Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Car Challenges: Sobering Thoughts

mondaynote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 83 posts

Re: Apple Car Challenges: Sobering Thoughts

#41

Post by cowsandmilk »

vonmoltke wrote: post #32
seivan wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wifi, two cameras one with a flash, finger-print, GPS, gyro, accelerometer, display, force-sensitive touch displays, sensors for display, cell-reception, in/out microphone ports, co-motion processor, bluetooth, speakers, etc etc. Not to mention a ton of software. Those are several products in one. Wether or not they actually build and design everything themselves is irrelevant. Not all car companies makes everything…

The difference is the number of engineering disciplines involved. A smartphone, as complex as it is, still requires a relatively narrow set of disciplines compared to an automobile. Systems engineering was basically created by the auto and aerospace industries for this reason. It coordinates all these disparate disciplines into a single, cohesive effort. What I have seen of systems engineering[1] in SV does not leave…

Electric vehicles are far simpler than internal combustion engines. I mean, you don't even need things like electronic fuel injection. Literally, the complexity of building a car goes from the complex systems developed over a century back to the simple vehicles of the late 1800's.

Re: Apple Car Challenges: Sobering Thoughts

#42

Post by OopsCriticality »

cowsandmilk wrote: post #41
vonmoltke wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is the number of engineering disciplines involved. A smartphone, as complex as it is, still requires a relatively narrow set of disciplines compared to an automobile. Systems engineering was basically created by the auto and aerospace industries for this reason. It coordinates all these disparate disciplines into a single, cohesive effort. What I have seen of systems engineering[1] in SV does not leave…

Electric vehicles are far simpler than internal combustion engines. I mean, you don't even need things like electronic fuel injection. Literally, the complexity of building a car goes from the complex systems developed over a century back to the simple vehicles of the late 1800's.

What about the complex battery management needed for an EV? Or the power and vehicle dynamics management needed if there are multiple motors? Or the additional complexity of the regenerative braking system? Or the fact that the car itself is a very small part of the entire product lifecycle (think design, testing, parts availability, service, etc.)?

Re: Apple Car Challenges: Sobering Thoughts

#43

Post by rhino369 »

kozak wrote: post #33
rhino369 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Range anxiety" is why I like the drivetrain in the Volt.

The so-called "BMW i3 with Range Extender" is a "more true" range-extended battery electric vehicle. Unlike the Volt, the BMW doesn't have any mechanic connection between its wheels and the gasoline engine, and the gasoline engine is properly underpowered not to be considered a primary source of propulsion.

I don't understand why everyone is so outraged that the volt can have a mechanical connection with the gas engine. It's more efficient in some circumstances that just charging a generator.

It still can (and does) go in all electric mode, even up to 100 mph.

The BWI w/ range extender still only goes 150 miles between gas ups. That's pretty annoying. It's great for days when you just need a bit extra to get through. But for road trips, it's nearly a deal breaker. Though I guess you could just suck it and stop every 2 hours.

Re: Apple Car Challenges: Sobering Thoughts

#44

Post by yuhong »

gutnor wrote: post #28
phkahler wrote: post #5

I hate the term "range anxiety". The industry used to throw it around all the time. That term shifts the blame from the product to the customer. The issue is that a vehicle with a range under 100 miles is not that useful. I could drive a car like that to work most days, but I could not make a significant deviation - to go to another work facility, customer or supplier site, or even to see a friend for dinner after wo…

Another point to that, is that the default assumption, even for a Tesla is that you can charge it at home during the night. For people living in a flat with car on the street, that means going to a charging station on a regular basis for a full charge. That is beyond anxiety, it means planning your life around your car range, instead of the other way around. And with the current availability of charging stations, it…

Yea, but for those that can charge at home, it is better than having to pay a gas station.

Re: Apple Car Challenges: Sobering Thoughts

#45

Post by [deleted] »

rhino369 wrote: post #43
kozak wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The so-called "BMW i3 with Range Extender" is a "more true" range-extended battery electric vehicle. Unlike the Volt, the BMW doesn't have any mechanic connection between its wheels and the gasoline engine, and the gasoline engine is properly underpowered not to be considered a primary source of propulsion.

I don't understand why everyone is so outraged that the volt can have a mechanical connection with the gas engine. It's more efficient in some circumstances that just charging a generator. It still can (and does) go in all electric mode, even up to 100 mph. The BWI w/ range extender still only goes 150 miles between gas ups. That's pretty annoying. It's great for days when you just need a bit extra to get through. Bu…

[deleted]

Re: Apple Car Challenges: Sobering Thoughts

#46

Post by dangrossman »

gfodor wrote: post #13
kozak wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a climate where you can potentially get stuck in the snow for few hours when going between cities (that happens maybe once per year, but today is exactly such a day, for example). In a gasoline car you would at least stay warm while waiting for the road to be unblocked. With an electric car, this might easily turn into a survival situation.

Being stuck in traffic barely drains the battery. It's range anxiety, not time anxiety.

I don't know why this keeps getting downvoted. It's absolutely true.

An EV uses 20+ kilowatts to move at highway speeds. It uses 1 kilowatt to run climate control.

Sitting in traffic for an hour is equivalent to driving for 3 minutes, in terms of how much battery you use.

Re: Apple Car Challenges: Sobering Thoughts

#47

Post by falcolas »

dangrossman wrote: post #31
recursive wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10 horsepower is more than 7 kilowatts of output. I think a typical car heater uses much less than this. Perhaps someone knows more precise figures.

An EV essentially runs electric space heaters, since there's no engine block to steal waste heat from. It doesn't take a lot to heat a small enclosed space like a car interior. My Leaf uses anywhere from 1000 to 3000 watts to run heat, mostly towards the low end after it's warmed up. http://imgur.com/smzvL8C For reference, the battery pack is 24kWh, so it could theoretically run the heater while stuck on a road for 2…

A fully charged Model S, operating at peak capacity. When it has to heat the battery pack, the interior, and has already been driven for upwards of 100 miles (plus heating), those numbers will significantly smaller. Worse would be the anxiety of retaining enough charge to get the car the remaining miles to your destination once un-stuck.

Re: Apple Car Challenges: Sobering Thoughts

#48

Post by jonknee »

therein wrote: post #37
gutnor wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another point to that, is that the default assumption, even for a Tesla is that you can charge it at home during the night. For people living in a flat with car on the street, that means going to a charging station on a regular basis for a full charge. That is beyond anxiety, it means planning your life around your car range, instead of the other way around. And with the current availability of charging stations, it…

Unless you live in an area with lots of Superchargers or if your works place has electric car charging stations. I feel like that's the reason why so many people that I work with get Teslas.

It's probably more likely that you work with a lot of high-income males who are interested in the technology of Tesla and the prestige of owning one.

Re: Apple Car Challenges: Sobering Thoughts

#49

Post by dangrossman »

falcolas wrote: post #47
dangrossman wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An EV essentially runs electric space heaters, since there's no engine block to steal waste heat from. It doesn't take a lot to heat a small enclosed space like a car interior. My Leaf uses anywhere from 1000 to 3000 watts to run heat, mostly towards the low end after it's warmed up. http://imgur.com/smzvL8C For reference, the battery pack is 24kWh, so it could theoretically run the heater while stuck on a road for 2…

A fully charged Model S, operating at peak capacity. When it has to heat the battery pack, the interior, and has already been driven for upwards of 100 miles (plus heating), those numbers will significantly smaller. Worse would be the anxiety of retaining enough charge to get the car the remaining miles to your destination once un-stuck.

After 100 miles plus heating, it's got 50 kWh left in the battery. That'll get you another 147 miles driving with the heat on. Sitting in traffic, for hours upon hours, is really not a problem for an EV. The interior and battery pack heaters only use 1.5 kilowatts per hour or so. If you drive 100 miles with the heat on, get stuck in the snow for an epic rescue time of 8 hours, your range is only decreased by 35 miles to 112. Having 112 miles left in your tank is not an anxiety-inducing situation.

Re: Apple Car Challenges: Sobering Thoughts

#50

Post by primrosepath »

saosebastiao wrote: post #34

Starting from scratch is such a monumental feat. Why wouldn't Apple just use it's cash reserves and buy out an existing car maker? They could literally buy pretty much any automaker they want, why not start with something like Fiat Chrysler, for a bargain basement price of $10B? I'm a supply chain guy. I work for a company with one of the top peer-rated supply chains in the world and Apple is still so far ahead of us…

Because the auto companies are far, far behind on software and, now in comparison to Tesla, hardware.

I was told by a GM employee in their tech center in Warren, they have COBOL running in VMs on modern servers whose terminal screens get scraped into excel spread sheets. This is one of many examples I could give you. I could literally spend hours telling you the horror stories. It's government levels of inefficiencies and leadership has little or no visibility into the system.

Everyone in Metro-Detroit knows of the problems in the auto industry. The leadership lacks vision and workers find their niche and retire hoping to do the same things with maybe a promotion to management. There is not a constant drive, at least in the software side of things, to constantly improve and learn like in there is in Silicon Valley.

The above is applicable to GM and Ford. Chrysler, on the other hand, is a whole other level of screwed. There's a reason they've been bailed out 2 times by the government and now bought/merged by a foreign car company, AGAIN.

Apple, Google, Tesla and Uber will crush all but a few existing automakers, around the globe, and leadership has just now come around to acknowledging the threat. The regular Metro-Detroiter has no idea.

Post reply on HN