Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries • Hacker News Board

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

#381

Post by dsfyu404ed » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 12:55 PM UTC

saiya-jin wrote: post #241

greglindahl wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as I can smoke that Maserati at a stoplight on Sand Hill Road, not a problem.

People in the luxury goods category expect much, much more than just straight line performance. Handling the corners or interior aesthetics and quality isn't something I would choose Tesla for for example.

I love how this is (was) down-voted but this is exactly kind of comment people on HN would use to poo poo the various ~700hp straight line rockets that FCA sells (which you can get with arguably better interiors than any Tesla). "It's not a true luxury car because it's only good in a straight line" is a perfectly valid (and widely held) opinion but if you invoke it against Tesla that's not ok.

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

#382

Post by toomuchtodo » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 12:55 PM UTC

saiya-jin wrote: post #238

toomuchtodo wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You reach the scale to sell cheap cars by first selling expensive cars to people who can afford to buy expensive cars. Someone has to eat the margin that Tesla uses to expand its manufacturing capacity for batteries and vehicles, and for the deployment of the Supercharger network. Where else would the money come from?

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

#383

Post by alkonaut » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 12:56 PM UTC

fooqux wrote: post #377

alkonaut wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Besides, how is this different than a gasoline-powered vehicle? My gas car has a 700mi range so its simply not an issue as I tend to not drive that long on a day trip. I have the X% fuel spare for N hours of emergency heating so long as I do say The same would be true for battery cars once the range is enough. And the problem of course would exist for an ICE car with a shorter range.

Doing a few simple searches online, most gasoline cars do not have anything close to that kind of range, unless you're "hyper-miling" or something. What the hell do you drive?

This is pretty normal for full size modern diesels (65L tank and around 6L/100km). This one in particular is a B8 Passat wagon.

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

#384

Post by laumars » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 12:58 PM UTC

neuronic wrote: post #321

laumars wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had just as many issues with things braking unrelated to the engine. Eg washer fluid bottle leaking, air conditioning, disk breaks needing replacing, tire sensors breaking, tires going bald, etc. Out of the engine related problems, the cam belt and clutch are the things that's caused issues in the last 5 years across my various cars.

Those are far easier to handle than, for example, changing a timing belt on a gasoline engine. Faster too... You need less qualified people, less time, less parts, less often for repairs that a handy person can often do themselves and save on labor and parts. Significant sources of income are therefore shrunk for dealerships.

Sure, you can replace brake pads yourself. But few people want to do it; let alone are capable. Saying "significant sources of income are therefore shrunk" significantly overstates just how many people would do their maintenance work on that level.

I know people who have paid people to replace the bulbs on a car. My wife rarely even bothers to refill the washer and I can count on 1 hand the number of times she's checker her oil in the nearly 20 years of owning a car.

Most people either don't care how cars work, don't have the technical capabilities to fix their own car or simply don't want to.

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

#385

Post by codeulike » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 12:59 PM UTC

Brakenshire wrote: post #353

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,…

> 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. Audi chooses to limit cha…

> Audi chooses to limit charging thresholds to preserve battery life and your conclusion is that they must have a rapidly degrading battery pack? More likely is they're being ultra-cautious because they don't have their own data in place for how the batteries will respond.

Well, its clearly inefficient, whether it degredes rapidly or not was just a guess. My argument is that building EVs is harder than Teslas critics have admitted. If Audi don't know the degreadation state for their own battery then that kindof backs that up. The e-Tron is a nice enough car but it was trailed as being a Tesla killer and its clearly not that.

> This is all based on the new Model S having a range 80 miles higher than the e-Tron and 50 miles higher than the I-Pace

My argument is not really about range, its about range for a given battery size - i.e. efficiency. Batteries are heavy and expensive - thats why building an affordable long range EV is such a challenge. If your EV is inefficient, it will be heavier and more expensive than it needs to be.

Even if the e-Tron used 100% of its battery it would still only get 230 miles of range. Still below the base Model S, which - probably - has something like a 70/80 kWH battery - smaller, lighter and cheaper.

I like the look of the i-Pace but it seems to be smaller on the inside than it should be. It supposed to be an SUV and just 500lbs lighter than the enormous Model X but its got just a slightly bigger boot than the Nissan Leaf (17 cubic feet vs 15.3). Presumably, thats because its full of big heavy battery.

> I'd expect Tesla to settle in as something around BMW, luxury price points, decent profit margins, solid but not massive sales numbers. The model 3 has ended up solidly within that price bracket.

Yeah you might be right, I am disappointed that they abandoned the $35k target for the Model 3.

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

#386

Post by xfitm3 » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 12:59 PM UTC

georgerobinson wrote: post #315

imglorp wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the cause either but if you look at your oil, you can see it gradually turning colors, from pale ale to stout. At 5k in the US you're about at the latter, so I'm inclined to believe they're telling the truth.

As I replied in another comment: > Oil changes color as it captures contaminates such as soot, carbon deposits, etc. It can operate effectively while brown-ish, but if the oil is carrying too much it will blacken and start to thicken at which point it will be much less effective at lubricating your engine.

Odor is a better wear indicator. It'll smell burnt when it's ready to be changed.

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

#387

Post by dsfyu404ed » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 12:59 PM UTC

Unklejoe wrote: post #324

nkristoffersen wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? So many models live forever. Do you think the "Mustang" is long in the tooth?

For what it’s worth, the Mustang had a somewhat significant refresh in 2011 (totally new engine design, but not considered a new generation), then another refresh around 2014 (mostly exterior body changes IIRC).

With the Mustang is that there's only so much you can do and still stay at the Mustang price point. The changes made to the Mustang (and Camaro for that matter) is dependent on technological progress making things that were once reserved for expensive cars cheap and regulatory compliance forcing updates to the main body structure (no reason to spend money to re-tool for a different tub if you don't need to since you gain basically nothing from doing that by itself).

Adding IRS was pretty significant though.

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

#388

Post by cogman10 » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:00 PM UTC

codeulike wrote: post #328

masto wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A rising tide lifts all boats. I'm just happy there are an increasing number of EVs coming on the market. And people will have their reasons for choosing one or another, so it doesn't have to be that one car is objectively best across the board and therefore gets 100% of the sales. I'm very happy with my Model 3 but what I really want to see is acceptance of electric cars as a viable and sensible option for a lot of…

Of course. I'm not trying to play a game of 'my EV is better than that EV' (nb I drive a Leaf). I'm pointing out that many people underestimated the lead Tesla has in EV technology. This year we've seen major, and esteemed, automakers put things into production that are clearly years behind what Tesla can do. I'm glad they are joining in, but I'm just trying to set the record straight. FWIW the Kia Niro EV (and the H…

At the last investors meeting, battery production is what Elon said is the main bottleneck at this time for model 3s.

AFAIK, all the others are going to get their batteries from third party vendors (except maybe Nissan?). That is going to cause a cost for everyone but Tesla.

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

#389

Post by georgerobinson » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:02 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #375

georgerobinson wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clutches will last 80,000 miles on most cars unless driven unsympathetically by either dumping the clutch or riding it frequently. Fluid and spark plugs are some of the cheapest maintenance you can do on ICE cars. Timing belts, aux belts, water pumps, bearings are much more expensive wear items and I'd be much more concerned about those personally. You should however be changing your brake fluid every 2 years regardl…

>spark plugs are some of the cheapest maintenance you can do on ICE cars. Let me introduce you to the transverse mounted V6... >You should however be changing your brake fluid every 2 years regardless of whether or not you have regenerative braking. Brake fluid degrades over time as water gets absorbed. Yeah you should replace it every now and then but two years is BS though. In many states the fluid never gets touch…

> Let me introduce you to the transverse mounted V6...

Fair point! V6s were never really suitable for transverse layouts, but it did at least give us some wonderful sounding cars from the likes of Alfa Romeo and others.

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

#390

Post by bluGill » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:05 PM UTC

sjwright wrote: post #226

FireBeyond wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many auto makers have moved their oil change intervals out to 10,000 miles when they've previously pushed 3 or 5.

In theory the oils and engines have improved to the point where 10k miles is a sound number based on evidence. However given that the only downside to more frequent oil changes is the cost of the oil change, if you plan to keep a car for a very long time, changing it more frequently than the recommendation is a reasonable plan. Longer oil change intervals are undoubtedly fine for an engine that is expected to last at…

Actually long oil changes can be better for an engine. Oils break in: the molecules break down over time so they compensate by making the chains longer. As the molecules break down they get closer to the idea size, then the break again and get too short to protect.

Tests on the oils used in my car show that you typically get least engine wear between 8k and 9k miles, with 12k being about the same as fresh oil, but 13k is much worse. Because of the sudden dropoff at 13k and the fact that different driving styles affect breakdown differently 10k is chosen as the best compromise. Newer cars get longer because the computer keeps track of driving styles to give a better change indicator.