|
Two more major players in battery production? This is good news.
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
Sounds like a good idea to start sourcing your batteries from the chaebol thats about to spend 5 billion dollars recalling their flagship phoens because the batteries explode from normal use.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Chevy Bolt numbers revealed. 238 miles EPA range! http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/09/the-numbers-are-in-the-chevrolet-bolt-will-have-a-238-mile-range/
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Ola posted:Chevy Bolt numbers revealed. 238 miles EPA range! That not bad at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
It's the same price (ish) as the Volt? Um.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It's the same price (ish) as the Volt? Um. uses the same drive train and batteries?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
Will it have that famous Volt Boat Ride®?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
wargames posted:uses the same drive train and batteries? I guess I was hoping it would be a little closer to the Leaf in price, since that's the nearest direct competition. But it's actually closer in price to the Volt than the Leaf...Chevy's trying to steal its own lunch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
wargames posted:uses the same drive train and batteries? Nope. The battery in the Volt is about 19kWh, the battery in the Bolt is 60kWh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Ola posted:Chevy Bolt numbers revealed. 238 miles EPA range! Wasn't it supposed to be 300? That's a pretty substantial drop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Bovril Delight posted:Wasn't it supposed to be 300? That's a pretty substantial drop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Bovril Delight posted:Wasn't it supposed to be 300? That's a pretty substantial drop. Nope. 200 mile range at around $30,000 after incentives, was the exact claim. For comparison, the Model S 60 kWh facelift has "up to 218 miles EPA" claimed range.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:At least 215 is what I remember. The P100D is 300. Everything I had heard said it would be around 200. Also, Tesla just released a new software update with a number of substantial changes to the Autopilot system: https://www.tesla.com/blog/upgrading-autopilot-seeing-world-radar Mainly, collision avoidance will now rely more on the radar (which will be able to bounce the beam off the road ahead to see past the car in front of you). Plus if you keep taking your hands off the wheel (so as to trigger the warning three times in an hour), the system will be disabled until after the next time the car is put in park. Though there may be ways around that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv9JYqhFV-M
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Bovril Delight posted:Wasn't it supposed to be 300? That's a pretty substantial drop. No, at CES they told us "at least 200 miles."
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
I'm strongly considering leasing a Bolt once VW buys back my TDI Golf. I'm a little sad that it's so slow, but I guess that's ok.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
BMW and VW are cooperating with Chargepoint in rolling out a network of DC chargers in the US. http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/13/12900396/bmw-volkswagen-express-charging-corridors-electric-vehicle quote:Nearly 100 public electric vehicle charging stations have been installed along major coastal highways in the US, as part of an initiative from BMW, Volkswagen, and ChargePoint, a California-based EV infrastructure company. In a press release published Tuesday, the companies said that a total of 95 direct current (DC) charging stations have been installed along Interstate 95 on the East Coast, from Boston to Washington, DC, and along Interstate 5 and Highway 1 on the West Coast, from Portland to San Diego. Good news for Bolt buyers as they can charge on the same network. Not at Tesla speeds of course, but that's fine. This network means that a non-Tesla car (only counting the Bolt so far) has gone from "can't really road trip" to "can road trip along charger routes, takes 1.5X to 2X fossil time beyond 250 miles", which is a good step up. The latest model S 60 has Supercharger included. Also, it's a software limited 75 kWh battery, a bit like keeping a battery life extender setting on your laptop. This also means that it charges quite fast up to 100%. The price difference is pretty massive though, an S60 is $66,000 stripped. That can pay for an awful lot of 50 kW charging and waiting burgers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
80% in 20 minutes, so stop every 3 hours (190 mi) for 20 minutes? Is that right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:80% in 20 minutes, so stop every 3 hours (190 mi) for 20 minutes? Is that right? For BMW or VWs sub-30 kWh batteries it's right, those are the cars they are referring to. But 80% of those is less than 100 mi. 80% of the Bolt's 60 kWh is 48 kWh and with 50 kW you obviously need just under a full hour, not accounting for various factors. So these "small" 50 kW chargers are really sized for sub-30 kWh cars, hope they are compatible with or upgradeable to the planned 350 kW standard when it rolls around. A Bolt should be able to suck down 100 kW at the best bits of the charge cycle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Okay, that’s more like it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Even the folks that make Teslas autopilot hardware think that autopilot is dangerous and reckless. It should be banned until it has been type approved and made safe
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Even the folks that make Teslas autopilot hardware think that autopilot is dangerous and reckless. It is already safer then random people driving cars without it. How safe is your safe approval limit? If they just named it safety pilot instead of auto they would have been fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
How would they test it? What does "type approved" mean? Do you want it taken out of all cars, or just the Tesla ones? (The only difference between the Model S/X and S-class features is that the Model S/X version works much better.) Is TACC itself OK? (Also, the hardware is a trivial component of the Autopilot system.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Test them similarly to how crash standards are tested: present it with some scenarios on a closed course and see how it handles them. I mean there are some obvious concerns about how good the tests are and how much VW will game them, but I’d bet we’ll see something like it implemented within five years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
I'm seeing lots and lots of "Tesla D beats charger hellcat, Tesla D beats Dodge Viper" drag racing videos on my youtube feed and it went from cool to old pretty fast. I'd pay good money to make a "Tesla vs Top Fuel Dragster" video, just for some variety. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWwhHt0yDIY&t=113s MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Sep 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Test them similarly to how crash standards are tested: present it with some scenarios on a closed course and see how it handles them. Yep, and by type approved, I mean you don't get to screw around with it later. (Hardware or software) without having to go through the approval process again. Subjunctive posted:(Also, the hardware is a trivial component of the Autopilot system.) Yeah the sensors that it uses to keep you from careening through a school yard are a pretty trivial. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Yeah the sensors that it uses to keep you from careening through a school yard are a pretty trivial. The sensors aren't doing the heavy lifting, the software is. Sure making sure the hardware is sound is a good idea, but that's a QC thing not a "re-certify every time a tesla engineer breaths on a tesla car somewhere" thing. Swapping to different brands or types of sensors doesn't even really change much as long as it works with the fidelity that the software expects, and if any sensor is malfunctioning or underperforming the autopilot system should already be programmed to go "nope, get this poo poo fixed if you want to use me." Every problem with autonomous driving so far has been software, not sensors. Making sure the sensors work correctly and self-diagnosing them is a trivial and solved problem--and to be clear, that's trivial in the sense of how much engineering effort and QC is required to ensure everything is OK there, not in the sense of how important the sensors working are to a functioning autopilot. Making sure the software isn't making bad decisions or trusting the wrong sensors that are unreliable in certain conditions is a far bigger issue, and there's an argument to be made that there should be a re-certification process with each build made publicly available.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
For something to be type approved, there has to be a type. Right now, autopilots aren't finished inventing yet. The government would have to invent some sort of standard in a committee, which would have to have a threshold low enough to allow something lest it would just ban everything before it got going. And how exactly would that committee write something that allows for Tesla's fleet learning in a way which gives the government part of the blame if something goes wrong - as all type approvals do? Better to just let it fly, say that "everyone has to be in control of their vehicle" then hit them for people not being in control when something goes wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Even the folks that make Teslas autopilot hardware think that autopilot is dangerous and reckless. Tesla's autopilot is already safe, as long as you don't operate it in an unsafe manner. Just like cars are safe as long as you don't drive them recklessly. At some point the safe manner will include sleeping in the backseat, but I'm sure Tesla will be vocal when that is the case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Tesla is stuck between shattering their apple-like "it's just better" mystique by calling it what it is, lane-keeping assist with radar cruise control and emergency auto braking, or carrying on with the bad press every time someone kills themselves using it like it's portrayed. You know which one they're going to pick, too, because the apple model is really working for them. It won't be long before their factory has suicide nets and they remove the headlights to make the front end slimmer. You've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelete, in this case the eggs have names and families and make youtube videos of themselves playing jenga in traffic. Just really, really dumb eggs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Tesla is stuck between shattering their apple-like "it's just better" mystique by calling it what it is, lane-keeping assist with radar cruise control and emergency auto braking, or carrying on with the bad press every time someone kills themselves using it like it's portrayed. Missed out on the 'courage' line but yeah this. The whole safety thing is weird, it's already safer than a human driver no? Why is it dangerous when a computer messes vs. a human that messes up all the time? Do people want someone to blame if/when it goes wrong?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Yep that's it, Kaker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:Missed out on the 'courage' line but yeah this. Humans are mostly safe 24/7. The transition from safe to unsafe is very abrupt with AP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:Missed out on the 'courage' line but yeah this. No one has demonstrated that it's safer than a human driver. Tesla's statistics show that in idealized conditions of clear, open, uncrowded highways where the driver is paying attention to the road, it's about on par with a human driver.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
As a team, autopilot and the average driver are unbeatable. Give either complete control and heads start falling off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
No poo poo, that's why it's called "driver assistive technology" and not "autopilot"
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Look at what "autopilot" means in nautic or aeronatuic terms. It's a hill holder, a compass assistant, a course flyer. And people complain that Tesla doesn't quite know how the autopilot should select the correct McFlurry for the occasion. Well, it's further than the 787 trip across the Atlantic, even if it sucks. What entails "sucks" is a better discussion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:No poo poo, that's why it's called "driver assistive technology" and not "autopilot" But then they can't "thunderbolt" and "retina" the gently caress out of everything. That's the decision they've made, a carbon copy of the apple business model at the cost of a life here and there. Yeah your bolt has Level 3 DC fast-charging but it doesn't have superchargers. Yeah your hyundai has lane assist, radar cruise control, and automatic emergency braking but it doesn't have autopilot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Powershift posted:But then they can't "thunderbolt" and "retina" the gently caress out of everything. That's the decision they've made, a carbon copy of the apple business model at the cost of a life here and there. Those are not names of Gods, those are marketing names of products. You cannot say that the nature of one thing depends on the name of some other.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Accidents caused by people using Autopilot in a manner inconsistent with instruction due to the branding of the function is a civil matter and I don't care one iota it a lawsuit causes them to rebrand it as "assist" of some sort. However, banning the technology from the road is not the correct course of action because the technology used the way it is intended to be used and the way it is instructed to be used is absolutely safer than not using it. What we should be asking for here is regulatory guidance on how these technologies should be branded and marketed, not whether or not they should be banned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
The slapfight between Mobileye and Tesla is hilarious to watch. Not sure Tesla were that happy with my piece yesterday 😅
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 05:35
|
|