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

391–400 of 521 posts

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

#391

Post by lazyjones »

justinclift wrote: post #168
alasdair_ wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ludicrous Mode upgrade, a $20,000 value I have a P85D. When Ludicrous Mode was announced, they offered it for $5000 as an upgrade. I have no idea why it now supposedly costs $20,000. Source: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-drops-price-of-p85d-ludicrou...

That $US20k seems to be purely marketing bullshit, aimed to sucker US buyers. :( Easy seen as such too. Compare the "Ludicrous Mode" for the Model X on the US website (US$20k) to the same thing on the Australian website (AUS$8.5k): https://www.tesla.com/modelx/design?redirect=no#battery https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/modelx/design?redirect=no#batter... Note - you need to select "Performance" on the right side, for Ludic…

> That $US20k seems to be purely marketing bullshit, aimed to sucker US buyers. :(

Why is this a problem? In all luxury cars there are some options priced much higher than the actual cost (e.g. fancy wheels). They exist to bolster the car maker's margins and help sell the lower end versions at lower prices, so you and the average buyers profit. Nobody actually needs Ludicrous, so pricing it like this is in no way immoral.

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

#392

Post by ip26 »

alkonaut wrote: post #323

I'm wondering what types of range extension methods could be easily added to an EV. Scenario: I'm going to drive 900km/560mi and it's -10 outside (I do this multiple times per year). I want a cosy room temperature inside the cabin. - How can I ensure I waste as little range as possible on heating, so that I don't risk having to make e.g. 2 stops instead of one? - More critically, if I get stuck in traffic for several…

Seat warmers are a good way to warm up with less loss.

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

#393

Post by wil421 »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #148
rootusrootus wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what tech they'd scoop up. GM already has supercruise, and Cruise. And they released an EV back in 1996. Seems probable that their stance on EVs today is entirely by choice.

battery efficiency, drivetrain efficiency, making cars cheaper, updating software live in the field reliably. 0 to 60 speed, battery lifetime without degredation, almost worldwide charging network, supercharging without degredation, billions of miles to train your self-driving. advanced ui. summon mode. so basically there's no value there. don't forget about ~30% more efficient now than the vaunted e-tron and even mo…

Tesla has batteries that don’t degrade?

My Jeep Grand Cherokee has OTA updates including ones that can be done while driving. The updates do not cause my car to be bricked either or cause the car to not be able to drive.

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

#394

Post by alkonaut »

Retric wrote: post #373
alkonaut wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the relative cost of "N hours of heating in the form of more batteries" vs "cost of a burner heater capable of N hours of heating". If the costs are even nearly comparable (if they aren't 10x apart) then I agree with you there is no point. The heater also can't be as complex as a plug-in-hybrid, requiring expensive serveice etc. It needs to be cheap, dumb, optional (so you only waste the cargo space on…

1,000$ of batteries = 1kw of resistance heating for ~8 hours and that’s improving over time. Now, I am not sure how much reserve heating you want, but it’s much closer than 10x cost wise.

3-4h 1kW heat sounds reasonable. If that's less than say 3% of total range, or less than $1k extra battery then I'm confident it's a sufficient solution.

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

#395

Post by ip26 »

colordrops wrote: post #102
magicbuzz wrote: post #55

For metric folks, this equates to nearly 600km. That's about as much as I want to drive in the space of a single day. Conceivably however, automated driving could mean doing longer distances. And at a cost much less than an airfare - just a lot more in time.

I can't wait to sit in my car one morning in Los Angeles, punch in Seattle, then wake up the next morning arrived.

You and everyone else. The congestion will be unimaginable IMO.

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

#396

Post by hopler »

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…

If a quiet engine makes the other noises noticeable, they don't need to silence the car, just add a little synthetic white noise like offices and movies have.

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

#397

Post by marvin »

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…

Also, energy efficiency means lower costs. If you need a 20% bigger pack for the same range, that’s almost a 20% more expensive pack.

That’s the entire profit margin of a profitable car model.

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

#398

Post by logifail »

quanticle wrote: post #271
ajuc wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They break at much much lower rates, because they have many fewer parts. EVs don't have the pistons, valves, belts, fans, compressors, alternators, spark plugs, etc that gasoline engines have. There's probably order of magnitude fewer parts to break. Having seen the interior of an automatic gearbox, the surprising thing to me is that conventional automobiles are as reliable as they are.

> EVs don't have the pistons, valves, belts, fans, compressors, alternators, spark plugs, etc that gasoline engines have. There's probably order of magnitude fewer parts to break.

If you buy a new ICE powered vehicle, how many of any of the parts you mention would one expect to replace in - for instance - the first three years of the vehicles' life?

Our experience is that the first few years of a ICE vehicle's life involves changing oil and oil filters and most likely not a whole lot else:

https://owners.vwmodels.ca/maintenance/timeline/

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

#399

Post by hopler »

Shivetya wrote: post #276
ajuc wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Service intervals are very limited. Let me use my Model 3 as an example, I only need tire rotations until 25,000 miles. At that point I need the cabin and HVAC air filters replaced, then 25k later I do it again. Not only will dealership service centers be impacted, oil change shops will have little work if any as the number of petrol cars wind down, general service shops face the same issue as the numbers decline. No…

The real money is in repairs for poorly designed and manufactured components, not service.

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

#400

Post by codeulike »

alkonaut wrote: post #394
Retric wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1,000$ of batteries = 1kw of resistance heating for ~8 hours and that’s improving over time. Now, I am not sure how much reserve heating you want, but it’s much closer than 10x cost wise.

3-4h 1kW heat sounds reasonable. If that's less than say 3% of total range, or less than $1k extra battery then I'm confident it's a sufficient solution.

Model 3 users report using about 240 to 300 watt-hours per mile. So I think that means a 1KW heater for an hour is equivalent to about 3 or 4 miles of range.

So a 1KW heaster for 4 hours would lose you 16 miles of range.

Post reply on HN