Tesla upgrades roadster to 400+ mile range

[EVT1]

www.technologyreview.com/news/533846/how-tesla-boosted-its-roadsters-range-by-50-percent/

Now I am sure the Tesla haters, or actually electric car haters will attack the crap out of this, it should be noted the only people that really have a problem with the new technology are either political jerks or members of the current market that wants to defend itself against competition.

     Tesla stopped making the $100,000-plus Roadster in 2011, but this spring those who already own one can upgrade it to travel 400 miles on a charge, a 50 percent increase. The new range is competitive with conventional cars, which typically can travel 350 to 500 miles on a tank of gasoline.

     But the biggest improvement comes from increasing the energy density of the battery pack. Each pack contains thousands of cylindrical battery cells that look similar to AA batteries. “Cell technology has improved substantially” since Tesla designed the Roadster, the company said in its announcement. For the upgrade it will replace the original cells with new ones that store 31 percent more energy.

And the gigafactory is still a construction project.  So- anyone want to bet whether battery technology increases faster than internal combustion engine technology in the next 20 years

The future is a given- and if anything can keep gas at $2 a gallon it is this.  And it will still lose. 

 

[EVT1]

Wanted to add this video that has been destroyed by gas engine people that are full of shit- this is a Tesla model S- a freaking 4 door family car taking on an old Ferrari- a race car. The point of this exercise is that Tesla was not making a race car- it just offered a performance option- and we are talking an affordable car- not an exclusive item.

[EVT1]

[EVT1]

CODA: 691 horsepower that plugs into your house

[mroped]

Now all they have to do is make it affordable. At $100k or near it is not within reach for everybody.

[mmhmm]

I'd have coveted that sucker all over the place about 30 years ago. Now, not so much. Age does have its good points. I'm not tempted to drop 100 grand on a fancy car. 

[djAdvocate]

Dec 31, 2014 0:47:09 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

www.technologyreview.com/news/533846/how-tesla-boosted-its-roadsters-range-by-50-percent/

Now I am sure the Tesla haters, or actually electric car haters will attack the crap out of this,

 

are you, now? 

[Deleted]

I think the Tesla's are awesome cars... but they priced them too high to keep up demand. Those cars aren't worth $100,000.

(but then, Ferrari's and Lamborghini's aren't worth what they cost either)

[kent]

Dec 31, 2014 19:41:00 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I think the Tesla's are awesome cars... but they priced them too high to keep up demand. Those cars aren't worth $100,000.

(but then, Ferrari's and Lamborghini's aren't worth what they cost either)

A couple of friends have them and they are awesome - great performance and great looks. While I could probably stretch to get one, like mmhmm said, age has its advantages and there's no way I'd drop !00K for a car - I'd spend the next two weeks puking my guts out due to buyers remorse.

 

[Deleted]

If I had the money for a $100,000 car, I'd drop it without any remorse... but it'd be a car WORTH $100,000... a Tesla isn't. It's worth about $50,000 (at best).

[siralynn]

We're currently leasing a Nissan LEAF (which we really like), but we're definitely keeping an eye on Tesla. The Model S is not likely to be within our reach in the near term, but very interested to see how the "affordable" sedan turns out in a few years. If they can get something under $40k out, we'll probably bite. Though I don't want to think how long the waiting list will probably be!

(We live in one of the counties with the highest adoption of EVs. There's actually a Tesla showroom about 15 miles from our house.)

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Dec 31, 2014 0:47:09 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

www.technologyreview.com/news/533846/how-tesla-boosted-its-roadsters-range-by-50-percent/

Now I am sure the Tesla haters, or actually electric car haters will attack the crap out of this, it should be noted the only people that really have a problem with the new technology are either political jerks or members of the current market that wants to defend itself against competition.

     Tesla stopped making the $100,000-plus Roadster in 2011, but this spring those who already own one can upgrade it to travel 400 miles on a charge, a 50 percent increase. The new range is competitive with conventional cars, which typically can travel 350 to 500 miles on a tank of gasoline.

     But the biggest improvement comes from increasing the energy density of the battery pack. Each pack contains thousands of cylindrical battery cells that look similar to AA batteries. “Cell technology has improved substantially” since Tesla designed the Roadster, the company said in its announcement. For the upgrade it will replace the original cells with new ones that store 31 percent more energy.

And the gigafactory is still a construction project.  So- anyone want to bet whether battery technology increases faster than internal combustion engine technology in the next 20 years

The future is a given- and if anything can keep gas at $2 a gallon it is this.  And it will still lose. 

That's interesting.  My Honda Odyssey goes about that far, and it's not a car- it's a minivan with seating for 7 AND their stuff.  And it takes about 3 minutes to refuel and hit the road again.  And it costs roughly $60,000 less.  I don't need $60,000 worth of unleaded gasoline futures.  I'll pay-as-I-go, thanks.  Oh, and btw- that Honda of mine?  I'll have it in 10 years, and it won't need a $30,000 overhaul.

[EVT1]

No one is suggesting you do. It is simply a glimpse into the near future as gas motors for ordinary drivers are going the route of the 8 track tape.  Range and refuel times will not be an issue, costs will drop.  You can bank on that.

But a 30K overhaul   Yeah right- there is nothing to overhaul compared with a gas burner- and if you think batteries are going to cost even a 4th of that in ten years I have some futures to sell you.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 1, 2015 14:54:44 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

No one is suggesting you do. It is simply a glimpse into the near future as gas motors for ordinary drivers are going the route of the 8 track tape.  Range and refuel times will not be an issue, costs will drop.  You can bank on that.

But a 30K overhaul   Yeah right- there is nothing to overhaul compared with a gas burner- and if you think batteries are going to cost even a 4th of that in ten years I have some futures to sell you.

Tesla has been extremely deceptive regarding true cost of ownership- including such things as "time saved using HOV lanes" in their calculations based on nationwide average commute times.  Puh-leeze.

Tesla does not factor in the battery charge degradation over time- you do not lose performance over the years, or decrease range with a gasoline engine by the same noticeable margin.  As fond as Tesla is for the "time saved in HOV lanes" they neglect time to "refuel"- charge, and the increased need / frequency of refueling.

Now, you may drive expensive to maintain cars, but I drive Hondas.  We buy gas, and get oil changes and tire rotations (the latter two are still required for the Tesla).

If you drive 15,000 miles year, ICE 22 MPG, gas = $3.80 gallon, kwh's = $0.11/kwh by Tesla's own numbers @ www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#savings - Can't really compare Tesla's newest car, but the Model S = $467 year in fuel cost $0.03 per-mile in fuel--  that is until you figure in the cost of replacing the "fuel tank" (battery) at the end of an 8 year life span.  For which you have to budget $1500 year - making the cost of the Tesla's fuel system $1967/year or $0.13 per-mile in fuel…(and my Odyssey actually gets closer to 24, and as I've said is a far more capable vehicle, larger, and has something else: towing capacity).

There are other costs and risks which I'm not even factoring in, just for purposes of comparing fuel costs,  I'm only focused on the "fuel" system cost and treat the battery as the moral equivalent of the "fuel tank". Which also gambles that the Tesla's battery life doesn't shrink, or need to be replaced in 6 years.

[EVT1]

That's the cost today. Gas motors are not going to get much more efficient and certainly not less expensive- batteries are. 

Also in the mix- you might have to replace that engine or transmission by 8 years as well, not to mention all of the other maintenance and repairs an electric car will not need.

The change is inevitable- but it isn't going to start with the minivans or tow packages- it will be the daily commuters first.

Don't get my wrong- I love gas engines- I have had my share of hot rods and nothing beats the sound and feel- but the writing is on the wall.  I know where my money is.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 2, 2015 16:12:31 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

That's the cost today. Gas motors are not going to get much more efficient and certainly not less expensive- batteries are. 

Also in the mix- you might have to replace that engine or transmission by 8 years as well, not to mention all of the other maintenance and repairs an electric car will not need.

The change is inevitable- but it isn't going to start with the minivans or tow packages- it will be the daily commuters first.

Don't get my wrong- I love gas engines- I have had my share of hot rods and nothing beats the sound and feel- but the writing is on the wall.  I know where my money is.

The electric propulsion plant and components will definitely need maintenance.  However, as I've said- I drive Hondas.  There will be no transmission in 8 years.  It takes 8 years to begin to break in a Honda.

I don't hate Tesla.  I don't hate the idea of electric cars.  I don't like the fact that Tesla is so heavily subsidized- I'd like to see them sell a product for which there is actual demand, and I'd love it if it made economic sense to own one.  I would love, just as a matter of national security to see nuclear power, and electric damn near everything, and a whole bunch of islamists dining on sand.

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2015 16:12:31 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

That's the cost today. Gas motors are not going to get much more efficient and certainly not less expensive- batteries are. 

Also in the mix- you might have to replace that engine or transmission by 8 years as well, not to mention all of the other maintenance and repairs an electric car will not need.

The change is inevitable- but it isn't going to start with the minivans or tow packages- it will be the daily commuters first.

Don't get my wrong- I love gas engines- I have had my share of hot rods and nothing beats the sound and feel- but the writing is on the wall.  I know where my money is.

Battery operated will never replace "direct fuel activated" for the entire road population. Not gonna happen. Even the best batteries in the world will ALWAYS be too inefficient when it comes time to "refuel".

Gasoline MAY (probably will) eventually "go the way of the dinosaur" (as the saying goes)... but something else that's "short-time refuel" (only takes a few minutes to replace/reload) will replace it. It may be Hydrogen power. Heck, we may all end up with Back to the Future's "Mr Fusion" and some sort of fusion power. Who knows... all I know is it won't be batteries.

[EVT1]

I wouldn't bet on that- and in fact I would bet it will be possible to recharge batteries faster than you can transfer a liquid or gas fuel in the near future.  Do you not think there are huge battery advances coming?  Do you not think near instantaneous recharging is possible? 

BTW a Tesla Roadster can already swap a battery pack out faster than it takes to refuel a similar vehicle- it is just a matter of being able to recharge one that fast.  It will happen.  

[EVT1]

The 'gas' stations of the future may only be located near highways and feature drive up automatic charging, or depending on the technology automatic inductive charging may be happen just simply by driving in a particular lane for a while allowing the long haul industry to shed the diesels.  Might just happen in our lifetime.

 

[EVT1]

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/planes-go-hybridelectric-in-important-step-to-greener-flight-9943747.html

     The first ever hybrid aircraft to be able to recharge its batteries took off yesterday — potentially signalling the beginning of a new form of low-carbon, green flight.  Cambridge University researchers teamed up with Boeing to make the plane.

     Hybrid engines — which are gaining popularity in cars — combine a battery and a petrol engine. Doing so uses 30 per cent less fuel than a plane with a petrol-only engine.

     The petrol engine works with the battery-powered one at take-off and climb, when the plane needs extra power, but the electric motor can then switch into generator mode and recharges the batteries, or help the motor in minimising fuel consumption.

It's a physics thing- the next thing that is going to happen is hybrids are going to be the norm.  Then slowly the gas motors are going to vanish.   How to recharge a plane in flight?  See Tesla (the man)

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2015 21:00:30 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I wouldn't bet on that- and in fact I would bet it will be possible to recharge batteries faster than you can transfer a liquid or gas fuel in the near future.  Do you not think there are huge battery advances coming?  Do you not think near instantaneous recharging is possible? 

BTW a Tesla Roadster can already swap a battery pack out faster than it takes to refuel a similar vehicle- it is just a matter of being able to recharge one that fast.  It will happen.  

Near instantaneous recharging is a pipe dream. The fastest charge time for a FULL charge on a "fast charger" is 3 hours (source). If the pack isn't "nearly dead" and you are basically just "topping it off", the first 20% is the hardest, the last 80% is the easiest) you can do the 80% in 20 minutes with the right charger. But that's still MUCH longer than the (approximately) 2 minutes it takes me to fill my tank with gas

Energy flow down a wire and battery charging capacity (before it melts itself) both will limit the speed of a "full from dead" recharge.

I know the battery pack swap can be faster... do you see "filling stations" changing over to "battery exchange stations"?

Also the operative words in the preceding are "can be". IF you have the tools, IF you have the strength or lift equipment AND IF you have a spare, fully charged pack to replace it with.

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2015 21:10:18 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

The 'gas' stations of the future may only be located near highways and feature drive up automatic charging, or depending on the technology automatic inductive charging may be happen just simply by driving in a particular lane for a while allowing the long haul industry to shed the diesels.  Might just happen in our lifetime.

 

Inductive power, I could get behind that... but that's apples and oranges to battery powered electric cars.

As long as the power source MUST be contained within the car, EV's will never be the dominant transportation option. I see it transitioning over to Hydrogen in the near future. Even cleaner than EV's.

[EVT1]

Jan 2, 2015 21:45:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 2, 2015 21:00:30 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

   

Near instantaneous recharging is a pipe dream. The fastest charge time for a FULL charge on a "fast charger" is 3 hours (source). If the pack isn't "nearly dead" and you are basically just "topping it off", the first 20% is the hardest, the last 80% is the easiest) you can do the 80% in 20 minutes with the right charger. But that's still MUCH longer than the (approximately) 2 minutes it takes me to fill my tank with gas

Energy flow down a wire and battery charging capacity (before it melts itself) both will limit the speed of a "full from dead" recharge.

3 hours now- 3 seconds in the future.  They can already do it small scale.

How in the hell can you defend what you think will happen to tech in the future by using a source with today's numbers?

You don't need a wire and there is no hard limit to electronic speed other than light.  And maybe even that will be in question.

You know how many pipe dreams the USA has done in practice?   They pipe dreamed it to the moon with less hardware than you smartphone has- you really want to be the contrarian?

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2015 22:39:56 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jan 2, 2015 21:45:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Near instantaneous recharging is a pipe dream. The fastest charge time for a FULL charge on a "fast charger" is 3 hours (source). If the pack isn't "nearly dead" and you are basically just "topping it off", the first 20% is the hardest, the last 80% is the easiest) you can do the 80% in 20 minutes with the right charger. But that's still MUCH longer than the (approximately) 2 minutes it takes me to fill my tank with gas

Energy flow down a wire and battery charging capacity (before it melts itself) both will limit the speed of a "full from dead" recharge.

3 hours now- 3 seconds in the future.  They can already do it small scale.

How in the hell can you defend what you think will happen to tech in the future by using a source with today's numbers?

You don't need a wire and there is no hard limit to electronic speed other than light.  And maybe even that will be in question.

You know how many pipe dreams the USA has done in practice?   They pipe dreamed it to the moon with less hardware than you smartphone has- you really want to be the contrarian?

There are physical realities and the realities of physics we have to deal with here though. Not pie in the sky dreaming.

3 second full charge from "Oh my GOD! I didn't think I'd make it to the charging station!"? Never going to happen.

3 second full charge from "I just fully charged it a block away... over there (pointing)"... sure. I can believe that.

And that trip to the moon was with less computing power than my smart phone has... not less hardware. The hardware required (engines, more than anything else) was MASSIVELY more huge.

[EVT1]

Never huh- how about 3 minutes? Or is 3 hours the best we are ever going to do so don't even bother......

I bet in 10 years you will be able to charge your smartphone in less than a minute and it will stay charged twice as long.  You have little faith in science.

[weltschmerz]

Dec 31, 2014 0:47:09 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

www.technologyreview.com/news/533846/how-tesla-boosted-its-roadsters-range-by-50-percent/

Now I am sure the Tesla haters, or actually electric car haters will attack the crap out of this, it should be noted the only people that really have a problem with the new technology are either political jerks or members of the current market that wants to defend itself against competition.

     Tesla stopped making the $100,000-plus Roadster in 2011, but this spring those who already own one can upgrade it to travel 400 miles on a charge, a 50 percent increase. The new range is competitive with conventional cars, which typically can travel 350 to 500 miles on a tank of gasoline.

     But the biggest improvement comes from increasing the energy density of the battery pack. Each pack contains thousands of cylindrical battery cells that look similar to AA batteries. “Cell technology has improved substantially” since Tesla designed the Roadster, the company said in its announcement. For the upgrade it will replace the original cells with new ones that store 31 percent more energy.

And the gigafactory is still a construction project.  So- anyone want to bet whether battery technology increases faster than internal combustion engine technology in the next 20 years

The future is a given- and if anything can keep gas at $2 a gallon it is this.  And it will still lose. 

 

It's only a matter of time. I remember when you had to carry a huge battery pack around your waist just to take videos. Now you can do it on your phone.

The damn oil companies just have to get out of the %*$#ing way!

[Deleted]

Jan 3, 2015 15:47:53 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Never huh- how about 3 minutes? Or is 3 hours the best we are ever going to do so don't even bother......

I bet in 10 years you will be able to charge your smartphone in less than a minute and it will stay charged twice as long.  You have little faith in science.

Au Contraire, I have lots of faith in science. I just also have lots of faith in Physics (unless you are privy to some new Physics discovery, of course).

A smart phone and a car are two entirely different beasts. In a smart phone, all the battery has to do is run the electronics and light the screen. In a car, the battery has to do all that AND move the 1 ton (or more) vehicle, AND run the A/C or heat.

As batteries advance, so does the electronics of the phone... making them less energy demanding (for the same function... obviously, new or bigger functions will have their own power demands), so I could see an eventual quick charge for the phone. More like 5 minutes probably though, for your "twice as long".

And we may beat 3 hours... we might even get it down to an hour, eventually... but that's probably going to be it. (and still a LOT longer than the roughly 2 minutes it takes me to gas up from empty).

[weltschmerz]

Jan 3, 2015 18:52:36 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 3, 2015 15:47:53 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Never huh- how about 3 minutes? Or is 3 hours the best we are ever going to do so don't even bother......

I bet in 10 years you will be able to charge your smartphone in less than a minute and it will stay charged twice as long.  You have little faith in science.

Au Contraire, I have lots of faith in science. I just also have lots of faith in Physics (unless you are privy to some new Physics discovery, of course).

A smart phone and a car are two entirely different beasts. In a smart phone, all the battery has to do is run the electronics and light the screen. In a car, the battery has to do all that AND move the 1 ton (or more) vehicle, AND run the A/C or heat.

As batteries advance, so does the electronics of the phone... making them less energy demanding (for the same function... obviously, new or bigger functions will have their own power demands), so I could see an eventual quick charge for the phone. More like 5 minutes probably though, for your "twice as long".

And we may beat 3 hours... we might even get it down to an hour, eventually... but that's probably going to be it. (and still a LOT longer than the roughly 2 minutes it takes me to gas up from empty).

Three hours? Try ten minutes. It's coming.

Electric cars that can travel hundreds of miles on a single charge are starting to appear, but they still have a number of major hurdles to overcome. They include cost, range, and charging times. Solve any two of those three problems and electric vehicles suddenly become a lot more viable. And it seems Nissan may have solved one already.

Working with Kansai University in Japan, the car manufacturer has managed to get the charging time of a typical electric car battery down from hours to 10 minutes. Although still longer than a typical gas fill up, it brings the time down to a point where you wouldn’t mind stopping on a journey regularly to recharge.

www.geek.com/news/nissan-cuts-electric-car-battery-charging-time-to-10-minutes-1428989/

[Deleted]

Jan 3, 2015 19:01:38 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Jan 3, 2015 18:52:36 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Au Contraire, I have lots of faith in science. I just also have lots of faith in Physics (unless you are privy to some new Physics discovery, of course).

A smart phone and a car are two entirely different beasts. In a smart phone, all the battery has to do is run the electronics and light the screen. In a car, the battery has to do all that AND move the 1 ton (or more) vehicle, AND run the A/C or heat.

As batteries advance, so does the electronics of the phone... making them less energy demanding (for the same function... obviously, new or bigger functions will have their own power demands), so I could see an eventual quick charge for the phone. More like 5 minutes probably though, for your "twice as long".

And we may beat 3 hours... we might even get it down to an hour, eventually... but that's probably going to be it. (and still a LOT longer than the roughly 2 minutes it takes me to gas up from empty).

Three hours? Try ten minutes. It's coming.

Electric cars that can travel hundreds of miles on a single charge are starting to appear, but they still have a number of major hurdles to overcome. They include cost, range, and charging times. Solve any two of those three problems and electric vehicles suddenly become a lot more viable. And it seems Nissan may have solved one already.

Working with Kansai University in Japan, the car manufacturer has managed to get the charging time of a typical electric car battery down from hours to 10 minutes. Although still longer than a typical gas fill up, it brings the time down to a point where you wouldn’t mind stopping on a journey regularly to recharge.

www.geek.com/news/nissan-cuts-electric-car-battery-charging-time-to-10-minutes-1428989/

Is that from "dead" or from (the rough "gas equivalent" of) "1/4 tank"?

ETA: Oh, and remember, the Nissan LEAF goes a whopping 84 miles on a charge (if you are fickle on power and don't use the A/C). That's like 5 gallons of gas worth of distance in my (old, and VERY badly in need of a tune-up) Jeep.

[weltschmerz]

It didn't say.

However, it looks like I'll be able to plug the car in, go pay, use the bathroom and buy a lottery ticket in less time than it takes to recharge.