521–530 of 592 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> gear shifting Removed in Model S Plaid and rumored to be removed in the cheaper models in future iterations.
No, it's not removed, no matter how many HN users think so. (You are not the first one “correcting” me on this.) https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/models/en_us/GUID-E9B387D...
The main thing I really dislike is the lack of buttons and dials. It looks to be just a single touchscreen in the center for everything .
This seems to line up with the rest of Tesla stuff - there are a few physical interaction points on the steering wheel (which work surprisingly well) and the rest is 100% glass screen. Its enough for the driver to do their normal tasks, but anything extra (e.g. changing AC) requires touching the central screen.
This is what we call vehicle weight inflation. As cars get heavier and heavier, the roads get increasingly more dangerous for smaller cars, which causes everyone to get bigger cars. And the loop continues.
Everyone gets bigger cars because bigger cars have more room inside so they're really comfortable and practical. Teslas are heavier because they have to use batteries and batteries are incredibly inefficient compared to petrol. This is the consequence of you asking them to get rid of combustion.
That's not anywhere near correct.
With an ICE about 80% of the energy from the gasoline is lost, mostly due to heat.
With an EV about 30-35% of the energy from the battery is lost if there is no regenerative braking. With regenerative braking EVs only lose about 11% of the energy from the battery.
Here's an article with some nice diagrams of the losses in both [1].
[1] https://www.motortrend.com/news/evs-more-efficient-than-inte...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a source for that? A quick Google tells me that a 2024 Ford F-150 weight is about 1,000 lbs less than a Cybertruck’s purported weight.
Maybe the were referring to the F-150 Lightning, which is similar weight to the Cybertruck.
At 6600 lbs vs 8250 lbs, Cybertruck is far lighter. In fact it's the lightest EV truck available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gee, I wonder what has happened since, say, 2008, that has caused pedestrians to lose any trace of situational awareness and wander in front of moving cars. It's almost as if they're distracted by something that became a factor relatively recently, around the same time that drivers also became much more distracted than usual. Someone should look into that.
And imagine if only one developed country had this trend, would that be an indictment on that country? On a more serious note though, because sarcasm is weak person's weapon, the US do have a teen formation issue imho, among them driving lessons. I think the average US citizen born post 70s lack some basis, and I'm also afraid that this seemingly lack of competency feed insecurities. And it's not anybody's fault, the…
I don't like you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish the inverse was possible, eventually getting us to bikes (instead of bulldozers).
it’s very possible. Bikes get out of harms way faster and in a much mire agile fashion compared to cars and the money you save by buying a bike instead of a car can be used to safely practice at a track that is optimized for safety and to make you learn the feedback system of your bike
That may be true but there are situations where you physically can't get out of harm's way even with good reflexes.
Is this vehicle even street legal? no crumple zones?
From Isaacson's recent biography: > At one point, Isaacson describes Musk becoming enraged when, working on the Tesla Model S, he finds a government-mandated warning about child airbag safety on the passenger-side visor. “Get rid of them,” he demands. “People aren’t stupid. These stickers are stupid.” Tesla faces recall notices because of the change, Isaacson reports, but Musk “didn’t back down.” This company and the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn't agree more. Especially [Hyundai's recent sports car concept]( https://www.hyundai-n.com/en/models/rolling-lab/n-vision-74.... )
I would buy the crap out of that, but it will never see actual production looking like that. By the time it's done it'll be round just like every other car.
i too would buy the crap out of it. it's glorious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Separate divisions barely collaborating is not the case at Tesla either (or SpaceX). One of their mantras is "everybody is a chief engineer." They're all supposed to know enough about everything so they don't design parts that make trouble for other parts of the car, or for manufacturing. It's the reason they moved the new production line for the next-gen vehicle to Austin, so the engineers would be there for it. I d…
I'm sure that the lower regulatory environment in Texas was much more of a factor. Musk has complained for a long time about California's regulations.
(Source: Isaacson's Musk bio)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All roof pillars have increased in size in order for the occupants to survive rollover crashes And they've had to get bigger to be stronger, and need to be stronger due to increased size and weight of modern vehicles. I'm not saying it's not an issue. But I am saying "Thanks, Obama" for the CAFE regulations passed under him that pushed OEMs to make larger and larger vehicles - because a larger footprint leads to le…
Nice try there with the FUD. The CAFE regulations favoring trucks and SUVs have been around since the 1970s. The Obama era regulations extended those rules to heavy-duty trucks and commercial vehicles, which were not previously subject to fuel economy rules.
From [0] (first) or wikipedia [1] (second), if you prefer. From mobile, so I hope you'll pardon any formatting issues
> In 2006, CAFE altered the formula for its 2011 fuel economy targets, by calculating a vehicle’s “footprint”, which is the vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its wheel track. The footprint is expressed in square feet, and calculating this value is probably the most transparent part of the regulations. Fuel economy targets are a function of a vehicle’s footprint; the smaller the footprint, the tougher the standards are. A car such as the Honda Fit, with its footprint of 40 square feet, has to achieve 61 mpg CAFE, or 43 mpg IRL by 2025 to comply with regulations. At the opposite end of the spectrum, a full-size truck like the Ford F-150, with a footprint of 75 square feet, only needs to hit 30 mpg CAFE, or 23 mpg IRL, by the same timeframe.
> Starting in 2011, the CAFE standards are newly expressed as mathematical functions depending on vehicle footprint, a measure of vehicle size determined by multiplying the vehicle's wheelbase by its average track width. A complicated 2011 mathematical formula was replaced starting in 2012 with a simpler inverse-linear formula with cutoff values.[9] CAFE footprint requirements are set up such that a vehicle with a larger footprint has a lower fuel economy requirement than a vehicle with a smaller footprint
[0] https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-co...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_econo...