Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries | Hacker News Reader

Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

tesla.com

518 pointsazhenley507 comments

Compare to the Audi e-Tron, which has a fairly massive 95kWH battery but only scores 204 miles of EPA range. They claim they're only using 88% of the battery capacity so that charging is faster and battery longevity is preserved, but thats a really weird engineering decision that belies the fact they have made a terribly inefficient (and perhaps rapidly degrading?) battery pack/drivetrain.

Meanwhile the base Model S, for $4k more, has 285 miles of EPA range, and charges faster when below 50%, although not as fast as the e-Tron when above 50%.

The smaller Kia Niro EV (if you can get one, they aren't making many because they can't source the batteries) squeezes 258 miles of range from a 65 kWH battery. Much better, but terribly production constrained. It won What Car of the Year in the UK but they can only deliver 900 to the UK for the whole of 2019. Not sure what the global Kia production rate is, but presumably far far less than Tesla which has sustained 4000+ Model 3's per week since last October (although not yet delivering to the RHD countries like the UK, alas)

Turns out making EVs is harder than everyone thought. We were told the traditional automakers would just wade in and obliterate Tesla, who were just putting 'wheels on batteries'. That hasn't happened.

>...88% of the battery capacity...weird engineering decision

Musk was talking about existing packs lasting 400,000 miles and working on new ones that will do 1 million. You can't get those sort of life spans if you use the full cycle - think how long your phone battery lasts.

Car batteries are not much like phone batteries. A car battery pack is a system in itself, with thousands of small cells supported by cooling, heating, monitoring and balancing systems.

edit: there are recommendations for Tesla daily use that say go to 90% most of the time. But still a bit different to putting 12% completely out of reach like Audi have done.

Well actually, by default Teslas charge daily to only 90%, to preserve the battery. You can however change it to 100%, if going on a trip, or otherwise needing the full range.

There's no reason to believe 100% is actually 100%.

Tesla is also deep in the red so I partially read these PR announcements with a grain of salt as they desperately try to acquire capital

Exactly. Financials come out today, and after saying that it's "profits from here on out" ntwo quarters ago, Tesla will probably produce another huge loss.

As is par for the course, their PR news will come hot and heavy: Cars go further! Our entire business model is now robot taxis! None of it matters if you can't sell your product at a profit.

To be fair to Tesla, the "profits from here on out" statements came with some caveats around Q1 2019. I get the feeling that they have moved even more one time charges into the one-time-bad-really-bad quarter as a result.

To be fair to your point, the "Autonomy Day" presentation implied a willingness to renege on the promises about other quarters as well.

Toyota's debt to equity ratio is three times that of Tesla's.

With 5x equity and decades long stable business, you can carry a high debt load. Tesla has more risk of a stock price plummet if they falter.

Apparently the max charge percentage is user configurable, see https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/set-charge-limit.131...

Yep it's just a slider in the UI and app. I generally leave it set to 80% and then 100% for big trips.

So it's optimal to not fully cycle batteries then? It's better to keep them mid charged and top them off?

I believe they last longer if you don't fully charge. My thinkpad used to have a setting where you could stop the charge at 85 or 90%. For storage apparently its best to have them something like half charged and kept somewhere cold.

Yes, the Battery University is my favorite reference for this stuff, see this page for example: https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_l...

I dont know if you know this, but the default for a Tesla is 90% battery capacity (You can manually override this very easily to 100% if going on a trip, or otherwise needing the full capacity)

Do they still do that? I thought they turned that off a few years ago. Still, completely different to Audi who are completely hiding 12% from the customer.

They still do that and it affects the behavior of the car: Regenerative braking is turned off as you approach 100%.

As an owner, I use this feature occasionally. Once in a while I'm setting off on a trip where initial charge range really matters for some reason.

A few observations, before I derail

I do not want to dismiss the efforts of Audi or Jaguar but I think their initial focus was being good examples for their respective brands with regards to their packaging. Their interior quality of a different generation and caliber than Tesla. The EV part was an important concern but secondary. They can still rack up significant ZEV credits in California letting them off the hook of buying them from others.

Tesla needs to refresh the S and X to improve interior fit and finish but also concentrate on making them quieter, an issue I have with my 3. without the drone of a motor every sound stands out and EVs tend to ride on stiffer, noisier, tires.

As for difficulty, other than i3 and Tesla cars I do not believe any other EV was a clean sheet design. Even the Leaf appears based on traditional cars. the Bolt is simply a spark when a new motor cradle and battery back pushed under it. The Hyundai/Kia models are all adaptions. Not 100% sure about the iPace but Jaguar even contracted out assembly.

The manufacturing difficulty is probably secondary to the seismic shift crossing the auto industry and associated industries. EVs don't need the large established dealership base and their included maintenance facilities. Secondary market means little use for parts stores and their suppliers. Gas stations will be right out with most charging done at destination points. Manufacturing of the autos themselves will implode the number of employees and that will lead to union difficulty in some countries; where they sit on boards and can stymie the move to EVs and loss of production jobs.

The Kia Niro EV numbers you mention are not EPA which was 258. I mention this because your other numbers were EPA.

Thanks, sorry I gave the european rating for the Kia, have edited. I believe the i-Pace was a ground-up design.

> EVs don't need the large established dealership base and their included maintenance facilities

I never understood that. Why does power source matter in the context of dealership base and maintenance? EVs still break.

They break at much much lower rates, because they have many fewer parts. EVs don't have the pistons, valves, belts, fans, compressors, alternators, spark plugs, etc that gasoline engines have. There's probably order of magnitude fewer parts to break.

Having seen the interior of an automatic gearbox, the surprising thing to me is that conventional automobiles are as reliable as they are.

I don't have any data to back this up but I would think that most cars going into the dealership network for maintenance are still under warranty; are less than 5 years old and not going in for expensive or time consuming engine work such as replacing head gaskets, belts, bearings, etc.

Instead, I would think most cars going into the dealership network are either:

1. Having a part replaced under warranty because it is faulty or there is a recall

2. Having a service under a service pack or because the car is still in warranty

3. Having some kind of interior defect fixed (rattling in the cabin, infotainment issue, etc)

and that these issues are still common enough in EVs that I don't expect the dealership network to change much.

Oil changes belong in here somewhere too.

I'm not sure if oil changes are the biggest source of profit, but they probably are the highest volume service. And those get customers in the shop for generally unnecessary upsells (like pumping cleaner into the climate control system to "flush" it? that is a scam, right?).

Marketplace's analysis: https://www.marketplace.org/2017/08/24/sustainability/whats-...

If anything, proprietary software will keep standard updates at the dealer. (Though I expect the schedule will drop way down.)

It's interesting that a lot of readers here and websites in the U.S are saying oil changes every 3,000 or 5,000 miles. This is absolutely not the case in Europe where most cars are on 10,000 or 20,000 mile intervals. I wonder if this is due to much more diverse weather and temperatures you see in the U.S throughout the year and so different grades of oil are required that degrade much faster.

I am using my Honda's computer and it asks to change oil around 4500 miles mark. I am mostly drive in a city, so that's would be a cause. I know for others the computer uses more than 10k intervals.

Full synthetic oil/filter is about $60 to change here.

I don't know the cause either but if you look at your oil, you can see it gradually turning colors, from pale ale to stout. At 5k in the US you're about at the latter, so I'm inclined to believe they're telling the truth.

As I replied in another comment:

> Oil changes color as it captures contaminates such as soot, carbon deposits, etc. It can operate effectively while brown-ish, but if the oil is carrying too much it will blacken and start to thicken at which point it will be much less effective at lubricating your engine.

Odor is a better wear indicator. It'll smell burnt when it's ready to be changed.

It's due to people wanting to make more money, and succeeding.

Some oil places just straight up tell you a lower number even when the owner's manual of the car says a higher one. I just go with what the manual says, rather than some random Jiffy Lube employee.

I tell people to just change it on the 5s because that's an easy round number and an engine that burns/leaks a little probably won't run out in that time. For synthetic I'd say 10k.

My last car said 10k miles in the owner's manual, but every time I got the oil changed the dealership would always lie and say 5k miles was recommended.

Maybe that was true decades ago, but it's no longer true. They prey on the misinformed. To be charitable, maybe they know many people wait too long, but I doubt it.

I went every 10k miles or so.

Other cars can go longer distances without an oil change, as you say.

I heard it is a hangover from the days of using mineral oil.

Modern synthetic oils last much longer.

Synthetics last for so long that the breakdown of oil is not really a concern anymore. The primary reason to change a synthetic oil is due to contamination.

Modern engines are designed with much, much better tolerances than before and crank cases no longer vent into the atmosphere. If you use new synthetic oil in an old small-block Chevy, the oil will hold up for a long time, but it will be so contaminated by gasoline, moisture, and debris that it will still require shorter replacement intervals.

Manufacturers are pushing to extend oil change intervals but depending on your climate and driving style you’ll see different oil degradation, and it had nothing to do with differing quality of oil. Oil standards are international.

The only way to know is to consistently and regularly have used oil analysis done. For my part, I change my oil every 3k or sooner because my vehicle gets put on a race track occasionally, which changes wear patterns and an oil change is cheap insurance. For full synthetics on a car which mostly sees highway miles 10k intervals are fine, but 15k and 20k intervals are ridiculous. For most cars in the US which see significant traffic a 5k interval is correct as stop and go traffic is actually harder on the engine than almost anything else.

Side note: A kilometer is just a little over half a mile. A 10k KM OCI is equivalent roughly to a 6500 mile OCI. So there isn’t that much difference between the US and European intervals.

I think you mixed up the units here.

In us oil changes are 3k-5k miles. which is ~5k km to ~8k km whereas in Europe it's 10k to 20k.

I find 8k-10k figure to be close enough and realistic.

5k km for old cars with non-synthetic oil.

20k km I highly suspect is a pipe dream from BMW marketing material ensuring that after about 120k the car would have no resale value.

I have had just as many issues with things braking unrelated to the engine. Eg washer fluid bottle leaking, air conditioning, disk breaks needing replacing, tire sensors breaking, tires going bald, etc.

Out of the engine related problems, the cam belt and clutch are the things that's caused issues in the last 5 years across my various cars.

Those are far easier to handle than, for example, changing a timing belt on a gasoline engine. Faster too...

You need less qualified people, less time, less parts, less often for repairs that a handy person can often do themselves and save on labor and parts. Significant sources of income are therefore shrunk for dealerships.

Engine and trans stuff isn't a significant source of income for them though. If anything ICE specific parts are a break even waste of a bay because for every person dumb enough to have a dealer do a timing belt out of warranty there's another person getting some leaking gasket replaced under warranty. Dealerships probably stand to make more money on EVs. Independent mechanics will probably lose out some though.

Sure, you can replace brake pads yourself. But few people want to do it; let alone are capable. Saying "significant sources of income are therefore shrunk" significantly overstates just how many people would do their maintenance work on that level.

I know people who have paid people to replace the bulbs on a car. My wife rarely even bothers to refill the washer and I can count on 1 hand the number of times she's checker her oil in the nearly 20 years of owning a car.

Most people either don't care how cars work, don't have the technical capabilities to fix their own car or simply don't want to.

>I know people who have paid people to replace the bulbs on a car.

To be fair most newer cars need a fair amount of front bodywork pulled to change a bulb and most crossovers require pulling tail light housings which can be kind of intimidating for someone who's never done anything more than changed windshield wipers.

I just kind of realized that any part that lives under the hood of an ICE car is in a pretty harsh environment.

> There's probably order of magnitude fewer parts to break.

According to Tesla a comparative ICE drivetrain will have around 200 moving parts, while one of their vehicles will have roughly 17.

The real upside is longevity. While it is a miraculous feat that machines, such as transmissions, last as long as they do today - they're not needed in electric vehicles. I think it's fair to assume we all expect 100k miles and more out of a car produced in the last decade. The two main components of a traditional ICE vehicle are the main contributors to longevity of a vehicle: engine and drivetrain. Those two items are of such high cost to replace many people will not consider the repair as replacement is more feasible.

As electric cars stand today longevity is significantly improved immediately. The major failure components will be batteries and electric motors. However the former can be considered a wear item and is, generally easy, to replace. The latter is also much cheaper and more simple to replace compared to the ICE equivalent. That being said the expectations of a BEV today are 300k+ miles with significantly less wear maintenance.

Finally as electric vehicles tend to be more modular it may very well be that we finally start to see platforms instead of model year differentials. If I have 'platform 1' here are motor, battery, electronics, etc upgrade options. We haven't seen this that bluntly yet, but I hope we get there. Cars today are built as non-upgradeable partially due to the built in life cycling / planned obsolescence the manufacturers have created for improved sales. It would be great if we could truly move cars to a more repair / upgrade centric platform. Not only could this spur new forms of labor and business but help waste reduction and overall manufacturing waste and pollution.

> The major failure components will be batteries and electric motors. However the former can be considered a wear item and is, generally easy, to replace

Are there "wear items" in ICE vehicles that cost anything like as much as replacing the batteries in an EV?

A battery in an BEV has no direct counterpart in an ICE vehicle. However it most closes aligns as critical to the power train. Any major repairs or replacement of power train components can be comparable depending on the component and labor. Batteries can, like engines and transmissions, be recycled and so costs of replacement today are likely closer to peak than 5-10 years out. Batteries have also proven they last well over 200k miles with less degradation than originally thought [0].

The standard length of operation of a gas ICE doesn't compete with electric, even early in the stage of BEV.

[0] https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/tesla-battery-degradation/

> Batteries have also proven they last well over 200k miles

For some value of "last" ... what percentage degradation are we seeing at 100k, 150k, 200k miles?

> The standard length of operation of a gas ICE doesn't compete with electric

Can you expand on this statement?

As I've pointed out before[0], the ICE vehicle I drive cost $13,800 new including all taxes, and its servicing needs (and costs) and depreciation curve are all well understood.

EVs? Not so much.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19238680

This assumes that Tesla would allow repairs on their cars, which so far not been the case.

I'm not stating that other manufacturers would not allow repairs, but that Tesla has been particularly hostile to people who like working on their cars.

Modern cars can easily go 200k+ miles without any major repairs other than tires / brakes / suspension.

And various belts replaced, fluids changed, ignition plugs swapped, starters break, climate compressor (or its clutch) sometimes break... Also turbos, [automatic] transmissions and [manual] clutches are prone to cause trouble. Electric systems might misbehave due to wear and tear on cables. And with 200k+ miles on a modern small car, I would really worry for the engine (here in the EU cars tend to have less cc). Not to mention the hunt for the actual defect. (Source: I am at ~200k miles/326kkm and used to fix a lot myself).

Our 2006 Honda Civic (1.8L engine, which at least in the US counts as a very small engine) just rolled over 200k miles a month or two ago.

We've had the car for 7 years and probably 80k of those miles. We had to get the brakes and tires replaced very early on, and have just done a second round of replacing both within the past 6 months. We needed a new muffler and starter last summer. A week ago, we replaced the front struts. I put in new spark plugs and O2 sensors this past month, mainly because they seemed like easy things to swap out and cheap insurance against them going bad down the line. We get the tires rotated and oil changed every 6k miles. Have replaced the transmission fluid once.

So yes, more than nothing, but doing maintenance two or three times a year for a total of maybe $3k over the time we've had the vehicle seems quite reasonable.

I was talking with the sales guy when I picked the car up on our most recent visit, and he commented that he had a Civic that he sold a couple years ago when it had 350k miles, and the guy he sold it to is still using it as his daily driver.

Modern cars, particularly the ones out of Asia, have extremely reliable engines and drivetrains. Worry about a car with 100k miles being near the end of its life is outdated. I would trust a well maintained car from the past 15 years to 250k miles and probably beyond.

The Civic is indeed renown for needing few repairs. The stuff I listed still has decent odds of breaking for most cars - while many/most of these parts are not present for BEVs.

The 100k claim is of course utter BS for a modern car (or US built quality is as inferior as some people claim - which I doubt), but it comes at a cost.

But the number of required service stations is also a function of how many customers you have and how they are distributed gographically, not only of how often they visit a station?

Surely you don't want people to drive 200km to the nearest service station, no matter if that's once a year or once every 3 years? Maybe that's the difference - customers expect EVs to be bleeding edge, so the service can be a hassle, and you can still get away with it?

I hate to break it to you but very few vehicles are going to the dealer for engine/trans related work. Dealerships mostly only see vehicles that are new enough to be under warranty or recently out of it and major power-train stuff doesn't often break in that time period. It's stuff like steering and suspension wear items, the occasional window motor, trunk latches that won't pop, HVAC and stuff like that they make most of their money doing. EVs would probably actually net more money for dealers more money because they wouldn't take a loss on fixing random leaks under warranty (they get paid but book times are often unrealistic).

My parents both decided they trust the dealership's mechanics more than anyone else's, and have their vehicles serviced there. The family pickup, a Ford F-150, is expected to last ~18 years (makes me sad, because that's a long time to go without Bluetooth) and went out of "warranty" a few years back. The truck has yet to need major work on it, but my dad intends to get it worked on at the dealership.

Mind you, we also live within walking distance of both dealerships, and personally know my mom's mechanic. As is always the case, your mileage may vary.

> makes me sad, because that's a long time to go without Bluetooth

Kinda off topic, but you could always just get one of these: https://www.amazon.com/Upgraded-Bluetooth-Transmitter-Sumind...

Howdy. As a fellow F-150 owner let me just point out that two DIN replacements are available for the stock radio with everything from just bluetooth to full blown android or proprietary entertainment centers with digital radio and sirius xm inputs. I realize your dad may just not bother since the dealer (most likely) won't do the work but it is possible to replace the stock radio.

Not all dealerships are stealerships. My experience is domestic ones tend to have good service departments, especially the older, rural ones.

If you own something like a Subaru or Hyundai, then you'd best find a good indie mechanic.

What's kind of interesting is comparing the original tesla user interfaces from years ago with the current UI.

Although they didn't get new hardware, the UI has gained lots of features (not that all changes were popular)

Very few vehicles are going to dealers for repairs at all. Most appointments are for maintenance. Oil changes, transmission fluid replacement, coolant flushes, etc. Teslas need less of this sort of stuff.

> They break at much much lower rates, because they have many fewer parts.

I don't really believe this is true. This is Tesla marketing spin. At one point every vehicle produced was having the drive unit replaced. There have been issues with water ingress and seat problems. Scour the Tesla motors forums.

Also, since it's the car is an iPhone model there aren't any aftermarket repairs. Seems to me to worse in every way despite the original spin on maintenance.

My 2013vVolt has 105K miles (85K EV / 20K ICE) on it and besides tires and one oil change, I've done NOTHING to it. zippo.

It drives like the day I bought it.

The volt is an ICE though? As a hybrid one might expect the problems of both ICE and electric in a Volt.

> EVs don't have the pistons, valves, belts, fans, compressors, alternators, spark plugs, etc that gasoline engines have. There's probably order of magnitude fewer parts to break.

If you buy a new ICE powered vehicle, how many of any of the parts you mention would one expect to replace in - for instance - the first three years of the vehicles' life?

Our experience is that the first few years of a ICE vehicle's life involves changing oil and oil filters and most likely not a whole lot else:

https://owners.vwmodels.ca/maintenance/timeline/

Same. Never had to repair anything in the first three years of a new ICE. If it weren't for mandatory visitations (in order to keep the guarantee) I'd have never see the dealership from within again.

Point of data here - having owned an ICE vehicle for two years, the first components I had to replace were windshield wipers, a taillight, and a tire (which ran over a bolt) - all of which would be at the same risk of failure in an EV.

The average age of the vehicle on the road in the US is about 10 years. Not everyone buys brand new cars, and after a few years things start to break.

Although from my experience things not related to drivetrain break:

* Suspension

* Brakes

* Steering rack.

As these components handle the most peak force.

Brakes in an EV pretty much never need to be replaced, because most of the braking is regenerative and doesn't wear the pads at all.

If you live in a place with a decent winter, and hence a decent quantity of salt on the roads, you may have to replace your brakes due to corrosion long before the pads "wear out".

Does this kind of stuff not happen to EVs?

http://www.safercar.gov/staticfiles/safercar/pdf/EA11-001_cl...

But are used car buyers, (or owners of 3+ year cars) having them repaired at the dealership? Most people I know go to 3rd party shops to minimize costs; the same motive that leads them to buy used in the first place.

I wonder how much the average dealership makes off repairs covered by warranty, compared to out of pocket repairs.

The average car on the road is closing in on 12 years old [1] so you can't just look at the first 3 years. The first few years of an ICE vehicle might be very similar to an EV, but that changes drastically as a car ages.

[1] - https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-truc...

> The first few years of an ICE vehicle might be very similar to an EV, but that changes drastically as a car ages

If the average age of all cars on the road is 12 years, where's the data for 12 year old EVs?

I've mostly had older cars 5-10 years old and I rarely had issues with anything in the engine. It was typically suspension, brakes, lights, the starter battery etc.

Tesla make it's difficult to fix their cars by restricting parts or bricking their cars that have been in a crash. Whilst you can get your traditional car fixed pretty much anywhere, likely to get your Tesla fixed you need the dealership more than ever.

Information based on the Rich Rebuilds YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfV0_wbjG8KJADuZT2ct4SA

Less wear on brakes due to regenerative braking. No clutch, which is another wear item. No regular fluid / plug changes like ICE engines (and far fewer moving parts to go wrong generally). Essentially all you're left with are wipers and tyres, which don't really require a specialist / main dealer.

Well, depends on where you live. A lot o wear on my break calipers are from really shitty and sandy places :)

Depends on your vehicle as well. When I had a Jeep Wrangler the rear pads AND rotors needed changed about every 3 years.

Clutches will last 80,000 miles on most cars unless driven unsympathetically by either dumping the clutch or riding it frequently. Fluid and spark plugs are some of the cheapest maintenance you can do on ICE cars. Timing belts, aux belts, water pumps, bearings are much more expensive wear items and I'd be much more concerned about those personally.

You should however be changing your brake fluid every 2 years regardless of whether or not you have regenerative braking. Brake fluid degrades over time as water gets absorbed.

>spark plugs are some of the cheapest maintenance you can do on ICE cars.

Let me introduce you to the transverse mounted V6...

>You should however be changing your brake fluid every 2 years regardless of whether or not you have regenerative braking. Brake fluid degrades over time as water gets absorbed.

Yeah you should replace it every now and then but two years is BS though. In many states the fluid never gets touched until the brake lines rust out which can be a decade or more. Brake fluid is one of those things that people really harp on (cynically I think this is because harping on anything that's safety related tends to earn internet points) but unless you're driving on a track or riding the brake down a mountain you would probably never notice if your brake fluid was 1/3rd water.

> Let me introduce you to the transverse mounted V6...

Fair point! V6s were never really suitable for transverse layouts, but it did at least give us some wonderful sounding cars from the likes of Alfa Romeo and others.

My 2012 Subaru needed a new clutch recently. To your point, it was at about 80k miles. Mitigating that point, it was going to cost $2500 in parts and labor to get it replaced at the dealership (and it wasn't all that cheaper at the mom and pops).

Having said that, I also own a Tesla Model 3. It's probably a myth that maintenance is much less. Something about the weight distribution (or maybe it's the sheer torque) causes tires to last less than 30k miles. I'm finding this to be true in my own experience. And a set of tires will set us back nearly $1000.

Lots of great reasons to own a Model 3. Significantly reduced maintenance costs probably isn't one of them.

Service intervals are very limited. Let me use my Model 3 as an example, I only need tire rotations until 25,000 miles. At that point I need the cabin and HVAC air filters replaced, then 25k later I do it again.

Not only will dealership service centers be impacted, oil change shops will have little work if any as the number of petrol cars wind down, general service shops face the same issue as the numbers decline.

Now there are jobs that will become important similar to how renewable energy solutions ended some jobs and made new. Electricians for business and home needs will increase because of both industries.

That's not super different from long lasting oil? Some Petrol cars do 30'000km without and service?

I just read up on 3'000 to 5'00 mile intervals that might be prevalent in the US?

To me that sounds crazy. Many synthetic oils are officially approved to 15'000 miles.

Nowadays cars use an engine life monitor and report to the owner that they need service every 8-10,000 depending on use

Recently manufactured cars we own have those oil life monitors but some research shows they simply run down a milage count. The dealership even asks me what mileage I would like it set to. Sales pitch suggests that the vehicle is monitoring actual oil characteristics but in fact it is not.

What they do is calculate an oil lifetime based on running conditions of the engine. How long it's been on, what temperatures its running at, what RPM....

Point is that nobody should be changing their oil ever 3-5k.

It is true that a lot of synthetic oils are approved for 10, 15 and even 20,000 miles in some cases.

However, if you actually look at the oil after 10,000 miles it's usually very dark brown despite the high mileage rating so I personally get mine changed more frequently than recommended.

maybe it works fine when it is dark brown

Oil changes color as it captures contaminates such as soot, carbon deposits, etc. It can operate effectively while brown-ish, but if the oil is carrying too much it will blacken and start to thicken at which point it will be much less effective at lubricating your engine.

Depends on use. My truck essily likes 4000-5000 mile oil changes. It runs noticeably worse towards the end of that mileage range. It works harder than most cars and produces a lot of power to boot.

It's possible that your filters are clogged or there is some source of contamination. You may want to buy and oil Catch Can. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-B4VRxAtbw

Maybe, I also just drive it hard. I should get a secondary filter regardless.

oil change stores advocate 3000 miles. car manuals or cars with computers that tell you when to change the oil advocate much longer intervals.

Many synthetic oils _are_ fine that long.

Very few oil filters are fine that long. I know Mobil 1 makes one rated for 15k miles, but I'm not aware of any OEM components with near that lifetime.

Hopefully that changes soon, but in the meantime I'll keep changing the oil at the rate my oil filter is rated for.

The shop I take our cars to recommends rotating the tires every 6,000 miles. Based on the oil life indicator in the car, the oil is getting about worn out by that point as well. Makes for an easy service trip to get both done at once.

My car tells me when to replace the oil. I don't even think about it, the amber light tells me when to do it.

They can and will with the correct supplies and parts (and handling).

There is a reason that some oils are far more expensive than others. Oil change shops have an incentive to make you come back soon, so you will be told there is no need for the more expensive oil. The composition of the oil and the quality of the engine and its parts will of course influence the build up of slug.

There’s scheduled maintenance and service. Tesla’s aren’t exactly known for being flawless even if that doesn’t mean there are problems with the drivetrain

The real money is in repairs for poorly designed and manufactured components, not service.

> Not 100% sure about the iPace but Jaguar even contracted out assembly.

I think I have heard they outsourced that to Range Rover. Or the Range Rover Velar (or something like that) has the same baseplate as the iPace. Not sure.

It's the same organization, Jaguar Land Rover / JLR.

Something new to learn every day. :-)

If a quiet engine makes the other noises noticeable, they don't need to silence the car, just add a little synthetic white noise like offices and movies have.

Good point. Having driven Model S/X/3'es as well as an e-tron and i-pace I can absolutely echo your statement.

Teslas offer a different USP than E-Tron/I-Pace alikes. It's EV vs. Premium-Cars that happen to be EVs.

If you've never owned a (premium) car and thus have no feeling for differences in interior- and general-manufacturing-quality, a Tesla is the reasonable choice (it even maybe that an Audi's interior will come across as needlessly pretentious).

However, if you've driven premium Audis/Jags you will notice what Teslas are lacking.

It's reasonable to assume that Teslas are thus more likely to be bought by newly affluent millennials (than by already affluent people), though being a TSLA stockholder I wonder how large that group of millennials might be outside of my software engineering bubble.

I have a VW Golf R and test drove a Tesla M3 last week. I had set my expectations ahead of time but I was still let down by the interior quality of the vehicle. German auto companies have a great understanding of what makes a car feel like higher quality. It is a mix of design, materials, fit, usability, and sound. VW group, Mercedes Benz, and BMW spend considerable amount of money refining the user experience. Tesla is early in its life cycle and likely prioritizing drive train, batteries, and auto pilot. I see Teslas as more utilitarian in that sense, but I won't kid myself. I love the feeling of a well built car that can go fast and feel fast and sound fast while keeping me happy with creature comforts. Side note, the M3 should really have a full hatch instead of the traditional sedan trunk.

I agree here. I’ve owned 6 Audi’s, one Lexus and a Jaguar and the interior quality/attention to detail in the Tesla is really sub-par.

I sold my 2016 Golf R around the same time we picked up the 3. I actually was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the 3, to be honest. Maybe my expectations were low-ish because I spend a fair bit of time in a Model S, but I really thought they did a good job of stepping up and making the interior relatively premium. Where cars like the R feel 'premium' to me is how they glow at night. The interior just felt REALLY high end, better than a base BMW, all the glowing buttons and stuff. But the Tesla just doesn't HAVE the buttons. To me, that's different, not worse.

The nav/display is obviously better in the Tesla (although my Golf didn't have the digital cockpit that they're putting in the new ones). Both cars have their 'fancy' seating material (leather/fake leather/whatever) on the seating surfaces only, cloth elsewhere (and, by the way, I hate leather seats, I just want cloth in everything.. I'm just saying, this is one way premium cars are differentiated, is by FULL leather). The most galling thing to me on the R, the only real sign of cost cutting, was the manual passenger seat, where the 3 has a power seat. A low end touch on both is the totally spartan, stripped out finishing of the trunk/hatch area.

No swiveling headlights on the 3, but the headlights are actually better, significantly so, particularly on high beam.

Perhaps one thing that keeps me from being as critical of the 3 is that it's an appliance to me. I'm a german car fan, and I hate sedans. My BMWs and VWs have been cars I'm passionate about. The Tesla just takes me from Point A to Point B. And it's a fantastic car. But maybe that makes my expectations lower.

I am swaying between the Golf R MK 7.5 and the Dual Motor M3. I have a 2017 lease right now. I agree with you that the M3 will get me from point a to b with enhanced auto pilot features and no CO2 output, but I am afraid of missing out on the joy of driving. I recently moved to LA and my time in vehicle has increased by 3x. Which means both vehicles have increased pros and cons.

Do you miss having the hatchback? That is one my bigger gripes with the M3. This would be my only car.

Miss having the hatchback? Not really. I just think sedans are stupid, and less attractive than hatchbacks. But the 3 carries FAR more than the golf could ever hope to. The trunk is a bit difficult to close, which is an issue I have on lots of sedans (really stiff at the top, requires too much force to slam shut because it doesn't have the mass of a hatch).

I love driving the 3, and ours is an RWD LR with the 18" eco crap tires. I can't say I miss driving the R, but I miss the way it looks and having that unique car that I'm passionate about, and I really enjoyed having a manual transmission.

I have a manual sports car as well, but you know what, I always choose the 3 when I need to go run an errand, so maybe that's all you need to know. Just about the only time I've driven my sports car in the past year is 2 track days. Hardly any street miles.

That’s called a Model Y :)

Slight derailing again.

1997-1999 GM EV1 Gen 1 & 2 (leased for 1 year at a time with 3 different cars), 2001 Ford Ranger EV, 2003 Toyota Rav4 EV, 2010 Nissan Leaf, 2011 Chevy Volt, and 2017 Chevy Bolt. These vehicles were owned in the household I was living in at some point.

With this being said, I've ridden in a Model 3. It is by far one of the noisiest electric vehicles I've seen.

For anyone curious, the GM EV1 was by far my favorite. Those were years ahead of their time.

> For anyone curious, the GM EV1 was by far my favorite. Those were years ahead of their time.

This is literally true: they were compliance products that were years beyond GM's (or anyone else’s) ability to make and sell sustainably, which is why GM and other manufacturers lobbbied to neuter the mandate and discontinued and destroyed the vehicles.

I wonder what makes the EV1 memorable to you.

I've driven a model 3 performance dual motor, and I thought it was a very good car. Super fast. I don't remember it being noisy. I've driven a few model s's and I thought they were extremely quiet.

Now noise -- I've driven a 2012 Leaf and it was a nice car, which Nissan didn't forget how to make. But it was super noisy in a ridiculous way. Nissan added all kinds of stupid sound effects to the car. Some you can turn off, like the silly startup sounds that remind me of a canon camera. But some sounds like the fake electronic driving sound or the backup beep-beep-beep cannot be disabled. sigh.

No idea what is actually going on, but the first thought that comes to my mind is that in the US you're allowed and expected to blatantly lie in marketing while in the EU you may have to keep it somewhat realistic...

No. I'm talking about the EPA (USA) rating of the e-Tron vs other cars. EPA ratings for EVs are generally pretty accurate vs real world range, although in the real world a lot depends on driving style and weather etc.

As I said, I have no idea what's going on in the US, but I know 2 facts:

- service providers are allowed to lie on how much a service contract will actually cost, adding/changing extra fees that were never mentioned

- Boeing of the MAX fame was allowed to self certify

One could extrapolate from there...

EV range is very easy for anyone to check

A rising tide lifts all boats. I'm just happy there are an increasing number of EVs coming on the market. And people will have their reasons for choosing one or another, so it doesn't have to be that one car is objectively best across the board and therefore gets 100% of the sales.

I'm very happy with my Model 3 but what I really want to see is acceptance of electric cars as a viable and sensible option for a lot of drivers, and the infrastructure that comes along with that.

Of course. I'm not trying to play a game of 'my EV is better than that EV' (nb I drive a Leaf). I'm pointing out that many people underestimated the lead Tesla has in EV technology. This year we've seen major, and esteemed, automakers put things into production that are clearly years behind what Tesla can do. I'm glad they are joining in, but I'm just trying to set the record straight.

FWIW the Kia Niro EV (and the Hyundai Kona Electric which is based on the same platform) are very serious competitors for the Model 3. Kia and Hyundai seem to have got the EV tech figured out. But alas they can't hardly manufacture any of them. So thats Tesla's other advantage - a whopping huge battery factory.

At the last investors meeting, battery production is what Elon said is the main bottleneck at this time for model 3s.

AFAIK, all the others are going to get their batteries from third party vendors (except maybe Nissan?). That is going to cause a cost for everyone but Tesla.

isn’t Panasonic the ones that provide all of the batteries that end up in Teslas?

my understanding is that Panasonic has been losing money so they’ve started scaling back production. which lead to Musk taking shots at them.

Panasonic provide the cells, Tesla combines thousands of cells into battery packs, and the battery packs are quite complex bits of engineering, with monitoring, cooling, heating, balancing etc.

Panasonic isn't scaling back production. Tesla is the one who refused to approve additional scaling up because Panasonic hasn't been able to reach the promised production rate with their existing capacity.

> Nikkei said that Panasonic “froze” a decision to put an additional $900 million to $1.35 billion of investment into the Nevada Gigafactory in a bid to “reduce its dependence on the automaker.” Tesla is Panasonic’s biggest customer for electric vehicle batteries, and the Japanese battery maker had already suffered millions in losses due to the slower-than-expected ramp-up of Model 3 production.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/11/18305976/tesla-panasonic-...

Yeah parent is saying Tesla denied that Nikkei report. Might be true, might be not, but lying would be very risky for a public company. Remember Bloomberg story about stealth chips in Supermicro servers?

Also, energy efficiency means lower costs. If you need a 20% bigger pack for the same range, that’s almost a 20% more expensive pack.

That’s the entire profit margin of a profitable car model.

Exactly this. It’s also thousands of dollars worth of energy cost over the vehicle’s lifetime and enhances the effective charging rate (miles charged per minute). It also reduces weight.

Efficiency is hugely important for profitable and desirable electric vehicles and significantly enhances the environmental advantage as well.

Several of the 'traditional' automakers have EV models just to comply with the EU average emission targets agreements [1]. Fiat Chrysler paid Tesla a handsome sum to have its production 'pooled' [2], and others produce subpar EV and low emission vehicles because of the perversity of 'Super credits' (one produced EV can be counted more than once when the the average is calculated).

[1]"Fiat Chrysler taps Tesla to avoid EU emission fine" https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fiat-chrysler-taps-tesla-t...

[2] "Reducing CO2 emissions from passenger cars" https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars_...

> Compare to the Audi e-Tron, which has a fairly massive 95kWH battery but only scores 204 miles of EPA range. They claim they're only using 88% of the battery capacity so that charging is faster and battery longevity is preserved, but thats a really weird engineering decision that belies the fact they have made a terribly inefficient (and perhaps rapidly degrading?) battery pack/drivetrain.

Audi chooses to limit charging thresholds to preserve battery life and your conclusion is that they must have a rapidly degrading battery pack? More likely is they're being ultra-cautious because they don't have their own data in place for how the batteries will respond.

> Turns out making EVs is harder than everyone thought. We were told the traditional automakers would just wade in and obliterate Tesla...

This is all based on the new Model S having a range 80 miles higher than the e-Tron and 50 miles higher than the I-Pace.

The danger to Tesla's ability to dominate the EV market isn't these two models, the danger is a swamp of competition. Just VW is planning to launch 50 different models by 2025 on its modular electric platform, from multiple brands and in every price point from $30k to $100k. I'd expect Tesla to still be the largest selling model within its particular niches, but its one crossover will be nipped at the heels by 20 different crossovers from competitors, all serving different use cases and price points, and the same for SUVs. It won't even launch a small city hatchback, where VW alone will have 5-10 different models.

Although I’m not even sure this should be characterised as a threat, Tesla was never going to maintain a total dominance in electric cars and that’s not required for it to become a significant and profitable manufacturer.

The question really is at what level of scale and profitability Tesla is happy to end up. The I-Pace is actually doing well for Jaguar, because Jaguar is a niche producer, it's currently providing 10% of global Jaguar sales. I'd expect Tesla to settle in as something around BMW, luxury price points, decent profit margins, solid but not massive sales numbers. The model 3 has ended up solidly within that price bracket.

> Audi chooses to limit charging thresholds to preserve battery life and your conclusion is that they must have a rapidly degrading battery pack? More likely is they're being ultra-cautious because they don't have their own data in place for how the batteries will respond.

Well, its clearly inefficient, whether it degredes rapidly or not was just a guess. My argument is that building EVs is harder than Teslas critics have admitted. If Audi don't know the degreadation state for their own battery then that kindof backs that up. The e-Tron is a nice enough car but it was trailed as being a Tesla killer and its clearly not that.

> This is all based on the new Model S having a range 80 miles higher than the e-Tron and 50 miles higher than the I-Pace

My argument is not really about range, its about range for a given battery size - i.e. efficiency. Batteries are heavy and expensive - thats why building an affordable long range EV is such a challenge. If your EV is inefficient, it will be heavier and more expensive than it needs to be.

Even if the e-Tron used 100% of its battery it would still only get 230 miles of range. Still below the base Model S, which - probably - has something like a 70/80 kWH battery - smaller, lighter and cheaper.

I like the look of the i-Pace but it seems to be smaller on the inside than it should be. It supposed to be an SUV and just 500lbs lighter than the enormous Model X but its got just a slightly bigger boot than the Nissan Leaf (17 cubic feet vs 15.3). Presumably, thats because its full of big heavy battery.

> I'd expect Tesla to settle in as something around BMW, luxury price points, decent profit margins, solid but not massive sales numbers. The model 3 has ended up solidly within that price bracket.

Yeah you might be right, I am disappointed that they abandoned the $35k target for the Model 3.

> Audi chooses to limit charging thresholds to preserve battery life and your conclusion is that they must have a rapidly degrading battery pack?

I mean, that would be a weird reason to limit it, but every other reason is weird too. 12% degradation over 100k miles would be pretty high. They've started with 12% degradation from the factory by design in order to avoid it!

I can't think of a good reason for this, tbh.

I suspect they desperately want to avoid further scandal, especially with electric cars because these are supposed to be turning over a new leaf after dieselgate. They're not sure exactly how well battery thermal management will work, so they choose a strict limit. I suppose if they find there isn't a problem they could relax it OTA. No-one complains if they get more later, only if they get less.

That is quite a good theory.

But the Audi e-Tron is incredibly massive: curb weight of about 5600 lbs/2500 kg.

The Model S is closer to 4600-4900 lbs. The Niro EV is about 3800 lbs.

This is true. But if you compare it to the Model X which is about the same weight you'll still end up with the same conclusion - the battery/drive train of the e-Tron is not well engineered.

The base Model X probably has a 70/80 kWH battery - smaller, lighter and cheaper then the one in the e-Tron, and its supposed to be getting a 250 mile EPA rating.

Funny thing is, I have a fighting chance of getting my car back within less than a week for repair if I take it to any of the 100's of dealerships available for non-Tesla vehicles.

Try doing that with a Tesla.

Tesla is struggling just as much as the other automotive companies. They just don't show it.

What is super cool about Tesla is their laser sharp focus on creating a good electric vehicle. From the autonomy announcement and then this one, they are creating tools purpose built for cars, like new chips for self driving, battery tech etc. They have done so much in so little time, we have come to expect more from them. There is only so much a car company can innovate, Tesla has gone beyond it.

Edit: I am a Tesla fanboy but I don't condone their false advertising around FSD.

If you believe that they are doing false advertising around FSD, could they also be doing false advertising about this?

It's highly unlikely. This is a public event and they will be held even more accountable than when Elon tweets something. Lying at such a stage would risk their reputation. So I say it's unlikely, not impossible though.

>Lying at such a stage would risk their reputation.

But the thing is, the fans never say it's a lie.

Battery swaps, Solar Shingles, Alien Dreadnought factory producing so quickly you need strobe lights to see machines, Full-Self Driving, profits forever, robot taxis...these are not lies, they are simply things that haven't happened yet.

Years ago the guy literally walked onto a Hollywood set and demonstrated the Solar shingles. Now they are writing down Solar City and getting in trouble for not producing enough or providing the promised jobs at the subsidized factory in New York. Lie?

The only bit there that I disagree with is the battery swap. They actually did that, and I think it pretty visibly demonstrated what a dead end that approach was likely to be.

Otherwise, though, you are right, and they even prepped for that in the presentation. I always get it done, just not on time. So when this isn't done in 2020... well, 2022 then. They make great cars, IMO, but this stuff is more than a little annoying.

I’m not sure they would risk lying about their EPA tested mileage rating after the VW scandal. It would surely mean the end of Tesla.

just how it was the end of VW?...

VW have a lot more money in the bank and the support of the German government, two things that Tesla don't have.

Unlikely about battery capacity and range. Tesla have consistently delivered in that side of things. The core of their car business is solid.

Their problem on the production side is not surprising. Missing deadlines and production targets is business as usual for "startups" (between quotes because they are massive, however still very much a new and small player in that field) "We will deliver million of widget in 2 years for $20" really means "we will deliver 100K widget in 5 years for $40" with the enthousiasm you expect of a company at that stage.

Every claim around autonomous driving have been bullshit and they have doubled down on their bullshit instead of owning up. The grandiose announcement, Trumpish tweeting and technical presentation that carefully avoid talking about the current technical issue they must have solved ? That smells like they are trippling down. They avoid false advertising by kicking the can down the road further. eg: they aggressively talk down LIDAR because their current car do not have it but they are bound by their claim that every car is fully autonomous ready.

Missing deadlines and production targets is business as usual for "startups"

I wouldn't just limit this to startups. Software development is a field where we sometimes struggle to deliver on time.

Independent researchers have already proven Musk to be 100% right about LIDAR.

Pseudo-LiDAR from Visual Depth Estimation: Bridging the Gap in 3D Object Detection for Autonomous Driving https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.07179

3D object detection is an essential task in autonomous driving. Recent techniques excel with highly accurate detection rates, provided the 3D input data is obtained from precise but expensive LiDAR technology. Approaches based on cheaper monocular or stereo imagery data have, until now, resulted in drastically lower accuracies --- a gap that is commonly attributed to poor image-based depth estimation. However, in this paper we argue that data representation (rather than its quality) accounts for the majority of the difference. Taking the inner workings of convolutional neural networks into consideration, we propose to convert image-based depth maps to pseudo-LiDAR representations --- essentially mimicking LiDAR signal. With this representation we can apply different existing LiDAR-based detection algorithms. On the popular KITTI benchmark, our approach achieves impressive improvements over the existing state-of-the-art in image-based performance --- raising the detection accuracy of objects within 30m range from the previous state-of-the-art of 22% to an unprecedented 74%. At the time of submission our algorithm holds the highest entry on the KITTI 3D object detection leaderboard for stereo image based approaches.

Karpathy was also pointing to:

Depth from Videos in the Wild: Unsupervised Monocular Depth Learning from Unknown Cameras https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.04998

We present a novel method for simultaneous learning of depth, egomotion, object motion, and camera intrinsics from monocular videos, using only consistency across neighboring video frames as supervision signal. Similarly to prior work, our method learns by applying differentiable warping to frames and comparing the result to adjacent ones, but it provides several improvements: We address occlusions geometrically and differentiably, directly using the depth maps as predicted during training. We introduce randomized layer normalization, a novel powerful regularizer, and we account for object motion relative to the scene. To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to learn the camera intrinsic parameters, including lens distortion, from video in an unsupervised manner, thereby allowing us to extract accurate depth and motion from arbitrary videos of unknown origin at scale. We evaluate our results on the Cityscapes, KITTI and EuRoC datasets, establishing new state of the art on depth prediction and odometry, and demonstrate qualitatively that depth prediction can be learned from a collection of YouTube videos.

Tesla has also advantage of having radars and is able to do supervised learning of depth estimates for moving objects from video.

I was also skeptical of Tesla self-driving capability, because they had some stupid ideas, like ignoring radar data based on GPS tagging from fleet behavior. But lack of LIDAR will not be the issue. Not even close.

It seems like they are focusing on building proper pipeline for training neural networks. The question is whether neural networks as a technology can handle self driving. Reasoning based on "human brain can do it, so artificial neural networks can do it" is wrong. Natural neural networks and artificial neural networks, besides name share only very, very rough low level conceptual ideas. Moreover, our ANN architectures are probably missing most of what brains do on high level. So, I think this is still an open question - can ANN do it? If not, then nobody will have full self driving capability widely deployed any time soon. Because, even tough neural networks are not perfect, everything else is super brittle in comparison.

LIDAR and hires maps are technologies that give working short-term solution, are sort of local minimum. LIDAR is super expensive and already proven to be not necessary. While, hires maps are super brittle and too capital intensive to be widely deployed.

But if neural networks are sufficient Tesla will leave everyone in dust. There will be literally no competition. They do not need to learn electric cars manufacturing in order to deploy their technology widely, they are doing that already. They will not need to backtrack on LIDAR and hires maps solutions. Also, their decision to deploy self driving hardware to every car means that they have access to stupidly big amount of real world data from all varieties of environments all around the world.

BTW - Extrapolating based what Tesla was doing before Karpathy joined is probably misguided. I was afraid that he will get lost in a big corporation, but he seems to be doing great job there. In my opinion technology that build with his supervision will be significantly better than what Tesla was doing before. But Karpathy is not a magician.

So, Tesla has the biggest potential and the big question is: Are neural networks sufficient for self driving?

>Independent researchers have already proven Musk to be 100% right about LIDAR.

Well, you better let all the other smart people doing this work know! They're all doomed!

Why do you think it's one or the other-neural nets and LIDAR-, and not both? The more sensors the better.

Look at the dates of the papers I linked. The quote:

Approaches based on cheaper monocular or stereo imagery data have, until now, resulted in drastically lower accuracies --- a gap that is commonly attributed to poor image-based depth estimation. However, in this paper we argue that data representation (rather than its quality) accounts for the majority of the difference.

Is from December 2018. Your knowledge of what smart people think is currently outdated, because the new results are so recent.

I also agree that Musk was making claims about no need for LIDAR based on his intuition. He could have been terribly wrong, because it was just his intuition. But he is not wrong.

BTW - Smart people were wrong about AI many times. They were wrong about ANN being dead end in eighties, they were wrong about symbolic AI. They were also wrong about necessity of LIDAR. In a year of two they will update their believes as more evidence will be piling up.

I've mentioned this before but, how many technologies do you see companies working on where they say, "well we have one approach we think is gonna work, but we're also going to spend a ton of resources and time developing this other solution that we don't think is going to work, that would be useless if the first approach does work. Oh and it would make our cars 5k more expensive at least."

Because the question isn't about what a theoretical best system consists of. No one (including Musk) denies more sensors could theoretically be beneficial. Adding a gravitational wave detector to your car would ensure the car doesn't accidentally drive into black holes, making it more safe. This additional safety would not be economical.

Same principle with LIDAR. Adding $5k hardware per car and a ton of R&D doesn't seem economical to Tesla, since they think they can get pretty much the same with just their current sensor suit. Time will tell if they are right and what AP + sensor suite customers will choose.

>but they are bound by their claim that every car is fully autonomous ready.

are they? Didn't they already claim that for cars with the previous generation of computer?

Yes, by promising an upgrade.

Missing production deadlines and Targets is also common for all other existing OEMs as they keep promising X EV model will be introduced in 2018, err 2019, err 2020, err 2021 etc

Like it or not Tesla is the only OEM actually deploying autonomous tech in mass in a consumer vehicle.

NOA is basically a Level 2 system which can do all highway driving by it's self including checking blind spots, changing lanes, taking exits.

It's pretty hard to fake a vehicle's range. It's a lot easier to oversell an experimental system which isn't available to the general public and won't be for 6 months - ∞.

>It's pretty hard to fake a vehicle's range.

No it isn't. There are so many variables that go into range, from road conditions, weather, driver habits, wind, that nobody actually gets the exact stated range anyway.

I'm not saying they're faking it, but it certainly wouldn't be pretty hard.

But eventually people actually drive these cars and notice these things

> I don't condone their false advertising around FSD.

Can you elaborate on this?

Tesla in the past has made unachievable predictions around self driving. From charging people for FSD and not yet delivering.

"What is super cool about Tesla is their laser sharp focus on creating a good electric vehicle. From the autonomy announcement and then this one, they are creating tools purpose built for cars, like new chips for self driving, battery tech etc."

That's interesting that you cite that because I wish that Tesla would just focus on electric cars.

Instead I see them wasting all manner of time, energy and goodwill on autonomous driving which is not necessarily related to EVs in any way. In fact, I worry that in the long run, Tesla will be done in by autonomous driving in spite of their great vehicles.

> What is super cool about Tesla is their laser sharp focus on creating a good electric vehicle.

And don't forget leaf blowers!

I argue that self driving is indeed the core of any car's experience. I agree when Elon says that a decade from now, a car without autonomy will be strange. They will be as common as smart phones are today. Smartphone revolution happened in less than a decade. Smartcar revolution will be little slower, but once triggered it will be unstoppable, even in developing nations.

This "continuous deployment" for cars must be a logistical nightmare. To do repairs for a given vehicle, keeping track of what parts are backward compatible would be challenging. What if it's a compatibility breaking change? Then keeping inventory for older cars would become problematic.

Unless they do design with maximum compatibility. Then it gets interesting as upgrades are possible.

While B.EV cars maintenance is low, my car 7 months into ownership revealed bad battery cells that needed replacing. If the car was say five years old, would this replacement have been possible?

Tesla's supply chain management system was built in house. Combined with configuration tied to the VIN, I don't see it as being onerous. Backward compatibility, while not easy, is straightforward (dependency graph). If a subsystem incompatibility exists and parts cannot be sourced from Tesla inventory or an OEM, you replace the entire system (and pray to whatever deity you believe in it happens under warranty).

Tesla provides a very generous battery pack & powertrain warranty (8 years/infinite miles for S and X, 8 year/100k miles for Model 3); you're not going to be opening up the high voltage pack to replace cells yourself. Tesla will perform the work, or swap the pack if necessary.

EDIT: Note this is only a comment on Tesla's supply chain tracking system, and doesn't discuss their difficulty in getting replacement parts out to customers.

Well, given that people report their Teslas sitting in the shop for months to get repaired, the logistical supply chain doesn’t seem to be working too well.

I think that's an intentional choice to optimize sales of new cars. Every part made goes into a new Tesla and there are no replacement parts available.

revolutionizing the supply chain and auto industry

Walled garden revolution. Going to the breakers/wrecking yard for parts is akin to open source software. You are locking yourself into proprietary code, parts and pricing in this Tesla 'revolution'. A wing mirror costs $550 for example. Only authorized Tesla maintenance is permitted etc etc...

>A wing mirror costs $550 for example

I wish. I was quoted $1450 for a new wing mirror for my wife's X...

read the story of the guy with the bmw who tried to swap in a part from another one, and it wouldn't work unless the dealer programmed it to work with that new car's vehicle id. so he sold his car.

That's a common problem when trying to upgrade the iDrive head unit with one from a donor car. It can be done but requires special tools and knowledge.

In BMW's defence, they would validate the car as a system and wouldn't want to be seen to be giving implied consent for making these frankencars. Software configuration isn't like hardware; a bolt can be replaced with any bolt made by anyone as long as it is of comparable specification.

Yes, I know that's a common way of doing things. Once you are out of warranty, imho the reason companies do this is just to force people to get stuff through dealers. I was replying to someone that said tesla was different because you were stuck in their world for parts etc. So it's not really different?

Yes, but that means their supply chain management is completely unproven at this point. Knowing which parts belong in a specific vin # is the easy bit. Making sure the right parts get out there so that each model has repair parts available is the hard bit.

This is great until you want to do repairs or maintenance yourself or via lower cost aftermarket. It’s essentially locking you into the OEM service model.

Correct. This is a choice you make as a Tesla customer (disclaimer: I have made this choice). I understand Tesla's position (brand protection, workload reduction), but also support Right To Repair; I don't have a solution I can offer in this instance. My hope is that Right to Repair legislation and Tesla's profitability intersect at some point in the future, where allowing aftermarket work is more palatable to Tesla while also requiring them to support it (Massachusetts has Right To Repair legislation that does require Tesla to provide some bare minimum support to customers and techs in that state).

If I'm Elon Musk, I don't want a news piece about Joe Schmoe electrocuted in his garage when he attempted maintenance on a Tesla 400V battery pack. So you sell to people who aren't interested in that use case. Like a baby cub and mama bear, you must protect the brand until it has grown big enough to protect itself.

Right to repair isn't just about J. Schmoe in their garage though. You also have to consider other shops that are well qualified to do the repairs.

I've also been in "professional" shops where the qualification is questionable, but I understand your argument. There are Tesla Certified body shops; we'll see how the workload shakes out between those facilities and Tesla Service centers. Tesla recently updated their service intervals for all vehicle models due to fleet data showing less service was required than previously indicated [1]. How many times have you seen an automaker do that?

[1] https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-car-maintenance-plan-service... (Tesla’s vehicle reliability makes way for as-needed service, no annual maintenance needed)

Of course shops that aren't qualified wouldn't be included in the category of shops that are qualified. That's tautological. Doesn't matter if they are "professional" or just plain old professional.

Many auto makers have moved their oil change intervals out to 10,000 miles when they've previously pushed 3 or 5.

In theory the oils and engines have improved to the point where 10k miles is a sound number based on evidence. However given that the only downside to more frequent oil changes is the cost of the oil change, if you plan to keep a car for a very long time, changing it more frequently than the recommendation is a reasonable plan.

Longer oil change intervals are undoubtedly fine for an engine that is expected to last at least to the end of the warranty period. Which is all the manufacturer cares about.

Actually long oil changes can be better for an engine. Oils break in: the molecules break down over time so they compensate by making the chains longer. As the molecules break down they get closer to the idea size, then the break again and get too short to protect.

Tests on the oils used in my car show that you typically get least engine wear between 8k and 9k miles, with 12k being about the same as fresh oil, but 13k is much worse. Because of the sudden dropoff at 13k and the fact that different driving styles affect breakdown differently 10k is chosen as the best compromise. Newer cars get longer because the computer keeps track of driving styles to give a better change indicator.

That's genuinely fascinating and I'd like to learn more about it. Can you recommend some reading material for me? (Or better still an Engineering Explained-style YouTube video if someone has covered the topic well in that form.)

The above was gained from reading forums. My personal judgement is the people saying the above know more about oil than me (they at least understand enough chemistry that my college chemistry doesn't see anything wrong, but I went into computer science so I didn't take more than the basic chemistry for engineers so it is possible that they are wrong on details.

One other point they brought up: every time you open the system to add or check oil dust gets in. Modern engines are generally sealed so this dust until it is filtered out (assuming it is) is doing wear as well. Long oil changes with no checking of the oil level are thus a good thing as well - so long as your oil level never gets low - low oil is far worse than any gain from not checking oil levels.

>I understand Tesla's position (brand protection, workload reduction), but also support Right To Repair; I don't have a solution I can offer in this instance.

The solution is to not buy a tesla. By buying one you are supporting the move away from right to repair.

The rapid electrification of transportation is more important to me than Right to Repair. Life requires compromise. We can revisit when warming trajectory has been bent downward from 4C.

While I understand and agree with your point, you are missing the tiny fact that all EVs today are very expensive cars. Even the cheapest ones can't be compared to the value of used ICE cars, by a huge margin.

One example - fiancee bought a used toyota corolla some 7 years ago for cca 4000$. Some 70000 km afterwards, the car needed few oil changes, once rear brake discs swap and tire changes. That's it, for 70000 km ride with very low fuel consumption (diesel). The car still runs fine and probably will for quite a few years.

There are whole countries where for most of its citizens, this is the only way to ever have a car. They will never afford to put 6x as much for a new one, or even more for new EV. I know as I come originally from one such country, and its by no means a 3rd world country.

You reach the scale to sell cheap cars by first selling expensive cars to people who can afford to buy expensive cars. Someone has to eat the margin that Tesla uses to expand its manufacturing capacity for batteries and vehicles, and for the deployment of the Supercharger network. Where else would the money come from?

If you want to bring more people in to EV, you don't make cheap cars, you make durable cars and let the second market handle the rest. Tesla's aren't durable cars because price for maintenance and repair factors into the equation, and tesla has ensured those costs are high.

I bought a 2013 Model S recently that had its wheels swapped with a 2016 Model S by a third party before sale (I didn't care for the 21" wheels that were on the 2013, and the buyer of the 2016 wanted them). Shortly after driving away from the dealer, the tire pressure sensor system reported faults. After bringing it in to Tesla they said the newer tires and older car were not compatible, but they could easily downgrade the electronics in the wheels or upgrade the electronics on the car. They were both about the same cost, so I just had them update the wheels.

I'd bet that the TPMS (tire pressure monitor/sensor) in the wheels is an off the shelf component purchased from a top-10 supplier in the automotive industry, and the problem was as simple as not having the TPMS programmed for the car. This is the same problem you can encounter if you replace all four TPMS in most any medium to high end car manufactured after about 2006, and the tire shop forgets to use their handheld wireless EEPROM flasher to apply the car's VIN to the new TPMS modules.

This sort of complexity is why I like pre smog era cars

Ehh, I never want to go back to the days of points and carbs.

Aren't those the cars that made the smog tho?

Same reason I like bikes. I can pull the whole thing apart in a day and understand what every bit does. As soon as you start including electronics you end up with black boxes that no human could ever understand entirely.

Even with bicycles, those days are almost over. Wireless electronic shifting is trickling down from the top-of-the-line bikes.

The charm of a bicycle being mechanically simple is going away...

I'm not sure if wireless shifting will ever become standard. I have an ebike with di2 and I haven't noticed any reason I would want it over regular shifting. You also have the problem that if the battery goes flat you cant shift gears.

One of the big reasons for electronic shifting counter-intuitively applies to “daily riders” more than to race machines, even though at current prices, electronic shifting is rare on affordable bikes.

That reason is that once you have a solenoid, sensors, and a CPU in the mechanism, you have a self-adjusting shifter. The more gears on a derailleur-type system, the tighter the spacing, and the sooner a mechanical shifter needs adjustments or replacement of the cable.

Electronic systems can adjust themselves as needed, offering a massive potential for affordable bicycles to “just work” for people who don’t have the inclination to fiddle with their own adjustments.

Tell me about it, I had a 2007 1 series BMW and its transmission computer became dead. Now, I was quoted 4000USD at the dealership (the car was worth about 5000 at that point). I went to a third party specializing in automatic transmission and they almost could do it by swapping the computer from a crashed car.

Turns out it needs an encryption key (who only the dealership has) to get the car to recognize the computer, otherwise it won't even start. I sold it for parts and will never have an automatic BMW again.

According to the transmission guy things have only gotten worse with newer models, particularly Audi/Volkswagen and BMW.

https://hackaday.com/2018/10/26/dmca-review-big-win-for-righ...

However, the actual practice of applying the now-legal practice to something like you described is far above the technical skill of most automotive shops. Some tuners may be able to do it, so it might be worth asking around and doing some digging if this happens to anyone else.

Reminds me of a guy I met once. He ran a small auto repair shop focusing on a single brand (Audi, AFAIR). He had a special device to talk with cars' computers and a laptop for it with software and appropriate keys. He explained to me that getting this from the auto manufacturer would cost a small fortune; instead, what he did is contract with some Chinese people, who from time to time would RDP to the laptop and update whatever in that software that needed updating; with the interface that I think was probably second-hand also, it apparently costed only a fraction of what manufacturer would want.

One thing to keep in mind is that one person's spare part may be another' srolen car or car parts. Especially in Europe, stealing parts is a thing. Some gangs won't steal entire cars, but only break in and take parts according to a "shopping list". Locking components to one another helps to make stolen parts useless and acts as a deterrent.

Then there should be a mechanism of being able to prove provenance of part and forcing the manufacturer to "re pair" components into another car without having to pay an absurd price.

Yeah my dad and my mother both had their cars broken into and both of their steering wheels stolen. The door locks were surgically removed and nothing else was touched or ruined. They only removed those parts and went their way.

Cars like other pieces of technology are gradual. Its pretty easy to pick up a 90's era car with electronic fuel injection and spark advance while still having a fairly simple emissions system, and actual relays and mechanical buttons to turn on things like cruise control.

If that is to much, you can go back to the early 90's or late 80's for systems where only injectors are electronic and based solely on a couple simple sensors (mas air, or o2 sensor) and things like spark advance are still done in with a distributor + vacuum. Its all a question of what you want to tolerate, but the advantages of EFI+electronic spark advance or VVT are immense for both reliability and efficiency.

In other words, let’s kill off people [0] from air pollution so car maintenance can be simpler.

0: http://www.prevenzione.ulss20.verona.it/docs/Sisp/Inquinamen...

I mean sure. But my gas vehicle is purely recreational, it gets a few hundred miles a year at most. I really enjoy teaching myself car maintenance and repair with it. Being an 80s car, it’s super roomy in the engine area and easy to work on.

No one is dying because I own and drive this car today. Someone might’ve died mining the lithium for my Tesla however.

This is all to say that your comment is reductive.

If someone died mining our hypothetical battery, that is a choice they made (assuming that we all know working in mines is dangerous). OTOH we have little choice in breathing in smog... clean air is a communal resource we all have to share.

And the problem isn’t your gas vehicle that you rarely use, it’s the general concept of everyone from Volkswagen to our local auto sports enthusiasts thinking their smog doesn’t really matter that much.

I assume there's a mortality rate for software developers. Is it therefore the software developers fault if they die on the job? Should we shrug a point out that that career was their choice?

Does this thinking extend to other activities? The mortality rate for sleeping in non zero after all....

I guess I’d draw an analogy to astronauts, firefighters or race car drivers. Obviously mining, firefighting, space flight and racing should be made as safe as possible from a worker’a rights perspective. But anyone going in to those careers hopefully understands the risks!

And thanks for the reply, I was wondering what the downvotes were about — my comment apparently was blasé, especially since many miners frequently don’t have much other economic opportunity.

In defense of GP, their comment is properly reductive as this is how things generalize when deployed large-scale. Your smog may not kill anyone and my smog may not kill anyone, but it's also true that X% greater in emissions leads to Y% more premature deaths, so some extra Y% people are going to keep dying if these emissions are not reduced.

I don't think GP meant it to be personal. But Kant's categorical imperative does work in some cases, so it's worth remembering.

You can like something without wanting to go back to it. It's nice being able to fix your own car, but great fuel efficiency and low emissions is also nice.

I wonder how much of the additional complexity is actually necessary for lower emissions.

More to the point, how much of the complexity is an excuse to charge $4000 at the dealership for something an independent mechanic could do for $495 except that there is some kind of DMCA nonsense in the car to prevent that on purpose.

Most of the complexity arises from using feedback loops in the engines similar to other control systems in industry. There are also similarities to techniques used in electronics.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/04/19/earth-day-2...

The problem isn't electronics itself. The problem is a frankly evil combination of artificial technical and legal barriers that prevent you (or your local car repair shop) from being able to do fixes and checkups yourself. In a nicer world, you'd have standardized interfaces and tools released to facilitate repairs of the complicated systems in cars.

OBDII has been legally standardized on all cars for years. However it only covers basics, every engine is different on details and so you can't get far on the standard alone.

The 90s have a sweet spot in automotive history where they finally got all the 80s-prototyped computer-controlled smog equipment refined and simplified, but hadn't yet let the computers infect every other nook and cranny of vehicles.

I basically aim for just before fly-by-wire became commonplace when considering ICE vehicles. No throttle cable? No way.

In states that don't have their head up a certain bodily orifice "pre-smog" is a rolling window. Requiring people to maintain emissions systems in their stock configuration on cars pushing 50 is insane. If you really are hell bent on making people smog stuff that's old and uncommon to the point of being a rounding error to the big picture then just stick a sniffer in the tail pipe and pass it as long as it meets or exceeds the standards it was built for.

Your local Walmart auto care center will reset/relearn the TPMS system for free, and the tool they use does support Tesla.

Teslas have a button on the menus in the console for that kind of reset... must have been more than just a different vin.

> ... * and the problem was as simple as not having the TPMS programmed for the car.*

This is fairly common for those people who put on winter tires with 'winter rims'. Many people don't bother with TPMS devices for cost reasons, and just live with the low pressure "warnings" for the colder months.

* https://www.automobilemag.com/news/the-trials-of-installing-...

Of course having lower pressure means worse gas mileage, so one can end up recouping some of the cost of the sensors by being properly inflated.

I know of 2015 Ford changed their TPMS sensors so you couldn’t do a straight swap between 2013 and 2016 vehicles. Wouldn’t be surprised if the rest of the industry changed too.

I'm guessing they have software that contains a full bill of materials for each vehicle. Boeing does this for every individual plane, and a plane is significantly more complex than a Tesla. I'm sure they are very aware of how many of each parts are out there on the road. I wouldn't be surprised if the vehicles themselves periodically phone home with use information so they can predict wear and tear.

AFAIK that's pretty standard for most manufacturers. I can look up my SUV's VIN online and get its full configuration.

You can get the basics of a Tesla from the vin, but there are more details than just the basics.

Even if Tesla can themselves manage the logistics, it's certainly a negative for potential consumers, especially second+ owners. Maybe Tesla will offer a VIN lookup so you can find out what a particular car's specs are while you're shopping.

Is it any worse than what other manufacturers deal with? The 2019 Honda Accord shares some parts with the 2018 Honda Accord which shares some parts with the 2017 model... when something breaks in my Honda the first question is "do they still make/use this part or did they change it in newer models?"

Gee, I hope they have some kind of system to track that. Maybe software even?

I find it hard to imagine they wouldn't

That was sarcasm

tangentially, MFW I realized hours later who I sarcasmed at.

You jest, but years ago I worked for one of the largest auto parts places. You have no idea how many times you'd input year, make, model, and trim, just to be presented with multiple choice questions. Nobody knew how big their drums were, in inches, or the number of blades on their fan, the length of their belts, etc. Apparently a lot of mixing and matching happens. Some folks legitimately had to give us a prior year for us to find the right part.

Yep. Just went thru that 2 days ago with my father's GMC W series truck. The air filter I got from the retailer is for the previous generation, even though that's what their system says for the truck.

I had to hand the old filter to the store staff and have him copy the FRAM part number.

If you've ever been to a tesla service center, it's kind of interesting.

Cars glide in silently and when they sit there for a bit the words "Service Mode" come up in maybe 5" high letters on the dashboard.

There are lots of technicians on their computers. The car info comes up on the specific car and shows lots of history, where and when it was last serviced and so forth.

Each car seems to have it's own personal list of options and features, that shows up on the website when searching for cars, or when signing into you car portal.

folks have taken the time to document them:

https://github.com/timdorr/tesla-api

https://github.com/fredrikfjeld/tesla-options-decoder

I think all cars are like this, but telsa is less rigid / concerned about model years and just consults the database for the specific car's info at every step.

The dealerships use VIN numbers, which end up getting you the exact part you want, even if the same car model of the same year has different parts. I suppose some of the retailers don't have this privilege.

"Vehicle Identification Number numbers"?

Just like PIN number, ATM machine, CAC card, and "is that a work PC or personal?"

It's a very typical construction, for whatever reason.

"is that a work PC or personal?"

I disagree with putting this one into the same category. The "personal" in "PC" means "used by a single person; not shared" which is quite different from the meaning of "not belonging to an employer".

At least you use LED as a noun. In Poland, I constantly hear people saying "LED diode". I keep correcting this and "PIN number" indiscriminately.

See also, “-gate” for scandals.

Mitchell & Webb on "Watergategate"

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB9JgxhXW5w

Is that an LCD display?

For the most essential part of a normal gas engine - motor oil - my local parts center outright asked to see my engine to confirm the oil spec printed on it, even though every car for a decade in my product line had the same oil. Not because they expected to be wrong, but because they could not risk being wrong. I can only imagine what they’ve seen that makes them so wary.

Whenever I go to the dealership to get an original part (typically if there's several slightly different variants available and I don't know which I need), they just input my license plate number into their system, then click through a menu to find the part (like chassis->steering->link arm->left side). Takes about 30 seconds, they show me a picture to confirm it's right, then they go grab my part from the warehouse. (This is a European manufacturer.)

If it's like any of the bunch of MES systems I've seen or worked on, it's utter garbage bordering on crime against humanity.

I’ve had a couple of American cars and apparently year-by-year or even in the same model year the manufacturer changes the location of certain parts, which I didn’t expect. Mechanics and I have had trouble finding various parts like fan relays and cabin air filters.

Mid year ECR's to fix problems are not uncommon, but tend to be fairly minor.

What source are you using for where a part is placed? I've seen similar things (relay is under drivers dash, when it reality its under the passenger seat or some nonsense like that) when using crappy documentation (chiltons, or similar which does a "teardown" on a single year and then sells it for the entire generation). I can't remember seeing these kinds of errors in actual manufacture/dealer shop manuals.

I attempted to learn the locations by comparing it to other vehicles in non-official documentation or instructional videos online. I’m not sure what resources the mechanics have.

The fan relays, for instance. Apparently Chrysler moved the location between 2006 and 2008, and I had a 2007. In the 2007 models, apparently the relays are in one of three places. Actually four, as mine where is somewhere entirely different which was difficult to access without a lift.

Next, a cabin air filter for my 2015 vehicle. Two lube places have tried to replace t and been unable to find he location (they say it’s oke of two places). They said they think I don’t have one, which is contrary to what the manufacturer says.

This is pretty common. My 2017 and 2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee had small differences. My 2000 E46 also had small differences including having an Iron block that was switched to an Aluminum block. Not to mention small design choices like knobs, switches, and buttons.

Dont you want manufacturers to fix something mid production if they find an issue?

My assumption was that the process was more rigid, and everything was thoroughly standardized and determined before the car went into production.

A former Tesla employee, who worked on their IT infrastructure and whose NDA has expired, has revealed the technical shit show going on behind the scenes at Tesla. (I'm a Tesla fanboy as well, but this is scary).

https://twitter.com/atomicthumbs/status/1032939617404645376

That is a highly amusing/horrifying thread.

If someone wants to copy-paste some parts instead of pictures, here's the link to all his posts in that thread.

https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=38...

They have very few moving parts. I am guessing they are switching battery pack modules out so it's not that hard. Theres battery packs, motos and basically thats it.

There are a lot of moving parts in the suspension, the transmission, the battery cooling system, the AC, the power windows, power steering, all the other comfort features like electric seats, electric tailgate, ...

Just because it doesn't need an oil change doesn't mean that it doesn't need service.

Theres no transmission, the battery cooling system isn't a moving part, the AC has one moving part, power windows have 1 moving parts, power steering have one moving part, electric components aren't moving parts.

Moving parts are mechanical parts, electronic, and pumps because of simplicity work for longer.

Last time I had my brakes serviced, the workshop didn't know which discs to order because they used two different dimensions in the same model year. I had to come in, they had to take off the wheel, and measure the disc.

So I don't think this is unique to Tesla.

I operate several websites that help people find the right part for their car or tractor. It's always a nightmare.

I doubt it's significantly different from an ICE repair point of view. I do a lot of car repairs myself, and have done things for friends in the past. One memorable time I was helping a friend who had a Toyota van for work (can't remember the exact model, this was early 90s). It needed new brake hoses. After some messing about with pattern ones that didn't fit, we went to Toyota and spoke to the parts guy who said there were TWENTY SEVEN different options for the front brake hoses on that van, and even having the VIN was no help - we needed to take the original in for him to identify it correctly, as even the microfiche (yes, we're talking that long ago) wasn't accurate enough to identify it - he ordered (I think) 5 in which looked like a match and sent the other four back.

While this is an extreme example, there are plenty of different options on most cars as the manufacturers will source different parts for different markets, and in some cases totally different subsystems which look identical externally but are totally different functionally (immobiliser and ECU on a Mk 4 golf springs to mind).

Each OEM, including Tesla, maintain a database where each ever produced vehicles with all the options, including changes are recorded. Except, when they screw it up. They screw this up with PR samples and show cars, which are sometimes prepared by hand and finished up by hand just for the press or just for show. Then things get forgotten to record. Tesla had so such problems. Volkswagen had such problems and had to recall a 5 figure number, just because of this. Because PR and show cars are normally discarded after the show, after the press had it, but sometimes they get into the second hand market.

This is true for all manufacturers. I've owned "changeover year" cars from various manufacturers that had parts from both the older and newer revisions, very occasionally resulting in a garage ordering the wrong part leading to a delay. This isn't a Tesla-specific issue.

There was a twitter chain posted here about a year back where someone described how convoluted getting a Tesla off the factory floor is. All of the systems along the way have to be installed and flashed in a particular order to ensure nothing goes belly up.

They also announced on Twitter: "As a thank you to our Tesla owners, all existing Model S and Model X owners who wish to purchase a new Model S or Model X Performance car will get the Ludicrous Mode upgrade, a $20,000 value, at no additional charge"

https://twitter.com/Tesla/status/1120852649400623105

Wow. I'd like that.

Came here to post this exact excerpt. That’s a heck of a customer loyalty bonus, even if the margin on that particular SKU is itself quite ludicrous!

Alternative view: they’re desperate to get more high margin model S and X sales because owners are keeping their existing models too long.

That seems like a good position for both sides, doesn’t it?

Not surprised. They can't expect people to replace their car every two years as if it were an iPhone.

Time to introduce in-car purchases. Pay to overtake.

Already exists. Autopilot and FSD can be purchased through the model 3 touch screen.

Tesla self-driving uses the innermost lane by default. Pay to not overtake.

Pay to emergency brake would seem to have the potential for higher margins?

We have detected an emergency situation and can avoid this upcoming collision by automatically applying full force breaking. Do you accept the payment of $14,99 ?

Think bigger.

You forget Teslas are FSD capable. They can detect the urgency of the situation and price accordingly. A low speed shunt may be only $15. Avoiding a head on collision with a HGV? Only $10,000.

Well, lets entertain this idea for a minute and see where it takes us.

First understand that the Ludicrous upgrade is only available on the Performance Model S/X which is $99k/$104k to start. There are two possible upsells here, from TM3 to Model S, or from a more basic grade of S to an upgraded Model S.

There are very few people who set out to buy a $35k car and then consider the TCO of the TM3 as comparable and decide to go for it. I think the hypothetical TM3 shopper being upsold to a $99k S to get free Ludi is basically non-existant. Upselling AWD or maybe Model 3 Performance, but not a Performance S.

Now, someone setting out to buy a $78k Model S, and deciding to upgrade to a $99k Model S is conceivable. Getting the Ludicrous option thrown in maybe even makes that likely.

So what's the profit impact to Tesla for selling a baseline Model S for $78k with no discount, versus a Model S Performance with a Free Ludicrous upgrade?

Gross margin of the S is ~30%. For giggles I'll assume gross margin of the Ludicrous upgrade is 50%. The hypothetical customer taking advantage of this offer is spending $99k and earning Tesla a profit of $19,700 ($29,700 - $10,000) versus without the offer getting a $78k Model S and earning Tesla $23,400.

Lastly there is the theory that an existing Model S/X owner decides to buy a new Model S/X because now they can get a Ludi upgrade. Well, you probably don't know that Tesla already lets current owners upgrade their existing Model S/X with Ludi aftermarket for $7,500. You can even upgrade your battery for $20,000.

I'd say this alternative view is bunk. Tesla grows by selling to new owners, and has said they design their cars with 1,000,000 miles in mind. Tesla goes further than any auto manufacturer in history to maintain the value of their existing owners' investment through constant OTA upgrades, even including increasing motor output, decreasing braking distance, and they have a system design geared toward field upgradable hardware including batteries and autopilot hardware.

When was the last time you walked into a dealer with your late-model car and they had a list of upgrades they could sell you for it, to bring it inline with the same car on the showroom floor? Tesla has been doing this with their Model S at various times throughout its history.

Their success is not tied to existing owners replacing their Tesla with a new one. It's actually quite the opposite. Part of Tesla's core value proposition is that every owner should feel like they are driving the latest and greatest, and their incentive is aligned to keep you driving it as long as possible. It's part of why they don't have model years in the first place.

Your calculation doesn't really make sense. Your calculation assumes that the free Ludicrous update offered to existing owners costs Tesla 10,000 USD, but existing customers can upgrade to Ludicrous for 7,500 USD. How does that work?

My assumption would be that the gross margin of the Ludicrous upgrade is closer to 90% than 50%.

it's both things! a great loyalty thing and they had greatly reduced sales of the more profitable model s because the 3 is so freaking awesome

Slight tangent but what are you getting for $20K? Is it a software feature, or is there physical difference between the normal performance and "Ludicrous" model?

There is a smart fuse composed of an inconel alloy that is pyro-actuated to protect from overcurrent conditions when performing a Ludicrous launch (~1500 amp peak current drawn). It's not software only. Very fancy circuit breaker.

More details at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9904587.

Do we know if that's needed with the new drivetrain?

Interestingly, it seems SpaceX got to play a role developing the alloy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconel#History

Inconel is just a group of nickel alloys, been around for years. No indication the specific alloys spaceX has developed are being used in the fuse, although they could be, however, wikipedia indicates they are used in rockets.

Fair point, but it seems that SpaceX business is spreading genes to the car industry.

Honestly this sounds like /r/VXJunkies is leaking...

I've been having issues with my transmission's cardinal grammeters going out of sync. I've heard if I get a turbo encabulator [0], it would supply an inverse reactive current into the unilateral phase destractors, which would fix the sync issue, but the price tag is more than I can swallow. I might just have to deal with the side fumbling of the ambifacient lunar waneshaft, even if it means having to regularly replace the spurving bearings.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac7G7xOG2Ag

I am 80% sure this is a line from NCIS.

It's that the same as a Flux Capacitor?

Sweet. So there will be a bunch of used model S’s coming soon!

I read it as "there will be a bunch of crashed model S's coming soon".

> Ludicrous Mode upgrade, a $20,000 value

I have a P85D. When Ludicrous Mode was announced, they offered it for $5000 as an upgrade.

I have no idea why it now supposedly costs $20,000.

Source: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-drops-price-of-p85d-ludicrou...

i think it costs more because they need the money more now. they've got a lot going on, lots of new vehicles in development and not many models or sales to amortize it over.

That $US20k seems to be purely marketing bullshit, aimed to sucker US buyers. :(

Easy seen as such too. Compare the "Ludicrous Mode" for the Model X on the US website (US$20k) to the same thing on the Australian website (AUS$8.5k):

https://www.tesla.com/modelx/design?redirect=no#battery

https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/modelx/design?redirect=no#batter...

Note - you need to select "Performance" on the right side, for Ludicrous Mode to be shown.

Ludicrous mode is "20% faster acceleration" for both. So it very much seems like the extra cost on the US buyers is to match this marketing update.

That thing where Larry Ellison (Oracle) is now on the board of Tesla. This is the kind of crap he'd very much applaud. :(

https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/modelx/design?redirect=no#batter...

The entire feature is marketing bullshit. There is no practical utility in making a car that fast go even faster, it's sold only as weapon in the battle to express the desired length of one's phallus in vehicle form.

They should charge $15,000 for the first "10% faster" and then another $25,000 on top of that for the second 10%.

>The entire feature is marketing bullshit. There is no practical utility in making a car that fast go even faster

Hardly. Ludicrous Mode is all about acceleration and it's one of the few things that you can use every day without breaking any laws. People are almost never going to go over 100MPH on any US highway but all of them will need to accelerate from zero to sixty during their drives.

That's not practical utility, it's pure recreation.

Which is fine. If you want to pay thousands of dollars for something that has no other purpose than to put a smile on your face, go ahead -- but that is clearly a luxury purchase and there is nothing wrong with charging a luxury price for it to anyone willing to pay that much.

> That $US20k seems to be purely marketing bullshit, aimed to sucker US buyers. :(

Why is this a problem? In all luxury cars there are some options priced much higher than the actual cost (e.g. fancy wheels). They exist to bolster the car maker's margins and help sell the lower end versions at lower prices, so you and the average buyers profit. Nobody actually needs Ludicrous, so pricing it like this is in no way immoral.

> Why is this a problem?

It's only $20k in the US, and as other people have mentioned... it doesn't seem to have been $20k until this press release.

If you have no problem with that, then no worries. ;)

>Why is this a problem?

It's a problem because they are claiming it's a "$20,000 value" when it was sold for $5000 in the recent past and even right now, it costs far less than $20K in other countries.

I'm a huge Tesla fan (I have an S and an X already) but every time they distort the truth in such an obvious manner, it significantly erodes my trust in them. Case in point: I really like the 2020 Roadster's specs but Tesla/Musk have stretched the truth one too many times for me to put down the $50K deposit until it ships and I've let others find the first bugs.

Also: "In addition to our Long Range and Performance variants, we’re also re-introducing a lower entry price for Model S and Model X by bringing back our Standard Range option, now available for an even greater value with the new drivetrain and suspension updates."

They just can't leave their pricing structure alone. How does Tesla management not appreciate how unnecessarily confusing this is for consumers?

You go on the website, click a couple boxes, and it tells you a price. You pay what you see on the website. How is that more confusing than a regular dealership?

First of all, I doubt that the average Tesla customer is wealthy enough that they're in a position to shrug and ambivalently pay whatever the website tells them on that particular day, like they're in the checkout aisle of a grocery store or the pump at a gas station. When it comes to $50,000 purchases, people generally like to plan ahead.

Second, the comparison isn't against dealers (which are awful), the comparison is against the ideal. All I'm saying is that Tesla is shooting itself in the foot with its inconsistency. Bringing up dealers is a whataboutism.

Bringing up prices and ideal scenarios is whatboutism. These updates are about real features, not prices or fake ideal scenarios.

Huh? No it's not. The point under discussion is whether Tesla should be changing their pricing so often. I'm arguing that it would be better if they didn't. That's not a whataboutism. Deflecting the criticism and saying "at least it's not as bad as the dealers" is, on the other hand, pretty much the archetypal whataboutism.

>The point under discussion is whether Tesla should be changing their pricing so often.

Heh no, you introduced that point yourself in a classic whataboutism move.

Tesla started the actual topic under discussion, which is updates to the Model S and X cars.

The model I saw last week when I was thinking about buying is different than the model I saw this week. The price I saw last week for the set of features I remember selecting is different than the price I see this week.

They need to calm the rate of change here. It's been all over the map in Q1.

It was also all over the map in Q3 and Q4 of last year (when I was buying a Model 3).

However, I would take this any day over the opaque prices at a dealership.

Ever heard of sales? Companies do this constantly.

Consumers don’t care what yesterday’s prices or options were, prior to a purchase anyways. They care what today’s price is, what rebates are available, and what financing options are available for it.

I just don't think that's true. You don't make a decision like what kind of car to buy in a single day. If you're doing your research and comparing options, and the prices are shifting out from under you every couple of weeks it makes for a frustrating experience. Reviews and press coverage might be tailored to a particular price point and be difficult to interpret if the price has shifted since the reviewer wrote it.

Even if you're fixated on getting a Tesla, not many people have enough cash on hand to buy a Tesla straight out of their checking account. Nonliquid assets often take a while to turn into cash for large purchases. Every time Tesla raises prices or cuts low-cost products, they cause resentment among people in the process of buying their car. Every time Tesla lowers prices or substantially enhances their existing products, they cause resentment among people who have just recently bought their car. You never know when Tesla is going to announce a shakeup to their product line and make a fool out of anyone who bought their car the month before. It's sort of a corollary Osborne effect. I think the continuous delivery model for hardware enhancement is just asking for trouble. A "model year" approach with fixed hardware costs through the year and continuous software updates would make more sense.

I spent eighteen months researching my car and six more months waiting for it to arrive. It didn’t even have a price for the first year, but I knew approximately what to expect and I paid approximately what I expected. I forgot the exact price within 24 hours of the day it arrived, I got a final quote, and paid it. (I can tell you exactly what my loan payment was, though!)

The price matters between when you decide to commit and when you actually commit. If you accept a range of prices, the the price matters less than your timing in any potential discount or package benefit cycles.

It is difficult to care about (Tesla price guess here!) $45k vs $44k vs $46k, but is extremely easy to care about seeing the price drop $1k the day, or the day after you purchase it.

For metric folks, this equates to nearly 600km.

That's about as much as I want to drive in the space of a single day. Conceivably however, automated driving could mean doing longer distances. And at a cost much less than an airfare - just a lot more in time.

Actually they're quoting 660km on https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/models/design#battery

That's according to the NEDC test cycle which is the most optimistic (and therefore the least useful) range estimate. The three test cycles that are typically used are:

NEDC (too optimistic): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle

WLTP (better than NEDC, still a little optimistic): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_harmonized_light_veh...

EPA (the most conservative): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTP-75

The WLTP figures are okay, but I think EPA test cycle is the most useful because it's the most consecutive and most representative of real world driving.

My S 75D has 384km range (not really near the EPA 417km) and it is approximately 21 % optimistic which I would not call "little".

Route planners (ABRP, previously Tesla) will not let you drive 300km without charging, because you would arrive with less than 10 % SoC.

I wonder if NEDC/WLTP/EPA just ignore heating and A/C entirely? That's not a big issue for ICE, but it would be for an EV.

That's why I only care about range at highway speeds. It's the only situation where range actually matters to me, since I can usually charge before/after short (non-highway) tours. Here the Teslas still have a big lead and the new versions, if the 10-12% improvement is available for all speeds, will now very likely reach 500 Km (at 130 Km/h) range. Which is awesome and possibly a worthwhile upgrade (+30%) from my S90D.

I can't wait to sit in my car one morning in Los Angeles, punch in Seattle, then wake up the next morning arrived.

If self driving trucks are on the horizon, why not self driving efficiency apartments? :)

Oddly enough, there is a train on that route.

You and everyone else. The congestion will be unimaginable IMO.

If you factor in 4-5 hours in overhead in order to take a flight, you can go a lot of places for a lot less and just slightly longer ride. I’m guessing 1/10 of the price for NY to Miami if you take 2-3 people

Depreciation matters.

Depreciation for any given trip will never be anywhere near the price of a plane ticket or two, though.

Why not? These are really expensive cars (especially Model S and X). An $80,000 car that has a life of 500,000 miles is $.16 a mile. This hypothetical NY to Miami trip is 1,300 miles one way. If you do no driving in Miami that's 2600 miles or $416 in depreciation if all miles counted the same (they don't, the first miles depreciate things a lot more). You can easily get a plane ticket for that, two if you look around.

I flew Providence to Miami for $25 each way last year on Frontier. Even factoring in the cost of parking at the airport and the extra hour of driving time from Boston, I spent less than $100. So, yeah, flying can be super cheap.

A few other bits worth noting:

- You don't need to rent a car on the other end.

- You can take all the luggage that fits into the car. (even if there's a bottle of water in your luggage!)

- You can stop along the way for some decent food and a good leg stretch.

- You can listen to the radio without headphones and roll down the windows for some air that won't dry your skin out.

- No fixed schedule or chance of missing the trip if running late.

I don't think people fully appreciate yet how amazing full, unsupervised electric vehicle autonomy might be.

NY to Miami will still take considerably longer to drive than to fly, even accounting for the airport overhead.

And it'd be a more comfortable environment to get work done during the trip too.

This is a nice upgrade for the Model S, however, I'm really curious what Tesla's design refresh roadmap looks like for their older models. The Model S has remained mostly the same since 2012, and while the design is pretty good, very few companies can get away without a major design refresh for 7+ years.

I wonder if this still applies in the same way, considering how few Model S units there are from 2012-2014, relative to mass market cars like the Camry.

For a lot of people outside the Bay Area, a Model S still feels like a design revelation, not old hat.

Well, there’s also the facelift and all wheel drive.

All other car manufacturers play that game.

Does the 2016 refresh not count?

The 2016 refresh was basically equivalent to most models mid-cycle design update. It was exactly that, a refresh, not a replacement model.

WV seems to update their cars basically every year. Also mixing and matching single parts, like updating the headlights year X, then year X+1 a total refresh with newer headlights that look almost like the smaller refresh from the year before!

I am impressed that they can do stuff like that, but they are also kinda big....

Not to me. I judge Tesla on the same metrics as any other car company. The Model S is getting long in the tooth.

As long as I can smoke that Maserati at a stoplight on Sand Hill Road, not a problem.

People in the luxury goods category expect much, much more than just straight line performance. Handling the corners or interior aesthetics and quality isn't something I would choose Tesla for for example.

I love how this is (was) down-voted but this is exactly kind of comment people on HN would use to poo poo the various ~700hp straight line rockets that FCA sells (which you can get with arguably better interiors than any Tesla). "It's not a true luxury car because it's only good in a straight line" is a perfectly valid (and widely held) opinion but if you invoke it against Tesla that's not ok.

I’ve done that in PA with a Ford Focus because the Maserati driver was on their cell phone. They obviously caught up and passed me once they bothered to start driving, but I bet they didn’t look at their cell phone the rest of their drive home, either.

I agree. After driving a P3D this weekend one of my conclusions was that if you wanted to street race, there were very few cars that would beat it aside from one of the P-model S's.

But if you want a drivers car, Tesla is not currently in that market. I look forward to seeing someone serve that market. Maybe BMW will try to live up to their motto again.

Really? So many models live forever. Do you think the "Mustang" is long in the tooth?

For what it’s worth, the Mustang had a somewhat significant refresh in 2011 (totally new engine design, but not considered a new generation), then another refresh around 2014 (mostly exterior body changes IIRC).

With the Mustang is that there's only so much you can do and still stay at the Mustang price point. The changes made to the Mustang (and Camaro for that matter) is dependent on technological progress making things that were once reserved for expensive cars cheap and regulatory compliance forcing updates to the main body structure (no reason to spend money to re-tool for a different tub if you don't need to since you gain basically nothing from doing that by itself).

Adding IRS was pretty significant though.

The Mustang and Camaro are both pretty incredible cars, managing to stay fairly inexpensive* while gaining tremendous performance just in the past 10-15 years. I remember the year when the Mustang GT first matched and then exceeded the BMW M3 on the track. The rest is history, the current pony cars are amazing performers and excellent values.

* To be fair, both Mustang GT and Camaro SS are objectively not inexpensive cars except when you compare them to other cars of similar performance.

2015 it got a new chassis, that was the year Ford switched from S197 to S550. They will introduce a new one in 2021, the S650.

The current Mustang is on the sixth generation, it got a new chassis in 2015. So, while not as aged as the Model S, it is getting towards the end of this generation, yes. The seventh generation is planned to hit streets in 2021.

More than model S , model X badly needs a refresh. Thing started to look like a giant Prius.

Camaro (9 years), Ford Ranger (8 years), Mustang Shelby GT500 (30 then 7 years), Acura NSX (11 years), Challenger (24 years) and the Ford GT (11 years) all come to mind.

Also keep in mind Tesla technically already did a somewhat refresh, like a generation 1.5 of sorts in 2016 [1] (New seats, slight interior changes, facelift, autopilot updates).

1. https://www.autoblog.com/photos/2017-tesla-model-s-facelift-...

Do they have to follow the convention? Are consumers irked by their breaching of the convention?

I think existing owners would already understand that their cars are iteratively improved upon and that a Model S purchased in 2019 is going to be a lot better than one they purchased in 2013.

I'm wondering what types of range extension methods could be easily added to an EV. Scenario: I'm going to drive 900km/560mi and it's -10 outside (I do this multiple times per year). I want a cosy room temperature inside the cabin.

- How can I ensure I waste as little range as possible on heating, so that I don't risk having to make e.g. 2 stops instead of one?

- More critically, if I get stuck in traffic for several hours because of an accident, I need some way to ensure I don't freeze to death in my EV as I'm standing still and the battery runs out.

It seems these two things should be solvable with a single solution: a plug-in space heater to be used in emergencies and for maximizing cold weather range. The space heater could be e.g. a kerosene burner or similar. But for best effect it should of course "plug in" to the car vents.

Is this a thing? Or is heating the passenger compartment such a trivial use of energy anyway if the car is insulated, that it doesn't make a difference? In a concrete scenario: If I drive a model 3 and have 100km battery left, and I have 20km to my planned charging stop half way through my journey. Suddenly traffic stands still because of an accident and it's freezing outside. How long will the "100km" charge maintain the 30K temperature difference while still having 20km left?

Batteries heat up during discharge. So outside of the most extreme weather conditions more batteries are simply a better system.

Yes, but if I have more batteries I'll already factor that into my planning so I'll make fewer stops. If I have to always maintain X% battery when I'm driving in cold temps (to be able to survive N hours in case of a cold weather traffic jam) then it effectively just shortens the range. Adding X% battery to compensate this has to be very expensive compared to having a burner space heater and a gas/kerosene bottle for emergencies.

There are other ways to survive in the case of an emergency. Blankets, food, candles and whatnot should be in your emergency kit regardless of what you're driving.

Besides, how is this different than a gasoline-powered vehicle? In your situation, you'd still be reducing your range by X% in order to survive N hours in case something happens- your gas tank is not infinite, after all. I suppose you could make the case that you currently have more refueling options than recharging options, but I don't think it will always be that way, and it's not currently that was in some locations, such as Norway.

> Besides, how is this different than a gasoline-powered vehicle?

My gas car has a 700mi range so its simply not an issue as I tend to not drive that long on a day trip. I have the X% fuel spare for N hours of emergency heating so long as I do say < 600mi/day. I can drive indefinitely in my gas car while keeping the fuel meter over half tank and that doesn't cause any inconvenience in terms of extra stops. Doing that with an EV (never going under say 50% charge) would be inconvenient.

The same would be true for battery cars once the range is enough. And the problem of course would exist for an ICE car with a shorter range.

Doing a few simple searches online, most gasoline cars do not have anything close to that kind of range, unless you're "hyper-miling" or something. What the hell do you drive?

This is pretty normal for full size modern diesels (65L tank and around 6L/100km). This one in particular is a B8 Passat wagon.

Range is range, your space heater idea is just a less useful plug in hybrid. Spending less money on batteries to add another system that you use a few times a year results in a generally less useful car.

It depends on the relative cost of "N hours of heating in the form of more batteries" vs "cost of a burner heater capable of N hours of heating". If the costs are even nearly comparable (if they aren't 10x apart) then I agree with you there is no point.

The heater also can't be as complex as a plug-in-hybrid, requiring expensive serveice etc. It needs to be cheap, dumb, optional (so you only waste the cargo space on extreme long journeys and in cold weather) etc.

What I'm picturing isn't a complex system. It's a camping burner with a hose to the car's ventilation system. Think < 1cubic feet and sub $1k.

1,000$ of batteries = 1kw of resistance heating for ~8 hours and that’s improving over time.

Now, I am not sure how much reserve heating you want, but it’s much closer than 10x cost wise.

3-4h 1kW heat sounds reasonable. If that's less than say 3% of total range, or less than $1k extra battery then I'm confident it's a sufficient solution.

Model 3 users report using about 240 to 300 watt-hours per mile. So I think that means a 1KW heater for an hour is equivalent to about 3 or 4 miles of range.

So a 1KW heaster for 4 hours would lose you 16 miles of range.

Is this what's done? The Tesla fans air over the batteries into the cabin?

My hunch is that heating is pretty insignificant compared to the huge power needed to move the car, like single digit percentage. But I like your question at the end and would be interested in someone running the numbers.

edit: Ok here we go - Model 3 users report using about 240 to 300 watt-hours per mile. So I think that means a 1KW heater for an hour is equivalent to about 3 or 4 miles of range.

Note that the heater in the model S/3 is capable of ~6/4 kW. In most cases you won't be running the heater on full for an hour, but at -10 you might be. When you start talking about 12-24 miles of range per hour, that's how you get up to the worst case of ~20% range loss.

Still, that just means you want to limit your -10 degree trips to like 2.5 hours instead of 3 hours, and only if you don't have access to superchargers.

A traffic jam is probably about the best place for your car to die in freezing weather. Just hop out and sit in the car next to you, until they run out of heat.

How is this problem specific to EV's?

Only because they have shorter range. I explained in another comment why the specific problem (Given the distance to be driven and the range) doesn't occur for my current ICE car.

Edit: and yes as was pointed out in another comment - heat is "free" while driving because of losses in the engine.

There is waste heat produced by the engine of a traditional vehicle, which is used for heating. The EV doesn't have this advantage.

Internal combustion engines throw off heat whether you want them to or not, plus the total amount of energy stored in a gas tank is vastly greater than a battery, so wasting some of it as heat is less likely to strand you. EVs only get similar range by being much more efficient, and efficiency means less energy lost to heat.

Depending on the car and the temperature you'd much rather be stranded in a Tesla (or another EV that works as well at low temperatures). A Tesla can run its heater on full blast for well over 12 hours. In ICE cars that don't have resistive heaters, the heat output is much lower at idle- think a civic or corolla. It can be risky to fall asleep in cars like this because you need to warm up the engine regularly or the cabin will become quite cold.

Having slept in quite cold temperatures in cars during longer trips quite a lot of times, just having the car idle over-night has always been enough to keep the cabin warm enough to not even need a blanket. Not talking about luxury cars with huge engines either. It also uses very little fuel. After 8 hours, you can see that the fuel gauge has moved, but only very slightly. I'm pretty sure a ICE car with a full tank can idle for several days before running out of fuel.

Heating is relatively significant, it can take 10-20% off the range in theory. EV’s can solve this problem in a variety of ways:

i) Preheating the cabin from mains electicity, either predictively or through user command.

ii) Using heat pumps to scavenge and move heat around different parts of the car. If you’re early in a road trip you would have enough power in the battery to heat the car for a day or more. If you’re later in the trip there will be a lot of heat in the batteries and motors which can be shifted into the cabin. Similarly heat pumps can be used in reverse to scavenge heat from the cabin and frame to keep the batteries warm if the car is left outside for a long time without being plugged in. Batteries don’t like dropping beneath a certain temperature range.

iii) Simply increasing heat insulation. It’s not difficult to insulate better, it’s just it hasn’t been needed, because there’s so much wasted heat energy in internal combustion vehicles. A human is a 100W space heater, I’d imagine you could quite easily design a cabin for a small car to hold temperature even in the absence of any other heat source.

> you could quite easily design a cabin for a small car to hold temperature even in the absence of any other heat source

In my experience most cars do hold temperature for at least 20-30m with vents closed. You still need air exchange though for longer periods, so losing heat is unavoidable.

Seat warmers are a good way to warm up with less loss.

That's why even the no-frills Nissan Leaf S has multiple seat warmers and steering wheel warmer. It's as much a range extender as a luxury feature.

Simple, get an RTG a la The Martian...

If you’re willing to drive at 25mph your range is at least 700 miles :)

> Model S and Model X are now capable of achieving 200 kW on V3 Superchargers and 145 kW on V2 Superchargers. Together, these improvements enable our customers to recharge their miles 50% faster.

What does that mean exactly? I'm sure there are sections of the charge curve where it is 50% faster, but you need to consider the entire charge curve to get a better sense of the improvement.

The Tesla Model 3's charge times were improved by the combination of battery preconditioning and the faster V3 Supercharger. A charge that used to take 60 minutes can now be done in 40 minutes:

https://electrek.co/2019/03/07/tesla-v3-supercharger-action-...

I'd call that 33% faster charging. So is the Model S and Model X charge time improvement across the entire charge curve or just sections of it?

Charge times are improved at deep to moderate discharge states. Little improvement (but not necessary for charge times expressed to be realized) at 80-100% SOC (state of charge).

EDIT: @clouddrover You asked "So is the Model S and Model X charge time improvement across the entire charge curve or just sections of it?" I provided a response to that question. Sorry if you thought I was restating what you already said, that was not my intent. Please excuse my exuberance, this is one of my few passions (rapid electrification of transportation).

Yes, you've just restated what I've said. The question is what's the improvement across the entire charge curve.

There’s at least some improvement across the entire curve. The added range came from better efficiency. Better efficiency means more MPH for the same kW when charging.

Interestingly, the charge rate across the entire curve sounds like an important metric but in practice it is nearly irrelevant.

If you drive an ICE car, you are used to filling your tank. Because once you've gone through the trouble of driving to a gas station and pulling out your credit card and unscrewing the cap, well you might as well top it off, right? Life is different with electric.

You might know, for example, that most Teslas operate day-to-day with their max battery charge limit set around 80% or below (it extends battery life). Charging at night is entirely effortless, so you put the charge into the battery that you'll need for the next day, or like me, you set it to give you 4x your daily commute and totally forget about it. Only before a particularly long road trip do you pop open the app and slide up the charge limit.

For Superchargers, the model is a bit different because this is charging that's happening on-demand while you wait in the car or are off getting a bite or whatever, during your trip. The best measure is to examine the portion of the curve that actual drivers spend actually charging their cars at an actual Supercharger. So here we have it;

"V3 Supercharging will ultimately cut the amount of time customers spend charging by an average of 50%, as modeled on our fleet data."

So this is truly an average of 50% faster, for actual Tesla drivers. ICE-age drivers who love to hate Tesla will insist you have to integrate the charge-rate curve, but as usual they will be entirely missing the point.

Tesla could spend an atrocious amount of time and money improving charging speed from 90 to 100%. That might be how you charge your phone, but it's actually not how Tesla drivers charge their cars (or how the onboard guidance computer will plan to charge your car when it sets the route for you), and would have almost zero benefit for the Fleet. Charging en-route is most efficiently done to boost the battery up to 70-80% and then you get going again.

Supercharger deployment, at least in the USA, is modeled such that there are almost no trips where you would benefit from, or need to, fully charge at a Supercharger, versus making two charging stops which would add up to less time charging, and driving out of your way to the charger, overall.

None of these justifications answer the question I've asked. Read the link I've provided. The Tesla Model 3 can get to 90% state of charge in 40 minutes in ideal conditions. How many minutes will it now take the Model S and Model X to do the same?

The amount of time spent at a charger to get decent range matters. Read this article for an example of someone who likes his Tesla Model 3 but is getting frustrated with the amount of time he's spending at chargers:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/mobility/20...

I generally don’t charge to 90% when I supercharge, are you saying I’m doing it wrong? Seriously, the point of supercharging is to do the minimum, not 90%.

Do you have any information on the new charge curves of the Model S and Model X? That's the information I'm after.

You are saying a lot more than just that, so it’s no surprise that the answers you’re getting are not what you expect.

Good grief.

Perfect example. This owner added 110 miles of range in 45 minutes, or ~26kWh, which means an average charge rate of 35kW. He charged from approximately 48% to 83%.

With V3 he could add the same range in about 15-18 minutes -- that's based on eyeballing the charge rate curve in your other link.

The S and X will see similar gains now, because this generation of technology is the same as the TM3.

I do not believe that Tesla has published an actual charge percentage vs time curve for this new S/X update, but you can rest assured the many tech blogs which cover Tesla's every move will have one posted as soon as someone can get their hands on one. There will be parts of the curve which are significantly more than 50% higher charge rates (perhaps up to 400% increases at most), and parts which are virtually unchanged (above 90% capacity).

In the meantime, you should be confident that when Tesla says "expect to charge 50% faster" that's a real average number based on actual usage data they collect in the field, and sometimes you will beat it, sometimes not, depending on many variables which can impact charge rate.

One things that won't be impacting your charge rate on V3 are the Teslas charging next to you. In the article you linked, I would speculate the 35kW average charge rate is due to shared main feeds in V1/V2 Supercharger stations.

It is the combination of charging faster (more energy per time unit) and using less energy for a giving distance, this means the charging speed as in adding distance charged per time unit gets improved by the combination of these two changes together.

You're getting your numbers mixed up. It's a 33% reduction in charging time which is equal to a 50% increase in charging speed.

They're re-introducing the lower cost model, interesting move right before quarterly earnings get announced. I have to assume this means sales have been poor.

> In addition to our Long Range and Performance variants, we’re also re-introducing a lower entry price for Model S and Model X by bringing back our Standard Range option

In the autonomy presentation yesterday they said they could create more robotaxis if they ship smaller batteries. So I wouldn’t assume it means sales are poor. They’re focused now on building out a self driving fleet of customer cars, which they plan to activate as taxis in the future.

Every move they make there are inevitably a bunch of comments that Tesla sales are poor. Only offer high spec... Bad sales. Reintroduce lower spec... Bad sales.

> In the autonomy presentation yesterday they said they could create more robotaxis if they ship smaller batteries.

More? The challenge is not to ship more of them, the challenge is to ship one.

> The challenge is not to ship more of them, the challenge is to ship one.

Of course, if you believe what Elon said two days ago, the fascinating thing is that every Tesla shipping right now is already a robotaxi, it just needs a fee software OTA update at some point.

So in that regard the more Teslas they can get on the road in the next ~2 years, the more robotaxis there will be at "Autonomy Launch" (...whenever that happens to be)

This is good. It's Tesla focusing on making better cars. More range is good. Faster charging is good. Those are real things. Yesterday's claims about Tesla operating a million self-driving taxis by 2020 were, well, not taken too seriously.

The new stuff is all at the high end, though. The $35,000 Model 3 is still absent from the product line.

It’s not absent, it’s just hidden. You can order one if you call.

For now.

> The $35,000 Model 3 is still absent from the product line.

I find it bad that they hyped it up for so long and then removed it from online sales a month later, but you can still order it over the phone or in-branch.

Plus despite some rumours of 2+ month delays, they are actively being produced and have already been delivered to some customers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQgjY2SRrck).

2020 is in 8 months. They currently produce about 400k cars per year...

I believe the point was:

> self-driving taxis

Ok, but how do they get 1 million cars? Are they just going to buy VWs or something and kit them out with their self-driving tech? :)

Also note the new Gigafactory in China is going up at a lightning pace, and very likely will be churning out 10k Model 3's a week by the end of 2019.

So that factory alone will put ~ 500k Model 3's on the road by the end of 2020.

I certainly hope so. So far I'm not impressed with Tesla's manufacturing "prowess".

Question for Tesla owners: Is the recharge time ever a problem? Have you ever felt regret from not being able to just pull up to a gas station, refuel, and be on your way?

Part of me drools with child-like giddiness at the prospect of owning one, but part of me hesitates at the thought of taking roadtrips in one.

Question for ICE owners: Is having to regularly visit a fuel station ever a problem? Have you ever felt regret from not being able to wake up every morning with a "full tank" in the car?

Point is, it's not a compromise, it's replacing one set of compromises with another. Yes, you are limited to driving for 4-5 hours before taking a 30-45 minute break (assuming your route has fast chargers) but that's fairly consistent with the needs of humans anyway. (Muscles, stomachs, bladders etc.)

[Not an EV owner.]

> Is having to regularly visit a fuel station ever a problem? Have you ever felt regret from not being able to wake up every morning with a "full tank" in the car?

We just got an EV, and my gf loves this aspect.

She was terrible at remembering to fill gas before coming home, so would very often find herself in a situation where she had to fill up before getting on her way. Quite often this coincided with when she was already running a bit late in the morning, causing a lot of additional stress.

With the EV, plugging it in is a quick and natural part of parking in the garage and so the car is always ready to go in the morning.

Posted my sibling comment before reading this and just wanted to confirm - I often think "I'll fill up in the morning" on my drive home and then end up kicking myself in the morning for being so lazy the night before!

Also, if you forget and then realise, there's no way that five minutes before bed you'll put proper clothes on, drive out to a fuel station, fill it up and drive home. Not going to happen. But popping down to plug the EV into the mains is something you might actually remember then go and do, like putting that cheese back in the fridge or running the dishwasher.

This is exactly it. I drive a diesel and I dread going to the fuel station. That stuff gets all over your hands (even using the little plastic gloves), it stinks and is very difficult to wash off. It's incredibly rare for me to drive more than 100 miles per day (my commute is a 60 mile round trip). I honestly can't wait for the day that I can swap it for an EV and wake up to full range every morning.

Unfortunately I just can't justify the cost of changing car at the moment, but that day will come.

How does the fuel end up on your hands, because I've never had that happen in 10 years of driving and refueling ?

What if you forget to plug in?

What if you and your spouse or roommate have two Tesla’s and a one car garage?

What if you have three? Who gets to charge? Can you charge all three in one night?

What if you forget to fill your ICE up?

What if you and your spouse or roommate have two ICEs and a one car garage?

You probably won't buy the EVs without checking you have the charging capacity before hand.

Yes. If you go visit an area where you cannot conveniently charge, many cities in the US you will not be within 30 mi of a supercharger, so only slow and expensive chargers are available.

It is kind of a pain in those places.

Charging at home is nice though.

I'm a recent Model 3 owner.

Waking up with a full tank everyday is SWEET.

For road trips, you just have to plan for a bit extra time, but it's often how much you would stop anyways. For example, if you're on a 4 hour road trip, you'd prolly stop for 20 minutes at some point to stretch/get gas/grab a coffee. This is really all the time you'd need to juice up, especially when Supercharger's V3 start becoming common.

It is a bit of an extra consideration but I would say it's not really a deterrent.

It takes a few months to get used to. But once you know the limits of the car and get used to plugging in every night, the convenience of a gas station is not missed at all.

So it sounds like the range increase is for new cars? (Other comments made it sound like a software update to existing cars)

I still wish there was more focus on range over acceleration, obviously electric motors don't suffer from general efficiency impact as ICEs do (an ICE with superior acceleration seems to take an efficiency hit at all speeds), but how much of that "faster acceleration" impacts efficiency over the course of driving a few hundred miles.

basically none. I've read that many electric motors are most efficient at 80%+ load...

The problem is more that you hurt efficiency when accelerating fast. I'd rather a moderately reliable increase in range than improved periodic acceleration.

Essentially this is: How much does (say) 25-55mph in 2s vs. 4s cost for overall distance in normal traffic.

That said I have better things to spend 60k on than a car. (my last car was $18k, and 42k can be used for a lot of good things that aren't a fancy car. That said I would rather a car that can accelerate faster than a Prius C - my old 9k Yaris did much better, even though it used more gas)

You modulate your rate of acceleration with your right foot. If you want a car that accelerates from 25-55 over 4 seconds, drive that way...

The rate of acceleration is mostly irrelevant for the fuel consumption, unless your engine gets in a less efficient operating mode, which is not the case with electric motors. Often enough, this is not even the case with combustion engines, especially natually aspirated ones. Only if the higher acceleration also leads to overall higher speeds or additional breaking, energy is wasted. Otherwise, the energy used for accelaration is the difference of the kinetic energy at the high minus the one at the low speed.

Range and acceleration mostly go hand in hand. Much of the constraint on acceleration is how much power you can pull from the battery pack, and that gets better with larger batteries. It’s not like a normal car where high acceleration means a big, inefficient engine.

Agreed, that was why I noted the efficiency model for an electric engine is superior to ICE. I'd just rather "normal"-ish acceleration in traffic with range improvements over high max acceleration. I'm sure you could also reduce engine weight if you don't have to rely on extreme acceleration.

You don’t have to floor the pedal. The tradeoff is decided by the driver. Accelerate less aggressively, get better range.

The motor is pretty small. The benefit from making it weaker would be tiny, if any.

It has been 7 years since initial release. Super excited that it got an update, right when competitors are somewhat catching up. Only took them that long to almost compete.

I always thought one of the big 3 US or German companies were betting on Tesla to fail. Once they failed they’d scoop up their tech at a discount. After the Model S’s success I think they all realized they need to play catch up.

Meanwhile Japan is still going down the Hydrogen path...

I wonder what tech they'd scoop up. GM already has supercruise, and Cruise. And they released an EV back in 1996. Seems probable that their stance on EVs today is entirely by choice.

battery efficiency, drivetrain efficiency, making cars cheaper, updating software live in the field reliably. 0 to 60 speed, battery lifetime without degredation, almost worldwide charging network, supercharging without degredation, billions of miles to train your self-driving. advanced ui. summon mode.

so basically there's no value there.

don't forget about ~30% more efficient now than the vaunted e-tron and even more efficient than the terrible i-pace.

Tesla has batteries that don’t degrade?

My Jeep Grand Cherokee has OTA updates including ones that can be done while driving. The updates do not cause my car to be bricked either or cause the car to not be able to drive.

I agree that Tesla's plan to put superchargers everywhere is good business, it will lock a number of customers into their ecosystem who are okay with that. Apple would be proud :). But there are quite a lot of Level 2 chargers out in the wild that everyone else can use, and that's where I pin my homes and dreams -- the last thing I want is every manufacturer building their own competing infrastructure ecosystem. Imagine having to shop for gasoline based on what brand car you own.

Porsche has superior charging. Tesla batteries do degrade, we know this for fact. The E-tron may be using a larger battery with a built-in reserve to mitigate degradation and improve charging time and Audi customers are less price sensitive than Model 3 customers. 0-60 speed is just a choice, electric motor technology is not really cutting edge.

I wish Tesla luck and I hope they're strong in a couple years -- the Model Y does look promising. But the hype may do them more harm than good in the long run.

The tesla batteries don't degrade very much, mine has less than 5 miles after 45k miles, but its hard to say exactly what max charge is, it varies a bit. There are even people with multi-100k miles driven so there's lots of info out there. Compare tesla to the bad experiences with leafs. I want porsche to succeed! We need electric cars to succeed.

There are a few high power chargers around. But there's no porsche ev yet. The e-tron came out with a thud, inadequate range. If they are really using the same technology base as the e-tron they are going to disappoint people, especially if people drive aggressively they won't get even 200 miles.

I don't think they were hoping to buy, I think they were hoping they wouldn't have to compete.

They can't "compete" because the batteries in EVs cost more than entire ICEs.

So they added the Switched Reluctance Motor technology used in the Model 3 for the front motor, improving efficiency.

It's a permanent magnet motor. It's an IPM design so some amount of the torque comes from reluctance, but the majority of the efficiency is from the permanent magnets providing the field rather than having to burn energy through the induction motor's copper bars to provide it.

Which is interesting. I wonder what the math looks like, since induction motors (without the heavy magnets) tend to be lighter. I can see why they'd avoid a rotor-coiled motor, since that comes with lifetime constraints.

As I understand it, the permanent magnet motor is more efficient at low fractions of maximum torque/power output. So, when cruising, the rear motor will be powered down. When accelerating heavily, the rear motor can kick in.

Induction motors are worse at regeneration at low speeds, but as poster below said, their advantage is that they can be powered down and not impede coasting.

I think they hope to be able to match power requirements of highway cruising using a PM motor, so they don't take losses spinning AC motor way below its power rating.

Will it deteriorate?

With adequate cooling, permanent magnet motors can last a decade or more, even in the most demanding applications

The competition just got more stiff. They are selling audi etrons for the same price with 200 mile ranges, and tesla is about to break 400.

“Beginning today, Model S and Model X now come with an all-new drivetrain design that increases each vehicle’s range substantially, achieving a landmark 370 miles and 325 miles on the EPA cycle for Model S and Model X Long Range, respectively. Using the same 100 kWh battery pack”

What were the corresponding ranges before? The article does not say (just states >10% increase)

335 and 295

It's funny how they put CA EV Rebate in the 'after savings' part. This rebate has income cap at $300k/household. If I made less than that, I would think really hard before purchasing a $90k car.

"Paired with the new more efficient drivetrain design, Model S and Model X are now capable of achieving 200 kW on V3 Superchargers"

Not sure how this has anything to do with the new drivetrain, because last month they already announced "[a V3 supercharger] supports peak rates of up to 250kW per car" (presumably without the new drivetrain as it had not been announced yet - https://www.tesla.com/blog/introducing-v3-supercharging)

Also why did Tesla claimed 250 kW in the blog post last month, but now lowered their figure to 200 kW ? I'm so confused.

Edit: found some answers: "Model 3s will be able to take full advantage of the new Supercharger capacity [250 kW] thanks to the car’s newer battery chemistry". So the Model 3 can charge at up to 250 kW, while Model S and X are currently limited to 200 kW. Source: https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/6/18253618/tesla-supercharge...

Paired with, not as a result of.

The lower charge speed of 200 vs 250 is likely cell limited compared to the 2170 cells in the 3.

Ah, yes.

From the text you cited, my understanding is that 200kW is already possible and they might be able to achieve up to 250kW using that approach.

But it's the reverse: they previously announced 250 kW last month. While this new drivetrain announcement says 200 kW. Why did they lower the charging rate claim?

New drive train probably also includes new battery management, hence new cars can charge faster. The 200kW vs 250kW is the difference between the Model S/X and the newer design packs in the Model 3.

For those that skipped the bottom paragraphs

>so as a thank you, all existing Model S and Model X owners who wish to purchase a new Model S or Model X Performance car will get the Ludicrous Mode upgrade, a $20,000 value, at no additional charge.

Are they having trouble trying to get repeat business?

Their cars are so good that there is no need to replace them!

I wonder why the Model 3 isn't getting the new drivetrain.

It already has the new motor technology. The S and X used to have induction motors front and back, while they now have a switched reluctance motor in the front.

Indeed, the efficiency advances started in the Model 3 design stage and have now been adapted for use in the X/S.

Because this is the Model 3 drivetrain, it's just getting backported.

The model 3 has the newest drive train the model S and X are getting the model 3 drive train and batteries.

Tesla stated that Model S and X will not get batteries based on 21700 cells because it would require redesigning more than just the battery packs themselves.

Former Model S, now Model 3 owner here. I can confirm this change won’t mean much for Model S or X sales as the interiors of the S and X remain stuck in 2011.

Can't wait to see new 0-60 numbers w/ludicrous

Theyre quoting 3 sec on the website

2.4s with ludicrous mode on the website. 3s is the performance without ludicrous.

As a bit of a tangent but a note, this is a fantastic article. When I read it in a paper [1] by Alan Kay, I always assumed that most manufacturers would release a full battery that was twice longer than their current size (probably a little bit shorter because it would require a big recharge) in order to support these new models. [1] - http://www.arxiv.org/abs/1509.0852

It’s been a while since I’ve read a paper abstract that made me feel completely out of my depth. Can you give a little more context here?

I am sorry about this, just wanted to have some fun. I posted the title in the hn comment generator[1] and copied one of the comments here. Guess it passed the Turing test.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19694578

Those are great numbers, I'm really looking forward to the rivian though. It will have 410 miles for the SUV https://www.autonews.com/article/20181127/OEM04/181129763/ri...

Rivian has yet to make a single Truck. It is vaporware until they have more than just numbers.

Are Tesla owners really this sensitive? I mean they do have prototypes out there, it's not like they're making up what the mileage is, they clearly have demoed that it works, it's just about producing the vehicles now.

> it's just about producing the vehicles now.

That is the hardest part, and all that matters. Anyone can make one concept car. Not everyone can make hundreds of thousands of them per year.

Agreed that producing is tough, but what was said above about it being "vaporware" is complete nonsense though.

Really? Can you show me any video anywhere of someone actually driving a Rivian?

They haven't built one yet.

Exactly. I saw a walk around of the Rivian at the NY Auto show posted just a couple of days ago - their chief designer literally said the one at the show is the only one they've ever built - and that it was built by hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA6P0snL3hE

> Not everyone can make hundreds of thousands of them per year.

Neither can Tesla.

> Tesla's global sales since 2012 totaled over 532,000 units at the end of 2018, of which, over 245,000 were delivered in 2018, up almost 138% from 2017. Year over year Tesla U.S. vehicle sales from 2017 to 2018 increased by 280% from 48,000 to 182,400.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.

> Our best estimate is that Tesla has manufactured 239,844 Model 3s so far—or 21,231 in the current quarter—and is now building approximately 5,884 a week. Those figures, and the charts below, represent Bloomberg’s latest estimates and will automatically update to reflect changes in the data. (Last update: April 23rd, 2019)

Assuming a conservative build rate of 5k units per week, that's 260k Model 3 units being built per year. This does not include S and X units.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/

That _IS_ my bad. I remembered the 5k rate, but for some reason I thought it was _per month_.

Duly corrected!

Comment came a year too late.

Fortunately for you, in 2021 you can make the exact same mistake just one order of magnitude further along.

Faraday Future had a concept car also

Tesla’s cars are not especially energy efficient:

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/30/what-are-the-most-effic...

The older models with the older drivetrain no. But this is the Model 3 drivetrain. If you look at the data you posted you will find the Model 3 is basically ball park for "as good as you will get for now".

The major difference being those other efficient drive trains aren't capable of anywhere near the torque that the M3 drivetrain is so it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison but I digress.

The model X tesla before this upgrade was much more efficient than the latest tesla killers from europe. This article [1] showed the audi e-tron is 23% less efficient than a model x (the family truckster huge suv tesla), and the i-pace is 26% less efficient. That is before the 10% performance. Tesla has excellent efficiency, much better than these german cars.

The hundai is also a great, efficient car too. 1. https://electrek.co/2019/02/21/tesla-efficiency-range-test-a...

That test doesn’t take into account increased battery buffers on the IPace or eTron, so it’s strange to call it an efficiency test.

Okay, well another way to think of it is that tesla has proven their choices for amount of usable battery to offer succeeds with half a million + cars on the road and billions of miles driven. Their battery warranty is excellent and time proven. My S is 4 years old and approaching 50k miles and no appreciable degredation. If an S and an etron has about 85kwh there's something to compare there.

Comparing to these other 2 companies, they are being way more conservative, or more likely they don't have as good a battery managment system and they are afraid of big costs down the line if the batteries do degrade. Either way, Tesla has a time tested much better system that provides much longer range with similar overall battery capacities.

It's not that audi can't do better. Just at this time Audi & Jaguar suffer tremendously in comparison.

Yes, that’s a fair way of looking at it. Will be interesting to see what happens with the MEB cars, you’d think there would be a lot of effort there to work on a really solid thermal management system, and much easier to extrapolate data from one model to another.

3 miles short of Montreal-NYC!

The longest range electric vehicle, at 380 miles EPA, remains Hyundai's fuel cell SUV.

Technically it's a hybrid. Just not an internal combustion hybrid.

No, it runs only on hydrogen (to EV direct drive). https://m.hyundaiusa.com/nexo/. Zero emissions, refuels in five minutes at one of California's 40 stations. Soon all hydrogen production will be renewable from solar and wind electrolysis. Exciting times.

It's the hydrogen that makes it a hybrid. The parent comment is correct. Being a hybrid does not require eg a gasoline motor. It's not strictly an electric vehicle, it requires hydrogen in the process.

Their own diagram is very clear about this matter: motor + fuel cell + hydrogen + battery.

https://m.hyundaiusa.com/images/vehicles/pages/vlp/2019/nexo...

That's not the common definition of hybrid. Here, electricity directly powers an electric motor and there are no emissions. Is a Tesla a hybrid because some of its electricity comes from regenerative breaking? How about if some comes from from ions in an electrolyte solution?

I think you're overthinking it. Hybrid cars are not bad, they are pretty cool. It's a matter of semantics. A hydrogen fuel cell car could be considered a hybrid because the primary source of energy, hydrogen, is converted into energy and stored into an electric battery, which powers the drivetrain. Zero emissions, no internal combustion engine, hydrogen-electric hybrid.

Tesla is pure electric. You charge the battery itself, directly.

That sounds like a series hybrid; when people say electric they mean battery electric. The point is moot since hydrogen is pointless.

Perhaps for consumer automobiles. There’s a lot of research into hydrogen fuel cells for military and space.

Almost every industrial vehicle will have to depend on hydrogen if we want to reduce emissions beyond personal transportation.

How much does that fill up cost? That, and the relative scarcity of filling stations, seem to make hydrogen vehicles supremely unattractive.

It's like $8 per gallon of gasoline distance equivalent last I checked.

it's not like there's no hydrogen stations. :-) i mean there are 2 in california, and then i think no more on the west coast.

Which you can't actually buy. At least in Australia.

Don't see them in Canada, but there are Tesla cars here.

That's fueled by onboard hydrogen, not onboard electrical charge, so it's not an EV.

Given the huge amount of truth stretching in the autonomy anouncment yesterday anyone here with relevant battery experience want to weigh in on this?

Yesterday completely burned through some of the goodwill and trust I had for Tesla to the point that I am sceptical of anything they announce now. Is this real?

read the motortrend article. they test drove on today and said the range they got was actually about 400 miles.

The room was there to improve. Nothing about this is particularly implausible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com