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

351–358 of 358 posts

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

#351

Post by jokoon »

lazyjones wrote: post #278
jokoon wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why should they attempt to divert their efforts to a new lower-margin car? why not?

Because it makes no sense from a business perspective.

I'm not really sure Elon Musk really wants to make money in the first place, he also wants to make ICU cars obsolete.

And I'm pretty sure there are plenty people willing to buy an electric vehicle even if it performs worse than an ICU vehicle. A lot of customers are ready to do it because it's the right thing to do.

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

#352

Post by allendoerfer »

lazyjones wrote: post #335
allendoerfer wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 yea…

> By the way, "science" is not infallible.

It still is the best thing we got. There is no better thing to base decisions on. Ingoring it and hoping it was wrong all along (without anything to back it up) is not critical thinking but ignorance.

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

No, I mean change. I think commuting is first and foremost a waste of valuable human time.

> 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. ;-)

Notice that I never called you or your solution dumb. I am acknoledging that this is an edge case. I am calling owning individual cars inside cities in general and the vast majority of cases dumb and harmful.

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

#353

Post by driverdan »

jacobush wrote: post #346
driverdan wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most ICE vehicles do not have a 1000 km range.

A gas car can be topped up in 2 minutes, just about everywhere - which is not true of an electric. With a 1000 km range, I can go almost everywhere I want, then back, without charging, and recharge at home, if need be. If my gas guzzler filled through a straw and took an hour to fill, I'd want 1000 km range on the gas car too.

You're significantly under estimating the time it takes to refuel. Between diverting to a station, fueling, and getting back on the road it's at least 10 min. If you're traveling such a long distance it's a good idea to take a break during a fuel stop anyway, so add at least another 10 min.

I travel a lot and tend to stop every 250mi (400km) or so, if not sooner. It times well with meals and bathroom breaks so my stops are usually at least 30 min.

Electric takes more time to recharge but on long trips the extra charge time doesn't have as a significant impact as you'd think, assuming chargers are plentiful and charge at the maximum rate your vehicle can handle.

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

#354

Post by Kirby64 »

mywittyname wrote: post #302
zpeti wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there evidence that they are misleading or cheating? The EPA numbers (I assume) are arrived at with the same methodology for all cars. It's indepedent right? (I have no idea). So how is Tesla at fault here, if their cars do well. Btw, you can get the EPA range if you drive around 55-60mph... So it is misleading?

It is not independent. The EPA defines the test methodology and the manufacture conducts the test themselves. There are some loopholes that manufactures can leverage to improve their score, like offering a model without A/C, tiny tires, or tall gearrs; having a "eco" mode; or having a shift light on the dashboard. The EPA test methodology is actually pretty sound. It includes things like multiple wide-open throttle a…

All those things you list as 'loopholes' aren't something Tesla is doing here, besides maybe the smaller tires (which really, aren't undersized, they're just the smallest ones they offer happen to get best range).

I'm not sure what you'd expect, given that every single defined test can be gamed. 'Real world' is different for everyone. And if you drive 80mph, every single car ever will underperform compared to the stated EPA range/mpg.

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

#355

Post by pbreit »

taneq wrote: post #101
pbreit wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teslas are designed to perform better (and EPA is designed to evaluate) NOT on freeways (ie, where most people drive)(mainly due to very good regenerative braking).

All cars perform better (in terms of kWh through the driveshaft per km) at lower speed, since air resistance rises quickly with speed. Tesla can't do anything to change this, although they do try to mitigate it with good aero. Electric cars can regen brake and so recover some energy in stop/go traffic, but they're still more efficient at constant low speed than stop/go at low speed. ICE vehicles only get better econo…

Is that restating what I wrote?

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

#356

Post by pengaru »

eloisant wrote: post #253
gsnedders wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with 100% efficiency of the powertrain you'll end up with less charge than you started with. Yes, with 100% you get the energy used to overcome gravity back, but you still have frictional (tyres have friction!) and aerodynamic (we have an atmosphere!) losses that need to be accounted for both uphill and downhill. But yes, powertrain loses exacerbate the power consumption.

The question is whether flat or hill makes a difference. Surely friction and aerodynamic would be the same? Also: friction of tyres don't make you consume energy, it's what makes the car move actually (with no tire friction you won't move at all). The friction that makes you consume energy is within the wheels, gears, etc that are supposed to slide, also the deformation of tires makes you consume energy (which is why…

There's wasteful forms of friction at the road:tire interface when steering, look up slip angles. And there's always wasteful friction at the road:tire interface due to factors like toe and camber, even when going straight. The tire's not a perfect cylinder in isolation rolling perfectly straight down a perfectly flat surface, automobiles are not single-track vehicles.

Since we're already in pedantic land, tires aren't spinning in a vacuum, there's friction between the spinning tires and the air around them.

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

#357

Post by 10-1-100 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #308
10-1-100 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you have the 20 inch performance wheels (and the Pilot 4S summer tires that come with them), those could be the difference between you getting 325Wh/mi and something more in line with 250-275 at 70mph. Here's a chart with speed/efficiency measurements for most Tesla model/wheel configurations: https://teslike.com/

That is entirely possible. When I drive out of my driveway and down the road, it sounds like the tires are ripping the asphalt off the road and flinging at the underside of the car. Sticky things. In the winter I run snow tires, but then there's the low temperature and corresponding use of the climate control that destroys range. And in the summer I've got the performance wheels and tires installed. So I'll never see…

Late response but, to Tesla's (slight) credit, they now advertise the performance (with 20" wheels) at 299 miles, and that's in comparison to the 2020 improvements that bumped the advertised range for LR AWD to 322 miles (from 310), so at least now expectations should be a bit more clear for new buyers.

Yeah, I'd imagine running all seasons on 19s or 18s ought to be fine, especially with the killer traction control... This would be my plan in the event I were getting a P3D (trying to hold out for Cybertruck...)

P.s., the way you describe the summer tires ripping up the pavement gave me a chuckle - I'll have to remember that next time I'm talking to someone about the difference with the summer tires!

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

#358

Post by Hypx »

walrus01 wrote: post #347
Hypx wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unfortunate people don't realize this doesn't scale. If everyone at your 300 unit condo had a BEV, this doesn't work.

If everyone at a 300 unit condo had a BEV, the cost of bringing in new high-voltage AC service to a dedicated 480V transformer and set of chargers could be divided 300 ways and shared by the condo association/strata plan, making it affordable for all. Economies of scale.

Good luck retrofitting the hundreds of thousands of apartments and condominiums out there.
Post reply on HN