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

"It's A Brick" - Tesla Motors' Devastating Design Problem

theunderstatement.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 284 posts

Re: "It's A Brick" - Tesla Motors' Devastating Design Problem

#211

Post by chc »

eropple wrote: post #202
potatolicious wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's the genius of it. You are not paying to change the narrative - but lots of other people are . Even if Tesla ends up a footnote in the history of automotives, their impact will be felt for decades, just like Sun. Whatever happens to Elon Musk's company, we are all better off, and for that I wouldn't consider the money wasted. And I don't think Tesla's death is really that certain. Remember that Apple pionee…

> I wouldn't consider the money wasted. I wonder if the people shelling out $40,000 for a battery replacement agree with you.

Even if all five or so became violent opponents of Tesla (which seems plausible enough, I guess), that would be greater than 99% approval among users. I don't mean to downplay the severity of that issue, but I feel like this comment is more of a cheap shot "zinger" than a legitimate attempt to show that Tesla's efforts are wasted (especially given that the problem seems to be endemic to modern battery technology, not specifically Tesla's line).

Re: "It's A Brick" - Tesla Motors' Devastating Design Problem

#212

Post by yew »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #208
yew wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading their analysis of nuclear power (which is, by the by, about as renewable as solar power; we'll run out of fissionables around the time the Sun goes out), I'm not seeing any reason you couldn't run things just on that if you solved the political problems. Unless I'm missing something (always a possibility, of course) their later comparisons are all to a "green stack" that doesn't include nuclear.

Yes, you're right, my mistake. I expressed myself wrong (thought one think, wrote another...). We can live on renewables + nuclear (if we get there, which would be a monumental task - both politically and in terms of building necessary infrastructure, not to mention electrifying pretty much everything that now burns fuel), but definitely not on renewables alone. And this transition needs to be started ASAP. The final…

Sure. Efficiency is important, not to mention cheaper in the long run. And if nothing else, we should at least be saving the hydrocarbons for industrial chemistry where they're actually hard to replace.

Convincing people to pay for the switchover is going to be a long, slow process though. And in most cases it boils down to major building renovation; people are famously reluctant to try that sort of thing.

Re: "It's A Brick" - Tesla Motors' Devastating Design Problem

#213

Post by roc »

Can someone explain why Tesla can't throw in a hibernation mode to dial down the idle power-drain? I mean, what are the "always on subsystems" doing that they're draining 50% charge in 7 days? Surely those systems and that level are drain aren't inherent in lithium-ion tech.

And if Tesla can notify itself of a battery in danger of bricking, why can't they notify the driver well in advance of the emergency?

Re: "It's A Brick" - Tesla Motors' Devastating Design Problem

#214

Post by rbanffy »

3am wrote: post #201
rbanffy wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biofuels are definitely not in their infancy. My first car ran on ethanol and it was in the mid 80's. The technology in very mature.

But most ethanol is net energy negative. Brazilian sugarcane is an exception, but it loses some of its advantage when it's shipped to the US in tankers. Even then, sugarcane requires non-renewable inputs (just not as much as corn). Cellulosic ethanol (from plants that can grow well on marginal farmland, like switchgrass) _is_ still in its infancy. Also, most current engines would need to all be retrofitted to run on…

> Even then, sugarcane requires non-renewable inputs (just not as much as corn)

I'm not aware of any. Fertilizers?

> most current engines would need to all be retrofitted to run on anything much greater than E85 because of the greater corrosion

OTOH, once the engines get retrofitted (mostly a surface treatment, IIRC), ethanol burns much more cleanly, with much less combustion residue buildup. The early engines had corrosion problems, but once the surface treatment problem was solved, they enjoyed longer active life than their hydrocarbon-burning counterparts.

> mind if I ask what kind of car it was, or if you'd had it customized?

It was a stock Volkswagen Gol (a project derived from the 1st-gen Passat). You can see a couple pictures here: http://carros.uol.com.br/album/volkswagen_gol_historia_album.... At the time, my aunt worked at their engineering department and got one for me as a gift. Mine was a third-generation ethanol engine. She was involved in the ethanol vehicle project.

Most cars you can buy in Brazil today are bi-fuel and can run with any mix of ethanol and gasoline. It's often a good idea to run the car with ethanol from time to time to clean the engine, as ethanol actively removes residue buildup.

Re: "It's A Brick" - Tesla Motors' Devastating Design Problem

#215

Post by onemoreact »

krschultz wrote: post #191
jdietrich wrote: post #75

Tesla are a sideshow and we desperately need to stop talking about them, because they're harming efforts to improve energy efficiency. Nissan are now in full production of the Leaf, a practical electric car that's half the price of the Model S. Renault have the Fluence ZE on sale in Israel and ready to go internationally this year. Mitsubishi are selling the i-MiEV in quantity in Hong Kong and Japan. All of these big…

I think you are right about the major car companies - Nissan, GM, Mitsubishi, et al. They are definitely doing it right and aiming at a good segment. I think you are wrong about Tesla's segment. I know a couple of Tesla owners. All of them have a stable of cars. I would bet the average Tesla owner has >2 sports cars, and absolutely has more cars than the number of drivers in the family. The whole idea of 'range anxie…

If it's sitting there for weeks why not just leave it plugged into an extension cord? In a collection a Tesla can sit plugged in for longer than a combustion engine can sit with a full tank of gas so it's really a question of slightly different needs for long term storage.

Re: "It's A Brick" - Tesla Motors' Devastating Design Problem

#216

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

noonespecial wrote: post #26
bradleyland wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The account of the Tesla discharging while plugged in to a 100-foot extension cord strikes me as suspect. It's anecdotal at best. Have a look at the Tesla Roadster "Charging" page: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/charging Using 120V @ 15A, you get a charge rate of +5 miles (of range) per hour. Obviously not the optimal solution, but not a net negative either. Adding a 100 foot extension cord isn't going to dimi…

120v @ 15A is 1800 watts. As I said, I was able to measure the wattage being delivered at the end of my 100 foot 16 gauge "home depot" orange extension cord connected to a space heater and found less than 900 watts being delivered to a load that normally pulls 1750. The voltage had also dropped below 100 volts. Its possible that the Tesla simply won't charge at all if the current or voltage on the line becomes too lo…

A little OT, but I've found that it's better to make your own extension cables. I have a 1kW tank heater that is about 100' from the closest outlet. The cost of 100' of 12gauge house wiring and a plug, socket and outdoor outlet was much less than even a cheap 100' extension cord and has much less voltage drop.

Re: "It's A Brick" - Tesla Motors' Devastating Design Problem

#217

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

teamonkey wrote: post #181
cynicalkane wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Euro testing cycles are more generous, MPG figures are quoted in Imperial gallons (which are larger), and probably because of less dense cities they tend to be more tolerant of smog belching diesels. Diesels are fuel efficient but it's expensive to make them pollution efficient enough to pass American regulations. Many cars are the same in both countries. There isn't anything about America that makes them less effici…

Diesel cars are very clean these days. The problem is that until recently in the US the standard of diesel typically found was of a lower quality than EuroDiesel. Now it has tighter regulations, but diesel cars still carry the stigma. Not only that, but diesel is rare in North America. You cannot guarantee that the next gas station you pass will serve diesel. That alone is enough to put people off buying them. Ford,…

diesel is rare in North America

I think that this is a very regional thing. Perhaps limited to the coastal cities? I have no problem finding diesel in the Midwest. In fact, we took a road trip a few months ago in our diesel pickup and every gas station we stopped at had diesel: it's not even something you need to look for.

Re: "It's A Brick" - Tesla Motors' Devastating Design Problem

#218

Post by cube13 »

krschultz wrote: post #192
sek wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These arrogant posts like OP really annoy me, they don't even try to understand why Tesla does things like it does. No, Elon Musk is stupid, he makes the wrong cars and we should stop talking about it. They have to create a totally new production chain and make high quality cars. This is impossible with low margins, there is no way they can compete on price against this gigantic industry.

I feel like you can answer nearly every post like the OP's with "Go read The Innovator's Dilemma and then come back and talk about what metrics this disruptive company is competiting on rather than talking about the old metrics of the industry". Every one of them is making the argument that hard drive makers made each time a newer size came out, except with miles of range instead of Gigabytes.

The model S is somewhat disruptive. It's closer to almost affordable(around $50,000 base price after US tax breaks) than the Roadster(which was $109,000 base). Very few people could afford roadsters. More people can afford Model S', but it's still out of reach for the vast majority. I would argue that the Nisan Leaf is MUCH more of a disruptive force, because it's relatively affordable(starts at $27,700), and is available everywhere.

The problem is that Tesla isn't trying to make a green box for the masses. They're making luxury cars, and charging luxury prices for it. That puts them in direct competition with companies like Porche, Mercedes, BMW, etc. It's not an easy market to get into, considering the competition, and the fact that the customers who can afford their products, by and large, aren't concerned about efficiency as much as they're concerned with luxury or power.

Re: "It's A Brick" - Tesla Motors' Devastating Design Problem

#219

Post by rbanffy »

onemoreact wrote: post #200
rbanffy wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biofuels are definitely not in their infancy. My first car ran on ethanol and it was in the mid 80's. The technology in very mature.

It's the fuels that are in their infancy not the car's. Design a cheap energy efficient way to to turn cellulose into something close to gasoline and you will be able to make more money than Bill Gates. Theoretically it's possible, but nobody has gotten there yet.

After driving ethanol-running cars for more than 25 years, I must disagree. If you can't drive ethanol-running cars in your country, be assured it's not really a technical issue.

Re: "It's A Brick" - Tesla Motors' Devastating Design Problem

#220

Post by ta12121 »

chc wrote: post #101
earl wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

since I was unaware: Tesla S seems to practically cost (with the large battery that still only gets you 300 miles) $70K after a $7.5k tax credit [1] and the Nissan leaf costs $35K but that seems to be before the $7.5k tax credit. [1] http://www.teslamotors.com/models/options [2] http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index#/leaf-elect...

The Leaf claims 100 miles on a charge, making its range a little less than the base Model S. That means that the Tesla costs about $19k more in practice. Considering it's supposed to be a "nicer" car in general, that doesn't seem too unreasonable. I don't think Nissan genuinely expects anyone to buy the base model Leaf. For $2,000, you give up the ability to charge your car in minutes rather than hours (and, apparent…

The Leaf's claimed range is based on an urban driving cycle, and its numbers are not comparable to the numbers Tesla publishes.
Post reply on HN