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

481–490 of 521 posts

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

#481

Post by david-cako »

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…

There was a twitter chain posted here about a year back where someone described how convoluted getting a Tesla off the factory floor is. All of the systems along the way have to be installed and flashed in a particular order to ensure nothing goes belly up.

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

#482

Post by mullen »

asmosoinio wrote: post #284
asmosoinio wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not super different from long lasting oil? Some Petrol cars do 30'000km without and service?

I just read up on 3'000 to 5'00 mile intervals that might be prevalent in the US? To me that sounds crazy. Many synthetic oils are officially approved to 15'000 miles.

My car tells me when to replace the oil. I don't even think about it, the amber light tells me when to do it.

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

#483

Post by ninju »

For those that skipped the bottom paragraphs

>so as a thank you, all existing Model S and Model X owners who wish to purchase a new Model S or Model X Performance car will get the Ludicrous Mode upgrade, a $20,000 value, at no additional charge.

Are they having trouble trying to get repeat business?

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

#484

Post by azhenley »

ninju wrote: post #483

For those that skipped the bottom paragraphs >so as a thank you, all existing Model S and Model X owners who wish to purchase a new Model S or Model X Performance car will get the Ludicrous Mode upgrade, a $20,000 value, at no additional charge. Are they having trouble trying to get repeat business?

Their cars are so good that there is no need to replace them!

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

#485

Post by AnthonyMouse »

alasdair_ wrote: post #479
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire feature is marketing bullshit. There is no practical utility in making a car that fast go even faster, it's sold only as weapon in the battle to express the desired length of one's phallus in vehicle form. They should charge $15,000 for the first "10% faster" and then another $25,000 on top of that for the second 10%.

>The entire feature is marketing bullshit. There is no practical utility in making a car that fast go even faster Hardly. Ludicrous Mode is all about acceleration and it's one of the few things that you can use every day without breaking any laws. People are almost never going to go over 100MPH on any US highway but all of them will need to accelerate from zero to sixty during their drives.

That's not practical utility, it's pure recreation.

Which is fine. If you want to pay thousands of dollars for something that has no other purpose than to put a smile on your face, go ahead -- but that is clearly a luxury purchase and there is nothing wrong with charging a luxury price for it to anyone willing to pay that much.

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

#486

Post by NotSammyHagar »

Brakenshire wrote: post #266
NotSammyHagar wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The model X tesla before this upgrade was much more efficient than the latest tesla killers from europe. This article [1] showed the audi e-tron is 23% less efficient than a model x (the family truckster huge suv tesla), and the i-pace is 26% less efficient. That is before the 10% performance. Tesla has excellent efficiency, much better than these german cars. The hundai is also a great, efficient car too. 1. https:/…

That test doesn’t take into account increased battery buffers on the IPace or eTron, so it’s strange to call it an efficiency test.

Okay, well another way to think of it is that tesla has proven their choices for amount of usable battery to offer succeeds with half a million + cars on the road and billions of miles driven. Their battery warranty is excellent and time proven. My S is 4 years old and approaching 50k miles and no appreciable degredation. If an S and an etron has about 85kwh there's something to compare there.

Comparing to these other 2 companies, they are being way more conservative, or more likely they don't have as good a battery managment system and they are afraid of big costs down the line if the batteries do degrade. Either way, Tesla has a time tested much better system that provides much longer range with similar overall battery capacities.

It's not that audi can't do better. Just at this time Audi & Jaguar suffer tremendously in comparison.

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

#487

Post by greedo »

prolepunk wrote: post #458
logifail wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The average age of the vehicle on the road in the US is about 10 years. Not everyone buys brand new cars, and after a few years things start to break. Although from my experience things not related to drivetrain break: * Suspension * Brakes * Steering rack. As these components handle the most peak force.

But are used car buyers, (or owners of 3+ year cars) having them repaired at the dealership? Most people I know go to 3rd party shops to minimize costs; the same motive that leads them to buy used in the first place.

I wonder how much the average dealership makes off repairs covered by warranty, compared to out of pocket repairs.

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

#488

Post by NotSammyHagar »

sjwright wrote: post #223
NotSammyHagar wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

read the story of the guy with the bmw who tried to swap in a part from another one, and it wouldn't work unless the dealer programmed it to work with that new car's vehicle id. so he sold his car.

That's a common problem when trying to upgrade the iDrive head unit with one from a donor car. It can be done but requires special tools and knowledge. In BMW's defence, they would validate the car as a system and wouldn't want to be seen to be giving implied consent for making these frankencars. Software configuration isn't like hardware; a bolt can be replaced with any bolt made by anyone as long as it is of compar…

Yes, I know that's a common way of doing things. Once you are out of warranty, imho the reason companies do this is just to force people to get stuff through dealers. I was replying to someone that said tesla was different because you were stuck in their world for parts etc. So it's not really different?

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

#489

Post by logifail »

windexh8er wrote: post #464
logifail wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The major failure components will be batteries and electric motors. However the former can be considered a wear item and is, generally easy, to replace Are there "wear items" in ICE vehicles that cost anything like as much as replacing the batteries in an EV?

A battery in an BEV has no direct counterpart in an ICE vehicle. However it most closes aligns as critical to the power train. Any major repairs or replacement of power train components can be comparable depending on the component and labor. Batteries can, like engines and transmissions, be recycled and so costs of replacement today are likely closer to peak than 5-10 years out. Batteries have also proven they last w…

> Batteries have also proven they last well over 200k miles

For some value of "last" ... what percentage degradation are we seeing at 100k, 150k, 200k miles?

> The standard length of operation of a gas ICE doesn't compete with electric

Can you expand on this statement?

As I've pointed out before[0], the ICE vehicle I drive cost $13,800 new including all taxes, and its servicing needs (and costs) and depreciation curve are all well understood.

EVs? Not so much.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19238680

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

#490

Post by logifail »

mjamesaustin wrote: post #467
prolepunk wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average age of the vehicle on the road in the US is about 10 years. Not everyone buys brand new cars, and after a few years things start to break. Although from my experience things not related to drivetrain break: * Suspension * Brakes * Steering rack. As these components handle the most peak force.

Brakes in an EV pretty much never need to be replaced, because most of the braking is regenerative and doesn't wear the pads at all.

If you live in a place with a decent winter, and hence a decent quantity of salt on the roads, you may have to replace your brakes due to corrosion long before the pads "wear out".

Does this kind of stuff not happen to EVs?

http://www.safercar.gov/staticfiles/safercar/pdf/EA11-001_cl...

Post reply on HN