
Why No One Is Beating Tesla's Range - prostoalex
https://jalopnik.com/why-no-one-is-beating-teslas-range-1837952903
======
kenhwang
No one's beating Tesla's range because no one is willing to use the NCA
battery chemistry. All the other automakers stick to NMC (for very good
reason). Tesla will have a ~20% range and cost advantage just by nature of
using NCA over NMC.

~~~
mikeash
That doesn’t seem to explain why other cars are getting less range from
batteries with similar capacity.

~~~
kenhwang
NMC batteries needs to be much bigger/heavier to match the capacity of NCA due
to NCA's better energy density. Then you have both the increased weight and
increased cooling burden associated with the larger NMC battery that
negatively impact range.

~~~
mikeash
That doesn’t add up. The I-PACE and Taycan both have similar weight to the
Model X, yet are substantially less efficient. The e-tron is lighter than a
Model S and has absolutely horrible efficiency.

~~~
kenhwang
The e-tron is similar in weight, size, and power to the Model X and pretty
much gets within 10% of its efficiency comparing WLTP ratings. I think the
efficiency loss can be explained by cooling (if this article is to be believed
that Audi has more complicated/expensive cooling) and aerodynamics (it has a
normal SUV profile vs the coupe of the Model X).

~~~
mikeash
I found about 250 miles for the e-Tron and 315 miles for the Model X competing
WLTP ratings. I imagine aerodynamics are a huge factor in this difference.

~~~
kenhwang
For 83.6kWh usable battery on the e-tron vs 95kWh on the Model X.

~~~
mikeash
Ah, I just saw 95kWh and figured it was close. I didn't realize the usable was
so different.

I'm a bit suspicious of the WLTP ratings for these cars. The EPA rating for
the Model X Long Range is 325 miles, while the e-tron's EPA rating is only 204
miles. Any idea why the Model X would score lower on WLTP while the e-tron
would score so much higher?

~~~
kenhwang
They probably just have different blends of city/highway/speeds. Just like how
gasoline cars have different estimates from different testing agencies,
electric cars do too because they all have different efficiency curves.

The ratings generally try to mimic the driving conditions of the region and
automakers tend to optimize for their home turf. So it's not too surprising
the American automaker does better on the American test and the Europeans do
better on the European test.

------
nemosaltat
This article seems to frame the shared cooling system as a flaw. For a
different perspective: [1] “Sean Mitchell, Detroit veteran Sandy Munro of
Munro and Associates mentioned that among the Model 3’s unique components, its
“Superbottle” is one of the most innovative. Combining two pumps, one heat
exchanger, and one coolant valve in one cleverly-designed bottle, the Model
3’s cooling system is arguably the most unique in the auto industry.“

[1] [https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-superbottle-
disrupti...](https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-superbottle-disruption-
video/)

~~~
cowsandmilk
Except the article is a comparison to the model S, not the model 3...

~~~
DiabloD3
Model 3 is just a scaled down Model S using a lot of the same core technology.

------
Benjammer
This is, at best, "sponsored content" from Audi, and at worst, an Audi
advertisement directly written by a PR firm. Why is this on the front page of
HN?

~~~
braythwayt
The first sentence is absolutely true. And frankly, unsurprising to anyone who
has been around the magazine industry for longer than a week or two.

As they used to say of computer magazines in their heyday, “Everything in the
magazine is an advertisement, some of which are labeled as such.”

Paul Graham wrote an essay about PR in this site’s early days called “The
Submarine,” where he credited PR for the success of his own startup that he
sold to Yahoo.

PR is part of the game, and recognizing it as such is part of the game.

BUt with respect to your second sentence, just because it’s PR doesn’t
necessarily mean it is false or misleading. That assumption would be an ad
hominem fallacy.

A PR piece planted in Jalopnik isn’t that much different than an interview
with the CEO. You know the CEO is stating their company’s official position,
but you may still want to hear their point of view.

I 100% agree it is useful to make sure that everyone reading this be aware
that it is mostly ghost-written by VW Group. But once you are aware of that,
it is still useful to read it and debate amongst ourselves whether their
claims are reasonable and informative.

Personally, I thought the article did a good job of explaining that they were
repeating VW’s claims. It did not feel like they were pretending to print the
views of a so-called “independent think tank.️“

JM2C.

~~~
Benjammer
I just honestly don't think it's even worth it for us to discuss this article
on a somewhat technical, popular discussion forum like HN. It doesn't make any
attempt to give background/contextual information about any of the specific
issues discussed, it simply jumps right into pushing the Audi features and
openly bashing Tesla with vague generalizations; for example:

"Motor cooling is the weak link in the Tesla Model S, with motor heat soaking
usually responsible for power reductions under hard driving."

It doesn't explain the motivations of either company's designers and
engineers, it doesn't give background science on cooling technologies, and it
doesn't even really explain why Audi's system is better. It just says Audi has
"more aggressive and redundant cooling systems," and that Tesla's cooling, "is
the weak link in the Tesla Model S," with little-to-no further explanation.

If you are talking about an interview with a CEO where they focus on how they
are better than one specific competitor, and come off petty, shallow, and
unreasonably biased, then I would have similar feelings about that content. A
bunch of us here talking about this article is what a marketing analyst's or
PR agent's dreams are made of.

~~~
braythwayt
One of the pleasures of HN for me is that when a shallow article is published,
sometimes a bunch of people chime in and give more thorough explanations, e.g.
the discussion here about the tradeoffs between the battery technologies used
by Tesla versus Audi (and just about everyone else).

If the article serves as an invitation to a good conversation, I’m all for it.
But of course, sometimes an article is so bad that the entire conversation is
composed of people debunking its nonsense.

Or worse, certain highly emotional topics get posted, and everyone just yells
past each other. Regardless of the quality of the OP, the conversation makes
me feel like I lose 50 points of IQ when I read the comments.

I sum, I agree that sometimes, bad articles make for bad conversations. Did
this one? Maybe, maybe not, I’ll accept your word for it if you think poorly
of the quality of conversation around it.

------
ineedasername
The article still doesn't explain the 166 mile difference in range despite
only 5kwh difference in battery capacity. Walling off 12% doesn't cover the
difference nor does the 4% difference in weight. Is there an efficiency
difference?

~~~
rawland
This article smeels like PR to me. Especially as Porsche, Audi and VW are
basically the same company [0] and struggling to sell their EVs.

Tesla is the dominating force. Some numbers from Norway:

[https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/16/tesla-
model-3-12-4-of-a...](https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/16/tesla-
model-3-12-4-of-all-norwegian-vehicle-sales-january-july-2019/)

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group#Subsidiaries_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group#Subsidiaries_and_brands)

~~~
clouddrover
Volkswagen Group is the biggest car company in the world at the moment, with
Toyota a close second. Volkswagen owns 12 automotive brands. Pretty soon
they'll also be the biggest electric car company in the world, purely because
they're spending the most money on it:

[https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/vws-91b-spend-evs-
out...](https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/vws-91b-spend-evs-outpaces-
investment-rivals)

They'll release multiple EVs across multiple brands every year from now on.
Volkswagen's MEB platform is going to allow them to produce cars with
equivalent range to Tesla's at a lower price point. Volkswagen says their
battery cost is now below $100 per kilowatt hour:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/08/business/volkswagen-
trade...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/08/business/volkswagen-trademark-
electric-vehicles.html)

That's the advantage of the economies of scale Volkswagen will be able to
achieve with MEB, both from in-house production and from licensing the
platform to other manufacturers from small manufacturers like e.Go to large
manufacturers like Ford.

~~~
mschuster91
But still: a VW (or for that matter _any_ other car than a Tesla) will not
have one thing that makes Tesla unique: software. Even discarding the fact
that Tesla has probably the most data worldwide to train self-driving AI and
way more experience in building fully-electric cars, no one comes remotely
close to what Tesla can do. Modern non-Tesla still are sold with "map updates"
ffs, and something like "remote software update" is totally unheard of.

Tesla's strength is software and extreme agility in software development. The
other car manufacturers are prevented by their sheer size and corporate
infighting culture to catch up and they will be for years to come.

~~~
lpcvoid
I'd counter argue that it's maybe not that bad to have proven, formally
validated software in the field, which is what traditional software developers
in the automotive sectors did for decades. You tend to push out less crap if
you are forced to make sure it works well from the start due to lack of
updates.

At least the German Automotive industry relies very much on formal
verification and model driven development for this reason.

~~~
solarkraft
Except the UI stuff they push out _is_ utter crap. It's slowly improving, but
I if I understand the industry correctly the efforts that are leading to that
started many years ago.

Meanwhile when Tesla releases a bug they can ship a fix within days.

Why arbitrarily limit your development like that? To make some money off your
customer being forced to go to the dealer to get an update? That's just
terrible UX.

------
zokier
Even using the quoted 83.6 kWh figure as comparison, tesla gets 50% more miles
per kWh. That is still pretty stark difference.

~~~
kensai
Good point. Well, I guess we need to wait 7-8 years until the batteries from
other manufacturers become worn and see if their claims stand.

Battery reliability in the long term as well as sustained performance should
not be underestimated.

------
clouddrover
Some manufacturers are beating Tesla on price and range. The Hyundai Kona can
be bought for a bit less than a similarly priced Model 3 and the Kona has more
range at that price point. The Volkswagen ID.3 will come with three battery
sizes for 330km, 420km, and 550km WLTP range and they will be cheaper than the
equivalent range Model 3s.

~~~
mamon
WLTP range is different measurment that Tesla's EPA range. Conversion rate is
approximately 1.12:1 ([1]), so ID.3 EPA range would be 491 km.

[1] [https://insideevs.com/features/343231/heres-how-to-
calculate...](https://insideevs.com/features/343231/heres-how-to-calculate-
conflicting-ev-range-test-cycles-epa-wltp-nedc/)

~~~
clouddrover
There's no need to do conversions. Just look at the WLTP ranges on Tesla's
European sites. Here's the Irish version of the site for the Model 3:

[https://www.tesla.com/en_IE/model3/design?redirect=no#batter...](https://www.tesla.com/en_IE/model3/design?redirect=no#battery)

------
beamatronic
I just want more reliable car choices for driving in the car pool lane. There
are a number of plug in hybrids SUVs from Lexus, Porsche, and BMW that are not
on the approved eligible list. Deferring my next purchase into infinity in the
mean time.

------
elonissexyaf
.

~~~
ineedasername
I believe traditional manufacturers probably know more about building cars
that can last (thought not in all cases certainly). But yeah, this does come
off as a bit hype-ish over details that probably matter a lot less to buyers.

~~~
greendesk
Traditional manufacturers also know that they make money from maintaining
cars. If traditional manufacturers make cars that last, they will go out of
business.

~~~
ineedasername
There's a balance they have to strike. If you can't on average get 7-10 years
out of a car with normal preventative maintenance, you won't sell many as both
those who buy for the long term and the secondary market for used cars will
avoid.

