Tesla Model 3 Torn Down, Hacked and Set On a Dynamometer, Exposing Unusual Tech Details (electrek.co)

Rei writes: With an estimated 8,670 Model 3s delivered, a race is on as competitors and owners work to figure out its limits and explore the tech behind it. Many-time Tesla teardown expert "Ingineerix" has posted a series of videos and discussed his findings on Reddit. Among them: what appears to be the industry's first switched reluctance motor, a massive "smuggling compartment" allocated for a future front-wheel motor, no physical fuses (all solid-state), significant wiring harness length reductions via the use of multiple body controllers, a swappable crash energy absorption system, a liquid-cooled compute unit, and redundant controllers for all safety-related systems. He followed up by posting a screenshot of the car tricked into "factory mode" to reveal its internal specs, including a 1200A max discharge current, 370kW max discharge power, and a 76 kWh pack with 72,5kWh usable. Meanwhile, Munro and Associates tore down a Model 3 for an undisclosed, "not Tesla" client, releasing a video criticizing its build quality and for difficulty in accessing the HV cables in the event of an accident (Munroe's claims were dismissed by Ingineerix). Meanwhile, engineers from German automakers were extremely impressed by what they found during their teardown -- particularly the power electronics system, which they described as "compact, expandable, fully integrated, modular, easily accessible, well-protected, reasonably priced and astonishingly clever in many details." Other owners have been putting their cars on dynamometers to measure their power. Drag Times suffered some skid and measured a conflicting 281 / 327.6 hp with 552 lb-ft torque. Contrarily, Tesla Repair Channel found consistent readings around 250hp when starting from 30mph, but consistently around 390 hp when starting from 10mph. The reason for the discrepancy is not yet clear.

Comments

Re, the motor:

[Rei]

To expand a bit on the motor: it should be clarified that it's not a normal switched reluctance motor (SRM), but rather a PMSRM (permanent magnet switched reluctance motor).

Reluctance is used to some extent in many hybrid EV motors, in the form of "IPM" - interior permanent magnet motors. These are a hybrid of a conventional surface permanent magnet motor (SPM) and a SRM, allowing for high power at high speeds that SPMs don't allow for, as well as reducing magnet sizes (and thus rare earth consumption). By contrast, a PMSRM is a SPM that incorporates permanent magnets into the stator; they don't move and are readily cooled, while sculpting and enhancing the field to increase torque density and help control torque ripple.

It's a new type of motor, combining extreme efficiency, high torque density, and reliability over that offered by an IPM. Getting a PMSRM to work smoothly is an impressive job.

Re:Re, the motor:

[sl3xd]

Is this the first time you've seen auto geeks brag about new tech?

Re:Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

:) Yeah, saving the environment is a job for Someone Else. Just ask Al Gore.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Headw1nd]

That is pretty impressive, with this they can they finally get the efficiency benefits of a "clean" rotor.

Re: Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation: âoeI canâ(TM)t afford any of the aboveâ

Re:Re, the motor:

[scourfish]

It sounds a lot like it's just a stepper motor with magnets in the stator.

Re: Re, the motor:

[Megol]

I'm impressed that you obviously don't understand motor technology and still think your whining is relevant - your have a very impressive ego.

Re: Re, the motor:

[sexconker]

Being able to afford something and it making sense are two very different things.

Re: Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, when you don't have any money, it's not a good idea to buy things like Teslas and vacation homes.

Used to be you'd keep your brokeness on the down low and try to maintain the appearance of success for social reasons, though. But that was BS (Before Slashdot).

Re:Re, the motor:

[Maxo-Texas]

Actually, a friend of mine who lives in a 220k house owned a tesla (destroyed by Harvey) and now has a Tesla SUV.

They are not rich by any means. They just made owning a tesla a priority.

Re: Re, the motor:

[FrankSchwab]

>>> How is it improving the human condition?
Uh, moving transportation from a fossil fuel basis (with all the pollution, wars, etc that involves) to a sustainable basis using Solar power?

It may not be the way that you personally are improving the human condition (you are doing that, aren't you?), but it is certainly a valid way to do so.

Re:Re, the motor:

[sl3xd]

Indeed. None of the Tesla owners I know are wealthy.

I live in a ~150k/house neighborhood. I have neighbors making ~$50k/year driving a $86k Ford Super Duty. The base model Tesla Model S or X are less than that.

To say nothing of the guys driving Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, Infiniti, Cadillac, Jaguar, etc.

Seriously... some people just really really like their cars.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Maxo-Texas]

Oh, sorry--- didn't realize you were typing on a commodore 64 powered by a bicycle powered generator in your grass hut.

Perhaps I can help you with your back strain from moving the goalposts all the way from a 7,000 square foot house in your original post to a modest 2200 square foot house.

As you seem to be a bit clueless about what you were really saying in your first post...

7,000 square foot houses typically cost multiple millions of dollars.
https://www.realtor.com/news/r...

Re: Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

The 1% aren't interested in paltry little $70-140K cars, that's chump change. You're throwing the phrase about as an insult without even having the understanding of what it implies. Pathetic.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Maxo-Texas]

I recognize that houses in Europe are more like 1,200 square feet but the lower population density in the U.S. and cheaper land plus the fact that old money doesn't own all the land means housing is less expensive here.

but...

You still moved the goal posts. It's an average size house for the U.S. (and Australia by the way).

If you want the same, move here. Or drop your population density. Or pry free some of that land owned by the wealthy in your country. 99 year *leases*? Seriously? Should be illegal.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, fine, Teslas are expensive, and by themselves, unable to change the world.

The tech that is being developed by Tesla; however, may be made more affordable as time goes on and used not just in Teslas, but other EVs as well. The battery tech for instance, which is already in use on a largish "grid scale" battery in Australia.

I can't afford to ride in a rocket, but a lot of the tech that went into rocketry and aerospace in general has benefited me. Radio technology. Optics. Materials science. Tons of stuff I'm not even aware of.

I can't afford a Tesla, and at the moment a lot of the technology is proprietary, but Tesla has been relatively generous with some of its patents, they may license stuff, or even if they don't, patents are some of the shortest lived IP out there, and eventually much of what is in a Tesla will be free for others to reproduce, legally.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

you're fucking delusional. Get a fucking job.

Re: Re, the motor:

[MachineShedFred]

If you think that Model 3 is for the 1%, you must not have any fucking clue how much money "the 1%" actually makes.

Here's a hint: they may buy a model 3 for their kids, but they would be driving a Model X.

Re:Re, the motor:

[psmoot]

Reality check: if you are living in a 220k home you ARE part of the 1% in the world.

If you earn $32,000 (or 30,000 euros or 2 million rupees), you're in the global 1%. I think that puts you at something like the 80% percentile in the US. The US is very, very rich, globally speaking. What's your point?

I just checked some home stats. The median new US house in 2015 was something like 2,400 square feet (about 220 square meters). I didn't find data on existing houses. The median price for all houses was $188,000 so a $220,000 house is above average but not outrageously so. (I think that buys a 500 square foot studio condo in SF Bay Area, where I live. I really gotta move.)

Re:Re, the motor:

[Maxo-Texas]

Televisions were once comparably expensive. So were solar panels. If electric cars drop as much as solar panels have in the last 20 years, they'll cost about $1,500 in inflation adjusted dollars in 20 years.

If you'd take your meds and try some of the perfectly tasty decaffeinated brands on the market, you might realize that we are in agreement on many points.

But you made a statement (7000sq ft houses) and I responded to it.

Between you and me, I think there will be a tremendous overshoot and mass die off in the next 50 years, probably the next 40. The long term carrying capacity of the planet is only about 2-3 billion (and that's with some key inventions replacing the need for chromium, manganese, magnesium, and a half dozen other metals and rare earths). Usage is increasing geometrically and we used more in 2001 than we used from 1999 to 2000 for some of those metals.

It's going to be ugly and hopefully I'll be dead before it hits.

But in the mean time, I mostly ignore that in inane conversations like this.

There is literally nothing you or I can do that will stop it. At this point, it's too late for *anyone* to stop it.

Re:Re, the motor:

[MachineShedFred]

Words have meanings. Someone that lives in a $220,000 house, unless they are really out on the edge of probability and statistics, is not in the top 1% of gross earners.

You can't possibly be this stupid.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Maxo-Texas]

See the side conversation with me where he goes from 7000sq foot multi million dollar houses to attacking people in $220k houses (and now $150k houses).

Here's a tip! If have have a roof over your head, you are in the top 1%! and so on.

Yes, some people have 75" TV's. Some people have a new computer every year. And some people have nice cars. (for me it was computers and board games and skiing).

And some people wander into discussions about expensive stuff and just make completely bizarre comments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Lol.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Teckla]

Between you and me, I think there will be a tremendous overshoot and mass die off in the next 50 years, probably the next 40.

Overshoot?

Re: Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes I like to ponder the possibility of immortality and what that means for the future of humanity. However, your comment reminds me of the sad truth that death really is necessary to purge the antiquated and intransigent minds from society and let the young folks go out and make the world a better place.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Mad Merlin]

Having a private car isn't sustainable. It is a luxury for the 1% in the world. I know, you are going to get really upset by that (but "mah freedom"). Nothing is wrong with having a private car, but to say it is "sustainable" is a joke. Having it cost $75k - $150k is just more of a joke.

Sorry to burst your bad math bubble, but there's over 1 billion cars on the road right now, worldwide. Even if you choose to ignore the fact that many of those are shared by a family of more than one person, you're still looking at ~18% of people that have exclusive access to a car.

Perhaps what you meant to say is that the Bugatti Chiron is a luxury for the 1%?

Re:Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude what do you do for a living? When you bust out posts like this, you blow my mind and wind up causing me to go apeshit reading for 3 hours to try to learn what you're talking about. Great stuff!

Re: Re, the motor:

[kaybee]

The Model 3 starts at $35k and has lower fuel and maintenance costs than most of not all other vehicles. This is not a car for the 1%.

Re: Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

$32K puts you in the top 1%. You're welcome.

Re: Re, the motor:

[ShanghaiBill]

Tesla isn't doing that. They are producing $70k-$140k cars for the 1%.

The first ICE cars were also for the 1%. In 1906, Woodrow Wilson declared that gasoline powered automobiles were “a picture of the arrogance of wealth”.

Trickle down may not work in economics, but it has always worked in the automobile industry. What you see in the top-of-the-line cars today, will be mid-range in 5 years, and standard in all cars in 10 years.

The 1% are funding the R&D.

Re: Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool. I made $247000 last year. Thanks for the ego boost dude!

Re:Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... let's make it a little more local...since the 3rd world countries make everyone in America a 1% on a global scale. You know, because I spend more on going to Golden Corral (shudder) once than a family in sub-Saharan Africa does for all their food for a month.It's relative wealth that matters. So...here's what made you a One Percenter in 2013, greater than or equal to $231,276 annual income in New Mexico and greater than or equal to $659,979 annual income in Connecticut. The average One Percenter averages $1.15 Million annually nationwide though. So that 220k house is within reach of those below the 1% in most places. Here's the article: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/how-much-you-have-to-earn-to-be-in-the-top-1-percent-in-every-us-state.html

Re:Re, the motor:

[crimson tsunami]

It's not the earnings but the wealth that makes you rich, or a 1%er. And that is far from enough. You'd need around US$ 770,000 in net worth. So your 220,000 house with a mortgage, wouldn't even come close.

Re:Re, the motor:

[crimson tsunami]

Reality check, no you're not. You need $770k net worth to be in the top 1%.

Re: Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla Model 3 apparently has only 13% more total cost of ownership over 5 years that a Toyota Camry. http://loupventures.com/model-3-could-change-the-world-a-cost-of-ownership-study/

And fuck a Toyota Camry

Re:Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile in Germany, where a "normal" family house costs 550k€...

Re:Re, the motor:

[Dog-Cow]

The only thing that should not be sustained is your life. Please find a Tesla owner to run you overt several dozen times while he checks his phone.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Dog-Cow]

over*

Re:Re, the motor:

[Dog-Cow]

Reality check: you deserve to have your face hacked off.

Re: Re, the motor:

[AmiMoJo]

Sure, but let's not forget companies like Nissan who have produced the world's most successful EV that also happens to be fairly affordable. Nissan invested in networks of rapid chargers too.

Renault and GM deserve some credit as well.

Re:Re, the motor:

[AmiMoJo]

The Bugatti Chiron is kind of hilarious. They invested untold millions eeking out the last bit of performance from their fossil fuel engine, and it's still slower than a stock Model S from 0-60. Also, it costs 20x as much.

Re: Re, the motor:

[michelcolman]

We're talking about Model 3 here. It starts at $35k. Yes, I know, for the moment you can only buy the more expensive version, closer to $50k, but it will be available at $35k once production has ramped up. Subtract fuel savings and you're well under $30k. Not quite 1% territory.

Re: Re, the motor:

[Rei]

This is simply incorrect.

1) The base MSRP is $35k. I'm sorry if the fact that you don't get to jump in line ahead of half a million other people if you want a base model bugs you.

2) It's not even possible to buy a $60k Model 3. If you add on every last option that's even possible to add on you end up with $59,5k. The options that are mandatory for people who want to be first-in-line are the LR pack and PUP, meaning you can jump in front of everyone else for a vehicle price of $49k.

3) Here's teardown videos. Point out the "shit build quality" therein.

Re: Re, the motor:

[thegarbz]

Tesla isn't doing that. They are producing $70k-$140k cars for the 1%.

The model 3 is at $35000 before incentives. That places it perfectly around both the mean and median new car price. soo.... Tesla producing $35k cars for the 50% would be far more accurate.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

How fucking poor are you that a $35k car looks to you to only be attainable by the super rich?

Fucking pathetic numbnut.

Re:Re, the motor:

[stealth_finger]

Nah, it's just particularly egregious in this case. It is always amusing how Tesla drivers are invariably rich people who drive them to their 7,000 sqft homes and their equally large vacation homes. So much for saving the environment.

Someone sounds very bitter. Did the big bad EV touch you in your no-no place or something?

Re:Re, the motor:

[Tom]

You also get used to them.

Some year ago, after not having a car for many years (lived in the inner city in Europe - good public transport) I bought a 10 year old BMW 5. Reasonably cheap, due to age, nice features and comfort.

Last year it was time for a new car. I checked many. Many. Including most electrical cars on the market, yes including a Tesla Model S. Guess what I bought in the end? A one year old BMW 5. Just everything is in the right place. I wanted to love the Model S (disclaimer: I own Tesla stocks) but as far as interior design and driver comfort is concerned, they still have lessons to learn. I consider touch-screen controls on a car a safety hazard and love it when I can do everything without taking my eyes off the road.

I don't think I will ever go down a class (though the Hyundai Ionic impressed me). So your neighbours might love their cars, or they are simply used to them and don't want to make sacrifices on something that they spend an hour or two in every day on their commute.

Re: Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but let's not forget companies like Nissan who have produced the world's most successful EV that also happens to be fairly affordable. Nissan invested in networks of rapid chargers too.

Renault and GM deserve some credit as well.

Yes, we all know you have a Leaf. They still kinda suck.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether humanity dies out or not in the next 100 years I can't say, but I can say that's there's an extremely good chance that 99% of the world's current populous will be dead in 100 years. So don't stress too much.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to burst YOUR bad math bubble, but 1% of 7 billion is 70 million. I doubt there are more than 70 Bugatti Chirons in existence are there?

Re: Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone really needs to pay you a personal visit to hand out the severe ass whipping you deserve.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeezuz. Here in Australia $220,000 will barely buy you a parking space in a capital city. Even in regional towns $220,000 gets you an average house these days. Imagine what the housing market in America would be now if the 2008 financial crisis never happened. That's what Australian prices are like now.

Re: Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

1% globally. Not in the US. 32k doesnt get you anywhere but damn near poverty.

Nice cherry picking you idiot.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Did your grandkids hack your Slashdot account grandpa?
Surely no one with an id of 21281 could be that infantile.

Re: Re, the motor:

[drinkypoo]

Renault and GM deserve some credit as well.

GM would deserve some credit if they hadn't set EVs back literally over a decade with their treatment of the EV-1.

Re: Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is income, not property/savings.

Re: Re, the motor:

[Ol Olsoc]

We're talking about Model 3 here. It starts at $35k. Yes, I know, for the moment you can only buy the more expensive version, closer to $50k, but it will be available at $35k once production has ramped up. Subtract fuel savings and you're well under $30k. Not quite 1% territory.

Ever see the price tags on a lot of the Pickup trucks out there?

Its one of those strange facts of life, where someone who drives a 80K pickup truck like a F-250 Limited can complain about the 1 percenters and their 50 K Teslas.

Then again, I've heard some of the boys yapping about those overpriced Priuses as well.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Mad Merlin]

The Bugatti Chiron is kind of hilarious. They invested untold millions eeking out the last bit of performance from their fossil fuel engine, and it's still slower than a stock Model S from 0-60. Also, it costs 20x as much.

Sure, vs the P100D in ludicrious mode, it's slightly slower 0-60 (2.3s vs 2.28s). But low end torque is the #1 advantage of electric motors, and one of the biggest weaknesses of ICE. However, now go and look at the quarter mile numbers for the two, and you'll find that the Chiron blows the P100D away (9.11s vs 10.44s). Or, you could look at the top speeds for the two cars, where the P100D also gets blown away (420 km/h (limited by today's tire technology... perhaps as high as 500 km/h) vs 250 km/h).

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration
• https://uberpeople.net/threads/the-bugatti-chiron-whooped-the-srt-demon-by-over-1-2-second-in-the-1-4-mile.208032/
• https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a10187823/bugatti-chiron-top-speed-tires/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S

Re: Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the rest of the world should work on improving their economies rather than bitching about countries who have a decent median income.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Kielistic]

How'd you get slashdot in your cave?

Re:Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is another fact that is going to SHOCK you. Electric cars are not sustainable.

The pun is quite good, but citation needed. You are blowing it out of your rear orifice.

Re:Re, the motor:

[apoc.famine]

But it goes VROOOOMMMMM very loudly!

And sadly, that alone counts for far too much for far too large of a section of society.

Re: Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

A Tesla Model 3 is a $35,000 US car, which is well within the range of most middle class people. The 1% would not be caught dead in one.

Re:Re, the motor:

[pjbgravely]

You forget that the middle class wage is defined as 100K to 250K I believe. The median income in 2015 was 52K. Where I live in the US 52K is consisted a high wage. I assume that most of the middle class lives in urban areas.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to read what the OP said: the 1% in the WORLD, not in the US. That counts all of Asia, All of the people in straw huts in Africa, all the poor people in the slums of south america, all of india ... well, the whole world.

And since the level of income/prices in the US / Europe is pretty high compared to the rest of the world (where the MONTHLY income often is below $20 and they can make due with local prices) ... if you average the income of all 7 billion people in the world, that 32k$ is in the 1% looks pretty plausible.

Of course, in the US and most of europe, that buys you a 1-room closet with a toilet if you want to eat... so yeah.

Re: Re, the motor:

[slash.jit]

I think you are just near sighted !

Re: Re, the motor:

[Shirley Marquez]

The Model 3 is currently a $44,000 to $57,000 car depending on options. That's before any tax incentives, including the $7,500 federal tax credit that it is still eligible for at present. The $35,000 version with less range is not yet available.

They still have a way to go before they can build a $20,000 electric car. For starters, the batteries cost too much to reach that price point. So does everybody else.

Re: Re, the motor:

[Shirley Marquez]

Except that new cars aren't the entire car market. So they're not really to the median level of car spending yet. But the Model 3 is a big move in that direction.

Re: Re, the motor:

[Shirley Marquez]

That analysis doesn't even include the current tax incentives! With those rolled in the cost of ownership of the Tesla would be LESS than the Camry. Except, of course, for the little detail that you can't actually buy the $35,000 version of the Model 3.

I'm not sure where they got the $42,000 fully loaded price, as there is no common set of options that adds up to that number. The most popular set of options is likely to be the Premium Upgrade Package plus Autopilot for a total of $10,000, bringing the price to $45,000, or $54,000 if you also choose the Long Range option. There are also options for fancier paint ($1,000) and wheels ($1,500). Right now you have to take LR and PUP so $49,000 is the lowest possible price, and I suspect most buyers are also buying Autopilot.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Shirley Marquez]

Valid points. But the Model S will outperform the Bugatti in the driving that most of us do in the real world. The Bugatti is a nice piece of extreme automotive engineering but it's not a car that makes sense for many people to drive.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Maxo-Texas]

Look up a book written in the 70s called "limits to growth". It's available free in various places. Followups show we are fairly close to the original projections. Also note, limits to elemental consumption are based on estimates of the total material available in the crust- not based on production so if anything they are optimistic.

We have a possibility to approach a limit to fast growth asymptotically but the more likely case right now is that we will over shoot which could (I think is likely) cause a crisis and a sharp decline. I think the crisis will be violent.

Re: Re, the motor:

[thegarbz]

Except that new cars aren't the entire car market. So they're not really to the median level of car spending yet. But the Model 3 is a big move in that direction.

Irrelevant on the face of the fact that Tesla are not for the 1% but priced smack bang in the middle of the average for cars. Or are you saying a run of the mill Ford is also for the 1%ers? In which case please let me know who your dealer is because I want in on whatever you're taking.

Re:Re, the motor:

[psmoot]

Fascinating. I didn't read that far down the article. I knew Americans are great at earning and equally great at spending, meaning we tend not to save a lot. I didn't realize the magnitude.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Reality check: The Matrix has you!

Re:Re, the motor:

[Mad Merlin]

Valid points. But the Model S will outperform the Bugatti in the driving that most of us do in the real world. The Bugatti is a nice piece of extreme automotive engineering but it's not a car that makes sense for many people to drive.

Of course, the Chiron is only practical for extremely narrow definitions of practical. I'd still love to drive one though.

Re:Re, the motor:

[psmoot]

Prices in the US are all over the map (har, har, har!). In most of the country, $220k will get you a pretty nice house, 3-5 bedrooms, decent sized yard, safe neighborhood. Go to high demand cities (Boston, New York, San Francisco, etc.) and the same house goes for $2.2 million if you can even find one.

I really want transfer booths so I can work here and live in Montana.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't want to be anonymous but the system does not seem to give me a choice. I would like to post about a Switched Reluctance EV drive-train in which the stator poles are modular and are activated from the periphery of the motor housing by SiC or similar SS devices that from that periphery connect directly to the stator coils and thus power runs from the battery to the Switched Reluctance Motor/Generator (SRMG) and vice-versa while only the low voltage/amp control current runs from the battery to the MG. Because of the pancake shape that spins on a vertical axis on top of the differential and the stator and rotor poles placed in aluminum pockets, this SRMG is both lighter and more torque-y and able to encased in an out-of-the-mud housing and . . . it does not use rare-earth metals at all, just steel d copper and aluminium. Henry Keultjes

Re: Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot by a model 3 for under $60,000.

Re: Re, the motor:

[ebvwfbw]

I think that was good old Rick Wagner. Running GM into the ditch for years. So bad he's one of the few businessmen to have been fired by a US President.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

Realty check: 99% of the world is not so poor as to not be able to buy a low end home/

Even in shithole areas of the US, a 150k house is a very modest home.

The vast majority of the population of the world can afford low end housing.

Besides, lumping New Guinea, Haiti, and many African countries into quality of life statistics to claim people living in low end housing in first world countries is epically autistic.

You are fucking delusional and retarded.

numbnuts

Re: Re, the motor:

[Rei]

Thank you for boldly asserting falsehoods. That greatly contributes to the conversation.

The only options that are required on the pre-production vehicles are LR and PUP. LR is $9k, and PUP is $5k. Add together 9+5+35 and tell me what you get.

There is no combination of options currently available that adds up to $60k. Beyond LR and PUP, there's paint options for $1k, 19" wheels (instead of the stock 18") for $1,5k, Autopilot for $5k, and full self driving for $3k. More will be coming out in the future (AWD, air suspension, performance) but are not yet available. Add those numbers together and tell me what you get.

And you do not have to get any options. It just means waiting for your place in line. I'm sorry if lines bug you, but that's what you get when half a million people preorder a car.

Re: Re, the motor:

[Rei]

Ed: early production, not pre production.

Re:Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

I have owned my current car for 13 years. That is very sustainable.

Outside of insurance(dirt cheap for an older car, like $30 a month), gas(very cheap, I drive less than 5k miles a year and my car gets almost 40 mpg) normal maintenance like oil changes, bulbs and tires, I have spent less than $300 on it.

When it dies, I will just buy another low mileage 8-10 year old car for cheap and in cash and soldier on. I am nowhere near rich but unlike most of my fellow Americans I can save and invest instead of spend spend spend.

Sound pretty fucking sustainable to me.

numbnuts

Re: Re, the motor:

[Shirley Marquez]

New car sales are only about 30% of the total number of car sales. The rest are used cars; everything from relatively new off-lease and off-rental cars to clunkers and collectibles. Nearly all of the used car sales are at prices below the median new car price. (Some are above; occasionally somebody sells one of those Bugattis that was mentioned in another thread.) So the median price for ALL cars sales is significantly lower; combining all the data probably puts the new car median at about the 80thh percentile of the entire car market.

Tesla Roadster

[slazzy]

Can't wait to see a teardown of the Tesla Roaster, I heard Elon put it somewhere safe though.

Re:Tesla Roadster

[sl3xd]

Safe from Humans, at least.

Who knows what the Dolphins will do.

Re:Tesla Roadster

[AtariEric]

"So long, and thanks for the sweet ride!"

Re:Tesla Roadster

[Anonymous Coward]

...much less the mice.

Re:Tesla Roadster

[iggymanz]

teardown via micrometeoroid ablation over millennia

Power discrepancy

[Travco]

"The reason for the discrepancy is not yet clear." Uhmmm..... Electric motors display maximum torque at stall

Re:Power discrepancy

[Rei]

The discrepancy is about power/horsepower, not torque. The low-end torque is near identical in all runs - the difference is at what speed the torque begins to drop off (~55mph vs. ~68mph)

Re:Power discrepancy

[rot26]

"There's A Map For That. "

Re:Power discrepancy

[dfghjk]

Uhmmm..........motors produce ZERO power at stall regardless of torque.

Re:Power discrepancy

[bobbied]

"The reason for the discrepancy is not yet clear." Uhmmm..... Electric motors display maximum torque at stall

Um... Not always.... In fact, often the maximum torque is defiantly NOT at motor stall for many common electric motor designs. Synchronous induction motors have zero torque at stall and standard induction AC motors often need help to get started by temporally adjusting the current phase of some windings to kick them forward.

DC motors tend to be highest current draw at stall and many have high torque when running slow. For Tesla's drive motors, I'm guessing the stalled torque is pretty high by design but they are not really DC driven, but are really AC motors driven by variable frequency and phases. With these motors you are able to adjust the torque in/out independently of RPM by varying the frequency and phase of the various windings.

I'm going to bet that the discrepancy really has more to do with the motor and drive electronics limits of both voltage and current and the power dissipation of the system. You will lose system efficiency at high currents because I^2 x R losses when the motor is turning slow.

Re:Power discrepancy

[Anonymous Coward]

At 0 rpm a standard motor will consume maximum power (limited by how much current the power source can supply), but it will all be turned into heat instead of motion.

dom

Re:Power discrepancy

[EETech1]

Ding Ding Ding!!!
We have a winner:)

Re:Power discrepancy

[Anonymous Coward]

Motor controllers are programmed to vary torque (horsepower) at a given motor speed and throttle input. One main reason to do this is to maintain traction during acceleration. A car that just spins the wheels isn't very useful. The same applies during dynamic braking. Slowing down shouldn't put you into a slide every time.

Re:Power discrepancy

[gordguide]

A lot of answers come close, but don't quite complete the "discrepancy" mystery.

True, the torque output of a Tesla vehicle is very high at near-0 wheel RPM. True as well, it falls off as the electric motor increases in RPM.

But the horsepower discrepancy is easy to account for.

Dynamometers used to measure vehicle power measure torque, not horsepower.

Horsepower cannot be measured by any device, actually. Power can only be measured as torque.

A mathematical formula is used to convert torque (measured) to horsepower (calculated).

Normally with internal combustion engines torque in lbs/ft x RPM divided by 5252 (the formula) gives higher numbers when RPM increases, especially above 5252 RPM where +1 ft/lb now creates more than 1 HP.

The electric Tesla must generate huge torque values at very low (near but not zero) speeds to generate high HP at those RPMs. None the less, it is consistent with how these "engines" work.

One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[SuperKendall]

I have to say, that between Tesla and SpaceX Musk seems to truly be amazing for at least one thing - hiring engineering talent.

Sure Tesla has some struggle scaling up producing. But a lot of what they have built is really advanced technically, and generally works quite well.

SpaceX is even more amazing in terms of tech, getting stuff working like vertical landings that seemed like it was going to remain as science fiction, while also seeming to be very reliable tech as far as the rocket industry goes which is its own feat (even in modern times you still see rockets exploding on launch).

I'd have to imagine the Boring Company has hired some equally impressive engineers for mechanical engineering and understanding the science of tunneling...

I wonder if the secret is Musk not creating a huge layer of bureaucracy above engineering on top of a decent amount of funding, so they can really accomplish things.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[olsmeister]

I wonder if the secret is Musk not creating a huge layer of bureaucracy above engineering on top of a decent amount of funding, so they can really accomplish things.

Na, he just makes a randomly selected engineer ride up with every Falcon 9 first stage booster. Half of the engineers are hoping they get picked, the other half are scared shitless, but they all give 110%.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[DRJlaw]

Or it might be just that he is spending money on improving things that have been done before, and you are really impressed by it. Tesla isn't the first electric car (that was *gasp* 180 years ago!) or shooting rockets into LEO (*gasp* that was 61 years ago). And I hate to break it to you: people have actually made tunnels before (I know: hard to believe!)

So by "things that have been done before," you mean way overbroad generalizations of technology, complemented by ignoring the "improv[ed] things" that apparently have not been done before?

Analogously, every word that you've typed has been used before, and English paragraphs are so old that I guess we shouldn't be impressed by anything quoted above.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

pointless comment as usual from the bit bucket.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Waffle Iron]

And you're certainly not the first grumpy old fart sitting on a barstool and griping about what other people have accomplished.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[110010001000]

How am I griping about it? I didn't mean to offend your hero. I think he is doing a great job.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[110010001000]

Nothing "generalized" about it. Rockets have been going to LEO (and beyond) for decades. He is improving on it. Nothing wrong with that. You guys get so upset.

Re: One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

What a brain damaged comment. Name one thing that has been done in the last 2000 years that wasnâ(TM)t just a step on top of previous accomplishments.
Obviously every new advancement is built on top of previous work. That doesnâ(TM)t make it less groundbreaking what Elonâ(TM)s companies have achieved.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Waffle Iron]

You're also not the first grumpy old fart to go all passive-aggressive as soon as they get called out about their griping.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[DRJlaw]

SpaceX is even more amazing in terms of tech, getting stuff working like vertical landings that seemed like it was going to remain as science fiction, while also seeming to be very reliable tech as far as the rocket industry goes which is its own feat (even in modern times you still see rockets exploding on launch).

Tesla isn't the first... shooting rockets into LEO (*gasp* that was 61 years ago).

Nothing "generalized" about it.

Sure - changing vertically landing a rocket from 200 km into shooting rockets into LEO isn't an overgeneralization at all. Never mind that the booster is never in an orbit.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the Delta clipper:

Delta Clipper video

Re: One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[sexconker]

Name one thing that has been done in the last 2000 years that wasnâ(TM)t just a step on top of previous accomplishments.

If you want to be completely pedantic, then all things come from things that came before them. We are in a causal universe, after all. But to claim that "every new advancement is built on top of previous work" is bullshit. Some people do try new things, and people do have eureka moments.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow dude, grumpy much?

Electric cars might have been around for 180 years, Tesla first car company to turn them into a mass produced and desirable product. Every other electric car produced looks lame, and I suspect they do that to put people off them. What did Tesla do? Only make the most awesome car ever, to the point where if I could choose any care to have in the world, Model S all the way. Like seriously a Model S has the performance (or more) of most supercars with out any of the problems.

Rockets, SpaceX doing it much cheaper than anyone else. Let me know when you startup a rocket company and compete with SpaceX.

Tunnels, conventional tunnel boring is slow. News flash - boring company is looking to speed it up a bit, probably like Tesla and SpaceX, Musk will get some smart people together to rethink and reinvent how its done into something better.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[110010001000]

They aren't vertically landing a rocket. They are landing a booster. I guess that is the part that impresses you so much?

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[110010001000]

"Only make the most awesome car ever,"

That about says it all.

Re: One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

Itâ(TM)s hilarious you couldnâ(TM)t come up with a single example.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

Boosters are a type of rocket, genius.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[110010001000]

Well guess what? People have been vertically landing rockets for about 30 years now. I know, shocking.

Re: One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, snowflake, I don't see you doing anything great. Unless bad-mouthing people that actually are doing great things is something. Which it isn't.

Re: One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[110010001000]

Oh look it is the old "well what do YOU do" approach. It isn't about ME. The point is that you guys fawn over things that don't matter. There are people who are actually doing great things in this world (not me) that you guys know nothing about. A 0.0001%er builds a $100k electric car, or a vanity rocket company and you guys fall over yourselves. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

Re: One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing it isn't about you because if it was, it wouldn't be getting done. Certainly is easier to sit back and complain.

Re: One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[110010001000]

What is getting done here? I am not producing any luxury car for the 1% to drive around in? I missed my calling in life...

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

From above the Kamen line? Name one.

Re: One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

A whole lot of curmudgeon whinging is what it looks like is going on here. Seems you aren't doing anything but bitching about things that somebody else did.

PS. Look back at your previous posts - I think you did find your calling in life.

Re: One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you don't think Elon Musk's work is worthy of praise. Whose work do you recommend for praise?

Personally, anyone who is working on self driving technology is someone I am cheering for. I want that to be successful so when we are old, my wife and I will be able to get around.

Anyone working on making interplanetary travel more affordable in my lifetime is someone I am cheering for. I want to see humans be a multi-planetary species before I eventually die.

I cheer anyone who pushes these technologies forward. Even if many of the constituent parts have been done before - Tesla and SpaceX have goals to bring the state of the art in many fields together in a way that benefits humanity.

I cheer lots of people and companies if they are doing things that I think will benefit me in this lifetime and humanity over the long haul. I want people like that to be successful.

Re: One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[psmoot]

What a brain damaged comment. Name one thing that has been done in the last 2000 years that wasn't just a step on top of previous accomplishments..

I dunno, landing a booster on rocket power is pretty darn close. That was quite a quantum leap in rocketry. But point taken. Re-entry burns? Old hat. Hovering on rocket power? Done (where's my Jet Pack?!?). Steering with vanes? Probably been done. Reusing the booster? Been doing that since 1980. Boostback? I don't know anyone had tried that before but only because there wasn't a reason.

Add it all up and it's a pretty neat trick.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[quanminoan]

I'm thinking he works for United Launch Alliance, go easy on him.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[hey!]

Well, timing is really everything in technology. Anyone can take things that have been done before and tweak them, but choosing the right time to do a particular thing is the difference between success and failure.

It's rare that the very first iteration of a thing to be made really takes off.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I can see, he generates big press for some wild dreams, like colonizing Mars and gets the people who can actually figure that out together with the money to try to do it. This means that top people who are really eager to do stuff like this will work for him and give 110% because they want to be part of the team that did something amazing.

So he acts as a magnet for top engineers and while being a Steve Jobs-like figure in terms of getting press for his companies to continue to sell big dreams.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

The secret is Superkendall is a faggot nazi.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mass produced", in the car world, typically means more than a few thousand a month. That's barely past Bentley and Rolls Royce, who are highly regarded BECAUSE they are not mass produced. When there are over 215,000 cars sold a day, you're not "mass produced" when your yearly output doesn't even cover 12 hours...

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it might be just that he is spending money on improving things that have been done before, and you are really impressed by it. Tesla isn't the first electric car (that was *gasp* 180 years ago!) or shooting rockets into LEO (*gasp* that was 61 years ago). And I hate to break it to you: people have actually made tunnels before (I know: hard to believe!)

nor was apple the first to make a portable music player, smartphone, tablet, or watch. there's nothing impressive at all about having $285 billion cash on hand.

its seems like you blinked at the wrong time and missed musk changing the world. keep watching. or blinking. whatever floats your boat.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

From above the Kamen line? Name one.

Apollo 11's Eagle stage landed vertically far above the Karen line.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that really Apple's only claim to fame? And they've got legions of rabid Apple fanboys (and fangirls) for it. I tend think that the "improving" part is a thing that they don't really do anymore, but they've still got lots of rabid fans.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[rkordmaa]

Musk to engineers: "Are you still an effective team?"

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Dog-Cow]

When your parents created you, they did not improve on the original. They should have been spayed and neutered long before having sex.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[serviscope_minor]

It's rare that the very first iteration of a thing to be made really takes off.

Rockets; but definition.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Hal_Porter]

Jesus dude. When you're in a hole stop digging.

Re: One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

Really?

A $35k car is only for the 1%.

numbnuts.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[mrchaotica]

Never mind that the booster is never in an orbit.

Sure it is! It just happens to be an orbit with a periapsis smaller than the Earth's radius.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[DRJlaw]

You conveniently omitted the "from" part. Columbia was a ballistic reentry and splashdown.

Insist on being cute? "From above the Kaman line, on Earth, with rocket-powered terminal deceleration."

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

Its pretty obvious that 110010001000 is sexually attracted to Musk. The lady doth protest too much trying to hide his infatuation with Musk and undercutting every accomplishment makes him feel less ashamed of this forbidden love.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[rthille]

Nissan has sold far more Leafs. I’d say that made them desirable, at least to many.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

It's our favorite ULA shill - yay!

Re: One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[amorsen]

Hovering on rocket power?

The real reason that the SpaceX booster landings are so amazing is that they CANNOT hover! Even with a single engine running out of the 9 available, the thrust is just too high, and so the whole thing will go back up if you try.

So you cannot do the usual "slow down and be gentle" landings that retro-rockets have done in the past. You have to come in at high speed and then use the rocket engine to fairly suddenly stop, hoping that the place you stop will be above the pad, but not far above the pad.

No one else has done that before.

Re: One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

What is getting done here? I am not producing any luxury car for the 1% to drive around in? I missed my calling in life...

Different AC here. Are you deliberately being obtuse? Having seen you all over \. for years I find it impossible to believe you do not know the Tesla model delivery strategy (i.e. start at expensive, work down).

Further, to your original "grumpy old fart" post... yes, he absolutely is improving on things that were done before. Doing things better & at the same time reducing their cost. Isn't that FANTASTIC! If we all could do that, just think how awesome the world could be.

Why not celebrate it?

Now, if a group of scientists could actually figure out how to do cost effective nuclear fusion, or cure all cancers I'd be "Musk who?". Until then lets celebrate the wins we have.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[david_thornley]

The big problem with launching stuff to LEO is the price. SpaceX is reducing that dramatically. It's doing that partly by recovering first stages and boosters in easily reusable form.

Why don't you name someone accomplishing great things, so I can point to something decades in the past that is sorta similar.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[david_thornley]

Lots of early rockets didn't really take off for some iterations. We're better now, but Musk was still thinking the Falcon Heavy could explode on or near the pad.

Re: One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[psmoot]

Really? They can't throttle even a single engine down low enough? Wow. Just wow. So not only do they have to hit a tiny barge in the ocean, they have to hit that spot just as your velocity hits and inflection point. The synchronized landing seems less surprising (but no less amazing) now.

The math constantly surprises me. I'm astounded that nine engines roaring full throttle for two minutes gets the rocket mostly into space. Then they fire three engines for a few seconds and the near-empty booster has reversed directions. Another few seconds of re-entry burn and a few seconds at touchdown hardly seem sufficient to reverse all the fire and fury of launch.

For the space geeks, I did a little math. By the time you have a kilogram of payload at the space station, it has about eight times more kinetic energy than is has gravitational potential energy. In other words, you have to impart eight times as much energy getting it up to speed (7.7 km/sec) as it took to lift it 400 km in the air. And that's just the payload, it doesn't cover any of the overhead for the booster, lifting fuel, etc.

Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

You are, for some odd reason, extremely butthurt that someone is doing something better and cheaper than ever before.

These boosters will be reusable within an hour or two of landing, making multiple rocket launches a day cheap and simple.

The shuttle and its 'reusable' parts are nowhere near as advanced and reusable as this system.

numbnuts

Re: One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not nice. Even worthless sacks of subhuman shit have value.

This bag of turds has a large laughter value. Laugh at him, don't get all autistic about what a dipshit Mr Binary Numbnut is.

Re: One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring

[Anonymous Coward]

Being able to reuse the same booster within an hour or two?

That is new and a big deal.

Maximizing launch windows is a big deal.

numbnuts

Re:Musk? You're alright by me (dedicated 2U).... a

[110010001000]

APK - I can't wait until he launches his BFR to Mars. Hopefully you and I will be on the same rocket and finally get off of this rock stuck in a gravity well!

But I read it lacks basic quality elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

So its a engineering marvel in terms of its electrical propulsion. But from what I have read from owners, its a mess when it comes to basics like panel alignment, door closing, interior functions and overall initial quality from a driver/passenger standpoint. For basically a 50k car which is what Tesla is shipping to customers the cheaper model comes later. For 50K I can think of a much more long term reliable car to invest in.

Re:But I read it lacks basic quality elsewhere

[Rei]

But from what I have read from owners

You clearly haven't been hanging out on the Model 3 Owners Club. It's amazing the disconnect between how certain individuals seems to want to portray it, and how non-selection-biased random owners describe their vehicles. Or, for that matter, photograph them. I watch person after person get their invite, pick up their car, and then rave at how amazing it is... then I check out the latest article to show up about the Model 3 on Google News where they act like everyone's car is held together by gaffer tape and they're furious.

To put it another way: "I just picked up my new (insert-topic-of-interest) and it was perfect!" doesn't go viral in the same way that "I just picked up my new (insert-topic-of-interest) and there was something wrong with it!". Seriously, for example, the rash of coverage over the person who had a dead 12V battery. Literally the only dead 12V battery that's ever been reported in a Model 3, and there were dozens of articles written about it - despite the fact that Tesla sent a guy to his house to take care of his battery for him.

Or more directly: check out some of the teardown videos linked in TFA. Does any of that look like poor build quality to you? One thing that's neat is you'll notice blue markings on a number of the bolts; that's common in the aerospace industry, but rarely in the automotive industry. Those are witness marks. They're used to double check that bolts were tightened to the proper tightness.

That's not to say that there haven't been some issues. Things that actually have been problems, at least over certain points in time:

  * There used to be frequently a small sag in the hood, going a several millimeters out of alignment with the sides at its middle. It's been fixed in recent vehicles.

  * While handling has gotten extensive praise, some people who don't like a stiff "sports suspension" feel have been complaining about that. Tesla is reportedly working to soften the suspension some.

  * Noise, while quiet by ICE standards, is relatively high by EV standards. Namely, road noise (connected to the aforementioned stiff suspension) and wind noise (worse than the S). But both have been reducing with recent VINs.

  * There's some issues that relate to preference. Some people don't like the Aston Martin-style door handles, while others aren't bothered by them. Some people think the door and frunk hood needs to be shut too hard, while others prefer the solid feel. Etc. So whether they're "defects" depends on your personal preference.

There are some GUI issues as well, but they decrease with each over-the-air update, as well as getting new features. At the top of the most-requested features list that hasn't been implemented yet is moving cruise control speed from the GUI to the right steering wheel control (akin to volume control and station selection are on the left steering wheel control). There have also been a couple issues related to it not remembering various types of infotainment / preference settings between drives; most (but not all) of these issues have since been patched.

Probably a couple other things I'm forgetting.

Re:But I read it lacks basic quality elsewhere

[110010001000]

You don't need to hang out in a owners club. Just go to a Tesla showroom. The fit and finish is about comparable to a Chevy Cruze. Nothing terrible, but nothing great.

Re:But I read it lacks basic quality elsewhere

[Rei]

Was at a showroom in late December, so I have no clue where you're coming from.

Re:But I read it lacks basic quality elsewhere

[110010001000]

That is because you are a fanboy. I live in an area where there are a LOT of Teslas. One of my friends has one. it is a great car, but the fit and finish is average. Don't worry, I am not knocking your hero.

Re:But I read it lacks basic quality elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

A Chevy Cruze has way better fit and finish. The Tesla is worse than a Yugo.

Re:But I read it lacks basic quality elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Witness marks on the bolts mean nothing more than.... they were marked.
It works ok if the process is actually followed.
Torque, then mark. Torque, then mark. Torque, then mark. Torque, then mark. Torque, then mark.
Marking done by someone actually witnessing the torque took place to spec, someone who did not do the torquing.
Typical process is torque, torque, torque, torque, "oh, hey Joe, didja see the game?" mark, mark, mark, mark, mark.
Doesn't work every time.

Re:But I read it lacks basic quality elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Jealous and delusional. Work more than part time as a Walmart greeter and maybe one day you can have one.

numbnuts.

Re:But I read it lacks basic quality elsewhere

[Corbets]

You, sir, are acting like a dick.

The GP posted a fact-based, thoroughly rational post, whereas you came with an attitude problem and accused him of being a fanboy.

Your subjective allegations mean little compared to his objective information.

Re:But I read it lacks basic quality elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Rei has not posted anything with facts. He's a true blooded fanboi in the worst sense of the word. When CR didn't give a recommendation, Rei was on the offensive about how crappy CR is and how completely irrelevant they are because how dare they talk ill of Tesla. His citations are the "model 3 owners club" which by definition will not be objective. They love their cars, that does not mean the cars are any good. Love is irrational by definition. My dog shits on the carpet, I still love him.

Re:But I read it lacks basic quality elsewhere

[Rei]

If you know anything about me, you'd start by using the right pronoun.

You'd then stop making up straw men; I've never criticized Consumer Reports, and quite to the contrary, have frequently cited them.

Lastly, if you think the views of owners about their cars is irrelevant, then I can't imagine what you consider to be a proper measure.

Re:But I read it lacks basic quality elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice switch to AC, Mr Binary.

Re:But I read it lacks basic quality elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Or more directly: check out some of the teardown videos [youtube.com] linked in TFA. Does any of that look like poor build quality to you? One thing that's neat is >>you'll notice blue markings on a number of the bolts; that's common in the aerospace industry, but rarely in the automotive industry. Those are witness marks. >>They're used to double check that bolts were tightened to the proper tightness.

Every entry to mid level motorcycle i've seen has those marks. I don't have 20+K to drop so i can't speak to H-D, BMW, Ducatti, etc.

Re:But I read it lacks basic quality elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

but rarely in the automotive industry. Those are witness marks. They're used to double check that bolts were tightened to the proper tightness.

Not very familiar with modern cars, are you?

Every car I've ever worked on in the last 15 years or so -- from Mazda to Buick to Mercedes -- has had witness marks or the mechanical equivalent (ex: tabs on flanged bolts to stop them at a specific position.)

So yeah, witness marks don't mean Tesla is amazing. It means Tesla is normal.

(Panel gaps + fitment is a whole different thing. I mean they're normal in terms of mechanical assembly.)

Illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

"..a massive smuggling compartment..."

This is illegal in the state of California.

Re:Illegal

[sexconker]

Just claim it's for transporting "dreamers" and instead of throwing you in prison, CA will throw you a parade.

Re:Illegal

[Rei]

I can't see how they'd complain about something that's factory spec. There's no door to get into it; you have to remove body panels. But the hollow is pretty massive - big enough for a child to fit inside. They clearly didn't want to have to redesign the whole platform to allow for the front motor, so just left it empty in the RWD version.

Re:Musk? You're alright by me (dedicated 2U).... a

[Rei]

Does that mean that the CDR was left behind here on Earth?

Metric HP or Imperial HP?

[Anonymous Coward]

So is 1hp 745w or 735w? For fucks sake slashdot, get your shit together.

Re:Metric HP or Imperial HP?

[rkordmaa]

Shouldn't it be hp(E) in this case or 746W? But yes, horsepower is a bloody stupid unit best forgotten about.

Better not drive in some states

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there not still places where secret compartments are illegal?

Re:Better not drive in some states

[swb]

Isn't that a paradox, or at least enforcement is paradoxical?

I mean, if it's secret, they can't bust you for it because they don't know about it.

If they DO bust you for it, it means the compartment is no longer secret, so it's also not illegal.

Just curious

[Virtucon]

any DMCA / IP implications here?

Re:Just curious

[caseih]

No I shouldn't think so. Why would you think that? I'm sure there are loads of patents involved, but patents as you know are open and accessible. Anyone can read them, and anyone skilled in the art should (theoretically) be able to reproduce the technology described by the patent. Don't confuse patents with copyright, or with trade secrets.

Re:Just curious

[Anonymous Coward]

"We sue you for instead of enjoying your new car by driving it, you go and break it down and blog about it all over the place!"

Nurburgring fiasco.

[Anonymous Coward]

The "impressive" performance figures are meaningless until Tesla cars can lap the world standard Nurburgring Circuit at speed. Regrettably they can't, because the system shuts down due to overheat.

Management of heating issues is the big arcanum, which electric locomotive designers know fully well. Momentary performance is meaningless, but what are the short-term (3 to 5 min) and hourly and indefinite term performance figures? Heating limits those to such an extent that solderings can melt and the usual flow material must be replaced with "silfos", which is good up to 700 degree Celsius.

You may say top speed lapping a circuit is meaningless in real life, but what about towing a two-axle mobile stable with two horses in it, steep uphill? That also puts the Tesla to test. Not just the motors, but also the battery pack and the power electronics (IGBT and computers) must stay warm, not hot in the long term.

I think european car manufactures are reluctant to commit to electric cars because the "old continent" has a vast body of experience with electric locomotives and they know there are many pitfalls. (The world's thoroughly electrified railway, the Valtellina in north Italy was built from 1899 and started ops in 1902, using locos with 3-phase induction motors.) E.g. France with its immense prowess in HST railway electrification (the famous 320km/h TGV) could order Renault / Citroen / Peugeout to jump head-first into electric cars business, but they don't. I don't think price problems can fully explain that, there must be tech traps they can foresee based on a century of AC railway experience.

Re:Nurburgring fiasco.

[Rei]

Regrettably they can't, because the system shuts down due to overheat.

Completely different powertrain. The AC induction motor couldn't handle max power for more than a couple minutes because the rotor would overheat from induction currents. There's no induction currents in a PMSRM. Heating is in the stator, which is trivially cooled.

but what about towing a two-axle mobile stable with two horses in it, steep uphill?

Meh, even Tesla's current induction motor fleet does that sort of stuff just fine. Watch Björn Nýland's videos, he tows huge things through mountains all the time.

Your post is well appreciated (I don't know why you were marked down to -1, that's unfair), but it's premised on obsolete technology. Motor technology is advancing fast, and Tesla has invested a huge amount of money into it.

Re:Nurburgring fiasco.

[R3d M3rcury]

[...] but what about towing a two-axle mobile stable with two horses in it, steep uphill?

I don't own any horses.

You're right--electric cars in general may suck towing heavy trailers up steep hills. So if that's something you're doing a lot of, I would not recommend buying a Tesla.

Now the other 99% of us who don't tow heavy trailers up steep hills, we'll be quite happy. And you'll be quite happy with your ICE car that does that towing with no problem.

Re:Nurburgring fiasco.

[FrankSchwab]

>>> meaningless until Tesla cars can lap the world standard Nurburgring Circuit at speed.
Can't remember the last time I did that.

>>> what about towing a two-axle mobile stable with two horses in it, steep uphill?
I'm pretty sure that the bog-standard BMW 3-series wouldn't be particularly happy about that task either. I'm not quite sure where you'd mount the 5th-wheel hitch, either. That's why there are heavy-duty pickup trucks in the world. I guess we can revisit your challenge once the Tesla Semi is hauling 80,000 pounds around the US.

Is there a reason that you believe a mid-sized sedan should both lap the Nurburgring at speed, and pull a horse trailer?

Re:Nurburgring fiasco.

[Anonymous Coward]

He forgot 'in the snow'

Re:Nurburgring fiasco.

[Anonymous Coward]

...in a cardboard box in the middle of the motorway.

Re:Nurburgring fiasco.

[mjwx]

but what about towing a two-axle mobile stable with two horses in it, steep uphill?

Meh, even Tesla's current induction motor fleet does that sort of stuff just fine. Watch Björn Nýland's videos, he tows huge things through mountains all the time.

I dislike Tesla's as much as the next car enthusiast (and the fact they're pretty much the motoring equivalent of the Cult of Apple). However the reason the Teslas cant tow very much is because the chassis isn't designed for towing. All the torque in the world cant help you if the chassis snaps in half. The high weight of the car doesn't help (which coincidentally will still prevent it from posting a decent time at the Nurburgring, handling is said to be wallowy at best).

Re:Nurburgring fiasco.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you being obtuse on purpose? The point he's making is that the power train is severely lacking. You can drop the power train in to a chassis better fit for either of those tasks, yet it still won't be able to do either simply because the power train can't handle it. The M3 power train, dropped in to a truck chassis would have no problem pulling a trailer. Also, if Tesla were advertising it's cars similar to a civic or hell, even a Bentley, nobody would criticize it for it's inability. But they don't advertise it that way. When you constantly talk about how fast it is, and add features called "ludicrous mode", your vehicle damned well better be able to preform. If it can't, then I believe the term for it is "poser".

Mustangs can be fast in a straight line, but Ford doesn't advertise it as a fast car, because they're garbage when they try to turn. Tesla shouldn't advertise their cars as fast because they overheat when you try to push them.

Re:Nurburgring fiasco.

[Rei]

However the reason the Teslas cant tow very much is because the chassis isn't designed for towing. All the torque in the world cant help you if the chassis snaps in half.

Again, I'm confused as to why people think you can't tow with Teslas.

Re:Nurburgring fiasco.

[drinkypoo]

However the reason the Teslas cant tow very much is because the chassis isn't designed for towing. All the torque in the world cant help you if the chassis snaps in half.

This has probably literally never happened in the history of towing. Also, Unibody cars don't have a chassis. They have a unit body.

Re:Nurburgring fiasco.

[drinkypoo]

You're right--electric cars in general may suck towing heavy trailers up steep hills. So if that's something you're doing a lot of, I would not recommend buying a Tesla.

Actually, I bet they're pretty great at it. EVs are great for torque. The problem is in wind resistance. They're not so great at range. The only thing that can really handle that sustained haul efficiently is diesel. With a big load, a diesel will regularly get twice the efficiency of a gasser. If you've got a reasonably aerodynamically friendly load like a boat, and you're not doing too much hill pulling, an EV is probably great. Towing a big flat travel trailer, on the other hand, is not a job for an EV yet.

Re:Nurburgring fiasco.

[Ol Olsoc]

[...] but what about towing a two-axle mobile stable with two horses in it, steep uphill?

I don't own any horses.

You're right--electric cars in general may suck towing heavy trailers up steep hills. So if that's something you're doing a lot of, I would not recommend buying a Tesla.

Now the other 99% of us who don't tow heavy trailers up steep hills, we'll be quite happy. And you'll be quite happy with your ICE car that does that towing with no problem.

Oh my gawd - I'm cruising at +2 so I didn't see his post. Allow me to eter the other things that Tesla cars cannot do:

Mining operations - Teslacars fail miserably at hauling hundreds of tons out of strip mines.

Baja California race - A stock Tesla was entered, but broke down 25 miles out. Seriously bad form Tesla!

Boat - Some rich hipster tried to use his Tesla as a boat. It sunk immediately, but on the upside, the locals had a lot of electrocuted fish to harvest.

Hauling trash to the dump - The Tesla got all scratched up, and could only haul a little bit of trash. A class action lawsuit is coming.

That hauling a horse trailer hilarity belongs right here in this list.

Re:Nurburgring fiasco.

[eth1]

Is there a reason that you believe a mid-sized sedan should both lap the Nurburgring at speed, and pull a horse trailer?

I'm pretty sure the GP is the guy responsible for generating the requirements for the F-35...

Re:Nurburgring fiasco.

[Anonymous Coward]

Very interesting read!

Re:Nurburgring fiasco.

[Anonymous Coward]

the fact they're pretty much the motoring equivalent of the Cult of Apple

Not really. Tesla has a huge R&D effort, and is producing results and this should be applauded. Apple just find ways to make other people's inventions more shiny. That deserves contempt.

Statler & Waldorf don't like new Tesla Model 3

[bongey]

Statler and Waldorf have moved from their previous job of reviewing live shows https://www.youtube.com/watch?... to reviewing cars at Munro & Associates .
Both found that the BMW I3 the "most advance ever" with a electric range of 114 Miles and a 2 cycle generator option for extra range that gives off enough smoke "so you know it is working" .When reviewing the new Tesla Model 3 they "still cannot find the gas cap after 3 days" and hooking two jumper cables to 12V to open a trunk "more complicated than programming my VCR , I never figured that one out either".

Re:Musk? You're alright by me (dedicated 2U).... a

[Anonymous Coward]

this rock stuck in a gravity well

What. This rock is the gravity well.

Sure, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

... can it lap VIR without going into limp mode? Even once? Model S limped it badly on C&D's Lightning Lap, is that going to work right with a Model 3?

Re:Sure, but...

[Rei]

See this post.

Re:Statler & Waldorf don't like new Tesla Mode

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not holding it right.

Only 18 minutes of video?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please give one these to Professor John D. Kelly at Weber State University. He will will strip that Tesla down to its last bolt and show every step of the process. Take a look at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtr07mdKhsUwVJjL8Kw_q5A to see his teardowns and all sorts of vehichles.

Gyorgi (lol) Russkie this time... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

You're STILL trying the "truncheon in lieu of conversation" ole' boy (via your DUBAI conduit whipslash) - I see you!

* Hey man - a tune from OUR time (actually both, as you are older OLD Toad of "MR. HORNS" scry boy, lo (Beatles for you, & me too (I like Motley Crue's cover though)):

COMIN' DOWN FAST BUT I'M MILES ABOVE YOU!

(It's a song about screwing, but you're only ULTIMATELY screwing yourself hiding my posts... & you KNOW it!)

APK

P.S.=> "Helter Skelter" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBMMCClIgTc/ - & I really don't get it - WHY TRY "Shut me down"? Oh, you & I BOTH know why (lol)... apk

That si NOT how you calculate it

[aepervius]

By your count an homeless person begging 10$ a day would be far richer than somebody getting 10$ a day with a house in one third world country. No. Triple no. That 1% comparison must be done SOLELY within the same parity purchasing power. Otherwise you get totally stupid result like your own post shows. A person earning 32k$ is NOT in the global 1%, as the 1% is defined. That person is definitively in the 99%, because in the US that purchasing power parity is such that 32K is *nothing* in many part of the country.

Re:That si NOT how you calculate it

[psmoot]

That 1% comparison must be done SOLELY within the same parity purchasing power.

Ah. Because there is only One True Way to compare the human condition around the world and over time.

Lighten up.

Yes, absolutely, comparing a single number like income, net worth, or even purchasing power gives you an incomplete view of the situation. The world is complex. Any single metric only gives you one view. Shoot, just looking at two together, gross income and net worth, already showed us something interesting.

One metric I like is hours-worked-to-acquire-item-X. The idea is to figure out how many hours person Y needs to work to buy item X. The good thing about this is you and I more or less get the same number of hours. If item X really is roughly the same, you get a pretty good normalized view of how "rich" each person is (or can be). Sometimes it's hard. How do I compare my Samsung phone with a telegraph of 1890? I can't. And is it reasonable to compare a 2,400 square foot house in a US suburb against a 100 square meter apartment in Tokyo? I dunno. It's complicated.

Cool tear down, but...

[JabrTheHut]

Did not blend.

Re:Cool tear down, but...

[Rei]

You could repurpose a Model 3 powertrain to make a blender that will blend a Model 3 ;)

tang (Re: Re, the motor:

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot Tang, the "breakfast drink!"

Re:Statler & Waldorf don't like new Tesla Mode

[Anonymous Coward]

"still cannot find the gas cap after 3 days"

Is this the biggest whoosh in the history of whooshes? Please tell me it is! :)

Re:Statler & Waldorf don't like new Tesla Mode

[drinkypoo]

They may hate Tesla, but I'm still eager to find out what Sandy Munro has to say about tearing down the Model 3 when he shows up on Autoline.tv. They are some of the best in the business at estimating costs, and that stuff is fascinating to me.