Two US Hyperloop Startups Line Up Financing From China (bloomberg.com)

Los Angeles startups Arrivo and Hyperloop Transportation Technologies have reportedly secured financing from Chinese state-backed companies. "Lining up potential funding helps solve one of the biggest obstacles for hyperloop systems: They will be extremely expensive to build," reports Bloomberg. From the report: Arrivo, founded by a former senior engineer at Elon Musk's Space Exploration Technologies Corp., said it secured a $1 billion credit line with Genertec America Inc., a subsidiary of a Chinese state-owned entity based in Beijing that has helped finance and build high-speed rail and other infrastructure projects in Iran, Turkey and elsewhere. The credit line will go to backers of a future project using Arrivo technology, not to the startup itself. [The Genertec debt could be used to construct a project using the company's technology anywhere in the world, not necessarily in China.] Separately, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies said it plans to work on a 10-kilometer test track in Tongren, part of China's Guizhou province, at an initial cost of about $300 million. State entity Tongren Transportation & Tourism Investment Group will provide half the funds and seek private investors for the other half, HyperloopTT said. The precise route is yet to be determined.

Comments

What a risk.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why on earth would the intelligent Chinese risk such an investment in that shithole? Guess they must have hedged it with the Saudi Arabians and consider Trump's treason with Russia a positive sign. Not all deals are good deals trumptard.

Re:What a risk.

[hey!]

First of all, this is credit, not investment. It's a different game, because if things go belly up as creditor you're at the head of the line to be repaid; as an owner you're at the tail. I've seen deals where creditors moved in, took over IP and other assets put up as collateral, and started up successful companies without the debt burden the technology's creators were operating under. Unless the other investors or owners can come up with a huge bag of cash immediately, they end up with nothing.

If you've got deep enough pockets, being the largest creditor could be a better way to obtain the fruits of a startup's labor than buying an ownership position.

Also, even if this were taking an ownership stake in the company, China as a nation with 1/5 of a world's population is in a different position than an individual investor, who should be focused on future profits. China is playing a minimax strategy where the payoff is national power, not money. An individual who invests out of fears of "missing out" is being irrational; a nation may be choosing to hedge its bets in a very different game. And as a sovereign state China can simply do things that would be illegal for an individual, so the rules of the game it's playing look very different.

Re: What a risk.

[hey!]

Corporate raiders do not raid startups. They raid established firms with assets that can offset debts.

Startups are a totally different case. First of all, they are more likely to fail than to succeed, and the reason they fail is they run out of cash to pay current obligations. Now when that starts to happen, and they can't raise more cash, so they go to the creditor for more favorable terms, and that's one place where a creditor can deal himself in in various ways because he's got you by the short hairs.

Re:It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

Not sure that there's much tech to steal. Both of these companies - unlike the original Hyperloop Alpha design from SpaceX, which was an air-bearing train in low-pressure air - are pursuing vactrains (maglev, hard vacuum). China already has plenty of experience with maglev.

I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam

[Build6]

Does anyone remember the "elevated bus" project, which was supposed to drive on existing roads "over" existing traffic? That turned out to be an investment scam ( https://www.wired.co.uk/articl... ). The key element is something "futuristic/high technology" that (and this is the main element here) involves raising a lot of money. Once that is done it's already a success, they don't actually have to do more than make some kind of show of building something.

I don't think hyper loops are real-world feasible. Even if the technology works, any aggrieved destructive fool - and these exist everywhere in the world, China included - can put the entire system at risk in a way that aircraft are not threatened by. It's easier to guard an airport in such a way that man-portable missiles are out of range of aircraft taking off/landing, than it is to guard the entire length of some long-distance piped network that basically needs to maintain vacuum sealing in its entirety. "Normal" high speed rail is going to be less dangerous/easier to guard than hyper loops, unless they are going to bury the entire thing underground, which will drive costs up, which makes aircraft more competitive.

One thing about design that gets overlooked is, you don't just look at "is it good if it works?", you also need to look at "what happens when something goes wrong?". There are more failure modes for hyper loops where "everybody dies" than there are for aircraft and trains. Even if it exists, you're going to be taking a much greater risk getting in one than alternative transportation methods.

Re:I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam

[91degrees]

I am sure the engineering is feasible. And I even believe it can be made safe. I think the main problem will be cost effectiveness.

A high speed train can plausibly carry 800-1000 people and leave every 3 minutes. A hyperloop pod - they're planning one every 30 seconds (so 6 times the rate) but that seems optimistic, and the capacity is still nowhere near as high.

Re:I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam

[ljw1004]

I don't think hyper loops are real-world feasible. Even if the technology works, any aggrieved destructive fool - and these exist everywhere in the world, China included - can put the entire system at risk in a way that aircraft are not threatened by. It's easier to guard an airport in such a way that man-portable missiles are out of range of aircraft taking off/landing, than it is to guard the entire length of some long-distance piped network that basically needs to maintain vacuum sealing in its entirety.

Did you just disprove the existence of oil pipelines?

Re:I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam

[squiggleslash]

No, but you just proved his point. Oil pipelines are routinely shot at and are in constant need of repair. And oil pipelines don't need to maintain near vacuums and if one leaks it's a minor environmental issue, not a slaughter.

Re:I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam

[Rei]

Are you talking about "out of the tubes" or "out of the airlocks that capsules enter through"? If the former: absolutely, though irrelevant, since it's just a startup task. If the latter: A) not true (you can just have multiple tanks much larger than the air lock, each kept at a successively lower pressure, and then successively connect them to the airlock - effectively emptying it almost instantly. B) Irrelevant (you can have as many airlocks as you want, and thus take as long as you want to empty them).

Re:I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam

[Rei]

And oil pipelines don't need to maintain near vacuums and if one leaks it's a minor environmental issue, not a slaughter.

Oil pipelines have to bear far greater masses, with far greater pumping loads, with much more complicated thermal regulation. A leak isn't a "minor environmental issue", it can get you hit with millions, tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and cleanup costs, depending on the severity. And a bullet-sized hole in a Hyperloop tube (by the way, good luck shooting through an inch of steel with a handgun) isn't a "slaughter"; it would hardly even be noticeable. You're trying to rapidly fill up millions of cubic meters of low-pressure tube volume through a hole the size of a finger - good luck with that.

What's being described is a shock tube problem. Shock tubes are very well studied. The wavefront does move extremely fast - many times the speed of sound. But it carries almost no energy once you get any meaningful distance away from the source. You don't get this "wall" of atmospheric pressure air that you just run into from a near vacuum; you get a whisper, followed by a gradient that steadily builds over a long distance. The larger the shock tube, the less significant a hole becomes due to scaling factors: cross section increases with scale by the scaling factor squared, but volume increases by the scaling factor cubed.

Re:I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam

[angel'o'sphere]

It's easier to guard an airport in such a way that man-portable missiles are out of range of aircraft taking off/landing,
Such missiles have a range of about 25km and more.
So: no, it is not possible to guard an airport against them.

Re:I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam

[angel'o'sphere]

A high speed train can not leave every 3 minutes.
No railway station has enough rails for that.
And the distance between two trains on the same track is minimum 30 minutes.

Re:I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam

[angel'o'sphere]

Natural gas pipelines are under pressure. About 200 atmospheres.
A hyperloop is under negative pressure of .... one atmosphere.

A no brainer .... so: vacuum is completely irrelevant.

Re:I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam

[Build6]

(1) Oil pipelines do not have to maintain a vacuum internally. Maintaining a vacuum is non-trivial (for example, see large hadron collider).

(2) Oil pipelines are much smaller than what a hyper loop will need to be, unless part of the plan involves figuring out how to liquefy the passengers and then reassemble them later. The Alaska pipeline diameter is IIRC about 4 feet in diameter. Engineering-wise, would scaling up involve only linear increases in stresses and requirements?

(3) When an oil pipeline is breached, other than the oil that is spilled, does the oil behind the point of the breach suddenly become no longer unusable as oil? Because the concern would be that if there is a breach in the hyper loop, all the people behind the point of the breach will no longer operate as people.

(4) the existence of fines etc. is a separate issue from whether the pipeline itself is destroyed by a puncture/breach. there are parts of the world where leaks in pipes do not incur the same sort of penalty because of differing legislation. I do not see how people dying from a breach in the hyper loop can be legislated away similarly.

(5) are handguns the only thing that a hyper loop needs to be defended against? if an airport is sufficiently well secured, aircraft designers do not need to worry about people driving oil/fertilizer trucks into the pipes or the support (or for that matter handguns). there may need to be changes to the security zone around an airport to deal with man-portable missiles if they become more common in the future, but well before a plane reaches cruising altitude, it is basically safe from all external non-military threats. a hyper loop will essentially be vulnerable, and need security, for its entire route.

Re:I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam

[91degrees]

A train every 3 minutes is the proposal for the UK's HS2.

I have no idea why you'd need 30 minute spacing. Which railways lines have that requirement? That would only be needed if the stopping distance was 100-200km.

Re:I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam

[Rei]

I’m talking about air locks retard. They will take 10 minutes each to get down to base pressure.

I literally just explained why that's A) not true, and B) would be irrelevant even if it were true, since you can have as many airlocks as you want in parallel.

And your retarded idea of using multiple tanks already under vacuum won’t work because you need to replenish the vacuum in them

Obviously. But only to a relative pressure level. For example, if you had 1m of free space around the capsule, and your tanks were each 100m, and you scaled down by an order of magnitude in pressure with each tank (e.g. 3 tanks), the pressure in each tank would only rise by ~10%. So the pressure inside the tanks remains relatively constant, which is important for pumping efficiency. Even better than giant tanks is smaller, more numerous tanks, so the pressure difference between stages is less.

negating any advantage you would have pumping the airlock directly.

It's not about getting a mechanical advantage (it's a small mechanical disadvantage); it's about speed of emptying a capsule airlock. You can equalize with a tank virtually instantly - fractions of a second if you want. The tanks, on the other hand, can (proportionally slowly) be pumped back out. Airlocks equalize as fast as you want. Tanks only need to be pumped at a rate matching the average rate of launches. And you can - to a lesser extent - do things in reverse for arriving capsules, to help empty the tanks (although they have to be paired with a tank one pressure level higher than they are). In a perfect world, with an infinite number of tanks, there would be no airlock pumping losses at all. Obviously you can't reach that, but you can approach it.

Regardless, it's a silly point because we're talking only small amounts of air around the capsule. Evacuating a couple cubic meters per minute to 1/1000th atm is a very minor task. The airlock will obviously be designed to match the contours of the capsule. Wouldn't be surprised if they could get it down to a tenth of a cubic meter or so. Depends on the low-speed wheel design, how well they can match the capsule shapes. If they could handle it in a wheels-up config they may be able to get it another order of magnitude lower. But surely not worth the effort, since we're just not talking about that big of a pumping task.

Re:I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam

[Rei]

Maintaining a vacuum is non-trivial (for example, see large hadron collider).

Yeah, what's 10 orders of magnitude difference in the degree of vacuum? ;)

The pumps used to move oil are a lot larger and higher power than the pumps you'd need to maintain 0,001 ATM, I guarantee you.

Oil pipelines are much smaller than what a hyper loop will need to be

On average, yes. But their net weights with the oil are much greater.

3) Your premise is false (see #4)

4) Your premise is false (a "puncture" does not destroy a vacuum line; industry uses vacuum lines all the time. This isn't a cartoon where a pinprick pops inch-thick steel like a balloon. Because they're designed by actual engineers to avoid this).

5) You're talking about an amount of effort vastly disproportionate to the potential damage / casualities. There are much softer targets.

Re:I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam

[Rei]

Ah, yes, because when I want engineering analysis, I always turn to a biochemist.

Re:I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam

[91degrees]

I wish I had the faintest idea what you were talking about. Where are these airlocks? Why do they need to be depressurised? Why do we suddenly have so much air that is will make a substantial difference to the pressure in the rest of the tube?

You come across as not really knowing what you're talking about.

Re:I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam

[angel'o'sphere]

I believe TGVs as well as the German ICEs try to have the trains in 30 minutes gaps. The point is potential delays in communications. E.g. if a train has to stop, and it takes more than 10 minutes to inform the next train or signaling centers, there might be trouble.
The rails are actually split into sections, that don't allow a second train into the section as long as the previous one is still inside. But nevertheless there is a time gap. I googled a bit but don't find a reliable info.

Re:I wonder if it's some kind of investment scam

[91degrees]

Ah right... I see the problem now.

Because youâ(TM)re a retard.

I know you are, but what am I? This seems to be the level of discourse you're at.

They are at the ends.

The "End door airlock system" requires no pumping.

Because you need to open the vacuum chamber to allow passengers to enter and exit the pod. If you don't depressurize the airlock before opening the valve between the airlock chamber and the main tube, you will get a sudden shock of super sonic air that will damage expensive stuff like vacuum pumps and gauges.

No you don't. The pods are at the same pressure as the outside. The tube is at the same pressure as the rest of the tube. The fact that you have a specific idea of how you think this should work, which you aren't bothering to explain - possibly because it allows you to convince yourself you're smarter than other people rather than a bad communicator - doesn't mean this is how they're going to to it.

Re:It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

What you want is Loop, not Hyperloop. Loop is PRT... think "underground SkyTran", with both people and vehicle capsules. Hyperloop only makes sense for between cities with a significant spacing between them.

Boring Company is pursuing both, but Loop is first on their schedule.

Unfortunately, not in San Jose ;)

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

That's the main reason that Hyperloop Alpha avoided maglev - traditional maglev is crazy expensive. InducTrac is cheaper, but still pricey.

Hard vacuums also require really expensive pumping hardware and a lot of power to achieve and maintain, so it's no surprise that they wanted to avoid those too.

Happy cash burning!

[Anonymous Coward]

This nonsense is neither feasible nor safe. It's amazing how often some people ignore basic physics.

Re:Happy cash burning!

[Opportunist]

But these things are possible...

Economics are always question number one

[sjbe]

I don't think hyper loops are real-world feasible. Even if the technology works, any aggrieved destructive fool - and these exist everywhere in the world, China included - can put the entire system at risk in a way that aircraft are not threatened by.

You could say the same thing about trains but your point is a fair one. That's probably not the major obstacle in my opinion. The major obstacle is probably just economics. It's a technically complicated (thus expensive) system and it's not at all clear that it can be made and operated for a cost competitive with alternative means of transportation. I think it's an interesting idea but I just have a hard time imagining it being an economically practical one even if the technology is feasible.

Interestingly hyperloop might make a lot more sense on Mars which is where Elon's ambitions lie anyway. Not much atmosphere to get in the way so the pumping costs are lower plus you would actually want protection from dust and other features. Flying isn't really an option and traditional trains probably would be problematic. So while it might not make sense here on Earth in the face of economically proven competitors, it might actually make sense elsewhere in the solar system if/when we ever get there.

Re:Economics are always question number one

[110010001000]

Yes. It would definitely make more sense to build a Hyperloop on Mars rather than on Earth.

Re:Economics are always question number one

[parkinglot777]

Interestingly hyperloop might make a lot more sense on Mars which is where Elon's ambitions lie anyway. Not much atmosphere to get in the way so the pumping costs are lower plus you would actually want protection from dust and other features. Flying isn't really an option and traditional trains probably would be problematic. So while it might not make sense here on Earth in the face of economically proven competitors, it might actually make sense elsewhere in the solar system if/when we ever get there.

And the problem is how could we transfer or find materials to build one in Mars, let alone find a practical way to build a colony there? I guess in theory, it makes sense. In practice, there are many other issues involved (aside the technology) that would make things impossible...

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

"Hard vacuum and soft vacuum are terms that are defined with a dividing line defined differently by different sources, such as 1 Torr,[42][43] or 0.1 Torr,[44] the common denominator being that a hard vacuum is a higher vacuum than a soft one."

Re, Germany: Or, we can actually describe the real situation: Germany tried to help its local brands vs. Tesla by setting a limit on their EV subsidy at just below the price of a Model X. Tesla modified the Model X pricing structure in Germany so that a number of standard features (which most everyone would want) became optional, lowering the base price, but could be added back on via an option. Germany, responding to claims that the company wasn't actually selling the base version, dropped Tesla from their list of approved vehicles. Tesla counterclaimed that they do in fact sell the base version, and have more to the point delivered some; that it's just not very popular. Germany booted Tesla nonetheless. Tesla is paying for the subsidies for buyers that are being denied them, while it files an appeal with German regulators.

Re, cobalt: First, Tesla uses far less cobalt per kWh than its competitors. Its cathodes in its current 2170 cells (Model 3, powerpacks, etc) are less than 3% cobalt, while most manufacturers are struggling to achieve 10% in their next gen cells. Beyond that, though, this is an issue that was entirely initiated by Panasonic (a supplier of 18650 cells to Tesla, the type used in the Model S and Model X). Panasonic, discovering that the supplies of Sherrit International (a Canadian company) contained some intermingled Cuban cobalt, contacted the US Treasury Department for advice. Based on the feedback they received, they dropped Sherritt as a supplier.

Amazing the things you make a "scandal" out of. The latter one in particular: it's ridiculous that a Japanese company, making cells in Japan, because one minor component it uses is purchased from a Canadian company, and some small fraction of their cobalt comes from Cuba, from mines not associated with human rights problems, they have to stop all purchases of cobalt from said Canadian company, because the US has a half-century-old spat with Cuba.

Re:It's a trick. Get an axe.

[110010001000]

Yeah you definitely want Loop. It makes a lot of sense. Pretty soon Elon is going to offer rides in one for a $1. I'll be first in line.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[AmiMoJo]

The bigger issue for Tesla now is that the base Model 3 at $35k actually looks kinda bad value now. Hyundai are already getting the Kona into customer's hands, with a similar or better spec and 25% bigger battery for less money.

They were always going to meet other manufacturers in the middle, but now a few have beaten them to the first long range affordable EVs. Kia and Nissan will both have cars in that spec/price bracket this year.

Re:It's a trick. Get an axe.

[squiggleslash]

There's a sweet spot for funding from "risk happy US capitalists" that seems to be in the $1M-50M range. Anything below is considered peanuts, anything above would interfere with the average VC's ability to be funding eleventeen projects at once.

The Hyperloop is a dumb, idiotic, bad faith, project that'll set back environmental progress by decades. Nonetheless, that's not what's stopping risk happy capitalists from investing in it. What's stopping them is that this is a project that'll require tens of billions of dollars to be thrown at it. They can invest in a hundred Juicero start ups for that kind of cash.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

Also, unicorns are real. I mean, while we're discussing fictions.

I'm not sure whether it's hilarious or sad that despite the $35k Model 3 (SR, non-PUP) being all over Tesla's website, Tesla repeatedly stating that no plans with it have changed, and that it remains on schedule for around the end of this year... the fact that the page for confirming orders doesn't mention it means that they're lying and the SR battery is secretly cancelled! You know what you also can't order there? Non-PUP, air suspension, a trailer hitch, cream interior for non-performance, and a trunk full of live bees. Because none of those things are currently available as options. It's an order page, for crying out loud.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

What about the Kona is a good value? It's the same size as a Leaf or a Bolt, only a marginally larger battery (and no better streamlining) than the Bolt or Leaf (aka, no Supercharging), no access to any better charging network than the Bolt, and is built around an ICE econobox that has a MSRP of $19500 - but for the electric version they want you to pay £24995 for one that has a battery only marginally larger than a Leaf's and does 0-100 kph in 9,7 seconds (not a typo), or £33995 if you want the slightly-larger-than-Bolt-sized battery and a 7,6 second 0-100. And even things like nav are an added option on the base version.

The WLTP ranges are 186 and 292 miles, respectively, which correspond to an EPA range (using the Leaf's 177:151 WLTP:EPA ratio) of 159 and 249mi, respectively. Charge times are 54 minutes to 80% from a CCS 100kW, and should be around 1 hour 20 minutes to 80% from the much more common 50kW CCS chargers. The former - that's the highest power charger they can take, a type that's not all that common, paired with the largest battery - corresponds to about 220mph charge rate. Model 3 hits nearly 500mph at low SoCs (most commonly up to ~50% on the LR), on a charge network that's almost everywhere, well spaced and well maintained.

Also, Hyundai has been famous for the Ioniq having only limited availability. I expect the same thing from the Kona. I see no evidence that Hyundai is putting in the resources to produce it in significant volumes.

Lastly: have you seen how they did the battery pack on this thing? My god, if you ever see road debris, swerve.

On the upside, Hyundai's battery tech is leaps and bounds beyond Leaf's, and more comparable to Bolt's. There should be no #Rapidgate here.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

Proving my point. 1/1000 atmosphere is vacuum retard

"Hard vacuum" and "soft vacuum" are relative terms to each other - hard vacuum meaning "lower pressure than a soft vacuum", without any universally agreed-on dividing line. Versions of evacuated-tube transport that lack compressors need to operate at much lower pressures than versions that have compressors; likewise, systems relying on air bearings must operate at much higher pressures than those without them. The former is about one thousandth of an atmosphere, while the latter is closer to one millionth, give or take an order of magnitude or two in either direction.

Takes the same pumps to get there as 1/10000.

Not even remotely.

The BMW i8 is excluded from Germany’s rebate too so that blows a hole wide open in your retarded conspiracy theory.

BMW i8 was A) never going to come close to falling under the line, and B) introduced two years after the rebate (2015 vs. 2013).

Buying any amount of cobal from Cuba is illegal and musk should be executed as a traitor.

Here, have my shovel and keep digging your hole into Ridiculousness Hill.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Anonymous Coward]

The cancelation is well documented.

Re:It's a trick. Get an axe.

[AHuxley]

Like Germany and France, the USA will have to discover that too.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

From literally the headline of the article you linked: "Tesla drops $35,000 price from Model 3 page—insists plans haven’t changed. Tesla spokesperson says the company still plans to introduce a $35,000 model."

They removed it from the configuration page, because it's a configuration you can't get right now. Also not on the config page is non-PUP, air suspension, trailer hitch, cream interior for non-performance, and a trunk full of live bees.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[AmiMoJo]

What about the Kona is a good value? It's the same size as a Leaf or a Bolt, only a marginally larger battery (and no better streamlining) than the Bolt or Leaf (aka, no Supercharging), no access to any better charging network than the Bolt, and is built around an ICE econobox that has a MSRP of $19500 - but for the electric version they want you to pay £24995 for one that has a battery only marginally larger than a Leaf's and does 0-100 kph in 9,7 seconds (not a typo), or £33995 if you want the slightly-larger-than-Bolt-sized battery and a 7,6 second 0-100. And even things like nav are an added option on the base version.

Maybe you are confusing it with something else...

The Kona is smaller than the Leaf and Niro. The battery is much larger than the current model Leaf (40kWh, around 37kWh usable) and the M3 SR (50kWh, around 47kWh usable). It's 68kWh, with 64kWh usable. So 25% larger than the M3 SR, about 45% larger than the Leaf.

Realistic range is just shy of 300 miles. Hyundai EVs seem to be very efficient - the Ioniq certainly is. I'd expect 250 at motorway speeds easily. Pack comes with a 200kkm/8yr warranty (except the US where it's """unlimited"""), compared to 160kkm/8yr for the M3.

Charging network obviously depends where you live. In parts of Europe it's better than the Tesla one, if there even is a Tesla network because they don't cover all EU countries. Charging speeds are rated for 100kW, the Ioniq has been seen doing around 80kW peak with a smaller battery so the Kona is actually very likely to be faster than the M3 SR which most people think will be around 70-80kW.

The Kona is available in fossil from, although that car has a different body and suspension among other things. Reviews from Korea suggest that the EV version is much nicer than an already decent car. Bjorn's review is due on the 25th so I guess we will be able to compare better then.

Spec wise the top of the range Kona has steering assist, HUD, Android Auto, ventilated seats, auto wipiers, auto headlights, reversing camera, one pedal driving (kinda, apparently you need an additional finger to come to a full stop), blind stop warnings etc. The equivalent M3 would have the 5k autopilot option... Do they do a ventilated seat option for it?

As I said the Kona is smaller than the Leaf and M3. About the same height as the Leaf.

Then there is the Kia Niro. Less definite information but but's Leaf size and the same battery as the Kona. Looks like the Leaf 64 will use the same battery too, but we don't have much info on it beyond some leaks about 102kW CHAdeMO testing. The Leaf 40 does 0-100kph in 7.4 seconds (tested) and a leaked memo about the 64kWh model says it will be significantly more powerful. They just released a Nismo version too.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[LynnwoodRooster]

So - not canceled, just delayed yet another 4-5 months?

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[LynnwoodRooster]

You can get a Kona, Leaf, or Bolt for $35K; you can't get a Tesla for $35K. You're comparing a non-existent vehicle with others that DO exist.

Re:It's a trick. Get an axe.

[quanminoan]

The Shanghai maglev was built by Germany. Anything reduced to the basics can be made to sound simple (i.e. a rocket is just a directed flame/combustion) but to develop the completed design, optimized for cost safety etc with a full set of engineering drawings, control circuits, etc. is very valuable.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

No change since the last investor call.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

You can't get an electric Kona in the US now for $35K. Or for any price. Go on, try.

And neither a Bolt, Leaf, nor Kona are in any way equivalent to a Model 3.

Re:It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Opportunist]

The problem with the concept is not maglev. It's the vacuum.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

The Kona is smaller than the Leaf and Niro. The battery is much larger than the current model Leaf (40kWh, around 37kWh usable) and the M3 SR (50kWh, around 47kWh usable). It's 68kWh, with 64kWh usable

You apparently don't realize that the Kona comes in two versions: a 39,4 kWh base version and a 64 kWh upgraded version. It's important for you to know this for when you parse news about the Kona. The base version, beyond being underequipped, is also woefully underpowered - we're talking 1980s-1990s level acceleration.

So 25% larger than the M3 SR

But higher drag, since it's built on a not-nearly-as-streamlined ICE platform. Higher drag = longer charge times from a given power charging source (and it can't charge at as high powers to begin with, and most of its available chargers are low power) and shorter range. This can be seen in its WLTP range of 292 miles. WLTP range figures are about 15% more optimistic than EPA range figures (see the Leaf for an example), which corresponds to an EPA range of around 249 miles. And indeed, Hyundai is now saying that they expect it to be rated at around 250 miles.

Remember that we're talking about the large-pack upgraded Kona here, not the base Kona.

Realistic range is just shy of 300 miles

I really hate to disappoint you, but be disappointed. You want more "real-world range" than even WLTP, which is more optimistic than EPA, which is in turn more optimistic than the real world.

Hyundai EVs seem to be very efficient - the Ioniq certainly is

Because it's a small, quite streamlined sedan. It has nothing to do with any sort of internal magic tricks. The Ioniq Hybrid - aka, gasoline powered - gets 58mpg. In Europe it's rated at 4,1L/100km, vastly superior to the Kona. Now, it's a hybrid, but nonetheless, it's a very efficient car by virtue of its size and shape. Not its drivetrain. There simply is not much room for differentiation on DC motor/li-ion drivetrains by efficiency, because they're already so efficient.

Charging network obviously depends where you live. In parts of Europe it's better than the Tesla one, if there even is a Tesla network because they don't cover all EU countries

In no place where Supercharging exists (aka west of a line from Warsaw to Sarajevo) is it "better than the Tesla one". It's a mishmash of networks (some of which require membership), mostly 50kW/~43kW in practice (vs. 120kW/117kW in practice), often poorly maintained (yes, I watch people complain about dead CCS/CHAdeMO chargers frequently on our local FB EV group, and you can go through randomly selected CCS chargers around the world on Plugshare and for about 1 in 10 the last report shows it as being down), poorly spaced (high concentrations in some areas, low in others), often only one or two at a site (arrive and it's taken or blocked? Good luck!), etc, etc, etc. You seriously can't be saying with a straight face that it's comparable.

Charging speeds are rated for 100kW, the Ioniq has been seen doing around 80kW peak with a smaller battery so the Kona is actually very likely to be faster than the M3 SR which most people think will be around 70-80kW.

Where are you getting this stuff? Hyundai literally gives a charge rate on 100kW: 54 minutes to 80%. That's 220 mph. Less than half what Model 3s are getting today. But Model 3 charge rates are currently limited by the charger for the first half of the charge, not the battery pack (which is why V3 comes out later this year). Yes, the battery pack in the SR is 2/3rds that of the LR. But since the LR doesn't saturate at 120kW until 50% SoC (curve suggests a charger-unlimited max around 200kW), t

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

I literally quoted from Wikipedia concerning the distinction. Sorry if you want to make up your own term.

People that actually work with vacuum systems call them the correct terms of rough vacuum, high vacuum and ultra high vacuum

That doesn't make the terms "hard vacuum" and "soft vacuum" disappear from the lexicon. It just makes them comparative rather than proscriptive.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

Ed:

Every kW that the charger provides takes the Model 3 12% further.

... per unit time.

what fools these are

[WindBourne]

Got to give Chinese gov credit. They are basically buying companies technology for nothing. That 1B credit for Arrivo will require that all the work be done in China. As such, they will have fully access to the tech and will be spread around the nation.
Hopefully, the boring company will not be so stupid.

The other ones that are foolish are the airplane companies that are NOT getting into this. Boeing and Airbus should be all over this. But any builder of pressurized aircraft should be working with Musk on this.

Re:It's a trick. Get an axe.

[WindBourne]

First off, you obviously have NO clue about US investors. They are the OPPOSITE of risk-happy. Right now, nearly all are targeting software and bio. Why? Lease amount of risk for high growth. If you are not in one of these 2 fields in America, it is hard to get money here.

Secondly, I have no doubt that both of these companies are required to use Chinese manufacturers. IOW, yeah, it is 100% about stealing the tech similar to what China did to the foolish Germans who took transrapid there. Those folks had great tech and the Germans put it there, trusting Chinese word, and even had guards on the tech, while the CHinese gov sent in armed soldiers to gain access to the tech.

Hopefully, elon musk will use only old tech in China.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

Read my above posts. The response to your statement is staring you in the face.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

Retards at NASA too, I guess.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[lgw]

Wait, Tesla canceled the live bees option? That damn Musk never keeps a promise!

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[lgw]

Model 3 hits nearly 500mph at low SoCs

Sometimes you do get a little but hyperbolic in your Tesla defense.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

I know, right? The whole internet was buzzing about the option. It was the bees knees.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[AmiMoJo]

You apparently don't realize that the Kona comes in two versions: a 39,4 kWh base version and a 64 kWh upgraded version. It's important for you to know this for when you parse news about the Kona. The base version, beyond being underequipped, is also woefully underpowered - we're talking 1980s-1990s level acceleration.

I was comparing with the 64 because it is closest to the M3 SR in terms of price, performance and spec.

Having said that, the 40 has a 100kW motor which is hardly "1980s" level acceleration, especially with a EV torque.

which corresponds to an EPA range of around 249 miles

So still better than the M3 SR, which Tesla stated has an EPA range of 220 miles. And don't forget it's cheaper.

In no place where Supercharging exists (aka west of a line from Warsaw to Sarajevo) is it "better than the Tesla one".

There are two superchargers in the whole of Ireland. There are about 50 CCS sites. The rest of the UK is similar. Two Tesla chargers in the whole of Wales, and sparse everywhere else. Every motorway service station has multiple CCS now.

Less than half what Model 3s are getting today.

That's the LR. The SR is expected to be a lot slower. The only data I could find was here: http://www.roperld.com/science...

Given the charge rate of the 65kW Model S that seems about right. High peak early on but rapid fall off.

Anyway, we can play top trumps or just accept that both charge pretty fast and 220 MPH is faster than my bladder so... I mean, 250 initial range + 200 from charging is an optimistic 8 hours on the road, so even if the M3 SR is a bit faster it's not going to be a deciding factor for most people I'd guess.

It's still a conversion EV, rather than a dedicated platform. That's not a good thing, as far as optimization goes.

I used to think that way but actually all EVs except for Tesla are based on some part of an ICE. Well, even Tesla use some ICE parts that they buy in. So it's more a question of how much the ICE version compromises the EV version. In this case it doesn't seem to be a major issue. The current model was designed to come in ICE, hybrid and EV versions from the start and the EV version has some significant changes to reduce weight, improve aero and make it drive better.

I used to think things like having the motor down by the wheels was going to make a huge difference... But actually, in practice and outside of high end performance it doesn't seem to make a huge difference.

Most of the things you listed on the "premium" version (auto wipers, auto headlights, reversing camera, mostly-1-pedal driving, blind spot warnings) are standard on the Model 3

Again, who cares, the Kona is still a little cheaper for the top spec compared to an M3 SR with AP. So that's the comparison, closest spec/price.

I'd take the Model 3's infotainment system any day

Why? For navigation it's not bad but not as good as Android Auto with your choice of Google Maps or Waze. In fact I read that a lot of effort has gone in to hacking Waze to work with the Tesla browser due to demand.

For all non-nav stuff it's a toss up. Both have driving stats, usable nav, radio/CD... With Tesla you have to pay for premium data now, in the Kona you just use your phone for Spotify so I don't think you can really say one is vastly better than the other. Some people like physical buttons, some people are okay with just the screen, personal preference.

The Leaf does have one feature I'll really miss if I don't get another, and that's 360 cameras.

By the way, how do you know about Bjorn's review of the Kona steering assist? It's not out until the 25th due to a Hyundai press embargo.

Kona 30cm shorter, but apart from that, essenti

Theoretical colonization

[sjbe]

And the problem is how could we transfer or find materials to build one in Mars, let alone find a practical way to build a colony there?

Quite right but that's a separate issue for the distant future. We would have to have considerable infrastructure on Mars to make building a hyperloop system worth worrying about. If we are that built up then chances are we are doing manufacturing on Mars and tapping into the raw materials available on the planet. We're certainly not going to transport the materials from Earth for something like that.

I guess in theory, it makes sense. In practice, there are many other issues involved (aside the technology) that would make things impossible...

Of course. I'm talking very broad brush theoretical stuff here. The problem is that on Earth it's a lot harder and more expensive to maintain a vacuum plus there is a lot of existing and fully paid for infrastructure to compete with. If you are starting clean slate it's a different situation but we aren't. But on a newly colonized planet we could do things differently both technically and economically. Technologies that make sense on Earth often won't be practical on Mars and vice-versa. Hyperloop seems to be one of these. Thin atmosphere, lots of particulates, temperature issues, etc seem to actually favor hyperloop or something like it in such an environment. It makes a lot more sense than it does here anyway.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

Having said that, the 40 has a 100kW motor which is hardly "1980s" level acceleration, especially with a EV torque.

A 9,7 second 0-100 for a car in that price range is very much "80s-90s level acceleration" It's embarrassing. A base Honda Accord does it in 7,5 seconds.

So still better than the M3 SR, which Tesla stated has an EPA range of 220 miles. And don't forget it's cheaper.

And takes far longer to charge, from an inferior network, so what's the point 250 vs. 220 miles range? Price difference is minimal. Standard features far less. Limited availability. Mundane looks. Far slower. Far less interesting available options. No updates. And the other laundry list of things above.

It's like the difference between a Bolt and a Model 3. Do you see people lining up for the Bolt? Kona is far more similar to Bolt, BTW.

By the way, how do you know about Bjorn's review of the Kona steering assist? It's not out until the 25th due to a Hyundai press embargo.

Not that. His review of steering assist on the Ioniq, when he was in Korea.

There are two superchargers in the whole of Ireland. There are about 50 CCS sites.

There are four supercharger sites in Ireland, although two are next to each other. There's a fifth under construction. There's 32 open stalls, and after Enfield there will be 40. Is this really the best example you could come up with? One of the least supercharger-dense places in Western Europe?

Ignoring that they're vastly higher power on average: if you get to one, you can know that it will be A) operational, B) have stalls available, because they're well monitored / maintained and there's multiple chargers at every site. What do you do when you get to a CCS charger and its broken or taken? For example, I just randomly clicked at the four sites on the main east-west route, Dublin to Galway. Each one just has a single charger. This is not an acceptable arrangement. Let's check out their reviews, shall we?

Applegreen:

Jun 15, 2018; Seemed to have an issue yesterday and another chap with a phev had to be towed away before me after using the machine

Circle-K:

Jul 15, 2018: CHademo charging station stopped charging soon after start. The station was reset during phone call to ecars support and stopped again. We had to drive to different charge station.

Jul 8, 2018: CCS side is acting up. It starts and finished after couple of seconds with "Fast Charge Error" on my Ioniq. Same thing happened few months back. Be aware.

Nissan LEAF: Keeps cutting out after 5 mins

Jun 2, 2018: Leaf 40 using chademo sucessfully, when it finished card reader no longer worked...remote charge from ESB would not work. Charger rebooter remotely, would now read card but kept getting charger error both when tried directly by me and remotely by ESB. Limped onwards to kilbeggan

This Is Not Acceptable. Ignoring the terrible charge rates these people would be getting if they actually could charge. It's simply not okay to pull up to a fast charger needing a charge and not be able to do so. That's not acceptable if you want to be taken seriously as a car.

That's the LR. The SR is expected to be a lot slower.

No. LR's charge rate is usually charger limited up to 50%-ish. Not battery limited. Meaning its actual peak is somewhere much higher, since low SoCs allow for the highest charge rate. SR can be expected to start tapering from ~117kW at a lower SoC, but the only way it would just "plateau" at a lower height is if the charger was lower power, since LR is charger limited.

The only data I could find was here: http://www.roperld.com/science... [roperld.c

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

Lol, we're talking about charge rates, not road speeds. :) Miles range added per hour spent charging. Commonly expressed when discussing with a US audience in MPH. Charge rates in the 480s when charging at low SoCs are common. Of course it drops once you start hitting taper.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

They changed the config page because they completely redesigned the config process. They didn't just go in and take out references to the SR. The whole thing is new. The new version only includes options that can be purchased right now.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[Rei]

Lol, you realize that my link gets 11 times as many hits, don't you? ;)

Not that it even matters. Even if it only got *one* that would still mean that it's a term that's in use.

Re: It's a trick. Get an axe.

[AmiMoJo]

A 9,7 second 0-100 for a car in that price range is very much "80s-90s level acceleration" It's embarrassing. A base Honda Accord does it in 7,5 seconds.

Good thing the Leaf 40 does it in 7.4 seconds then, as independently verified by reviewers.

And takes far longer to charge, from an inferior network. Price difference is minimal. Standard features far less.

But we have already established that it doesn't. Look Rei, I enjoy our little chats, but if you are going to just ignore when I'm pointing this stuff out (like the 0-100 time too) it's going to get annoying really fast. The charge time is more than adequate and hardly slow, and the network in some countries is better and in some countries worse but also adequate in most places. Standard features are irrelevant, you must compare equivalent price specifications.

No updates.

This has been pushed as a big Tesla advantage for years, but in practice it's just been abused to use owners as beta testers and release cars before they are ready. Promised features take years to arrive and then barely work at first, like the auto wipers or FSD.

Now the reality of the situation is apparent I think I'd rather have Android Auto support. Frequent updates, easy hardware upgrades, vast choice of apps, vastly superior voice control. "Free" data forever.

Not that. His review of steering assist on the Ioniq, when he was in Korea.

That was lane keeping assist, that just nudges when you start drifting over the lines. They call this "lane flow assist" and it's basically the same as AP. Camera follows the car in front or lane markings, controlling steering constantly to keep you centred in the lane.

What the Kona does lack is parking assist. Okay, I know AP also does lane changes, kinda, on a good day. On the other hand, apparently lane flow assist is certified to work on urban roads as well as highways, while Tesla say highways only. But we are getting into top trumps again, basically they both have auto-steering.

Obviously see what Bjorn says about it.

Is this really the best example you could come up with? One of the least supercharger-dense places in Western Europe?

Sorry, I'll move to another country so your argument is more valid.

Dublin to Galway

Well, it's only 230 km but okay. Topaz service station and Applegreen on the M4 all report working fine. And there may only be a limited number, but at least they are well spaced. You can always drive to the next one.

Look, it's not perfect, but for me and the journeys I do in Ireland and the UK the Tesla network isn't particularly useful. I'm sure we can both pick certain routes that suck either way, but the point is that the situation for CCS charging in Europe isn't that bad. Especially in countries like German, Norway, the Netherlands, France... YMMV as they say, but I wouldn't be worried to drive pretty much anywhere in Europe with a 64kWh CCS car now.

Your bladder makes you spend a third of your road trip in the bathroom?

I'm not as young as I used to be, but, um... no? Two hours of driving, averaging 60 MPH (fairly typical on European roads, given works, traffic, junctions, tolls etc.) is 120 miles. For optimum charging efficiency you would do a 20 minute charge after that, which is time for a drink and bathroom break, and also long enough to recover 120 miles range from a 100kW+ charger. Extend to 30-35 minutes for a 50kW charger.

Of course after four hours you will probably want to eat anyway, so 20 minutes won't be enough anyway. And the Kona has at least 30 miles more range to start with. So really it's a toss up, depends where you live and where you travel, luck etc.

Of course, a potential owner would probably consider other issues. Hyundai has better dealer and service networks than Tesla, for example. Longer warranty. When

Re:It's a trick. Get an axe.

[nukenerd]

FTFA :

They will be extremely expensive to build," reports Bloomberg

So we have it admitted at last. Previously it has always been claimed that they only cost pocket money.