Tesla Announces Dual Motors, 'Autopilot' For the Model S 283
SchrodingerZ writes: Nine days after Elon Musk hinted about a new project, Tesla Motors has unveiled the P85D Sedan. This is Tesla's latest car design, capable of feats not yet seen in electric vehicles. The four door luxury car is able to go from zero to 60 miles per hour in a mere 3.2 seconds, an acceleration similar to the McLaren F1 super car. While the exterior remains the same build as the standard Model S, the interior will have a second motor in the front of the car to complement the rear motor. The D models will also have a slightly greater range of 275 miles on a single charge, 10 miles more than the 85 and P85 cars. Safety features have also been enhanced, adding "adaptive cruise control and the ability to read speed limit signs, stop itself if a crash is imminent, stay in its lane, and even park itself in a street spot or in your garage." Musk explains at the inaugural event, "this car is nuts. It's like taking off from a carrier deck. It's just bananas." The "D" version is available for the 60kWh, 80kWh, and P85 cars, and are expected to start shipping in December of this year.
Autonomy (Score:3, Funny)
So, 0 to 60 miles in 3.2 seconds... a range of 275 miles... So, it has less than 15 seconds of autonomy.
Let's hope it doesn't take much longer than that to recharge.
Re:Autonomy (Score:5, Informative)
So, 0 to 60 miles in 3.2 seconds... a range of 275 miles... So, it has less than 15 seconds of autonomy.
No, 0 to 60 miles per hour in 3.2 seconds. Then, cruising at that 60 mile per hour for 4.583 hours (not 15 seconds) will take you 275 miles, at which point the battery dies. Reading fail.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
No, 0 to 60 miles per hour in 3.2 seconds.
"per hour in 3.2 seconds"? That's horrible unit mixing, isn't it? That's 67,500 miles per hour squared for normal people like me.
Re: (Score:2)
In SI, that's 8.382 m/s^2 average acceleration for 3.2 s starting at 0 m/s.
Re:Autonomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Autonomy (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of comedy is just made of silly arguments and situations... I found it funny, but I guess a sense of humour is very much like opinions: most people have one but they're not always compatible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's been yo-yo-ing between 1 and 5 for a while... Which makes my case about opinions ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
TFS says "60 miles per hour in a mere 3.2 seconds".
60 miles per hour is referring to a velocity, not a distance.
If it could really somehow cover 60 miles in 3.2 seconds safely, I wouldn't care that it could only do it for 15 seconds, because i would already be there
Re: (Score:2)
So true. Wish I had mod points.
BREAKING NEWS! (Score:2)
Elon Musk solves the ubiquity problem!
Re: (Score:2)
Read speed limit signs (Score:5, Funny)
It wasn't my fault officer, the car say the highway sign and thought that I-95 meant 95mph
Re:Read speed limit signs (Score:5, Funny)
Performance (Score:5, Interesting)
This is how electric will win. Performance.
When I was in High-school I raced RC cars for fun, and I remembered by gear head friends giving me crap about working on "Toy cars" until I challenged one of them to a drag race, against his real, full sized muscle car, and won hands down. The torque from an electric motor is just monstrous. So much so, that I suspect if they continue to build electric sports cars, the gforce alone will become a safety issue. My drag car would pull 100amps off the starting line and could melt battery cables, and the thing only weighed 2lbs. It'd be doing the scale equivalent of over 1000mph when I got to the end of the track. Yes, yes, I know at full scale wind resistance is different and such, but still. I had a hunk of carbon fiber doing 100mph in a few feet for Christs sake.
The sorts of people that hate electric because it's a "hippie thing" will embrace it because the fact of the matter is that, in the end, it just performs better. Can't have hippies beating your Cudda with a Prius.
Random video I found on youtube as a demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Performance (Score:4, Informative)
The well-known electric racing circuit is the Formula E [wikipedia.org] which uses pure electric race cars. Now, they only last about 10 minutes before drivers have to pit and switch cars, but that just adds a bit more excitement to the mix (how fast you can egress and get in now becomes important, just like how long you spend at pit spots in regular auto racing).
Though, the other thing is just how quiet it is - yeah, I know modern race cars are actually getting a lot quieter to improve mileage (sound energy is wasted energy) and lengthen times between pit stops for refuelling.
Heck, a lot are starting to experiment with hybrid technology for the same reason - pit stops cost time, and if you can go just as fast but use less fuel, then you have a big advantage by skipping a 30-second pit stop (plus having to actually drive through pit row - there's a 60mph speed limit that's strictly enforced. There's a special button on the wheel for this where it limits the max speed to that).
Heck, Formula E has people driving in interesting ways - is it better to be slower and prolong your battery, or go quick and get a sufficient lead for the swap?
And given the low end torque, skill becomes important because wheels that' slip, while impressive, are wasted energy that could be better spent moving.
Re:Performance (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me add to your reasoning. This is the same argument as for the television in the late 1940s, or the VCR in my own lifetime.
I remember many years ago walking out of a specialty store that sold VCR equipment. The prices were way high, and before I left I commented to the sales person that VCRs were a rich man's game. At that point, it was a true statement.
The 5% who can afford these electric cars will fund the initial manufacturing. Infrastructure will grow. Costs will come down. Given the power electricity has, and the relative safety of supplying outlets and other infrastructure, even more people will see the advantages, be able to afford it and buy it, and so on, increasingly, until it is being massed produced at ordinary consumer prices. The US, for one, is slowly but surely going to change in the transportation area.
Note: U.S. sales by luxury brands should easily top 1.8 million this year Source [autonews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The sorts of people that hate electric because it's a "hippie thing" will embrace it because the fact of the matter is that, in the end, it just performs better. Can't have hippies beating your Cudda with a Prius.
You couldn't pay me to drive a Prius. Yet, my next car will be a Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
>
The sorts of people that hate electric because it's a "hippie thing" will embrace it because the fact of the matter is that, in the end, it just performs better. Can't have hippies beating your Cudda with a Prius.
I'm still waiting on range and charging time to make it worth my investment. With a range of 200 miles per full charge, this car would meet my daily needs 85% of the time. I'd still need something for road trips.
Re: (Score:3)
If your other race car is a 64 mustang or a corvette, range wasn't a concern in the first place.
Re:Performance (Score:5, Interesting)
The ironic thing is that even in rural Texas [1], even the coal rollers think that Teslas are extremely useful and hope that eventually the company would make a one ton pickup truck. It would make life nice for a number of reasons:
1: A lot of ranch vehicles tend to go a long distance, but get parked near the same spot at night, so an electric charger is useful.
2: Trucks need torque at 0RPM. Electric motors deliver here in spades.
3: Welders and other tools are needed. Having a heavy duty inverter and the ability to use the battery bank for powering an air compressor would come quite handy.
4: Electric motors need a lot less upkeep than a diesel engine. No pee cans, no DPFs, no EGR valves, air filters, oil filters, just very minimal maintenance required.
5: They use no fuel when stopped/idling, other than to keep the vehicle electronics going and the climate control system.
6: They are quiet.
7: An electric motor can sit indefinitely without worry about fuel turning to sludge (in the case of gasoline) or getting algae in it (like diesel.)
8: No exhaust.
Electric cars are like solar. Both sides, be it the hippies or the banjo country types understand how useful the technology is or can be.
Re:Performance (Score:4, Funny)
1: A lot of ranch vehicles tend to go a long distance, but get parked near the same spot at night, so an electric charger is useful.
2: Trucks need torque at 0RPM. Electric motors deliver here in spades.
3: Welders and other tools are needed. Having a heavy duty inverter and the ability to use the battery bank for powering an air compressor would come quite handy.
4: Electric motors need a lot less upkeep than a diesel engine. No pee cans, no DPFs, no EGR valves, air filters, oil filters, just very minimal maintenance required.
5: They use no fuel when stopped/idling, other than to keep the vehicle electronics going and the climate control system.
6: They are quiet.
7: An electric motor can sit indefinitely without worry about fuel turning to sludge (in the case of gasoline) or getting algae in it (like diesel.)
8: No exhaust.
9: Wet dreams about the size of spotlight you can put on it
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto here. I've raced both electric and nitro RC cars for about 27 years, and I choose electric hands-down.
That's not to say that each has pros and cons. Nitro cars tend to have impressive top speeds, and since they can make pit-stops to refuel, races can last as long as half an hour (I've seen some that last as much as an hour). Electrics have short range, and almost all races I've been in tend to last 5-10 minutes. I've never been in a race where pit-stops are made for battery changes, but I've seen
Re: (Score:3)
When I did the endurance stuff, I replaced my differential with a one-way diff. That way I could coast. It really depended on the track, but I had so much damned torqe I'd basically power out of the turn and then coast into the next. If it was a very long oval, this was less useful... but the idea was fresh when I tried it and people couldn't believe how few battery changes I'd have to make.
This, of course meant I couldn't break (and for those of you not into the sport, we had no reverse at all) so a steeri
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is how electric will win. Performance. When I was in High-school I raced RC cars for fun, and I remembered by gear head friends giving me crap about working on "Toy cars" until I challenged one of them to a drag race, against his real, full sized muscle car, and won hands down. The torque from an electric motor is just monstrous. So much so, that I suspect if they continue to build electric sports cars, the gforce alone will become a safety issue. My drag car would pull 100amps off the starting line and could melt battery cables, and the thing only weighed 2lbs. It'd be doing the scale equivalent of over 1000mph when I got to the end of the track. Yes, yes, I know at full scale wind resistance is different and such, but still. I had a hunk of carbon fiber doing 100mph in a few feet for Christs sake.
The sorts of people that hate electric because it's a "hippie thing" will embrace it because the fact of the matter is that, in the end, it just performs better. Can't have hippies beating your Cudda with a Prius.
Random video I found on youtube as a demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Yeah, but does it have... soul. :D
Seriously, I like the mechanical sound of a nice inline 6 or a V8 under the hood. I love the control of a manual transmission and clutch and how it engages the driver and makes him/her an essential part of the vehicle. Yes, dual-clutch autos are faster and electric cars are even faster but something is lost in the process and it's a shame. But, most people don't care about such things so electrics will be perfect for the masses just not for us "enthusiasts". Now get off m
Re: (Score:3)
Bingo.
I would modify your statement a bit though - because different people want different things out of cars. I know Prius and Leaf owners that are already sold on electric vehicles. Those vehicles are insufferable yawn-inducers, so I'll never be interested... but plenty of people already are.
However, the Teslas (so far) are clearly drivers cars made for discerning buyers by real enthusiasts. I've taken a model S on a test drive and it was really magnificent.
Here is a selection of my current crop of car
Re:Performance (Score:5, Informative)
To be fair, F1 cars accelerate at 3g, brake at 5g and corner at 6g. The g-forces are enough that the drivers can't breath for half the lap. They're getting really close to the point where g forces are a problem.
Re:Performance (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, they hit this point in 1997 in IndyCars (CART). The Firestone Firehawk 600 at Texas Motor Speedway had to be called off because of G forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Performance (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't understand. I wasn't hitting 60 in 2 to 3 seconds. I was hitting 60 (Scale 600mph) in tenths of a second and I was 16!. Tesla is getting this speed without even trying. Get a real race enthusiast to start messing with these? Forget F1, it'll be like being behind a rocket engine. I've seen RC drag races that resulted in the motor ripping the tires off the rims, and they were glued on. 2 to 3 seconds will be laughable when the real drag race guys get hold of this stuff.
Early adopters... (Score:2)
Wouldn't say I'm an early adopter. I got mine in March. Still love it as much today as I did last week. Still an awesome car.
Did I wish I waited a year? Well, maybe just a little. But I'm sure a year from now the Model S will have even more features.
Perhaps the autopilot can be retrofitted into the currently on-the-road Model S. After all, the other upgrade over the last year have been available at a mild markup.
As for the dual motors, pretty much the same thing.
As an aside, I wonder how this is going
Prices (Score:5, Informative)
Each of the three versions of the Model S will come as a D model. The price of the 60kWh battery model will go from $71,070 to $75,070 for the dual motor system. The 85 kWh car goes from $81,070 to $85,070, and the P85 jumps from $105,570 to $120,170.
No indication in this article if you can get the adaptive cruise control and other fun high-tech add-ons that come with the "D" (dual motor) version without paying for the D upgrade.
Re:Prices (Score:5, Informative)
73% tax return (Score:5, Interesting)
seriously? (Score:2)
That's crazy. I would have expected a cap on how much of a rebate you can get.
Re: (Score:2)
First, it's not a return, and second, how do you arrive at 73%?
You pay no BPM. This is a tax on cars, which used to be 20-30% of the before-tax purchase price, now it's calculated based on a car's CO2 emissions, you pay something like â70 per gram of CO2. For typical cars, this still adds up to 20-30% of the purchase price.
the event (Score:3)
where can I watch the hole event and not just some clips?
Re:the event (Score:5, Funny)
where can I watch the hole event and not just some clips?
I dunno, try searching for 'courtney love' on Youtube.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the event (Score:4, Informative)
Found this video [youtube.com] on YouTube...
Smaller, Tesla, smaller! (Score:2)
Come on, Elon, quit fooling around. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Come on, Elon, quit fooling around. (Score:5, Insightful)
Give us model E, the 40 K sedan. The rich people have paid enough money and you have built the credibility. Continuing to make play things too expensive for the masses is not how you are going to have long term impact or create disruptive technologies.
The Model 3 (nee model E) will only only be cheap if Tesla can get cheap batteries to power it. Tesla's plan for getting cheap batteries is to produce them at huge scale in their GigaFactory (tm). Therefore, don't hold your breath for cheap Teslas until after the GigaFactory (tm) is complete and functioning.
Re:Come on, Elon, quit fooling around. (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you think the model 3 development is funded? This IS the business model. Make expensive cars to raise money for the development of (lower margin) affordable cars. Also, this doesn't inhibit the model 3's development. It's not like they have to do one thing at a time.
0.85G Average Acceleration (Score:4, Informative)
60 mph is 26.8224 meters per second. At 3.2 seconds, that's 8.382 mps2 / gravity (9.8 mps2) = 0.85G. I'll bet it's even higher off the line.
Used Model S (Score:4, Insightful)
When Tesla recently announced their certified used program, people were asking, "What would someone trading in a Model S buy? Another Model S?" Now we have an answer to that question.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
It is easy to make cool expensive stuff. Now when they get one down to say 50k loaded we can talk.
Or to steal an old idea from Jack Tramiel. We need electric cars for the masses not the classes.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
It is easy to make cool expensive stuff. Now when they get one down to say 50k loaded we can talk. Or to steal an old idea from Jack Tramiel. We need electric cars for the masses not the classes.
It's a supercar. It does have the unique position among the supercars that there are very few people arguing that McLaren needs to make a F1 for the masses
Re: (Score:2)
And Supercars are not important as far as environmental impact.
Re: (Score:2)
Did he say he was going to get there in 2014?
Or with this model?
Re: (Score:2)
I bought one and put it to work printing another. Then these two will print more - with each new one printing even more.
When I have enough, I'm going to print a planet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This must be the kind of thinking that generates votes for Republican tax cuts for the rich.
The top 20% of HOUSEHOLD income starts at $101k. A five year loan for a Tesla with $10k down results in a monthly payment of $2,055 @ 4.59%.
There's no way a household with $101k income could afford to make house payments and drive a Tesla at $2k a month. That's 25% of their income for a highly depreciable asset.
Depending on their life choices (live in small, shitty efficiency, no kids, no vacations, buy everything
Re: (Score:3)
Only if you are willing to spend more than half your yearly income on a car.
And 70k is for the short range stripped model. I is is more in the 9k range nicely equipped.
Re: (Score:2)
$140k fully decked out.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you are willing to spend more than half your yearly income on a car.
16k a year for the top end model. That's only around 1/3rd of your income if you make the median income of the US (~51k). And having the median income puts you far, far away from the top 1%.
Re: (Score:2)
Stock top-end model, I should clarify.
Re: Awesome (Score:2)
we owned a Pontiac minivan for three years - over that time it cost us about $50,000 in acquisition cost, gasoline, and repairs, net out eight thousand for the trade in 'value' at the end of its miserable life. Who wants to claim that makes us 1 or 2 percenters? It was a real mistake to buy a GM product, but that doesn't mean that the target market was anything other than middle America.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you are willing to spend more than half your yearly income on a car.
16k a year for the top end model. That's only around 1/3rd of your income if you make the median income of the US (~51k). And having the median income puts you far, far away from the top 1%.
When talking fractions of yearly income do you count gross or net pay? I would never spend 1/3 of my net income on a car, unless I could pay cash.
Re: (Score:2)
half? so 140k? 140k is high income. if someone is making 140k a year it's not a problem at all to spend 70k on a car that gets used a few years.
median household income is 50k or something. that's household not individual.
and the other features than being electric.. they're pretty much on par with 100k mercs as they should .
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live the rule of thumb is that you spend between 1/2 year and 1 year household income (before tax) on car(s) every 5-6 years.
Average household income for dual income households ( most are) is slightly above $160 000, which puts the Tesla D within the car spending budget of almost half the households over here.
I'm just pissed I didn't hold out another 2 months before ordering mine early in September.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
New cars (non-electric ones) are HEAVILY taxed here. A modest family car costs $60-70 000. A decent SUV costs $200 000 (and the roads are full of them).
A Tesla S and a low end 5-series BMW or E-class Mercedes costs about the same here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How you do figure that? 100k is upper middle class, or there about.
Where do you live that 100k per year is considered middle class? I've been a professional software engineer for 14 years and don't make that kind of dough. Of course you have to take into account the cost of living for my state, and the fact that workers here earn about 75-80% of the national average.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue that a middle classer who bought a car that costs more than a year's salary has piss poor money management.
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that anyone who bought a car that costs more than a year's salary has piss poor money management skills. ;-)
Teslas shouldn't be in the radar of the middle class right now. Leave them for people that make >> $200K for now. Early adopters always pay more and can afford to be out-of-date when the next revision comes down the line a few months later.
I don't understand why people want to buy things they can't afford. I understand that for the economy it's a good thing, but for the individu
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
I would complain about Tesla's marketing to people who can't afford their cars, but ... I can't recall any marketing done by them other than their blog and videos on YouTube.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand why people want to buy things they can't afford.
I don't think that you understand: the car goes really fast and looks really cool , and I want one.
Note that this is different than:
I don't understand why people do buy things they can't afford.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that anyone who spent more than 1/3 of a year's salary on a car would be financially stupid.
Also anyone who didn't pay in cash, or have the ability to pay in cash despite financing is being stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they have pretty piss poor money management if true.
You suggest a 100K earner take a loan out on a 70K+ car, and can say that with a straight face?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
A $70k car, with a 5 year note at 5.5% interest is a monthly payment of $1337.
A head house hold primary earner of family of 4 with a $100k annual salary is probably looking at ~80k after taxes.
A $250k mortgage, +PMI, +Homeowners insurance, +Property Tax is going to be ~1500 a month: 62k.
Health insurance, assuming they have a job with benefits is probably $600 a month (give or take depending on amorting the deductible over the year and out of pocket expenses), 55k.
Groceries are ~250 a week, 42k.
Electric/Gas/Water/Sewage/Home maintenance is another $500 a month, 36k.
Depending on your driving history/age/location, insurance is going to be between 1500 and 5000 a year, 34k.
Cable/Phone/Internet, pick your poison, you're likely out ~120 a month, 32k.
Add on that $1337/month car payment and you're down to $16k.
Note that at this point, you still need to buy clothes (especially for 2 growing kids) likely have a 2nd car, with insurance, a fuel bill, and maintenance (possibly even another loan), maybe student loans, heaven forbid either of your kids need braces, or your water heater dies.
So yes, an upper-middle income individual /could/ in theory do it. But it would mean living extremely modestly and surviving basically paycheck to paycheck. Any significant disruption would lead to immediate financial stability concerns.
That individual would be dramatically better off putting that 16k a year into a 401k and IRA or college funds for the kids. Buying a 70k car isn't an investment, even if it retains its value better than other vehicles, you're still losing out big time between depreciation and interest payments.
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
Groceries & phone are under estimated if you have teenagers.
Roughly double.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW those are some nice numbers and seem to match reality fairly well, although I might chop a bit more off for taxes since SSI is 6.2%, and then there is the Medicaid, Federal, and also likely state income taxes so I would push total the post tax value a little closer to $75k
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need to make 100k/year to afford a Tesla. The stock P85 is around ~1300/month which is only about 1/3rd of what is the median income in the US.
Most middle classer's cannot afford a car greater than or equal to their income for a year.
Then they have pretty piss poor money management if true.
1/3 of your income for the monthly payment on a depreciating asset? That's just crazy. The payments on my family's TWO cars comes to less than 10% of my gross income, and I think that's too high.
Good money management does not mean figuring out a way squeak by while squandering your family income on something you don't actually need.
Re: (Score:3)
You have no fucking clue huh? And you're obviously young and single with no experience managing your finances.
The average American salary is around $40K/yr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
That's more like $2,500/month after taxes, health insurance, etc...if you're lucky enough to take home 75% of your income. I take home about 60%.
The Tesla will cost you $1,300 month + $200 month for insurance + $100 month for power = $1,600
About 65% of your monthly spending. Good luck living in your car with the remaining
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$10,000 isn't close to enough to be saving for later life. You only (typically) get about 35 years of working life, and most of us will get around 30-35 years as a pensioner. That means that you're currently setting yourself up to be living on $10,000 a year (assuming investment keeps up with inflation).
Re: (Score:2)
assuming investment keeps up with inflation
That's far too pessimistic. $10k invested now is worth more than $10k in 35 years after inflation.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you know what inflation does...
Re: (Score:3)
$10,000 isn't close to enough to be saving for later life. You only (typically) get about 35 years of working life, and most of us will get around 30-35 years as a pensioner. That means that you're currently setting yourself up to be living on $10,000 a year (assuming investment keeps up with inflation).
You must be European. Retirement age in the US ~67, no way 'most of us' are making it to late 90's.
Re: Awesome (Score:3)
Worst case inflation, 18.5k/year(present dollars) is about minimum wage, and maintaining lifestyle will eat up the 500-900k present dollar savings for many retirees in <10 years. I hope they don't intend to live past 75 (average life expectancy is already at least that).
Re: (Score:3)
I save more than $10k a year even with those payments. How would that make me financially irresponsible?
If you are a US worker making $80k, you can put $17,500 a year into your 401K and another $5,500 into a Roth IRA..... so your saving $10k/year is less than 1/2 the money you could be putting into your retirement accounts for the year.
If you are over age 50, you could be putting in $23,500 (401K) and $6,500 (Roth IRA)..... so your saving $10k/year would be only a third of what you could be saving, in your retirement account alone.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that post trolling? Even the highest-end Tesla is less than $1300/month. I can afford that along with a $1000/month mortgage with only a $80,000/year salary and that salary does not put me in the top 1% by any stretch.
Maybe not in the US, but how about Worldwide?
Re: (Score:3)
So, your living costs are something very approximating twice what the monthly car cost would be, and I presume you'd be paying it for something like 5 years. That gives you a choice between 1: accelerating very fast for a few tens of seconds per day, instead of rather slower and 2: having two and a half years off work (or retiring earlier) and doing something important to you instead.
There's nothing actually illogical about preferring the first. But I think it's reasonable to call it an extreme preference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If there is a charging station, you drive for about 4-5 hours, pull in for a 30 minute lunch and let the car charge, drive another couple hours, have supper and charge, drive some more to your final destination and charge over night so you are ready to repeat the next day. 275+200+200 = 675 miles if you have a reasonable number of charging stations along your route.
Re: (Score:3)
Supercharger gives you 170 miles in 30 min.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My dad had this idea years ago. Why hitch up a trailer with a generator in it? I mean, I know the car would have to be made to accept a charge while it's turning the wheels, but that's the crux of the Volt which is an in-series hybrid.
Your around-town jumper then becomes a long-haul vehicle. Probably not as efficient or cheap as a purpose built tool, but it'll get you there.
So there has to be something more to this idea because it hasn't happened yet. What am I missing here?
Re: (Score:2)
So there has to be something more to this idea because it hasn't happened yet. What am I missing here?
It's not a bad idea, and the TZero [wikipedia.org] had a trailer like that as an option.
I think it's not done more often because it's not that practical: in particular, dragging a heavy trailer around is awkward and reduces your car's range, and a generator powerful enough to recharge your car sufficiently while it drives is going to be fairly large/heavy. Factor in the additional cost, and most manufacturers figure the cheaper and simpler approach is just to keep the car light and maximize its range that way.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, let's say you drive it hard so range is reduced to 200 miles. To cover your 400 mile trip you would need to charge once, possibly twice. At a Supercharger it takes 50 minutes, although they are boosting them up to 150kW so it will come down to 40 minutes in the next year.
You are making a day of it, so are you really saying you drive 400 miles without any kind of break? Many ICE cars can't drive that far on a single tank, especially if you drive them hard, so presumably you at least stop to fill up onc
Re: (Score:3)