5 ms·

Seems like they are sacrificing performance for efficiency. They are claiming per mile efficiency 3x better than a Tesla Model 3 but their 0-60 spec is 3x slow

Seems like they are sacrificing performance for efficiency. They are claiming per mile efficiency 3x better than a Tesla Model 3 but their 0-60 spec is 3x slower than the Model 3. The idea that a car could charge itself from integrated solar panels enough to cover the distance of the average daily driving is interesting but you would think Tesla thought about this and decided the math didn't work or they would already be doing it. They are in the solar power business as well after all.

bkanber 7y ago
Yes, the in-wheel motors are at the center of that tradeoff. Several major auto companies have played with using in-wheel motors but they aren't proven in production yet, as there are still several problems to solve there. I assume Tesla simply did not want to tackle those problems.
tinus_hn 7y ago
That doesn’t matter as long as there is a ‘sports’ mode that sacrifices efficiency for performance. Most times you don’t need the range anyway.
- pmorici 7y ago
  They list their 0-60 performance at 10 seconds. That's the typical acceleration of an average mini van. Seems unlikely you would put that in the specs if you could magically flip a switch and get 3x better.
  - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
    As someone who is not a car guy, but interested in EVs this is a good sign to me. Tesla has done great work in exploring the space of how you make an EV that impresses Top Gear viewers. I'm also interested in seeing similar progress for people who just want to get from A to B cheaply and efficiently and sadly few of the existing car makers seem to be taking EVs seriously yet. I've often thought that a different set of assumptions (e.g. not caring about topspeed) might lead to a better overall car, sounds like they are exploring this area.
AtlasBarfed 7y ago
Usually the math leads to putting solar on your garage and charging via grid otherwise. You get the excess for other electricity generation, can put in more panels. Especially if you want to, you know, park in a garage. This is an idea well ahead of its time. When solar cells become REALLY cheap after the current growth curve in a decade or so, it will be an afterthought to put on solar vs paint.

bkanber 7y ago

Yes, the in-wheel motors are at the center of that tradeoff. Several major auto companies have played with using in-wheel motors but they aren't proven in production yet, as there are still several problems to solve there. I assume Tesla simply did not want to tackle those problems.

tinus_hn 7y ago

That doesn’t matter as long as there is a ‘sports’ mode that sacrifices efficiency for performance. Most times you don’t need the range anyway.

pmorici 7y ago
They list their 0-60 performance at 10 seconds. That's the typical acceleration of an average mini van. Seems unlikely you would put that in the specs if you could magically flip a switch and get 3x better.
- ZeroGravitas 7y ago
  As someone who is not a car guy, but interested in EVs this is a good sign to me. Tesla has done great work in exploring the space of how you make an EV that impresses Top Gear viewers. I'm also interested in seeing similar progress for people who just want to get from A to B cheaply and efficiently and sadly few of the existing car makers seem to be taking EVs seriously yet. I've often thought that a different set of assumptions (e.g. not caring about topspeed) might lead to a better overall car, sounds like they are exploring this area.

AtlasBarfed 7y ago

Usually the math leads to putting solar on your garage and charging via grid otherwise. You get the excess for other electricity generation, can put in more panels. Especially if you want to, you know, park in a garage. This is an idea well ahead of its time. When solar cells become REALLY cheap after the current growth curve in a decade or so, it will be an afterthought to put on solar vs paint.