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

#411

Post by skykooler » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:47 PM UTC

logifail wrote: post #398

quanticle wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Point of data here - having owned an ICE vehicle for two years, the first components I had to replace were windshield wipers, a taillight, and a tire (which ran over a bolt) - all of which would be at the same risk of failure in an EV.

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

#412

Post by hwillis » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:48 PM UTC

codeulike wrote: post #341

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…

My hunch is that heating is pretty insignificant compared to the huge power needed to move the car, like single digit percentage. But I like your question at the end and would be interested in someone running the numbers. edit: Ok here we go - 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.

Note that the heater in the model S/3 is capable of ~6/4 kW. In most cases you won't be running the heater on full for an hour, but at -10 you might be. When you start talking about 12-24 miles of range per hour, that's how you get up to the worst case of ~20% range loss.

Still, that just means you want to limit your -10 degree trips to like 2.5 hours instead of 3 hours, and only if you don't have access to superchargers.

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

#413

Post by rythie » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:49 PM UTC

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.

I've mostly had older cars 5-10 years old and I rarely had issues with anything in the engine. It was typically suspension, brakes, lights, the starter battery etc.

Tesla make it's difficult to fix their cars by restricting parts or bricking their cars that have been in a crash. Whilst you can get your traditional car fixed pretty much anywhere, likely to get your Tesla fixed you need the dealership more than ever.

Information based on the Rich Rebuilds YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfV0_wbjG8KJADuZT2ct4SA

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

#414

Post by ricardobeat » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:51 PM UTC

Brakenshire wrote: post #376

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…

Heating is relatively significant, it can take 10-20% off the range in theory. EV’s can solve this problem in a variety of ways: i) Preheating the cabin from mains electicity, either predictively or through user command. ii) Using heat pumps to scavenge and move heat around different parts of the car. If you’re early in a road trip you would have enough power in the battery to heat the car for a day or more. If you’r…

> you could quite easily design a cabin for a small car to hold temperature even in the absence of any other heat source

In my experience most cars do hold temperature for at least 20-30m with vents closed. You still need air exchange though for longer periods, so losing heat is unavoidable.

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

#415

Post by natch » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:52 PM UTC

brianpgordon wrote: post #306

natch wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bringing up prices and ideal scenarios is whatboutism. These updates are about real features, not prices or fake ideal scenarios.

Huh? No it's not. The point under discussion is whether Tesla should be changing their pricing so often. I'm arguing that it would be better if they didn't. That's not a whataboutism. Deflecting the criticism and saying "at least it's not as bad as the dealers" is, on the other hand, pretty much the archetypal whataboutism.

>The point under discussion is whether Tesla should be changing their pricing so often.

Heh no, you introduced that point yourself in a classic whataboutism move.

Tesla started the actual topic under discussion, which is updates to the Model S and X cars.

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

#416

Post by tristor » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:53 PM UTC

georgerobinson wrote: post #303

brownbat wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil changes belong in here somewhere too. I'm not sure if oil changes are the biggest source of profit, but they probably are the highest volume service. And those get customers in the shop for generally unnecessary upsells (like pumping cleaner into the climate control system to "flush" it? that is a scam, right?). Marketplace's analysis: https://www.marketplace.org/2017/08/24/sustainability/whats-... If anything, p…

It's interesting that a lot of readers here and websites in the U.S are saying oil changes every 3,000 or 5,000 miles. This is absolutely not the case in Europe where most cars are on 10,000 or 20,000 mile intervals. I wonder if this is due to much more diverse weather and temperatures you see in the U.S throughout the year and so different grades of oil are required that degrade much faster.

Manufacturers are pushing to extend oil change intervals but depending on your climate and driving style you’ll see different oil degradation, and it had nothing to do with differing quality of oil. Oil standards are international.

The only way to know is to consistently and regularly have used oil analysis done. For my part, I change my oil every 3k or sooner because my vehicle gets put on a race track occasionally, which changes wear patterns and an oil change is cheap insurance. For full synthetics on a car which mostly sees highway miles 10k intervals are fine, but 15k and 20k intervals are ridiculous. For most cars in the US which see significant traffic a 5k interval is correct as stop and go traffic is actually harder on the engine than almost anything else.

Side note: A kilometer is just a little over half a mile. A 10k KM OCI is equivalent roughly to a 6500 mile OCI. So there isn’t that much difference between the US and European intervals.

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

#417

Post by hwillis » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:55 PM UTC

razorunreal wrote: post #402

dqpb wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this problem specific to EV's?

Internal combustion engines throw off heat whether you want them to or not, plus the total amount of energy stored in a gas tank is vastly greater than a battery, so wasting some of it as heat is less likely to strand you. EVs only get similar range by being much more efficient, and efficiency means less energy lost to heat.

Depending on the car and the temperature you'd much rather be stranded in a Tesla (or another EV that works as well at low temperatures). A Tesla can run its heater on full blast for well over 12 hours. In ICE cars that don't have resistive heaters, the heat output is much lower at idle- think a civic or corolla. It can be risky to fall asleep in cars like this because you need to warm up the engine regularly or the cabin will become quite cold.

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

#418

Post by Phase_White » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:55 PM UTC

gutnor wrote: post #269

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?

Unlikely about battery capacity and range. Tesla have consistently delivered in that side of things. The core of their car business is solid. Their problem on the production side is not surprising. Missing deadlines and production targets is business as usual for "startups" (between quotes because they are massive, however still very much a new and small player in that field) "We will deliver million of widget in 2 y…

Missing production deadlines and Targets is also common for all other existing OEMs as they keep promising X EV model will be introduced in 2018, err 2019, err 2020, err 2021 etc

Like it or not Tesla is the only OEM actually deploying autonomous tech in mass in a consumer vehicle.

NOA is basically a Level 2 system which can do all highway driving by it's self including checking blind spots, changing lanes, taking exits.

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

#419

Post by rootusrootus » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:57 PM UTC

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…

I agree that Tesla's plan to put superchargers everywhere is good business, it will lock a number of customers into their ecosystem who are okay with that. Apple would be proud :). But there are quite a lot of Level 2 chargers out in the wild that everyone else can use, and that's where I pin my homes and dreams -- the last thing I want is every manufacturer building their own competing infrastructure ecosystem. Imagine having to shop for gasoline based on what brand car you own.

Porsche has superior charging. Tesla batteries do degrade, we know this for fact. The E-tron may be using a larger battery with a built-in reserve to mitigate degradation and improve charging time and Audi customers are less price sensitive than Model 3 customers. 0-60 speed is just a choice, electric motor technology is not really cutting edge.

I wish Tesla luck and I hope they're strong in a couple years -- the Model Y does look promising. But the hype may do them more harm than good in the long run.

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

#420

Post by code_duck » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:57 PM UTC

StillBored wrote: post #111

code_duck wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve had a couple of American cars and apparently year-by-year or even in the same model year the manufacturer changes the location of certain parts, which I didn’t expect. Mechanics and I have had trouble finding various parts like fan relays and cabin air filters.

Mid year ECR's to fix problems are not uncommon, but tend to be fairly minor. What source are you using for where a part is placed? I've seen similar things (relay is under drivers dash, when it reality its under the passenger seat or some nonsense like that) when using crappy documentation (chiltons, or similar which does a "teardown" on a single year and then sells it for the entire generation). I can't remember se…

I attempted to learn the locations by comparing it to other vehicles in non-official documentation or instructional videos online. I’m not sure what resources the mechanics have.

The fan relays, for instance. Apparently Chrysler moved the location between 2006 and 2008, and I had a 2007. In the 2007 models, apparently the relays are in one of three places. Actually four, as mine where is somewhere entirely different which was difficult to access without a lift.

Next, a cabin air filter for my 2015 vehicle. Two lube places have tried to replace t and been unable to find he location (they say it’s oke of two places). They said they think I don’t have one, which is contrary to what the manufacturer says.