Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Model S Long Range Plus: Building the First 400-Mile Electric Vehicle

tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 358 posts

Re: Model S Long Range Plus: Building the First 400-Mile Electric Vehicle

#131

Post by davidwhodge »

zamfi wrote: post #111
davidwhodge wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make an app (called Nikola, not the truck company) for Tesla owners that has seen over 5 MM miles driven on it. I did some quick queries to validate actual range vs. EPA range for those curious. My general takeaway is to see the EPA range as a useful, albeit unrealistic, indicator. Essentially nobody gets the EPA range, either because they choose not to go the speed limit, they accelerate harder than the EPA test f…

> I made some graphs if anyone's curious, but I can't post them here. I’d love to see them!

Alrighty here's the first graph. Note that this is average speed, so any trips with an average speed near the right by definition have some parts of the trip faster than the average, so the actual drop at 80 mph isn't quite as severe as it looks.

https://imgur.com/a/c10NXaz

the reason for the cutoff is that because it's pretty hard to have a trip with an AVERAGE speed above 80mpg. It's very rare in my large dataset.

Re: Model S Long Range Plus: Building the First 400-Mile Electric Vehicle

#132

Post by jodrellblank »

anonymousiam wrote: post #104
jodrellblank wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BMW i3 has had the perfect electric car design for the last 7+ years - a battery pack good for ~50-120 miles (increased with model revisions) and a gasoline generator "range extender" with a small tank for indefinite length journeys hopping between standard gas stations - which are abundant. It improves on hybrid-car designs: the engine isn't connected to the drive train, so it's a lot less complex, and the engin…

I really liked the i7, and I would have liked to stay with the BMW brand, but the poor thing had a 100 mile range. It certainly looked good, but it was even less practical than what I had.

I assume you mean the i8? A quick Google says it never had a range extender option. The i3 is very much not a competitor on performance, it's a city runabout - the earlier/USA models had complaints (and a lawsuit) that the generator was not strong enough even for that use, although Europe/more recent models don't seem to have the same complaints. Maybe the range extender concept couldn't apply to a more performance oriented car without an impractically big/heavy generator?

Re: Model S Long Range Plus: Building the First 400-Mile Electric Vehicle

#133

Post by URSpider94 »

anonymousiam wrote: post #70
jeremiahhs wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one lies about EPA range. What you didn't include are the details of your commute and why it might be atypical.

LA to Vegas.

That’s the reason, right there. There are three very long and steep grades on that trip, which suck down range considerably.

I do have to say, the Superchargers along that route are located about 45 seconds off of the highway, and are almost never full. You’d have your choice of places to stop. But if never making even a brief stop is your requirement, then you have your answer.

Re: Model S Long Range Plus: Building the First 400-Mile Electric Vehicle

#134

Post by sxp »

davidwhodge wrote: post #92
steelframe wrote: post #18

I've been following a multi-month discussion over in the r/electricvehicles subreddit about EPA range. There's a growing consensus that something is very wrong with it. Here are a couple of the articles that got some discussion in that sub: https://insideevs.com/news/407807/eletric-car-real-world-ran... https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a30874032/porsche-tayca... As someone who has owned both a Tesla Model X and o…

I make an app (called Nikola, not the truck company) for Tesla owners that has seen over 5 MM miles driven on it. I did some quick queries to validate actual range vs. EPA range for those curious. My general takeaway is to see the EPA range as a useful, albeit unrealistic, indicator. Essentially nobody gets the EPA range, either because they choose not to go the speed limit, they accelerate harder than the EPA test f…

> What's most striking to me as someone who has heard over and over again about how air resistance is a X^2 property, is the extent to which short (and presumably slow) trips punch above their weight in terms of range consumed per mile. From what I can tell, the actual cost here is the fixed cost of booting up some systems and electronics, and the variable costs of running them over fewer miles can make the MPGe drop. Starting and continuing to run the AC adds up!

Could this be due to the battery not being at the ideal temperature on short trips? I always noticed that the efficiency of my car is lower for the first 10 miles when commuting to and from work. Since it happens in both directions, it can't be due to terrain or road type so I was guessing battery temperature.

Re: Model S Long Range Plus: Building the First 400-Mile Electric Vehicle

#135

Post by xkjkls »

twblalock wrote: post #128
xkjkls wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most evidence shows that for Tesla, they end up overestimating the EPA range, not being conservative.

There are some reviews of the Porsche Taycan where the car lost most of its range very quickly when the driver was accelerating quickly. The Tesla Model S is one of the fastest-accelerating cars available at any price. If you drive it like a normal person and obey the speed limit (approximately), you will get close to the EPA rating depending on weather etc. If you actually use all the power it has (and you manage no…

Yes, this is why they have these tests attempt to do this in an apples to apples fashion, and the most scientific of these tests seem to show Tesla overestimates their EV range the most of any automaker.

Re: Model S Long Range Plus: Building the First 400-Mile Electric Vehicle

#136

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

jodrellblank wrote: post #79
anonymousiam wrote: post #57

They are lying. I was in the market for a new car earlier this year, and I really wanted to get a Tesla. I also really wanted a car that could handle a trip of 295 miles that I regularly make. I will not go into the nightmare that was scheduling a test drive of the long-range Model S, but after getting conflicting answers from multiple PoCs at Tesla, I finally got the firm answer. The car cannot do even my 295 mile c…

The BMW i3 has had the perfect electric car design for the last 7+ years - a battery pack good for ~50-120 miles (increased with model revisions) and a gasoline generator "range extender" with a small tank for indefinite length journeys hopping between standard gas stations - which are abundant. It improves on hybrid-car designs: the engine isn't connected to the drive train, so it's a lot less complex, and the engin…

Range axienty disappears as you get familiar with driving an EV with trip planning. Charging time is already short enough with version 3 of Tesla Superchargers. Availability of charging points isn't an issue when you charge at home/work. Hybrids are just adding complexity, cost and air pollution.

Re: Model S Long Range Plus: Building the First 400-Mile Electric Vehicle

#137

Post by davidwhodge »

sxp wrote: post #134
davidwhodge wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make an app (called Nikola, not the truck company) for Tesla owners that has seen over 5 MM miles driven on it. I did some quick queries to validate actual range vs. EPA range for those curious. My general takeaway is to see the EPA range as a useful, albeit unrealistic, indicator. Essentially nobody gets the EPA range, either because they choose not to go the speed limit, they accelerate harder than the EPA test f…

> What's most striking to me as someone who has heard over and over again about how air resistance is a X^2 property, is the extent to which short (and presumably slow) trips punch above their weight in terms of range consumed per mile. From what I can tell, the actual cost here is the fixed cost of booting up some systems and electronics, and the variable costs of running them over fewer miles can make the MPGe drop…

This would seem totally reasonable to me. It'll take more time, but I can also dig in and see the extent of the battery heater use.

My guess is it's often cold enough for the battery to need to warm up to be efficient, but not cold enough to make it worth it to turn on the battery heater. (Your point still holds in that case)

A piece of data I happen to remember, far fewer than 10% of supercharges have the battery heater on for any period of time at all.

Re: Model S Long Range Plus: Building the First 400-Mile Electric Vehicle

#138

Post by clouddrover »

SEJeff wrote: post #130
clouddrover wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I see in the video is a description of a heat pump. In what way is Tesla's heat pump better than, for example, Hyundai's: https://press.kia.com/eu/en/home/media-resouces/press-releas...

Not sure if you’re familiar with the Model 3 super bottle. Here is an overview of that from Jason Torchinaky (who used to design heat pumps for a living): https://jalopnik.com/the-tesla-model-3s-superbottle-easter-e... The octovalve heat pump in the Model Y improves the range by 10% (per an interview with Elon and Sandy Munro). I’ll note that the total range of the Model 3 LR is 322 miles and the Max range of the lar…

> I’ll note that the total range of the Model 3 LR is 322 miles and the Max range of the larger Model Y is 316 miles.

That's a function of battery size. The maximum battery size of the current Kona, Niro, and Soul is 64 kWh. Batteries cost money. The Kona, Niro, and Soul are all less expensive than the top end Teslas.

> This compares to the 111 miles of all electric miles in the Kia Soul EV

Not the current model.

> There really isn’t any competition

Sure there is. Tesla used to be the #1 BEV maker in Europe. Now they're #3. That's competition for you:

https://www.schmidtmatthias.de/post/april-2020-european-elec...

But none of this answers the original question. In what way is Tesla's heat pump better than Hyundai's?

Re: Model S Long Range Plus: Building the First 400-Mile Electric Vehicle

#139

Post by xeromal »

leesec wrote: post #122

Man do I love Hackernews. Everyone is pro-innovation, pro-future, pro-forward thinking until literally anything new happens, in which case everyone shows up with a "well, ackshually", to tell you why the new idea is dumb. It's amazing to me that Tesla continues to increase State Of The Art range and EV efficiency, at scale, for cars that already smoke the competition. I hope their fervor to improve the technology nev…

Definitely agree with you there.

It's definitely a moving goalposts argument. It used to be the claim that there were no EV chargers so the point was dead. Now there are superchargers across the states. To me, 250 miles of REAL range is enough for most people. I've driven 1000 miles with no real issue. Running out of battery, every few hours, almost coincides with having to take a leak and buy a drink. My car is good to go after I finish all those things.

Re: Model S Long Range Plus: Building the First 400-Mile Electric Vehicle

#140

Post by FullyFunctional »

anonymousiam wrote: post #75
FullyFunctional wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, distance is meaningless. The energy needed to travel for A to B depends on way more than the "distance". Elevation changes, weather, wind, driving style, etc all matter. I can show you roads near me where my energy consumption is negative (yes, driving down the mountain).

Wouldn't the regenerative braking system recharge the batteries on the down slopes? I realize it's probably not 100% efficient, but if the system were reasonably efficient, it shouldn't matter how hilly or flat the trip could be.

You mean, if the starting and ending elevation is the same the hills shouldn't matter? That's not the case. AFAIK, in any vehicle (even in space) the efficiency goes down with increased acceleration. Going up a hill is accelerating more (counteracting gravity) and downhill is a negative acceleration, so you end up loosing twice.

Ken in a sibling comment claims "50%" which begs the question "compared to what". We'll never be able to reclaim _all_ the energy, but the energy that gets to the wheel is stored back in the battery at 80+% efficiency. Most of the losses are in wind resistance and friction.

Post reply on HN