Apr 22, 2016
eclipxe Software limited?
Discuss?�
Apr 22, 2016
brianman No. They aren't. Stop torturing people with such ideas.�
Apr 22, 2016
Bangor Bob Here we go again...�
Apr 22, 2016
eclipxe Hi there, Tim from Roadshow by CNET for another AMA. Happy to answer your questions about Models 3, S, X -- or whatever else. AMA! � /r/teslamotors
I initially dismissed this 9 days ago, but there were some recent rumblings�
Apr 22, 2016
Johan As God is my witness I will eat some sock if this turns out to be the case.�
Apr 22, 2016
eclipxe Contemplating deleting this - I will say it is really really speculative. But there might be other data points out there that confirm or deny this...�
Apr 22, 2016
calisnow Why would Tesla software limit the battery pack?�
Apr 22, 2016
glhs272 Show us the pack voltages at 0% state of charge and 100% state of charge and we will have the answer.�
Apr 22, 2016
Pando More efficient to produce + gives the ability to unlock/upgrade for additional $$$$ ?�
Apr 22, 2016
eclipxe They've done it before for 40's. But could be due to additional validation needed...
Also from 2013:
"Tesla just announced :
Also being announced today is that the small battery option for the Model S will not enter production, due to lack of demand. Only four percent of customers chose the 40 kWh battery pack, which is not enough to justify production of that version. Customers are voting with their wallet that they want a car that gives them the freedom to travel long distances when needed.
The customers who ordered this option will instead receive the 60 kWh pack, but range will be software limited to 40 kWh. It will still have the improved acceleration and top speed of the bigger pack, so will be a better product than originally ordered, and can be upgraded to the range of the 60 kWh upon request by the original or a future owner."�
Apr 22, 2016
zambono When the refreshed S gets to customers we can get the battery designation letter. I have one in order but I delayed delivery till July�
Apr 22, 2016
msnow Where can you find that? I assume you don't mean the sticker on the battery behind the front right tire.�
Apr 22, 2016
zambono That sticker should be it, I read somewhere each type of battery has a letter and currently they are D. If there is a new battery version it should be E.�
Apr 22, 2016
CHG-ON Oh how we love to torture ourselves on this site!
Guilty.�
Apr 22, 2016
msnow See posts 522 and 526 below. 522 is a new pack (with the greater range) and 526 is one of the originals (mine). Notice the part numbers and letter are identical. Does someone have another picture of a S90D with a different number/letter? I know the X has a different part number.
90D Range slowly declining�
Apr 22, 2016
eclipxe To be clear I don't believe these packs are currently being delivered to customers yet. I believe all of the refreshed cars so far are for stores and no customer deliveries have happened. All customers awaiting delivery are looking at late May to June. That is when I speculate new packs will arrive�
Apr 22, 2016
MP3Mike Yeah, but they did that by limiting it so you could only charge a Model S 40 to 69%. So if they did it the same way it would be obvious.�
Apr 23, 2016
R.S If you want to torture the people,
Refreshed 90kwh packs are actually 100kwh [Rumor]
is the title to go for�
Apr 23, 2016
Johan The Most Terrifying Thought Experiment of All Time�
Apr 24, 2016
sandpiper I asked a source close to me about this. This is a source who's never once given my faulty information about upcoming Tesla products. When I very specifically asked if the current 90s have software limited 100 batteries, they DID NOT DENY IT.
The source is my dog.�
Apr 24, 2016
wdolson Tesla has done things I didn't expect before, but I'm highly skeptical about this one.�
Apr 25, 2016
quantumslip So this just came up on Tesla's facebook page.
Tesla - | Facebook
Thoughts? Maybe there's some legs to this?�
Apr 25, 2016
eclipxe We'll see soon I hope�
Apr 25, 2016
BEEZR If that was supposed to be a reveal of sorts, why show a car with the older nose cone? A company that likes to keep such secrets close to the vest does not drop a significant announcement like this via a Facebook photo... Do they?�
Apr 25, 2016
eclipxe You never know. I'm sure it was just a tease to build hype.�
Apr 25, 2016
mgboyes It's certainly out of character (can't think of anything they've ever hinted at through their corporate FB page; usually it's twitter and usually it's elon's account) but anything's possible.
Of course the better question is... "what does TWO underlines mean?!"�
Apr 25, 2016
newtman It's a super common emoji used by millennials. It means, "awesome, great, super". I wouldn't read too much into it.�
Apr 25, 2016
eclipxe
Could just be a social media intern posting an old pic that matches an emoji, not realizing how rabid fans will find hope in any scrap of information released...
(I'm as guilty as anyone!)�
Apr 25, 2016
Canuck I don't know, but just in case, you may just want to get some salt and pepper ready.�
Apr 25, 2016
TrevTremaine Hopefully it's a done deal for the 100. Will those who have orders but not in production yet get it? Any idea about how much this might extend the range?�
Apr 25, 2016
eclipxe Way too early to tell. Not sure this is even it yet.�
Apr 25, 2016
eclipxe IF, and big IF this is true...I wonder how they would handle the badge upgrade...�
Apr 25, 2016
Ulmo Ugh! From an accuracy point of view, I wish I had never uttered that thought on this forum! GRRRRRRRRRR! Many people took my thought and ran with it, way tooooo far. I was discussing probabilities and what-if's, and no one at any point has considered this PROBABLE (even though technically it MIGHT have been POSSIBLE). Damn me and my rosy-eyed way of talking.
However, from an intrigue point of view, the speculation has been downright fantastic. There's the upside.
But, likelyhood? VERY LOW. (Here's why: it's very expensive to make high capacity, so by the time they've actually achieved a higher capacity, they're most likely going to have to cash in on the marketing advantages right away. This even considers varying amounts of reserve, etc.. However, we did need to all think about this to really come up with this conclusion, so in the future when this gets discussed again, a thorough examination of all angles would still be appropriate. But is it likely they hid an out-right capacity level increase? We think no.)�
Apr 25, 2016
2virgule5 Presumably with the $10,000 (or less so?) needed to "upgrade" from 90 to 100Kwh they can probably afford to offer you new badges ;-)
Very very unlikely though.�
Apr 25, 2016
Reeler I bet we will see 75 Kwh and 100 Kwh as the new battery sizes on the S and X. I don't think there will be a software upgrade to unlock this. They probably are already making them in these sizes and having them software limited to more gingerly cycle the batteries.
When the Gigafactory starts making the larger format batteries, the energy density can increase even more in the same form factor. I predict 100 Kwh and 150 Kwh about the time that the Model 3 is released to keep folks wanting the premium models.�
Apr 25, 2016
MP3Mike That may be but I don't think the large format batteries will fit in the Model S/X. (You would either have to raise the floor, or make the battery stick out lower. (Unless they made the batteries lay horizontal instead of vertical, but that might be difficult to do.)�
Apr 25, 2016
Johan As God and a certain Canadian lawyer are my witnesses I will eat some sock should it turn out Tesla have delivered 100 kWh cars to customers who thought they were buying 90 kWh cars.
*(Notice I didn't specify the amount of sock to be consumed any more than the generic term "some").�
Apr 25, 2016
shokunin The estimated/suggested larger battery size of roughly 20700 is less than 1/4" taller than the current 18650 cells. They may even fit inside the current frame with just tweaks to the wire fuse position and plastic casing used to hold each module.�
Apr 25, 2016
Reeler When they scale up with the 20700 at the Gigafactory, the density will definitely increase as would the battery sizes in my estimation. Where are they with getting that factory going? That is when the fun will begin. Perhaps start with a super high capacity Model S/X like 150Kwh for $30K more to reduce demand while they scale up production. I would much rather have the extra range than Ludicrous mode.�
Apr 25, 2016
eclipxe Gigafactory is operational as of Q1 2016. Not at full capacity but production has started.�
Apr 25, 2016
stopcrazypp Cell production will not start however until later this year. Right now they are only doing powerwalls and powerpacks using cells shipped from Japan.�
Apr 25, 2016
Johan It's operatioal in the sense of assembling packs (Tesla Energy products) from Japanese cells. Cell production hasn't started there as far as anyone is informed.�
Apr 26, 2016
wdolson If they were making batteries at the Gigafactory now, it would be very difficult to cover up the movement of raw materials. There would be railcars of the stuff going there and I haven't seen any mention of any unusual vehicle movements around the plant.
There is an outside chance Panasonic is making the 20700 cells in Japan, but in reality the new cells probably won't go into production until the battery fab line at the GF is up and running.
As for whether the 20700s could be used in the existing Model S/X design, I'm sure that was a consideration when designing the cell geometry. I think it may also be possible there are plans on using the same battery modules on the 3 and the S/X, just using more modules on the S/X. The layout of the modules in an S/X battery pack would likely be a bit different, but as long as the outside dimensions of the pack were the same or close enough to fit in the same space, it would work.
As for Tesla sitting on some battery tech that would take the battery size to 150 KWh or something, that's highly unlikely. There are no big secrets in the battery tech business. There are a few chemistries that are a little better than what Tesla is using now, but the current 90 KWh pack is about 95% of the max energy for a battery capable of production today. There are some experimental chemistries in labs right now that may push the capacity up around 120 KWh, but that's 2-5 years out and the testing isn't complete yet. These chemistries may prove to be too fragile for long term use in an EV.
The tech tweaking Li-ion battery chemistry is very similar to how Edison's lab did the light bulb. They are trying every material that might work in every mixture they can think of and seeing what happens. The number of variables is so vast and the nitty gritty of how the materials interact with each other is so unknown there are no computer simulations someone could sit down and tune up a chemistry. It's all trial and error. The cutting edge isn't so much in predicting chemistries, but in how fast labs can cook up prototypes to test.�
Apr 26, 2016
Johan I agree with your post for the most part. But the last paragraph is it bit off: the process of improving chemistry and formulation of the battery cells is not mostly a random/stochastic process (like biological evolution for example) but a very elaborate process with a lot of theoretical work, computer simulations and thought guiding the choice of what prototype to "cook up next". What I mean is a big well funded lab just trying a high volume of chemistries in a more random fashion would have to be very, very lucky to beat a smaller lab with more limited resources but with more brilliant researchers.�
Apr 26, 2016
wdolson There is science that goes into narrowing down the choices to a select set of materials. I don't think anyone is testing lithium-oatmeal batteries. But once the likely materials are decided on, the ratios and whatnot are a hit and miss thing.
Contrast this with an integrated circuit maker. There are a number of chemistries that go into semi-conductor designs, but at this point, the chemistry is well understood. A transistor is made by interfacing two layers of N semiconductors with a P type in the middle, or vice versa. N semiconductor material is made by mixing (called doping) a tiny bit of material from the next column on the periodic table from Silicon and P material is made by mixing in a tiny bit from the column on the other side. This makes one more likely to give up an electron and another more likely to be looking to accept one.
The amount of impurity mixed in is on the order of parts per thousand down to parts per billion. For some applications a base material other than silicon is used. Germanium is one, and there are some compounds used too. If you are an engineer tasked with making a new semiconductor device, you can look up exactly the right chemistry for the application you have. For example transistors being used for an electronic switching application like in any digital electronics you want the material doped so the device switches over from one mode to the other as quickly as possible (from a 0 to 1 to a computer scientist) within the noise limits of your application (the quicker the transition the more noise can be generated by the switching), but if you want an analog application like an audio amplifier, you want different characteristics to the transistors.
All of these factors are known and there are computer simulations where you can test everything out before you ever etch a chip.
Battery tech is a different ball game. The exact way the ingredients mix is not fully understood. An engineer working on this stuff can eliminate a lot of materials because they are too expensive, too dangerous, too rare, or it's obvious they aren't suitable. For example, using plutonium in a battery would probably be a bad idea, even if the chemistry worked well.
In a similar way with making transistors a tiny change in the chemistry can have a big effect on the eventual product, but it's much harder to predict with batteries than with semiconductors. There are fewer variables you need to weigh in semiconductor design, the list of potential materials used in doping semiconductors is a lot shorter, and we have 50 years experience with all these materials. There are some exotic semiconductor formulations in the labs, and some of them may be approaching battery chemistry complexity, but there isn't a dying need for them so development is at a more laid back pace. Battery chemistry is the huge bottleneck in EV development.
Anyway, yes battery labs aren't completely shooting in the dark, but there is a lot more trial and error involved than most other areas of engineering tech development.�
Apr 26, 2016
Johan So in general we are in agreementMaybe not just as to the exact ratio of random experimentation vs. very well considered experiments.
Thanks for your thoughtful post which was an interesting read.�
Apr 26, 2016
WarpedOne This is because this field is still theoretically week i.e. new.
In the following years chemists will develop better understanding and models explain processes and in return it will be possible to engineer "the best" chemistry.
Yes, it will take some time.�
Apr 26, 2016
rns-e No underscore = 1,300 a
One underscore = 1,500 a
Two underscore = 1,700 a?�
Apr 26, 2016
supratachophobia Someone please test the capacity of a Lithium-Oatmeal battery.....�
Apr 26, 2016
deonb Hey, that's what my ex-wife used to have for breakfast!
Life lesson: When someone says they're "bi", it is important to follow that up with a clarifying question.�
Apr 26, 2016
Johan Mine is bilingual. Not too shabby.�
Apr 26, 2016
HankLloydRight The fastest way for Tesla to do something is for me to say it's not going to happen.
Therefore, I don't think Tesla will release a 100kWh battery pack for the Model S this calendar year. Although possibly it could happen for the Model X.
There, I said it.�
Apr 26, 2016
Reeler Just using larger diameter cylindrical cells will allow higher energy density. With each cell holding more and less dead space between them, the new cells will mean larger batteries. Anyone know what that would translate to? I am anxious to see these new larger ones later this year when production begins at the Gigafactory.�
Apr 28, 2016
lklundin Are you sure about that?
Remember that the outside geometry of the battery pack remains fixed (since the new battery pack has to be physically interchangeable with the original).
The problem is then basically reduced to circle packing in a rectangle, which is not much different from circle packing in a square:
Circle packing in a square - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If each cell in the battery pack has the same diameter, then I am very doubtful that you can increase the energy density. It looks to me as increasing the cell diameter will reduce the number of dead spaces, but increase the area of each, for no change in the density.
Production cost per unit energy can very likely be reduced, and while important, that is different.
Packing cells of different diameters would allow for higher density, but their use would be more difficult to manage.�
Apr 28, 2016
R.S
I remember Elon saying something about 33% size increase worked out as a maximum, or sweet spot, in some simulation. And that was the reason why they would want to increase the cell size. But I can't remember, or he just didn't say, what they actually simulated. Maybe it has something to do with electrolyte/cathode/anode surface area, facing the ion/electron traveling direction, vs overall volume, but it could also have something to do with packaging simulations.
Both would make some sense, for packaging they could have run simulations as to which size of cell would fit their pack best, although I am not sure if they already knew their future Model 3 pack size and that should have some impact. It could also be that it really applies to the volume and size of each cell. Thermal and electrical resistance, could be factors here. I guess if you have a very wide but low cell, you could store less energy, but push more power in and out, while a high, but narrow cell, could store more energy, but you would have trouble handling lots of power. Then you end up with some geometry factor, a ratio of hight versus diameter, but not the physical size, which could be limited by thermal resistance, if the cell gets too wide, as well as the hight of the pack.
Maybe someone could find out what Elon meant with those comments, I am just speculating based on bad memory...�
Apr 28, 2016
wdolson If they could effectively make cells that were square or rectangular instead of round, that would greatly improve the utilization of space, but I believe Tesla also uses the space between the cells for coolant. Keeping the batteries in the same temperature range as much as possible is an important factor in managing the life of the battery.
If the cells were the same diameter, but a little longer and they could fit that into the existing pack by making the modules a little bit taller, that would increase the energy density. It may also be more efficient to pack the new cells on their sides rather than vertically as they are now. It depends on the dimensions of the modules and the pack itself.�
May 4, 2016
eclipxe Tesla has confirmed that the 70kwh pack is a 75 and unlockable via OTA.
I'm hearing the same is a possibility for 100kwh�
May 4, 2016
rypalmer Source?�
May 4, 2016
Johan Note: this doesn't at all mean all 70 cars are unlockable 75 cars. I think it means they ran out of 70 packs before all 70 orders that were locked in had been built, and this is the solution.
Like the 40-60 situation back in 2012 (but in that case the 40 pack never existed in the first place).�
May 4, 2016
eclipxe 70kwh packs in the refresh are really 75kwh�
May 4, 2016
zambono Probably not the case if not CARB would have also spilled the beans on the 100. So the 100 is not as close to be released as the 75, and the 75 might just mean they switched over the new chemistry already in the 90's. I would love my 90 on order to come with 100, but I doubt it. Would be really nice if it came with the extra hardware for the next AP even if not enabled due to testing etc.�
May 4, 2016
msnow Who are you hearing the 100kwh info from?�
May 4, 2016
eclipxe Friends. Not official sources.�
May 4, 2016
msnow Oh, ok thanks.�
May 9, 2016
jkn Speculation....
Why sell 100 kWh battery as a 90 kWh battery? If they are not certain that new chemistry lasts 8 years, unless only range from 5% to 95% is used.�
May 10, 2016
CHG-ON I hope you're hungry! They've done it before.�
May 15, 2016
W0QR It's like a lot of things battery related--computers, cars, lawn mowers, etc. 100kWH might be possible but you might break the batteries. IOW, any battery can be overcharged. Just watch the heat/current and keep the voltage up there and you probably can charge the battery 10% higher. Then run it until the polarity reverses on the cells--breaking them-- and it's possible. Somewhere in between is the sweet spot. Counting the number of cells in the car can give you some indication. If the number of cells in the 85 compared to the 90 are the same--and the chemistry is similar--another 5% should be easy. Just change the software dv/di points and allow a little more latitude. Let a little more discharge and a little more charge and you've got it. But if you do this regularly the battery will age prematurely. Maybe someone can tell us: How many cells are in the 85..how many in the 90? Then work backwards to determine the number of watt hours that are possible for each cell.
The commonly available Panasonic 18650 cells are peak 3.7volts and 3.4 AH. So if you have an application that is 85kW that would mean 6800 cells. I recall that the Model S has 7,104 cells. So from 6800 to 7104 is about 4 % or 88.4kWH from an 85 kWH pack. Not quite 90 kWH but close. Now consider that those Panasonic 18650 cells are commodity cells that YOU can buy from say Amazon. Tesla is going to get the most advanced chemistry and latest design. And the rating on the cells is an average parameter. If you're really good in the design phase you can probably stretch those numbers.
So it wouldn't surprise me to see a 100 kWH model S sometime in the next couple of years. Same cell pack numbers just different chemistry and software.
If Tesla gets down the road and the engineers look at the statistics and say..'..hey, you know what? We've got battery packs lasting 8 years no problem' then you're going to see the capacities coming up. At some point they will hit a limit and then they'll have to look at new technology but this buys them time. It's always like this in the industry. Sometimes it's what you can get away with. I'm not being critical of Tesla. That's the way you should test a product in the wild. IOW, the batteries are all the same recent mfg.�
May 15, 2016
DoctorMace I spoke with a tech for Tesla yesterday and he said most of the batteries have a little more capacity than what they say to account for degradation. He said something to the effect of, "Some people just don't believe degradation is real, but it is and if someone says, 'hey my batter is losing capacity' we could potentially unlock some extra juice."
DISCLAIMER: I am botching what he said exactly but he was talking fast and that was the general concept I got from what he was saying.�
May 15, 2016
Camera-Cruiser 5 years from now, someone will accidentally spill some oatmeal into a lithium mix and up capacity 5X. You'll look a back at this post and cry, because you didn't patent it.�
May 15, 2016
DougH Tesla does something about every 6 months to the S to up slumping sales, in the fall they will release 100K and hopefully updated AP. Wont happen any sooner than fall.�
May 15, 2016
wdolson wk0057 here on the forum has taken apart a few wrecked Teslas and learned a lot of the secrets. He found in recent firmware references to a 100 KWh version and the badge image for a P100DL. The 100 is coming and it will probably be within the next year.�
May 15, 2016
Camera-Cruiser As much as I want to upgrade to the face-lifted model S, I think I'll hold out to the battery after the 100. That, or the Tesla, or any EV that can really get true 350 miles of range in real world situations, at real world speeds, most of the time, in mostly fair weather. I include rain in fair weather, but not 25 below and 50 mph wind gusts (Sorry my Canadian friends). I love my S, but to take long trips where you are charging 90 to every 120 miles or so is not the way I want to travel, especially if those stops are 20 to 40 minutes at a time. I just read a great post about a person who drove from Boston to Tampa Bay (5 lessons learned from a long-distance Tesla road trip) and they had about 9+ hours of charging. That is too much.
So, yes, bring out the 100, but we probably need a 150 battery to get us into this real world ballpark.�
May 15, 2016
DougH The first road trip I took to Vegas from Portland was fun for the first half of the first day then the charging got old real fast.�
May 15, 2016
newtman
It only takes an extra 9+ hours if you make some extreme assumptions, like the assumption that in an ICE car you would never stop for food, restrooms, breaks, or sleep. I don't know about you, but if I'm doing a 20 hour road trip, I'd probably take at least 6 hours for food and breaks.�
May 16, 2016
R.S
An easy solution to your problem would also be faster supercharging. Tesla has financed a lot of research in this field. Dr. Jeff Dahn for example, did publish some very interesting findings about fast charging and if they really shorten the batteries life cycle as much as thought and what can be done to make the charging process faster, by increasing overall charging speed, but also by making the charging process more uniform (less taper at the end).
Keeping in mind that Teslas new charging cable already has the potential of higher currents, it would be interesting if there would be an increase in charging speeds with the next gen cells. A faster charge, combined with a sufficient network, would eliminate some of the need for higher range. At least in the unexperienced view of the vast majority that take a 5-minute-to-400-miles refueling as standard with their daily dives.�
May 16, 2016
zambono I am on your camp, we don't need larger batteries which weigh more and take longer to charge, what we need is quicker charging and increase drive efficiency. If they can increase drive efficiency 10% thats the same as if the battery were a 100kwh�
May 16, 2016
Camera-Cruiser Well obviously. I don't eat gas station microwave burritos and pee in a cup....anymore, but my bladder and need to take in sustenance while traversing the countryside can manage 4 to 6 hours when traveling without my better half and offspring, and even they are good for a solid 3 and half hours and up to 4 with some complaining. Sleep is important too, I would just prefer to pick where I want to sleep, not sleep near a Supercharger (and yes I know about destination charging and the other options).
Even the writer of the linked article concluded that flying or driving ICE would have been a better choice, and he is a self acknowledged long trip Tesla veteran.
My issue, and remember, I am an owner, is that I don't want to stop every 80 to 95 minutes for at least 20 minutes per stop on any trip. Sure, I could skip a charger, but then might risk running low on charge, having to slow down, and thus alter my driving experience. I know it is what it is right now, my point is that EVs will be far more successful once they have the true range of ICE vehicles, nothing more.
Yes! this would be great, but often the time to exit and reenter the highway system is as much of a time suck as charging. But, it is a huge step in the right direction.
I would actually love it if Tesla put 2 to 4 Blasters (that is what I would call them) at or near petrol stations and interstate rest areas. Even if at only Supercharger speeds - the big difference is that a Blaster would start an eight minute timer from the moment you plugged in and then turn off if there were any other Teslas waiting and would not restart until others had charged. The entire point is to be able to slip in and get a Blast charge that might help you make it home or to one more meeting, not to fully charge your car.
Still love my S85.�
May 16, 2016
bxr140 We need it all.
Larger batteries charge faster.
Improved chemistry decreases battery mass�
May 16, 2016
Johan I want it all, goddam it.�
May 16, 2016
Camera-Cruiser Yup!
And corporate sponsored induction highway segments! Why bother getting off the road at all?�
May 16, 2016
R.S Increasing drive efficiency is hard, especially by 10%. The added costs might even surpass the cost of 10kWh added battery. But again faster charging could also be a part of the solution. The faster you can charge the battery the more you can recuperate. 10% seem a little much just with that, but it might help a bit. Riverspeed, although being a Hydrogen car, has a very clever super capacitor solution. The car is very small, but they can recuperate with 50kW. A Model S can only take a bit more than 60, as far as I know, although being much heavier.
Not that I think Tesla needs supercaps, but if the battery is able to take more energy, you loose less through breaking.�
May 16, 2016
wdolson There is very little that can be done to increase efficiency, EVs are already around 3X more efficient than ICE and between 75% and 90% of the energy in the battery is turning the wheels. As you get going faster, the efficiency drops, but most of that is due to aerodynamic drag. There are a few things that can be done for efficiency, the new slipstream wheels are a bit better than the old standard wheels. Early on the Model S had an aero wheel option which had a flat disk instead of spokes and that did reduce drag by measurable levels. When the laws change that require rear view mirrors, the mirrors could be replaced with cameras, but that is a legislative issue that's going to take a while to happen. Tesla could introduce aero rear wheel covers, but there would be a lot of criticisms that they are ugly.
If you want an attractive car, there isn't much more than can be done to improve efficiency as aerodynamic efficiency is the only thing left to improve.
The speed of charge is very dependent on the battery chemistry and Tesla pushes the chemistry we have now as far as it can be pushed without damaging the batteries.�
May 16, 2016
wdolson Supercapacitors today have much lower charge density than good quality Li-ion batteries. That's the primary technical challenge with them.�
May 16, 2016
brianman Change the shape of the vehicle from the perspective of wind? Magic, magnets, lasers, force-fields. Maybe some unicorn dandruff.�
May 16, 2016
badbot Tesla limits all battery packs to safe levels of discharge. the inverter has sensors for current draw and the computer adjusts output. if the current exceeds safe levels the fuse blows.
When you go to Insane or Ludacris the computer changes the allowed draw.�
May 16, 2016
wdolson You can make a car like this:
http://phys.org/news/2013-06-supermileage-vehicle-mpg-mph.html
but it isn't going to be street legal and has quite a few drawbacks for everyday use. This particular example is only capable of 15 mph which is a little shy of the capabilities of a daily driver.�
May 17, 2016
brianman Nah, the idea was to have the "natural physical shape" / "resting shape" be akin to the Model S to which we're accustomed, but have the "in-motion" aerodynamic profile be "actively" modified to be better than that.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét