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

Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 521 posts

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#81

Post by agumonkey »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #34
Someone1234 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slight tangent but what are you getting for $20K? Is it a software feature, or is there physical difference between the normal performance and "Ludicrous" model?

There is a smart fuse composed of an inconel alloy that is pyro-actuated to protect from overcurrent conditions when performing a Ludicrous launch (~1500 amp peak current drawn). It's not software only. Very fancy circuit breaker.

Interestingly, it seems SpaceX got to play a role developing the alloy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconel#History

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#82

Post by mikeash »

olliej wrote: post #69

So it sounds like the range increase is for new cars? (Other comments made it sound like a software update to existing cars) I still wish there was more focus on range over acceleration, obviously electric motors don't suffer from general efficiency impact as ICEs do (an ICE with superior acceleration seems to take an efficiency hit at all speeds), but how much of that "faster acceleration" impacts efficiency over th…

Range and acceleration mostly go hand in hand. Much of the constraint on acceleration is how much power you can pull from the battery pack, and that gets better with larger batteries. It’s not like a normal car where high acceleration means a big, inefficient engine.

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#83

Post by AFascistWorld »

TD-Linux wrote: post #10
CarVac wrote: post #5

So they added the Switched Reluctance Motor technology used in the Model 3 for the front motor, improving efficiency.

It's a permanent magnet motor. It's an IPM design so some amount of the torque comes from reluctance, but the majority of the efficiency is from the permanent magnets providing the field rather than having to burn energy through the induction motor's copper bars to provide it.

Will it deteriorate?

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#84

Post by baroffoos »

olivermarks wrote: post #52
walrus01 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd bet that the TPMS (tire pressure monitor/sensor) in the wheels is an off the shelf component purchased from a top-10 supplier in the automotive industry, and the problem was as simple as not having the TPMS programmed for the car. This is the same problem you can encounter if you replace all four TPMS in most any medium to high end car manufactured after about 2006, and the tire shop forgets to use their handheld…

This sort of complexity is why I like pre smog era cars

Same reason I like bikes. I can pull the whole thing apart in a day and understand what every bit does. As soon as you start including electronics you end up with black boxes that no human could ever understand entirely.

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#86

Post by mikeash »

clouddrover wrote: post #41

> Model S and Model X are now capable of achieving 200 kW on V3 Superchargers and 145 kW on V2 Superchargers. Together, these improvements enable our customers to recharge their miles 50% faster. What does that mean exactly? I'm sure there are sections of the charge curve where it is 50% faster, but you need to consider the entire charge curve to get a better sense of the improvement. The Tesla Model 3's charge times…

There’s at least some improvement across the entire curve. The added range came from better efficiency. Better efficiency means more MPH for the same kW when charging.

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#87

Post by mikeash »

7e wrote: post #42
tgtweak wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically it's a hybrid. Just not an internal combustion hybrid.

No, it runs only on hydrogen (to EV direct drive). https://m.hyundaiusa.com/nexo/ . Zero emissions, refuels in five minutes at one of California's 40 stations. Soon all hydrogen production will be renewable from solar and wind electrolysis. Exciting times.

How much does that fill up cost? That, and the relative scarcity of filling stations, seem to make hydrogen vehicles supremely unattractive.

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#88

Post by hi5eyes »

wmf wrote: post #24
ummonk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, given that people report their Teslas sitting in the shop for months to get repaired, the logistical supply chain doesn’t seem to be working too well.

I think that's an intentional choice to optimize sales of new cars. Every part made goes into a new Tesla and there are no replacement parts available.

revolutionizing the supply chain and auto industry

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#89

Post by [deleted] »

7e wrote: post #75
adventured wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the hydrogen that makes it a hybrid. The parent comment is correct. Being a hybrid does not require eg a gasoline motor. It's not strictly an electric vehicle, it requires hydrogen in the process. Their own diagram is very clear about this matter: motor + fuel cell + hydrogen + battery. https://m.hyundaiusa.com/images/vehicles/pages/vlp/2019/nexo...

That's not the common definition of hybrid. Here, electricity directly powers an electric motor and there are no emissions. Is a Tesla a hybrid because some of its electricity comes from regenerative breaking? How about if some comes from from ions in an electrolyte solution?

[deleted]

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#90

Post by computerex »

7e wrote: post #75
adventured wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the hydrogen that makes it a hybrid. The parent comment is correct. Being a hybrid does not require eg a gasoline motor. It's not strictly an electric vehicle, it requires hydrogen in the process. Their own diagram is very clear about this matter: motor + fuel cell + hydrogen + battery. https://m.hyundaiusa.com/images/vehicles/pages/vlp/2019/nexo...

That's not the common definition of hybrid. Here, electricity directly powers an electric motor and there are no emissions. Is a Tesla a hybrid because some of its electricity comes from regenerative breaking? How about if some comes from from ions in an electrolyte solution?

I think you're overthinking it. Hybrid cars are not bad, they are pretty cool. It's a matter of semantics. A hydrogen fuel cell car could be considered a hybrid because the primary source of energy, hydrogen, is converted into energy and stored into an electric battery, which powers the drivetrain. Zero emissions, no internal combustion engine, hydrogen-electric hybrid.

Tesla is pure electric. You charge the battery itself, directly.

Post reply on HN