Immediately contradicted by the subsequent line that says "concept car". I'm sure they'll release "something" eventually.
a fully-electric SUV in China which could compete with Tesla’s Model X
Place your bets that like every single other "electric SUV" apart from the Model X, it's simply a moderate-sized 5-seater with "SUV styling".
The German automaker said Sunday the ID. ROOMZZ
I too name vehicles after letters that I draw in Scrabble.
will be unveiled at the upcoming Shanghai Auto Show and will be available in 2021
Don't strain yourself with the rush there, VW.
Volkswagen says the zero-emission vehicle can go approximately 450 kilometers (280 miles) before the battery has to be recharged.
Ignoring the constant stream of "actual range being vastly less than the promised concept range" vehicles that we've been getting from European automakers, China measures ranges on the laughably lax NEDC cycle that gives grossly inflated range figures.
The concept car includes a fully-automatic driving mode
A technology which VW is a clear leader in;) (/snark)
The announcement comes one month after Volkswagen’s former CEO Martin Winterkorn was charged by U.S. regulators with defrauding investors during its massive diesel emissions scandal.
Speaking of that, they're already back to their old ways, trying to cheat the new WLTP standards. This time, the cheat is just the opposite - trying to make their emissions look bad, so that their reductions targets over the coming years will be less stringent. So they've been doing things like testing cars with depleted batteries and disabled engine start-stop systems to make the cars burn more and emit more.
Volkswagen has said it will boost electric vehicle production to 22 million over the next decade. It made fewer than 50,000 battery-only vehicles last year.
It's a common but sneakier technique: you cut prices on "daily staples" but not everything else, because it's mainly the staples that people price shop on. So they look at the price on the bread, milk, etc and see, "That's pretty similar to that other, more downmarket grocery store", and don't notice how much more non-staples cost.
I went from the Xperia Z2 to the Xperia XZ2. The software stack got a lot better between the two. Back in the Z2 days there was too much bloatware that you couldn't uninstall.
LOVE my Sony XZ2 Premium. Awesome low-light sensitivity, particularly for video (has a second camera dedicated specifically to low-light data). I can capture northern lights that are too dim for me to see with the naked eye. Does 1080p 960fps slow motion, and 4k HDR video. Wonderful bokehs and macro shots. Colours captured like they are in the real world, not "ramped up" with filters. Beautifully built. Glass basically unscratchable (although I assume it's still possible to shatter them... I've managed to crack Sony smartphones before, particularly my last one which died by being run over by a bus;) ). LCD screen rather than OLED, so the display will always look as nice as the day I bought it - which is very nice indeed (OLEDs degrade way too fast). IP68.
My only real criticism would be the lack of an optical zoom; that would be a really significant benefit to the camera stack. Oh, and I once was really annoyed by the fact that if you hit the max SD card file size while recording a video (easy to do at 4k HDR), it just stops recording, rather that starting a new file... so I had a gap in my video where I had to restart the recording. Overall though, I just love this phone. I use it with a Sony smartband, which is a super-cheap equivalent to a smart watch... no screen, but that's not what I use it for (virtual tether so I can't lose my phone, lets me page my phone to find it, vibrates when I get an incoming call or alarm and I'm not near the phone, etc).
Not sure if I'll stick with Sony in the future, though - they're moving away from LCDs. Then again, so is everyone else, so....:P
When my amazon was just a couple months old (4 months I think?), I was trying to get him to stand on this slidey wood ladder thing I had gotten him but which he didn't like. So I hung it from a rope, and then further up the support rope I tied a string (too thin for him to stand on) and hung a treat down, so he'd have to stand on the ladder to reach the treat. I kept coming back though and the treat would be gone, its string up on the support rope. I had thought that my then-spouse was doing it, so I'd reset it with a new treat, and the exact same thing would happen again - I'd come back, treat gone, and string up at the support rope.
Eventually I caught him in the act. He'd climb up to the support rope, climb across it (bypassing the ladder that he hated), get to the string, and then bit by bit, , reel it in to pull up the treat to where he could reach it. And it wasn't easy to reel in, either, as it wanted to slip back down - he had to restrain it each time he pulled it up.
I mean... try to picture a 4-month-old human figuring that one out.
He used to take backs off my earrings while I was wearing them, and would take apart clothespins and refrigerator clips faster than I could put them back together (which ultimately led to me stopping giving them to him, as it was more of a waste of my time than his;) Just super-smart.
I like to picture dinosaurs with the behaviors of modern birds, because it can sometimes be really disturbing. For example, when my amazon gets hormonal, he crouches down, flares all his feathers out, and pulsates his pupils - black-in-yellow, doubling then halving in size every few seconds while he locks his gaze on you... then just randomly, clamps onto the nearest object, no matter what it is, even a piece of steel, and just gnaws down on it again and again, as hard as he can - all the while never breaking his gaze on you. As if you say, "YOU SEE THIS, BUDDY? THIS COULD BE YOU!!!!"
Now, it's one thing when the animal doing that threat display is a 400 gram fluffball. But picture a Tyrannosaur doing that. Staring you down with pulsating yellow eyes and randomly clamping onto a tree as a threat display.
With a surface temperature in the region of 450degC,
Venus's surface conditions vary greatly with altitude, and are believed to have varied greatly with time; it's atmosphere is believed to being pushed over tipping points than Earth's. Using today's surface conditions, and a global average at that, to draw conclusions about specific features that formed long ago, isn't really helpful.
But yes, cooling rates on Venus even of regular basaltic lavas (apparently rather MORB-like in most locations, although not all) appear to be much slower than on Earth. Melt also is much more prolific after energetic events; for example, melt pools from large impactors often overflow their craters and flow for significant distances (example).
Compounding that, the high ppCO2 in the atmosphere is going to reduce devolatilisation of the lavas, retaining their initial low viscosity for... a hard to calculate amount.
A river as long as Baltis Vallis - nearly 7000km - is going to have more than ample time for gas exchange during its flow. Also remember that Venus's crust is depleted in water, which reduces viscosity.
Don't get me wrong, carbonatites are fascinating (one of my friends while doing my degree was doing his PhD in UK carbonatites- fascinating rocks!), but such exotic melts are probably not necessary to postulate for these long Venusian channels
You're disagreeing with peer-review (note: I did not say carbonatites specifically, but "carbonatites or similar" - carbonatites are one of a few types of low-temperature postulated flows that could have realistically formed such rivers). Higher-temperature magmas simply are not believed to have been capable of flowing such distances with such low viscosities - even in the exotic environment of Venus's surface.
Those many cubic km of other materials processed to produce your carbonatites will be somewhere, and you'll see the structures they generate far more often.
Thankfully for Venus, volcanism isn't exactly rare;) Venus is exceedingly volcanically active. Most of its surface is basaltic flows. And there are ample signs of secondary differentiation, such as the pancake domes (the leading theory is that they're equivalent to rhyolite domes on Earth). Indeed, we have direct measured evidence of the differentiation from the Soviet landers (Venera+Vega), which measured some basalts so abnormally high in incompatible elements that they were initially thought to have been granite. A number of the studied rock types appear to be various enrichment end-members.
That's probably materials like sodium carbonate and sodium hydrogen carbonate weathering out very rapidly as the rocks self-metamorphose on their own residual liquors
They erupt containing large amounts of hygroscopic anhydrides (primarily gregoryite and nyerereite), which quickly absorb water from the air.
Could have been large impact-driven vaporization events that temporarily create a denser, water-rich atmosphere, perhaps? I haven't read the full study, so I'm not sure what they're positing. Water does need a certain minimum pressure to be able exist as a liquid at all. Hygroscopic salts at high concentrations can let it exist as a liquid at much lower pressures, though I'm not sure how you'd sustain huge brine-filled rivers for billions of years; you'd expect the source of said salts to be quickly exhausted by such flows.
Personally I'm more curious about Venus's rivers, like Baltis Vallis, the longest riverbed in the solar system. We don't even know what fluid carved them, let alone where it came from or where it went. Theories cover everything from liquid sulfur to supercritical CO2, but most likely is that it's thermal erosion by rare (by Earth standards) types of low-temperature lavas, such as carbonatites or similar.
(Love carbonatites... look like crude oil during the day, glow maroon in the dark, flow like water, and rapidly oxidize to bright white after cooling. Also tend to be very rich in valuable minerals)
Being able to accelerate quickly and well beyond the speed limit has saved my life
And you can, under the EU proposal. How long does it take you to floor a pedal?
The effect of flooring the pedal doesn't change. What changes is that there's a "zero action" point in the pedal's range around the speed limit, where the car only gives enough force to maintain speed. Push at all past that, and you're back to accelerating.
As a separate issue, under what I'd like to see, you'd be limited to going more than 30mph / 50kph over the speed limit without activating an emergency mode. But that shouldn't pose a hindrance to you in your "pre-planned accident" scenario either.
This doesn't prevent speeding. All that's being talked about is adding some "no-acceleration" pedal travel around the speed limit.
Honestly, if you could add a +- X kph to the speed limit, this is a feature I would like. Call it "speeding ticket prevention mode".;)
I have no issues with limitations so long as they can be overridden, with the difficulty of the override being proportional to the risk. For example, I would personally like to see a hard limit of +30mph / +50kph over the speed limit that can't even be beaten by further accelerator pedal travel... but can still be circumvented by activating an "Emergency Mode" which makes your lights flash and an external siren sound. Such a hard limit should also be activated at lower speeds if the vehicle knows that it can't cope with the situation that a user is trying to subject it to, such as a hill that will make it jump, a turn it couldn't possibly take, etc.
Obviously, in places with no limit, such as on a track or Autobahn, a "+30mph / +50kph" over the limit scenario would never occur.
Indeed, it clearly saw the barrier in the left lane. But there was no barrier in the right lane. It just didn't understand the arrow sign on the barriers in the left lane means that the right lane is closed and you're supposed to detour to the side (which it saw as an exit).
Every place has its own edge cases. There's a truly daunting volume of them. That's why I laugh about companies that are making geofenced "robot taxi services", which can only drive on specific roads in specific cities. I mean... great, you're gathering a nice dataset of edge cases for that one billionth of the world's road network....
Neural net vision systems train to their dataset. If your edge case is not in the dataset, it's not going to be learned. Self-driving vehicles without a driver at the wheel (Level 5) are not going to be viable for years because there's such a vast multitute of edge cases, and the only way to learn them is to collect an edge-case dataset. Until then, you're not getting beyond Level 3/4.
That's not to say that manually filing a bug report is the only way to trigger one. When there's a driver disengagement, that generates a sort of "mini-report". But a filed bug report contains a lot more information.
One of the things that I think a lot of people forget is that you're dealing with a data flood. Picture how much space and bandwidth it would take to record billions of miles of realtime, high framerate data from multiple cameras per vehicle, plus radar and ultrasonic sensors. Totally impractical - even just to transmit the full dataset for every edge case. As a result, there's some clever "data minimization" techniques used to keep the flood under control, where all "processed" data is transmitted (what it believes is where), but the raw data used to generate it is only transmitted at key moments (recognition ambiguity, changes in what's recognized, driver triggers, etc), and only for the objects of interest.
Also, as for this driver's particular case, I don't think it's hard to see what's going on. The car is correctly recognizing that the left lane is blocked, and correctly recognizing that the right lane is clear, but not realizing that you're not supposed to take the right lane, because of the arrow-sign in the left lane. So instead it's seeing the path that the other cars are taking as an exit, and trying to "remain on the same road" via the "clear" lane.
If I remember right, construction sign tagging was first spotted in shadow mode last fall. I'm not sure how much of that has since transitioned from shadow mode to live.
So Q3 was bookwork magic. Q4 then? More magic? As for capex, have you not noticed that they've built an entire new huge building at Lathrop and are building a whole new Gigafactory, among other things?
because they cannot do what they promised -- to manufacture a cheaper EV.
You do realize that they do sell the $35k model, right? And that they actually made it nicer than was promised, with some of the things that were supposed to be optional extras included standard?
The site says: Granted, you have to see it in person to know for sure. But to look at the pictures, 7 people would be a huge squeeze.
Were the people doing test rides in on the conspiracy?
Furniture? A foot stool maybe.
66 cubic feet / 1900 litres / 1,9 cubic meters with the rear seats down. A little less than a RAV4.
I think what throws people off is that it's almost the exact same shape as the 3, just scaled up (it shares 76% of its hardware with the 3 for ease of production - hence the similarity).
Sorry you say, surfboards go on the roof, but that curved hatchback ain't got no place to put a roof rack.
Off road? Sure, if pulling into your drive is off road. For that wilderness adventure, you can drive on your lawn.
Actually, you're right in this one. While it has more clearance than the 3 (Model 3 = 5,5" / 14cm), as well as AWD, I wouldn't recommend offroading in it. Again, it's built basically the same as the 3, which is not designed for offroading.
Of course, all crossover makers try to present them as being capable of going offroad, even though they know that their main market is suburban housewives.
Low center of gravity, as they claim, means your butt won't clear a sidewalk curb let alone rock and rubble mountain trails
That's not how it works. An EV with a 14" / 36cm ground clearance would still have a lower centre of gravity than an ICE vehicle with a 4" / 10cm ground clearance. It's because the battery pack is under the floor, versus the engine in an ICE whose centre of mass is closer to the vertical centre of the vehicle. EVs act like weebles.
Want to try a rainy wash?, wear your swim trunks and snorkel.
I have no clue what you're talking about. Do you think EVs can't take water? If so, think again.
"And when you’re on the road, it’s easy to plug in along the way—at any public station or with the Tesla charging network. We currently have over 12,000 Superchargers worldwide, with six new locations opening every week." Six new locations a week? Let's do the math. 6x50 weeks = 300 chargers per year. At that rate, 12,000 units means they have invested 40 years in infrastructure build out, but we know that that is not the case.
Your math is wrong, but your misunderstanding is understandable. Chargers != locations. This should clear things up. (chargers = stalls, locations = supercharger stations)
You do realize that there were people taking rides in it all evening, right? Were they in on the conspiracy?
Heard from a six foot guy who was in the back. Fit comfortably, although he did hit is head when they went over a speedbump. Probably only best for average height or short adults back there.
Please let me know which of the two you've never been in before, because clearly it's either one, the other, or both.
Leg room, front (inches): 42,7 vs. 41,5 Leg room, rear (inches): 35,2 vs. 33,4 Head room, front (inches): 40,3 vs. 39,6 Head room, rear (inches): 37,7 vs. 37,6 Shoulder room, front (inches): 56,3 vs. 55,5 Shoulder room, rear (inches): 54 vs. 54,5 Hip room, front (inches): 53,4 vs. 53,3 Hip room, rear (inches): 52,4 vs. 52,2
There is literally only one passenger room measure - rear shoulder room - where the Kona exceeds Model 3. And IMHO, the subjective difference is a lot greater than the numbers look. I guess having two inches cut off your leg space is more dramatic than it sounds because you can't just shrink your legs by two inches.
And of course you selected the most favourable conditions for your favourite car, where as if you use the headline figure of 120MPGe for the Kona and 130MPGe for the M3 (from your own link) it's down to about 7%.
I chose the most meaningful figure - highway efficiency. Because range and charging rates only matters in highway driving. Sure, you could compare city efficiency, but given that UDDS's average speed is 18,6 mph, try dividing a couple hundred miles range by 18,6 mph and look at how long you'd have to spend in your car to actually run it out of range. Aka, it's irrelevant. The comparison is between highway consumptions, aka, where you can actually run your car out of charge and where you have to actually stop at fast chargers.
Also if we are talking about rear space, because of that sloping roof the rear seats in the Model Y are only really suitable for children.
Are you forgetting that that's the third row in the car? Are you wanting to compare it to cars that only have two rows?
Also don't forget that for the same price the Kona has a 35% larger battery, resulting in considerably better range
Except that it doesn't get significantly better range - that's the whole point! 35% bigger battery (added weight (which hurts handling), added production cost, added environmental impact, etc), but only 17% more range, despite smaller passenger space by virtually every measure. And that efficiency difference, it must be reiterated, means slower charging (more kWh needed to go a given amount of distance), something that is compounded by the fact that Kona can only charge at up to a theoretical 100kW (up to ~70kW on most high power CCS stations, and 40-45kW on the vastly more common 50kW stations), while Model 3 charges at up 250kW on the new V3 stations, and up to 145kW on the current V2 stations.
And as for the whole "for the same price" aspect, it's $36,5k base price vs. $35k... except that Hyundai openly admits that they make no profit on their EVs, while Tesla does, including on the $35k version (and at the average sale price, about 20% gross margins). Secondly, that's not the appropriate matchup; Tesla has a $37k trim, which is much closer to the base Kona price... but that one goes an extra 20 miles and comes with the partial premium interior, while the Kona is in its lowest trim.
And even most Kona fans are willing to face up that the interior on the Kona is decked out like an econobox; even the Bolt's interior is nicer than the Kona's, and that's not saying much (though Kona's seats are nicer than the Bolts, and it comes with a lot more tech than the Bolt). Meanwhile even the base trim Model 3 has an all-glass roof (with the cool rainbow water effect), mostly wrapped trims rather than simply pressed, etc etc. The standard feature comparison isn't even close (it would take a long time to go down the whole list!)
Yeah, let's totally forget that they have 20% gross margins and had nearly a billion dollars free cash flow for each of the past two quarters, while most automakers gross margins on EVs are negative.
Tesla's debt just *decreased* by nearly a billion dollars. Its debt to equity ratio is not high by automotive standards. Check out Ford's, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
2008 just called. They want you to write for TTAC's "Tesla Deathwatch".
Immediately contradicted by the subsequent line that says "concept car". I'm sure they'll release "something" eventually.
Place your bets that like every single other "electric SUV" apart from the Model X, it's simply a moderate-sized 5-seater with "SUV styling".
I too name vehicles after letters that I draw in Scrabble.
Don't strain yourself with the rush there, VW.
Ignoring the constant stream of "actual range being vastly less than the promised concept range" vehicles that we've been getting from European automakers, China measures ranges on the laughably lax NEDC cycle that gives grossly inflated range figures.
A technology which VW is a clear leader in ;) (/snark)
Speaking of that, they're already back to their old ways, trying to cheat the new WLTP standards. This time, the cheat is just the opposite - trying to make their emissions look bad, so that their reductions targets over the coming years will be less stringent. So they've been doing things like testing cars with depleted batteries and disabled engine start-stop systems to make the cars burn more and emit more.
Please try harder than you've tried previously.
It's a common but sneakier technique: you cut prices on "daily staples" but not everything else, because it's mainly the staples that people price shop on. So they look at the price on the bread, milk, etc and see, "That's pretty similar to that other, more downmarket grocery store", and don't notice how much more non-staples cost.
I went from the Xperia Z2 to the Xperia XZ2. The software stack got a lot better between the two. Back in the Z2 days there was too much bloatware that you couldn't uninstall.
LOVE my Sony XZ2 Premium. Awesome low-light sensitivity, particularly for video (has a second camera dedicated specifically to low-light data). I can capture northern lights that are too dim for me to see with the naked eye. Does 1080p 960fps slow motion, and 4k HDR video. Wonderful bokehs and macro shots. Colours captured like they are in the real world, not "ramped up" with filters. Beautifully built. Glass basically unscratchable (although I assume it's still possible to shatter them... I've managed to crack Sony smartphones before, particularly my last one which died by being run over by a bus ;) ). LCD screen rather than OLED, so the display will always look as nice as the day I bought it - which is very nice indeed (OLEDs degrade way too fast). IP68.
My only real criticism would be the lack of an optical zoom; that would be a really significant benefit to the camera stack. Oh, and I once was really annoyed by the fact that if you hit the max SD card file size while recording a video (easy to do at 4k HDR), it just stops recording, rather that starting a new file... so I had a gap in my video where I had to restart the recording. Overall though, I just love this phone. I use it with a Sony smartband, which is a super-cheap equivalent to a smart watch... no screen, but that's not what I use it for (virtual tether so I can't lose my phone, lets me page my phone to find it, vibrates when I get an incoming call or alarm and I'm not near the phone, etc).
Not sure if I'll stick with Sony in the future, though - they're moving away from LCDs. Then again, so is everyone else, so.... :P
Come on, people, this post deserves mod points ;)
When my amazon was just a couple months old (4 months I think?), I was trying to get him to stand on this slidey wood ladder thing I had gotten him but which he didn't like. So I hung it from a rope, and then further up the support rope I tied a string (too thin for him to stand on) and hung a treat down, so he'd have to stand on the ladder to reach the treat. I kept coming back though and the treat would be gone, its string up on the support rope. I had thought that my then-spouse was doing it, so I'd reset it with a new treat, and the exact same thing would happen again - I'd come back, treat gone, and string up at the support rope.
Eventually I caught him in the act. He'd climb up to the support rope, climb across it (bypassing the ladder that he hated), get to the string, and then bit by bit, , reel it in to pull up the treat to where he could reach it. And it wasn't easy to reel in, either, as it wanted to slip back down - he had to restrain it each time he pulled it up.
I mean... try to picture a 4-month-old human figuring that one out.
He used to take backs off my earrings while I was wearing them, and would take apart clothespins and refrigerator clips faster than I could put them back together (which ultimately led to me stopping giving them to him, as it was more of a waste of my time than his ;) Just super-smart.
I like to picture dinosaurs with the behaviors of modern birds, because it can sometimes be really disturbing. For example, when my amazon gets hormonal, he crouches down, flares all his feathers out, and pulsates his pupils - black-in-yellow, doubling then halving in size every few seconds while he locks his gaze on you... then just randomly, clamps onto the nearest object, no matter what it is, even a piece of steel, and just gnaws down on it again and again, as hard as he can - all the while never breaking his gaze on you. As if you say, "YOU SEE THIS, BUDDY? THIS COULD BE YOU!!!!"
Now, it's one thing when the animal doing that threat display is a 400 gram fluffball. But picture a Tyrannosaur doing that. Staring you down with pulsating yellow eyes and randomly clamping onto a tree as a threat display.
Get a bird, they said... ;)
Venus's surface conditions vary greatly with altitude, and are believed to have varied greatly with time; it's atmosphere is believed to being pushed over tipping points than Earth's. Using today's surface conditions, and a global average at that, to draw conclusions about specific features that formed long ago, isn't really helpful.
But yes, cooling rates on Venus even of regular basaltic lavas (apparently rather MORB-like in most locations, although not all) appear to be much slower than on Earth. Melt also is much more prolific after energetic events; for example, melt pools from large impactors often overflow their craters and flow for significant distances (example).
A river as long as Baltis Vallis - nearly 7000km - is going to have more than ample time for gas exchange during its flow. Also remember that Venus's crust is depleted in water, which reduces viscosity.
You're disagreeing with peer-review (note: I did not say carbonatites specifically, but "carbonatites or similar" - carbonatites are one of a few types of low-temperature postulated flows that could have realistically formed such rivers). Higher-temperature magmas simply are not believed to have been capable of flowing such distances with such low viscosities - even in the exotic environment of Venus's surface.
Thankfully for Venus, volcanism isn't exactly rare ;) Venus is exceedingly volcanically active. Most of its surface is basaltic flows. And there are ample signs of secondary differentiation, such as the pancake domes (the leading theory is that they're equivalent to rhyolite domes on Earth). Indeed, we have direct measured evidence of the differentiation from the Soviet landers (Venera+Vega), which measured some basalts so abnormally high in incompatible elements that they were initially thought to have been granite. A number of the studied rock types appear to be various enrichment end-members.
They erupt containing large amounts of hygroscopic anhydrides (primarily gregoryite and nyerereite), which quickly absorb water from the air.
"Carbonatites are panaceas" said nobody ever. ;)
Could have been large impact-driven vaporization events that temporarily create a denser, water-rich atmosphere, perhaps? I haven't read the full study, so I'm not sure what they're positing. Water does need a certain minimum pressure to be able exist as a liquid at all. Hygroscopic salts at high concentrations can let it exist as a liquid at much lower pressures, though I'm not sure how you'd sustain huge brine-filled rivers for billions of years; you'd expect the source of said salts to be quickly exhausted by such flows.
Personally I'm more curious about Venus's rivers, like Baltis Vallis, the longest riverbed in the solar system. We don't even know what fluid carved them, let alone where it came from or where it went. Theories cover everything from liquid sulfur to supercritical CO2, but most likely is that it's thermal erosion by rare (by Earth standards) types of low-temperature lavas, such as carbonatites or similar.
(Love carbonatites... look like crude oil during the day, glow maroon in the dark, flow like water, and rapidly oxidize to bright white after cooling. Also tend to be very rich in valuable minerals)
And you can, under the EU proposal. How long does it take you to floor a pedal?
The effect of flooring the pedal doesn't change. What changes is that there's a "zero action" point in the pedal's range around the speed limit, where the car only gives enough force to maintain speed. Push at all past that, and you're back to accelerating.
As a separate issue, under what I'd like to see, you'd be limited to going more than 30mph / 50kph over the speed limit without activating an emergency mode. But that shouldn't pose a hindrance to you in your "pre-planned accident" scenario either.
This doesn't prevent speeding. All that's being talked about is adding some "no-acceleration" pedal travel around the speed limit.
Honestly, if you could add a +- X kph to the speed limit, this is a feature I would like. Call it "speeding ticket prevention mode". ;)
I have no issues with limitations so long as they can be overridden, with the difficulty of the override being proportional to the risk. For example, I would personally like to see a hard limit of +30mph / +50kph over the speed limit that can't even be beaten by further accelerator pedal travel... but can still be circumvented by activating an "Emergency Mode" which makes your lights flash and an external siren sound. Such a hard limit should also be activated at lower speeds if the vehicle knows that it can't cope with the situation that a user is trying to subject it to, such as a hill that will make it jump, a turn it couldn't possibly take, etc.
Obviously, in places with no limit, such as on a track or Autobahn, a "+30mph / +50kph" over the limit scenario would never occur.
Indeed, it clearly saw the barrier in the left lane. But there was no barrier in the right lane. It just didn't understand the arrow sign on the barriers in the left lane means that the right lane is closed and you're supposed to detour to the side (which it saw as an exit).
Every place has its own edge cases. There's a truly daunting volume of them. That's why I laugh about companies that are making geofenced "robot taxi services", which can only drive on specific roads in specific cities. I mean... great, you're gathering a nice dataset of edge cases for that one billionth of the world's road network....
He never reported the bug because he's apparently unaware of the in-vehicle bug reporting system, yet seems surprised that it's never been fixed.
Neural net vision systems train to their dataset. If your edge case is not in the dataset, it's not going to be learned. Self-driving vehicles without a driver at the wheel (Level 5) are not going to be viable for years because there's such a vast multitute of edge cases, and the only way to learn them is to collect an edge-case dataset. Until then, you're not getting beyond Level 3/4.
That's not to say that manually filing a bug report is the only way to trigger one. When there's a driver disengagement, that generates a sort of "mini-report". But a filed bug report contains a lot more information.
One of the things that I think a lot of people forget is that you're dealing with a data flood. Picture how much space and bandwidth it would take to record billions of miles of realtime, high framerate data from multiple cameras per vehicle, plus radar and ultrasonic sensors. Totally impractical - even just to transmit the full dataset for every edge case. As a result, there's some clever "data minimization" techniques used to keep the flood under control, where all "processed" data is transmitted (what it believes is where), but the raw data used to generate it is only transmitted at key moments (recognition ambiguity, changes in what's recognized, driver triggers, etc), and only for the objects of interest.
Also, as for this driver's particular case, I don't think it's hard to see what's going on. The car is correctly recognizing that the left lane is blocked, and correctly recognizing that the right lane is clear, but not realizing that you're not supposed to take the right lane, because of the arrow-sign in the left lane. So instead it's seeing the path that the other cars are taking as an exit, and trying to "remain on the same road" via the "clear" lane.
If I remember right, construction sign tagging was first spotted in shadow mode last fall. I'm not sure how much of that has since transitioned from shadow mode to live.
I love the look, but I love aerodynamics.
And that is, BTW, the answer - aerodynamics.
So Q3 was bookwork magic.
Q4 then? More magic?
As for capex, have you not noticed that they've built an entire new huge building at Lathrop and are building a whole new Gigafactory, among other things?
It's a 7-seater crossover with 1,9 cubic meters of cargo space with the rear seats down.
If you want to complain about something being called a "SUV", look at the Hyundai Kona ;)
You do realize that they do sell the $35k model, right? And that they actually made it nicer than was promised, with some of the things that were supposed to be optional extras included standard?
Were the people doing test rides in on the conspiracy?
66 cubic feet / 1900 litres / 1,9 cubic meters with the rear seats down. A little less than a RAV4.
I think what throws people off is that it's almost the exact same shape as the 3, just scaled up (it shares 76% of its hardware with the 3 for ease of production - hence the similarity).
*Cough*
Actually, you're right in this one. While it has more clearance than the 3 (Model 3 = 5,5" / 14cm), as well as AWD, I wouldn't recommend offroading in it. Again, it's built basically the same as the 3, which is not designed for offroading.
Of course, all crossover makers try to present them as being capable of going offroad, even though they know that their main market is suburban housewives.
That's not how it works. An EV with a 14" / 36cm ground clearance would still have a lower centre of gravity than an ICE vehicle with a 4" / 10cm ground clearance. It's because the battery pack is under the floor, versus the engine in an ICE whose centre of mass is closer to the vertical centre of the vehicle. EVs act like weebles.
I have no clue what you're talking about. Do you think EVs can't take water? If so, think again.
Your math is wrong, but your misunderstanding is understandable. Chargers != locations. This should clear things up. (chargers = stalls, locations = supercharger stations)
You do realize that there were people taking rides in it all evening, right? Were they in on the conspiracy?
Heard from a six foot guy who was in the back. Fit comfortably, although he did hit is head when they went over a speedbump. Probably only best for average height or short adults back there.
The sad thing is, you probably actually believe this.
TESLA CAN'T BE PROFITABLE!
(Tesla turns a profit)
FREAK INCIDENT, I DON'T BELIEVE IT!
(Tesla turns a profit again)
LIES! ALL LIES!
I think there's a fable about this somewhere...
Please let me know which of the two you've never been in before, because clearly it's either one, the other, or both.
Leg room, front (inches): 42,7 vs. 41,5
Leg room, rear (inches): 35,2 vs. 33,4
Head room, front (inches): 40,3 vs. 39,6
Head room, rear (inches): 37,7 vs. 37,6
Shoulder room, front (inches): 56,3 vs. 55,5
Shoulder room, rear (inches): 54 vs. 54,5
Hip room, front (inches): 53,4 vs. 53,3
Hip room, rear (inches): 52,4 vs. 52,2
There is literally only one passenger room measure - rear shoulder room - where the Kona exceeds Model 3. And IMHO, the subjective difference is a lot greater than the numbers look. I guess having two inches cut off your leg space is more dramatic than it sounds because you can't just shrink your legs by two inches.
I chose the most meaningful figure - highway efficiency. Because range and charging rates only matters in highway driving. Sure, you could compare city efficiency, but given that UDDS's average speed is 18,6 mph, try dividing a couple hundred miles range by 18,6 mph and look at how long you'd have to spend in your car to actually run it out of range. Aka, it's irrelevant. The comparison is between highway consumptions, aka, where you can actually run your car out of charge and where you have to actually stop at fast chargers.
Are you forgetting that that's the third row in the car? Are you wanting to compare it to cars that only have two rows?
Except that it doesn't get significantly better range - that's the whole point! 35% bigger battery (added weight (which hurts handling), added production cost, added environmental impact, etc), but only 17% more range, despite smaller passenger space by virtually every measure. And that efficiency difference, it must be reiterated, means slower charging (more kWh needed to go a given amount of distance), something that is compounded by the fact that Kona can only charge at up to a theoretical 100kW (up to ~70kW on most high power CCS stations, and 40-45kW on the vastly more common 50kW stations), while Model 3 charges at up 250kW on the new V3 stations, and up to 145kW on the current V2 stations.
And as for the whole "for the same price" aspect, it's $36,5k base price vs. $35k... except that Hyundai openly admits that they make no profit on their EVs, while Tesla does, including on the $35k version (and at the average sale price, about 20% gross margins). Secondly, that's not the appropriate matchup; Tesla has a $37k trim, which is much closer to the base Kona price... but that one goes an extra 20 miles and comes with the partial premium interior, while the Kona is in its lowest trim.
And even most Kona fans are willing to face up that the interior on the Kona is decked out like an econobox; even the Bolt's interior is nicer than the Kona's, and that's not saying much (though Kona's seats are nicer than the Bolts, and it comes with a lot more tech than the Bolt). Meanwhile even the base trim Model 3 has an all-glass roof (with the cool rainbow water effect), mostly wrapped trims rather than simply pressed, etc etc. The standard feature comparison isn't even close (it would take a long time to go down the whole list!)
Yeah, let's totally forget that they have 20% gross margins and had nearly a billion dollars free cash flow for each of the past two quarters, while most automakers gross margins on EVs are negative.
Tesla's debt just *decreased* by nearly a billion dollars. Its debt to equity ratio is not high by automotive standards. Check out Ford's, for example.