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

Putting the Tesla HEPA Filter and Bioweapon Defense Mode to the Test

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 150 posts

Re: Putting the Tesla HEPA Filter and Bioweapon Defense Mode to the Test

#131

Post by jonlucc »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #115
jonlucc wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also haven't thought of a case in which it matters to protect the interior of the car. I can't live in that car for more than a couple days without resupply (assuming I'm driving around with several cases of water which would be more than a little paranoid), so at some point I have to expose myself to the pathogens present on the outside of the vehicle.

In real life, it will keep out smog and pollen. People with asthma and hay fever will love it.

I agree completely, but that's explicitly not what Musk is saying.

Re: Putting the Tesla HEPA Filter and Bioweapon Defense Mode to the Test

#132

Post by varjag »

nazgob wrote: post #117
tzmudzin wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. The commentary says it's equipped with 2 water pumps to remove whatever leaks through. I guess that's German engineering for less-than-perfect road and maintenance conditions. I like the redundancy too!

Learn something everyday, quite surprising that solution with pumps was even considered and that it actually safe for crew and tank internal systems.

That's the most practical solution. A tank is not a space capsule, sealing a multi-ton rotating turret is unrealistic.

Re: Putting the Tesla HEPA Filter and Bioweapon Defense Mode to the Test

#133

Post by ctdonath »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #54
dmlorenzetti wrote: post #10

Bioweapon Defense Mode is not a marketing statement, it is real. Their filter does a good job cleaning particles out of the cabin air. Good on them. Nevertheless, calling it "Bioweapon Defense Mode" is clearly a prize bit of marketing. A system designed to protect against an external bioagent wouldn't run huge amounts of outside air through the filter. That would just load the filter more quickly, impacting its perfo…

That would depend on your definition of a "bioweapon". How many people have to be killed by a toxic substance injected into the air to consider it a weapon? 1.2 million people died in China alone in 2010 from air pollution. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/world/asia/air-pollution-l...

That's kinda the point of the article. Not only does it purify contaminated air for the occupants, it actually reduces contaminants outside the car. Tesla is marketing this to locales with literally dangerous levels of smog.

Re: Putting the Tesla HEPA Filter and Bioweapon Defense Mode to the Test

#134

Post by hinkley »

kragen wrote: post #126
hinkley wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're the guy in the epidemic movies that breaks quarantine and kills another million people by sneaking the pathogen out of the hot zone. Man I hate that guy. If you breathed spores you're already infected. Your car can't help. And the spores on the outside get spread, plus the ones in your filter kill your automechanic and that starts the second wave.

Epidemic-causing pathogens like plague are nearly useless as bioweapons: they're more likely to kill the attacker (or their friends, family, or entire country) than the people they're trying to attack. Actual bioweapons are almost invariably things like anthrax, brucellosis, and botulinum, where person-to-person spread is rare or impossible, and which you're very likely to survive if you can keep your dose down and g…

Yes, and your car which has been in an anthrax spore cloud is safe to leave a quarantine area?

My movie analogy doesn't change the fact that you're inciting other people to break quarantine based upon a laughably incorrect assertion that somehow an air filter makes you and your vehicle safe for other people. Talk about a criminally dangerous sense of entitlement.

Re: Putting the Tesla HEPA Filter and Bioweapon Defense Mode to the Test

#135

Post by squeaky-clean »

viraptor wrote: post #102
forgetsusername wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think people read it too literally right now. Did you even read the article? It literally says this: "Bioweapon Defense Mode is not a marketing statement, it is real. You can literally survive a military grade bio attack by sitting in your car."

Yes, I did read it. That's how people talk about products these days (unfortunately). But we didn't talk about it that much in case of tank-proof audi: http://blog.caranddriver.com/now-you-can-spec-your-audi-a8-t... Or cases that can literally survive a bowling ball: http://www.yourtechreport.com/2011/04/16/protect-your-ipad-f... You're not expected to test either one of those claims. They're just there for compariso…

That doesn't seem like just marketing for the Audi. It seems like the car is seriously intended for individuals who may be attacked, politicians, very rich/powerful people in unsafe areas. It's not for your grandparents to drive to church on Sundays. It looks like most people buying it are politicians and diplomats. The security features are also an upgrade that costs like $600k.

It has a built in "patented emergency exit system, a fire extinguishing system and an emergency fresh air system" [0] and the windows on the standard model can't even be opened/closed. And get this, that emergency exit system will blow the freaking doors off the car so you can exit.

"If the doors can no longer be opened normally, an Audi-patented pyrotechnic system simply blows apart the joins between the doors and the vehicle body and you walk out without even grabbing the door latch." [1]

This Tesla is being pushed as helping people deal with air pollution, but "it can withstand a bioweapon attack! For real!". That Audi is literally for people who might drive over an IED, or get pulled over by a jeep full of people with machine guns.

[0] https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/press-releases/audi-a8-l...

[1] http://www.autoblog.com/2007/03/05/a-685k-audi-a8-that-will-...

Re: Putting the Tesla HEPA Filter and Bioweapon Defense Mode to the Test

#137

Post by StanislavPetrov »

venomsnake wrote: post #84
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminal negligence doesn't require intent. If you fire your gun into the air because you are a jackass, and the bullet comes down somewhere and kills someone, the gun is still a weapon, even though you had no intent to kill.

I think he meant the intent of the creator of the compound/item. A gun is created to kill. A taser to incapacitate. A knife is created to cut/stab things - and since human flesh is highly cuttable substance even kitchen knives are considered weapons. A car is created to transport people but can be used to kill. Cars are not weapons because in their conception there is no intent to harm someone.

What about a rock? The same analogy holds true. Anything can be a weapon, its simply absurd to contend that intent matters.

Re: Putting the Tesla HEPA Filter and Bioweapon Defense Mode to the Test

#138

Post by aerovistae »

saulrh wrote: post #19
aerovistae wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. Advertising this without testing against pathogens is a joke. (And I'm as big a Tesla fan as there is, but that's an objective fact from a QA perspective.) But then again, testing against smog is something a group of engineers can do on their own. Testing against lethal and highly contagious airborn pathogens is hardly something you can just up and do in your ordinary automotive lab. Doubt they're prepared…

If you have a sensor that can detect things the size of bioweapon pathogens at concentrations where airborne pathogens would be dangerous, then yes, you absolutely can test for them. And, what do you know, some common bioweapon bacteria are around .5 um, and HEPA filters have to be able to filter out 99+% of objects .3 um to be rated as HEPA bu the US DOE. Add on that many bioweapons are actually not natively airborn…

God, I hope they don't apply the same rationale to TSA.

"Well, there's clearly no real way to get anything dangerous through here without the metal detectors picking it up, so no need to test our systems with any realistic threats."

Re: Putting the Tesla HEPA Filter and Bioweapon Defense Mode to the Test

#139

Post by tn13 »

tristanj wrote: post #36
tn13 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Tesla making cars for Indonesia, Singapore or China currently? Surely there are problem all over the planet but I don't see why American government must subsidize solving those problems.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler receive billions in subsidies. During the 2008 Auto crisis the US gave those three $70 billion to keep them afloat. The US subsidizes its car companies. It also spends tens of billions subsidizing Boeing, Intel, Lockheed-Martin, IBM, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and various airlines. Telsa, like many other companies, also receives subsidies. So what? There's nothing special going on here.

They should not have received it besides more Americans drive Ford,GM and Toyota than Tesla.

Re: Putting the Tesla HEPA Filter and Bioweapon Defense Mode to the Test

#140

Post by viraptor »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #135
viraptor wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I did read it. That's how people talk about products these days (unfortunately). But we didn't talk about it that much in case of tank-proof audi: http://blog.caranddriver.com/now-you-can-spec-your-audi-a8-t... Or cases that can literally survive a bowling ball: http://www.yourtechreport.com/2011/04/16/protect-your-ipad-f... You're not expected to test either one of those claims. They're just there for compariso…

That doesn't seem like just marketing for the Audi. It seems like the car is seriously intended for individuals who may be attacked, politicians, very rich/powerful people in unsafe areas. It's not for your grandparents to drive to church on Sundays. It looks like most people buying it are politicians and diplomats. The security features are also an upgrade that costs like $600k. It has a built in "patented emergency…

It's class BR7 protection. That means it protects from lead bullets. That's all. Here's a list of examples of what it doesn't protect from: AK47 with hardened or armor-piercing bullets, incendiary bullets, tank fired shells.
Post reply on HN