Tesla Model 3 Torn Down, Hacked and Set On a Dynamometer, Exposing Unusual Tech Details (electrek.co) 227
Rei writes: With an estimated 8,670 Model 3s delivered, a race is on as competitors and owners work to figure out its limits and explore the tech behind it. Many-time Tesla teardown expert "Ingineerix" has posted a series of videos and discussed his findings on Reddit. Among them: what appears to be the industry's first switched reluctance motor, a massive "smuggling compartment" allocated for a future front-wheel motor, no physical fuses (all solid-state), significant wiring harness length reductions via the use of multiple body controllers, a swappable crash energy absorption system, a liquid-cooled compute unit, and redundant controllers for all safety-related systems. He followed up by posting a screenshot of the car tricked into "factory mode" to reveal its internal specs, including a 1200A max discharge current, 370kW max discharge power, and a 76 kWh pack with 72,5kWh usable. Meanwhile, Munro and Associates tore down a Model 3 for an undisclosed, "not Tesla" client, releasing a video criticizing its build quality and for difficulty in accessing the HV cables in the event of an accident (Munroe's claims were dismissed by Ingineerix). Meanwhile, engineers from German automakers were extremely impressed by what they found during their teardown -- particularly the power electronics system, which they described as "compact, expandable, fully integrated, modular, easily accessible, well-protected, reasonably priced and astonishingly clever in many details." Other owners have been putting their cars on dynamometers to measure their power. Drag Times suffered some skid and measured a conflicting 281 / 327.6 hp with 552 lb-ft torque. Contrarily, Tesla Repair Channel found consistent readings around 250hp when starting from 30mph, but consistently around 390 hp when starting from 10mph. The reason for the discrepancy is not yet clear.
Re, the motor: (Score:5, Informative)
To expand a bit on the motor: it should be clarified that it's not a normal switched reluctance motor [powerelectronics.com] (SRM), but rather a PMSRM (permanent magnet switched reluctance motor).
Reluctance is used to some extent in many hybrid EV motors, in the form of "IPM" - interior permanent magnet motors [motioncontrolonline.org]. These are a hybrid of a conventional surface permanent magnet motor (SPM) and a SRM, allowing for high power at high speeds that SPMs don't allow for, as well as reducing magnet sizes (and thus rare earth consumption). By contrast, a PMSRM [ieee.org] is a SPM that incorporates permanent magnets into the stator; they don't move and are readily cooled, while sculpting and enhancing the field to increase torque density and help control torque ripple.
It's a new type of motor, combining extreme efficiency, high torque density, and reliability over that offered by an IPM. Getting a PMSRM to work smoothly is an impressive job.
One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to say, that between Tesla and SpaceX Musk seems to truly be amazing for at least one thing - hiring engineering talent.
Sure Tesla has some struggle scaling up producing. But a lot of what they have built is really advanced technically, and generally works quite well.
SpaceX is even more amazing in terms of tech, getting stuff working like vertical landings that seemed like it was going to remain as science fiction, while also seeming to be very reliable tech as far as the rocket industry goes which is its own feat (even in modern times you still see rockets exploding on launch).
I'd have to imagine the Boring Company has hired some equally impressive engineers for mechanical engineering and understanding the science of tunneling...
I wonder if the secret is Musk not creating a huge layer of bureaucracy above engineering on top of a decent amount of funding, so they can really accomplish things.
Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if the secret is Musk not creating a huge layer of bureaucracy above engineering on top of a decent amount of funding, so they can really accomplish things.
Na, he just makes a randomly selected engineer ride up with every Falcon 9 first stage booster. Half of the engineers are hoping they get picked, the other half are scared shitless, but they all give 110%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring (Score:5, Insightful)
So by "things that have been done before," you mean way overbroad generalizations of technology, complemented by ignoring the "improv[ed] things" that apparently have not been done before?
Analogously, every word that you've typed has been used before, and English paragraphs are so old that I guess we shouldn't be impressed by anything quoted above.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One thing Musk seems really good at is hiring (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure - changing vertically landing a rocket from 200 km into shooting rockets into LEO isn't an overgeneralization at all. Never mind that the booster is never in an orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You conveniently omitted the "from" part. Columbia was a ballistic reentry and splashdown.
Insist on being cute? "From above the Kaman line, on Earth, with rocket-powered terminal deceleration."
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking he works for United Launch Alliance, go easy on him.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it is! It just happens to be an orbit with a periapsis smaller than the Earth's radius.
Re: (Score:2)
And you're certainly not the first grumpy old fart sitting on a barstool and griping about what other people have accomplished.
Re: (Score:2)
You're also not the first grumpy old fart to go all passive-aggressive as soon as they get called out about their griping.
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem with launching stuff to LEO is the price. SpaceX is reducing that dramatically. It's doing that partly by recovering first stages and boosters in easily reusable form.
Why don't you name someone accomplishing great things, so I can point to something decades in the past that is sorta similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus dude. When you're in a hole stop digging.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, timing is really everything in technology. Anyone can take things that have been done before and tweak them, but choosing the right time to do a particular thing is the difference between success and failure.
It's rare that the very first iteration of a thing to be made really takes off.
Re: (Score:2)
It's rare that the very first iteration of a thing to be made really takes off.
Rockets; but definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of early rockets didn't really take off for some iterations. We're better now, but Musk was still thinking the Falcon Heavy could explode on or near the pad.
Re: (Score:2)
Name one thing that has been done in the last 2000 years that wasnâ(TM)t just a step on top of previous accomplishments.
If you want to be completely pedantic, then all things come from things that came before them. We are in a causal universe, after all. But to claim that "every new advancement is built on top of previous work" is bullshit. Some people do try new things, and people do have eureka moments.
Re: (Score:2)
What a brain damaged comment. Name one thing that has been done in the last 2000 years that wasn't just a step on top of previous accomplishments..
I dunno, landing a booster on rocket power is pretty darn close. That was quite a quantum leap in rocketry. But point taken. Re-entry burns? Old hat. Hovering on rocket power? Done (where's my Jet Pack?!?). Steering with vanes? Probably been done. Reusing the booster? Been doing that since 1980. Boostback? I don't know anyone had tried that before but only because there wasn't a reason.
Add it all up and it's a pretty neat trick.
Re: (Score:2)
Hovering on rocket power?
The real reason that the SpaceX booster landings are so amazing is that they CANNOT hover! Even with a single engine running out of the 9 available, the thrust is just too high, and so the whole thing will go back up if you try.
So you cannot do the usual "slow down and be gentle" landings that retro-rockets have done in the past. You have to come in at high speed and then use the rocket engine to fairly suddenly stop, hoping that the place you stop will be above the pad, but not far above the pad.
No one els
Re: (Score:2)
That about says it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Nissan has sold far more Leafs. I’d say that made them desirable, at least to many.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the first time you've seen auto geeks brag about new tech?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it's just particularly egregious in this case. It is always amusing how Tesla drivers are invariably rich people who drive them to their 7,000 sqft homes and their equally large vacation homes. So much for saving the environment.
Someone sounds very bitter. Did the big bad EV touch you in your no-no place or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Being able to afford something and it making sense are two very different things.
Re: (Score:2)
That analysis doesn't even include the current tax incentives! With those rolled in the cost of ownership of the Tesla would be LESS than the Camry. Except, of course, for the little detail that you can't actually buy the $35,000 version of the Model 3.
I'm not sure where they got the $42,000 fully loaded price, as there is no common set of options that adds up to that number. The most popular set of options is likely to be the Premium Upgrade Package plus Autopilot for a total of $10,000, bringing the price
Re:Re, the motor: (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. None of the Tesla owners I know are wealthy.
I live in a ~150k/house neighborhood. I have neighbors making ~$50k/year driving a $86k Ford Super Duty. The base model Tesla Model S or X are less than that.
To say nothing of the guys driving Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, Infiniti, Cadillac, Jaguar, etc.
Seriously... some people just really really like their cars.
Re: (Score:2)
See the side conversation with me where he goes from 7000sq foot multi million dollar houses to attacking people in $220k houses (and now $150k houses).
Here's a tip! If have have a roof over your head, you are in the top 1%! and so on.
Yes, some people have 75" TV's. Some people have a new computer every year. And some people have nice cars. (for me it was computers and board games and skiing).
And some people wander into discussions about expensive stuff and just make completely bizarre comments that ha
Re: (Score:3)
You also get used to them.
Some year ago, after not having a car for many years (lived in the inner city in Europe - good public transport) I bought a 10 year old BMW 5. Reasonably cheap, due to age, nice features and comfort.
Last year it was time for a new car. I checked many. Many. Including most electrical cars on the market, yes including a Tesla Model S. Guess what I bought in the end? A one year old BMW 5. Just everything is in the right place. I wanted to love the Model S (disclaimer: I own Tesla stoc
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Re, the motor: (Score:5, Informative)
Reality check: if you are living in a 220k home you ARE part of the 1% in the world.
If you earn $32,000 (or 30,000 euros or 2 million rupees), you're in the global 1%. I think that puts you at something like the 80% percentile in the US. The US is very, very rich, globally speaking. What's your point?
I just checked some home stats. The median new US house in 2015 was something like 2,400 square feet (about 220 square meters). I didn't find data on existing houses. The median price for all houses was $188,000 so a $220,000 house is above average but not outrageously so. (I think that buys a 500 square foot studio condo in SF Bay Area, where I live. I really gotta move.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fascinating. I didn't read that far down the article. I knew Americans are great at earning and equally great at spending, meaning we tend not to save a lot. I didn't realize the magnitude.
That si NOT how you calculate it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That 1% comparison must be done SOLELY within the same parity purchasing power.
Ah. Because there is only One True Way to compare the human condition around the world and over time.
Lighten up.
Yes, absolutely, comparing a single number like income, net worth, or even purchasing power gives you an incomplete view of the situation. The world is complex. Any single metric only gives you one view. Shoot, just looking at two together, gross income and net worth, already showed us something interesting.
One metric I like is hours-worked-to-acquire-item-X. The idea is to figure out how many hou
Re: (Score:2)
Words have meanings. Someone that lives in a $220,000 house, unless they are really out on the edge of probability and statistics, is not in the top 1% of gross earners.
You can't possibly be this stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Between you and me, I think there will be a tremendous overshoot and mass die off in the next 50 years, probably the next 40.
Overshoot?
Re:Re, the motor: (Score:5, Interesting)
Having a private car isn't sustainable. It is a luxury for the 1% in the world. I know, you are going to get really upset by that (but "mah freedom"). Nothing is wrong with having a private car, but to say it is "sustainable" is a joke. Having it cost $75k - $150k is just more of a joke.
Sorry to burst your bad math bubble, but there's over 1 billion cars [google.ca] on the road right now, worldwide. Even if you choose to ignore the fact that many of those are shared by a family of more than one person, you're still looking at ~18% of people that have exclusive access to a car.
Perhaps what you meant to say is that the Bugatti Chiron [wikipedia.org] is a luxury for the 1%?
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that should not be sustained is your life. Please find a Tesla owner to run you overt several dozen times while he checks his phone.
Re: (Score:2)
over*
Re: (Score:2)
The Bugatti Chiron is kind of hilarious. They invested untold millions eeking out the last bit of performance from their fossil fuel engine, and it's still slower than a stock Model S from 0-60. Also, it costs 20x as much.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bugatti Chiron is kind of hilarious. They invested untold millions eeking out the last bit of performance from their fossil fuel engine, and it's still slower than a stock Model S from 0-60. Also, it costs 20x as much.
Sure, vs the P100D in ludicrious mode, it's slightly slower 0-60 (2.3s vs 2.28s). But low end torque is the #1 advantage of electric motors, and one of the biggest weaknesses of ICE. However, now go and look at the quarter mile numbers for the two, and you'll find that the Chiron blows the P100D away (9.11s vs 10.44s). Or, you could look at the top speeds for the two cars, where the P100D also gets blown away (420 km/h (limited by today's tire technology... perhaps as high as 500 km/h) vs 250 km/h).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it goes VROOOOMMMMM very loudly!
And sadly, that alone counts for far too much for far too large of a section of society.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Valid points. But the Model S will outperform the Bugatti in the driving that most of us do in the real world. The Bugatti is a nice piece of extreme automotive engineering but it's not a car that makes sense for many people to drive.
Of course, the Chiron is only practical for extremely narrow definitions of practical. I'd still love to drive one though.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm impressed that you obviously don't understand motor technology and still think your whining is relevant - your have a very impressive ego.
Re: (Score:3)
>>> How is it improving the human condition?
Uh, moving transportation from a fossil fuel basis (with all the pollution, wars, etc that involves) to a sustainable basis using Solar power?
It may not be the way that you personally are improving the human condition (you are doing that, aren't you?), but it is certainly a valid way to do so.
Re: Re, the motor: (Score:5, Interesting)
Tesla isn't doing that. They are producing $70k-$140k cars for the 1%.
The first ICE cars were also for the 1%. In 1906, Woodrow Wilson declared that gasoline powered automobiles were “a picture of the arrogance of wealth”.
Trickle down may not work in economics, but it has always worked in the automobile industry. What you see in the top-of-the-line cars today, will be mid-range in 5 years, and standard in all cars in 10 years.
The 1% are funding the R&D.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but let's not forget companies like Nissan who have produced the world's most successful EV that also happens to be fairly affordable. Nissan invested in networks of rapid chargers too.
Renault and GM deserve some credit as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Renault and GM deserve some credit as well.
GM would deserve some credit if they hadn't set EVs back literally over a decade with their treatment of the EV-1.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about Model 3 here. It starts at $35k. Yes, I know, for the moment you can only buy the more expensive version, closer to $50k, but it will be available at $35k once production has ramped up. Subtract fuel savings and you're well under $30k. Not quite 1% territory.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about Model 3 here. It starts at $35k. Yes, I know, for the moment you can only buy the more expensive version, closer to $50k, but it will be available at $35k once production has ramped up. Subtract fuel savings and you're well under $30k. Not quite 1% territory.
Ever see the price tags on a lot of the Pickup trucks out there?
Its one of those strange facts of life, where someone who drives a 80K pickup truck like a F-250 Limited can complain about the 1 percenters and their 50 K Teslas.
Then again, I've heard some of the boys yapping about those overpriced Priuses as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla isn't doing that. They are producing $70k-$140k cars for the 1%.
The model 3 is at $35000 before incentives. That places it perfectly around both the mean and median new car price. soo.... Tesla producing $35k cars for the 50% would be far more accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that new cars aren't the entire car market. So they're not really to the median level of car spending yet. But the Model 3 is a big move in that direction.
Irrelevant on the face of the fact that Tesla are not for the 1% but priced smack bang in the middle of the average for cars. Or are you saying a run of the mill Ford is also for the 1%ers? In which case please let me know who your dealer is because I want in on whatever you're taking.
Re: (Score:2)
The Model 3 is currently a $44,000 to $57,000 car depending on options. That's before any tax incentives, including the $7,500 federal tax credit that it is still eligible for at present. The $35,000 version with less range is not yet available.
They still have a way to go before they can build a $20,000 electric car. For starters, the batteries cost too much to reach that price point. So does everybody else.
Re: Re, the motor: (Score:2)
The Model 3 starts at $35k and has lower fuel and maintenance costs than most of not all other vehicles. This is not a car for the 1%.
Re: (Score:2)
This is simply incorrect.
1) The base MSRP is $35k [tesla.com]. I'm sorry if the fact that you don't get to jump in line ahead of half a million other people if you want a base model bugs you.
2) It's not even possible to buy a $60k Model 3. If you add on every last option that's even possible to add on you end up with $59,5k. The options that are mandatory for people who want to be first-in-line are the LR pack and PUP, meaning you can jump in front of everyone else for a vehicle price of $49k.
3) Here's teardown video [youtube.com]
Tesla Roadster (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tesla Roadster (Score:5, Funny)
Safe from Humans, at least.
Who knows what the Dolphins will do.
Re:Tesla Roadster (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
teardown via micrometeoroid ablation over millennia
Just curious (Score:3)
any DMCA / IP implications here?
Re: (Score:2)
No I shouldn't think so. Why would you think that? I'm sure there are loads of patents involved, but patents as you know are open and accessible. Anyone can read them, and anyone skilled in the art should (theoretically) be able to reproduce the technology described by the patent. Don't confuse patents with copyright, or with trade secrets.
Statler & Waldorf don't like new Tesla Model 3 (Score:5, Funny)
Both found that the BMW I3 the "most advance ever" with a electric range of 114 Miles and a 2 cycle generator option for extra range that gives off enough smoke "so you know it is working"
Re: (Score:2)
They may hate Tesla, but I'm still eager to find out what Sandy Munro has to say about tearing down the Model 3 when he shows up on Autoline.tv. They are some of the best in the business at estimating costs, and that stuff is fascinating to me.
Cool tear down, but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could repurpose a Model 3 powertrain to make a blender that will blend a Model 3 ;)
Re: (Score:2)
The discrepancy is about power/horsepower, not torque. The low-end torque is near identical in all runs - the difference is at what speed the torque begins to drop off (~55mph vs. ~68mph)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhmmm..........motors produce ZERO power at stall regardless of torque.
Re: (Score:2)
Ding Ding Ding!!!
We have a winner:)
Re:Power discrepancy (Score:5, Interesting)
"The reason for the discrepancy is not yet clear." Uhmmm..... Electric motors display maximum torque at stall
Um... Not always.... In fact, often the maximum torque is defiantly NOT at motor stall for many common electric motor designs. Synchronous induction motors have zero torque at stall and standard induction AC motors often need help to get started by temporally adjusting the current phase of some windings to kick them forward.
DC motors tend to be highest current draw at stall and many have high torque when running slow. For Tesla's drive motors, I'm guessing the stalled torque is pretty high by design but they are not really DC driven, but are really AC motors driven by variable frequency and phases. With these motors you are able to adjust the torque in/out independently of RPM by varying the frequency and phase of the various windings.
I'm going to bet that the discrepancy really has more to do with the motor and drive electronics limits of both voltage and current and the power dissipation of the system. You will lose system efficiency at high currents because I^2 x R losses when the motor is turning slow.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of answers come close, but don't quite complete the "discrepancy" mystery.
True, the torque output of a Tesla vehicle is very high at near-0 wheel RPM. True as well, it falls off as the electric motor increases in RPM.
But the horsepower discrepancy is easy to account for.
Dynamometers used to measure vehicle power measure torque, not horsepower.
Horsepower cannot be measured by any device, actually. Power can only be measured as torque.
A mathematical formula is used to convert torque (measured) to horsep
Re: (Score:2)
Does that mean that the CDR was left behind here on Earth?
Re:But I read it lacks basic quality elsewhere (Score:5, Informative)
You clearly haven't been hanging out on the Model 3 Owners Club. It's amazing the disconnect between how certain individuals seems to want to portray it, and how non-selection-biased random owners describe their vehicles. Or, for that matter, photograph them [model3ownersclub.com]. I watch person after person get their invite, pick up their car, and then rave at how amazing it is... then I check out the latest article to show up about the Model 3 on Google News where they act like everyone's car is held together by gaffer tape and they're furious.
To put it another way: "I just picked up my new (insert-topic-of-interest) and it was perfect!" doesn't go viral in the same way that "I just picked up my new (insert-topic-of-interest) and there was something wrong with it!". Seriously, for example, the rash of coverage over the person who had a dead 12V battery. Literally the only dead 12V battery that's ever been reported in a Model 3, and there were dozens of articles written about it - despite the fact that Tesla sent a guy to his house to take care of his battery for him.
Or more directly: check out some of the teardown videos [youtube.com] linked in TFA. Does any of that look like poor build quality to you? One thing that's neat is you'll notice blue markings on a number of the bolts; that's common in the aerospace industry, but rarely in the automotive industry. Those are witness marks. They're used to double check that bolts were tightened to the proper tightness.
That's not to say that there haven't been some issues. Things that actually have been problems, at least over certain points in time:
* There used to be frequently a small sag in the hood, going a several millimeters out of alignment with the sides at its middle. It's been fixed in recent vehicles.
* While handling has gotten extensive praise, some people who don't like a stiff "sports suspension" feel have been complaining about that. Tesla is reportedly working to soften the suspension some.
* Noise, while quiet by ICE standards, is relatively high by EV standards. Namely, road noise (connected to the aforementioned stiff suspension) and wind noise (worse than the S). But both have been reducing with recent VINs.
* There's some issues that relate to preference. Some people don't like the Aston Martin-style door handles, while others aren't bothered by them. Some people think the door and frunk hood needs to be shut too hard, while others prefer the solid feel. Etc. So whether they're "defects" depends on your personal preference.
There are some GUI issues as well, but they decrease with each over-the-air update, as well as getting new features. At the top of the most-requested features list that hasn't been implemented yet is moving cruise control speed from the GUI to the right steering wheel control (akin to volume control and station selection are on the left steering wheel control). There have also been a couple issues related to it not remembering various types of infotainment / preference settings between drives; most (but not all) of these issues have since been patched.
Probably a couple other things I'm forgetting.
Re: (Score:2)
Was at a showroom in late December, so I have no clue where you're coming from.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You, sir, are acting like a dick.
The GP posted a fact-based, thoroughly rational post, whereas you came with an attitude problem and accused him of being a fanboy.
Your subjective allegations mean little compared to his objective information.
Re: (Score:2)
If you know anything about me, you'd start by using the right pronoun.
You'd then stop making up straw men; I've never criticized Consumer Reports, and quite to the contrary, have frequently cited them.
Lastly, if you think the views of owners about their cars is irrelevant, then I can't imagine what you consider to be a proper measure.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just claim it's for transporting "dreamers" and instead of throwing you in prison, CA will throw you a parade.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see how they'd complain about something that's factory spec. There's no door to get into it; you have to remove body panels. But the hollow is pretty massive - big enough for a child to fit inside. They clearly didn't want to have to redesign the whole platform to allow for the front motor, so just left it empty in the RWD version.
Re:Nurburgring fiasco. (Score:5, Informative)
Completely different powertrain. The AC induction motor couldn't handle max power for more than a couple minutes because the rotor would overheat from induction currents. There's no induction currents in a PMSRM. Heating is in the stator, which is trivially cooled.
Meh, even Tesla's current induction motor fleet does that sort of stuff just fine. Watch Björn Nýland's videos, he tows huge things through mountains all the time.
Your post is well appreciated (I don't know why you were marked down to -1, that's unfair), but it's premised on obsolete technology. Motor technology is advancing fast, and Tesla has invested a huge amount of money into it.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, even Tesla's current induction motor fleet does that sort of stuff just fine. Watch Björn Nýland's videos, he tows huge things through mountains all the time.
I dislike Tesla's as much as the next car enthusiast (and the fact they're pretty much the motoring equivalent of the Cult of Apple). However the reason the Teslas cant tow very much is because the chassis isn't designed for towing. All the torque in the world cant help you if the chassis snaps in half. The high weight of the car doesn't help (which coincidentally will still prevent it from posting a decent time at the Nurburgring, handling is said to be wallowy at best).
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I'm confused as to why people think you can't [youtube.com] tow [youtube.com] with [youtube.com] Teslas [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
However the reason the Teslas cant tow very much is because the chassis isn't designed for towing. All the torque in the world cant help you if the chassis snaps in half.
This has probably literally never happened in the history of towing. Also, Unibody cars don't have a chassis. They have a unit body.
Re:Nurburgring fiasco. (Score:5, Insightful)
[...] but what about towing a two-axle mobile stable with two horses in it, steep uphill?
I don't own any horses.
You're right--electric cars in general may suck towing heavy trailers up steep hills. So if that's something you're doing a lot of, I would not recommend buying a Tesla.
Now the other 99% of us who don't tow heavy trailers up steep hills, we'll be quite happy. And you'll be quite happy with your ICE car that does that towing with no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right--electric cars in general may suck towing heavy trailers up steep hills. So if that's something you're doing a lot of, I would not recommend buying a Tesla.
Actually, I bet they're pretty great at it. EVs are great for torque. The problem is in wind resistance. They're not so great at range. The only thing that can really handle that sustained haul efficiently is diesel. With a big load, a diesel will regularly get twice the efficiency of a gasser. If you've got a reasonably aerodynamically friendly load like a boat, and you're not doing too much hill pulling, an EV is probably great. Towing a big flat travel trailer, on the other hand, is not a job for an EV y
Re: (Score:2)
[...] but what about towing a two-axle mobile stable with two horses in it, steep uphill?
I don't own any horses.
You're right--electric cars in general may suck towing heavy trailers up steep hills. So if that's something you're doing a lot of, I would not recommend buying a Tesla.
Now the other 99% of us who don't tow heavy trailers up steep hills, we'll be quite happy. And you'll be quite happy with your ICE car that does that towing with no problem.
Oh my gawd - I'm cruising at +2 so I didn't see his post. Allow me to eter the other things that Tesla cars cannot do:
Mining operations - Teslacars fail miserably at hauling hundreds of tons out of strip mines.
Baja California race - A stock Tesla was entered, but broke down 25 miles out. Seriously bad form Tesla!
Boat - Some rich hipster tried to use his Tesla as a boat. It sunk immediately, but on the upside, the locals had a lot of electrocuted fish to harvest.
Hauling trash to the dump - The Tesla got
Re:Nurburgring fiasco. (Score:5, Insightful)
>>> meaningless until Tesla cars can lap the world standard Nurburgring Circuit at speed.
Can't remember the last time I did that.
>>> what about towing a two-axle mobile stable with two horses in it, steep uphill?
I'm pretty sure that the bog-standard BMW 3-series wouldn't be particularly happy about that task either. I'm not quite sure where you'd mount the 5th-wheel hitch, either. That's why there are heavy-duty pickup trucks in the world. I guess we can revisit your challenge once the Tesla Semi is hauling 80,000 pounds around the US.
Is there a reason that you believe a mid-sized sedan should both lap the Nurburgring at speed, and pull a horse trailer?
Re: (Score:3)
Is there a reason that you believe a mid-sized sedan should both lap the Nurburgring at speed, and pull a horse trailer?
I'm pretty sure the GP is the guy responsible for generating the requirements for the F-35...
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that a paradox, or at least enforcement is paradoxical?
I mean, if it's secret, they can't bust you for it because they don't know about it.
If they DO bust you for it, it means the compartment is no longer secret, so it's also not illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
See this post [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)