
Model S Long Range Plus: Building the First 400-Mile Electric Vehicle - Reedx
https://www.tesla.com/blog/model-s-long-range-plus-building-first-400-mile-electric-vehicle
======
steelframe
I've been following a multi-month discussion over in the r/electricvehicles
subreddit about EPA range. There's a growing consensus that something is very
wrong with it.

Here are a couple of the articles that got some discussion in that sub:

[https://insideevs.com/news/407807/eletric-car-real-world-
ran...](https://insideevs.com/news/407807/eletric-car-real-world-range-
tested/)

[https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a30874032/porsche-
tayca...](https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a30874032/porsche-taycan-range-
test-tesla-model-s/)

As someone who has owned both a Tesla Model X and one of the other EVs on the
list from the first article, I can also provide my own anecdata that at
freeway speeds Tesla routinely underperforms their EPA range rating, and by
quite a large margin. Meanwhile at freeway speeds my non-Tesla EV routinely
exceeds its EPA rating.

That's not to say that Tesla hasn't done an amazing job at maximizing
efficiency in their cars. They have. Just maybe not to the degree that the EPA
test would suggest.

~~~
davidwhodge
I make an app (called Nikola, not the truck company) for Tesla owners that has
seen over 5 MM miles driven on it. I did some quick queries to validate actual
range vs. EPA range for those curious.

My general takeaway is to see the EPA range as a useful, albeit unrealistic,
indicator. Essentially nobody gets the EPA range, either because they choose
not to go the speed limit, they accelerate harder than the EPA test factored
in, or the vehicles drain some juice while parked.

The data: For the hundreds of Nikola trips with an average speed of 60 mph,
the actual MPGe was about 102. Once you get up to a 75 MPH average trip speed,
the MPGe drops to 94. And by 80 MPH the MPGe drops to 77. (avg over all Tesla
types)

As a bit of "anecdata", I've driven trips where I hit my range on the nose,
just to show I could, but the driving is less fun and I was going slower than
traffic. I don't drive that way anymore.

What's most striking to me as someone who has heard over and over again about
how air resistance is a X^2 property, is the extent to which short (and
presumably slow) trips punch above their weight in terms of range consumed per
mile. From what I can tell, the actual cost here is the fixed cost of booting
up some systems and electronics, and the variable costs of running them over
fewer miles can make the MPGe drop. Starting and continuing to run the AC adds
up!

edit: have had some people ask. The app can be found at
[https://download.nikolaapp.com](https://download.nikolaapp.com)

I can also post data / graphs or make a blog post about that if people have
more requests. Let me know what you'd like to see!

~~~
btilly
_What 's most striking to me as someone who has heard over and over again
about how air resistance is a X^2 property, is the extent to which short (and
presumably slow) trips punch above their weight in terms of range consumed per
mile. From what I can tell, the actual cost here is the fixed cost of booting
up some systems and electronics, and the variable costs of running them over
fewer miles can make the MPGe drop. Starting and continuing to run the AC adds
up!_

Two factors.

First, if you go 10% faster, air resistance may be 21% higher, but you only
take 10/11 for spending 10% more energy per mile. So higher speeds cost less
than you'd naively think.

Second, at low speeds we start and stop a lot. Coming to a full stop requires
actually putting physical brakes on and losing energy. The heavier your car,
the more that this costs you. For slower traffic, if you look at distance
traveled, number of full stops and energy, I bet that you can fit a linear
model in 2 variables that fits the data better and gives you a sense of how
much coming to a stop costs you.

~~~
tlb
That's incorrect. Power consumption is proportional to drag * speed, and drag
is speed^2, so power is speed^3, and energy per mile is speed^2.

~~~
carlob
True but we're interested in power consumption per distance traveled so it
goes back to O(v^2).

~~~
sokoloff
That’s precisely what the last clause you’re responding to says. You’re
agreeing but couching it as a “but”.

------
leesec
Man do I love Hackernews.

Everyone is pro-innovation, pro-future, pro-forward thinking until literally
anything new happens, in which case everyone shows up with a "well,
ackshually", to tell you why the new idea is dumb.

It's amazing to me that Tesla continues to increase State Of The Art range and
EV efficiency, at scale, for cars that already smoke the competition. I hope
their fervor to improve the technology never stops, and I'm glad they're
dragging the industry, kicking and screaming, into the future.

~~~
rossjudson
"Nobody is going to buy this thing. I commute 250 miles each way to my job, in
my pickup truck. Call me back when Tesla makes a _real_ car with _real_ range.
Anybody who buys these now is a sucker."

Because people keep saying shit like that. Tesla's range increases are a giant
experiment to find out at exactly what point opposition to electric collapses.

~~~
jacobush
For me it has always been at a range of 1000 kilometers. (600 miles.)

~~~
csunbird
It is the same limit for me. The car should be able to go until I am tired
driving it, which is around 6 to 8 hours driving at 120km/h, including breaks
of 15-20 minutes each 3 hours. Then I can accept a 30-45 minute break to
charge if I have to continue.

~~~
Klathmon
Tesla's are already very close to that right now.

I used to drive from Florida to Pennsylvania fairly often, and in my model 3
it's a rough cadence of drive for 2.5 to 3 hours, stop at a supercharger for
under 30 minutes, repeat until I'm there.

And that's with the vast majority of the trip at 75mph/120km/h.

It does get worse in the winter though, I need to stop more frequently like
every 2 hours, and for more like 30 minutes per stop.

~~~
dahfizz
I think discussions of range alone are misguided for this reason. The state of
charging infrastructure is just as important as the range of the car itself.
The 300 mile range on a tesla is fine even for long road trips because the
infrastructure is solid.

~~~
octorian
> The state of charging infrastructure is just as important as the range of
> the car itself.

And this is why I facepalm every single time I see a car manufacturer trying
to make a "Tesla competitor" by focusing on getting most of the range with
none of the charging infrastructure. (Or they assume the infrastructure is
someone else's problem, that can be solved with some press releases about
business agreements.)

------
kenhwang
I wonder how much of this will translate to real world driving. Teslas have
generally significantly underperformed in real world range compared to EPA.
This reads very much like they're optimizing more towards a benchmark.

~~~
kjksf
If it's possible, every car maker can "optimize towards benchmark".

So is your theory that all car makers except Tesla are dumb and cannot
optimize their range for EPA tests?

That they are morally superior to Tesla and will sacrifice sales by not
optimizing for EPA range but some purported "real world range"?

And in what way exactly do you optimize for EPA test?

I've seen this "explanation" for superior Tesla results many times but somehow
no-one actually explains how do you make a battery or electric motor or drag
coefficient of the car that is optimized for EPA test but doesn't generalize
to regular driving.

~~~
justapassenger
> If it's possible, every car maker can "optimize towards benchmark".

Like VW optimizing cars towards benchmark. Doesn't always ends great.

~~~
10-1-100
Not sure faking results counts as optimizing cars /shrug

~~~
justapassenger
They were not faked. Cars were optimized to behave in a certain way under
exact test scenario.

They were not producing any fake output data from the sensors, just
"optimizing" engine behavior.

~~~
Zanni
They didn't output fake data, true, but their "optimization" was to only
activate emissions controls _during testing_. That's fraud.

[https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2015/10/08/446861855...](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2015/10/08/446861855/volkswagen-u-s-ceo-faces-questions-on-capitol-hill)

------
kylecordes
It's great that Tesla keeps increasing the range, but the EPA numbers are
ridiculous. I would love to see the EPA range claims for electric vehicles re-
standardized to measure:

* at the median driving speed on free-flowing US interstate highways

* during cold weather

* with some hills

* using a medium level typical of drivers of cars of the price range

A car manufacturer particularly focused on realism could publish a two range
values; a lower number as described above, an upper EPA number (perfect
conditions, low speed).

~~~
burlesona
The EPA tests are interesting. They do simulate stop and go driving, and
that’s why on a gas car the city number is worse, but the steadier highway
test shows better numbers. One of the weird things with an EV is that the
highway numbers are actually worse (as other posters have commented).

The tests definitely trade off realism for consistent reproducibility though.
This article describes it in detail, it’s really interesting:
[https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15388892/the-truth-
ab...](https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15388892/the-truth-about-epa-
city-highway-mpg-estimates/)

~~~
kenhwang
The test is absolutely insane and it totally makes sense why EPA estimates can
vary so much from real world numbers. It would practically ignore the effects
of aerodynamics and I'm not even sure weight plays a role given both of those
are supposedly accounted for by a simulated drag on the rollers.

~~~
avs733
weight is inertia and aero drag is a speed dependant force...both are just
forces that can be simulated really easily on a dyno.

------
elihu
They mention "significant weight reduction" but don't mention how much weight
they saved. Considering how heavy Model S's are, this seems like it could be a
productive approach, though on the other hand if there were easy/obvious ways
to reduce unnecessary weight, it would have been done by now. On some level
it's a trade-off between being too heavy and being unsafe, though reducing the
weight also means it doesn't have to be as strong.

~~~
sgc
yes and no. Older cars were far heavier and far less safe. They could make
incremental safety design improvements that allow to reduce weight
incrementally without compromise.

~~~
laurencerowe
I’m not sure whether you mean older teslas or older cars generally here. Small
cars in the 70s and 80s weighed just over half as much as they do now. The
Golf Mk 1 was 795kg while a Mk 8 is 1255kg. Much of that increase in weight is
safety equipment and they are much safer for it.

~~~
globular-toast
Some of the increase is safety equipment. Some is just the fact they they are
bigger in just about every way. The Golf Mk1 wasn't even a particular small or
lightweight car. The Mini was about 600kg, for example.

~~~
laurencerowe
Individual models do have a tendency to grow in size over time so perhaps the
current Polo is a better comparison to the Mk1 Golf and even that weighs in at
1164kg.

------
Tepix
Congratulations to the Tesla team! You deserve the success that you‘re having!

Tesla is 100% succeeding in their quest to speed up the change to renewable
mobility.

------
pkulak
Wow, they are doing brake blending now? I'd be interested to know how good
their implementation is. I always assumed they refused to do it because it's
so damn hard to perfect.

~~~
Reason077
Tesla doesn't do any blending of the brake pedal. Pressing the brake pedal
always applies the friction brakes only.

However, since a software update last year, they have had a one-pedal driving
mode (Stopping mode "Hold"). In this mode, the vehicle is able to come to a
complete stop without using the brake pedal, using a blend of re-gen and
friction brakes to do so.

In practice, it means it uses re-gen down to a very low speed (< 5mph), then
applies the friction brakes to achieve a complete stop (this also doubles as a
"hill hold" \- the brakes won't release until you press the accelerator
again).

~~~
dzhiurgis
Quick question - do Teslas turn on brake lights when using one-pedal mode?
Seems it can brake quite aggressively using regen.

~~~
zamfi
Modern vehicles are required to turn on the brake lights at a given level of
deceleration, regen / brakes or not!

~~~
oh_sigh
So if I'm driving a new manual transmission car, and downshift/engine brake,
my brake lights would activate?

~~~
zamfi
That’s my understanding!

EDIT: Actually this may only be required for vehicles with certain features,
like regen or endurance braking! Car regulations are...complex.

------
late2part
It's really incredible what Tesla is doing. Haters gonna hate, but they
continue to innovate and move the industry forward.

~~~
xvector
Really enjoying Tesla's 'innovation' of giving my Model 3 only 70% of the
promised range.

Doesn't help that everyone on Tesla forums love to praise the company no
matter what they do, so it's not like this is something easy to learn prior to
using the car for some time.

~~~
cwhiz
There are a million variables that go into range. I could drive the same route
and get 25mpg on my old Prius, or I could get 65mpg.

[https://teslike.com/](https://teslike.com/)

This site has been linked on this thread a few times and I’ve had it
bookmarked for some time. TLDR = drive more slowly and lay off the brakes.

------
jokoon
Still wondering why they haven't announced a new, cheaper EV yet.

Autonomy isn't such a big issue, price is.

I know Tesla needs to develop its production scale, which means making low-
quantity high-margin vehicles first.

Did Tesla deliver all the model 3 yet? I'm pretty sure that selling a vehicle
that can do 150km at a lower price could still sell well.

~~~
lazyjones
> Still wondering why they haven't announced a new, cheaper EV yet.

They seem to be selling their current low-end cars as fast as they can make
them, why should they attempt to divert their efforts to a new lower-margin
car? They can leave the cheap EV announcements to other manufacturers like VW
for people who want to buy an EV some time later...

~~~
jokoon
> why should they attempt to divert their efforts to a new lower-margin car?

why not?

~~~
lazyjones
Because it makes no sense from a business perspective.

~~~
jokoon
I'm not really sure Elon Musk really wants to make money in the first place,
he also wants to make ICU cars obsolete.

And I'm pretty sure there are plenty people willing to buy an electric vehicle
even if it performs worse than an ICU vehicle. A lot of customers are ready to
do it because it's the right thing to do.

------
sidcool
This is impressive. Almost 650 Km. Conservatively, let's say 600 Km, it's very
very impressive.

My daily commute is 30 KM, I can go 20 days without charging. Back of the
napkin suggests that if I charge overnight in my garage, I can go without
super charger charging for more than a month and a half. This is no small
feat.

~~~
NiekvdMaas
If you charge overnight on your garage, you _never_ need to visit a
supercharger unless you take road trips. Last time I visited a supercharger
was 4 months ago.

~~~
sidcool
That's even better.

------
pedrocr
EV range as a blended efficiency using the same test cycle we use for ICEs is
not a very useful metric. EVs are already insanely energy efficient so we
don't really need to measure that. What people want to know is if they go on a
road-trip how far can they go until they need to charge. Just testing the
highway range at whatever the normal speed is in your location would be a much
more useful number. It would be nice if we had a standard rating for highway
range in winter/summer at a continuous 120/130/140 km/h for example. For a
Model 3 this can easily be 60-70% of the rated WLTP range. When you're in the
city the car is parked most of the time and may as well be connected to a
charger, range on city cycles and short trips is not nearly as relevant.

------
dmix
402mi = 647km

------
woodandsteel
The larger importance of this is that for a lot of potential ev purchasers,
400 miles is the lower limit of what they consider acceptable range. Yes, I
know that is rather arbitrary and irrational, but that's how it is.

400 mile range is also important for political debates about the practicality
of ev's and whether or not governments should be promoting them.

------
virtualritz
When I open the page it asks me which market I'm in. I choose Germany yet all
units used in the piece are imperial.

------
systemBuilder
So it used to be rated at about 335mpc (miles per charge)? And 20% yanks it up
to 402? That must be an incredible mass savings something like 10% I'm
guessing, on a car that is already built on an all-aluminum unibody. I hope
the NHTSA crash ratings are not affected!

~~~
CarVac
335, then 370, and now 402.

------
xyst
Now give us a truck that doesn’t resemble late 1990s video games with these
long range innovations, and I would put in a reserve for a Tesla.

Right now I’m leaning towards Rivian, but they are currently unproven and
would like to ideally wait out a few generations.

------
tenpies
I'll wait for Consumer Reports or the EPA before believing any of Tesla's
range claims.

E: As in from the EPA itself and validated by Consumer Report's field-testing,
not Tesla claiming EPA certification and verified through easily cheat-able
testing.

~~~
new_realist
Teslas are known for achieving only 75-85% of EPA in the real world.

This is based on my own data, owning multiple Teslas over four years.

The issue is that short drives suffer HVAC losses and long drives are at
highway speeds, which is significantly above the speed the EPA uses for their
dyno. tests. Further, Tesla actually runs the tests themselves and uses their
own calculations to simulate wind resistance.

~~~
SEJeff
The HVAC losses are much less in the Model Y due to the heat pump / octovalve,
something I wish they'd update the new from the factory Model 3s with. Sandy
Munroe did a full Model Y teardown and has a whole segment on how this simple
invention is brilliant as it increases real-world range.

Edit: mentioned the octovalve, which has no equivalent in any existing EV (i3,
taycan, and leaf included).

~~~
new_realist
Other EVs have been using heat pumps for years, like the i3 and LEAF. I don’t
know why they didn’t go with it for the 3, or retrofit it to the S and X.

~~~
SEJeff
Not one like this. The Model 3 "superbottle" was the best in the industry for
the problem they were trying to solve with it. The Model Y "octovalve" heat
pump is the successor and does things even better (and it is patented FYI).

[https://insideevs.com/news/408437/tesla-model-y-teardown-
hea...](https://insideevs.com/news/408437/tesla-model-y-teardown-heat-pump/)

~~~
clouddrover
All I see in the video is a description of a heat pump. In what way is Tesla's
heat pump better than, for example, Hyundai's:

[https://press.kia.com/eu/en/home/media-resouces/press-
releas...](https://press.kia.com/eu/en/home/media-resouces/press-
releases/2020/New_Heat_Pump_Technology.html)

~~~
SEJeff
Not sure if you’re familiar with the Model 3 super bottle. Here is an overview
of that from Jason Torchinaky (who used to design heat pumps for a living):

[https://jalopnik.com/the-tesla-model-3s-superbottle-
easter-e...](https://jalopnik.com/the-tesla-model-3s-superbottle-easter-egg-
is-a-fascin-1830992728)

The octovalve heat pump in the Model Y improves the range by 10% (per an
interview with Elon and Sandy Munro).

I’ll note that the total range of the Model 3 LR is 322 miles and the Max
range of the larger Model Y is 316 miles.

This compares to the 111 miles of all electric miles in the Kia Soul EV, 258
for the Hyundai Kona, and 170 electric only miles in the Hyundai Ionia EV. To
be fair, the press release is likely correct as in 2014, the Soul having that
heat pump likely was industry leading. It isn’t even close to it today, and
things like Tesla’s patented (but very strange) inventions like the octovalve
are why.

Today Tesla announced the Model S Long Range Plus is EPA rated at 402 miles.
There really isn’t any competition (thr VW ID.3 likely being the closest).

~~~
clouddrover
> _I’ll note that the total range of the Model 3 LR is 322 miles and the Max
> range of the larger Model Y is 316 miles._

That's a function of battery size. The maximum battery size of the current
Kona, Niro, and Soul is 64 kWh. Batteries cost money. The Kona, Niro, and Soul
are all less expensive than the top end Teslas.

> _This compares to the 111 miles of all electric miles in the Kia Soul EV_

Not the current model.

> _There really isn’t any competition_

Sure there is. Tesla used to be the #1 BEV maker in Europe. Now they're #3.
That's competition for you:

[https://www.schmidtmatthias.de/post/april-2020-european-
elec...](https://www.schmidtmatthias.de/post/april-2020-european-electric-car-
market-top-sellers)

But none of this answers the original question. In what way is Tesla's heat
pump better than Hyundai's?

~~~
SEJeff
> That's a function of battery size. The maximum battery size of the current
> Kona, Niro, and Soul is 64 kWh. Batteries cost money. The Kona, Niro, and
> Soul are all less expensive than the top end Teslas.

The Model 3 LR battery size is 75 kWh. Are you telling me a 9 kWh difference
say ~15% is the sole reason for an almost 25% increase in range? If it is only
a matter of the battery size, the range would be linear. It is a function of
battery size, total mass, and efficiency. A more or less efficient heat pump
is absolutely a defining part of this equation, especially in the cold, as the
press release you linked stated. It is why the longer, wider, and taller Model
Y has only slightly less range than the Model 3 when it should have less due
to aerodynamics and increased mass.

> Not the current model.

Sorry, you are right. The 2020 Kia Soul EV range is 243 miles. The google card
result is out of date.

> Sure there is. Tesla used to be the #1 BEV maker in Europe. Now they're #3.
> That's competition for you:

I was referring to competition when it comes to overall efficiency and range.
The ID.3 and any EVs built on VW's EV chassis are the closest competition to
Tesla has in that area. When it comes to price, it isn't hard to beat Tesla so
you're right on this, but I wasn't being specific enough.

> But none of this answers the original question. In what way is Tesla's heat
> pump better than Hyundai's?

This segment dives much deeper into the octovalve / heat pump for you to see:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGffUODWWSE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGffUODWWSE)
and this podcast has both Sandy Munro and Elon Musk discussing the design in
depth:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pih4kU6yvz8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pih4kU6yvz8)

Tesla heat pump patent (with diagrams):
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190070924A1/en?oq=US20...](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190070924A1/en?oq=US20190070924A1)

Kia / Hundai heat pump patent (with diagrams):
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160009161A1/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160009161A1/en)

TL;DNR: look at the diagrams from the Tesla vs the Kia / Hundai patents. The
Tesla pump combines the heating and cooling for the cabin interior, battery,
drive drain, inverters, and motors into a single package with a closed heating
loop. It does it in an entirely novel "printed circuit board design" that uses
zero tubes.

The Hundai / Kia approach is more industry standard and much simpler. By being
less ambitious, it is not as efficient overall as they still need separate
heating / cooling systems for the battery, and/or separate cooling systems for
the motors plus drive train.

It isn't a real apples to apples comparison, which is what I meant when I said
there is no competition. This sort of thing, or things like the use of
Inconel, a super-alloy not seen in any other automotive manufacturer, in the
Model S and X. Inconel is usually used for orbital class rockets like the
SpaceX Merlin Engine Manifold or United Launch Alliance's new rocket engines.
Or the use of the IDRA gigapress (first the OL 5500 CS for the Model Y in
2019. Later, it was upgrade to the OL 6100 CS.
[https://www.idragroup.com/index.php/en/solutions/machines/gi...](https://www.idragroup.com/index.php/en/solutions/machines/gigapress)),
the worlds largest aluminum die cast machine for the underbody of the Model Y.
When it was first done with the rear part of the Y body it was the first in
the entire industry and created two parts. They've managed to get it down to a
single piece with the upgraded OL 6100 CS. There is no one in the industry
doing this. All of this ontop of Tesla creating their own Aluminum alloy using
metallurgists on loan from SpaceX, who use a proprietary aluminum alloy for
the Falcon 9 rocket body.

~~~
clouddrover
> _The Model 3 LR battery size is 75 kWh. Are you telling me a 9 kWh
> difference say ~15% is the sole reason for an almost 25% increase in range?_

No, I'm telling you you're comparing paper miles instead of real world miles.
Here's a real world range test of the Kia Niro 64 kWh and the Model 3 LR:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH7V2tU3iFc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH7V2tU3iFc)

The Model 3's extra 11 kWh only bought it an extra 15 miles. It achieved 78%
of its WLTP range. The Niro delivered 90% of its WLTP range.

> _By being less ambitious, it is not as efficient overall_

All you've really said is that Tesla's heat pump is a different design, not
demonstrated that it's actually better than Hyundai's. You should take Tesla's
claims with a grain of salt.

------
softgrow
Can we have an EV for people who don't suffer from range anxiety and are
willing to trade that off for cost?

I travel 5000km (3000mi) a year, longest single day use 50km (30mi). Vehicle
is garaged with access to power. I just need 100km (60mi) (double to be sure
:) ) range at an affordable cost.

~~~
ssheth
So .. a used Nissan Leaf is good for you. 70-100 mile range. Probably < $12k

------
ryanmarsh
Here I am with a 2018 S 75D getting low 200’s. _sniff_

------
codecamper
dear Tesla. I live in a city.

~~~
allendoerfer
Inside a (properly designed) city you should not need (to own) a car at all.

~~~
lazyjones
Perhaps not everything in life is about need.

I presume what you actually wanted to say is: _you_ don't want other people in
cities to own cars.

~~~
allendoerfer
This is a thread about EVs and how a particular feature (range) that is worse
than ICU cars is improving over time, which everyone wants, because we _need_
cleaner cars for the environemnt. Nobody in here is taking the position of
saying: Who cares? Just use ICU cars forever, there is no problem at all.

So I am argueing a specific point about cities. Because EV cars might be
better, but are still objectively bad compared to public transport. So no,
it's not about what _I_ want, it's about the underliying point of the whole
thread: What I (or really we/our children) _need_ other people to do.

~~~
lazyjones
> but are still objectively bad compared to public transport

For whom? Certainly not for the owner.

> So no, it's not about what I want, it's about the underliying point of the
> whole thread: What I (or really we/our children) need other people to do.

You don't even have children. So you confirmed my interpretation: it's what
you want from other people, not as you initially claimed what they need.

~~~
allendoerfer
You are refusing to accept, that I am talking within the context of this
thread. There are some premises here, which I explained in detail and take for
granted in further sentences I am writing. I refuse to define everything to
first principle in every sentence, because your only goal seems to be to go
one step further up and suddenly you are right. In that sense, you or anyone
does not need to do anything at all, because you don't even have to live. But
then this whole discussion becomes really pointless.

------
dmitrygr
"a new custom tire"

sounds expensive to replace when you drive over a nail

~~~
mc32
Yes but don’t most “luxury” automobiles come with non-cheap tires to begin
with that may or may not bring 2% mileage improvement with them?

~~~
leetcrew
I guess it depends what you mean by "luxury", but the vehicles I'm thinking of
tend to come with sticky high-performance tires. these actually increase
rolling friction.

~~~
mc32
Exactly so one, they don’t run very long and two they add rolling resistance
(for better two wheeled traction), so both in Tesla’s favor.

------
tomohawk
This is a good step, but 400 miles is hardly long range. Any gas powered car
can get 500 miles of range with a 5 minute fill up.

------
yalogin
Tesla’s batteries fall from their initial range in 2 yrs and to get around it
they changed the display. Instead of miles they started calling it “range
miles” or something like that and that is a cooked up number using some
algorithm. It’s it real and is done to get around the fact that the battery
holds less charge over time.

------
new_realist
The Hyundai Nexo EV is already at 380 miles, and it’s a real SUV, not a flat-
as-a-pancake Model S. It refuels in five minutes, to boot, but is only
practical in California. If they increased tank volume by 5% it’d be at 400
miles EPA.

~~~
zaroth
For those wondering this is a Hydrogen fuel cell car, only available for sale
in CA because that’s the only place you can fill it. It appears they sold
about 270 units in the US last year.

~~~
clouddrover
> _only available for sale in CA_

No, you can buy it in Korea and Europe as well. Europe and China are the most
important markets for EVs. Hyundai isn't making many Nexos yet though.

------
anonymousiam
They are lying. I was in the market for a new car earlier this year, and I
really wanted to get a Tesla. I also really wanted a car that could handle a
trip of 295 miles that I regularly make. I will not go into the nightmare that
was scheduling a test drive of the long-range Model S, but after getting
conflicting answers from multiple PoCs at Tesla, I finally got the firm
answer. The car cannot do even my 295 mile commute (either way) without
recharging once. I gave up and bought something else, but I did reserve a
"Cyber Truck" which they claim will have a 500 mile range.

~~~
jodrellblank
The BMW i3 has had the perfect electric car design for the last 7+ years - a
battery pack good for ~50-120 miles (increased with model revisions) and a
gasoline generator "range extender" with a small tank for indefinite length
journeys hopping between standard gas stations - which are abundant.

It improves on hybrid-car designs: the engine isn't connected to the drive
train, so it's a lot less complex, and the engine is not as large because it
doesn't need to power the entire car for 100k+ miles and it can use the
battery for short bursts of power (acceleration, hill climbs) while charging
on flats and downhills. As it's smaller and less heavily used, it only needs
servicing every two years.

Given the top concerns about electric cars are range anxiety, charging time,
and availability of charging points, and this design addresses all of them,
why don't more electric car makers offer something like this?

~~~
rcMgD2BwE72F
Range axienty disappears as you get familiar with driving an EV with trip
planning. Charging time is already short enough with version 3 of Tesla
Superchargers. Availability of charging points isn't an issue when you charge
at home/work. Hybrids are just adding complexity, cost and air pollution.

~~~
lazyjones
> Range axienty disappears as you get familiar with driving an EV with trip
> planning.

It's true, but in some parts of the world (e.g. eastern Europe) it has been
replaced with "what charging cards or apps do I need" anxiety.

