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

321–330 of 358 posts

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

#321

Post by anonymousiam »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #125
anonymousiam wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that with a 100% charge from driveway to driveway, My 295 mile trip would still require a stop for a 20 minute charge (not counting all of the logistics associated with that). As posted elsewhere in this thread, http://www.tesla.com/trips is still reporting the exact same numbers it was in January when I gave up and bought my new car.

6 minutes should be enough: https://abetterrouteplanner.com/?plan_uuid=74209e16-8452-461... For a 4h30 trip, that seems reasonable don't you think?

Tesla recommends stopping for a 20 minute charge.

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

#322

Post by hinkley »

aetherspawn wrote: post #274
madaxe_again wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Air, rolling and other mechanical resistances are certainly part of the equation here, but the major driver of the decreased range at higher speeds is likely battery chemistry. When you apply a load to a cell, the voltage sags. Heavier load, bigger sag. When a battery is operated at low voltage, it loses efficiency - the total power available decreases significantly. If you ever buy batteries for, say, building your…

The batteries have such large capacities that the C-rates are tiny. Tesla are well beyond the point where inefficiencies in battery contribute to as little as 1% of the total range. Source: design engineer at EV company.

Even during acceleration?

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

#323

Post by anonymousiam »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #123
anonymousiam wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says they've been building these at the Fremont factory since January.

If you look at the range of the vehicles on the /trips page, the Long Range plus version (~400 miles) has not been included. Even though it doesn’t matter now for your personal needs, it’s likely the newest Model S Long Range Plus could meet your 295 mile “one way without a charge” commute requirement, with a comfortable margin for unexpected or excess consumption.

That's the same sort of language I kept getting from Tesla when I wanted to know for certain that the car would satisfy my needs. I was not going to drop $100k on their car unless they could say what you said with a little more certainty.

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

#324

Post by anonymousiam »

jodrellblank wrote: post #132
anonymousiam wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Yes, sorry. i8 is what I meant. Very sporty looking, and nice to drive.

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

#325

Post by throwaway0a5e »

toast0 wrote: post #317
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never ridden in a Leaf or other compact electric but is it really worse than the 2002 Tauruses and 1999 Grand Caravans (or 2019 Mitsubishi Mirage for that matter) that people seem to have no problem keeping up with traffic in? I can see it being worse than whatever people who are buying leafs are trading in but I can't see it being that bad overall.

The issue is not you can't keep up with traffic, it's if you do keep up with traffic, you use your stored energy very fast. I was commuting with a plug in hybrid and it was very similar. If traffic was bad, I could make it nearly home on nearly all electric, but if traffic was light, the battery would be drained even if it was running in normal hybrid mode. Not a problem for me, the gas engine works fine, but it woul…

So it's a range/performance issue, not an NVH issue, correct?

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

#326

Post by btilly »

tlb wrote: post #177
btilly wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

That's incorrect. Power consumption is proportional to drag * speed, and drag is speed^2, so power is speed^3, and energy per mile is speed^2.

Ah, shoot. You are right. Energy is force times distance, momentum is force times time. I was thinking about force times time.

wipes egg off of face

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

#327

Post by ericlewis »

Reason077 wrote: post #272
sokoloff wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pressing the brake pedal always applies the friction brakes only Really? That seems odd, since even my Nissan Leaf increases regen with the initial application of the brake pedal.

Yes, the Leaf and many other EVs do blend the brake pedal to various degrees. But Teslas do not (at least not traditionally. Perhaps that has changed recently in the Model 3 if the other comment here is correct)

I am pretty sure my X does. At least the regen gauge seems to report that to be the case.

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

#328

Post by allendoerfer »

lazyjones wrote: post #304
allendoerfer wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a thread about EVs and how a particular feature (range) that is worse than ICU cars is improving over time, which everyone wants, because we need cleaner cars for the environemnt. Nobody in here is taking the position of saying: Who cares? Just use ICU cars forever, there is no problem at all. So I am argueing a specific point about cities. Because EV cars might be better, but are still objectively bad compar…

> but are still objectively bad compared to public transport For whom? Certainly not for the owner. > So no, it's not about what I want, it's about the underliying point of the whole thread: What I (or really we/our children) need other people to do. You don't even have children. So you confirmed my interpretation: it's what you want from other people, not as you initially claimed what they need.

You are refusing to accept, that I am talking within the context of this thread. There are some premises here, which I explained in detail and take for granted in further sentences I am writing. I refuse to define everything to first principle in every sentence, because your only goal seems to be to go one step further up and suddenly you are right. In that sense, you or anyone does not need to do anything at all, because you don't even have to live. But then this whole discussion becomes really pointless.

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

#329

Post by toast0 »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #325
toast0 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is not you can't keep up with traffic, it's if you do keep up with traffic, you use your stored energy very fast. I was commuting with a plug in hybrid and it was very similar. If traffic was bad, I could make it nearly home on nearly all electric, but if traffic was light, the battery would be drained even if it was running in normal hybrid mode. Not a problem for me, the gas engine works fine, but it woul…

So it's a range/performance issue, not an NVH issue, correct?

Yes, the issue is range reduction primarily. Noise may be a secondary issue, but almost all vehicles come with a factory radio ;)

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

#330

Post by allendoerfer »

lazyjones wrote: post #306
allendoerfer wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am one of those young, childless egoists and would argue, that most people do not need to own a car in cities. Renting from time to time when I actually need one works great for me. There are edge-cases and people living 40km away from their children, who are too young to use public transport, might be one of them. I am not saying it should not be allowed to own a car. There will always be edge cases, but if we opt…

> but if we optimize our rules a bit, many of the great reasons to own a car might go away. The reasons are mostly unaffected by your adjusted "rules" (read: prohibitions). It won't get any less convenient and time-saving because you make it more expensive. You can never replace my saved time with anything worthwhile. Especially when I don't believe in the "greater good", whatever it is for you today (apparently the…

> Especially when I don't believe in the "greater good", whatever it is for you today (apparently the CO2 footprint).

Ah, there it is. I get, why you are asking "for whom?" all the time. Talking about the planet here, based on scientific facts. If you don't believe in them, it's hard to argue.

> I am responsible for spending as much time as possible with my children

But leaving a better world behind for your children is not something you are responsible for?

Since you are calling me all kind of things, I will start doing the same: I personally think, you have constructed yourself a reality where you are doing the right thing. From somebody citing a big word like responsibility, I would expect also thinking about the world he is leaving behind for his children. But it works for you this way, so you are doing it this way. That's okay, you are human. I do the same in a different area of life.

I just want you to be taxed for it (or lets start with not being subsidized for it), so less people do it in that way.

It is not my problem, that you are living 40km away from your children. If you wanted to use a rocket or a tank to drive to them, you could not do that either.

I am btw. not saying that your lifestyle is the worst and I can also see that this is something that happened somehow and you did not plan it like this. It might be something that will always stay there. I just think it is not optimal. I think commuting to work by car (which many, many people are doing) is a way worse problem and also easier to improve.

Post reply on HN