I wish there was more details and pictures to see. But the fact they keep on using "military grade tech" makes me lose most of my faith in the merit of the article. Military grade actually means something. Just because it is advanced does not make it military grade. There are many stringent requirements and standards especially in testing when it's used in the Military which is why everything seems like it cost so much. Just look at MIL-SPEC hardware like screws. Easily 2-3x the cost of regular bolts but I can exactly pinpoint the metal composition and expected lifetime for it.
> But the fact they keep on using "military grade tech" makes me lose most of my faith in the merit of the article.
This description has been paraded around ever since the original Munro comment using those words. I'm still waiting for someone to actually explain what they meant by that. Does that mean MIL spec components? Does it mean an approach to board layout or packaging? Or does it just mean that it looks like a modern high quality design?
Of course a Tesla is going to have fancy power electronics in their vehicles, and these will obviously look more sophisticated than some off-the-shelf ICE car's ECU. Its kinda a design requirement for a high performance electric car.
Most mil grade tech is not that advanced. Electronics are 20+ years behind the technology forefront but are built for durability and reliability. Some of that you want in a car but it's nice to have modern high speed gear for infotainment and advanced engine controls.
Munro & Associates, one of the most respected teardown and costing consultancies in the automotive industry, is of the opinion that the Model 3 is "solidly profitable". They have previously been harshly critical of Tesla and remain unimpressed with the fit-and-finish of the Model 3, particularly the large and inconsistent panel gaps.
I dunno about military-grade, but the Model 3 is definitely special.
I found this video series [0] about disassembling and analyzing a Model 3 very interesting and informative. If you have worked on cars much, particularly if you have ever changed a clutch or removed an engine, there will be some mind blowing things here.
For example, removing the entire drive train requires unplugging a half dozen connectors, two coolant hoses and undoing four bolts. Probably a half hour job, given a lift, a transmission jack and a few hand basic hand tools. [1]
Take a look at the inverter. [2] It's about twice the size of the one on my electric bike, but it's good for 300kw. The 100kw inverter in my Chevy Spark EV is huge by comparison. It's the lower module in the big stack of boxes [3]. Above it is the 3.3kw charger.
I already have an electric car, and the Chevy Bolt would suit my needs better (small, hatchback) than the Model 3, but I'm tempted by the artistry of it.
Love my Chevy Bolt EV. I like that Chevrolet has adopted a lot of standards - J1772A/CCS Combo Charging, android auto and carplay in the infotainment system. Surround vision and rear view camera are amazing.
Model 3 is ok, but there are few things to consider about that Tesla.
- The lack of the free Tesla supercharging perk for m3. Without spending any additional money, that car is locked into only having support for Tesla's proprietary standard "out of box." There is no other hardware included with the car which make it compatible with other technologies. (CCS/Chademo)
- And that proprietary built in charge port requires a $500 Chademo adapter if you want to use a different network for fast charging. Even that standard is being replaced by SAE/CCS - No support at all by Tesla, but is the standard used by Volkswagens upcoming Electrify America EVSE Network.
- Are you a do it yourselfer? You won't be buying Tesla parts - they don't make them available to customers. Whatever their service charges - that's what you pay. I find the right to repair my own equipment is a must for something I'm spending over $30,000 on.
I don't wanna have to teach a lesson to anyone on how to open my car doors. Emergency exit handle is in a bad spot... Yep. Right where you expect it to be - In the face of a normal handle on any car! If someone in your car uses the emergency exit handle which is right on the door, the infotainment system present a warning message telling you not to do that again as the window trim can be damaged. Humans are going to always look for the handle on a car door...
Only one camera is actually useful - rear backup camera. But there are a lot more cameras for the autopilot feature. What's the point of having all these cameras if you can't do anything with them?
- Even $35,000 is a lot to spend on a vehicle that was assembled inside of a circus tent in Fremont.
CCS/Combo chargers are not free either, so how is that an advantage? Superchargers are also usefully placed for trips and are not located in lots that are blocked off at night like the last CCS/Combo I tried to use. They are also here today unlike VW's upcoming network.
I'm already signed up for four or five charging networks because of the fragmentation of the CCS market. I don't see any advantage here either.
I'm probably not getting either car, but I did try to plan a trip from Oakland, CA to Portland OR which I do sometimes. It is easy in a Model 3 LR with minimal delay for charging. The Bolt struggles to make it at all and needs a couple extra stops to hit the mountains with enough charge to get over. I'd probably do it, but it would be an adventure.
I used to be a do all my own mechanical work, but the nice thing about electric cars is you really don't need to do much of this. I'm expecting either car to run for years without any of the sort of service I would tackle.
Your complaint is that the car comes with more cameras that the backup camera? You are aware that it does collision avoidance with the front and side cameras, right?
> circus tent in Fremont
This is just bigotry, what have you got against Fremont?
“Even $35,000 is a lot to spend on a vehicle that was assembled inside of a circus tent in Fremont.”
For what it’s worth I believe only specific known configurations are being built on that tent (the AWD model?) so you can avoid it if you want. Most of the cars are being built on the normal assembly line.
Your other points seem very fair... Tesla seems like a very closed ecosystem compared to any other manufacturer.
If Tesla were actually so far ahead that his tech represented an advantage when applied in a military context, he'd no longer be able to export it much less share the tech by building in China.
I really don't see that happening based on the article here.
It's missed the boat for being the first long range affordable EV. Hyundai got there first with the Kona, which has the range of the more expensive Model 3 Long Range but at the price of the cheaper Short Range one.
Don't get me wrong, the M3 is okay as a stripped down sporty hatchback, but the $35k model is looking a bit basic and overpriced already.
That may not be necessarily the case. Hyundai is having issues with producing an appropriate amount of battery packs[0] and it's not planning on delivering more than 2500 units to Norway in 2018. I don't think they're planning to sell more than 25k overall this year.
Sure the Model 3 is considerably less affordable, but it has scale[2].
Can you point at a source giving a similar range to the Model 3 Long Range? I googled and I found that the US EPA numbers are quite different: Kona Long Range 250, Kona short range ~166, Model 3 Long Range 334, Model 3 Standard ~220.
Well, 40 and 64kW batteries in Kona compared to 50 and 75 in Model 3. Plus Kona is only available in 24 weeks according to their website, so 6 month wait.
According to the Norwegian pilots currently flying the F35, it defeats all other planes it has gone up against due to its tech and stealth superiority. Only the F22 - which was recently in Norway for exercises - provided it a good challenge.
The Israelis are actively using the F35 in missions. Their air force is not known for spending large sums of money on planes that don't work.
Nobody else has fielded a 5th gen plane in meaningful numbers, including Russia and China. There's a reason for that.
Wondering if that reason is not being necessary or beneficial?
At this point we’ve built several generations of advanced jets that’ve never seen meaningful combat or use starting with, from what I remember, the F-117.
I've heard the idea that a rationale for the us to keep improving its jets was to provide a counter for the theoretical air forces of the world that field our previous generation of jets.
Well, there was one F-117 that was shot down, and conversely, since it was solely an attack aircraft, avoiding combat was more what it was supposed to do, no?
