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?
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.
- NMC can charge and discharge faster
- NMC has longer cycle life
- NMC is more heat tolerant
Advantages of NCA over NMC are:
- NCA is cheaper due to less cobalt use and no magnesium with slower growing demand than NMC which further helps cost going forward
- NCA has better energy density (capacity/weight)
By far the biggest disadvantage of NCA is it's thermal profile. It's more difficult to cool due to the higher energy density, and prone to fire or explosion when overcharged, overheated, or subjected to physical damage.
NCA is a much older battery chemistry than NMC. Historically it's applications have been limited to handheld tools because of how dangerous a mistreated large NCA battery could be.
Like the literal placement of the parts in that piece of plastic (which have no effect on it's function) is what's interesting, the parts and workings besides the actual plastic bottle's shape not surprising or unique.
It's impressive in the "wow they really went out of their way to make this thing?" sense, not a "how on earth is that possible" or "no one else could do this". That's why it's described as "slick"
Other manufacturers wouldn't do this because you can make the same exact system using parts that have an infinitely better economy of scale, and the penalty in space taken is not large relative to a million other things going into an EV.
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.️“
"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.
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.
The insinuation that Jalopnik is Audi’s sock puppet is simply unfounded.
The guy actually says that he's been directly influenced by the (PR-driven, because that's how this works) information that he was provided by Audi, and as a result, has written an article about it.
"...Audi took the time to explain to me what non-Tesla EVs are bringing to the table.
Essentially, the diagrams they sent over of the Audi E-Tron..."
He also swallows some of the (Audi PR) arguments whole:
"...why the E-Tron goes 204 miles compared to 370 miles for the Model S Long Range.
The other big part is the battery itself. First, the Model S packs a bigger 100kWh battery pack compared to the 95kWh pack in the Audi."
What about a comparison to other Teslas with smaller batteries --like the model 3 with its 75kWh battery-- which still manage to wallop the e-tron's range?
Another way to say that is to point out that the author/regurgitator has responsibly disclosed the source of the information so that we may judge for ourselves whether it is interesting.
As I pointed out in another thread, I think we all agree that this is planted, the question is whether it is still interesting to read and/or use as an excuse for a discussion.
Still, sustained performance is something rarely compared. Let’s see how the Tesla S will fair in the Nürburgring soon.
>What about a comparison to other Teslas with smaller batteries --like the model 3 with its 75kWh battery-- which still manage to wallop the e-tron's range?
Would you ask BMW why they aren't comparing a 750il to an Audi A3? The model 3 is half the size and weighs 1000lbs less, the battery is irrelevant.
Tesla is the dominating force. Some numbers from Norway:
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:
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.
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.
At least the German Automotive industry relies very much on formal verification and model driven development for this reason.
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.
The software of the driver-facing stuff however is a different game and honestly there is so much utter crap out there it hurts - badly (if at all) tested phone integrations, no touch UI at all, maps which my four year old phone can render more fluently...
The ID.3 is supposed to have a large augmented reality heads up display which can do things like overlay sat nav indicators on the view of the road ahead. It sounds interesting. That's something I want to see more detail of at the official launch.
Volkswagen has a partnership with Ford and has invested $2.6 billion in Argo: https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/vw-investment-vaults-...
Volkswagen is doing other things like joining Automotive Grade Linux: https://www.automotivelinux.org/announcements/2019/04/08/vol...
They're investing big in all aspects of electric cars. I think they're across the issues.
Competing against the Tesla Model Y in 2019 should be extremely simple since the Y isn't available yet. Given that Audi only planned on making 45,000 etrons in 2019 and the lack of a strong competitor you'd expect huge waiting lists for the etron. Yesterday I checked availability in Canada and there are 115 etrons sitting on dealer lots in Canada.
Committing to selling 3 million per year in a few years is a huge gamble if you can't sell 45,000 in 2019...
The first MEB based Audi will be the Audi e-tron Q4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiwevzHsCbU
Battery reliability in the long term as well as sustained performance should not be underestimated.
These 2 are not similarly sized vehicles though and the difference in range is negligible. As for performance, it's no real contest.