I guess AAA and all the other mobile service companies should close up shop. We certainly wouldn't want them magnifying range anxiety for ICE vehicles.
[/sarcasm] :biggrin:
Larry
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Elon "About to end range anxiety"
- Thread starter Lump
- Start date
I guess AAA and all the other mobile service companies should close up shop. We certainly wouldn't want them magnifying range anxiety for ICE vehicles.
[/sarcasm] :biggrin:
Larry
Right, because it's more fun to push this thing to 1,000+ posts by Thursday than to read prior posts. Come to think of it, you can apply to whole forum! No lack of posters, often lack of readers. I just love the posts that ask a question and say "I'm sure this has been answered, but I don't have time to search, so can someone please tell me". And, invariably, someone does! Thus encouraging the circle of life.
Also fascinating to see how much faster these threads can grow unreadable as we accumulate more members. I'm watching this one closely more as a sociology experiment than actual desire to read the same guesses argued over and over!
Agreed, the thought of an AAA type based solution would be to complement other solutions including software based solutions. It in itself is NOT the solution to range anxiety.
Larry
MassModel3
Member
Maybe the mods can put the first post of each page -- Reminder: "OTA" and "entire Model S fleet"
This thread is kinda like a train wreck where you don't want to look but you can't help yourself. Yeah, it's killing me to stay and read it, but I can't pull myself away. 800 posts later, read every one, and now waiting for the next amazing idea. Let's see, we've had Space X assist, energy beams from satellites, tesla coils, power from the wheels, power from the road, solar roof panels, V2V, etc. -- these are some of the more creative that stood out to me. I think these moments of creative genius are half the reason I keep reading...
Meanwhile, back to reality, it's probably something as lame and boring as a perpetual motion machine. (wait, somebody already said that, too.)
That's exactly what people said over 100 years ago when the concept of gasoline stations was first suggested. :biggrin:
Larry
Perhaps you did not read my posts. The part that will affect all fleet is upgraded Energy App. It is very clear that the Thursday announcement will include MORE than one change to the car software, while only one (the Energy App) could apply to all cars. I suggest reading the linked post before concluding that you are one of only few people on this Forum who understands the tweet. :smile:
SW2Fiddler
We Are Cognitive Dissidents
Silly then, and still silly now.
The countdown is now within 24 hours! BBQ!!11Eleventy!
Jaff
Active Member
If you are correct, I hope the OTA / software upgrade can also apply to the Roadster's new battery...:smile:
MassModel3
Member
You were suggesting that perhaps the newer cars are being shipped out with more advanced battery technology, perhaps built upon the 8% battery improvements theoretically gained every year. I'd be surprised if Tesla started using more advanced technology and nobody ever figured it out, and my B battery and I will be sorely bummed that we're not in that elite group of new Model S drivers. But hey, power to ya.
I think that would be great news for new owners, but as so many have already mentioned, more juice (more range) doesn't end range anxiety, it only postpones it another few minutes.
Nixter
Member
Perhaps Tesla will release a software update that utilizes both the trip planning features along with the range warning sometimes given by the software, based upon an algorithm, the software could automatically regulate the power usage, this being determined by the range needed to reach the next destination. I don't think this would be desirable to everybody because when the distance is close to the maximum possible, the amount of power reduction needed would be very noticeable, especially when accelerating and you're cruising speed would probably be greatly reduced. We know that someone was able to travel 400 miles on a single charge and they accomplished this by traveling at very low speeds, probably an average of 35 mph or so. This guess of mine seems to be a bit too simplistic, but it would fit the description of the software update as tweeted by Elon Musk.
I absolutely agree that extending the range is not the right medication for the range anxiety, nor I was suggesting it in my post.
The point I was making is that more than one new software feature will be revealed on Tueday. Only one, IMO, can affect all fleet, and that is improvements to the Energy App that are detailed in my linked post, and this change, imo, is the one that will alleviate range enxiety by precisely predicting, real time, whether one has enough charge to reach destination and what actions to take otherwise.
As a matter of the discussion of OTHER features, I found interview with the Stifel analyst that I linked in my post in another thread pretty intriguing, as he seem to suggest, after the visit of the Factory, that the 5th generation of the battery pack (E version), which have been shipping since December of last year, might contain cells of greater capacity.
gavine
Petrol Head turned EV Enthusiast
I'm surprised nobody has suggest this yet -- Elon's going to send every owner 11 alternators to mount on the outside of their car to charge the battery while driving! Voila! No more range anxiety!
*It's a JOKE people!
I know that's not "OTA".
How about using dual motors and while cruising, let the rear motor regen while the front motor drives the car? Too bad the entire fleet isn't dual motor.
I'm surprised this is only the second perpetual motion mentioned in this entire discussion. I figured there would be more. Also, that 11 alternator thread was from a very long time ago. That dude will never live that one down, will he? Talk about getting flamed. This thread is entertaining, but that one was better.
I tried on my p85 and it worked. Dont know about roadster
- - - Updated - - -
800+ posts to guess what is solution and when I am saying call me and get the answer with proofs only 2 people asked and said no mic. WTF???
MassModel3
Member
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
First of all your other post doesn't link to that interview, it links to another TMC post here (which appears to be a mistake).
But you still can't explain why Tesla would sit on 10% extra battery capacity for 3 months while being criticized by P85D owners over range so much that they ultimately had to write a blog post about it. A blog post that promised a software upgrade that implemented a complicated scheme of turning motors off in order to increase range. A complicated scheme that coincidentally promised 10% more range which brings the P85D roughly into equivalence with the P85. Then once the software update with torque sleep was available, there are still owners that aren't sure they're seeing the improvement. One of tweaks of the torque sleep functionality caused P85D's in range mode to start losing power, which took them a week to fix while customers were concerned their cars weren't safe to drive. They did all that while sitting on the fact that the cars had 10% more battery capacity that they could have activated by just pushing a software update to make it available. A change that would have been immediately obvious and absolutely would have resolved the range disparity between a P85 and a P85D. I have yet to see a good business reason for them to do that.
I think people put too much importance on the battery pack revisions. Any number of tiny changes could trigger a new revision identifier. Even the tiniest change should trigger that change. It could be something as simple as a change in suppliers for a part. It could be improved wiring to allow even faster supercharging. It could be improved wiring to support the performance of the P85D. It could be improvements to the battery cooling system to allow the newer vehicles to pull large amounts of power for longer. It could be a new contractor design that's less likely to fail. There are many reasons to make improvements in the pack and bump the revision. The vast majority of which would not require telling customers anything and are thus in my opinion far more likely.
For what it's worth there's an F pack revision already.
Wow... Ummm... No. That's basically discharging and charging the battery with the same energy through the most inefficient method possible. It would result in nothing more than decreasing efficiency.
Similar threads
