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

331–340 of 358 posts

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

#331

Post by octorian »

dahfizz wrote: post #292
Klathmon wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla's are already very close to that right now. I used to drive from Florida to Pennsylvania fairly often, and in my model 3 it's a rough cadence of drive for 2.5 to 3 hours, stop at a supercharger for under 30 minutes, repeat until I'm there. And that's with the vast majority of the trip at 75mph/120km/h. It does get worse in the winter though, I need to stop more frequently like every 2 hours, and for more like 3…

I think discussions of range alone are misguided for this reason. The state of charging infrastructure is just as important as the range of the car itself. The 300 mile range on a tesla is fine even for long road trips because the infrastructure is solid.

> The state of charging infrastructure is just as important as the range of the car itself.

And this is why I facepalm every single time I see a car manufacturer trying to make a "Tesla competitor" by focusing on getting most of the range with none of the charging infrastructure. (Or they assume the infrastructure is someone else's problem, that can be solved with some press releases about business agreements.)

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

#332

Post by woodandsteel »

The larger importance of this is that for a lot of potential ev purchasers, 400 miles is the lower limit of what they consider acceptable range. Yes, I know that is rather arbitrary and irrational, but that's how it is.

400 mile range is also important for political debates about the practicality of ev's and whether or not governments should be promoting them.

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

#333

Post by WorldMaker »

selectodude wrote: post #311
edraferi wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why some governments raise speed limits. Faster traffic -> more energy required per mile -> more gas consumed -> more gas tax revenue

Or it’s because it’s politically popular to raise speed limits since they usually raise them to the speed that is almost, but still below, the speed that everybody is already driving at currently.

Also in the US the AAA heavily invests in lobbying for higher speed limits every year. The AAA isn't quite the villains in American politics that the NRA are (ETA: or at least, have become), but they are historically close. It's easy to forget that AAA was founded to fight speed limits in the first place.

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

#334

Post by sizzle »

WorldMaker wrote: post #333
selectodude wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or it’s because it’s politically popular to raise speed limits since they usually raise them to the speed that is almost, but still below, the speed that everybody is already driving at currently.

Also in the US the AAA heavily invests in lobbying for higher speed limits every year. The AAA isn't quite the villains in American politics that the NRA are (ETA: or at least, have become), but they are historically close. It's easy to forget that AAA was founded to fight speed limits in the first place.

"AAA was founded to fight speed limits in the first place"

Wow never knew this is true, any sources where I can read more about this?

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

#335

Post by lazyjones »

allendoerfer wrote: post #330
lazyjones wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Talking about the planet here, based on scientific facts. If you don't believe in them, it's hard to argue.

There are no "scientific facts" that prove cars in cities are "dumb". I get it that it's popular right now to scream something about science and then add some wild conjecture.

By the way, "science" is not infallible. Still waiting for the islands to sink that people have been screaming about for almost 40 years now.

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

I believe I am doing that.

> 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.

That is fine with me! I am wealthy enough that it would not matter, it'll actually be better for me if cars are taxed heavily - less traffic, easier parking.

> 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.

Fine, but it is my problem and I have a smart solution that for some reason people with a totally different situation are calling "dumb" because they are ideologically opposed to it. ;-)

> I think commuting to work by car (which many, many people are doing) is a way worse problem and also easier to improve.

And by "improve" of course you mean "obstruct".

When did we arrive at this mess where making things worse for people is somehow the preferred solution to finding something that is better for everyone?

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

#336

Post by therealdrag0 »

xvector wrote: post #56
late2part wrote: post #7

It's really incredible what Tesla is doing. Haters gonna hate, but they continue to innovate and move the industry forward.

Really enjoying Tesla's 'innovation' of giving my Model 3 only 70% of the promised range. Doesn't help that everyone on Tesla forums love to praise the company no matter what they do, so it's not like this is something easy to learn prior to using the car for some time.

All my ICE cars also have less than advertised performance. There is more factors at play in real world driving than in standardized testing...

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

#337

Post by WorldMaker »

sizzle wrote: post #334
WorldMaker wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also in the US the AAA heavily invests in lobbying for higher speed limits every year. The AAA isn't quite the villains in American politics that the NRA are (ETA: or at least, have become), but they are historically close. It's easy to forget that AAA was founded to fight speed limits in the first place.

"AAA was founded to fight speed limits in the first place" Wow never knew this is true, any sources where I can read more about this?

I'll admit it is something of an uncharitable view. The given reason AAA was founded was to improve the "quality" of roads in the country. One of the qualities that was seen as lacking at the time was the inability to use anything close to the top speed of cars due to road hazards and pedestrians. It's related to why AAA was the first car racing body in the country, overseeing for instance early versions of the Indianapolis 500 (though it divested racing later on).

(ETA: The search term I was forgetting was "jaywalking", because AAA was instrumental in the creation of jaywalking as a crime, related to the goals of allowing faster car travel versus speed limits. https://www.salon.com/2015/08/20/the_secret_history_of_jaywa...)

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

#338

Post by agumonkey »

rossjudson wrote: post #181
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…

"Nobody is going to buy this thing. I commute 250 miles each way to my job, in my pickup truck. Call me back when Tesla makes a real car with real range. Anybody who buys these now is a sucker." Because people keep saying shit like that. Tesla's range increases are a giant experiment to find out at exactly what point opposition to electric collapses.

it's interesting to see the good old critical show:

    - cant be
    - wont work
    - will die
    - about to die
    - not as good as expected
    - door handle has a flaw

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

#339

Post by agumonkey »

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…

I have to admit, beside the autopilot thing, musk impresses with the breadth of his ventures. From EVs to Batteries (if Battery Day delivers).. they never stop pushing.

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

#340

Post by zamfi »

oh_sigh wrote: post #222
zamfi wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern vehicles are required to turn on the brake lights at a given level of deceleration, regen / brakes or not!

So if I'm driving a new manual transmission car, and downshift/engine brake, my brake lights would activate?

That’s my understanding!

EDIT: Actually this may only be required for vehicles with certain features, like regen or endurance braking! Car regulations are...complex.

Post reply on HN