Also, half your miles on each trip would be at wall socket power rates (let's say you pay $0.12/kWh on both ends?) and the rest at supercharger rates ($0.20/kWh). A Model 3 LR consumes about 240 Wh/mi on the freeway (EPA 5-cycle rating (or equivalent thereof), same as your diesel). Each round trip thus costs you $46.
I don't know what mileage you get in your diesel. Let's guess 35mpg? And your diesel costs, what, $2,40/gal? So you pay $82 per round trip. Cost difference, $36 per round trip. For what penalty... stopping to each lunch, use the bathroom, and occasionally stretch - the stuff you're actually supposed to do when driving 600 miles?;)
You do this week-on week-off, so you do it 26 times per year. Times $36 is $936 per year. Plus what you drive for the rest of your days - I'm guessing a third as much? So around $1200 per year. Factor in maintenance differences as you will (few moving parts, no oil changes, etc, etc).
Insert your own numbers as needed; I think I chose reasonably conservative figures. The battery pack warranty is 8 years (although if it's anything like the Model S and Model X packs it'll hardly decline at all).
Over where I am, it's a complete no brainer. Electricity is cheap but gasoline is almost $8/gal. So an EV pays for itself in no time flat even when ignoring the incentives.
Teslas can charge on almost anything. They can charge on superchargers, CHAdeMOs, J1772s, RV sockets, dryer outlets, range outlets, wall sockets, etc. The only thing they can't charge off of are CCS Combos - but those are generally paired with CHAdeMOs.
The nav system in Teslas knows where all of the superchargers are. It'd be nice if it also knew where other chargers are, but they're generally not needed.
2 days? I think you need to look up Superchargers;)
The short of it: your car recharges while you're eating lunch or whatnot. The Model 3 LR for example recharges at 340 mph when it's low on charge and goes 310 miles per charge.
Gravimetric energy density is one of the least important aspects these days. Back in the lead-acid days, improving it it was a huge deal because lead-acids made cars impractically heavy for a reasonable range. Those days are gone. As noted in this post:
The base curb weight of the Tesla Model 3, according to the official press kit, is 3549 lbs, which is 1610kg. 1730kg is the LR version, the heavier version. The BMW 3-Series ranges from 1475-1770kg. The A4 ranges from [wikipedia.org] 1410-1695 kg. I can't find an official total range for the C300, but find values ranging from 1630 kg to 1688kg to 1695kg to 1715kg. While the 1630kg is described as the "base weight" (analogous to the M3's 1610kg), I have no clue what the heaviest C300 config is, there could easily be configurations heavier than the 1715kg one.
To sum up: Tesla Model 3: 1610-1730kg BMW 3-Series: 1475-1770kg Audi A4: 1410-1695kg Mercedes C300: 1630-1715+kg
To repeat: The Tesla Model 3's curb weight comes in at pretty much the same range as other midrange compact sedans (BMW 3-Series, Audi A4, Mercedes C300, etc).
.... is not Wh/kg. It's $/kWh. That is by far the number one aspect for increasing adoption. Tesla for example gets a constant stream of companies pushing new battery technologies, wanting to talk about every aspect except for that one: cost per unit energy. They're always asked to cut straight to the chase.
Of course, we're not even given Wh/kg here in this article.
After cost per kilowatt hour, the number two factor is longevity. Because it correlates directly with cost. Generally it means you have to have shallow cycles (low DoD) if the battery isn't durable, meaning more batteries. In particular, longevity in varying temperature and charging condtions is important. In short, longevity works out to just another aspect of cost.
Barring some unusual problems, cell safety is usually #3 or #4. Not higher, because failures can, and already are, controlled. See for example fire tests of Tesla powerwalls. A combination of physical isolation, active quench (circulating coolant), passive quench (coolant / structure thermal mass, expansion space, venting), and a wide range of other mechanisms mean that you really have to pull out all the stops to burn the packs; there have been Teslas which burned to the ground, down to smouldering wrecks, still without managing to ignite the pack.
(Honestly, it amazes me that it's considered acceptable to store massive amounts of gasoline just in one big open tank - no isolation / compartmentalization / quench systems. Just dump it in and there you go! Not surprising that there's ~200k car fires in the US alone every year)
The other big competitor with safety is power density - the mix of ion mobility (how fast it's physically possible to charge / discharge the cell) and efficiency (how much heat you have to remove from the cells to do so). The heat removal rate is also affected by the heat tolerance. Charge speeds are a more significant limiting factor to the number of purchases than range, and the power output of the packs and high torque they allow are one of the big selling points of EVs.
Heck, Wh/kg (gravimetric energy density) isn't even the most important energy density measure. Practical EVs are not limited by their weights - heck, the Model 3 SR slots right into the middle of its class (compact midrange sedans in their various configurations, and the LR, while on the heavier side, still has some heavier ICE competitors). Their ranges are limited by how many cells you can physically fit into the pack without making the skateboard unreasonably bulky. For example, the Model 3 skateboard, at current cell volumetric energy densities, simply can't scale to higher than 75kWh. Doesn't matter what the gravimetric energy density is - if you want more, you need to improve the volumetric energy density.
OK, you can argue the Model 3 exists, but not in the sense that it is a product someone can actually buy.
Except for the fact that you can actually buy it, and people are at present taking deliveries.
Making something expensive does not make it luxurious
Luxury sedans are a vehicle class. You don't get to make up a new definition for it; it already has one. Model S is in the luxury sedan segment (there's some debate over whether it belongs in the "large luxury sedan" segment or "midsize luxury sedan" segment). Model X is in the luxury crossover segment. Model 3 is in the midrange compact sedan segment. Model Y will be in the midrange crossover segment.
Your opinions of the quality of the seats on the old taxi you rode in have no bearing on what class a vehicle is slotted into.
You don't have to take anyones word. Just look at the pictures.
I have, and I think it looks awesome. But pictures don't capture even the sight like being in a vehicle in person, and they don't capture the feel at all.
Most major auto reviewers haven't been any closer to a Tesla Model 3 than you and I.
There have been around a dozen different reviewers from different major sources who have. Every last one of them raved about it. Find me a single review from anyone who has actually been in the vehicle who said that it felt like a cheap econobox.
Seriously? Because you can't put your hands on it a second after you say "yes" that means it's not for sale? Is "any product that has a waiting list isn't really for sale" actually your argument here?
How many have they actually delivered to customers?
Get in line behind me. Those at the head of the line are already getting theirs. Which is nice because it means more and more sightings, videos, pics, etc every day.
I've been in a Model S multiple times and the interior was appalling.
Pre- or post refresh, and what interior option? Funny that they've captured a third of the US luxury sedan market, almost 50% more than the next closest competitor, with a "Kia-like" interior, huh?
And FYI, I'll take professional reviewers opinions (who have been in Model 3s) about M3 quality over yours, thanks.
There is an important distinction. Tesla will not be making the worlds' "first self driving car". Companies like Waymo have had much more reliable systems for longer. Tesla may, however, make the world's first practical self-driving car. Companies like Waymo are relying on LIDAR, which is impractical for a number of reasons:
* It's expensive. Google, after years of work, got the price down to a "mere" $7500, instead of the original $75k. Tesla uses cameras, radar and ultrasonic sensors, all of which are cheap.
* It's awkward. You have to have a bulky dome sticking out of the top of your car, not only making it ugly, but also ruining your airflow.
* It can't see in situations humans generally can. For example, humans drive in fog and snow. LIDAR-based cars generally can't. So do you tell humans that they can't go anywhere then? Or that they have to drive themselves?
* You have to process visual data regardless. LIDAR can't read signs. Road markings. Colours. Brake lights. It can't tell you whether something is a paper bag in the road or a large rock. All it gives you is a 3d map; that map still requires interpretation. So either way you still need what Tesla is doing; LIDAR just builds better maps than photogrammetry.
I don't expect the LIDAR systems - despite the excellent 3d maps that they build - to ever take off for this reason. I have more hope for, for example, time-of-flight cameras. That could get you all of the benefits of both LIDAR and cameras in the same cheap, compact package. But even if some other technology like that takes off, it should be easy for a company like Tesla to incorporate it; they just replace their photogrammetry-based models with the new model system, and retain all of their existing image/radar/ultrasound processing codebase and the reems of data they've collected.
That's actually a legitimate issue. Some owners with EAP love the thing. They bought Tesla because it's a crazy-fast-accelerating electric car, but became so hooked on autopilot that they'd buy a gasoline car from a different manufacturer if it came with EAP and Tesla didn't. They find it a huge load off to not have to be constantly monitoring every bit about you drive, that you're just there as a "second set of eyes" (it's particularly loved in heavy traffic). On the other hand, some owners hate it. They find it to be far more stressful having to second guess and correct the car versus just driving themselves.
Part of the irony of EAP is that as they improve it, it may actually lead to more accidents. Right now, it's imperfect enough that nobody is going to forget that you have to keep watch on it. It will disable itself (or at least warn) in situations that it knows it will have trouble with, for example, and most people don't even bother trying in construction zones or other challenging situations. But what happens when it gets good enough that it doesn't have trouble with common situations (but still isn't good enough to be "full self driving")? I think attention will wane a lot.
That's a good point. Perhaps when someone buys the car, Tesla should break the software down into three sections:
* Standard safety features (automatic emergency braking, etc)
* Enhanced Autopilot (lane following, lane change, summon, etc). Maybe charge $5k for that.
* Full Self Driving - with the latter being "not available until validation and regulatory approval". Maybe add only another $3k since they have to wait.
If only Tesla would do something like that, it would be a lot less confusion, don't you think?
Wait, that IS what Tesla does.
Whenever you buy the car, you have three options: only standard safety features, EAP, and EAP+FSD. You have to choose whether you want the "Full Self Driving" option, which is explicitly made clear that it's not available yet. It is impossible to buy a Tesla without knowing that your car does not have full self driving. Nor is it possible to use EAP without being explicitly warned that you have to pay attention, and having the car warn you (and ultimately cut power) if you don't.
Should Tesla have used eye tracking in addition to steering wheel checks? In hindsight, yes. But there was no interior-facing camera in the Model S. Guess what? There now is one in the Model 3. So that's a feature that can now be added in.
Actually, the victim's family doesn't blame the car. They support the technology. The statement is rather long (mostly defending their son against what they see as media slander against him), but concludes:
We heard numerous times that the car killed our son. That is simply not the case. There was a small window of time when neither Joshua nor the Tesla features noticed the truck making the left-hand turn in front of the car. People die every day in car accidents. Many of those are caused by lack of attention or inability to see the danger. Joshua believed, and our family continues to believe, that the new technology going into cars and the move to autonomous driving has already saved many lives. Change always comes with risks, and zero tolerance for deaths would totally stop innovation and improvements.
Nobody wants tragedy to touch their family, but expecting to identify all limitations of an emerging technology and expecting perfection is not feasible either. When rail systems, metro systems, and personal vehicles (etc.) were constructed, fatalities occurred and we learned from them. Who determines it has been vetted enough? Life is a balancing act. Barring blatant recklessness, finding common ground will always be a debate.
Part of Joshua’s legacy is that his accident drove additional improvements making the new technology even safer. Tesla has done extensive research into the accident and how it might have been prevented. They have made significant investments toward improvements and the Version 8 software release included numerous safety improvements that were a direct result of that research. Tesla continues to release additional features based on lessons learned from Josh’s accident. Our family takes solace and pride in the fact that our son is making such a positive impact on future highway safety.
A picture is enough to show that it will have a horrid interior
1) "will" -> "does". The car already exists. 2) Not according to every review from everyone who's actually been in the car.
Furthermore, I'm going to bet that you've never even been in an S or X (hint: there's two expensive models, and that's if you don't count the Roadster).
After Harvey, only one Supercharger station was noticed to have gone out, and only for a brief timeperiod. Superchargers survived serious damage to the buildings they were attached to - for example, one had a gaping hole in the hotel it was attached to, while another's adjacent building had the floor flooded with water.
Irma was different - probably the single greatest power loss incident in US history. Ten million customers were left without power, and in certain parts of the state, virtually everyone. This took down about 80% of the supercharger network. That said, a day layer, about 75% of it is now up. The Marathon and Naples superchargers may have gone underwater, we'll have to wait and see what happened to them; there's a couple more that will probably go online shortly.
How do superchargers keep the power on when it's going out for others, and get restored so quickly? Simple: they're on very high power feeds. Adding a supercharger to a suburban neighborhood is, power-wise, like building a large office building or small skyscraper. The Sarasota Supercharger, for example, running at full tilt would consume 1,5MW; unless they're located downtown or next to some huge industry, they're easily the largest power consumer around. This means that if the lines supplying them are out, then everyone is probably out as well. And in order to bring the lights back on to others, the supercharger is going to go online first.
The other issue is that, like gas stations, charging infrastructure is spread out. But unlike gas stations, where delivery issues or the like may leave a whole region in short supply, power outages are spotty. So even if 80% of the chargers went out in an area, you still have 20%. But that's not the really important part; the important part is that 20% of outlets, period still have power. What it works out to in practice (and I know some people in this situation right now) is, the power goes out at your place, and if you don't have a backup generator, while everyone else is miserable in the heat, you use your car as a lifeboat; it can maintain the climate control for days, with no "idling", no worries about carbon buildup or carbon monoxide or the like. It leaves you mobile (getting great range at the low speeds you have to go when roads are covered in debris), and you simply need to find one place with power and you can charge. Which you almost invariably can. Doesn't matter if even the national guard can't get to you, let alone gas trucks, let alone whether gas stations have backup generators, whether or not their tanks were flooded, etc, etc - you can charge on any power outlet, anywhere - you just need to ask for permission.
Of course, if you have a backup generator (say, natural gas), it's a moot point; you have unlimited driving at any point in time.
ICE engines/tech has been around for a very long time and we know how to handle problem times, extreme cold, extreme heat conditions. How long before we learn how to do the same with EV's.
The answer to your question is "already". Good EVs (like Teslas, for example) have pack heating and cooling, and can survive (and operate in) temperatures that gasoline cars could not.
What happens to a EV battery when it is flooded for example
In theory or in practice? In theory, there are two possibilities: the waterproofing holds up, or the waterproofing does not hold up. It's designed for the latter, but that's only guaranteed for a fixed period of time, they're not designed for long-term submersion. Depending on how the water sloshes in and how stable the vehicle remains, sometimes you can even use them as a boat (google "Tesla swimming");) But not always. Even a vehicle that goes into a shutdown mode will often just reboot after it's out of the water and be driven off (you can find videos of this too).
As for "in practice", however? In general your insurance will take a look at the ca
All races I've ever seen last more than 2 seconds.
Why do you keep talking about "races", as if we're talking about the track? This thread is about performance on the road. On the road, it's meaningless how fast you can go from, say, 100 to 150. How fast it peels off the line or when you want to pass someone is the future that matters.
The Tesla does not "clobber" the Veyron from 0-30, 0.2 seconds is not a "clobbering"
Yeah, try again. The P100D does 0-30 in 0.87, while the Veyron does it in 1.32. That's "clobbering". That's like racing a Porsche Cayenne against a Yaris.
that's a reaction time difference.
It's not a "reaction time difference", it's the nature of the propulsion systems. ICEs put out minimal torque at low RPMs. EVs put out maximum torque virtually instantly. No turbos to spin up. No need to even rev up the engine to get some rotating kinetic energy - just instant max torque that doesn't begin to drop until you get to around halfway to your max RPM. The response is so fast that it can almost feel like the car is reading your mind.
The Veyron accelerates much, much, much, much, much faster than the Tesla at every speed once the tires are hooked up.
Haha, wow, it must be sad to watch your era end, isn't it? Sorry, but Veyron acceleration figures are - for all acceleration figures - with warm tires.
Teslas are not "track cars". If you're talking about a high speed track race, of course the Veyron wins; Teslas were never designed like that. They're sedans and crossovers for the road (the topic of this thread). Yet they happen to be so high performance that even a bloody crossover (the Model X) will clobber a Veyron off the line. And I know it hurts you to hear that, so let me write it again: a bloody crossover that costs 1 1/2 orders of magnitude less will clobber a Veyron off the line. 1.32 seconds? Hahahaha, slowpoke! I wouldn't be surprised if the performance package for the Model 3 makes it competitive with a Veyron. I'm going to laugh my bloody arse off if a sub-$50k car can match or beat a Veyron 0-30;)
The Tesla is not even remotely close to the Bugatti on acceleration. It is close to the Bugatti very, very briefly off the line, but that's it.
In driving that you'll actually regularly experience as an owner, 0-60 is the most meaningful factor, and the fraction of that which matters the most is 0-30. The P100D beats the Veyron in the former, and clobbers it in the latter. The fact that the Veyron continues accelerating once you start hitting double the speed limit? Wow, what a totally meaningful trick for your everyday driving.
All of this comes with the fact that - need I even bother to mention it - that the P100D is a large 5-seat sedan.... and the Model X has nearly as good acceleration, as a bloody crossover.
... and the Leaf is basically a crappy econobox! That said, it's not "better" than your 10 year old Chevy. In a few years, however, when the range is 200+ miles and the cost of the batteries is lower, they will be a no brainer for almost everyone with access to a plug and normal driving patterns. I have found that, even with my ~110 mile range, trips of 150 miles or so are easy, with a 20 minute quick charge. This assumes that a quick charger is conveniently placed, which for me is true.
So, you're saying that a roughly Leaf-priced car with 200+ miles of range that offers a great driving experience, nice interior and standard features, and a broad network of reliable, super-fast charging stations would be a no brainer?
And you're right. It totally makes sense to continue to build highly suboptimal vehicles, with poorer handling, space usage, assembly economics, and shorter range, indefinitely, rather than designing for an entirely different powertrain and using that as the basis for all of your upcoming EVs. Your logic is impeccable: spend a fortune developing and refining the new powertrain, making huge gigafactories, etc, but then jam all your hardware developed at high cost into a vehicle that wasn't designed for it because you can't be bothered to do a design refresh.
One thing batteries are really nice for is voltage maintenance on long feeder lines. Things like the old Castle Valley battery on the Rattlesnake #22 line. When you have one long line serving a sparse population of customers, having a battery buffer halfway along its length lets you use a smaller, cheaper line (the buffer charges at night and then discharges during the day).
Tesla comes up with the most off-the-wall engineering solutions. Another good example with the Model 3: have you seen their new "leverless" air-vanes (electronic-controlled direction so that it can remember drivers / passengers and how they like their airflow in what conditions)? Most people assumed that there were a bunch of linear actuators in there ducting the flow, and some were complaining that Tesla would complicate the design and add expensive parts and their controllers for something that's not that important. But that's not how they do it. They actually use computer-case-fan style fans to blow the main airflow in different directions (aka, aiming air with air), while simultaneously also contributing to the total air delivered (you need a given amount of fan power regardless!). And you can plug fans like that straight into your motherboard - they're super-cheap in bulk (even high quality ones) and don't need a separate controller.
Tesla is in a close battle with Bugatti on accelerations. The Bugatti Veyron did 0-60 in 2,4 seconds. The Tesla P100D does it in 2,27 seconds. The Chiron now does it in 2,0 seconds. Etc. I can't see how electric isn't ultimately going to win this battle. The Teslas also cost 1 1/2 orders of magnitude less, and while they lose out on high-end acceleration, they clobber anything on the road off the line.
One thing Teslas don't do yet is that they're not track cars; they don't have the cooling level needed for sustained track duty. I expect the Roadster 3.0 to be their first track-duty car.
Really? So when you discover that you need gas on your way home, you arrive home only 2 minutes later than you would have otherwise? I'm going to call BS on that one.
Do you know how long it takes to fill up an EV? 20 seconds. Ten to connect the cable and ten to disconnect. The fact that the charging at home happens while you sleep doesn't affect you one bit. And that's the vast majority of a person's usage. For the minority - long trips? Supercharging happens while you eat lunch and on bathroom breaks. During those stops that you're supposed to take (and which EU commercial drivers can lose their license if they don't take). But to reiterate: that's a solid minority of travel for most people. In your everyday life, charging an EV takes 20 seconds.
goes at least 400 miles between fill-ups
Which affects your everyday life how? Oh, that's right, it's to help you avoid those periodic inconveniences of having to detour on the way home to a gas station.
Not that Tesla ranges are short. The cheapest Model 3 has an EPA range of 220mi (same 5-cycle or equivalency as gasoline cars), while the long range version is 310mi.
has roughly the same range regardless of whether it's hot or bone-chilling cold,
1) That's not true. ICEs also lose range in the winter, and to a lesser extent when running the AC in hot weather. 2) Teslas lose about 20% range in the winter. See the extensive driving data gathered by Björn Nyland's work as a courier in Norway. Other EVs with less efficient heat recapture may lose more, but Teslas do not. 3) ICEs lose a lot of range idling in traffic; EVs lose nearly an order of magnitude less. ICEs lose significant range driving at low speeds due to congestion; EVs gain significant range in such conditions.
and would cost new about a quarter of what a Tesla costs sans federal and/or state bailouts and subsidies.
Lastly: I'm going to take a wiiiiild guess that you've never gotten behind the wheel of a Tesla.;) Try it some time. Seriously, just call up a Tesla store and ask if you can.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, half your miles on each trip would be at wall socket power rates (let's say you pay $0.12/kWh on both ends?) and the rest at supercharger rates ($0.20/kWh). A Model 3 LR consumes about 240 Wh/mi on the freeway (EPA 5-cycle rating (or equivalent thereof), same as your diesel). Each round trip thus costs you $46.
I don't know what mileage you get in your diesel. Let's guess 35mpg? And your diesel costs, what, $2,40/gal? So you pay $82 per round trip. Cost difference, $36 per round trip. For what penalty... stopping to each lunch, use the bathroom, and occasionally stretch - the stuff you're actually supposed to do when driving 600 miles? ;)
You do this week-on week-off, so you do it 26 times per year. Times $36 is $936 per year. Plus what you drive for the rest of your days - I'm guessing a third as much? So around $1200 per year. Factor in maintenance differences as you will (few moving parts, no oil changes, etc, etc).
Insert your own numbers as needed; I think I chose reasonably conservative figures. The battery pack warranty is 8 years (although if it's anything like the Model S and Model X packs it'll hardly decline at all).
Over where I am, it's a complete no brainer. Electricity is cheap but gasoline is almost $8/gal. So an EV pays for itself in no time flat even when ignoring the incentives.
Teslas can charge on almost anything. They can charge on superchargers, CHAdeMOs, J1772s, RV sockets, dryer outlets, range outlets, wall sockets, etc. The only thing they can't charge off of are CCS Combos - but those are generally paired with CHAdeMOs.
The nav system in Teslas knows where all of the superchargers are. It'd be nice if it also knew where other chargers are, but they're generally not needed.
2 days? I think you need to look up Superchargers ;)
The short of it: your car recharges while you're eating lunch or whatnot. The Model 3 LR for example recharges at 340 mph when it's low on charge and goes 310 miles per charge.
Beat me to the punch ;)
Gravimetric energy density is one of the least important aspects these days. Back in the lead-acid days, improving it it was a huge deal because lead-acids made cars impractically heavy for a reasonable range. Those days are gone. As noted in this post:
.... is not Wh/kg. It's $/kWh. That is by far the number one aspect for increasing adoption. Tesla for example gets a constant stream of companies pushing new battery technologies, wanting to talk about every aspect except for that one: cost per unit energy. They're always asked to cut straight to the chase.
Of course, we're not even given Wh/kg here in this article.
After cost per kilowatt hour, the number two factor is longevity. Because it correlates directly with cost. Generally it means you have to have shallow cycles (low DoD) if the battery isn't durable, meaning more batteries. In particular, longevity in varying temperature and charging condtions is important. In short, longevity works out to just another aspect of cost.
Barring some unusual problems, cell safety is usually #3 or #4. Not higher, because failures can, and already are, controlled. See for example fire tests of Tesla powerwalls. A combination of physical isolation, active quench (circulating coolant), passive quench (coolant / structure thermal mass, expansion space, venting), and a wide range of other mechanisms mean that you really have to pull out all the stops to burn the packs; there have been Teslas which burned to the ground, down to smouldering wrecks, still without managing to ignite the pack.
(Honestly, it amazes me that it's considered acceptable to store massive amounts of gasoline just in one big open tank - no isolation / compartmentalization / quench systems. Just dump it in and there you go! Not surprising that there's ~200k car fires in the US alone every year)
The other big competitor with safety is power density - the mix of ion mobility (how fast it's physically possible to charge / discharge the cell) and efficiency (how much heat you have to remove from the cells to do so). The heat removal rate is also affected by the heat tolerance. Charge speeds are a more significant limiting factor to the number of purchases than range, and the power output of the packs and high torque they allow are one of the big selling points of EVs.
Heck, Wh/kg (gravimetric energy density) isn't even the most important energy density measure. Practical EVs are not limited by their weights - heck, the Model 3 SR slots right into the middle of its class (compact midrange sedans in their various configurations, and the LR, while on the heavier side, still has some heavier ICE competitors). Their ranges are limited by how many cells you can physically fit into the pack without making the skateboard unreasonably bulky. For example, the Model 3 skateboard, at current cell volumetric energy densities, simply can't scale to higher than 75kWh. Doesn't matter what the gravimetric energy density is - if you want more, you need to improve the volumetric energy density.
Except for the fact that you can actually buy it, and people are at present taking deliveries.
Luxury sedans are a vehicle class. You don't get to make up a new definition for it; it already has one. Model S is in the luxury sedan segment (there's some debate over whether it belongs in the "large luxury sedan" segment or "midsize luxury sedan" segment). Model X is in the luxury crossover segment. Model 3 is in the midrange compact sedan segment. Model Y will be in the midrange crossover segment.
Your opinions of the quality of the seats on the old taxi you rode in have no bearing on what class a vehicle is slotted into.
I have, and I think it looks awesome. But pictures don't capture even the sight like being in a vehicle in person, and they don't capture the feel at all.
There have been around a dozen different reviewers from different major sources who have. Every last one of them raved about it. Find me a single review from anyone who has actually been in the vehicle who said that it felt like a cheap econobox.
Seriously? Because you can't put your hands on it a second after you say "yes" that means it's not for sale? Is "any product that has a waiting list isn't really for sale" actually your argument here?
Around a hundred, as per the production ramp.
Taxis? Right. So probably pre-facelift / first generation base interior / no PUP.
No, the segment is defined by the form factor and price class. It's not defined by "How AC On Slashdot Wants To Group Things".
Amusing ;)
What sort of idiot would take the word of someone who's never seen the car over the word of literally a dozen professional reviewers who have?
Right, got it. Every major auto reviewer is secretly on Tesla's dole.
Get in line behind me. Those at the head of the line are already getting theirs. Which is nice because it means more and more sightings, videos, pics, etc every day.
Pre- or post refresh, and what interior option? Funny that they've captured a third of the US luxury sedan market, almost 50% more than the next closest competitor, with a "Kia-like" interior, huh?
And FYI, I'll take professional reviewers opinions (who have been in Model 3s) about M3 quality over yours, thanks.
There is an important distinction. Tesla will not be making the worlds' "first self driving car". Companies like Waymo have had much more reliable systems for longer. Tesla may, however, make the world's first practical self-driving car. Companies like Waymo are relying on LIDAR, which is impractical for a number of reasons:
* It's expensive. Google, after years of work, got the price down to a "mere" $7500, instead of the original $75k. Tesla uses cameras, radar and ultrasonic sensors, all of which are cheap.
* It's awkward. You have to have a bulky dome sticking out of the top of your car, not only making it ugly, but also ruining your airflow.
* It can't see in situations humans generally can. For example, humans drive in fog and snow. LIDAR-based cars generally can't. So do you tell humans that they can't go anywhere then? Or that they have to drive themselves?
* You have to process visual data regardless. LIDAR can't read signs. Road markings. Colours. Brake lights. It can't tell you whether something is a paper bag in the road or a large rock. All it gives you is a 3d map; that map still requires interpretation. So either way you still need what Tesla is doing; LIDAR just builds better maps than photogrammetry.
I don't expect the LIDAR systems - despite the excellent 3d maps that they build - to ever take off for this reason. I have more hope for, for example, time-of-flight cameras. That could get you all of the benefits of both LIDAR and cameras in the same cheap, compact package. But even if some other technology like that takes off, it should be easy for a company like Tesla to incorporate it; they just replace their photogrammetry-based models with the new model system, and retain all of their existing image/radar/ultrasound processing codebase and the reems of data they've collected.
That's actually a legitimate issue. Some owners with EAP love the thing. They bought Tesla because it's a crazy-fast-accelerating electric car, but became so hooked on autopilot that they'd buy a gasoline car from a different manufacturer if it came with EAP and Tesla didn't. They find it a huge load off to not have to be constantly monitoring every bit about you drive, that you're just there as a "second set of eyes" (it's particularly loved in heavy traffic). On the other hand, some owners hate it. They find it to be far more stressful having to second guess and correct the car versus just driving themselves.
Part of the irony of EAP is that as they improve it, it may actually lead to more accidents. Right now, it's imperfect enough that nobody is going to forget that you have to keep watch on it. It will disable itself (or at least warn) in situations that it knows it will have trouble with, for example, and most people don't even bother trying in construction zones or other challenging situations. But what happens when it gets good enough that it doesn't have trouble with common situations (but still isn't good enough to be "full self driving")? I think attention will wane a lot.
That's a good point. Perhaps when someone buys the car, Tesla should break the software down into three sections:
* Standard safety features (automatic emergency braking, etc)
* Enhanced Autopilot (lane following, lane change, summon, etc). Maybe charge $5k for that.
* Full Self Driving - with the latter being "not available until validation and regulatory approval". Maybe add only another $3k since they have to wait.
If only Tesla would do something like that, it would be a lot less confusion, don't you think?
Wait, that IS what Tesla does.
Whenever you buy the car, you have three options: only standard safety features, EAP, and EAP+FSD. You have to choose whether you want the "Full Self Driving" option, which is explicitly made clear that it's not available yet. It is impossible to buy a Tesla without knowing that your car does not have full self driving. Nor is it possible to use EAP without being explicitly warned that you have to pay attention, and having the car warn you (and ultimately cut power) if you don't.
Should Tesla have used eye tracking in addition to steering wheel checks? In hindsight, yes. But there was no interior-facing camera in the Model S. Guess what? There now is one in the Model 3. So that's a feature that can now be added in.
Actually, the victim's family doesn't blame the car. They support the technology. The statement is rather long (mostly defending their son against what they see as media slander against him), but concludes:
1) "will" -> "does". The car already exists.
2) Not according to every review from everyone who's actually been in the car.
Furthermore, I'm going to bet that you've never even been in an S or X (hint: there's two expensive models, and that's if you don't count the Roadster).
After Harvey, only one Supercharger station was noticed to have gone out, and only for a brief timeperiod. Superchargers survived serious damage to the buildings they were attached to - for example, one had a gaping hole in the hotel it was attached to, while another's adjacent building had the floor flooded with water.
Irma was different - probably the single greatest power loss incident in US history. Ten million customers were left without power, and in certain parts of the state, virtually everyone. This took down about 80% of the supercharger network. That said, a day layer, about 75% of it is now up. The Marathon and Naples superchargers may have gone underwater, we'll have to wait and see what happened to them; there's a couple more that will probably go online shortly.
How do superchargers keep the power on when it's going out for others, and get restored so quickly? Simple: they're on very high power feeds. Adding a supercharger to a suburban neighborhood is, power-wise, like building a large office building or small skyscraper. The Sarasota Supercharger, for example, running at full tilt would consume 1,5MW; unless they're located downtown or next to some huge industry, they're easily the largest power consumer around. This means that if the lines supplying them are out, then everyone is probably out as well. And in order to bring the lights back on to others, the supercharger is going to go online first.
The other issue is that, like gas stations, charging infrastructure is spread out. But unlike gas stations, where delivery issues or the like may leave a whole region in short supply, power outages are spotty. So even if 80% of the chargers went out in an area, you still have 20%. But that's not the really important part; the important part is that 20% of outlets, period still have power. What it works out to in practice (and I know some people in this situation right now) is, the power goes out at your place, and if you don't have a backup generator, while everyone else is miserable in the heat, you use your car as a lifeboat; it can maintain the climate control for days, with no "idling", no worries about carbon buildup or carbon monoxide or the like. It leaves you mobile (getting great range at the low speeds you have to go when roads are covered in debris), and you simply need to find one place with power and you can charge. Which you almost invariably can. Doesn't matter if even the national guard can't get to you, let alone gas trucks, let alone whether gas stations have backup generators, whether or not their tanks were flooded, etc, etc - you can charge on any power outlet, anywhere - you just need to ask for permission.
Of course, if you have a backup generator (say, natural gas), it's a moot point; you have unlimited driving at any point in time.
The answer to your question is "already". Good EVs (like Teslas, for example) have pack heating and cooling, and can survive (and operate in) temperatures that gasoline cars could not.
In theory or in practice? In theory, there are two possibilities: the waterproofing holds up, or the waterproofing does not hold up. It's designed for the latter, but that's only guaranteed for a fixed period of time, they're not designed for long-term submersion. Depending on how the water sloshes in and how stable the vehicle remains, sometimes you can even use them as a boat (google "Tesla swimming") ;) But not always. Even a vehicle that goes into a shutdown mode will often just reboot after it's out of the water and be driven off (you can find videos of this too).
As for "in practice", however? In general your insurance will take a look at the ca
** is the figure that matters.
Why do you keep talking about "races", as if we're talking about the track? This thread is about performance on the road. On the road, it's meaningless how fast you can go from, say, 100 to 150. How fast it peels off the line or when you want to pass someone is the future that matters.
Yeah, try again. The P100D does 0-30 in 0.87, while the Veyron does it in 1.32. That's "clobbering". That's like racing a Porsche Cayenne against a Yaris.
It's not a "reaction time difference", it's the nature of the propulsion systems. ICEs put out minimal torque at low RPMs. EVs put out maximum torque virtually instantly. No turbos to spin up. No need to even rev up the engine to get some rotating kinetic energy - just instant max torque that doesn't begin to drop until you get to around halfway to your max RPM. The response is so fast that it can almost feel like the car is reading your mind.
Haha, wow, it must be sad to watch your era end, isn't it? Sorry, but Veyron acceleration figures are - for all acceleration figures - with warm tires.
Teslas are not "track cars". If you're talking about a high speed track race, of course the Veyron wins; Teslas were never designed like that. They're sedans and crossovers for the road (the topic of this thread). Yet they happen to be so high performance that even a bloody crossover (the Model X) will clobber a Veyron off the line. And I know it hurts you to hear that, so let me write it again: a bloody crossover that costs 1 1/2 orders of magnitude less will clobber a Veyron off the line. 1.32 seconds? Hahahaha, slowpoke! I wouldn't be surprised if the performance package for the Model 3 makes it competitive with a Veyron. I'm going to laugh my bloody arse off if a sub-$50k car can match or beat a Veyron 0-30 ;)
When were you last in a Model 3? Right, you weren't. So all you have to go on are reviews. Very well, start reading them.
In driving that you'll actually regularly experience as an owner, 0-60 is the most meaningful factor, and the fraction of that which matters the most is 0-30. The P100D beats the Veyron in the former, and clobbers it in the latter. The fact that the Veyron continues accelerating once you start hitting double the speed limit? Wow, what a totally meaningful trick for your everyday driving.
All of this comes with the fact that - need I even bother to mention it - that the P100D is a large 5-seat sedan.... and the Model X has nearly as good acceleration, as a bloody crossover.
So, you're saying that a roughly Leaf-priced car with 200+ miles of range that offers a great driving experience, nice interior and standard features, and a broad network of reliable, super-fast charging stations would be a no brainer?
*cough* Tesla Model 3 *cough* ;)
My mistake. Apparently gasoline vehicles are built around a skateboard like this. Silly me for not knowing that!
My mistake. "The engines are in front" - my dang lying eyes convinced me that they were built into the skateboard between the wheels. Silly me for trusting them! My dang eyes also lied to me about there being a frunk where you'd normally find an engine on an ICE. I better have them checked out.
Silly, silly me.
And you're right. It totally makes sense to continue to build highly suboptimal vehicles, with poorer handling, space usage, assembly economics, and shorter range, indefinitely, rather than designing for an entirely different powertrain and using that as the basis for all of your upcoming EVs. Your logic is impeccable: spend a fortune developing and refining the new powertrain, making huge gigafactories, etc, but then jam all your hardware developed at high cost into a vehicle that wasn't designed for it because you can't be bothered to do a design refresh.
It's so obvious now. I'm such a fool.
One thing batteries are really nice for is voltage maintenance on long feeder lines. Things like the old Castle Valley battery on the Rattlesnake #22 line. When you have one long line serving a sparse population of customers, having a battery buffer halfway along its length lets you use a smaller, cheaper line (the buffer charges at night and then discharges during the day).
Is that you, TTAC "Tesla Deathwatch"? ;)
Tesla comes up with the most off-the-wall engineering solutions. Another good example with the Model 3: have you seen their new "leverless" air-vanes (electronic-controlled direction so that it can remember drivers / passengers and how they like their airflow in what conditions)? Most people assumed that there were a bunch of linear actuators in there ducting the flow, and some were complaining that Tesla would complicate the design and add expensive parts and their controllers for something that's not that important. But that's not how they do it. They actually use computer-case-fan style fans to blow the main airflow in different directions (aka, aiming air with air), while simultaneously also contributing to the total air delivered (you need a given amount of fan power regardless!). And you can plug fans like that straight into your motherboard - they're super-cheap in bulk (even high quality ones) and don't need a separate controller.
Tesla is in a close battle with Bugatti on accelerations. The Bugatti Veyron did 0-60 in 2,4 seconds. The Tesla P100D does it in 2,27 seconds. The Chiron now does it in 2,0 seconds. Etc. I can't see how electric isn't ultimately going to win this battle. The Teslas also cost 1 1/2 orders of magnitude less, and while they lose out on high-end acceleration, they clobber anything on the road off the line.
One thing Teslas don't do yet is that they're not track cars; they don't have the cooling level needed for sustained track duty. I expect the Roadster 3.0 to be their first track-duty car.
Really? So when you discover that you need gas on your way home, you arrive home only 2 minutes later than you would have otherwise? I'm going to call BS on that one.
Do you know how long it takes to fill up an EV? 20 seconds. Ten to connect the cable and ten to disconnect. The fact that the charging at home happens while you sleep doesn't affect you one bit. And that's the vast majority of a person's usage. For the minority - long trips? Supercharging happens while you eat lunch and on bathroom breaks. During those stops that you're supposed to take (and which EU commercial drivers can lose their license if they don't take). But to reiterate: that's a solid minority of travel for most people. In your everyday life, charging an EV takes 20 seconds.
Which affects your everyday life how? Oh, that's right, it's to help you avoid those periodic inconveniences of having to detour on the way home to a gas station.
Not that Tesla ranges are short. The cheapest Model 3 has an EPA range of 220mi (same 5-cycle or equivalency as gasoline cars), while the long range version is 310mi.
1) That's not true. ICEs also lose range in the winter, and to a lesser extent when running the AC in hot weather.
2) Teslas lose about 20% range in the winter. See the extensive driving data gathered by Björn Nyland's work as a courier in Norway. Other EVs with less efficient heat recapture may lose more, but Teslas do not.
3) ICEs lose a lot of range idling in traffic; EVs lose nearly an order of magnitude less. ICEs lose significant range driving at low speeds due to congestion; EVs gain significant range in such conditions.
Ahem.
Lastly: I'm going to take a wiiiiild guess that you've never gotten behind the wheel of a Tesla. ;) Try it some time. Seriously, just call up a Tesla store and ask if you can.