
Musk Says Tesla Cars Will Go 620 Miles per Charge in 2 Years, Autonomous in 3 - adenadel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktyMmzZ6WeM
======
36erhefg
Just recently 550 miles were broken with a Tesla S, driving at an average
speed of 21 mph.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/3lc8hu/tesla_m...](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/3lc8hu/tesla_model_s_85d_shatters_500_mile_mark_5503/)

My observation, based on the driver's comments and the Tesla efficiency chart,
is that you could go close to 500 miles at 30 mph, which is almost a
reasonable speed.

Note the context that the title comes with. Tesla cars will break 620 miles
when driving slowly (under 30 mph), not 620 miles using the EPA rating which
is commonly used when addressing this issue.

~~~
JeremyNT
An interesting thought experiment: when we have AI driven electric vehicles
used to transport goods (and thus no human labor costs in the equation), will
driving behaviors for some types of shipments be optimized for fuel economy at
the expense of slower speeds? Will some trucks be driving the _minimum_ speed
limit on highways to save electricity?

~~~
kbenson
Minimum speed limit? As far as I'm aware, in the US you are supposed to go the
posted speed. You could get a ticket for going slower if you are impeding
traffic trying to _safely_ go the posted speed. Are there roads in the US that
specifically allow a range of speeds (beyond the variation seen because human
drivers don't follow the law)?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Minimum speed limit? As far as I'm aware, in the US you are supposed to go
> the posted speed.

The posted speed is usually an upper bound (though in some cases only a
presumptive one, not a conclusive one, the way the law is actually written.)

> You could get a ticket for going slower if you are impeding traffic trying
> to safely go the posted speed.

You can get a ticket for impeding traffic, but usually going slower than the
limit is not sufficient for that. (And may not even be _necessary_.)

> Are there roads in the US that specifically allow a range of speeds (beyond
> the variation seen because human drivers don't follow the law)?

Every highway (which is much broader than freeways) in California that doesn't
have an expressly posted minimum speed limit, plus every one that _does_ have
an expressly posted minimum speed limit that isn't identical to the posted
maximum limit. (California Vehicle Code Sec. 22400 allows a minimum speed
limit to be established and posted -- which is still, where established, a
soft limit -- and provides a violation for impeding traffic with or without
such a limit, but does not set the posted maximum speed limit as a minimum
speed limit, soft or otherwise, where no minimum speed limit is posted.)

~~~
kbenson
Part (a) of VC Section 22400 is what I was remembering from _way_ back when I
took driver training, and it states "No person shall drive upon a highway at
such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of
traffic, unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of
a grade, or in compliance with law."

Wouldn't driving below the posted speed limit when there are no hazardous
conditions fall under "as to impede or block the normal and reasonable
movement of traffic"?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Wouldn't driving below the posted speed limit when there are no hazardous
> conditions fall under "as to impede or block the normal and reasonable
> movement of traffic"?

Not normally, driving below the posted maximum speed limit would not, in and
of itself.

It _might_ \-- and, given the soft nature of upper limits, it might _even
without driving below the posted maximum_ \-- in the presence of other
traffic, depending on the road (what will impede traffic on a single-lane road
is different than what will impede traffic on a multilane road) and particular
traffic conditions.

~~~
Filligree
Sorry, let me confirm this. You can get a ticket for driving slower than
traffic, despite driving at the speed limit?

Could you, in the same situation, also get a ticket for following the
traffic—i.e. breaking the speed limit?

~~~
dragonwriter
> You can get a ticket for driving slower than traffic, despite driving at the
> speed limit?

Some speed limits in California are soft (it depends which of the provisions
allowing speed limits they are adopted under, or whether they are the default
limits.)

It is legally possible for traffic to exceed the speed limit where those
limits are soft without necessarily being illegal, unreasonable, or safe.

It may, in some circumstances, therefore, possible to impede reasonable flow
of traffic while driving at the speed limit in those cases, thus breaking the
law.

> Could you, in the same situation, also get a ticket for following the
> traffic—i.e. breaking the speed limit?

Yes, but if the circumstances were such that someone could be impeding traffic
at the speed limit, it would also necessarily be true that it would possible
for you to exceed the speed limit and not be breaking the law. But the burden
of proof would be on you to show that the driving was safe.

------
nsxwolf
Having trouble accepting Elon Musk’s claim that Teslas will be capable of
fully autonomous driving in 3 years.

One of the difficulties I am having is that I’m not aware of another advanced
technology that just popped into the consumer market overnight like we’ve been
told to expect with self driving cars.

There’s always a gradual evolution of a technology over time. There’s very
little of that evolution seen with this technology. There’s self-parallel
parking cars, there’s autopilot-style cruise control systems, but we’re going
to instantly leap from that to fully autonomous driving?

It's like aliens visiting and giving us some far-future tech overnight.

~~~
eljimmy
My biggest gripe with hearing about fully autonomous cars is northern climates
and their inability to handle bad weather.

~~~
grecy
My biggest gripe about hearing about the invention of planes is the lack of
runways.

My biggest gripe about hearing about the invention of the automobile is the
lack of mechanics and gas stations.

My biggest gripe about hearing about the invention of the internet is the lack
of home computer ownership.

etc. etc.

~~~
dalke
"the lack of runways"

As an historic note with little relevance to your point, this wasn't solved
until the US entered the second world war and the government built a bunch of
them for heavy bombers, which were later converted into civilian use.

That's why the flying boats, like the Boeing 314 Clipper, were the go-to plane
for long distance travel pre-war. There's no need for a runway when you can
land and take off on water.

"lack of mechanics"

This isn't really true. The early cars could be fixed by most any mechanic or
blacksmith. Remember, farm equipment was already pretty mechanically
complicated.

The lack of gas stations was much more critical.

~~~
grecy
The specific examples I used were not the point.

The point is that you must give new technology time to grow and become
mainstream before you can expect them to be everything for everyone.

Lots of new tech will _never_ be everything for everyone

~~~
dalke
Hence "As an historic note with little relevance to your point".

At best, treat it as comment about how hard it is to think what detractors to
X might have said before X became wide-spread. I believe your example of 'lack
of mechanics' is poorly chosen; akin to saying 'My biggest gripe with hearing
about fully autonomous cars is that they will be so expensive that only the
five richest kings of Europe would own them.'

As a real-world examples I think are better, 'My biggest gripe with hearing
about telephony is there won't be enough operators to handle the number of
calls.' 'My biggest gripe with hearing about computers is that they are too
bulky.' 'My biggest gripe with television is I'm at work when my favorite show
is on.'

------
Animats
Go 620 miles how? Different battery technology? More batteries? Reduced
chassis weight? Lighter powertrain designed for a lower top speed?

A new 2x battery technology seems unlikely. There's nothing that good coming
on line within three years. Panasonic is already setting up Tesla's battery
cell plant, so that decision has been made. (Panasonic makes the cells, Tesla
packages them; many of the employees at Tesla's "superfactory" work for
Panasonic.)

~~~
leddt
The gigafactory will more than double the worlds production of lithium-ion
batteries, which will drive the cost down. This will allow Tesla to pack more
batteries in the car for a similar price.

Quoted from [http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-
lif...](http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html) :

    
    
      Right now, Musk says Tesla could make their cars with a 500 mile range—they don’t do it because it would increase the cost of the car.
    

If we believe the 500 mile range _right now_ quote, then the jump from 500 to
620 seems plausible with a few years of further improvements.

~~~
jvandonsel
Isn't the limiting factor the physical volume and weight of the batteries, not
necessarily the price?

~~~
ahlatimer
The quote in the GP seems to imply otherwise. In case you missed it, "Right
now, Musk says Tesla could make their cars with a 500 mile range—they don’t do
it because it would increase the cost of the car."

------
sixQuarks
I know Elon Musk gets a lot of flak for throwing out unreasonable predictions,
but I watched this interview a couple of days ago and didn't think much about
the claim because it was an off-the-cuff guess instigated by the interviewer.

It wasn't like Elon made a special announcement to tell the world about this.
The press picks up anything he says and makes it into a big "announcement". I
saw several headlines that made it seem like an official announcement. I guess
he should be more careful when he's thinking out loud.

~~~
mikeyouse
Yeah, the context was linked above, it was really just off-the-cuff;

He was asked about 1,000km range:

    
    
        1,000 kilometers... hmm...
    
        Well, it depends under what circumstances for
        a thousand kilometers. As it is, the record right
        now for Model S is 800 kilometers (496 miles).
        That's the furthest that anyone has driven a Model S.
    
        Now, in order to do that, they did drive at a relatively 
        slow speed, so, you know, we're talking, I think they 
        drive at 40 or 50 kilometers an hour (25-30mph) or 
        something like that.
    
        But I think, my guess, we could probably break
        a thousand kilometers within a year or two..
        5% - 10% per year.

~~~
masklinn
IIRC they drove not only at a low speed but on ~0 grade road and with all
conveniences disabled (no AC, just fans).

------
jewel
This seems possible by simply doubling the battery size, along with modest
improvements to efficiency. Sure, it'd add another 1200 pounds, but that's
still lighter than a pickup truck.

With a price drop due to the gigafactory, they might even be able to do it for
the same cost of the current models.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could chime in about whether or not that'd
be possible. It seems like there could be enough room for another layer of
batteries, with only a modest change to the shape of the car.

~~~
Someone
[http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/max-load-
model-s](http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/max-load-model-s) indicates
that the weight of (passengers + cargo) in the model S should not exceed 962
pounds. So adding 1200 pounds of battery to the model S to get that range is
out of the question.

Even if you could, if you add 1200 pounds, power usage will go up.

So, you will have to change the design of the car to accommodate the larger
battery weight. It is unlikely that you can do that without adding further
weight, increasing power usage further, or tremendously increasing the price
of the car.

~~~
VLM
Historically this is the rocket equation, which led to multi-stage rockets.
I'm not sure we'll see multi-stage electric cars anytime soon. Although with
progress in autonomous vehicles, some kind of first stage or trailer could
drop off and drive itself back home...

~~~
gizmo686
At that point, you do not even need rocket style staging. Instead, when you
are low, have a battery car meet you and dock while you are driving along the
highway. Once you are recharged, the battery car can go back to the charging
station, or to another customer.

Of course, I do not forsee this being a cost effective approach, even without
the regularty hurdles of highway speed docking.

~~~
DennisP
You could pull over just for docking. Then spend an hour towing the battery
car, instead of waiting in one spot.

~~~
leoc
Or _maybe_ something like the Bombardier Primove
[http://primove.bombardier.com/](http://primove.bombardier.com/) inductive
charging system could be viable for private cars on motorways? Apparently
Bombardier has started to pitch it as something suitable for cars:
[http://primove.bombardier.com/media/news/news-detail-
page/ar...](http://primove.bombardier.com/media/news/news-detail-
page/article/2015/09/17/experts-convinced-by-primove-solution-for-cars.html) .
I can only imagine there would be some nasty transmission losses at various
stages, though.

~~~
mactitan
It seems this system requires the car to be stationary while charging but it
would be like using cars as electric trollies. Hmmm I wonder if cars on hwys
could have an automatically deployed arm for contacting a third rail or
overhead wire?

------
IkmoIkmo
Crazy, my lack of a driver's license might outlive the need for one after all.
I'd been thinking of finally getting one these last few years (the Netherlands
is very forgiving to non-drivers particularly if you work in the city you live
as I do). Although I can't help but express a bit of skepticism on the 3 year
timeframe, that seems overly optimistic.

~~~
Steko
I expect you will still need one for a good decade.

------
codeulike
Tesla expect batteries (and hence real-world range) to improve by about 5% a
year. This 620mile thing he's talking about is the record distance for driving
slowly on a single charge, which is of academic interest only.

------
koops
"I hope civilization will be around in 20 years." And that's from an
extraordinarily well-informed person.

~~~
trvlngwlbry
This stood out to me, too. On the one hand, hearing him say it is a little
unnerving. On the other, it's oddly comforting to know that he truly believes
we're in a race against the clock to save civilization, and that someone like
him is doing everything they can to prevent the end of it (at least on the
environmental front; he's probably nervous about other dangers, too, that he'd
have less control over, e.g. geopolitics).

Seeing that reaction from him helps explain in my mind how he's been able to
accomplish as much as he has. It really feels like he's a man on a mission and
that he's going to run through walls to accomplish it.

Other comments have compared him to a politician. I think that's laughable. He
has a consistent track record of 'doing.' Politicians have not earned that
reputation.

~~~
frame_perfect
It's crazy to think how much further back we'd be without him

------
nostromo
I'm surprised he said this publicly.

Why rush out to buy a Tesla today when you can get a far better Tesla in 2 or
3 years?

~~~
JTon
Yeah, good point. How awesome would it be if cars were modular and upgradable
like tower PCs. Buy today, because you you can incrementally upgrade tomorrow

------
ben174
Is he trying to cannibalize current sales? I've got a Model X reserved but I'm
almost ready to bail when I hear things like this are so just a couple years
away.

~~~
36erhefg
Of course not. The range given in the title comes with the context(which is
not explicitly given). The average speed to obtain that mileage is very low.

Watch the video, this question is addressed in the last few minutes.
Transcript:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10299634](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10299634)

On a side note; you are basing your expensive decision on an arguably click-
bait title!?

------
dang
We changed the URL from [http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/29/elon-musk-says-
tesla-cars-w...](http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/29/elon-musk-says-tesla-cars-
will-reach-620-miles-on-a-single-charge-within-a-year-or-two-have-fully-
autonomous-cars-in-three-years/#.bc3qki:KVt4) to the video it summarizes.

~~~
Tobu
The video was taken down, TechCrunch now embeds this one:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl5vLC3Xlgc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl5vLC3Xlgc)

------
thelollies
The title reminded me of Steve Jobs' "reality distortion field".

~~~
36erhefg
Who is distorting the reality here. The journalist or the source? Watch the
video and then look at the title.

------
cornholio
Who cares ? Make battery swap the standard option, build enough swap stations,
and sell me a cheaper car without battery.

I want to pay for "battery as a service", I don't need to own a battery, I
don't want to charge it, just bill me by the KWh used (which should better be
competitive to gas).

~~~
goatforce5
People didn't use the battery swap stations:

[http://fortune.com/2015/06/10/teslas-battery-swap-is-
dead/](http://fortune.com/2015/06/10/teslas-battery-swap-is-dead/)

(Although the business model didn't work as you describe it.)

It seems as though, for now, the supercharger network is good enough.

~~~
alexkcd
These stations don't get used much because Tesla sells a battery with every
car they make. If the cars came without the battery, there would be a lot of
demand, but would also require the infrastructure to be in place to support
long range travel. It's a classic chicken and egg problem.

What Tesla discovered is that bootstrapping the battery swap infrastructure
off of battery owners doesn't work, since owners are reluctant to pay for
swapping out their battery over recharging the one they own.

------
brento
I would love a fully autonomous car, however I would want to see multiple
layers of security in place to prevent hacking. The last thing I want is to
end up dead because a hacker thought it would be funny to steer my car into a
ditch.

~~~
chx
Honestly, the car itself should be offline. Right now it seems easier to
create a self driving car than secure software.

------
onion2k
Autonomous within 3 years ... So Elon is planning to massively disrupt the
legal and insurance industries? Both those will need a lot of changes before
anyone can drive down the road in a privately owned fully autonomous car.

~~~
3pt14159
Well there are 200 countries. And once Norway starts to show plummeting
casualty rates every major country will soon follow.

We'll need to start short selling car insurance companies soon.

~~~
Strom
Selling short? More like a good time to buy!

In my country, car insurence is mandatory and I don't see it being removed
with autonomous cars. So the income for insurance companies remains similar.
Crashes will be reduced however, so the expenses for the insurance companies
will go down and thus profit margins will go up.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
crashes aren't really an expense. If someone causes $3000 worth of claim their
rate will be increased such that by the time it's back to it's pre-claim level
the difference between the pre-claim rate and increased will be approximately
the amount paid. Don't believe me? Run the numbers.

It's medical stuff that actually costs the insurance companies money. Look at
modern cars. The engineers aren't the ones drooling over 10+ airbags. Setting
of 10 explosions close to people in a safe way is a PITA and the hardware
takes up precious weight and space that could be used for something else.
Consumers aren't demanding cars that get crushed like a tin can totaled out
when you get rear ended at 10mph or back into a pole. The "safety at the cost
of all else" designs that have been creeping into cars do keep people out of
the (expensive) hospital but at a highly increased cost of ownership and with
sacrificed performance in other areas (including efficiency).

The first I in IIHS doesn't stand for consumer. That's not who they're trying
to protect.

~~~
Strom
You leave me the impression that you would rather increase the risk of
biological injury with the benefit of less property injury. I for one am happy
to see the safety trends and think that it should be taken even further. In
fact I see autonomous vehicles as a strategy for this. It would decrease the
probability that some person will crash into me.

------
cpprototypes
The recent oil price changes made me wonder if the future of cars will be EV
or continue to be ICE. It's not because of the current low price of oil. It's
what caused it, which is fracking. Fracking has been known for a long time.
But it suddenly became viable when oil was at $100+. And it was so successful
it crashed the global price of oil.

When oil reaches $100 again, what other new technologies will be viable? What
about $200, $300? This could easily happen due to decreasing oil reserves and
increasing demand for a carbon tax due to climate change. Many assume that the
path from here is EV.

But at $200, $300, the technologies to make oil may become viable. There are
technologies right now (I think Audi demonstrated something last year) to take
CO2 from the air and combine with hydrogen to make oil. This kind of
technology also goes very well with renewable power like wind and solar. The
big issue with wind and solar is storing excess electric generation. Most
think batteries are the solution. But what about just making oil instead?

All of this works directly with the huge current infrastructure and investment
in oil and cars. It even provides a much easier solution to reducing climate
change than EV. Just create a government regulation that requires all gas to
be at least 10% from carbon neutral source. They already did it with ethanol
(E10). And if more CO2 reduction is required, they can just keep increasing
the percentage mix.

When all of these technologies are viable, gas will probably be very
expensive. I don't know what the number will be, but let's imagine it's $10
per gallon. That's very expensive, but is it enough for everyone to throw away
their cars and buy EV? Is it enough to pay the premium for EV?

~~~
jjoonathan
> It even provides a much easier solution to reducing climate change than EV.
> Just create a government regulation that requires all gas to be at least 10%
> from carbon neutral source.

Poe's law.

~~~
cpprototypes
It's laughable to think about this now. But nature doesn't care about
liberal/conservative or democrat/republication. The effects of climate change
are already happening (California drought). As the effects become more obvious
and clear, and the younger generation replaces the old, the political climate
can change quickly. EV is simply not a general solution. People keep their
cars for a long time and there's no way that infrastructure can change fast
enough (for example, all the urban areas with apartments and no personal
garages).

Nature won't wait for us to upgrade and change our infrastructure to be EV
friendly. So what if there's a way to keep the current system but reduce CO2
at the same time? Fracking was once laughed at as not economically viable.
Then it suddenly was. Technologies to make oil is now laughed at. Will it
still be when oil is at $200 or $300?

~~~
mikeash
I'm not aware of anyone laughing at technologies to make oil. They're just not
economically viable at current prices.

------
bigdubs
Sort of naive question; where are we getting the raw materials for all these
batteries?

~~~
greglindahl
Tesla has announced 2 big lithium contracts, one with a mine in Mexico, and
one with a mine in Nevada.

[http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Tesla+%28TSLA%29...](http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Tesla+%28TSLA%29+Enters+Lithium+Supply+Contract+with+Rare+Earth+Minerals+and+Bacanora+Minerals/10850689.html)

[http://www.rgj.com/story/money/economy/reno-
rebirth/2015/09/...](http://www.rgj.com/story/money/economy/reno-
rebirth/2015/09/16/tesla-secures-lithium-deal-nevada-pure-energy-
minerals/72345888/)

------
johnward
I think Elon is still talking about hypermileage not production numbers.

------
rhino369
Autonomous in 3 years sounds impossible. Though I guess that depends on what
definition of autonomous you use.

~~~
sgk284
It sounds aggressive, but most of the hurdles at this point are regulatory and
insurance related (at least during fair weather conditions). Uber is aiming to
have autonomous cars within two years and Google is actively testing local
autonomous commuter cars, so it seems feasible. Also note that current Tesla
cars (assuming you are in the beta program) can drive themselves on highways
_today_.

~~~
rhino369
I mean fully autonomous, like let it drive to pick up the kids on its own. Not
a really advanced cruise control / break if it sees an accident about to
happen.

Uber's map system can't even correctly get me from my house to my work without
leading the driver into an alley.

I think we'll get 95% of the way to autonomous, but I sort of doubt we'll have
a car that you can, for example, sleep in while it's driving you around.

I hope I'm wrong. I'd love to buy one in 3-6 years.

------
mizchief2
Just make them go 200mi while running heat, ac, and radio and make them under
$30k. That's all we want.

------
phragg
phragg says $TSLA will be >$500 per share when autonomous hits.

------
mtgx
I wish he didn't do this. He should stop comparing "record-breaking" numbers
with each other, and instead focus on what "normal driving" would get you.
He's only going to encourage other auto makers to be highly misleading about
their numbers, too. I was hoping Tesla would keep that in check. Oh well.

~~~
watty
Did you read the article?

> Musk didn’t elaborate on whether someone would need to drive just as slowly
> to reach 620 miles in 2017. We’d guess that’s not what he had in mind,
> though.

He is saying that by 2017 he believes Tesla cars will be able to drive 620
miles under normal driving conditions.

~~~
davmre
No, he didn't say that at all. "We’d guess that’s not what he had in mind" is
Techcrunch editorializing. Musk himself didn't say what he had in mind.

Given that 620 miles is roughly triple a Tesla's current everyday range and
it's unlikely that battery performance will triple in the next two years, it
seems a lot more plausible that he's thinking of extending the current
hypermiling techniques -- add a special software mode, tuck in a few extra
battery packs around the edges, etc. -- than about some fundamental innovation
that would yield 620 miles from typical driving habits. If he really meant the
latter, he could have said so, but keeping it vague allows him to make an
ambitious-sounding prediction that is, strictly speaking, still pretty
straightforward for Tesla engineers to fulfill.

