And I'm telling you, the summary is wrong. I hang out on the Model 3 Owners Club and Tesla Motors Club daily and have seen all of the videos from all of the owners. There is a rain sensor for the wipers. It may be inactive at this point in time due to the software not being mature, but it exists.
People need to be cautioned that, although Tesla would never publicly admit it, everyone knows that the early adopters are driving a beta. Everyone including the owners themselves (who jumped at the opportunity to do so). There's a number of features in the software stack that are clearly lacking / need refinement.
Actually, you can play music from USB. Tunein appears to work here. And it's not accurate to say that it doesn't have "AM/FM hardware", only that it's not on the GUI at present.
Be careful about taking statements from someone who just got their car about what it can and can't do.
That said, you're right that these early adopters are basically taking part in a beta. The software stack still has features that aren't available yet. Then again, after listening to them, they couldn't be more thrilled to be taking part in a beta.
Every radio needs two knobs and, at least, a row of physical buttons along the bottom of the touch screen so I can use the thing without looking at it.
Why do the knobs need to be - or why *should they be* - on a centre console? Why is that superior to being on the wheel, as they are in the Model 3? Why should you have to take your hands off the wheel to adjust things?
As mentioned above: if it works like the AP1 cars (and like the AP2s are expected to), that "slow" and "fast" aren't actual wiper speeds, they're how fast the wipers go relative to the amount of rain sensed.
Speak for yourself. Comes with more standard features and better performance than a comparable BMW 3-Series, at a lower price without taking into account energy cost and maintenance savings or tax credits. Now, if you're in the market for an econobox, this is not for you. Econoboxes don't come with 12 cameras, 8 ultrasonic sensors, radar, a 15" touchscreen, massive expanses of glass, automatic emergency braking, a 5,6 second base model 0-60, etc, etc.
Also, don't assume that everyone lives where you do. Where I live, electricity is cheap, but gasoline is almost $8/gallon.
They where, however, a great way to assuage one's guilt about spewing CO2 into the atmosphere (only they really don't)
If you mean "they really don't", you're correct, at least in comparison to gasoline cars. They have about 15% higher manufacturing CO2 emissions, but emissions from lifetime operation are much higher than manufacturing emissions, for both gasoline and electric cars - and the latter has far less than gasoline, even on a mixed grid containing fossil fuels as part of the mix. Namely because gasoline engines generally operate at 20-25% average efficiency (peak ~35%, but you have to be in just the right torque / rpm combination for that). A modern combined cycle baseload natural gas plant can approach 60% efficiency.
Not really. As is well pointed out in this more recent video than the one Slashdot is discussing, because the screen is so large, and because they elevate it straight into your peripheral vision (up to the height of a dashboard, with the leftmost portion located at the right of where dashboard displays would be), it's very easy to see without taking your eyes off the road. The controls are so large that they're easy to press and don't require any "hunt and peck".
Also contrary to the Slashdot summary, the video points out that you can assign whatever controls you want to the steering wheel. I think it's important for people not to read too much into what new owners who've just had their vehicle for a day say it can and can't do, because they're all still learning. The steering wheel knobs are quite nice, they're dual-axis with click, one on each side, so there's a lot of interaction capability there (in addition to voice commands).
To be fair, while Tesla delivered basic features, it looks like some functionality has been put off to later updates. Slashdot's summary's comment about rear seat heaters appears to be currently accurate, yet they're listed as a feature of the PUP upgrade that these cars have, so they're most likely just not yet included in the interface. Radio likewise only has limited options at present, and there are a couple other quirks. But that's one of the nice things about over-the-air upgrades, you can always get improvements down the line. Think of how miserable computers would be if you were locked into just the software that they shipped with, without ever having the possibility of bugfixes and new features. On the downside, I'm sure that the ability to ship improvements down the line encourages companies like Tesla to release sooner than they otherwise would have.
Concerning the wipers: this appears to be another case of "probably a later update, but not entirely clear". On AP1-based Teslas, for example, the settings "fast" and "slow" aren't exactly wiper speeds, they're the sensitivity settings for rain-sensing wipers; "fast" will go to a higher speed with less rain than "slow" will. So you have off, auto (at your chosen speed relative), or continuous. Yet in Model 3, it's not yet clear what, if any, these settings do. Most new owners are in California and haven't even had a chance to drive in the rain yet!
Some will criticize Tesla for starting to release a car with so little information and some features not yet completed on the interface. That's probably fair. But then again, you're not going to get a lot of complaints from the people who got to get their cars this early. They're totally raving over them (one of my favorites was when one guy was asked about how he's enjoying the ride, he posted a picture of black stuff splattered across his wheel wells, with a comment stating "That's not road tar", and pointing out that he doesn't expect his first set of tires to last very long;) ). When it comes to much-anticipated products, you can always find lots of people who would leap at the chance to be part of the beta. Which I think it's fair to say, these early adopters are.
I don't even agree with the other premise - that the "rate of computation of the brain" is somehow unfathomably beyond the reach of today's computers, so it's not worth considering.
First off, even their simple statement that there's 1 quadrillion synapses in the brain is hard to defend. Adult human brains are estimated at anywhere from 100-500 trillion. But let's ignore this. The way they're presenting the argument is that you're supposed to think of each neuron as a processor, and wow, look at all of those interconnected processors! But in reality, their communication with each other is quite limited. The vast majority of their communication is only with their immediate neighbors. Long-range communication is "bandwidth-limited" by the white matter interconnects.
For example, just to cross from one hemisphere to the other you're constrained by the "bandwidth" of the corpus callosum. There's only a couple hundred million connections within it, for all communication moving between the different halves of the brain. What's the bandwidth per axon? It depends on how you measure it. A single action potential is about 2ms, so you put a maximum rate at 500Hz; however, these generally come in pulses at varying rates, ranging from 0Hz, jumping up to 8Hz or so at the minimum excitation threshold, up to a maximum of 100Hz or so. Let's say that 100Hz represents the effective real bandwidth per axon; then the entire corpus callosum has a limiting bandwidth of maybe 2,5 GHz.
These limitations don't just exist in the corpus callosum; they exist everywhere in the brain. Neurons' ability to exchange information decreases greatly with distance. Inside the brain, neurons cluster into cortexes (individual layers of gray matter, connected by columns, atop a white matter base for interconnects) and nuclei (clumps of grey matter surrounded by the white matter that likewise connect them). Most connections are short; the length of a white matter fibre is inversely proportional to how common it is. Processing is by and large local. In a way, the activation of an individual neuron within such a structure is far more analogous to, say, a mux or an adder in a CPU than to an entire processing step (don't take the analogy too far, of course; it's not actually multiplexing or adding;) ). That is, as a contributor to the ultimate outputting of a result of a subunit, not as something that outputs a result on its own. Even within a nucleus there is often substructure, with certain areas being more connected to each other than others. Nuclei as a whole (some no more than a couple thousand neurons, others much larger, with a variety of different neuron subtypes) conduct specific "subtasks" for the brain, with inputs and outputs from elsewhere. In the cortex, minicolumns seem to be the basic organizational unit, with groups of around 100 neurons responding to the same input and yielding a shared output.
Don't get me wrong, the brain is an amazingly complex system. But it shouldn't be thought of as "100 billion parallel processors with 10000 buses each to everywhere in the brain". There is indeed a huge amount activity happening in many places at the same time within the brain - but the same can be said of the silicon on a single core of a single processor. And ultimately, models will not be like some high-res reacting-chemistry CFD problem on a per-neuron basis, nor even whole neuron models - but rather based around the behavior of groupings of neurons, encapsulating their net functionality.
To repeat, though: don't expect to see next year's Alexa start pondering her fate as a brain the size of a planet stuck inside a box on your shelf.;)
Renault is the company that makes the Zoe. It's even listed as "Renault Zoe" on the very link you gave.
] and you will note that nearly every car on that list is between 20-25kwh / 100miles. What an amazing technological advantage the 24kWh/100miles Tesla has.
That's an interesting change in topic, from range to energy consumption per 100 miles. Since we're comparing ton NEDC, not EPA 5-cycle, then the Model 3 SR becomes around 260 miles, because the NEDC is a slow mockery of a drivecycle that generally yields 15-20% higher ranges than the 5-cycle. Meaning that the SR uses about 19kWh/100 miles.
And note that it's being compared to vehicles that are generally much smaller than it.
The first public 350kWh charger is not a Tesla charger and is already in operation.
1) There's a tiny number of high power CCS charging stations out there, and 2) They get that power not with current, but with super-high voltages, which are great for fictional vehicles with super-high voltage battery packs (but meaningless for all real-world EVs).
You don't seem to understand this second part, so let me explain. The small number of high power CCS chargers out there don't achieve that through high currents; they achieve it through the much easier means of high voltages. But an EV can't take a voltage higher than its pack voltage. There are no 1000V commercial EVs out there, so these "350kW" chargers are nothing more than a PR exercise; as soon as you connect your EV to them, it immediately has to ramp down its voltage - and thus power - to what your pack actually supports. So when you're low on power (aka, when you can take charge currents the most - you have to ramp down at higher SoC), it cuts down to around 300V or so, meaning that these rare "350kW" chargers function only as 105kW chargers. Versus Tesla's massive network of V2 chargers, which are 145kW shared / 120kW per vehicle.
(A higher voltage pack just under 100% SoC may be ~450V or so. Which in theory would mean that the charger could provide 157,5kW... except at that point the vehicle can only take a couple kilowatts, so again, it's meaningless)
Tesla could easily pull the same stunt (having higher max voltages), since it's easy to do, but it's also pointless to do except as a PR exercise - so they don't.
Oh wow, a "plan" to have "400" by "2020". Color me oh-so-impressed! I'm fainting from how impressed I am with those numbers;) Meanwhile, Tesla has 6550 supercharger stalls... today. Each delivering more power than a "350kW" CCS charger does to any extant EV. buildout continues. And the network's growth has been transitioning from linear to exponential. Furthermore, if you want to talk about future chargers...
Yeah indeed. Showing off what your R&D is being spent on is meaningless.
It's the difference between a mockup of a GUI with only basic functionality implemented for a demo, and an actual deliverable product.
Even when you actually intend to sell the thing, what's shown at a motor show often morphs significantly and - as mentioned - usually not in a way customers like. For example, here's what the Volt was when it was presented at NAIAS; here's what they actually delivered.
Auto Shows are a terrible way to be informed about what companies actually will be delivering.
you should know there is a clear difference between the cars that won't see the light of day and the
I actually want this. Well, actually, I want more info - 30cm lateral resolution is great, but what's the altitude resolution? I'd love to use it for building up 3d landscapes / road / trail data. Altitude resolution on most current GPS devices is lousy.
Even the LR isn't that heavy (3814) - there are ICE competitors in its class that are even heavier. That's only 3% heavier than the base G37. Akin to driving a G37 with a child along for the ride vs. without one. I doubt you could even perceive the weight difference if you were trying.
You haven't looked very hard if you think no one is even close. There are cars that are range competitive with Tesla's offerings (hell the Zoe will match the Model 3 on that for a cool $5000 less), and every other car manufacturer is about to come to the market with equal and better
Wrong.
Model 3 SR has an EPA range of 220 miles, which corresponds to an NEDC range of around 415km. Model 3 LR has an EPA range of 310 miles, which corresponds to an NEDC range of around 585km. Renault Zoe has a NEDC range of... wait for it... 250km. Not miles - km.
I'll repeat: "The only company that's even tried to threaten them on range is GM (barely)". The Bolt is the only vehicle to come even close. But even in its case, it only competes with the SR on range.
However with open infrastructure rapidly closing the gap
This simply is not occurring. There's a tiny number of high power CCS charging stations out there, and they get that power not with current, but with super-high voltages, which are great for fictional vehicles with super-high voltage battery packs (but meaningless for all real-world EVs).
one of the few showing off EVs in Frankfurt's motorshow. This year there was barely a car company there that didn't have an multiple upcoming EVs on display
I can only assume that you're new to the automotive world. I've been following "EVs displayed at motor shows" is one of the most meaningless metrics out there. Motor shows are basically PR actions for automakers. Exhibitors pack them full of hypothetical concept cars with great-sounding stats. 90% of them will either never see the light of day or will only be produced in small numbers - while most of the rest will be significantly altered before they hit the streets, generally in a way that consumers don't like.
IMHO motor shows are terrible things; I've been to my fair share. It's amazing how many of the people exhibiting EVs don't even know much about them beyond what was handed to them to memorize. But hey, put some half-fleshed-out shiny thing on a pedestal and talk it up with some "booth babes" strutting around it....
It's worth pointing out that the Model 3 SR is only 3549 lbs, which is quite competitive in its range. The aforementioned G37 is 3709 lbs and the Q50 is 3611 lbs. That is to say, not only does the Model 3 have a super-low CG, but the SR version is lighter than its aforementioned competitors.
Sure, it's liability, but if the technology works well, there won't be that many dangerous incidents.
Not at all what I'm talking about when I say "liability". I'm talking failure to deliver, period. Or, requiring that a huge number of vehicles receive hardware upgrades before it can be delivered.
Selling a product that you might not actually be able to deliver, or might cost you a fortune to deliver, is a serious liability.
Meanwhile, Model 3 has the same sort of low CG, but is also roughly as light as its ICE competitors. I can't wait to feel the handling on it for myself; reviewers have been raving over it.
Yeah, conversion EVs are usually pretty lousy. Even from-the-factory EVs built on existing ICE architectures are usually pretty poor. EVs are best designed from the ground-up as EVs, with the battery pack forming the base of the floor, and the shape dictated only by aerodynamics / safety / space requirements, not by the constraints of a nonexistent ICE powertrain.
So, like I said before, the Tesla 3 (from what we know) is slower than the G37 and Q50 while having a much inferior set of features.
Not at all correct. We'll ignore the fact that "slower than" acceleration only applies to above a certain speed (the Model 3 will always win on "in-town" acceleration, regardless of the version), and instead focus on features. I'm not going to waste the time going into both the G37 and Q50, so let's just pick one - say, the G37. Nav? Optional, not live-updated (except by an extra), and tiny by comparison (a quarter the area). Streaming music? Optional, and XM only. Hands-free calling? Optional extra. Rear reclining seats? Optional extra. 18" wheels? Optional extra (18" are standard on Model 3, 19" are extra). Autopilot? Not available (optional extra on Model 3). Remote operation via app? Not available. Voice control? Optional. Automatic braking? Not available (standard on Model 3). Keyless entry? Not available. Ability to grant remote access? Not available. Auto-dimming rear-view mirror? Not available. Over-the-air software updates? Not available. All-wheel drive? Not available (optional on Model 3). Air suspension? Not available (optional on Model 3). Self-parking? Not available (comes with Autopilot on Model 3). Summon? Same. Airbags? 5 (vs. 8). Weight 3709lbs (vs 3549 Model 3 SR, 3814 Model 3 LR). First row headroom? 39,1" (vs 39,6-40,3"). Second row headroom? 37,2" (vs. 37,7"). First row shoulder room? 55,6" (vs 56,3"). Trunk space, 13,5 ft^3 (vs. 15). And I'm sure there's a ton more that I'm forgetting, particularly in regards to the software stack.
That said, there are a few things that the G37 has over the Model 3. It's packed full of dead cows, for example. And power seats are standard, rather than being part of the premium package. The second row has a bit more shoulder room, and the first and second more hip room, and the first row more leg room (Model 3 has more second row leg room). You can get XM (optional extra) rather than streaming (Model 3 standard), if that's your thing. There's probably some other things I'm forgetting in its favour. But in general, I can't see how it wins this comparison. There's also design decisions that people will differ over (aka, whether you like your interior appearance spartan or cluttered)
Also: note that when discussing prices, we're ignoring incentives, as well as fuel savings. These ICEs in question aren't exactly gas sippers, nor are they famously low maintenance.
Even if the 3 does offer a performance package that can push it significantly above, it is likely going to cost a LOT more (based on what they did with the S performance models)
The P100D costs 37% more than the 100D and cuts the 0-60 from 4,3 to 2,3 seconds (86% improvement). I'm assuming only a 21-46% improvement in performance for the Model 3 performance package; a 22% premium does not seem at all unreasonable for that. Now, if they offer a similar 86% increase in performance, then yes, a 37% increase in price for that feature is probably expected - but then we're talking a 0-60 in 2,7 seconds, not 3,5-4,2 seconds like I was assuming. And I honestly doubt they'd let the Model 3 line get that close to the P100D in performance.
If you're thinking that we should work in absolute numbers rather than relative numbers, you're going to need to defend that. Everything about the Model 3 is designed to be low cost, and it's marketed at a less affluent customer base. And increasing EV performance is not nearly as expensive as with gasoline vehicles.
Putting a ton into R&D is only reasonable at this point in time, and has clearly paid dividends. It's part of the reason why its competition hasn't yet managed to pose a serious threat to them; they've been seriously lagging behind. The only company that's even tried to threaten them on range is GM (barely), but it comes in the form of an econobox vehicle at BMW prices. Nobody comes even close to threatening them on charge times (miles range per minute charging). Competitors like Nissan are still using battery packs that don't even have climate control.
I agree that eventually they're going to need to cut R&D and investment into new facilities. But that time is not now. Now is the time for seizing the marketplace and securing Tesla's position as one of the world's largest auto manufacturers. And it's very important for them to go big, because that's what lets them bring production prices down to the point where they can threaten ICEs.
I'm hardly a luddite, and am a big Tesla fan, but I think they're opening themselves up to a lot of liability with the FSD. I'm not very optimistic about it.
It's not just about AWD; it also makes the car a bit more efficient improves the high-end acceleration a bit. The two motors are geared differently, giving them different optimal power bands. When little torque is needed, the less efficient motor (relative to current conditions) is disabled ("torque sleep"), but wakes instantly when torque demand increases (or ESC wakes it)
They're not huge differences, but they do matter.
If you really want a Model S but are strapped for cash, you're probably more in the market for a CPO vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
And what's the reason why passengers can't use the touchscreen, exactly?
And I'm telling you, the summary is wrong. I hang out on the Model 3 Owners Club and Tesla Motors Club daily and have seen all of the videos from all of the owners. There is a rain sensor for the wipers. It may be inactive at this point in time due to the software not being mature, but it exists.
People need to be cautioned that, although Tesla would never publicly admit it, everyone knows that the early adopters are driving a beta. Everyone including the owners themselves (who jumped at the opportunity to do so). There's a number of features in the software stack that are clearly lacking / need refinement.
You mean like 2x dual-axis+click steering wheel controls, voice controls, and rain-sensing wipers?
That's not a Model 3. And lots of people tow with a Model X.
Actually, you can play music from USB. Tunein appears to work here. And it's not accurate to say that it doesn't have "AM/FM hardware", only that it's not on the GUI at present.
Be careful about taking statements from someone who just got their car about what it can and can't do.
That said, you're right that these early adopters are basically taking part in a beta. The software stack still has features that aren't available yet. Then again, after listening to them, they couldn't be more thrilled to be taking part in a beta.
Why do the knobs need to be - or why *should they be* - on a centre console? Why is that superior to being on the wheel, as they are in the Model 3? Why should you have to take your hands off the wheel to adjust things?
It's not "their answer to this", but yes, Teslas do take voice commands.
As mentioned above: if it works like the AP1 cars (and like the AP2s are expected to), that "slow" and "fast" aren't actual wiper speeds, they're how fast the wipers go relative to the amount of rain sensed.
Speak for yourself. Comes with more standard features and better performance than a comparable BMW 3-Series, at a lower price without taking into account energy cost and maintenance savings or tax credits. Now, if you're in the market for an econobox, this is not for you. Econoboxes don't come with 12 cameras, 8 ultrasonic sensors, radar, a 15" touchscreen, massive expanses of glass, automatic emergency braking, a 5,6 second base model 0-60, etc, etc.
Also, don't assume that everyone lives where you do. Where I live, electricity is cheap, but gasoline is almost $8/gallon.
If you mean "they really don't", you're correct, at least in comparison to gasoline cars. They have about 15% higher manufacturing CO2 emissions, but emissions from lifetime operation are much higher than manufacturing emissions, for both gasoline and electric cars - and the latter has far less than gasoline, even on a mixed grid containing fossil fuels as part of the mix. Namely because gasoline engines generally operate at 20-25% average efficiency (peak ~35%, but you have to be in just the right torque / rpm combination for that). A modern combined cycle baseload natural gas plant can approach 60% efficiency.
Not really. As is well pointed out in this more recent video than the one Slashdot is discussing, because the screen is so large, and because they elevate it straight into your peripheral vision (up to the height of a dashboard, with the leftmost portion located at the right of where dashboard displays would be), it's very easy to see without taking your eyes off the road. The controls are so large that they're easy to press and don't require any "hunt and peck".
Also contrary to the Slashdot summary, the video points out that you can assign whatever controls you want to the steering wheel. I think it's important for people not to read too much into what new owners who've just had their vehicle for a day say it can and can't do, because they're all still learning. The steering wheel knobs are quite nice, they're dual-axis with click, one on each side, so there's a lot of interaction capability there (in addition to voice commands).
To be fair, while Tesla delivered basic features, it looks like some functionality has been put off to later updates. Slashdot's summary's comment about rear seat heaters appears to be currently accurate, yet they're listed as a feature of the PUP upgrade that these cars have, so they're most likely just not yet included in the interface. Radio likewise only has limited options at present, and there are a couple other quirks. But that's one of the nice things about over-the-air upgrades, you can always get improvements down the line. Think of how miserable computers would be if you were locked into just the software that they shipped with, without ever having the possibility of bugfixes and new features. On the downside, I'm sure that the ability to ship improvements down the line encourages companies like Tesla to release sooner than they otherwise would have.
Concerning the wipers: this appears to be another case of "probably a later update, but not entirely clear". On AP1-based Teslas, for example, the settings "fast" and "slow" aren't exactly wiper speeds, they're the sensitivity settings for rain-sensing wipers; "fast" will go to a higher speed with less rain than "slow" will. So you have off, auto (at your chosen speed relative), or continuous. Yet in Model 3, it's not yet clear what, if any, these settings do. Most new owners are in California and haven't even had a chance to drive in the rain yet!
Some will criticize Tesla for starting to release a car with so little information and some features not yet completed on the interface. That's probably fair. But then again, you're not going to get a lot of complaints from the people who got to get their cars this early. They're totally raving over them (one of my favorites was when one guy was asked about how he's enjoying the ride, he posted a picture of black stuff splattered across his wheel wells, with a comment stating "That's not road tar", and pointing out that he doesn't expect his first set of tires to last very long ;) ). When it comes to much-anticipated products, you can always find lots of people who would leap at the chance to be part of the beta. Which I think it's fair to say, these early adopters are.
I don't even agree with the other premise - that the "rate of computation of the brain" is somehow unfathomably beyond the reach of today's computers, so it's not worth considering.
First off, even their simple statement that there's 1 quadrillion synapses in the brain is hard to defend. Adult human brains are estimated at anywhere from 100-500 trillion. But let's ignore this. The way they're presenting the argument is that you're supposed to think of each neuron as a processor, and wow, look at all of those interconnected processors! But in reality, their communication with each other is quite limited. The vast majority of their communication is only with their immediate neighbors. Long-range communication is "bandwidth-limited" by the white matter interconnects.
For example, just to cross from one hemisphere to the other you're constrained by the "bandwidth" of the corpus callosum. There's only a couple hundred million connections within it, for all communication moving between the different halves of the brain. What's the bandwidth per axon? It depends on how you measure it. A single action potential is about 2ms, so you put a maximum rate at 500Hz; however, these generally come in pulses at varying rates, ranging from 0Hz, jumping up to 8Hz or so at the minimum excitation threshold, up to a maximum of 100Hz or so. Let's say that 100Hz represents the effective real bandwidth per axon; then the entire corpus callosum has a limiting bandwidth of maybe 2,5 GHz.
These limitations don't just exist in the corpus callosum; they exist everywhere in the brain. Neurons' ability to exchange information decreases greatly with distance. Inside the brain, neurons cluster into cortexes (individual layers of gray matter, connected by columns, atop a white matter base for interconnects) and nuclei (clumps of grey matter surrounded by the white matter that likewise connect them). Most connections are short; the length of a white matter fibre is inversely proportional to how common it is. Processing is by and large local. In a way, the activation of an individual neuron within such a structure is far more analogous to, say, a mux or an adder in a CPU than to an entire processing step (don't take the analogy too far, of course; it's not actually multiplexing or adding ;) ). That is, as a contributor to the ultimate outputting of a result of a subunit, not as something that outputs a result on its own. Even within a nucleus there is often substructure, with certain areas being more connected to each other than others. Nuclei as a whole (some no more than a couple thousand neurons, others much larger, with a variety of different neuron subtypes) conduct specific "subtasks" for the brain, with inputs and outputs from elsewhere. In the cortex, minicolumns seem to be the basic organizational unit, with groups of around 100 neurons responding to the same input and yielding a shared output.
Don't get me wrong, the brain is an amazingly complex system. But it shouldn't be thought of as "100 billion parallel processors with 10000 buses each to everywhere in the brain". There is indeed a huge amount activity happening in many places at the same time within the brain - but the same can be said of the silicon on a single core of a single processor. And ultimately, models will not be like some high-res reacting-chemistry CFD problem on a per-neuron basis, nor even whole neuron models - but rather based around the behavior of groupings of neurons, encapsulating their net functionality.
To repeat, though: don't expect to see next year's Alexa start pondering her fate as a brain the size of a planet stuck inside a box on your shelf. ;)
***Facepalm***
Renault is the company that makes the Zoe.
It's even listed as "Renault Zoe" on the very link you gave.
That's an interesting change in topic, from range to energy consumption per 100 miles. Since we're comparing ton NEDC, not EPA 5-cycle, then the Model 3 SR becomes around 260 miles, because the NEDC is a slow mockery of a drivecycle that generally yields 15-20% higher ranges than the 5-cycle. Meaning that the SR uses about 19kWh/100 miles.
And note that it's being compared to vehicles that are generally much smaller than it.
1) There's a tiny number of high power CCS charging stations out there, and
2) They get that power not with current, but with super-high voltages, which are great for fictional vehicles with super-high voltage battery packs (but meaningless for all real-world EVs).
You don't seem to understand this second part, so let me explain. The small number of high power CCS chargers out there don't achieve that through high currents; they achieve it through the much easier means of high voltages. But an EV can't take a voltage higher than its pack voltage. There are no 1000V commercial EVs out there, so these "350kW" chargers are nothing more than a PR exercise; as soon as you connect your EV to them, it immediately has to ramp down its voltage - and thus power - to what your pack actually supports. So when you're low on power (aka, when you can take charge currents the most - you have to ramp down at higher SoC), it cuts down to around 300V or so, meaning that these rare "350kW" chargers function only as 105kW chargers. Versus Tesla's massive network of V2 chargers, which are 145kW shared / 120kW per vehicle.
(A higher voltage pack just under 100% SoC may be ~450V or so. Which in theory would mean that the charger could provide 157,5kW... except at that point the vehicle can only take a couple kilowatts, so again, it's meaningless)
Tesla could easily pull the same stunt (having higher max voltages), since it's easy to do, but it's also pointless to do except as a PR exercise - so they don't.
Oh wow, a "plan" to have "400" by "2020". Color me oh-so-impressed! I'm fainting from how impressed I am with those numbers ;) Meanwhile, Tesla has 6550 supercharger stalls... today. Each delivering more power than a "350kW" CCS charger does to any extant EV. buildout continues. And the network's growth has been transitioning from linear to exponential. Furthermore, if you want to talk about future chargers...
It's the difference between a mockup of a GUI with only basic functionality implemented for a demo, and an actual deliverable product.
Even when you actually intend to sell the thing, what's shown at a motor show often morphs significantly and - as mentioned - usually not in a way customers like. For example, here's what the Volt was when it was presented at NAIAS; here's what they actually delivered.
Auto Shows are a terrible way to be informed about what companies actually will be delivering.
I actually want this. Well, actually, I want more info - 30cm lateral resolution is great, but what's the altitude resolution? I'd love to use it for building up 3d landscapes / road / trail data. Altitude resolution on most current GPS devices is lousy.
Even the LR isn't that heavy (3814) - there are ICE competitors in its class that are even heavier. That's only 3% heavier than the base G37. Akin to driving a G37 with a child along for the ride vs. without one. I doubt you could even perceive the weight difference if you were trying.
Wrong.
Model 3 SR has an EPA range of 220 miles, which corresponds to an NEDC range of around 415km.
Model 3 LR has an EPA range of 310 miles, which corresponds to an NEDC range of around 585km.
Renault Zoe has a NEDC range of... wait for it... 250km. Not miles - km.
I'll repeat: "The only company that's even tried to threaten them on range is GM (barely)". The Bolt is the only vehicle to come even close. But even in its case, it only competes with the SR on range.
This simply is not occurring. There's a tiny number of high power CCS charging stations out there, and they get that power not with current, but with super-high voltages, which are great for fictional vehicles with super-high voltage battery packs (but meaningless for all real-world EVs).
I can only assume that you're new to the automotive world. I've been following "EVs displayed at motor shows" is one of the most meaningless metrics out there. Motor shows are basically PR actions for automakers. Exhibitors pack them full of hypothetical concept cars with great-sounding stats. 90% of them will either never see the light of day or will only be produced in small numbers - while most of the rest will be significantly altered before they hit the streets, generally in a way that consumers don't like.
IMHO motor shows are terrible things; I've been to my fair share. It's amazing how many of the people exhibiting EVs don't even know much about them beyond what was handed to them to memorize. But hey, put some half-fleshed-out shiny thing on a pedestal and talk it up with some "booth babes" strutting around it....
It's worth pointing out that the Model 3 SR is only 3549 lbs, which is quite competitive in its range. The aforementioned G37 is 3709 lbs and the Q50 is 3611 lbs. That is to say, not only does the Model 3 have a super-low CG, but the SR version is lighter than its aforementioned competitors.
Yes, it went from "nothing" to "4th most valuable automaker in the world" because analysts saw no profit potential. Got it.
Not at all what I'm talking about when I say "liability". I'm talking failure to deliver, period. Or, requiring that a huge number of vehicles receive hardware upgrades before it can be delivered.
Selling a product that you might not actually be able to deliver, or might cost you a fortune to deliver, is a serious liability.
Meanwhile, Model 3 has the same sort of low CG, but is also roughly as light as its ICE competitors. I can't wait to feel the handling on it for myself; reviewers have been raving over it.
Yeah, conversion EVs are usually pretty lousy. Even from-the-factory EVs built on existing ICE architectures are usually pretty poor. EVs are best designed from the ground-up as EVs, with the battery pack forming the base of the floor, and the shape dictated only by aerodynamics / safety / space requirements, not by the constraints of a nonexistent ICE powertrain.
When you talk about the interior of the Model S, are you talking with or without PUP, and pre or post refresh?
Not at all correct. We'll ignore the fact that "slower than" acceleration only applies to above a certain speed (the Model 3 will always win on "in-town" acceleration, regardless of the version), and instead focus on features. I'm not going to waste the time going into both the G37 and Q50, so let's just pick one - say, the G37. Nav? Optional, not live-updated (except by an extra), and tiny by comparison (a quarter the area). Streaming music? Optional, and XM only. Hands-free calling? Optional extra. Rear reclining seats? Optional extra. 18" wheels? Optional extra (18" are standard on Model 3, 19" are extra). Autopilot? Not available (optional extra on Model 3). Remote operation via app? Not available. Voice control? Optional. Automatic braking? Not available (standard on Model 3). Keyless entry? Not available. Ability to grant remote access? Not available. Auto-dimming rear-view mirror? Not available. Over-the-air software updates? Not available. All-wheel drive? Not available (optional on Model 3). Air suspension? Not available (optional on Model 3). Self-parking? Not available (comes with Autopilot on Model 3). Summon? Same. Airbags? 5 (vs. 8). Weight 3709lbs (vs 3549 Model 3 SR, 3814 Model 3 LR). First row headroom? 39,1" (vs 39,6-40,3"). Second row headroom? 37,2" (vs. 37,7"). First row shoulder room? 55,6" (vs 56,3"). Trunk space, 13,5 ft^3 (vs. 15). And I'm sure there's a ton more that I'm forgetting, particularly in regards to the software stack.
That said, there are a few things that the G37 has over the Model 3. It's packed full of dead cows, for example. And power seats are standard, rather than being part of the premium package. The second row has a bit more shoulder room, and the first and second more hip room, and the first row more leg room (Model 3 has more second row leg room). You can get XM (optional extra) rather than streaming (Model 3 standard), if that's your thing. There's probably some other things I'm forgetting in its favour. But in general, I can't see how it wins this comparison. There's also design decisions that people will differ over (aka, whether you like your interior appearance spartan or cluttered)
Also: note that when discussing prices, we're ignoring incentives, as well as fuel savings. These ICEs in question aren't exactly gas sippers, nor are they famously low maintenance.
The P100D costs 37% more than the 100D and cuts the 0-60 from 4,3 to 2,3 seconds (86% improvement). I'm assuming only a 21-46% improvement in performance for the Model 3 performance package; a 22% premium does not seem at all unreasonable for that. Now, if they offer a similar 86% increase in performance, then yes, a 37% increase in price for that feature is probably expected - but then we're talking a 0-60 in 2,7 seconds, not 3,5-4,2 seconds like I was assuming. And I honestly doubt they'd let the Model 3 line get that close to the P100D in performance.
If you're thinking that we should work in absolute numbers rather than relative numbers, you're going to need to defend that. Everything about the Model 3 is designed to be low cost, and it's marketed at a less affluent customer base. And increasing EV performance is not nearly as expensive as with gasoline vehicles.
Putting a ton into R&D is only reasonable at this point in time, and has clearly paid dividends. It's part of the reason why its competition hasn't yet managed to pose a serious threat to them; they've been seriously lagging behind. The only company that's even tried to threaten them on range is GM (barely), but it comes in the form of an econobox vehicle at BMW prices. Nobody comes even close to threatening them on charge times (miles range per minute charging). Competitors like Nissan are still using battery packs that don't even have climate control.
I agree that eventually they're going to need to cut R&D and investment into new facilities. But that time is not now. Now is the time for seizing the marketplace and securing Tesla's position as one of the world's largest auto manufacturers. And it's very important for them to go big, because that's what lets them bring production prices down to the point where they can threaten ICEs.
I'm hardly a luddite, and am a big Tesla fan, but I think they're opening themselves up to a lot of liability with the FSD. I'm not very optimistic about it.
It's not just about AWD; it also makes the car a bit more efficient improves the high-end acceleration a bit. The two motors are geared differently, giving them different optimal power bands. When little torque is needed, the less efficient motor (relative to current conditions) is disabled ("torque sleep"), but wakes instantly when torque demand increases (or ESC wakes it)
They're not huge differences, but they do matter.
If you really want a Model S but are strapped for cash, you're probably more in the market for a CPO vehicle.