They also had a target that looked to be something like foam and plywood (while refusing to disclose their testing methodology, and doing it in front of the press), with no evidence of radar reflectors. The most critical component of an AEB system is how well it distinguishes real targets from fake ones and avoids false positives. In short, if you're going to slam on your brakes in high speed in traffic because you think there's a car stopped ahead of you, there better actually be a car there. The main characteristic for identifying a car isn't "does it have a picture of a car on it", but "does it match the radar signature of a car". A single aluminum can tab would have more radar signature than that target if they didn't include radar reflectors.
Foam, cloth, plywood (flat-side on), fibreglass, etc are largely invisible on radar. Thick and/or dense objects are generally reflective. Metals are highly reflective. Humans, other animals, etc look like ghostly forms.
Now, algorithms can differ on how to handle things when there's "incongruous" data, such "it looks like a car, but there's no radar signature". It depends on whether you're more willing to risk a false positive or a false negative. Is someone driving some weird metal-free car? Is your radar broken? Or is your image recognition algorithm just exhibiting pareidolia?
(It's worth pointing out that Tesla has repeatedly passed AEB tests in the US from testers with public methodologies and targets designed to mimic - including on radar - a real car)
Again (feeding the troll): a HVAC permit has already been granted for GA4. We'll have to wait for the next drone footage, but by now it may already be installed.
Sprung structures are very frequently climate controlled. There are Sprung structures in the high arctic.
[1] The diver died before the caves were pumped out. [2] The obvious reference to "no gear" is "how the boys got in": with no gear. Again: the caves were pumped out. Water only remained in small places. [3] If you want to (rightfully) demand that Musk provide evidence to the pedo claim (beyond the profile of "63 year old white western male moved to Thailand"), if someone wants to go on TV and tell Musk to shove his submarine up his arse because it's not workable, then he too should be able to provide at least some evidence of some kind for his claims. [4] The same people were not setting up and operating the pumps as were diving.
Musk was asked to make the submarine by one of the dive co-leads, Rick Stanton. He made it to Stanton's specs, in consultation with other cave divers. And then disavowed credit when people were thanking him, saying "we haven't done anything useful yet". He had every reason in the world to be mad at all of the hate he was getting for donating his time and money, on request, to try to help save trapped children, on request from rescuers. Does that excuse name calling? No. Even though the other person started it? No. But trying to erase the context here is just ridiculous.
Here we are, seven months later, and Tesla's financial performance deteriorates at an alarming rate.
That's the inverse of what their quarterly reports show (rising margins, both GAAP and non-GAAP; non-rising SG R&D steadily being dwarfed by revenue; rapid growth in production rates; etc.
I know you're trolling, but Sprung buildings are actually rather cool. And I rather do hope they deploy more. Rapid, low cost deployability of high strength, insulated, standardized durable structures - what's not to like about that?
My favourite part (although other teardowns had already discovered this) was the battery pack. The more capable you want to make your BMS, the more individual cell connections and wires you need, the more the per-cell circuitry, etc. Every connection, every wire, every circuit, etc adds expense, so there's a strong incentive to have as few connections as possible. Tesla gets around this by having the battery pack be basically two gigantic, two meter long PCBs. The cells are like capacitors on a huge motherboard. They can route power wherever they want, whenever they want, and do whatever they want to it. Cell balancing is essentially always perfect, to within the degree of measurement error.
Summing up all of his videos: Munro had some issues with the build quality of the first car he tore down (one of the first off the line), and tore into Tesla over that (making him popular among shorts... making his statement now about eating crow all the more amusing). He tore down more Model 3s later, and noted that the build quality improved over time. Even early on, though, even before he started getting into the electronics, he said the performance and handling was incredible. He stated in particular that whoever designed the suspension could be a Formula 1 prince.
I'll just go ahead and provide the answer, since it is incineration.
Your complaint about having a sub-100% recovery rate vs. a 0% recovery rate on supercapacitors is what, exactly?
Maybe someday we'll have recyclable EV batteries, but right now we just have recyclable battery cases and electrodes.
Wow, they only recycle parts that comprise the majority of the mass and represent the rarest, most valuable, most energy-intensive components of the cells. How horrific!
Compare this to traditional flooded-cell automotive batteries, where literally every part of the battery is recycled
Wrong. While some plants recycle all or part of the plastic, in most, the plastic components are landfilled. The smelting dust / slag is also landfilled. As the slag contains a lot of lead contamination, this sends a lot of lead contamination into landfills. The slag comes from recycling the battery paste, which requires sodium carbonate and iron, and creates sodium sulfate, iron oxide and CO2 as waste products. There's generally also significant SO2 emissions (scrubbers usually remove part of them, but in China rates of scrubbing are highly variable). As for the acid, in some plants it's sent off for purification and recovery, but it's more commonly simply neutralized, which consumes caustic and creates lead-contaminated sulfate salts. These are then theoretically sent to strip the lead out, but in the 3rd world this step is often either poorly done or not done at all. Some plants sell these salts onward (such as for detergent manufacture), but because of stringent lead requirements from buyers, the salts are most commonly dumped into sewage.
the most aggressively recycled consumer product on the planet
I want you to stop and think again about the oft-cited 99% lead recovery rate from lead-acid battery recycling. Ignoring places that perform illegal, dangerous recycling... think of what having 1% of the lead in all of the world's lead-acid batteries going into landfills, air, sewage, and other products means. Given how quickly every of the world's ICE vehicles goes through a lead-acid battery.
Doubtful for a few reasons. First, EVs still don't charge in 5 minutes, and so long as batteries are the tech, they aren't likely to.
There are li-ions that charge that fast. They're not usually used because of price and because their energy densities are lower,but they exist. It's irrelevant, though, since you need breaks during road trips anyway.
You've BTW normalized the inconvenience of having to keep randomly detouring to buy gas in your everyday life.
While you can plug in at night if you own your home, that's not likely to be the case for people in apartments and other renters.
Ignoring roadside, storefront, and workplace charging, the higher the rate of EV penetration, the more pressure is to change building codes to mandate chargers.
Second, EVs aren't clean.
Contradicted by almost every peer-reviewed cradle to grave study thusfar. Go to scholar.google.com and type in electric vehicle lifecycle analysis.
According to a recent study
According to nonsense. You refer to the widely ridiculed, non-peer-reviewed Swedish "study" that contradicts virtually all other research on the topic, and makes a number of glaring mistakes and pulls numbers out its arse.
The first is a supercapacitor-based car
Sure, the solution is to go to something that has 1-2 orders of magnitude less energy density and 2 orders of magnitude more price. Right.
They tend to use recyclable metals
Not really. They're mainly carbon compounds. At end of life you can incinerate them, but not recycle them. If you want something that you can recycle, you want batteries. All major EV manufacturers have recycling programmes for their battery packs.
They do have half the storage capacity of Li-Ion,
If by "half" you mean "1-2 orders of magnitude less", sure. But I prefer not to redefine words to mean radically different things than they actually mean.
Given that superchargers today only fill the battery half way in 30 minutes
Model 3 is 2/3rds in 30 minutes. Halfway in 20 minutes.
give that they can also charge at whatever rate you can throw electricity at them, it's actually feasible to have a 5-minute fill up
Tesla charge rates are limited by supercharger power, not their battery rates, up to around 50% SoC.
but every stop after that you're an additional 25 minutes ahead.
If by "every stop" you mean "every 10 kilometers", sure.
It was never 2017. SR was planned for early 2018. It'll instead be the start of 2019.
If you want to look further back, the whole Model 3 schedule was pushed forward significantly. The first plan was to simply start production at all by the end of 2017. With much lower peak volumes.
And even with the delays, some things - like Canadian deliveries - were pushed forwards.
Indeed. Although NUMMI was purchased in a "stripped" state; there wasn't much left there. That said, it's not like most existing ICE lines would have been that useful to them.
Given that the power needed to run a refrigeration system is tiny compared to the power needed to haul the goods down the road, that's a meaningless argument. And furthermore, if you had taken the time to google "electric refrigerated truck", you'd find out that they already exist.
Neither. Growing revenue times gross margins. SG&A and R&D have been remaining flat as Model 3 production as grown, and will continue to do so. See above for more detail about SG&A.
the fabled "gross margin" doesn't include the SG&A costs which are needed to support those sales
The fabled SG&A which has been remaining flat as Model 3 sales have grown exponentially? The fabled SG&A which used to include Supercharger operating costs as a loss leader, which now increasingly pays for itself and its own expansion? The fabled SG&A of which large amounts of its costs must be paid in advance of the company starting to get the revenue from the operations it supports? The fabled SG&A which includes numerous other highly nonlinear expenses? The fabled SG&A which will be slashed in Q3 (albeit slightly hit in Q2) by the recent layoffs?
PHEVs also do "having to compromise both the ICE and the EV components because you need to fit both of them in the car" aspect very well. They're good at the still-needing-oil-changes and having components like a transmission and belts to break, but they're also good at the having miniscule range and generally well worse performance than a good EV" aspect too. They excel at the no frunk / crash absorption space up front aspect, as well as the "needing a larger, air-breathing front end which interferes with aerodynamics" aspect. And they have that "need to kick the rumbling engine on after several dozen kilometers, reminding you of why you actually wanted an EV in the first place" aspect. Assuming they're not like the Prius Prime which may decide to kick it on well before you run out of HV power.
Don't get me wrong, they're fine as training wheels for EVs.
10:43: 18 miles remaining 11:13: 217 miles remaining. 199 miles in half an hour. You were saying? That's hardly even the fastest Model 3 charging experience. Model 3 tops out at a nearly 500mph charge rate.
2013 P85 is an old car, of a different, less efficient model, driven back at a time four years when Superchargers were spaced further apart, and a larger percentage of them were lower power. You're comparing apples with oranges.
There's no way any Tesla will even go near 336 miles range of a BMW 340
Take it up with the EPA drivecycle test designers.
A Tesla Model S P100 can only muster 170 miles real world range.
If you're driving >200 kph on the Autobahn all the time, sure. Don't expect a gasoline car to go as far on the Autobahn, either.
You're right that Model 3 didn't go 310 miles when Consumer Reports tested it. It went 350 miles.
Lastly: 100 kWh is not 50% larger than 75 kWh. And Model S is a much less efficient vehicle; it needs a much larger battery to go the same distance.
Model S and X can also do laps, just at reduced power after several minutes. Model 3 never throttles down. Primary power comes from a permanent magnet switched reluctance motor, not an induction motor; there's no rotor heat limitations.
Model 3's handling has been almost universally praised by reviewers, but don't bother your head about that.
Your "shit cars" have the highest consumer satisfaction rating in the industry.
Slashdot Mirror
They also had a target that looked to be something like foam and plywood (while refusing to disclose their testing methodology, and doing it in front of the press), with no evidence of radar reflectors. The most critical component of an AEB system is how well it distinguishes real targets from fake ones and avoids false positives. In short, if you're going to slam on your brakes in high speed in traffic because you think there's a car stopped ahead of you, there better actually be a car there. The main characteristic for identifying a car isn't "does it have a picture of a car on it", but "does it match the radar signature of a car". A single aluminum can tab would have more radar signature than that target if they didn't include radar reflectors.
Foam, cloth, plywood (flat-side on), fibreglass, etc are largely invisible on radar. Thick and/or dense objects are generally reflective. Metals are highly reflective. Humans, other animals, etc look like ghostly forms.
Now, algorithms can differ on how to handle things when there's "incongruous" data, such "it looks like a car, but there's no radar signature". It depends on whether you're more willing to risk a false positive or a false negative. Is someone driving some weird metal-free car? Is your radar broken? Or is your image recognition algorithm just exhibiting pareidolia?
(It's worth pointing out that Tesla has repeatedly passed AEB tests in the US from testers with public methodologies and targets designed to mimic - including on radar - a real car)
And that's something Musk is learning the hard way.
Are you people really so daft that you can't spot a troll from a mile away?
If you plan to feed a troll, you should at least acknowledge that you realize you're feeding a troll.
Again (feeding the troll): a HVAC permit has already been granted for GA4. We'll have to wait for the next drone footage, but by now it may already be installed.
Sprung structures are very frequently climate controlled. There are Sprung structures in the high arctic.
I honestly don't get why you troll like this. Do you think you're funny or something? Because it comes across like a teenager.
It was the diver (Vern Unsworth) who suggested using it as such.
[1] The diver died before the caves were pumped out.
[2] The obvious reference to "no gear" is "how the boys got in": with no gear. Again: the caves were pumped out. Water only remained in small places.
[3] If you want to (rightfully) demand that Musk provide evidence to the pedo claim (beyond the profile of "63 year old white western male moved to Thailand"), if someone wants to go on TV and tell Musk to shove his submarine up his arse because it's not workable, then he too should be able to provide at least some evidence of some kind for his claims.
[4] The same people were not setting up and operating the pumps as were diving.
Musk was asked to make the submarine by one of the dive co-leads, Rick Stanton. He made it to Stanton's specs, in consultation with other cave divers. And then disavowed credit when people were thanking him, saying "we haven't done anything useful yet". He had every reason in the world to be mad at all of the hate he was getting for donating his time and money, on request, to try to help save trapped children, on request from rescuers. Does that excuse name calling? No. Even though the other person started it? No. But trying to erase the context here is just ridiculous.
That's the inverse of what their quarterly reports show (rising margins, both GAAP and non-GAAP; non-rising SG R&D steadily being dwarfed by revenue; rapid growth in production rates; etc.
I know you're trolling, but Sprung buildings are actually rather cool. And I rather do hope they deploy more. Rapid, low cost deployability of high strength, insulated, standardized durable structures - what's not to like about that?
They plan to - after Model Y. They'll probably target starting deliveries in 3 1/2 years, and hit it in 4.
You do sedan -> CUV/SUV -> truck because the former requires the least amount of batteries for a given amount of range.
That's not what he said at all.
My favourite part (although other teardowns had already discovered this) was the battery pack. The more capable you want to make your BMS, the more individual cell connections and wires you need, the more the per-cell circuitry, etc. Every connection, every wire, every circuit, etc adds expense, so there's a strong incentive to have as few connections as possible. Tesla gets around this by having the battery pack be basically two gigantic, two meter long PCBs. The cells are like capacitors on a huge motherboard. They can route power wherever they want, whenever they want, and do whatever they want to it. Cell balancing is essentially always perfect, to within the degree of measurement error.
Summing up all of his videos: Munro had some issues with the build quality of the first car he tore down (one of the first off the line), and tore into Tesla over that (making him popular among shorts... making his statement now about eating crow all the more amusing). He tore down more Model 3s later, and noted that the build quality improved over time. Even early on, though, even before he started getting into the electronics, he said the performance and handling was incredible. He stated in particular that whoever designed the suspension could be a Formula 1 prince.
It's okay, he didn't tell Musk to shove a submarine up his arse.
Your complaint about having a sub-100% recovery rate vs. a 0% recovery rate on supercapacitors is what, exactly?
Wow, they only recycle parts that comprise the majority of the mass and represent the rarest, most valuable, most energy-intensive components of the cells. How horrific!
Wrong. While some plants recycle all or part of the plastic, in most, the plastic components are landfilled. The smelting dust / slag is also landfilled. As the slag contains a lot of lead contamination, this sends a lot of lead contamination into landfills. The slag comes from recycling the battery paste, which requires sodium carbonate and iron, and creates sodium sulfate, iron oxide and CO2 as waste products. There's generally also significant SO2 emissions (scrubbers usually remove part of them, but in China rates of scrubbing are highly variable). As for the acid, in some plants it's sent off for purification and recovery, but it's more commonly simply neutralized, which consumes caustic and creates lead-contaminated sulfate salts. These are then theoretically sent to strip the lead out, but in the 3rd world this step is often either poorly done or not done at all. Some plants sell these salts onward (such as for detergent manufacture), but because of stringent lead requirements from buyers, the salts are most commonly dumped into sewage.
In China, at least, 30-40% of lead-acid batteries are recycled illegally in an environmentally destructive manner.
I want you to stop and think again about the oft-cited 99% lead recovery rate from lead-acid battery recycling. Ignoring places that perform illegal, dangerous recycling... think of what having 1% of the lead in all of the world's lead-acid batteries going into landfills, air, sewage, and other products means. Given how quickly every of the world's ICE vehicles goes through a lead-acid battery.
There are li-ions that charge that fast. They're not usually used because of price and because their energy densities are lower,but they exist. It's irrelevant, though, since you need breaks during road trips anyway.
You've BTW normalized the inconvenience of having to keep randomly detouring to buy gas in your everyday life.
Ignoring roadside, storefront, and workplace charging, the higher the rate of EV penetration, the more pressure is to change building codes to mandate chargers.
Contradicted by almost every peer-reviewed cradle to grave study thusfar. Go to scholar.google.com and type in electric vehicle lifecycle analysis.
According to nonsense. You refer to the widely ridiculed, non-peer-reviewed Swedish "study" that contradicts virtually all other research on the topic, and makes a number of glaring mistakes and pulls numbers out its arse.
Sure, the solution is to go to something that has 1-2 orders of magnitude less energy density and 2 orders of magnitude more price. Right.
Not really. They're mainly carbon compounds. At end of life you can incinerate them, but not recycle them. If you want something that you can recycle, you want batteries. All major EV manufacturers have recycling programmes for their battery packs.
If by "half" you mean "1-2 orders of magnitude less", sure. But I prefer not to redefine words to mean radically different things than they actually mean.
Model 3 is 2/3rds in 30 minutes. Halfway in 20 minutes.
Tesla charge rates are limited by supercharger power, not their battery rates, up to around 50% SoC.
If by "every stop" you mean "every 10 kilometers", sure.
Seriously? You look at other EVs, like a Bolt, a Leaf, etc, then look at a Model 3 and think "that looks like a steaming turd"?
I'm... baffled. To say the least.
It was never 2017. SR was planned for early 2018. It'll instead be the start of 2019.
If you want to look further back, the whole Model 3 schedule was pushed forward significantly. The first plan was to simply start production at all by the end of 2017. With much lower peak volumes.
And even with the delays, some things - like Canadian deliveries - were pushed forwards.
Oil is fungible. It doesn't matter who buys a specific barrel of oil.
Indeed. Although NUMMI was purchased in a "stripped" state; there wasn't much left there. That said, it's not like most existing ICE lines would have been that useful to them.
Given that the power needed to run a refrigeration system is tiny compared to the power needed to haul the goods down the road, that's a meaningless argument. And furthermore, if you had taken the time to google "electric refrigerated truck", you'd find out that they already exist.
Neither. Growing revenue times gross margins. SG&A and R&D have been remaining flat as Model 3 production as grown, and will continue to do so. See above for more detail about SG&A.
The fabled SG&A which has been remaining flat as Model 3 sales have grown exponentially?
The fabled SG&A which used to include Supercharger operating costs as a loss leader, which now increasingly pays for itself and its own expansion?
The fabled SG&A of which large amounts of its costs must be paid in advance of the company starting to get the revenue from the operations it supports?
The fabled SG&A which includes numerous other highly nonlinear expenses?
The fabled SG&A which will be slashed in Q3 (albeit slightly hit in Q2) by the recent layoffs?
Yeah, do go on about SG&A. In detail.
PHEVs also do "having to compromise both the ICE and the EV components because you need to fit both of them in the car" aspect very well. They're good at the still-needing-oil-changes and having components like a transmission and belts to break, but they're also good at the having miniscule range and generally well worse performance than a good EV" aspect too. They excel at the no frunk / crash absorption space up front aspect, as well as the "needing a larger, air-breathing front end which interferes with aerodynamics" aspect. And they have that "need to kick the rumbling engine on after several dozen kilometers, reminding you of why you actually wanted an EV in the first place" aspect. Assuming they're not like the Prius Prime which may decide to kick it on well before you run out of HV power.
Don't get me wrong, they're fine as training wheels for EVs.
10:43: 18 miles remaining 11:13: 217 miles remaining. 199 miles in half an hour. You were saying? That's hardly even the fastest Model 3 charging experience. Model 3 tops out at a nearly 500mph charge rate.
2013 P85 is an old car, of a different, less efficient model, driven back at a time four years when Superchargers were spaced further apart, and a larger percentage of them were lower power. You're comparing apples with oranges.
There's no way any Tesla will even go near 336 miles range of a BMW 340
Take it up with the EPA drivecycle test designers.
If you're driving >200 kph on the Autobahn all the time, sure. Don't expect a gasoline car to go as far on the Autobahn, either.
You're right that Model 3 didn't go 310 miles when Consumer Reports tested it. It went 350 miles.
Lastly: 100 kWh is not 50% larger than 75 kWh. And Model S is a much less efficient vehicle; it needs a much larger battery to go the same distance.
Model S and X can also do laps, just at reduced power after several minutes. Model 3 never throttles down. Primary power comes from a permanent magnet switched reluctance motor, not an induction motor; there's no rotor heat limitations.
Model 3's handling has been almost universally praised by reviewers, but don't bother your head about that.
Your "shit cars" have the highest consumer satisfaction rating in the industry.