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

231–240 of 521 posts

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

#231

Post by [deleted] »

zaroth wrote: post #137
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…

Interestingly, the charge rate across the entire curve sounds like an important metric but in practice it is nearly irrelevant. If you drive an ICE car, you are used to filling your tank. Because once you've gone through the trouble of driving to a gas station and pulling out your credit card and unscrewing the cap, well you might as well top it off, right? Life is different with electric. You might know, for example…

[deleted]

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

#232

Post by O_H_E »

oblio wrote: post #214
Animats wrote: post #71

This is good. It's Tesla focusing on making better cars. More range is good. Faster charging is good. Those are real things. Yesterday's claims about Tesla operating a million self-driving taxis by 2020 were, well, not taken too seriously. The new stuff is all at the high end, though. The $35,000 Model 3 is still absent from the product line.

2020 is in 8 months. They currently produce about 400k cars per year...

I believe the point was:

> self-driving taxis

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

#233

Post by benj111 »

jdavis703 wrote: post #131
teej wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean sure. But my gas vehicle is purely recreational, it gets a few hundred miles a year at most. I really enjoy teaching myself car maintenance and repair with it. Being an 80s car, it’s super roomy in the engine area and easy to work on. No one is dying because I own and drive this car today. Someone might’ve died mining the lithium for my Tesla however. This is all to say that your comment is reductive.

If someone died mining our hypothetical battery, that is a choice they made (assuming that we all know working in mines is dangerous). OTOH we have little choice in breathing in smog... clean air is a communal resource we all have to share. And the problem isn’t your gas vehicle that you rarely use, it’s the general concept of everyone from Volkswagen to our local auto sports enthusiasts thinking their smog doesn’t r…

I assume there's a mortality rate for software developers. Is it therefore the software developers fault if they die on the job? Should we shrug a point out that that career was their choice?

Does this thinking extend to other activities? The mortality rate for sleeping in non zero after all....

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

#234

Post by michaelmcmillan »

cperciva wrote: post #62
jac_no_k wrote: post #15

This "continuous deployment" for cars must be a logistical nightmare. To do repairs for a given vehicle, keeping track of what parts are backward compatible would be challenging. What if it's a compatibility breaking change? Then keeping inventory for older cars would become problematic. Unless they do design with maximum compatibility. Then it gets interesting as upgrades are possible. While B.EV cars maintenance is…

Is it any worse than what other manufacturers deal with? The 2019 Honda Accord shares some parts with the 2018 Honda Accord which shares some parts with the 2017 model... when something breaks in my Honda the first question is "do they still make/use this part or did they change it in newer models?"

A former Tesla employee, who worked on their IT infrastructure and whose NDA has expired, has revealed the technical shit show going on behind the scenes at Tesla. (I'm a Tesla fanboy as well, but this is scary).

https://twitter.com/atomicthumbs/status/1032939617404645376

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

#235

Post by imtringued »

gibolt wrote: post #96
wil421 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought one of the big 3 US or German companies were betting on Tesla to fail. Once they failed they’d scoop up their tech at a discount. After the Model S’s success I think they all realized they need to play catch up. Meanwhile Japan is still going down the Hydrogen path...

I don't think they were hoping to buy, I think they were hoping they wouldn't have to compete.

They can't "compete" because the batteries in EVs cost more than entire ICEs.

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

#236

Post by gmueckl »

alephx wrote: post #94
olivermarks wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Tell me about it, I had a 2007 1 series BMW and its transmission computer became dead. Now, I was quoted 4000USD at the dealership (the car was worth about 5000 at that point). I went to a third party specializing in automatic transmission and they almost could do it by swapping the computer from a crashed car. Turns out it needs an encryption key (who only the dealership has) to get the car to recognize the computer…

One thing to keep in mind is that one person's spare part may be another' srolen car or car parts. Especially in Europe, stealing parts is a thing. Some gangs won't steal entire cars, but only break in and take parts according to a "shopping list". Locking components to one another helps to make stolen parts useless and acts as a deterrent.

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

#237

Post by imtringued »

wmf wrote: post #91
7e wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That sounds like a series hybrid; when people say electric they mean battery electric. The point is moot since hydrogen is pointless.

Almost every industrial vehicle will have to depend on hydrogen if we want to reduce emissions beyond personal transportation.

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

#238

Post by saiya-jin »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #186
MrStonedOne wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I understand Tesla's position (brand protection, workload reduction), but also support Right To Repair; I don't have a solution I can offer in this instance. The solution is to not buy a tesla. By buying one you are supporting the move away from right to repair.

The rapid electrification of transportation is more important to me than Right to Repair. Life requires compromise. We can revisit when warming trajectory has been bent downward from 4C.

While I understand and agree with your point, you are missing the tiny fact that all EVs today are very expensive cars. Even the cheapest ones can't be compared to the value of used ICE cars, by a huge margin.

One example - fiancee bought a used toyota corolla some 7 years ago for cca 4000$. Some 70000 km afterwards, the car needed few oil changes, once rear brake discs swap and tire changes. That's it, for 70000 km ride with very low fuel consumption (diesel). The car still runs fine and probably will for quite a few years.

There are whole countries where for most of its citizens, this is the only way to ever have a car. They will never afford to put 6x as much for a new one, or even more for new EV. I know as I come originally from one such country, and its by no means a 3rd world country.

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

#239

Post by bronco21016 »

dforrestwilson wrote: post #217
sidcool wrote: post #79

What is super cool about Tesla is their laser sharp focus on creating a good electric vehicle. From the autonomy announcement and then this one, they are creating tools purpose built for cars, like new chips for self driving, battery tech etc. They have done so much in so little time, we have come to expect more from them. There is only so much a car company can innovate, Tesla has gone beyond it. Edit: I am a Tesla…

If you believe that they are doing false advertising around FSD, could they also be doing false advertising about this?

I’m not sure they would risk lying about their EPA tested mileage rating after the VW scandal. It would surely mean the end of Tesla.

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

#240

Post by benj111 »

adrianN wrote: post #140
angott wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not surprised. They can't expect people to replace their car every two years as if it were an iPhone.

Time to introduce in-car purchases. Pay to overtake.

Pay to emergency brake would seem to have the potential for higher margins?
Post reply on HN