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

251–260 of 521 posts

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

#251

Post by martin_bech »

codeulike wrote: post #244

Compare to the Audi e-Tron, which has a fairly massive 95kWH battery but only scores 204 miles of EPA range. They claim they're only using 88% of the battery capacity so that charging is faster and battery longevity is preserved, but thats a really weird engineering decision that belies the fact they have made a terribly inefficient (and perhaps rapidly degrading?) battery pack/drivetrain. Meanwhile the base Model S,…

I dont know if you know this, but the default for a Tesla is 90% battery capacity (You can manually override this very easily to 100% if going on a trip, or otherwise needing the full capacity)

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

#252

Post by bishopknight »

tim333 wrote: post #247
codeulike wrote: post #244

Compare to the Audi e-Tron, which has a fairly massive 95kWH battery but only scores 204 miles of EPA range. They claim they're only using 88% of the battery capacity so that charging is faster and battery longevity is preserved, but thats a really weird engineering decision that belies the fact they have made a terribly inefficient (and perhaps rapidly degrading?) battery pack/drivetrain. Meanwhile the base Model S,…

>...88% of the battery capacity...weird engineering decision Musk was talking about existing packs lasting 400,000 miles and working on new ones that will do 1 million. You can't get those sort of life spans if you use the full cycle - think how long your phone battery lasts.

So it's optimal to not fully cycle batteries then? It's better to keep them mid charged and top them off?

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

#253

Post by MuffinFlavored »

bronco21016 wrote: post #239
dforrestwilson wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

just how it was the end of VW?...

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

#254

Post by martin_bech »

codeulike wrote: post #250
tim333 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...88% of the battery capacity...weird engineering decision Musk was talking about existing packs lasting 400,000 miles and working on new ones that will do 1 million. You can't get those sort of life spans if you use the full cycle - think how long your phone battery lasts.

Car batteries are not much like phone batteries. A car battery pack is a system in itself, with thousands of small cells supported by cooling, heating, monitoring and balancing systems. edit: there are recommendations for Tesla daily use that say go to 90% most of the time. But still a bit different to putting 12% completely out of reach like Audi have done.

Well actually, by default Teslas charge daily to only 90%, to preserve the battery. You can however change it to 100%, if going on a trip, or otherwise needing the full range.

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

#255

Post by bishopknight »

codeulike wrote: post #250
tim333 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...88% of the battery capacity...weird engineering decision Musk was talking about existing packs lasting 400,000 miles and working on new ones that will do 1 million. You can't get those sort of life spans if you use the full cycle - think how long your phone battery lasts.

Car batteries are not much like phone batteries. A car battery pack is a system in itself, with thousands of small cells supported by cooling, heating, monitoring and balancing systems. edit: there are recommendations for Tesla daily use that say go to 90% most of the time. But still a bit different to putting 12% completely out of reach like Audi have done.

Tesla is also deep in the red so I partially read these PR announcements with a grain of salt as they desperately try to acquire capital

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

#256

Post by codeulike »

martin_bech wrote: post #251
codeulike wrote: post #244

Compare to the Audi e-Tron, which has a fairly massive 95kWH battery but only scores 204 miles of EPA range. They claim they're only using 88% of the battery capacity so that charging is faster and battery longevity is preserved, but thats a really weird engineering decision that belies the fact they have made a terribly inefficient (and perhaps rapidly degrading?) battery pack/drivetrain. Meanwhile the base Model S,…

I dont know if you know this, but the default for a Tesla is 90% battery capacity (You can manually override this very easily to 100% if going on a trip, or otherwise needing the full capacity)

Do they still do that? I thought they turned that off a few years ago. Still, completely different to Audi who are completely hiding 12% from the customer.

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

#257

Post by floatingatoll »

axaxs wrote: post #122
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gee, I hope they have some kind of system to track that. Maybe software even?

You jest, but years ago I worked for one of the largest auto parts places. You have no idea how many times you'd input year, make, model, and trim, just to be presented with multiple choice questions. Nobody knew how big their drums were, in inches, or the number of blades on their fan, the length of their belts, etc. Apparently a lot of mixing and matching happens. Some folks legitimately had to give us a prior year…

For the most essential part of a normal gas engine - motor oil - my local parts center outright asked to see my engine to confirm the oil spec printed on it, even though every car for a decade in my product line had the same oil. Not because they expected to be wrong, but because they could not risk being wrong. I can only imagine what they’ve seen that makes them so wary.

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

#258

Post by Shivetya »

codeulike wrote: post #244

Compare to the Audi e-Tron, which has a fairly massive 95kWH battery but only scores 204 miles of EPA range. They claim they're only using 88% of the battery capacity so that charging is faster and battery longevity is preserved, but thats a really weird engineering decision that belies the fact they have made a terribly inefficient (and perhaps rapidly degrading?) battery pack/drivetrain. Meanwhile the base Model S,…

A few observations, before I derail

I do not want to dismiss the efforts of Audi or Jaguar but I think their initial focus was being good examples for their respective brands with regards to their packaging. Their interior quality of a different generation and caliber than Tesla. The EV part was an important concern but secondary. They can still rack up significant ZEV credits in California letting them off the hook of buying them from others.

Tesla needs to refresh the S and X to improve interior fit and finish but also concentrate on making them quieter, an issue I have with my 3. without the drone of a motor every sound stands out and EVs tend to ride on stiffer, noisier, tires.

As for difficulty, other than i3 and Tesla cars I do not believe any other EV was a clean sheet design. Even the Leaf appears based on traditional cars. the Bolt is simply a spark when a new motor cradle and battery back pushed under it. The Hyundai/Kia models are all adaptions. Not 100% sure about the iPace but Jaguar even contracted out assembly.

--

The manufacturing difficulty is probably secondary to the seismic shift crossing the auto industry and associated industries. EVs don't need the large established dealership base and their included maintenance facilities. Secondary market means little use for parts stores and their suppliers. Gas stations will be right out with most charging done at destination points. Manufacturing of the autos themselves will implode the number of employees and that will lead to union difficulty in some countries; where they sit on boards and can stymie the move to EVs and loss of production jobs.

The Kia Niro EV numbers you mention are not EPA which was 258. I mention this because your other numbers were EPA.

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

#259

Post by codeulike »

Shivetya wrote: post #258
codeulike wrote: post #244

Compare to the Audi e-Tron, which has a fairly massive 95kWH battery but only scores 204 miles of EPA range. They claim they're only using 88% of the battery capacity so that charging is faster and battery longevity is preserved, but thats a really weird engineering decision that belies the fact they have made a terribly inefficient (and perhaps rapidly degrading?) battery pack/drivetrain. Meanwhile the base Model S,…

A few observations, before I derail I do not want to dismiss the efforts of Audi or Jaguar but I think their initial focus was being good examples for their respective brands with regards to their packaging. Their interior quality of a different generation and caliber than Tesla. The EV part was an important concern but secondary. They can still rack up significant ZEV credits in California letting them off the hook…

Thanks, sorry I gave the european rating for the Kia, have edited. I believe the i-Pace was a ground-up design.

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

#260

Post by ajuc »

Shivetya wrote: post #258
codeulike wrote: post #244

Compare to the Audi e-Tron, which has a fairly massive 95kWH battery but only scores 204 miles of EPA range. They claim they're only using 88% of the battery capacity so that charging is faster and battery longevity is preserved, but thats a really weird engineering decision that belies the fact they have made a terribly inefficient (and perhaps rapidly degrading?) battery pack/drivetrain. Meanwhile the base Model S,…

A few observations, before I derail I do not want to dismiss the efforts of Audi or Jaguar but I think their initial focus was being good examples for their respective brands with regards to their packaging. Their interior quality of a different generation and caliber than Tesla. The EV part was an important concern but secondary. They can still rack up significant ZEV credits in California letting them off the hook…

> EVs don't need the large established dealership base and their included maintenance facilities

I never understood that. Why does power source matter in the context of dealership base and maintenance? EVs still break.

Post reply on HN