Tesla Master Plan part deux

[babatunde]

RobDickinson said:

Interesting, quite a short range but possibly enough for a days work for local delivery stuff. Will need a few hours to recharge minimum.

26 tons locally, which isnt enough for a fully loaded container , shame.

Range = weight = less usable.

baby steps... remembering that local deliveries will rarely be a fully loaded container and battery swapping might well be viable in a fleet/depot scenario

Anyway the fact that MB are even considering it and spending $500m on their own battery factory is a positive sign for the EV

[JD]

Jader1973 said:

FurtiveFreddy said:

Daimler unveils its first all-electric eTruck

http://electrek.co/2016/07/27/daimler-etruck-first...

I think they are actually way ahead of Tesla with this stuff and they are just being much more conservative with the release because they appreciate the risks.

Where are you getting this from?


http://www.autofil.no/936897/hands-off

http://www.thedrive.com/tech/4591/the-war-for-auto...

"It drove like a drunk ten year old, fighting for the wheel with a drunk fourteen year old. It was, in most conditions, dangerous"

[Tonsko]

Jader1973 said:

Interesting.

I read yesterday that MB made some programming changes to a production E Class at an event in the US and switched it over to being fully autonomous. They then said that while they could do it today with the tech they have they wouldn't because they believe the tech needs to be introduced gradually.

I think they are actually way ahead of Tesla with this stuff and they are just being much more conservative with the release because they appreciate the risks.

I don't believe MB has a fully autonomous vehicle at all. 'Not introducing it because the market isn't ready' sounds like nonsense. If it was properly Level 4 they'd be the first to shout, and offer it in their top end model.

That, and the fact they had a fully functioning AI would be all over the specialist press. That would be huge news.

Edited by Tonsko on Thursday 28th July 14:11

[FurtiveFreddy]

MB and the rest of them are now furiously trying to play catch up with Tesla.

And it's just what Elon Musk wants them to do.

It's going to take the mainstream manufacturers some time to actually catch up, but their marketing and sales machines will be claiming all sorts of victories along the way. Tesla don't bother with all that nonsense and it's a very refreshing approach IMO.

[EricE]

RobDickinson said:

MB are working with the same company Tesla have been (mobileye) though Tesla have just ditched them for a complete in house system I think

I remember that Mobileye's stock took a dive a few weeks ago when Telsa mysteriously vanished off their list of partners. Both companies denied the split back then.

[mikemike08]

I remember back in 2006-2007 what people were saying about tesla on this very forum. Im very happy that way they went forward, only if some people here could do that life would be much better for everyone,instead of stting on everything

[mybrainhurts]

mikemike08 said:

I remember back in 2006-2007 what people were saying about tesla on this very forum. Im very happy that way they went forward, only if some people here could do that life would be much better for everyone,instead of stting on everything

How can the demise of the glorious sound of a powerful internal combustion engine make life better for everyone except, of course, those dreary, boring, meddling environmentalists?

You'll be wanting to replace noisy artillery pieces with bloody cattle prods next.

Get a grip, man, and overcome your feminine side. You know it makes sense...

[mikemike08]

I drive an mx5

Ive been in tesla, cant really say i would miss the clatter of diesel, the driving experience of a ford, badge of audi or the ultimate driving machine that are bmws . All pretty meh in the last 10 years

[Jader1973]

JD said:

Where are you getting this from?


http://www.autofil.no/936897/hands-off

http://www.thedrive.com/tech/4591/the-war-for-auto...

"It drove like a drunk ten year old, fighting for the wheel with a drunk fourteen year old. It was, in most conditions, dangerous"

"Tesla fanboys love Tesla" shocker.

[andrewrob]

Jader1973 said:

JD said:

Where are you getting this from?


http://www.autofil.no/936897/hands-off

http://www.thedrive.com/tech/4591/the-war-for-auto...

"It drove like a drunk ten year old, fighting for the wheel with a drunk fourteen year old. It was, in most conditions, dangerous"

"Tesla fanboys love Tesla" shocker.

The pictures further down on the second link are pretty damning though

[98elise]

Jader1973 said:

JD said:

Where are you getting this from?


http://www.autofil.no/936897/hands-off

http://www.thedrive.com/tech/4591/the-war-for-auto...

"It drove like a drunk ten year old, fighting for the wheel with a drunk fourteen year old. It was, in most conditions, dangerous"

"Tesla fanboys love Tesla" shocker.

Can you post some evidence that MB are way ahead (as per your previous post). I'm not questioning that they are, I would just like to see both sides. I have a Tesla on order and some level of autonomy is a big plus for me.

Those two reviews pretty much slate MB's Drive Pilot.

[Talksteer]

Jader1973 said:

Talksteer said:

Jader1973 said:

Talksteer said:

Trucks cannot go more than 220 miles without the driver stopping.

In Europe. I think you'll find the US and Australia will be different.

For example Aus regs state:
In any period of 5.5 hours a driver must not work for more than 5.25 hours.

Given trucks here are 100 km/h limited that is 500km of driving, or 300 miles.

In 11 hours they can work for 10 as long as the break is more than 15 mins at a time. So in theory they could drive 1,000 km (600 miles) without stopping and then have an hour off.

What's your point?

So Europe and Asia manage to move their transport fleet to mostly electric. I would be very surprised if the US doesn't follow suite, either accepting shorter ranges or using larger batteries. If a quick change battery takes only a minute to change is this even a big issue?

Australia really doesn't matter from a global perspective!

Edited by Talksteer on Tuesday 26th July 12:38

That is a very small minded view.

You cannot use the argument that because it is okay for a very small country like the UK it can be applied globally. The automotive (and truck and bus) industry is global and therefore thinks globally.

There are many countries (e.g. Australia, Canada, USA, bits of South America, Russia, China) where the distances covered by truck are much bigger than those in the UK and an EV limited to 220 miles before a full recharge would be useless.

No it's a very small minded reading of my post.

The entire EU gets by with trucks being limited to 4.50 hours. The EU is a big enough market to spur the development of electric trucks.

Once they do exist I doubt very much that any country is going to hold back on their adoption because the truck has to stop every 4 hours for 5 minutes to swap a battery. The economic and social benefits are too great.

Electric trucks will work any place where there is grid electricity. Currently around 80% of people in developed countries live in a city and 60% in the developing world, these numbers are only going up.

Sure there are plenty of places where electricity, development and infrastructure aren't ready for this but these places are in the minority.

The technology to do this exists, it is a matter of building the infrastructure in terms of battery swapping.

[Jader1973]

98elise said:

Can you post some evidence that MB are way ahead (as per your previous post). I'm not questioning that they are, I would just like to see both sides. I have a Tesla on order and some level of autonomy is a big plus for me.

Those two reviews pretty much slate MB's Drive Pilot.

I can't find any other reviews where Drive Pilot is tested, other than on the MB press drive, which is odd. If there were issues with the system I'd have expected it to be all over the press and in every review.

Autoblog reckon it is the best system they've experienced. They say that provided you pay attention and tap the wheel every few seconds you could drive for miles without using the steering, brakes etc.

However if you want true autonomy then the Tesla is the way to go because it doesn't force drivers to pay attention, which of course has some issues associated with it.

On the other hand MB have deliberately forced drivers to maintain overall control. One article quoted them as saying they don't believe a human who wasn't paying attention could react quickly enough in the event of something going wrong so they force them to stay involved - in effect you still drive the car, it simply helps when required. They also said they believe this is the safest path because the radar and cameras can only see so far in front and until the car can connect to other cars and the road infrastructure, so it can "see" further ahead by getting info from cars ahead of it, they didn't think I should go any further in terms of autonomy. The E Class is capable of connecting, it is just the other stuff isn't.

They've taken a typical auto industry approach and have limited their exposure to things going wrong, unlike Tesla who have switched the whole lot on and are intending to learn from any accidents.

Personally I detest most of the driver aids - I borrowed a car with lane keep assist for a few days a couple of weeks ago. I didn't know it had it and someone else borrowed it during the day and switched it on. When I was driving back home I couldn't figure out why the steering felt weird, then I realised there was a little green steering wheel illuminated in the cluster. It gave me the sts. After dark, if there is nothing coming the other way, I drive with my RH wheels on the white line on unlit country roads so I'm as far away as possible from the verge in case Skippy and his pals decide to bounce onto the road - this bloody thing fought me the whole time. I turned it off when I worked out which button it was.

Still, each to their own I guess.

[ZX10R NIN]

Talksteer said:

No it's a very small minded reading of my post.

The entire EU gets by with trucks being limited to 4.50 hours. The EU is a big enough market to spur the development of electric trucks.

Once they do exist I doubt very much that any country is going to hold back on their adoption because the truck has to stop every 4 hours for 5 minutes to swap a battery. The economic and social benefits are too great.

Electric trucks will work any place where there is grid electricity. Currently around 80% of people in developed countries live in a city and 60% in the developing world, these numbers are only going up.

Sure there are plenty of places where electricity, development and infrastructure aren't ready for this but these places are in the minority.

The technology to do this exists, it is a matter of building the infrastructure in terms of battery swapping.

Where are you getting all of these batteries from & where are you going to store them?
The batteries would have to be on the truck's route so I'm guessing Motorway services, do you know how many batteries that would take? Especially when you take into account how many 44 ton trucks are on the UK's roads on any 1 day.

You'd be happy as someone who's worried about the environment for the mining for Lithium to carry on unabated infact it would have to be massively accelerated despite the effects on the environment & those living in those countries from which it's mined?

At the moment you'd lose tonnage capacity by going electric so that means more trucks, this is before you take into account the extra electricity demands which would mean bringing more nuclear power stations online maybe in an area close to where you live which of course you'd be happy with.

Now I'm not saying that an ICE vehicle is any better than an EV one it all depends on usage, but what I am saying EV's aren't the green future that they're being portrayed to be but what they are is an alternative to be considered alongside ICE when looking for a vehicle then pick one that suits your needs rather than picking because you think it's greener than another.

As for which car has the best Auto Pilot I couldn't care less if you don't want to drive your car don't drive!

[otolith]

ZX10R NIN said:

You'd be happy as someone who's worried about the environment for the mining for Lithium to carry on unabated infact it would have to be massively accelerated despite the effects on the environment & those living in those countries from which it's mined?

What do you think lithium extraction looks like?

What do you think the effects on the environment are?

(if you are imagining the meme with a picture of an open cast mine, that's a copper mine, it's actually extracted by pumping brine out of underground reservoirs and letting it evaporate in lagoons)

[anonymous-user]

ZX10R NIN said:

You'd be happy as someone who's worried about the environment for the mining for Lithium to carry on unabated infact it would have to be massively accelerated despite the effects on the environment & those living in those countries from which it's mined?

Lets be honest. You don't really know what you're talking about. Lithium isn't mined, it's pumped out the ground in some of the most inhospitable, deadest places on earth.

This is one of the worlds biggest 'mines' in the Attacama desert.


Oh and just for a laugh here's an oil sands mine in Athabasca, Canada

[ZX10R NIN]

I watched a report about the mining of lithium & it was explaining while EV's are good in terms of the gasses they don't produce they're also not very green when you take into account the process of producing them from start to finish as well as through their life cycle when the range will decrease as the batteries get older.

It was showed that the depletion of drinking water resources in the towns & cities near the mines in Chile/Bolivia were causing human/environmental issues due to waste contamination in the freshwater supply, this is on top of in Chile's case a previous contamination issue.

It was emphasised that the Lithium mining process was no worse to the environment than the collection of oil & gas but was scathing in its conclusion that oil companies & car makers were dragging their respective heals on Hydrogen/fuel cell technology as it would require wholesale infrastructure changes all of which cost money.

Something large corporations are unwilling to do at the moment as it's easier/cheaper to take the EV route right now especially with the incentives governments are giving out & it's a lot less of a burden to vehicle manufacturers as they don't have to make many changes, it's the same for the oil companies as it would mean redesigning fuel stations & you only have to look at the way they took on LPG to see they won't want to do that.

Which leaves the governments in a pickle as they now have to produce more electricity which means more nuclear power stations in reality but comes with a big headache as no one wants a Nuclear Power Plant built near them or they have to build fossil fueled power stations all of which pump out unhealthy gases.

Which is the reason they rated hydrogen as if taken on properly would see no change in most people's way of life (go to the petrol station fill up & go) but environmentally it would be a more environmentally balanced approach than ICE/EV vehicles.

Also we're running out of fresh water we're using it up at an alarming rate to the point that we're looking likely to run out of drinking water before we run out of oil!! Especially when over half the world's drinking water can be found in just six countries I have to say this was something that I personally found quite alarming.

We've already had a war over oil how long until one over water?

So as I said EV's are a credible alternative to ICE vehicles but just not as green as they are being portrayed to be.

Edited by ZX10R NIN on Friday 29th July 16:50

[ZX10R NIN]

fblm said:

Lets be honest. You don't really know what you're talking about. Lithium isn't mined, it's pumped out the ground in some of the most inhospitable, deadest places on earth.

No I don't know all there is to know about lithium mining (while it is pumped out of the ground they call it mining) but I've read & watched reports on the impact it's having some have been biased one way or another depending on who's paying but there an impact, even the EPA in the US is saying there is an impact but can't be sure what the long term effects are as yet with the increase in demand.

[98elise]

ZX10R NIN said:

I watched a report about the mining of lithium & it was explaining while EV's are good in terms of the gasses they don't produce they're also not very green when you take into account the process of producing them from start to finish as well as through their life cycle when the range will decrease as the batteries get older.

It was showed that the depletion of drinking water resources in the towns & cities near the mines in Chile/Bolivia were causing human/environmental issues on top of this waste contamination were causing health issues.

It was emphasised that the Lithium mining process was no worse to the environment than the collection of oil & gas but was scathing in its conclusion that oil companies & car makers were dragging their respective heals on Hydrogen/fuel cell technology as it would require wholesale infrastructure changes all of which cost money.

Something large corporations are unwilling to do at the moment as it's easier/cheaper to take the EV route right now especially with the incentives governments are giving out & it's a lot less of a burden to vehicle manufacturers as they don't have to make many changes, it's the same for the oil companies as it would mean redesigning fuel stations & you only have to look at the way they took on LPG to see they won't want to do that.

Which leaves the governments in a pickle as they now have to produce more electricity which means more nuclear power stations in reality but comes with a big headache as no one wants a Nuclear Power Plant built near them or they have to build fossil fueled power stations all of which pump out unhealthy gases.

Which is the reason they rated hydrogen as if taken on properly would see no change in most people's way of life (go to the petrol station fill up & go) but environmentally it would be a more environmentally balanced approach than ICE/EV vehicles.

Also we're running out of drinking water we're using it up at an alarming rate to the point that we're looking likely to run out of drinking water before we run out of oil!! Especially when over half the world's drinking water can be found in just six countries I have to say this was something that I personally found quite alarming.

We've already had a war over oil how long until one over water?

So as I said EV's are a credible alternative to ICE vehicles but just not as green as they are being portrayed to be.

How did they explain away the need for huge amounts of energy needed to create hydrogen? Hydrogen is just an energy store. It can be thought of as a very very inefficient battery. How many more power stations would you nee if you tripled the energyrequirements for every car?

Edited by 98elise on Friday 29th July 17:14

[otolith]

They're dragging their feet on hydrogen because as a solution it is fking retarded.