Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tesla Model X Breaks Electric Towing Record By Pulling Boeing 787 (inverse.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the showing-off dept.

A Tesla Model X has set the world record for heaviest tow by electric production passenger vehicle when it pulled a Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner at the Melbourne Airport in Australia. The video can be viewed on YouTube. Inverse reports: As probably expected, the plane far exceeds the Model X's recommended tow limit of around 5,000 pounds. In fact, the weight of the unloaded 787 with a minimal amount of fuel came closer to around 300,000 pounds. The airline pulled the Dreamliner around 1,000 feet down the tarmac. The stunt was part of a wider campaign around Qantas' new work with Tesla, which involves offering high-powered chargers at its Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide facilities as well as offsetting miles for Tesla drivers that are also frequent flyer members.

134 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. Should be useful for most drivers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I towed my 787 the other day and lamented the lack of power my vehicle had.

    1. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Funny

      Many gas or diesel vehicles going down the highway can pull this plane.

      Yes, but this was just one car pulling it by itself; not many gas and diesel vehicles. ;)

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Considering it's a crossover and not a truck, I'm impressed.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by pr0t0 · · Score: 1

      Many humans walking down the street can pull this plane with just their bare hands and a rope, which just goes to show how far behind ICE vehicles are when it comes to range, range, and duration.

      I get that you don't care for electric vehicles, but they are not without their qualities. Off the top of my head: They pollute far less. The energy required to make them work can be derived multiple ways (steam, natural gas, coal, geothermal, hydro, wind, solar, nuclear fission, someday fusion). Some of the ways the energy can be derived are clean and renewable. They have far fewer parts. They don't suffer from as much and/or the same kinds of wear (mostly thinking of engine heat here). They're quiet. They make you far less dependent upon the whims of oil-producing nations (being able to take care of yourself is a good thing).

      So it's really a matter of what's important to you. Perhaps you pull 787-9 Dreamliners all day long and an electric vehicle just isn't going to cut it for you. That's fine. There are all kinds of people with all kinds of needs and priorities. It's great we live in a diverse world where many/all of our needs can be met.

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    4. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

      Hmm i thougt airports, and probably aircarft manufacturers had specaliced tugs for aircraft, why is the ability of a Model X to tow an aircraft (ge it a rather large one even interesting?
      Had the title been KJFK changenges to electric aircraft tugs, that might have been more interestng. Just out of curiosety . am I right in thinking (from the summary) that the model X might be a bit over poevered for it's main usage, whow heavy is the 787 again (I guess this was withot cargo and/or pasangers)?

    5. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by tinkerton · · Score: 2

      If we assume that the plane has zero static rolling resistance so it takes little effort to get it moving and tiny speeds, then i still think not many cars can pull it. My car has to drive at 4mph before I can let go of the clutch completely. Before that there is slip. So you at least need a special clutch which allows you to give full power at say 0.1mph.

    6. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Up a hill, you'd be correct, you wouldn't be able to. On a level surface, you'd manage it just fine. If you find this impressive, remember that the worlds strongest man competition occasionally features competitors towing a 727. If a 400 lbs man can drag a 727, a 5000 lbs vehicle shouldn't have much issue moving a 787. Hell, look at the vehicles they use to push aircraft away from the gate, those are way smaller than a model X.

    7. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      It was the anti-ad. Many gas or diesel vehicles going down the highway can pull this plane.

      The fact that there are exactly zero scenarios in which any car would ever need to tow a plane turns this into a gimmick and nothing more.

      Publicizing the fact the an electric vehicle can do this just shows how far behind electric vehicles are when it comes to range, power, and duration.

      Behind? As far as power goes, we've sent humans to space, and yet 100 years of internal combustion engine development hasn't been able to create instant torque response that an EV can deliver every time. Performance numbers certainly aren't lacking for the maker of "ludicrous" mode either.

      Range is dictated by battery tech, and you're getting a hell of a lot more out of rechargeable batteries today than you were 20 years ago. My first cell phone had an hour of talk time. Another decade of battery development will likely create EV solutions with a 1,500-mile range, which at that point the metric is pointless, because human passengers would never want to sit in a car that long.

      Duration? I'm assuming you're referring to longevity. Hell of a lot less moving parts when it comes to EVs, and the durability of humans will also likely be improved when there's a billion less tailpipes polluting the planet every day.

      In the end, it doesn't really matter. We won't have any dino-juice left to fuel this argument 100 years from now.

    8. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by Junta · · Score: 5, Informative

      You would stand a better chance than you think.

      There are generally three things about towing capacity weight:
      -Ability to *accelerate* at acceptable road speed. Note that in this case, they only accelerated it to slow walk speed.
      -Ability to *stop* the mass behind you, which is all about brakes and nothing to do with the engine/motor (here the 787 is responsible for stopping itself.
      -Tongue weight. This is generally specified separately, but there is some assumption about a trailer's tongue weight. Again, this is not about the motor/engine. Of course here there's negligble tonge weight.

      This isn't an *anti* tesla view. The truck industry has *long* done stunts like this to 'prove' how much better than their ratings they are. This is the same sort of stunt as people pulling a train with their teeth, a very difficult thing to be sure, but more plausible than one would intuitively think.

      Of course, I wouldn't call it an 'anti-ad', but it's also not 'only the model-x can pull this sort of weight' in reality.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    9. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by Junta · · Score: 1

      how far behind ICE vehicles are when it comes to range, range, and duration.

      Huh? One ICE vehicles have considerable range advantage, and you said range twice (you must like range).

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    10. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And it only had to be recharged every quarter mile.

    11. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by Junta · · Score: 1

      Oh, I wasn't thinking in context... so self-whoosh...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    12. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by Junta · · Score: 1

      On 'range', I'd say it's optimistic to proclaim 1,500 mile ranges.. Your cell phone example does show a rather dramatic advancement in battery tech, but moreso radio and other technologies. Cars' energy usage is dominated by more fundamental physics problems than what cell phones had.

      Also, while the battery tech did advance a great deal in a short amount of time, it is the sort of thing that plateaus. We have headline-grabbing 'breakthroughs' trying to get investment dollars/grants, but overall it seems that our chemical battery state isn't advancing as quickly as it did when portable electronics first became a 'must have' in the market.

      Of course, we have acceptable ranges in electric cars now, but energy transfer is much slower than petrol. This is really the sore spot now, and battery capacity won't fix this. Even in the most aggressive CCS charging (350 kw), 300 miles of range will take about 14 minutes. However home charging should make this only a long-drive sort of problem, and hopefully we'll have restaurant chargers, and I know I take longer than 15 minutes to eat, and after driving 300 miles I'd want to stop anyway.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    13. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Informative

      and I wouldn't stand a chance if I attempted to pull sixty times my vehicle's curb weight.

      USAF, we used to push or pull F-16 or F-15, by hand. 4 guys, 30,000 lbs of aircraft. Not far, and zero grade. But it was done.
      You do the math.

    14. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Then why did you read his post?

    15. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      You would stand a better chance than you think.

      I guess everybody is assuming a smoother paved surface (less rolling resistance) than I've ever driven on.

    16. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      ICE vehicles have considerable range advantage

      I wouldn't call it a considerable advantage. My current car gets somewhere around 350 miles on one tank of gas (roughly 12 gallon tank, 30 MPG on the highway). Tesla's vehicles are quickly approaching that range on a single full charge.

    17. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by Type44Q · · Score: 2
      And... this is more like it. From wikipedia:

      Large aircraft cannot be moved by hand and must have a tractor or tug. Pushback tractors use a low profile design to fit under the aircraft nose. For sufficient traction the tractor must be heavy, and most models can have extra ballast added. A typical tractor for large aircraft weighs up to 54 tonnes (119,000 pounds) and has a drawbar pull of 334 kN (75,000 lbf).

    18. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by AlanBDee · · Score: 1

      You do the math.

      4 * USAF awesomeness = superpower strength

      Thank you for your service.

    19. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So wait, your vehicle can't pull a 747 like a Volkswagen Toureg can? Note the 747 is a solid 100 tons more weight than the 787 the X managed here...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    20. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      Behind? As far as power goes, we've sent humans to space, and yet 100 years of internal combustion engine development hasn't been able to create instant torque response that an EV can deliver every time. Performance numbers certainly aren't lacking for the maker of "ludicrous" mode either.

      Range is dictated by battery tech, and you're getting a hell of a lot more out of rechargeable batteries today than you were 20 years ago. My first cell phone had an hour of talk time. Another decade of battery development will likely create EV solutions with a 1,500-mile range, which at that point the metric is pointless, because human passengers would never want to sit in a car that long.

      Battery tech has improved in regards to fixing the battery memory problem and faster recharge times but has little to do with how long your cell phone lasts. Most major battery improvements over the last 10 years are due to three factors: Shrinking electronics has allowed for larger capacity batteries, electronics have become much more energy efficient (i.e. lower power displays), and power management improvements.

      As far as I can tell, the accepted wisdom is that battery capacity increases at 5% to 8% per year. In 10 years a 300 mile Tesla would be able to go about 500 miles. That being said, there is a ton of research being done on using capacitors and on developing the next battery chemistry that will supplant what we have today. So, it's quite possible that a breakthrough will happen and provide a range of 1500 miles. However, in my opinion, the current pace of battery technology does not support this with existing battery technology.

      https://www.smithsonianmag.com...

      https://www.quora.com/Is-it-tr...

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...

    21. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      VW did this a while ago with their Toureg. Of course, they didn't chicken out with a 787, they went with the queen of the skies, the 747, which weighs 100 tons more than the smallish 787.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    22. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by Junta · · Score: 1

      I'm less concerned with commuting (I do have ways to charge at home, overnight, sure apartment dwellers may have a challenge, but homeowners are in decent shape here) and more the long haul trips.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    23. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Behind? As far as power goes, we've sent humans to space, and yet 100 years of internal combustion engine development hasn't been able to create instant torque response that an EV can deliver every time. Performance numbers certainly aren't lacking for the maker of "ludicrous" mode either.

      I was watching some steam driven cars on youtube. 30 horses and a thousand foot pounds of torque, silent, no clutch, most no transmission though the one I was watching had a 2 speed with 1st for the first little while until a full head of steam was built up. Land speed record was held for quite a while by a steam car as well.
      Drawbacks, had to wait a couple of minutes to build up steam and the earlier ones were hard to fire.
      Internal engines still won out, once the starter was invented.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    24. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by Junta · · Score: 1

      In the general case this may be true, but under 'check out this stunt' conditions, you can generally eliminate most of the factors that demand that.

      I can promise you the tesla does not have as much traction as a 54 ton tractor, and neither did the porsche that did the same thing, or the vw, or the various strongmen that have made videos of pulling large planes.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    25. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by Junta · · Score: 1

      There's capacity and there's convenience/time to go a bit further. For you if you have a 400 mile trip to make, you bear the burden of a quick stop for gas.

      For an electric car, even availing itself of tesla supercharger network, you will have to contend with a more inconvenient stop along the way.

      Now this may be worth it in exchange for commuter experience of never having to stop for gas as you charge at home overnight, but we have to be honest that for long distance trips, ICE has both a capacity and refuel advantage still yet.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    26. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Then your problem isn't with range, it's with the ubiquity of refill/recharge stations. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the number of places to recharge your electric car is going to increase.

    27. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So wait, your vehicle can't pull a 747 like a Volkswagen Toureg can?

      Don't know, but my vehicle can pull a truck out of a snowbank, that seems more useful than trying to use a SUV (arguably a crossover) as an airline tug

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by bluelip · · Score: 1

      No, you're just an idiot whose vision is clouded by your own beliefs.

      There's nothing else to say other than you are wrong.

      --

      Yep, I never spell check.
      More incorrect spellings can be found he
    29. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by sexconker · · Score: 2

      I drive the largest passenger vehicle currently sold

      The Canyonero?

    30. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      All you need is:

      1) Enough power to get past the static friction of the thing you're towing.
      2) Enough sustained power to keep up with rolling friction of the thing you're towing and the thing doing the towing.
      3) Enough engagement between the towing vehicle and its travel surface to prevent slipping during 1 and 2. This can be from typical friction, or it can be something with more direct engagement (like a chain drive system).

    31. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      There's capacity and there's convenience/time to go a bit further. For you if you have a 400 mile trip to make, you bear the burden of a quick stop for gas.

      For an electric car, even availing itself of tesla supercharger network, you will have to contend with a more inconvenient stop along the way.

      Now this may be worth it in exchange for commuter experience of never having to stop for gas as you charge at home overnight, but we have to be honest that for long distance trips, ICE has both a capacity and refuel advantage still yet.

      I can go 500 miles with a single tank.

      In practice, the fucking thing is calibrated so the "OH SHIT" light goes on when there are 3 gallons left and the thing reads "empty" when there are 2.5 gallons left.
      So I typically fill up after around 300 miles after 2 weeks of city commuting so I don't forget, or at the end of my road trip. Stopping in the middle of a long drive is such a fucking time sink.

      I can't fucking imagine doing a long road trip in a current electric car. I'd be fine stopping once for lunch and plugging in to charge, but multiple times? That's just a huge time sink until they make battery swapping available. Even when stopping for lunch, I'd expect to be back on the road within 30 minutes. How much range can I get from 30 minutes starting at, oh, 35% capacity?

    32. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      The Toureg was sold as a real SUV.

      The advertises had it driving over rocks and stuff.

      the Model X as far as I can tell is being sold as a large luxury hatchback.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    33. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Just put some bags of sand into the Tesla if you need more traction.

    34. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by DeBaas · · Score: 1

      I drive the largest passenger vehicle currently sold

      The Canyonero?

      No he's taking the bus...

      --
      ---
    35. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by sexconker · · Score: 2

      The Canyonero is bigger.

      Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
      smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..

      Canyonero! Canyonero!

      Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
      It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!

      Canyonero! Yah! Canyonero!

      The Federal Highway commision has ruled the
      Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.

      Canyonero!

      12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
      65 tons of American Pride!

      Canyonero! Canyonero!

      Top of the line in utility sports,
      Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

      Canyonero! Canyonero! Yah!

      She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
      She's a squirrel squashing, deer smacking, driving machine!

      Canyonero!-oh woah, Canyonero! Yah!
      Drive Canyonero! Woah Canyonero! Woah!

    36. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Don't be mean. He said driving. He's driving the bus.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    37. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by DeBaas · · Score: 1

      The F-series?

      --
      ---
    38. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by Junta · · Score: 1

      If course, a charging station at the most extreme is 15x slower than pumping the gas.

      Which again would be fine if every restaurant I might want to stop at for a long haul has an appropriately potent charging station.

      Charging will be a longer downtime, but because it's not as much a burden as vending gasoline, it is at least possible for restaurants to integrate the perk.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    39. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      We won't have any dino-juice left to fuel this argument 100 years from now.

      ... Well played sir.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    40. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      If course, a charging station at the most extreme is 15x slower than pumping the gas.

      Fine. After driving for 4-5 hours, you should take a 30-minute break anyway.

      Which again would be fine if every restaurant I might want to stop at for a long haul has an appropriately potent charging station.

      How many restaurants have fuel pumps? Installing and maintaining a few car chargers is probably much easier than installing and maintaining fuel pumps, so more restaurants will have car chargers than have fuel pumps. Sounds like electric vehicles have the advantage there.

    41. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by dk20 · · Score: 1

      reposting but logged in (cant login from work).

      dont let facts stand in your way.

      It is all about coefficient of friction.. Inflate the tires and you can pull it.. not your car.. YOU.. there are a lot of videos of humans pulling planes. Do those people have more "power" then the tesla X? This is just showmanship.. it comes up every few years, usually with trucks pulling trains. If you want to see some real fun, have the tesla X take the plane to highway speeds and try to stop it.

      This is the company that makes those "puny little cart-like vehicles".. https://www.victorygse.com/man...

      And the specs show it has 160 BHP.. so around the same a honda civic but TONS of torque.

      PUSH BACK AIRCRAF TOWING TRACTOR SUPER BRUTE EQUITECH FMC MODEL B-500 DESIGNED WITH A DETROIT DIESEL 8.2L TURBO DIESEL ENGINE - ENGINE WITH 8 CYLINDERS, 160 BHP BRAKE HP, 430 LBS OF TORQUE AT 1700 RPM, 10 QUARTS OF OIL, 33 GALLONS OF FUEL TANK CAPACITY, TUBE AND FINE RADIATOR 37 QUARTS, TRANSMISSION WITH 6 FORWARD SPEEDS 3 REVERSE,

      Honda Civic :
      240 horsepower (180 kW) at 8,000 rpm and 160 ftlbf (220 Nm) at 7,000 rpm.

    42. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by dehachel12 · · Score: 1

      >the Model X as far as I can tell is being sold as a large luxury hatchback.
      I don't think Tesla does any marketing.

    43. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I'd assume marketing made their website.

      They call it an SUV, but the most "rugged" thing they show it doing is driving on a recently plowed flat road with a touch of snow.

      When seeing one in person it looks even more crossover than their marketing though.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    44. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      I did the math. Assuming around 150 - 175 lbs per guys, you're only pulling about 40 times your weight.

    45. Re: Should be useful for most drivers... by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that s/b around 40 to 50 times your weight..

    46. Re:Should be useful for most drivers... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Had this been an uphill runway, I would have been impressed.

  2. Tesla endeavors to beat Toyota by Jadware · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Reminds me of the time a Toyota Tundra pickup truck towed the Space Shuttle Endeavor... https://www.motor1.com/news/34...

  3. not much friction by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think there must not be much friction in the system of large airplanes, because people do the same stunt with their teeth. On a flat surface, all you need to do is apply a constant force for a while, and the thing starts moving.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:not much friction by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

      In fact, the weight of the unladen 787 with a minimal amount of fuel came closer to around 300,000 pounds.

      So was it and African or European Model X . . . ?

      You have to know these things if you're a King, like Musk.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:not much friction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A quick google for 'car tows plane' brings up a Nissan pulling a 170t cargo plane in 2013 and a Porsche pulling an A380 last year, each in an effort to beat the world record at such things.

      So pulling planes is not that big a deal. If they had beat the world record then I guess that would be a little more newsworthy, but ultimately in an electric or torque converter driven vehicle (that can sustain low speed torque) it is really a matter of car vs sticktion than anything else.

    3. Re: not much friction by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      He's a great PR guy.

      His products are so fucking revolutionary (and disruptive) that it might seem to "the incognizenti" like he is... but he isn't; he doesn't need to be.

    4. Re:not much friction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well we don't even know if it was unladen. Or if it swallows.

  4. Didn't he just send a Tesla to Mars by Dorianny · · Score: 1

    I'm growing really tired of Musk's publicity stunts. Focus on getting the Model 3 production line problems fixed dammnit

    1. Re:Didn't he just send a Tesla to Mars by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Tried of his publicity stunts? You do know that's the only thing he's really good at? Asking Musk to cut it out with the publicity stunts is like asking Trump to cut it out with the twitter tirades.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    2. Re:Didn't he just send a Tesla to Mars by Tomahawk · · Score: 2

      I read this as a publicity stunt for Qantas mainly. I don't think Elon himself was involved...

    3. Re: Didn't he just send a Tesla to Mars by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Tried of his publicity stunts?

      Not at all... but certainly tired of the unimaginative douchebag shills with IQ's as low as the rest (and likely matching IP addresses) trying in vain spew their thin disinfo...

    4. Re:Didn't he just send a Tesla to Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Elon only knows publicity stunts, He can't actually create anything. Just cobbles together old tech.

      Uh, that's Microsoft. Tesla actually has to create new products using existing tech rather than buying up stuff already existing at scale and marketing it. That's a lot closer to the bleeding edge. The bleeding edge itself is not marketable.

    5. Re:Didn't he just send a Tesla to Mars by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Money and time are finite, instead of wasting money hyping a brand with severe production problems. That money should be use to fix those production issues. 2020 is the year when Tesla will have stiff competition from all manufactures they need 2019 to recoup their loss and become a dominate player.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    6. Re:Didn't he just send a Tesla to Mars by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      Not trying to be pedantic, but nothing about the video implied that Musk had anything to do with this... You don't think that Tesla has other marketing dweebs trying just as hard to promote the brand? What about this stunt excludes continued work on the model 3?

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  5. OK he made more enemies ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

    Caterpillar, Komatsu, John Deere are all going to be piling on against him, shorting Tesla,

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:OK he made more enemies ... by stooo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Instead of speculating, they should rather invest to make competitive products.
      Or they will kodakize themselves.

      --
      aaaaaaa
    2. Re:OK he made more enemies ... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking the other day when we were using a D9 to flatten a small forest that we should probably get a Model X instead.

  6. I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Informative

    The towing limit on most cars is because cars accelerate and brake going up and down hills, and have to cope with lateral acceleration forces on the trailer in turns.

    In this case, the Tesla is pulling a lot of weight on a dead-flat surface at low speed. All it has to overcome is the inertia of the airliner's mass when accelerating to the 2 mph it seems to be doing in the video, and then overcome the friction of the plane's tires and wheel bearings once up to speed. Electric cars would be especially good at this, as they have no clutch and the highest torque at low rpm.

    If you're not convinced any vehicle can tow heavy masses on flat ground with limited frictional forces, check out this video. Or this one...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by swb · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can go to any airport and see a tiny tug vehicle moving a giant airplane around.

      To be honest, I often wonder why those tugs didn't go electric years ago, like giant golf carts or something. Traction motors can deliver torque at extremely low RPM, they don't need any range and can be plugged in easily. I'd wager the tugs they use now have diesel engines that will run off jet fuel which is abundant at an airport.

    2. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The towing limit on most cars is because cars accelerate and brake going up and down hills, and have to cope with lateral acceleration forces on the trailer in turns.

      Honestly if it was a closed track a rally driver could tow way faster or way more than legal street limits. A "friend of mine" pulled a 300 kg overweight trailer, apart from being down to 50 km/h in an 80 km/h zone at the top of a long and steep hill it was no problem at all. If the trailer got good brakes stopping in a straight line is also fine. The problem is if you have to brake in a turn, if that trailer starts going sideways or yanking you sideways you'll have no control at all. The greatest danger though is all the impatient overtakes you'll provoke by being a few seconds slower at everything, I had one milliseconds away from a head-on collision and if he'd hit and spun right in front of me... well it wouldn't have ended well for any of us, I think.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by houghi · · Score: 1

      Rain on Quantas parade? This is what they want to happen. It is a commercial stunt, not an engineering one.
      And as we are talking about it, it was a successful one.

      And anybody who has ever been to an airport knows that planes get pushed around by vehicles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... is a bit more impressive

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is if you have to brake in a turn, if that trailer starts going sideways or yanking you sideways you'll have no control at all.

      Towing limits are affected by literally every part of a vehicle which is involved in its actual function. The frame or unit body, suspension, brakes, powertrain, wheels, and tires all play their part. Tow ratings are limited by all of these components. Further, each of these components has multiple factors; the frame/body not only has to be able to handle the stresses involved, but its size is a factor; increasing the distance between the tow hitch and the rear axle means decreasing the amount of weight you can place on the tongue, for example, because too much will lift the front axle off of the ground and prevent steering. Consequently, shorter vehicles tend to have higher tow ratings, all else being equal. However, a longer wheelbase is also better for towing, because it means more end-to-end stability...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by brambus · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I often wonder why those tugs didn't go electric years ago, like giant golf carts or something.

      Some did. Ultimately, the move to electric might be inevitable for all aircraft tugs, given the unique requirements of airports (such as the weight of the batteries actually being a positive, since aircraft tugs are commonly ballasted down to enhance traction).

    6. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Recharge time. Battery tech simply cannot support enough power inside the vehicle. I bet after this stunt the model X was down to less than 50% of its capacity. You cannot have your tug move 2 planes, then sit plugged in for 3 hours to recharge. Two tugs should be able to handle a terminal of 12-15 gates, and they need to run pretty much 12-16 hours before refueling (which should only take 3-5 minutes). That takes a massive amount of fuel capacity - which is precisely what batteries do NOT have (people forget that a "massive" 100 kWh battery pack is only about 3 gallons of gas; your typical 15 gallon car has 5X the capacity of energy as the largest Tesla pack out there).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Ever been in a busy warehouse that uses diesel or propane forklifts? There's a reason they use electric - you don't want to gas out your employees!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      You actually don't want too much torque. I was aboard a flight which was delayed when the bar those tugs use to push the plane broke. We had to wait about 20 minutes while they inspected the landing gear to make sure it wasn't damaged, retrieved a new bar from storage, and attached it. The captain chatted with us over the intercom to help pass the time, and mentioned that that bar alone cost nearly $200,000 due to how expensive things are in the aerospace industry (designed, manufactured, and tested to exact tolerances with very few being made).

    9. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My '97 K3500 V8 Turbo Diesel with a goose neck hitch is rated to tow 8500 pounds. A new F-150 V6 is rated to tow 9500 pounds from the bumper hitch. Something's not right there.

      If I had to guess, which I do because I don't feel like researching all the differences, I'd guess that they boil down to brakes, ABS improvements, frame material, axle material, vehicle weight (less vehicle weight means more towing capacity to a point, although it does mean you need trailer brakes for lighter loads), and transmission capabilities. The new F-150 has a ten speed automagic slush box, which as I recall means it has not just a bunch of overdrives but also a super low first gear. The front suspension is also probably more advanced; "simple" geometry changes can result in substantial improvements in behavior. Finally, the modern F-series has ESC ("AdvanceTrac").

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      All of what you said plus this: How much did that trash the motors and the drive electronics when they did that to it? Stunt or no stunt, if the car had to have it's drivetrain rebuilt after that then I'm not impressed.

    11. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by swb · · Score: 1

      Do they not plug airplanes into "shore" power when parked at the gate? I know some might have a small turbine generator for this, but I'd wager it's not practical to run that all the time at the gate.

    12. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      As other posters have mentioned, relatively strong people can move planes bare-handed. So I'd say the Tesla is already way over-built for this purpose.

    13. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by jbengt · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I often wonder why those tugs didn't go electric years ago, like giant golf carts or something.

      More and more of the tugs are electric nowadays. But you have to have the infrastructure at the airport to charge them, too.

    14. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Do they not plug airplanes into "shore" power when parked at the gate?

      Yes, planes are typically hooked up to power (and HVAC) at the jet bridge when they dock; running on jet engine power is terribly expensive. (When planes are in the air, the electric power is often generated by turbines that run on bleed air from the jet engine compressors) The electrical hook-up requires specialized converters and wiring, as most planes use 400 Hz power.

      And as far as the GP goes, what is "the same fuel everything else on the airport runs"? I've been involved in the design of fueling systems at airports. The jet planes use jet fuel. Most trucks and cars use gasoline or diesel. Baggage carts and the like are often electric, sometimes propane. And aircraft tugs can be electric or diesel.

    15. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Contrary to your claims, if you google aircraft tugs, you will find a large number of electric tug models being manufactured and sold.

    16. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What the hell is a Quantas?
      QANTAS is a world renowned airline and an acronym: Queensland And Northern Territory Air Services.

    17. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by swb · · Score: 1

      Do any of the nominally diesel vehicles get setup to run on jet fuel? I would think that might be kind of convenient and plausible considering how close jet fuel is to diesel.

    18. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Jet fuel is often used in ground support vehicles at airports, instead of diesel. The United States military makes heavy use of JP-8, for instance. However, jet fuel tends to have poor lubricating ability in comparison to diesel, thereby increasing wear on fuel pumps and other related engine parts.

      --

      Enigma

    19. Re:I don't mean to rain on Quantas' parade, but... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Hmm - you're right I see a lot of electric tugs! However, I don't see any that are for typical commercial aircraft (such as the 787 discussed here, or other >12 passenger type planes).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  7. unladen Boeing 787 by stooo · · Score: 2

    What is the ground speed velocity of an unladen Boeing 787 pulled by a Tesla model X ?

    --
    aaaaaaa
    1. Re:unladen Boeing 787 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is that an african Tesla, or an european Tesla?

    2. Re: unladen Boeing 787 by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      "speed velocity?" Was that supposed to be the funny part?

    3. Re: unladen Boeing 787 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When this joke came out 40 years ago, probably?

  8. Re:Acceleration ? by stooo · · Score: 1

    4 seconds for 0-100km/h

    --
    aaaaaaa
  9. Car = Balls by stooo · · Score: 1

    You mean balls can replace a car ?
    Or better, can a car replace balls?
    Some people have no other option.

    --
    aaaaaaa
    1. Re:Car = Balls by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Cars have been used as prosthesis for shortcomings in other departments for ages.

      If you don't know what I'm talking about, watch the Mini-Cooper ad.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. So can my lawn tractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    My lawn tractor can tow a 787 on flat, level ground as well. F=ma. Doesn't matter what m is, if you have a net force, you have acceleration. It doesn't take much force to overcome wheel bearing friction in landing gear.

    1. Re:So can my lawn tractor by magarity · · Score: 1

      My lawn tractor can tow a 787 on flat, level ground as well. F=ma. Doesn't matter what m is, if you have a net force, you have acceleration. It doesn't take much force to overcome wheel bearing friction in landing gear.

      Even with full inflation there is an amount of flexing in the plane's tires that adds up to non trivial resistance. Your lawn tractor's engine may be able to do it but its own weight and tires may not provide enough traction to pull the plane.

  11. Re: Excuse me? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    these puny little golf-cart-like vehicles pull planes all over the tarmac.

    You mean those puny little cart-like vehicles that are 'all motor and drivetrain' and very likely weigh at least five tons?

  12. static vs dynamic, indeed by DrYak · · Score: 1

    I immediately though "well, basically static vs. dynamic friction", too.

    On the other hand, electric motors are specially good at having decent torque at very low speed.
    (You don't need to shift a different gear to start them, unlike ICE. They use a fixed transmission ratio).
    So it's about the best type of motors you could be using for "just pulling".

    If this is the top speed,

    I suspect that's more for braking safety.
    If anything goes wrong, you'll need to brake.
    - there's only so much kinetic energy that you can shed with the car's brakes/regenerative braking.
    - there's the reaction time of the guys in the cockpit hitting the landing gear's brakes, whenever alerted over comms about something out of their field of view.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  13. ...built like tanks. by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Anything bigger uses big diesel tugs that are built like tanks.

    Sometime *literally* like tanks (Aliens)
    (or the soviet reversal thereof).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  14. Comptetitive products by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Yeah, Caterpillar, where's my P-5000 Work Loader ?

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  15. QANTAS not Quantas by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    It was originally an acronym, not a name. /rant

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  16. People Pulling Train Car by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On a flat section of track, your average NFL lineman could pull a train car.

    It' not about the weight,. It's about the Friction Force.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:People Pulling Train Car by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We see this type of stunt all the time. Often with Pickup Truck commercials. But this plays to Tesla's marketing strategy, of Showing their all electric cars to be just as powerful if not more so, then the best gasoline cars in their classification.

      Which is opposed to other electric car makers who show off these cars as just Electric, but nothing really exciting about them, and rather lack luster in comparison of other cars in their class.

      The stunt of pulling a 747 or a freight train... When using a flat surface and properly conditioned low friction wheels. Just needs enough energy to get past the static friction, then energy to account to the existing friction. Now if the Testla would be able to accelerate the plane from 0 to 15mph in 10 seconds that would be impressive.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:People Pulling Train Car by Luthair · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People have pulled planes, in fact the record is a guy pulling one weighing 418,000 lbs. Seems hard to know why we'd care about a car doing it.

    3. Re:People Pulling Train Car by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The big question is, could the Tesla then drive a few hundred miles after that, or did it need to be completely recharged? Other reviews of the model X towing something says it does it with aplomb - but you get a ~100 mile range whilst doing so.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:People Pulling Train Car by sycodon · · Score: 1

      If anything, an electric car would have an easier go at it because there is no mechanical conversion of power from the motive to the wheels. No Transmission.

      Interestingly, that is one of the strengths of the Diesel Electric Locomotive, making it lighter and simpler.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    5. Re:People Pulling Train Car by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      A Porsche Cayenne pulled an A380 last year, which is twice the weight of a Dreamliner, so I would have expected a lot better from a model X.

      I'm an absolute Tesla fanboy, but this is seriously underwhelming. Surely a model X can outtow a Cayenne?! This makes it seem like electric cars are still inferior to ICE cars and therefore need their own category for Guiness world records. Tesla should be ashamed of this "record" instead of boasting about it on their Twitter feed.

    6. Re:People Pulling Train Car by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      >Now if the Testla would be able to accelerate the plane from 0 to 15mph in 10 seconds that would be impressive.

      this should suffice. the alfa romeo does 4-4.5s for the 0-60 https://youtu.be/ib-02b2ooLY?t...

      You misunderstood the the gp... The post is challenging Tesla that if it can pull a plane and accelerate from 0 to 15mph in 10 seconds. That's a whole lot different than a car accelerates itself from 0 to 60mpg.

    7. Re:People Pulling Train Car by mjwx · · Score: 1

      On a flat section of track, your average NFL lineman could pull a train car.

      It' not about the weight,. It's about the Friction Force.

      This. Top Gear towed a 747 with a JCB, Fifth gear towed the same one with a VW toerag. You could realistically do it with a 1.4L VW Polo on the nice flat Dunsfold Aerodrome, as long as you never intended to use that Polo for anything else ever again. Towing is more about the Chassis, the Toerag Fifth gear used had is chassis buckled and had to be de-registered, I'd be the same thing happened with the Model X but they aren't telling us. Like others have said, this is done a lot for advertisements for utes/pickups although that's mostly CGI these days.

      In either case, Model X and 787 are both vehicles I detest travelling in. Uncomfortable and over-hyped.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  17. Marketing stunts are getting lame by grungeman · · Score: 1

    This is totally lame. Has been done by
    Porsche pulling A-380: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    Volkswagen Touareg pulling a 747: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    Man pulling Globemaster: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    I guess even these guys would be able to pull an airplane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --

    Signature deleted by lameness filter.
  18. Man pulls plane with balls by grungeman · · Score: 1

    Alright, they are not electric, still impressive:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --

    Signature deleted by lameness filter.
  19. Too little, too late by hey! · · Score: 1

    If you want to set an electric towing record, you have to do better than this.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  20. the real trick will be ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The vehicle pulling Tesla into financial viability

  21. I took part in a plane pull competition by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

    A group of 10 coworkers and I took part in a charity plane pull for the special Olympics. It's actually quite easy to get the plane moving and once it starts to roll gaining speed is easy.

    The impressive thing to me is the Tesla maintained traction. My car has the power to pull a plane. I don't know if it had the traction though

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    1. Re:I took part in a plane pull competition by Solandri · · Score: 1

      They usually load the car down with weight (far over the vehicle's weight rating) to increase traction. When VW pulled a 747 with a Touareg, they doubled the tire pressure and loaded it with something like 4 tons of cement bags. There's a large amount of tolerance built into cars for dynamic loads (e.g. increase in forces the tires and suspension feels when you hit a pothole). So if you've got a slow, steady course which generates only static loads, you can pull some pretty impressive things with them.

  22. His teeth are stronger than your car, then by raymorris · · Score: 1

    As others have pointed out, a popular stunt is pulling a airliner with one's teeth.

    https://bulawayo24.com/index-i...

    1. Re:His teeth are stronger than your car, then by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      That interpretation of 'strong' is a bit odd but yes, I doubt any car with manual transmission can pull a boeing, but I don't know enough about clutches. Most sports cars would burn their clutch on doing repeated launch control(which puts a lot of power through in the 0-4mph phase) for instance. So for such an attempt you need the right transmission.

    2. Re:His teeth are stronger than your car, then by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Wait I'm wrong. I doubt the amount of energy pushed into the clutch will vary much for 0-4mph. Launch control keeps revs at say 4000rpm so you have longer slip, higher speed till the clutch is fully locked.The clutch will slip for instance till 25mph so you have to adapt the clutch design so it can handle it.

  23. African or European? by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

    https://www.bing.com/videos/se...

  24. Re:Distraction by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Nope. That was the LAST shutdown. This is a new one: https://seekingalpha.com/news/...

  25. Behold! The power of the wheel! by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    Making heavy loads oh so much less heavy.

    How does that compare to a train?

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  26. Aircraft Carriers are nuclear-electric by EnOne · · Score: 1

    Aircraft Carriers are also electrically driven just Nuclear-electric. Trains that pull 20 to 30,000 tonnes of coal or ore are also electric. Diesel-electric instead of battery-electric but both are just a matter of scale.You might be able to create a powerwall carrying battery-electric train engine for moving cars around the yard. Cutting down the noise and pollution in train yards.

    --
    Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
    1. Re:Aircraft Carriers are nuclear-electric by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You might be able to create a powerwall carrying battery-electric train engine for moving cars around the yard. Cutting down the noise and pollution in train yards.

      Light rail is a good application for battery electric trains; you can even include a pantograph or wireless charger so that it can charge at stations. But moving trains around either is done only occasionally in which case you want a diesel with a transmission because it's cheap (you can move the train in sections if need be), or frequently in which case you need a diesel with an electric drive because that's what you can refuel rapidly and what will also be able to get the job done. EVs potentially make sense for port drayage (with trucks) because they spend so much time sitting still anyway, but not so much for tugging trains around. An electric engine that can move whole trains is expensive enough that you want to use it all the time, but it's battery-powered, so you can't use it all the time.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  27. Re: Excuse me? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    They actually have surprisingly little power. They have massive weight so they have traction. But power? Usually a 100 HP engine, at best.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  28. Weight of a tank by sjbe · · Score: 2

    A typical tractor for large aircraft weighs up to 54 tonnes (119,000 pounds) and has a drawbar pull of 334 kN (75,000 lbf).

    For comparison the weight of an M1 Abrams main battle tank is around 62 metric tons.

    1. Re:Weight of a tank by Custard+Horse · · Score: 1

      For comparison the weight of an M1 Abrams main battle tank is around 62 metric tons.

      So, they should use tanks to move planes around? Interesting...

    2. Re:Weight of a tank by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So, they should use tanks to move planes around? Interesting...

      They don't use treads because tread systems cost more than hard rubber tires. Tugs don't need armor.

      You especially wouldn't use an Abrams because it uses a turbine engine. The Abrams has four times the horsepower output and twice the torque of a tug. It costs too much to maintain and consumes too much fuel to do that kind of work. (There is a vehicle based on the Abrams MBT which is used for tank recovery, but that's a fairly different job.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Weight of a tank by uncqual · · Score: 1

      (There is a vehicle based on the Abrams MBT which is used for tank recovery, but that's a fairly different job.)

      Indeed. If you're pulling a 747 out of a ditch with a plane tug, at least two serious errors in judgement are in evidence.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  29. Range by sjbe · · Score: 1

    For an electric car, even availing itself of tesla supercharger network, you will have to contend with a more inconvenient stop along the way.

    That's true but after driving for 5-7 hours you probably are going to want to stop for more than a 10 minute splash and dash anyway. A 400 mile trip at highway speeds will take around 7 hours give or take. That's around the distance between Cleveland and Philadelphia or LA to San Francisco. I think once EVs range reaches around 400-500 miles, it's going to be hard to argue they aren't practical for long trips anymore if they can be recharged in 30-40 minutes.

    Now this may be worth it in exchange for commuter experience of never having to stop for gas as you charge at home overnight, but we have to be honest that for long distance trips, ICE has both a capacity and refuel advantage still yet.

    This is true but unlikely to remain so for long. I give it 10-15 years before there are enough charging stations to reach a tipping point. Especially given that EV ranges are likely to continue to increase.

    I've always wondered if there wouldn't be a market for range extender trailers with a motor and a gas tank for long trips in an EV. At least until the charging infrastructure reaches a critical mass. I would happily tow one behind an EV for the occasional long trip. A company like Uhaul could even rent them.

    1. Re:Range by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Me and my passengers are well aware once we're underway the day's limit is up to me. The 10 minute splash and dash is how it's done.

      Remind me to never go on a road trip with you.

    2. Re:Range by darth.hunterix · · Score: 1

      It's true you need a break, but I prefer to take it when where and when I want it, not where charger station just happens to be. Another thing is that most people these days have driving license, so it's possible to change person behind the wheel every two hours or so.

      Another important factor is that if you run out of gas (never happened to me, but it may one day) it's possible to get to the nearest station, buy a canister of fuel, travel back and refill in the field. How do you do that with electric vehicle? Take the battery with you?

      --
      What is best in life? Hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper.
  30. Lighten up by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I'm growing really tired of Musk's publicity stunts.

    And why should we care? Lighten up. I find them fairly entertaining myself. Certainly far more than the banal advertising we get from most companies. It's nice to see someone actually show some creativity for once.

    Focus on getting the Model 3 production line problems fixed dammnit

    You do realize that companies have to do both right? You have to make the product AND sell it. It's not an either/or proposition.

  31. MUCH easier with electric motor drive. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Informative

    The truck industry has *long* done stunts like this to 'prove' how much better than their ratings they are.

    Towing enormous loads from a dead stop (on a level surface) is much easier with an electric motor drive vehicle than with one powered by a combustion engine.

    An electric motor (absent some pathology in the power supply to it) produces maximum torque at stall. This is ideal for gradually accelerating enormous weights on low-friction level surfaces. (Also great for sprint races, and getting started from a dead stop in general.)

    An internal combustion engine has no torque at its output shaft if it's not running. You need some mechanism for driving the stopped wheels from the must-keep-turning engine.

    Clutches are a friction brake (with a SMALL length of of spring, so you can recycle most of the energy initially lost to pushing torque through a shaft-speed difference IF you get moving right away.) Try to tow an enormous weight from dead-stop and most of the energy goes to heat the clutch - which quickly fries unless you only engage it in pulses.

    Transmissions with torque converters are better. But get moving quickly (in a very low gear, because much of that energy is still turning into heat in the transmission fluid.

    Electric motors make heat, too. But only in proportion to the (square of) the torque they produce. So it's the same heat they'd make if they were accelerating the car with the same torque, which they're able to dump quite nicely. Also: They aren't stuck absorbing a LARGE amount of heat because of the minimum speed of the engine shaft. Their controller can apply enough current to get the torque, but this results in much lower voltage (and thus much less total energy) when they're not turning (no back-EMF from the moving motor also acting like a generator to oppose the incoming current). So max torque and only enough HP/watts to produce it.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  32. Conveniently missing by Grand+Facade · · Score: 1

    from the video is the beginning of this marketing stunt.

    Is how long it took to get it moving and or the tug that helped the tesla get it started.

    --
    Rick B.
  33. FWIW... by smithmc · · Score: 1

    A VW Touareg did this several years ago. And no wimpy-ass Dreamliner, but a 747. https://www.autoblog.com/2006/...

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  34. It's not a race by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I routinely have gone from my home in Chicago without a considerable stop to Montreal, Denver, Atlanta, New York City, Boston, DC, even Gallup NM.

    And we are all duly impressed by your lunacy. Personally I actually understand that road trips are not the Cannonball Run. If I need to get there faster I board an airplane. Back here among the sane people we actually stop for meals and to stretch our legs.

    My college was about 400 miles from my home and I used to do that drive in one go with a single refuel on the way. Wouldn't have been a problem to stop for 30 minutes and probably would have been safer.

    Me and my passengers are well aware once we're underway the day's limit is up to me.

    Riiiight. I'm sure you'd leave them stranded too if they didn't take a pee break on the run.

  35. Recharging (vehicles and people) by sjbe · · Score: 1

    It's true you need a break, but I prefer to take it when where and when I want it, not where charger station just happens to be.

    Fair enough but you'll have that option sooner than you think. EV charging stations are already pretty easy to find. My little town of 6000 people has several banks of them in easy to reach locations. I've seen them at rest stops too.

    Another thing is that most people these days have driving license, so it's possible to change person behind the wheel every two hours or so.

    I can't speak for you but I typically want to get out of the car for a spell every 2-4 hours. Doesn't matter if I'm driving or not. Most people typically eat a meal every 4-6 hours too. I think as EVs become more common you'll see people's habits slowly adapt to fit just like they did with ICE powered vehicles.

    Another important factor is that if you run out of gas (never happened to me, but it may one day) it's possible to get to the nearest station, buy a canister of fuel, travel back and refill in the field. How do you do that with electric vehicle? Take the battery with you?

    It's a reasonable concern. I think there will be several options eventually which will be superficially similar to what we have now. I think you'll see a fleet of charging vehicles that will come out and give you enough juice to get you to the nearest charging station. Wouldn't actually take long in most locations. Could be a truck with a big battery bank or it might carry a gas powered generator. Option 2 would be to tow the vehicle. I suspect you'll probably see tow trucks start to carry generators so they can do both tasks.

    1. Re:Recharging (vehicles and people) by darth.hunterix · · Score: 1

      It may be a failure of their marketing department, but in my area the charging stations I've seen are few and far between. Alas, I don't live in USA, so that may be a factor. And particularly I don't see any of them in my preferable place to take a break - in the middle of a forest :D

      Generally speaking I think you are right - the bigger EV market becomes, the more solutions will appear. But that's the future, and for now ICE remains the king.

      --
      What is best in life? Hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper.