The EV anticipation / speculation / discussion electrothread.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > The EV anticipation / speculation / discussion electrothread.

Brigdh: Nov 23, 2007; That's not an oil leak. That's the automatic oil change and chassis protection feature.

hallebarrysoetoro posted:

3 phase only gets run out for industrial areas, almost never residential. You can step it up, but, getting all that done would be highly cost prohibitive unless you somehow lucked into getting multiple services run to your house (i.e. if a welder had requested 2 200a services run) and you can simply step up one service and leave the other to run the house. Getting 2 200a services, or a 400a service, is pretty much unpossible nowadays unless you can grease some wheels rather effectively with the local utility.

The bitch of fuel cells is the kind that can feasibly replace gas require platinum or palladium which sends the price through the roof. They're exploring alternatives (like borax*, the current hotness) but they generally have their issues but we're not quite as pigeonholed with hydrogen as we are batteries. There's one promising kind that I can't remember the name of that we'll start seeing used to replace batteries in appliances/phones/stuff like that, but it scales extremely poorly right now. It's still getting a footprint; industrial power backup is definitely trending toward fuel cells because lifetime cost is significantly reduced over a diesel generator system.

*
If they can get all the issues with borax fuel cells sorted out (huge, huge if right now) you'd have an ideal replacement for gas. Cheap, abundant and relatively non-toxic for what it is. I can see it panning out simply because America has ridiculous reserves and it'd be that enigmatic domestically provided for energy reserve. If you can be the swinging dick in the post-oil world, there's a ridiculous profit involved.

I haven't paid attention to hydrogen in a long time, but have they figured out how a tank of pressurized hydrogen can have half the range or better of the same volume of gas? Also, any breakthroughs in producing hydrogen that take less energy than electrolysis and haven't fizzled out in a few months?

# ¿ Jan 19, 2012 21:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 13:59

Brigdh: Nov 23, 2007; That's not an oil leak. That's the automatic oil change and chassis protection feature.

Colonel Sanders posted:

To relate the articles to batteries in EVs, the article states current lithium-ion batteries have an energy density of 0.5 mega-joules per kilogram, or 1% of 50 mega-joules per kilogram for hydro carbons. The problem I have is your average gasoline car travels about 300 maybe 400 miles on a tank of gas. An EV like the Nissan Leaf can travel up to 100 miles, that is already 25% to 30% of the range, with a battery that stores about 1% of the energy per kilogram.

So it's true that gasoline will store more energy, and it's also true that batteries can significantly increase their energy storage potentials. Batteries will not store more energy than gasoline cars, however because current EVs such as the leaf have achieved approximately 1/3 of the range with batteries that store 1% of the energy as gas. I believe it is safe to say that EV range will significantly increase to a point where the range is competitive with gasoline powered cars.

The problem is while gas stores a lot more energy, our current engine technology cannot extract all of it. On average, engines are only about 30% efficient. Electric drive ends up being something like 80% efficient, thus you can get farther with less input energy on electric over gas.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2012 18:03

Brigdh: Nov 23, 2007; That's not an oil leak. That's the automatic oil change and chassis protection feature.

mobby_6kl posted:

In most of Europe fuel taxes make up something like 50-60% of the final price, so I for example pay like $60-70/month in taxes on gas alone. Of course they can raise taxes on electricity, but
a) that would have to be quite a large increase to make up for the lost revenue, so
b) car-less people would loving freak out
c) owners of gas powered people would loving freak out

They can raise taxes on solar panels but
a) this will discourage adoption of renewable energy
b) car-less people would loving freak out
c) owners of gas powered people would loving freak out

They can raise income taxes, but... (you see the pattern)

How about they inspect your odometer when you renew for the year and tax you for every mile since the last reading?

# ¿ Jan 28, 2012 00:49

Brigdh: Nov 23, 2007; That's not an oil leak. That's the automatic oil change and chassis protection feature.

MrChips posted:

The issue here isn't who is right or wrong here (Tesla and the NYT will both come out of this with egg on their faces), but whether or not the Tesla represents a viable alternative to the conventional ICE-powered car. The answer to that is a resounding no. When you look at all the instructions Tesla gave that journalist to maximize his battery range (turn down the climate control, drive at 55 mph or less, enter a special mode to get the maximum potential out of the battery, preheat the car for a half an hour before driving it), it makes the resulting slapfight look utterly pointless. In a conventional car, you pretty much have none of these concerns, or they are so diminished that they're nearly irrelavent. Elon Musk is delusional if he thinks that his car is mature enough to break the status quo, and it sounds like he'd rather shout down anyone who says otherwise rather than address or even acknowledge the Tesla's shortcomings.

I'm not defending this journalist or the NYT for their conduct - what they did was unacceptable, no matter how you look at it. It's what they didn't lie about that concerns me most.

I'm thinking the bolded part is bullshit. If I were to take a conventional vehicle on a road trip to test its maximum range, I drat well need to consider speed, operating temp, and accessory usage as well. Hell, if I went to a manufacturer saying I was going to do such a test, and how would they recommend I get the longest range, they'd probably give me as a long of a list as what Tesla gave. The only things electric cars are lagging behind on compared to gas powered cars are maximum range to a "tank" and the convenience of filling with gas (takes 10 minutes, available "everywhere").

# ¿ Feb 15, 2013 01:27

Brigdh: Nov 23, 2007; That's not an oil leak. That's the automatic oil change and chassis protection feature.

ExecuDork posted:

I'd say it's not bullshit. The difference in maximum range is not a few percent, it's more than double - and it's a difference that crosses a distance threshold for many people - how often do you want to fill up / recharge - every trip? Or once a week? The "average" commuter might put 50 miles (or whatever) behind them in an "average" day, but that mean value has no importance without some estimation of the variation. And that's not considering the frequency of trips of much longer distances - the often-seen response "just rent something for your annual road-trip" is trite and useless* - people drive widely different distances over the course of a single week, and there are so many unplanned (or poorly planned) trips that estimating "typical" distances and basing a decision on range being "good enough" is basically impossible.

* Please note I am not calling out anybody for saying something like that. I'm trying to head off that response before it happens, because I think it's annoying.

People have gotten used to the kinds of ranges and speeds achievable with internal-combustion technology. Electric cars need to achieve similar abilities to be taken seriously as direct competitors, rather than as filling niches currently poorly-served by gasoline-powered cars, such as urban commuters in dense traffic.

A gasoline-powered car that wasn't designed with range or fuel efficiency as priorities - something with a big, gas-guzzling engine and a normal-sized (or small) fuel tank could still easily outrange a Tesla, without needing to adopt super-conserving driving behaviour. Yes, if you went to a manufacturer and said you were going to test the range of one of their cars, they'd ask you to do such things. But if you went to a manufacturer and said you wanted to test-drive the car under something like normal driving conditions (which involves, among other things, setting the interior temperature to a comfortable level, stop-and-go traffic, hills, a range of speeds up to whatever the limit is on the local freeway, etc.), they'd hand you the keys and ask you not to scratch up the paint.

If a Tesla car can't acheive even an approximation of usefulness under real-world conditions WITHOUT unrealistic special considerations, it's not a useful car. It can still be exciting, and heralding a new era, and fast around a track, and fun to drive, and a status symbol, but it won't be good.

Did you miss the part where I blatenly said that electric cars need the range of their gasoline counterparts? That seems to be your entire point, so I'm not sure what you are arguing...

MrChips posted:

I agree with you on some issues, but what I said isn't bullshit when you think about it. Sure, if you drive at 55 mph with the climate control off and your windows rolled up, you're going to get better fuel economy than if you drive at 80 mph with the heat/AC blasting and whatnot. Now here's the rub - no matter how you drive, there are severe limitations on a battery electric car that simply don't exist in an ICE car. For example, my fuel economy varies about 3 mpg from summer to winter; much of that is due to my winter tires, to be honest. Therefore, regardless of temperature, my expected range varies by about 55 miles, regardless if its -30 or +30.

Due to the chemical processes in a battery, range varies dramatically depending on temperature; even given ideal driving, the range of a BEV can drop by half (or more) if the temperature drops from 50F to 0F. It gets even worse if you run your defrost (which is a critical safety system in the winter), heated seats or other comfort features. Sure, it cost me a bit of fuel economy in my car, but it is nearly imperceptible compared to what it does in a BEV.

And your notion that BEVs are on par with ICE-powered cars is absurd; who in their right mind would want to suffer in a cold Canadian winter with no heat or defrost because the car disabled it to conserve its battery life (as it did in this test) when a normal car will (or at least should) produce abundant heat essentially for free (it was just going to be sent out the tailpipe or through the radiator anyway). Or better still, go to a Christmas party and find out that your car's range dropped below what you need to get it home the next day.

You bring up logical points, but I don't think they point out fundamental issues with BEVs since they also affect ICEs.

The chemical processes argument is a bit bullshit as Tesla vehicles redirects heat from the motors to the battery pack to keep it at a good operating temperature. Its even been explicitly mentioned as one of the reasons why the Roadster and S work in the cold in one of the articles that came out this week. ICE engines have the same issue, they are extremely inefficient until warm, ie coolant temp is at around 200 degrees F. The only advantage ICEs might have is that they generate significantly more waste heat, which helps keep them at operating temp, although waste heat is wasted energy that could be doing something like contributing to moving the vehicle.

Running defrost should be more efficient in a BEV. In an ICE, you have to convert rotational energy from the crankshaft into electrical energy via the alternator to run the defroster. Mechanical to electrical energy conversions are not 100% efficient. In a BEV, you already have the electrical energy sitting in a battery.

You seem to think producing abundant heat as ICEs do, is a good thing. The problem is that heat is wasted energy, it could be used to propel the vehicle. Of the total amount of energy in an amount of gas, only about 12% actually gets used in an ICE. The rest of it goes out your tailpipe as you say. So, in an ICE we are throwing away energy, which is why running your heater has minimal effect on your gas mileage (if we ignore the electrical drain from running the fan).

So really, we are back to the storage issue that I acknowledge is a current issue, where its relatively difficult to store enough practical electrical energy in a format that allows rapid but controllable discharge. Solve that issue, and BEVs just became equal to or better than ICEs.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2013 03:31

Brigdh: Nov 23, 2007; That's not an oil leak. That's the automatic oil change and chassis protection feature.

davebo posted:

Are these really Tesla-specific chargers? Is there not an industry standard electric port that everything can use, or is there a separate port on Tesla's for a proprietary Tesla quick charge? Seems like the last thing car manufacturers would want to do is make electric cars that won't play nice with whatever infrastructure gets developed for them.

I'd think they are Tesla specific sadly, at-least the fastest charge might be. Last time I looked around at the different standards (things may have changed) since my company does a bunch with car charging now, there wasn't really anything good. Seems like most of the standards are slow charge, and nothing concerning fast charge is really getting anywhere (standards take a really loving long time to become final), so companies are taking the initiative and inventing their own. Unfortunately, that will lead to a fragmented market for a while.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2013 18:01

Brigdh: Nov 23, 2007; That's not an oil leak. That's the automatic oil change and chassis protection feature.

Colonel Sanders posted:

If stopping to recharge a Tesla takes 20 minutes, on average how long does it take to pump a tank of gas? I have never timed it myself, but I would guess that it takes between 3 to 5min to pump 10 gallons into my econobox. If I am on a long trip, I usually stop and go spend money on low quality junk food in the gas station, hell I could probably easily waste 20 minutes at a charging station.

Feels like 20 minutes just to pump gas for me. All the pumps started asking for zip codes, if I want a car wash, fuel additives, if I have a club card, etc. Each question seems to take a minute to process my answer. The pumps also are set to "slow mode" unless I'm filling up on my lunch break. I'd actually think using the Tesla supercharger might be faster.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2013 23:03

Brigdh: Nov 23, 2007; That's not an oil leak. That's the automatic oil change and chassis protection feature.

Advent Horizon posted:

Even better: The DMV is only open during normal weekday hours.

What DMV isn't only open during "banker's hours"?

On the trip permit thing, how far do you have to go? Colorado allows you to drive a vehicle home with only the bill of sale and proof of insurance if the sale took place outside of DMV hours or on a weekend. Maybe Alaska does the same?

# ¿ Sep 24, 2013 00:20

Brigdh: Nov 23, 2007; That's not an oil leak. That's the automatic oil change and chassis protection feature.

Frinkahedron posted:

GPS can be that accurate (and more!), but your consumer-level GPS in your phone or garmin isn't going to be.

Sure, lets just set up D-GPS stations every quarter mile along every road. I'm sure that will solve all of our (or rather AI) problems.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2015 05:42

Brigdh: Nov 23, 2007; That's not an oil leak. That's the automatic oil change and chassis protection feature.

Frinkahedron posted:

Or subscribe to omnistar, 10cm accuracy or less!

In a laboratory setting, maybe. We typically see ~1 meter accuracy on stationary objects, and ~2.5 meter accuracy on moving ones. Not much better than what you get with GPS backed by a secondary correction mechanism, but hey the hardware guys get excited by blowing money on power sucking DSPs.

CommieGIR posted:

Correct position errors with an IMU/INU like an aircraft.

Accumulation errors can be a bitch, particularly if you don't let the system zero out periodically (say on a road trip).

The lane position issue (which road am I on?) is typically better solved by having multiple systems, and deciding which one is inaccurate at the time, at-least according to what I've seen multiple teams doing. Such a system may decide that the position information is slightly inaccurate because the system knows that you were on road X, and although the positioning system suggests that you are now on road Y (which runs parallel to X), unless the car magically teleported there, its more likely the vehicle is still on road X.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2015 00:00

Brigdh: Nov 23, 2007; That's not an oil leak. That's the automatic oil change and chassis protection feature.

CommieGIR posted:

That is why the INU/IMU is generally slaved to the GPS to correct for drift. Then if the GPS signal craps out the INU/IMU takes over.

Ah, different problems. You can't really use INU/IMU to eliminate GPS inaccuracies by using the GPS signal as your master signal that you base your INU/IMU system on - if the GPS ping puts you at 9 feet East of your true position, the INU/IMU isn't going to help if the ping from the GPS is used as the true position. However you are correct, you can use it to as a replacement in-between signal pings (or when it just drops out completely). Of course, your GPS error is basically smaller than most aircraft, so that error is probably irrelevant for most applications.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2015 05:41

Brigdh: Nov 23, 2007; That's not an oil leak. That's the automatic oil change and chassis protection feature.

Latest upgrade to the Roadster started shipping this year:

http://shop.teslamotors.com/products/roadster-3-0-upgrade

~340 mile range

# ¿ Nov 25, 2016 03:15

Brigdh: Nov 23, 2007; That's not an oil leak. That's the automatic oil change and chassis protection feature.

Ola posted:

Fair enough, it is a very straight line.

Something else entirely, 4WD systems: I sort of understand how diffs work and how you can get stuck if for instance both right wheels are spinning. The Tesla has 4WD, but not a locking diff. Would it be possible to use the wheel brakes to slow the spinning wheel and thus transfer traction to the other? With ABS and ~magic computers~, perhaps you can update the Model S software to include a pseudo-locking diff through the wheel brakes to get better 4WD traction in deep snow or sand. It would be very limited compared to a real locking diff of course, but it isn't meant to crawl rocks, just get out of certain situations.

The Model S already has an e-diff (electronic diff) - http://teslaliving.net/2014/08/24/how-does-model-s-traction-control-work/

# ¿ Jan 26, 2018 15:49

Brigdh: Nov 23, 2007; That's not an oil leak. That's the automatic oil change and chassis protection feature.

silicone thrills posted:

Also my ultimate fear with my Tesla is that like apple, Tesla will somehow brick my device with a bad update someday.

Not trying to spread FUD here, but that might not be an invalid concern.

Some Roadster owners feel that Tesla is activly shunning them.
I personally have had an update on my S mysteriously disable the warning chimes from the rear parking sensors, but not the front ones. Was finally fixed two updates later, of course I didn't know until I tried it out after the update - the release notes make no mention of fixes.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2018 17:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 13:59

Brigdh: Nov 23, 2007; That's not an oil leak. That's the automatic oil change and chassis protection feature.

https://electrek.co/2018/07/30/tesla-model-s-x-interior-refresh-exclusive-first-look/

Ugh. Really glad I got my S now instead of waiting.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2018 15:57

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > The EV anticipation / speculation / discussion electrothread.