. You aren't fitting one of those motors in an 18 wheeler, let alone a small sports car.
Great. Modded down for Just stating hard facts.
Fucking liberal peecee mentality is killing logical reasoning.
I'm not sure you realize that if our climate predictions are even just remotely close to being correct, yesterday was already too late for manufacturers to ditch fossil fuels altogether. Your model could work...in a world where we have extra half a century to do something with it. We don't. There's nothing sustainable about what we're doing right now. Of course, that's not just the problem of the car industry, there's food production, construction, etc., but still.
Ezekiel 23:20
No, i am saying that if you want to have a "Green car".. Push for clean energy.
When your car is powered by a coal plant you are really just moving the polution somewhere else.
You derped on your shirt man, I'm engineering three phase motor controllers today. I'm on a fucking break from writing motor control software, and here you are being fucking clueless.
Look. It. Up. First.
Tesla can easily meet their claimed acceleration speed on the Roadster 2 with a 100 KWH battery that weighs 1200 lbs. In fact it's easier than hitting their claimed speeds with a 200 KWH battery that weighs 2400 lbs. All lithium Ion batteries can be pushed to 2X or 4X discharge rates to give you 2X to 4X the power. The penalty you pay for pushing the discharge rate is much fewer charge cycles before the battery reaches 50% useful capacity. That doesn't matter for a prototype or demo car but it's completely unacceptable for a production car.
I've been waiting 5+ months for Tesla to fulfill an order for a Powerwall2. No ETA on the delivery. Plenty of excuses that don't really explain why. So there is a lot of Hype from Tesla/Musk but can they really deliver? Forget about battery technology of the future if they can't meet the demands of today.
No, modded down because you are wrong.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
How can just stating stats be wrong?
Yeah, it's pretty insane. Our Thanksgiving dinner of technologists, financiers, accountants, and lawyers figured he has a 1%-2% chance of success without giant government subsidies. We also estimated it wasn't a good idea to short the stock: there's too much idiot money out there.
He keeps missing his own production targets, he has big negative cashflow, his tooling plan for mass market cars is bizarre to the point of crazy.
He should just call his next car the "DeLorean, Mark II." It's cool, fast, uses high technology, and defies the laws of physics.
You mean like this?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What's wrong is comparing wheel torque to engine torque and drawing incorrect conclusions based on that invalid comparison.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I simply stated manufacturers published stats. You're the one making giant ASSumptions.
And have you noticed how big and heavy a Diesel locomotive motor is? Its pretty much the entire size of and much of the weight of the entire locomotive.
It isn't, either. The engine takes up a small fraction of the volume of the vehicle, comparable to a pickup truck.
You aren't fitting one of those motors in an 18 wheeler, let alone a small sports car.
You aren't fitting the engine you're imagining in a locomotive, either! Around as much volume is dedicated to the crew compartment as to the engine itself!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Did you though? What about this statement:
Your statement indicated disbelief with the claimed 10knm of torque. That's an opinion statement, not factual.
Your basis for your disbelief is that it is far higher than engine torque figures from other manufacturers, but, as I and others have attempted to point out, you can't directly compare engine and wheel torque: you must account for overall gear ratio.
So, you are wrong. Just get over it. All your postings just prove that you are not just an idiot, you are stubbornly idiotic.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Li-ion batteries can explode - if the battery is sealed, failure can lead to a pressure buildup that will eventually rupture leading to a sudden release of boiling electrolyte and vapor. This is a worst case scenario though, and can only happen if the battery is poorly designed or mistreated.
Those curves are when operating under line frequency AC power, not when powered by a modern controller.
That is why variable controllers are used, instead of just using a fixed frequency inverter and changing the voltage to change speed. Speed is based on AC frequency! That's why if you have fixed frequency, then the torque is variable depending on speed.
You clearly have no idea just how bad Musk is at running Tesla. One hand doesnâ(TM)t know what the other is doing, injuries are occurring and arenâ(TM)t being reported, operational roles have been outsourced at great expense, employee turnover is high, and the Fremont factory is a dinosaur, completely inappropriate for Teslaâ(TM)s needs. And that doesnâ(TM)t even begin to describe the issues Tesla has with its suppliers.
The company is a zombie, and with no cash, there is no reason for anyone to come in and buy them. Itâ(TM)s possible they arenâ(TM)t even turning a profit in the Model 3.
Tesla is worth ZERO. NOTHING. In the end, the bond holders will lose nearly everything, while the shareholders actually lose all their money.
I question whether Tesla will still be solvent a year from now.
These are good points, what Musk says should be possible, but
It has 8 giant pins in what appear to be a 2x4 arrangement, with ground...
One additional engineering requirement would be the cooling of the battery while being charged. You have any ideas how they might be planning that ?
Even much smaller batteries charged at a much lower rate heat up quite nicely.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Yes - you're moving the pollution to the power station, where it is far more easily dealt with, and not in the middle of towns and cities. Then, when those power stations are replaced by something greener, the electric cars don't have to be changed, and the pollution decreases.
> "a charging system that's 10 times more powerful than one of the fastest battery-charging networks
> on the road today -- Tesla's own Superchargers."
Yeah, and?
A 1.6 MW inverter is about the size of a large industrial fridge, at least the one we had in our warehouse was.
We know the charger port is basically four SuperCharger ports, which are 120 kW each, but CCS Level 2 is 350 kW using similar wires. Because it's a larger battery pack, they can divide up the cells into groups any way they want, which means they could solve the same problem by doubling the voltage.
Its funny, they've selected the easiest problem to solve and are saying it's some killer issue.
Looks like he did.
"Tw = Te * Ntf * tf"
"... where Tw is wheel torque, Te is engine torque, N is the gear ratio, is the efficiency, and the subscripts t and f are for the gearbox and differential, respectively."
With a nice citation!
Stupid Slashdot, there are supposed to be etas in there but they got stripped out.
what about that statement?
It comprises of 2 facts:
1) I stopped drinking the Tesla kool-aid when he claimed the new roadster has 10k nm of torque. This is true. I did.
2) 10k nm of torque is nearly 7400 ft lbs.
Neither are opinion.
>> Your basis for your disbelief is...
Nothing other than he said the car has 10knm of torque.
>> All your postings just prove that you are not just an idiot, you are stubbornly idiotic.
I'd rather be wrong than a totally arrogant dickwad AHole like you that resorts to fundamentally unnecessary personal attacks.