Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by seanmcdirmid | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

seanmcdirmid

+3 miles hopefully didn’t include the energy spent going up, or the law of energy conservation would have been broken.

View on HN

Maybe he picked up several large people who were already at the top.

Energy trolls?

Maybe lapetitejort had better lawyers.

probably the first time a comment on HN has made me laugh.

I hope the prosecutor has enough leverage with the court! Justice truly is blind!

I imagine there might also be an effect in play, in which the available miles are calculated using the energy used in the past x miles. Although it should usually take a fairly long distance to change that approximation... I think. Maybe something about using negative energy though regenerative braking skews the approximation.

Depends entirely on the vehicle. The lookback on some is fairly long, others not so much (Bolt EV).

New EV users often forget that unlike 'gallons of gasoline' or 'kWh', 'estimated miles of travel' are not a true unit of energy.

I think the wind at his back is key here. His car was acting like a wind turbine

I think OP meant winding and not windy, but even if not, Teslas (and any other car) are designed to be aerodynamic, not the opposite, so it's quite impossible to yield more energy than it cost in that scenario, even ignoring motor efficiency, regenerative braking efficiency, and every other real world inefficiency.

> Teslas (and any other car) are designed to be aerodynamic

Why not design them to be aerodynamic for headwinds, and maximize wind-resistance for tailwinds? I wonder how much energy would be gained.

Windy is a perfectly valid descriptive word for a twisting road.

the confusion in this thread is that windy, as written, could mean there's lots of wind (said "win-dee") or lots of bends (or "winds", said "whine-dee"). "winding" is less ambiguous

Obviously. But `croon` seemed to think that windy was was incorrectly, not just ambiguously: "I think OP meant winding and not windy"

Not necessarily. The range is a function of energy over rate of consumption. It's possible the car changed the denominator giving it a further range estimate with less total energy remaining.

He used a portal at the top and bottom of the hill and has now solved the world’s energy problems, including powering the portals

+3 miles is precise enough it could easily be measurement errors

Climbing was probably done by the ICE not the EM.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com