Tesla going open source? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2014, 07:17:24 pm
content: http://www.treehugger.com/cars/tesla-open-source-all-its-patents-wont-sue-anyone-using-its-technology.html

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2014, 07:35:24 pm
content: Yeah Elon. Awesome!

author: josem
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2014, 08:17:57 pm
content: Open source? Are they publishing the schematics, 3D models and firmware of their cars?

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2014, 08:38:14 pm
content: They won't sue if anyone uses a Tesla patent.As a patent describes how something works in detail it is considered source. allowing free usage means it becomes open source.You don't need the cad files for something to be open source, nor do you need machine readable formats. They are nice to have, but not mandatory. Similar , many open source software does not deliver a compiled binary. it's up to you to make it.The driving idea behind what Tesla is doing is to speed up the development of electric cars. It ain't moving fast enough to Elon's liking. Tesla is racing ahead but everyone else just mulls around...By opening up the patents he hopes other car makers will follow his technology ( he will benefit once they start buying batteries , more on that later )There is a small technicality though : NONE of the existing technologies in use in electric cars( apart from Tesla's) are compatible as they are. Take the supercharger for example. NONE of the other car makers could even use it if they wanted to as their battery chemistry and mode of cooling is completely different. Attempt to charge a non-tesla battery at supercharge rates and you end up with a fireball... Supercharging requires liquid cooling and LithiumCobaltOxide cells... nobody apart from tesla has that.Then there is the connector issue. Tesla will NOT switch to J1771 or chademo or any of the other 'car industry proposed' shite connectors. They simply are not fit for purpose. They can handle neither the current nor the voltage the supercharger delivers.There are rules to follow ehn you want to use the Tesla patents for freeRule number 1 : THOU SHALLT NOT DEMAND MONEY FROM THY USER FOR CHARGINGin other words : electricity MUST be FREE (as in gratis, zero-paid) to the owner of the car ! Tesla does not want to see companies making their own supercharger and then putting a money-lock on em. One of the things Tesla tries to break is the razor-razorblade problem we have with cars. Buy a car and then pay for the rest of your life for fuel. Power should be free. Tesla delivers solar produced power (through their co-ownership of Solarcity).Rule number 2: you WILL co-pay for upkeep of charging stations. so any car maker that hops on the wagon needs to invest money in rolling out more superchargers and solar plants and the maintenance thereof.Tesla wants to flood the world with charging points so that the charging problem in terms of spots goes away. chargers should be as available as gas stations. Today the rollout is simply too slow. everone that makes charging stations does so for commercial incentive ( make money from selling power) Since there are only a small number of ev's around , the rollout of stations is small too. no point in putting a charger very mile if you ain't got enough customers.the slow rolloout of chargers hampers the fast rollout of cars. it is a chicken and egg problem. So tesla will make crambled eggs and vol-au-vent (chicken pot pie) from this problem : adopt our patents and you can charge on our systems for free ( customers will go to car vendors and demand supercharging and free ). as cars start selling we will deploy faster and more chargers.Technically there are some serious hurdles and adaptations the other car makers will have to do.I had a small discussion with one of their engineers. we chit-chatted about the power connector.To give you an idea of the problem : The supercharger , when starting a nearly empty battery , delivers 380 volts at up to 330 ampere ... it does that for at least 20 minutes before current starts rolling back.That battery is essentially a load of 1.1 ohm ... (380volt/330amps)Where is the problem ? contact resistance and cabling losses !a contact resistance of 11 milliohm is 1% of the battery resistance... yet burns off 1200 watts ! That's a friggin deep fryer !The cable form the supercharger to the car , including the connectors, better be well below 0.1 milliohm ! even at 1 milliohm you burn 120 watts in the cable. if your connector resistance is a milliohm it will melt during charging because of the heat produced !

author: M. András
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2014, 08:40:17 pm
content: interesting decision, im wondering what will happen after this, big car company jumps on the freeby and produce their own profit by someone else handywork with zero investmen on their end?Does he hope that this action will start a big industrial revolution and finally advance the technology used to make cars? improved battery technology etc. and finally all the sci-fi will become reality roughly 20 years later then it was predicted by them?

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2014, 08:57:38 pm
content: I'm still waiting for my flying car.

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2014, 09:07:53 pm
content: Awesome. Simply awesome Elon.

author: josem
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2014, 09:08:59 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 12, 2014, 08:38:14 pmQuote from: retrolefty on June 12, 2014, 08:57:38 pmTrue, but "Power too cheap to meter" may be coming!

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2014, 10:05:39 pm
content: Quote from: josem on June 12, 2014, 08:17:57 pmVery good point. Journalist sensationalism, patents are not source and they are always public. They say that most likely that will not enforce them but reserve the right to do it anyway. Looks like a PR move to me.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2014, 10:17:24 pm
content: Pretty hard to enforce your patents after declaring with apublic letterthat you won't.Quote

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2014, 10:19:24 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 12, 2014, 08:38:14 pmEquating a patent disclosure with the source files of a specific design qualifies as the spin of the month. ;-)

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2014, 10:22:13 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on June 12, 2014, 10:17:24 pmNotice the 'in good faith'. That's very subjective. To really would really want to open the patents they would put them in the public domain.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2014, 10:26:56 pm
content: excellent job Elon !patents are killing the evolution of technology... i don't say they shouldn't exist, but they should be valid for 2-3 years maximum.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2014, 10:29:01 pm
content: Too bad Musk is a one of a kind, world needs many more with his attitude/capabilities.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2014, 10:33:24 pm
content: The letter is pretty clear.What it means is that any automaker can look at Teslas (very public) patents and incorporate any of that technology into their own EV designs and not fear a patent infringement lawsuit.Of course it's also a good PR move but that's besides the point.Will it make a big difference? Who knows - likely not. But I think in our current greed is good, cut throat, societal good be damned, profit above all corporate culture, it's a welcome gesture.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2014, 11:40:04 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 12, 2014, 08:38:14 pmNot to mention the problem of how many existing gas stations are anywhere near a supply that can provide 125kW ?Even if there is a suitable supply, electricity companies will charge a lot to provide a connection to it.The avarage power over a day is probably manageable, but again we have a storage problem - it's just moved from the car to the gas station.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2014, 12:43:10 am
content: In my experience patents are far from blueprints on how to make a product. It's just a rough sketch of an idea which shows enough to prove the originallity of an idea. After all a patent is a legal document and many patents are just bogus.I'm also skeptical about free power in a world where power becomes an increasingly scarse commodity.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2014, 02:31:32 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on June 12, 2014, 11:40:04 pmThat is why the superchargers are installed in huge shopping complexes where they can tap into the 400 volts lines from streetlighting.And when i'm saying supercharger i mean not just one stall. The gilroy charger has 10 stalls . And can charge simultaneously. If 10 tesla's are 'drinking' that is over 1.2 megawatt beeing pulled ...And ive been there numerous times when all bays are occupied.Niw, the goal with superchargers is NOT to have these every 5 miles.The idea is still that you charge at home. When taking a long trip you follow the charge points just like you follow fuel stations on huge highway corridors. Spacing the chargers 150 miles apart covers the entire US with roughly 600 chargers. You are always within range of at least two chargers. It works like a cell phone grid.You will always pay for energy. Just not for the one fro. The superchargers. Tesla sees the supercharger as a necessity to make the electric vehicle work today.There currently is no battery that can be filled at the speed of filling a gas tank. So this holds people back. The superchargers solve this problem. Charge at home at slow rate will cover day to day use for 80 to 90 of the driving cases. Longer trips are equally covered with superchargers. Tesla takes the installation and operation cost of those on them as they see it as an integral part of the EV revolution.Maybe in the future we will have faster charging batteries with much more capacity. But that is future music. Today it is a problem, solved by deploying a network of superchargers.Tesla thinks completely different. Other carmakers see the EV as a gimmick for eco-nuts. They make more money from half a week of selling ICE based cars, than all the EV's sold in a year combined... It's barely 1 percent of the market. Divide that one percent across car makers and it is a rounding error... For Tesla it is 100% ! It's sell or bust !Elon is a very smart businessman as wel as a technogeek as well as a environmental protectionist. He wants to do the right thing and make a killing off of it.Of course this is a big PR stunt, but at the same time he sprung a big trap on the other car makers.By opening his technology the owners of other EV will go to their brand maker and ask : well ? We can we plug in for free ? All theses tesla owners can. Tesla allows you to make the car compatible and won't charge you for the patents... What are you waiting for.Essentially he turned up the thumbscrews by telling the world: come get it. Everyone will want it (it's free) so the car makers are facing a problem now.. They will get pressure from buyers to adapt...Adapting means, in the buyers eyes, compatible with teslas stations, fast charge, long range and free power.The only problem is none of the car makers has anything even remotely compatible !Different connectors, different chemistry, no. Liquid cooled, small packs.. Oops....So tesla plays the buyers to force the manufacturers to kick in gear and follow tesla as opposed to doing a half arsed job with their own proprietary stuff.Tesla will profit from this. How ? The gigafactory ! In order to be compatible you will need to build battery packs with the right cell chemistry and cooling technology. Guess who will have those ... Exactly.Today, the limiting factor for tesla is how fast they can get a hold of the cells. There simply is not enough production capacity in the world , for that particular form factor and chemistry. They can only build 800 cars a week because they can only get 6 million cells a week (there's 6700 cells per car)The giga factory will solve that. This factory is insane. It will have its own lithium refinery, be located close to lithium mines, have its own train tracks, powerplant (solar and wind farms) and it will recycle spent packs into new ones. Tesla wants the factory to be be self powering. In essence the packs will be built purely on solar and wind energy.In order to refine gas, you need to burn gas...It is very hard to figure out the 'why' he does the things the way he does em. The fact is the guy is incredibly clever and five moves ahead of everyone else in the chess game. You can bet top dollar he will only benefit from this move.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2014, 01:34:46 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 13, 2014, 02:31:32 am

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2014, 01:51:05 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 13, 2014, 02:31:32 amNo, that factory is what will kill Tesla (after Elon cashed in on his shares). There are lots of new technologies (not necessarily EV based) lurking on the horizon. Either way the competition will be using new technology while Tesla is still writing off that large battery factory of them. The first will be the last..Tesla cars seem to be quite popular over here though. I only drive once every few weeks but over the past couple of months I have spotted 5 unique Tesla model-S. The problem I see is that paid chargers are along the highways but Tesla's 'free' superchargers are on industrial zones. You don't want to be driving on an industrial zone during rush hour or at night. At night you are all alone and during rush hour you can easely waste 15 minutes by waiting to get back on the highway.

author: Fuzzy
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: June 13, 2014, 03:10:54 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on June 13, 2014, 01:34:46 pmtook a picture of the cable going to one charger...

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2014, 04:37:15 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on June 13, 2014, 01:34:46 pmBelow some pictures of the rig they have in gilroy. There is a large power cabinet from the power company. That feeds 4 supercharger modules . A second power cabinet feeds another 3 , older superchargers. The older installation can only deliver 90 kilowatts to the cars. The supercharger modules must be ganged together to deliver this kind of power to the car.Supercharger 120Kw, 2Vehicles, North AmericaInput voltage : 480V ACInput current : 160 APhases ; 3Ph + N + GNDoutput voltage : 50-410V DCoutput current : 210 Amp Max continuousI dont really noticed a high voltage power transformer nearby.The supercharger tag mentions incoming power

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2014, 04:43:10 pm
content: Here is what the car pulls when it has 30 miles of juice left in the pack (85 KW pack)332 amps at 368 volts...

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 03:52:41 am
content: Charge stations don't need to be as ubiquitous as gas stations are. Now that I have my own MS P85+, I've realized that the "refueling" pattern is completely different.With gasoline-powered cars you only fill up when you are almost empty. This means there MUST be a station at very regular intervals (every few miles at least) otherwise you have stranded drivers. So refueling is a break in the routine. Hence the existence of "sorry I'm late for the meeting, I forgot I had to stop for gas today or I wouldn't have made it".But with EV in a commuter situation, it's nothing like that. You plug in when you get home and top it off overnight. And that's it. You always have enough charge for the next day's driving unless you need to do a longer road trip. And in that case then you only need a station at strategic points along major highways every 100 to 150 miles or so.There is no need for a charging port on every street corner like there is with gas engines. You will use overnight grid electricity (cheaper than daytime) the vast majority of the time, and those high-power supercharger stations on the occasional long road trips. And won't be late for meetings every other week.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 03:57:17 am
content: Quote from: MacAttak on June 14, 2014, 03:52:41 amCllean-car-that-runs-on-free-sun-power no more?

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 07:28:24 am
content: Quote from: zapta on June 14, 2014, 03:57:17 amyou don't have enough sunlight all the time - so it's always a combination of solar & grid power. when you're not charging and there is a sunlight, then the solar can supply the grid. in fact buying electricity when charging and selling when not charging. if the solar panels are powerful enough to produce all the energy you need for the car, then you break even with buying vs. selling and in fact your car uses "solar only".

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 02:15:24 pm
content: Quote from: rob77 on June 14, 2014, 07:28:24 amThat's a strange argument, my car is solar because I have a side business selling solar power.

author: ConKbot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 02:36:46 pm
content: 'open source' guys losing their shit because they dont have everything handed to them on a silver platterGotta have drawings, models, everything ready to send off to manufacturing and get one made. Or tweak it a little bit, call themselves hackers, ship it off to get made, otherwise they want the persons head on said platter for using "open source" without catering to every whim.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 04:37:39 pm
content: Quote from: ConKbot on June 14, 2014, 02:36:46 pmThe only people on this forum that I see 'losing their shit' over open source are trolls like you. I don't see anyone complaining that Tesla doesn't make their cars open source -- nobody would expect them to.

author: ConKbot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 09:39:43 pm
content: Quote from: tjaeger on June 14, 2014, 04:37:39 pmQuote from: josem on June 12, 2014, 08:17:57 pmhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/oshw/rant-a-pdf-circuit-diagram-is-not-open-hardware/

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 10:09:02 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on June 14, 2014, 02:15:24 pmIt's not a solar car. I'm not sure why you are reading it that way. It's an electric car. There are no solar panels on it, nor does it come with any solar charging apparatus.Now, given the choice I would have a solar array on my roof. With or without an EV in the garage. But I am 1) quite certain my HOA will disapprove since it would certainly not match the other 31 homes in my community, and 2) I am also quite certain I won't be in this house for the 8 to 10 years it will take to break even on the investment.

author: josem
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 10:13:47 pm
content: Quote from: ConKbot on June 14, 2014, 02:36:46 pmNot sure where are these "people losing their shit" over it, but it is unfortunate of Tesla to deliberately choose to label this move as "open source" when in fact they're just opening up patents.Patents are not "source".I understand the goal is to establish a standard around their charging method and many other companies have followed the same strategy of giving away their patents for free when seeking to establish standards.In fact it's done so often there's even a technical name for it: RAND-Z(ero) which stands for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory with Zero royalty.Calling it an "open source" move is just propaganda AKA marketing. But hey it works.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2014, 10:16:11 pm
content: Quote from: ConKbot on June 14, 2014, 09:39:43 pmone journalist got a wrong understanding of opensource... that's it. Elon Musk provided the patents to others to speed up things. now other companies can DESIGN THEIR OWN EV technology using the Tesla's intellectual property without paying for that property. - that's kind of open for me, and it should be sufficient to speed up things in the EV area.the link to the other thread you pasted is irrelevant for this tread... and btw... regarding the other thread - providing a schematic and the source code for the micro IS OPEN SOURCE ! schematic and source code of the software is the SOURCE for all electronics. PCB layout, gerbers...etc.. - that's the manufacturing process.

author: digsys
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 12:04:35 am
content: Quote from: nctnicopatft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PTXT&OS="tesla+motors"&RS="tesla+++motors"&Query="tesla+motors"&PrevList1=Prev.+50+Hits&TD=189&Srch1="tesla+++motors"First off - I do admire Elon for what he is doing, and now taking huge risks on his gigfactory BUT -studying many of his patents, they are mostly bull****t, just more of the cr*p system that the US forced on everyone.Half the stuff I and others were doing years ago, and even back then it wasn't novel or new. In fact many of the ideas are in white papersFFS eg "charging batteries based on temperature and SOC" ... FFSI do wish him success, but my opinion of the "technical development" he's brought to the world has taken a huge hit.This stupid "patent whatever you feel like and let lawyers sort it out" has to be the worst con conceived. Rant over :-) YMMV

author: digsys
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 04:10:25 am
content: And here's aninterestingdevelopment - (May 19)http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/chinese-billionaire-sparks-electric-car-war-20140519-38jke.html?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=outbrain_amplifyWonder if he'd heard of Elons offer at the time? Will he come on board? Is he serious? Stay tuned.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 05:02:30 am
content: Quote from: rob77 on June 14, 2014, 10:16:11 pmThe open source angle came from Musk himself, and then the Tesla fans try to sell it as a bona fide open source. Yes, you can also blame the journalists that fail for it.http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 12:13:08 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on June 15, 2014, 05:02:30 amin the linked article the phrase "open source" is written twice, neither of those states that Tesla is open source.-- citation 1"Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology."-- end of citation-- citation 2"We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard."-- end of citationstatements like "in the spirit of open source movement" and "applying the open source philosophy" are quite clear and actually confusing those with a statement like "Tesla is open source" is kind of stupid.Elon's decision to "open the patents" is very welcome, and i hope others will follow him.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 01:19:41 pm
content: Quote from: rob77 on June 15, 2014, 12:13:08 pmDon't be naive, he intentionally crafted this misleading wording to create the association with open source.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2014, 02:28:39 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on June 15, 2014, 01:19:41 pmI'm fully aware of thatbut that's the kind of "mandatory" corporate ethics nowadaysyou would be considered stupid to miss such a opportunity, especially when talking about a giant leap like opening your patentsi wouldn't blame Elon for that, smart people got the message, the others are confusing it with "Tesla is open source".btw... opening the patents is like "fractional open source" - you release the intellectual property , but keep your R&D closed. other companies can do their own R&D and end up with the same product. the final result is the same, the other company was able to develop the same product without paying for the intellectual property. and actually their R&D might come up with a better solution - further improving that EV technology.releasing something as real open source hardware has 2 effects:1. people/companies interested in the technology will jump in and improve/fix/provide support - this is why we do open source2. Chinese companies will start mass production (using the cheapest materials they could find, not giving a rat's ass about quality/safety) in the very form as it was released into open source - saturate the market and effectively discarding any room for improvements/development of the product (only few people would buy the improved/evolved version).imagine what would happen if someone would release a full EV technology as open source.

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2014, 10:35:45 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 13, 2014, 02:31:32 amI live in Tucson, which is one of the cities vying for this factory.There are no lithium mines anywhere around here.

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 17, 2014, 01:35:02 am
content: From doing a few limited searches it seems like there is a source in Nevada and possibly one in Wyoming.Other sources are in Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Afghanistan (debated) and China. And Australia too I think.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2014, 04:20:17 pm
content: Just watched Machete Kills on netflix. Elon Musk has a short appearance at the end, playing himself, when Machete is launched to space using a Space X rocket to fight Voz (Mel Gibson).

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 17, 2014, 11:37:34 pm
content: Interesting somewhat related news:http://www.bidnessetc.com/22065-tesla-to-collaborate-with-bmw-nissan-stock-rallies/If it works out then that would be awesome to have Nissan and BMW on board for compatible charging stations. Leafs are quite popular out here (nearly free as a lease with the tax credits). I'm not familiar with BMW's EV offerings although I do know their hybrids are laughable (almost no point in getting one).

author: Poe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 27, 2014, 06:01:50 pm
content: So a trade magazine recently came out (shortly before this announcement if I'm not mistaken) which talked about the US government regulations regarding these chargers.I wonder if that had anything to do with this decision.

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 27, 2014, 06:10:16 pm
content: Quote from: Poe on June 27, 2014, 06:01:50 pmDo you have a link?

author: Poe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2014, 03:29:56 pm
content: Quote from: MacAttak on June 27, 2014, 06:10:16 pmMay 7th Electronic Design magazine:http://electronicdesign.com/power-sources/assess-challenges-next-generation-ev-chargingIf you can't read it without registering...Just do a Google search for the title "assess the challenges of next-generation ev charging". For some reason they have links to the full article and links to articles in which you need to register.It was interesting to find out that there are apparently three standards with Tesla's standard used on the smallest share of chargers.

author: Noise Floor
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2014, 04:45:23 pm
content: Mixed feelings on this, in sum its a good first step. However until Tesla the company commits their CEO's words to a legal document no car company worth any salt will even begin considering doing something utilizing Tesla's patents. Even though this move is already self serving (which I don't blame them for at all) Tesla needs to do a lot more to make this an offer that other companies can take seriously.

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 30, 2014, 12:06:11 am
content: I can definitely understand the concern about the affects of fast-charging on the power grid. My understanding (when it comes to the Tesla supercharging stations in particular) is that they intend to come back and install PV coverings over the charging stalls to help reduce some of the load on the local grid. But the top priority is getting the network of stations up and working asap so people can travel long distances without anxiety. Fast-charging stations are irrelevant > 90% of the time you would be driving (talking about average drivers here). You only care about it if you happen to need more than your max range in a single day. For me, I would *never* need more than the 265 mile range of my MS unless on a long road trip. At all other times you are keeping the batteries topped-off overnight using a much lower current draw (it doesn't need to be fast at home).I just stopped at a supercharger station for the first time on a trip to south Georgia this weekend. That sucker was pulling 85 kW! I was the only one at the station, but with all 8 stalls in operation a single station could have up to a 400 kW draw (limits to 100 kW per pair of stalls).

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 30, 2014, 12:19:09 am
content: Quote from: Noise Floor on June 29, 2014, 04:45:23 pmI don't know how much more clear a commitment can be made. He came out and went on public record with those statements, and it was also posted through his blog, twitter account, and as a news story on the company's website.About the only thing left to interpretation is the meaning of "in good faith" as it was used in the announcement. However, I would assume that it would follow the legal meaning of the phrase:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law)Quote

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2014, 02:08:00 am
content: Quote from: MacAttak on June 30, 2014, 12:06:11 amDo the same with a battery that is down to 30 miles and prepare for a shock ...At the Gilroy charger with 62 miles left : 369 Volt , 324 Ampere. That's 119 Kilowatts... And we were with 9 cars slurping from the electron-spout...In europe they are rolling out 160Kw chargers (US charger will follow soon)I talked to one guy there that had 70K miles on his. He supercharged twice a day. Recup'd the cost of the car months ago purely in fuel saving.Model S 85Kw - Grey - techPack - Air Suspension - Upgraded Audio - Glass roof

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2014, 05:39:21 am
content: Quote from: MacAttak on June 30, 2014, 12:06:11 amYou mean to help bullshit their technically illiterate customers? It would take around 420 m^2 of panels to supercharge one Tesla (at 85kW) and that would only be in the middle of the day during the summer. Load reduction on the grid from panels mounted above a charging stall would be too trivial to be worth mentioning.Quote from: free_electron on June 30, 2014, 02:08:00 am70k miles at 30 mpg would be 2333 gallons and at $3.67/gallon that would be $8563.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2014, 01:44:40 pm
content: I guess he ment projected savings over 8 years. He did that 70k in like half a year or so. And 30mpg ? More like 12 mpg . A similar car to a tesla that is US built will sit at roughly 12 to 15 mpg.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2014, 03:29:57 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 30, 2014, 05:39:21 amSufficient government subsidies can make anything financially viable. That's the Tesla business model.

author: Poe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2014, 06:04:19 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 30, 2014, 05:39:21 amConsidering that they are quite expensive luxury cars, claiming savings is a bit odd.Rufus,Although 20mpg at $4 would be more generous to Tesla, it would make your point more effectively. Most comparable mid sized luxury cars commonly get between 20 and 30mpg (reference Car and Driver) and are significantly cheaper than that $14k delta.Tesla owners frequently like to compare the Tesla to crazy expensive cars like the S-Class even though the trim level just isn't comparable.Now if we really think about cost of ownership, what about battery replacement? Considering these batteries 'age', you'll want to wear-out the battery before it 'gets old'. Once enough miles (>200k?) are driven to make up a price difference, my concern would be that the battery would need to be replaced. This would reset or pushing back the clock. How many miles does a battery last when supercharged twice a day? Another consideration is the govt subsities that were mentioned. Has anyone done this kind of analysis? I realize the average Tesla owner is fanatical, but if there's any real world data out there about battery replacement cost vs lifespan vs charge history vs etc... it would help people who are on the fence about being able to afford it.Even though I would have zero access to a charging station, if I had enough money, I definitely would buy one. I just wouldn't try to justify owning one to others.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2014, 06:28:45 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 30, 2014, 01:44:40 pmMy Lotus Elise (same frame as the Tesla) does 21 mpg city, 27 mpg highway, unless I step on it then all bets are off.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2014, 07:27:32 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 30, 2014, 01:44:40 pmProjected over 8 years... and 1.1 million miles?70k in 6 months? At 55 MPH average that is 10 hours a day 5 days a week plus an hour for supercharging. Maybe he drives a Tesla for a living he doesn't appear to have time to do anything else.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2014, 07:35:37 pm
content: Quote from: miguelvp on June 30, 2014, 06:28:45 pmElise? It's a cheapo compare to the Tesla roadster.Here is a used onehttp://www.teslamotors.com/preowned/25195;-)

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2014, 07:41:30 pm
content: Probably a taxi service ( non metered) or a high end small parcel delivery service. Could even be a chauffeur or service technician on call out and do a lot of long trips.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2014, 09:18:04 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on June 30, 2014, 07:35:37 pmNot talking about the price, I'm saying it's the same frame and specs so the 30mpg applies not 12mpg.But yeah, teslas are expensive mine is cheaper than your average beamer but a blast to drive

author: Noise Floor
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2014, 04:43:52 pm
content: Quote from: MacAttak on June 30, 2014, 12:19:09 amIt's not about clarity, its about making the commitment a legal one. It doesn't matter if a CEO says something frankly, what matters is what legal commitments Tesla the company is willing to make, right now all the other companies have is 1 guy's word which has obviously been spun as a PR move. Musk may have started Tesla and is the CEO, but his comments cannot and will not be considered 100% legally binding. That said, if another company wants to get serious, they need to pressure Tesla to make it legal, just not sure many will do so given the cost of testing Musk's word.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2014, 05:19:47 pm
content: Well certainly any company actually wanting to utilize any of the subject patents would seek out a written agreement with Tesla for some royalty free arrangement. Only then would the company know if they meet the 'in good faith' comment the CEO made.Tesla didn't state they were releasing the patents in question to public domain, but rather they implied they would pass on royalty payments in some cases.So certainly a PR move but so far nothing showing it was made in bad faith or good faith yet. Only time and actual interest of other companies will determine that.

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 02, 2014, 08:34:41 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 30, 2014, 05:39:21 amOf course an awning made of solar panels won't make a huge difference. But the space is otherwise wasted. Car owners would prefer to park in the shade while charging, and the best place for a panel is on a roof. I think we can all agree on those things. Obviously it will only offset a small amount of the power usage, but some is better than none.It's certainly a better idea than embedding panels under the wheels of parked cars (or in a roadway).Quote from: zapta on June 30, 2014, 03:29:57 pmThe "you're on big government welfare!" argument is one I've heard brought up a few times. Tesla did get a loan under a program intended to spur EV technology, but they paid that loan back with interest many years early (and it wasn't a very big loan to begin with). Did I miss something? Was there another larger grant or unpaid loan (especially something that wasn't offered to other auto makers)?Or is it the tax credit that people get bent out of shape over? The one which was introduced before Tesla even started making cars? Which was introduced precisely because none of the big automakers were even trying to advance alternative fuel vehicles (the tax credits aren't just for EV, they are for all AFV)? And if so, then where was that anger in the late 90's and early 00's when people were getting MUCH larger tax breaks for their 8 mpg Hummers byabusinga technicality of a program that was intended to support small farms? (in case you don't remember:http://www.section179.org/section_179_deduction.html)My intent with the previous post was simply "hey this is cool!" because while the average car owner won't know an amp from a volt, I happen to have just enough education on the topic to recognize and appreciate the engineering needed to pump that much juice safely without supervision by a trained technician. This *is* an EE enthusiast forum after all.Am I a "fanatic"? Maybe so. It's a fun car - hard not to be excited about it. Best I've every had - and I've driven a pretty wide range including top-end S Class Mercedes and 7-series BMW, and yes the trim competes favorably with those - especially when it comes to the touch-screen system controls. This is the first one where *anyone* has stopped me simply to ask questions about it (which happens at least once a week). I've seen strangers taking selfies with it in the parking lot. That never happened with my first-run C5 (when there were only a few thousand on the road in '97), nor with any of the 3, 5, or 7 series BMWs, nor with the Mercedes S500 coupe or SL550 convertible.

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 02, 2014, 08:41:58 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 30, 2014, 02:08:00 amYeah, I was only down to about 60% charge when I plugged in and took that shot. I think the system also ramps up slowly to max rate and doesn't try to dump full power into the vehicle right away? So the max draw would usually be a few minutes after plugging in (assuming low range to begin with)?I liked the grey a lot, and was on the fence about grey or black. Ultimately it came down to which looked better with the red calipers (p85+). In hindsight the grey would have been MUCH easier to keep clean.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2014, 08:43:56 pm
content: Quote from: retrolefty on July 01, 2014, 05:19:47 pm.. and will require in return access to all the patents of the other company, in other word, cross licensing, so nothing new here.That's simply a PR stunt.

author: Poe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 02, 2014, 10:24:15 pm
content: MacAttak,Not to start an argument, but'better than a solar roadway'is a bit of a straw-man argument. Rufus was simply calling Tesla out about the implied significance of their statements. Yes, adding solar panels can only help. Although contrary to insinuations, the significance is minimal.Your tax-credit comments are a fallacy of distraction as well. No one said Tesla initiated the tax credit. Simply that it was instrumental in Tesla's success. They were frequently close to failure even though they had a number of unbelievable lucky events which were pivotal in their survival/success (Panasonic's over-building of batteries, laptops switching to prismatic cells JUST at the right time, Toyota not releasing full electric Prius model as planned, etc). It's easy to think they would have folded without that government assistance. No way they could have gotten any luckier.... which I feel validates the big car companies decision to NOT get into that field before a boutique company like Tesla broke ground.People get bent out of shape when their tax dollars go to wealthy people buying luxury items (be it fully electric cars, AFVs, metal roofs, or solar panels) under the guise that the artificial assistance will improve technology/process/etc somehow enough to benefit all of society. That's the core of any hostilities toward tax credits. I think it's understandable considering that several studies into this form of governing appear to show the opposite. Please don't make me find the links.Although I think Teslas are great, I think this 'news' story is a null sum report. I see it as a potentially good thing if his customers hold him to this openness ideology in all future endeavors.Meh, time will tell.

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 03, 2014, 02:36:07 am
content: A straw man is a weak argument put forth with intent to be torn down, which is not what that was. Under pretty much all circumstances, a solar panel on a roof (of anything) is going to be a better idea than one embedded in pavement underfoot/undertire. They are planning to build coverings for these charging stalls anyways, so might as well put panels on top. I didn't say it wouldfullycounter the power draw of these loads, and didn't intend to imply it either. That would indeed have been a crazy assertion. Sorry if the two of you misinterpreted that.Why aremycomments about the tax credit situation a distraction? I didn't bring up the "government subsidy" crap in this thread. If you want to be angry about tax credits (for anything), then redirect your anger towards your elected officials instead of focusing it towards your neighbor who probably still pays more taxes anyways.The argument about government assistance is silly. They were given a loan (small by automotive industry standards). They paid it back, early, in full, with interest. They went this route because it too much money for any kind of normal bank-financed loan (which would have had similar rates and terms), and the only other option would have been to go after VC funding at a projected annual cost of 30% interest (or more) - which would have been truly reckless and irresponsible.Compare that to what happened during the same time period with GM. That bailout/bankruptcy/restructuring ended up costing taxpayers something like $12B once the government sold their "investment shares" in the new GM for only half what it was "valued" at when they originally inked the deal. There is no other American car company bigger than GM, so holding up the "big car companies" on a pedestal for the decisions they made during this same period of time just doesn't make any sense at all.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2014, 02:48:01 am
content: Quote from: Poe on July 02, 2014, 10:24:15 pmTo add insult to injury, the government forces Tesla competitors such as Ford and GM to subsidize Teslahttp://beta.fool.com/dcawrey/2013/08/06/how-tesla-makes-millions-selling-carbon-credits/42576/The entire Tesla game is based on politics and multitude of government favors (did I mention the HOV privileges, this by itself values at $10K per car) and is a clear example of crony capitalism.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2014, 03:23:32 am
content: Quote from: MacAttak on July 02, 2014, 08:34:41 pmSmall? More like tiny. Didn't stop Musk sprouting"Customers who bought a Model S (85 kWh) will be able to travel for free, forever, on pure sunlight"!!!Hence my comment about bullshitting the technically illiterate.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2014, 03:25:28 am
content: There was a bill not sure if still in effect aimed to farm subsidies where you could subsidize vehicles heavier than 6,000 lbs if you were a business owner.So what happened, a lot of dentists got subsidized cadillac escalades.Found link, seems they didn't fix it after all.http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/04/08/how-to-take-a-tax-write-off-for-a-new-porsche-bmw-or-cadillac/

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2014, 04:54:41 am
content: Quote from: miguelvp on July 03, 2014, 03:25:28 amStossel used an electric vehicle subsidy to get a free golf cart ;-)

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2014, 06:13:48 am
content: Just the same old politically motivated tripe.Any post that involves anything to do with solar power, EV's etc is immediately hijacked.Try and discuss even the most fundamental engineering issues for one of these topics and the same old politicos come in with "what about my tax dollars" "what about the subsidies!" -- yadda , yadda, yadda...It's not about US government subsidies. It's about government subsidies to things percieved to be favored more by Democrats or even worse by that evil socialist Kenyan in the White HouseNever any mention of the huge subsidies to ICE automakers, oil companies, the nuclear power industry, etc. Frankly, it's intellectually dishonest.Governments are good at spending our taxes on all sorts of things. What else is new?It's really become quite predictable and boring. Why not just stick to the engineering and technology?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 03, 2014, 06:49:51 am
content: [Quote from: mtdoc on July 03, 2014, 06:13:48 amSubsidies and entitlement are immoral. As for the ones you mention, you need to normalize by the number of users, not absolute numbers.quote author=mtdoc link=topic=32455.msg472692#msg472692 date=1404368028]... Why not just stick to the engineering and technology?This thread is not technical, it's about a business announcement by a CEO of a certain company. Some question his extensive reliance on government's favors.

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2014, 05:21:30 am
content: Subsidies for technological advancement are not immoral. There is no morality involved there, unless your morals revolve 100% around money allocation. It IS against pure capitalism though - or at least a perverted form of pure capitalism that focuses exclusively on near-term gains, which maybe is what you are confusing with morality. In fact, we can all thank government subsidies for the industry we enjoy today. Power distribution would NOT have been possible without government funding. Neither would most of the advancements in the semiconductor industry (thank you NASA) or the Internet being used right now to have this discussion (thank you DARPA).Entitlements are a mechanism for addressing the observed basic inequalities in the fundamental quality of life. Making sure children don't starve and stuff like that. I'm curious about what form of "morality" prohibits that?What's immoral is going to war for oil under the guise of liberation. Or knowingly and willingly poisoning the air your children will breathe (when there are known ways to reduce it, without even needing to change your standard of living). There is no system of morality on this planet that says you should do that. Unless again we are talking about pure egocentric capitalism.

author: Poe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2014, 07:49:52 pm
content: Quote from: MacAttak on July 02, 2014, 08:34:41 pmSeriously though, could anyone explain the differences between Tesla's fast charging standard and the others out there? The article I posted was light on details.The author's comments on power grid strain is interesting. If the Level 3 chargers (100KW) put a strain on the grid, dictate line upgrades and charge more for energy due to additional high power draw (vs energy usage) charges... wouldn't we need a massive infrastructure . Also interesting are the comments about how crucial an "Open" standard is. It's almost like Elon was reading this on the crapper and had an epiphany.The solar thing got me thinking about peak demand. Do Tesla charging stations have large battery banks to offset peak power usage? I have seen 'kinetic batteries' (flywheels) successfully used for electric trains in Germany. They get charged while slowing the train down and then tapped to accelerate the train. Maybe they would have an application here to offset peak power usage in these chargers?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2014, 09:13:29 pm
content: Quote from: MacAttak on July 05, 2014, 05:21:30 am'allocation', that's an interesting word, everything belong to the collective and the collective allocates it.It's immoral because you are taking from person A to give to person B.Quote from: MacAttak on July 05, 2014, 05:21:30 amFor socialists the goal is equality of outcome. For free people the goal is personal liberty.Quote from: MacAttak on July 05, 2014, 05:21:30 amYet another fallacy. China consumes oil without going to wars. They are just willing to buy from everybody that sells.Quote from: MacAttak on July 05, 2014, 05:21:30 amOverall freedom and technology improved our lives significantly in the last 100 years so no need to idealize primitive life styles.

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 08, 2014, 03:47:29 am
content: Quote from: Poe on July 07, 2014, 07:49:52 pmThe showroom employees (I've no idea what their real titles are) are trained to say something along the lines of "the supercharger is able to charge quickly because it bypasses the normal charger electronics and goes directly to the batteries". I'm sure that's an oversimplification of the tech, but to me that means there is no conversion or power conditioning going on within the vehicle - all of that is taken over by the electronics systems at the station itself. So perhaps because the power control (current/voltage limiting) takes place within the station it can use a much more efficient design with less losses? With charging hardware in the car there are quite a few limitations you need to worry about (mainly size and safety), but if the supercharger really does bypass everything except for the charge-leveling tech then that probably plays a large part.When you plug into anything other than a supercharger station (including the "HPWC" 80A home connector), it does not use that system. For all of those situations it uses the standard charging system, which I get the impression is much more like any other EV charging system - although with much higher total capacity.I recall reading somewhere that they do have limited storage capacity at supercharger installations, but it isn't much. Just enough to keep from overloading the infrastructure when eight cars plug in at the same time and start charging together.Remember that superchargers are *not* the primary power source for these. You only use them if making a long road trip (or you happen to be lucky and have one next to your work/home). The vast majority of power comes from home-based charging, and the car has built-in features that allow you to establish a charging schedule - for example you can make sure that it only charges between certain hours at night while utility rates are low.