Musk Goes Big!/Tesla Gigafactory - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 06, 2014, 10:19:12 am
content: Greeting EEVBees:--There is an old poker expression "Go big or don't go at all". It looks like Elon Musk, Panasonic, and the State of Nevada, are going big. There are some interesting details about Tesla's "Net Zero Energy" multibillion dollar battery fab to be built at Carson City NV in the below register article.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/05/elon_musk_teslas_stock_price_is_too_high/--And another article, less sanguine from Huffn'Puff.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/05/tesla-nevada_n_5773322.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592--Considering Huffpo's weltschmerz weltanschauung with regard to things capitalistic, the above article could almost be considered an endorsement.--The last article below is a Forbes article about how Musk, ala Jobs, is going "manufacturer direct to customer". This has made him, along with Paul Allen, the bete noir(s) of the dealerships, and by inference the major auto companies.http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/04/08/tesla-is-smarter-than-other-auto-companies/--Much as I would like to see Musk succeed, I am not sure that he will. He will have to beat the dealerships. And he will have to sell a lot of batteries, as his vehicles will not be able to use them all at first. Nonetheless, since everyone has some skin in the game, I have no moral objections to the tax breaks. This is the biggest and most important play in the EV market ever, and will have knock on effects of unforeseeable magnitude.--To the moderators: As soon as this thread gets hostile or boring, please kill it."Evabody gotta be someplace"Yacov Moshe Maza - Jackie Mason1931 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: sunnyhighway
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2014, 11:21:50 am
content: Quote from: theregisterWhy would they need that?Isn't it supposed to be a "Net Zero Energy" battery fab?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2014, 01:50:43 pm
content: More money going into bloating Tesla's value furtherThere are better alternatives: I ran some numbers provided by Poet-dsm on bio fuel: The US could produce 240 billion liters of bio-fuel each year if all the agricultural leftovers in the US are processed into bio-fuel. Nowadays the US uses 496 billion liters of gasoline each year. I think it is pretty easy to reduce the gasoline consumption in the US by half by using smaller engines (and teach people it is OK to rev an engine over 5000rpm going uphill) and switch to a sustainable fuel source using technology which is available today.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 06, 2014, 04:50:36 pm
content: Quote from: sunnyhighway on September 06, 2014, 11:21:50 amThat's what the "Net" means. It doesn't mean they have their own nuclear reactor on-site or something

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 06, 2014, 04:56:49 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 06, 2014, 01:50:43 pmYou remind me of the people who kept insisting that the internet was a fad and was going nowhere and got steamrolled in the process.People aren't putting billions into Tesla and EV's because they are too dumb to know what you know. They are doing it because, like the Internet, it's the future. By definition, Tesla isn't overvalued at all. And we could power cars with rubber bands and good vibes too - but that doesn't matter... EV works, it's better and the whole EV and related markets are on fire.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2014, 05:29:57 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on September 06, 2014, 04:56:49 pmYou mean those clever investors who created the .com boom and subsequent bust? The ones that paid more than $ half a billion for myspace and sold it at 6 cents on the $ a few years later?Using the history of internet investment to claim investors are smart and know what the future holds? - you couldn't make it up.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2014, 05:56:53 pm
content: Don't diss Elon ! He's three steps further ahead of where you think he is three steps ahead ...They are going hard. They have a very motivated team, the brightest and most creative minds in the industry and the balls and cash flow to pull it off. I've seen their engineering facilities. It makes your eyes water ... and i'm used to a lot ...Note that the fab will only be in full production end 2020. first packs will leave 2017.The fremont plant has had the production update as well. they went from 1 to 3 production lines. 2 for model S and one for model X.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2014, 07:09:25 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on September 06, 2014, 04:56:49 pmThe growth of EV comes from cannibalizing the hybrid market. No much gain over combustion engine.http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-electric-vehicle-sales-20140903-story.html

author: Tinkerer
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2014, 07:24:54 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on September 06, 2014, 05:29:57 pmAnd yet the internet is still here and physical stores have been having problems because it can deliver things cheaper. Things like gaming are under a push for online only. There will be a few bad investments in any field. Claiming that because a few people made mistakes, the whole thing is a no-go is a fallacy.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2014, 07:35:15 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on September 06, 2014, 05:29:57 pmI agree. Everybody tries to jump on a bandwagon but nobody knows which wagon is heading for dissaster and which one is heading for fortune. Bernie Madoff used to promise golden opportunities as well and people believed him. So yes: people are dumb and invest in any idea that gets sold properly.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2014, 09:19:06 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on September 06, 2014, 04:50:36 pmHe will need it to construct the facility, so 8 years sound perfect.

author: Derick Freese
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2014, 08:18:07 am
content: Even if his cars don't consume all of the factory's output, Elon does have contracts with other companies to supply batteries. Watch for a de-facto in the future.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2014, 03:50:34 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on September 09, 2014, 03:33:36 pmOnly if the numbers are real and are not based on subsidies. With sufficient subsidies, everything can be made profitable.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2014, 03:43:34 pm
content: Didn't see a post about it here but apparently Tesla has now got the go-ahead on a battery factory which is larger than any one on earth (and is planned to produce more than the combined current output.)All for electric vehicles (including $35k gen III car)http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2014/09/04/the-eye-popping-deal-nevada-offered-to-land-teslas-gigafactory/Pretty daunting scale - 10,000,000 sq ft, 250MW of solar power + 1800MW of wind, net zero energy (grid metered, so still technically burning coal, but apparently will be connected to geothermal in future)Thoughts?- Can such a facility really be net zero?- Can Tesla drop the price below $100/kWh for commodity 18650 given material costs?- End-to-end emissions obviously a concern with renewable power but they don't mention other costs and whether the grid tie in will be significant or for standby use only (i.e. lights at night)

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2014, 04:02:00 pm
content: It may make sense to figure out, from an emission minimization point of view, if it is better to produce a cheap / low emission vehicle than that produce an expensive / no emission vehicle.I would argue that the low-emission approach yields far less total emission than the no-emission approach.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2014, 05:35:21 pm
content: 50kWh of lithium-ion batteries to reach 200 miles EPA range plus associated emissions from typical US grid (approx 1/3 to 1/2 normal car)vs production of ordinary car (nothing special - the engine is just extra metal - electric car is simpler construction but requires larger battery pack)CO2 per mile (g) for comparable petrol/diesel car (e.g. BMW 3series) 193g/mile (based on rated 125g/km)CO2 per mile (g) for comparable electric car (Tesla Model 3 - TBA) <100g/mile (from grid) or less (from solar, 5kW system in CA gives ~8,000mi/yr typical range, but still grid tied)It's worth comparing like for like rather than comparing a Tesla to say a VW Golf because they are different classes and sizes of vehicles. I have a feeling the econoboxes will be combustion or hybrid for many, many years to come - no way for electric to beat the cost there.Driven 150,000 miles until retirement, total emissions are 28,000kg vs <15,000kg.I looked up the CO2 produced by building a car, and it looks to be roughly in the range of 17,000 kg for an equivalent size car (Mondeo etc. although spec different)http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-carSo a battery needs to produce less than about 15,000kg of CO2e to be better than ICE; not found much info on the total life-cycle energy used though.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2014, 05:55:40 pm
content: QuoteA lot of emissions is involved in the production, transportation, usage and disposal of a vehicle, conventional or otherwise. So for a comparison to make sense, you may want to incorporate a series of different emission measurements over all phases of a vehicle's life cycle.On emissions: I would argue that CO2 emissions are the least offensive / harmful of all emissions from cars. Surfer oxide is far worse and hybride cars emit far more surfer oxide than conventional cars, either through their production, or through the energy sources they consume - coal in the US for example. How about mining for materials used in a hybrid? Nickle, lithium or those rare earth materials - go to China or northern Canada and see how deadly such batteries can be to workers there and to the environment....On life cycles: you cannot just calculate the emission during the consumer phase. How about the production phase? Or disposal of batteries? and resulting pollution? ...How about their economic impact: our highways are supported in part by fuel taxes as a proxy for highway usage. That model no longer works for hybrid, which consumes low/no fuel. To be fair, should we institute a special tax on hybrid vehicles only?How about the perverse wealth redistribution from the (generally) poor gas vehicle drivers to the (generally) richer hybrid vehicle drivers? Why should a Ford Escort driver subsidize a Tesla driver?Where is the fairness in that?The point, I think, is that for a measurement to be useful, it has to be comprehensive.The CO2 emission measurement during the consumer phase happens to be the least informative and the least useful measurement of them all.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2014, 06:20:41 pm
content: Ugh... hybrids. Not a fan. Used to be, but I've seen the light. Really, a hybrid is still 100% powered by petrol. (Does any manufacturer make a diesel hybrid?) It gets better mpg, but only a factor of 25% due to city performance. Driving along an ordinary motorway, and the mpg is typically worse because the car is heavier, and has to overcome the friction of two drivetrains.I'm sure govt's will introduce a mileage-based tax for EVs, once the fuel tax revenues decline.I'd rather not be dependent on foreign oil, given all the political trouble it creates.If you look at my analysis I did try to take into account production costs.I imagine the end use of a disposed EV battery pack with 60% or less original design capacity remaining is something like solar backup. Imagine a 40kWh solar battery. I could easily run my entire house on that for two days, allowing me to effectively remain off grid with solar input during the day.Tesla is pure EV, not a drop of fuel. Model 3 is planned to be $35k and 200 mile or more on EPA 5-cycle test. Upgrades for up to 300 mile are planned ($43k for 300 mile model, apparently.) Expensive, but within reach of many more people than a $70k sedan or $110k sportscar. Hopefully, with improvements in battery technology, a $20k car will be possible by 2025.

author: SirNick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2014, 09:02:04 pm
content: I agree. The financial and environmental cost of this generation of electric cars is much less interesting than the potential knowledge to be gained by having a large(r) scale roll-out of all-electric vehicles. Comparing them to current ICE is about as fair as comparing modern economy cars to the Model T. If they're even close enough (in efficiency) to entertain arguments to either side, that's pretty good. Give it a few years.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2014, 09:34:53 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on September 10, 2014, 06:20:41 pmOne really needs to distinguish between different types of hybrids. The tradition parallel hybrid (eg a Prius) is as you describe but the more modern serial hybrids - aka extended range EVs - are different. For most people these can be used as almost 100% EVs. The engine is primarily there to charge the battery and provide an extended range equivalent to typical ICE cars.'The prime example is the Volt with a 35-40 mile pure EV range that exceeds most people's daily commute distance. No reason to put gas in it unless exceeding that distance.BTW - Volvo does make a diesel series hybrid.The typical suspects surely will (and already are) hijack the thread with the same old tired political anti-EV claptrap, but these really are basic engineering issues that are actively being solved.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2014, 10:19:02 pm
content: QuoteProbably because the added economics isn't that great, as diesel offers good mileage and is considerably more expensive than a gasoline engine. So the economics for adding an electric propulsion system to a diesel is not as favorable as adding it to a gasoline powered car.QuoteAs oil is "fungible", depending on domestic oil is the same as depending on foreign oil, especially if you don't have a choice.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 06:07:51 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on September 10, 2014, 06:20:41 pmBut lot's of coal. If you are lucky gas and a little bit of hydro power otherwise you are doing a much better job saving fossil fuel buy buying an efficient ICE car. I can repeat the numbers that proof that but I'm pretty sure you know them already.Either way those batteries could find their way in uses which actually make a far better improvement than electric cars: electric bicycles and motor cycles.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 07:23:26 am
content: Not quite right. In dirty countries an EV uses way more fossil fuel than an efficient car. And renewable energy is mostly a scam by trading CO2 emission rights so check your supplier carefully. Only a few (usually the more expensive ones) sell truly renewable energy.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 07:46:13 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 11, 2014, 07:23:26 amAnd at certain hours of the day.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 08:20:17 am
content: Ahem:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/musk-goes-big!/Yeah, he should have put tesla somewhere in there that's why you didn't find it

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 08:55:26 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on September 06, 2014, 05:29:57 pmTheir money, their risk. They clearly think Tesla will be big... I have to agree (I don't have a penny invested though, I'm not that certain yet.)

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 11:05:14 am
content: QuoteIt will take a long time.If you really want to push EV/hybrid, advocate for high fuel taxes, as that will drive up the demand for ev/hybrids instantly.I am a big fan of $20/gl or even $50/gl gasoline: the roads would be much easier to drive on.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 11:22:35 am
content: Batteries get better by about 5%/year (capacity for same cost and volume)Panasonic currently has silicon-anode li-ion batteries with 4Ah capacity in 18650, 4.35V charge voltage. This cell has 33% more capacity than the current cells Tesla are using and costs are nearly the same.No need to increase the price of petrol more. It'll keep rising as the supply falls and demand increases especially in China and India.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 12:40:07 pm
content: QuoteThat's where today's environmentalists are missing the boat.80% of the oil today is consumed on the least value-add (20%), mostly in transportation, heating, etc. 20% of the oil consumption creates 80% of the value, primarily through petro chamical products where very little alternatives exist.The world would continue to run, quite literally, if we stop'd consuming oil for transportation purposes. The world would limp, with great difficulties, if we stop'd consuming oil for petro chemical purposes.The purpose of high gas taxes isn't about CO2 emission, at all.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 01:14:04 pm
content: Yes, this is what I tell my friend who wants to work in the petroleum industry... even if every car tomorrow is electric, we'll still need plastic, tarmac, jet fuel, kerosene, etc.Plus I'm fairly sure large trucks will remain diesel powered, and probably some trains (though large-scale electrification can work well, it has its limitations and high capital costs.)And there's always Hawaii where 100% of electricity is petroleum based.Environmentalists think recycling can solve our problems... I wish.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 01:35:24 pm
content: QuoteThis is where I think people over-estimate the impact of EV/hybrid: if EV/hybrid is hugely successful, the demand for gasoline would fall, so does its price, which encourages more driving in gasoline-powered vehicles, through lower fuel costs and lower vehicle costs.So the more successful EV/hybrid is, the more attractive gasoline powered vehicles.Totally perverse,.That's why I support large gasoline taxes: its impact is limited in scope, externalities minimum and timing immediate.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 06:24:20 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on September 11, 2014, 01:35:24 pmUnless mining oil becomes too expensive but I don't see that happening until coal, oil and gas get really scarse. Here in the NL there are several huge coal fields sitting in the ground untouched.QuoteThey tried that over here but it doesn't work. People still need to go to their work so when gas prices rise they simply demand a higher salary. Taxing fuel only causes inflation.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 06:37:34 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on September 11, 2014, 01:35:24 pmWow - I actually agree with you on that one!It's true that most electricity is currently generated by CO2 heavy means - but that will eventually change since fossil fuels are a finite resource.Re the comparisons of the "carbon footprints" of EVs versus ICEs: One thing the anti-EV ideologues always conveniently leave out is the large carbon footprint of liquid fuels that is separate from the CO2 released with their combustion. There is an enormous carbon footprint from the exploration, mining/drilling, refining and transportation of liquid fuels. And this is continually worsening as the EROEI equation worsens with more and more difficult to extract fossil fuels.Elon has it right - the only way forward is by advancement of energy storage and EV production using as much RE as possible in the process. Personally I think it is all too little, too late - but I don't fault him for trying.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 07:11:51 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on September 11, 2014, 06:37:34 pmCoal and gas (shale gas!) automatically appear at a power plant? Besides that a refinery makes a multitude of products from crude oil so you have to divide the power the refinery uses between those products. Also: how about mining Lithium for the batteries? Lithium needs to be seperated in a chemical process.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 07:35:04 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 11, 2014, 07:11:51 pmOf course not. I never said they did- nor is that germane to my point.QuoteYou're really reaching here. Gasoline and diesel fuel production dwarfs those products - but sure go ahead and do the math - the point is the same - large amounts of CO2 are released in the process of refining liquid fuels.QuoteOf course but the readily available, easily mined lithium required for one battery pack lasting 10-20 years is a far cry from the continual use of ever more difficult to extract and refine liquid fuels. The EROEI for tar sands and tight oil is horrendous.Again - never claimed that the materials, energy and energy storage required for EVs were not significant - just refuting the claim that when all is accounted for EV's are somehow equivalent or worse than ICEs. The facts do not support that assertion.BTW - here in the Pacific Northwest USA - many millions of people get the majority of their electricity from hydropower. and worldwide accounts for 16% (and growing) of electricity production.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 07:59:53 pm
content: It's worth noting that only about 1% is lithium in any given lithium-ion battery pack. The rest is cobalt, aluminium, carbon, manganese, etc. (dependent on the exact chemistry) These are far more important in the overall life-cycle analysis than lithium ever is.I do think we'll see EV packs that are 30 years old still being used. They could work well in grid storage where remaining capacity isn't a major concern, just that they have some minimum amount of capacity. An average household uses about 15kWh in a day, so even if there's only 30kWh left of 85kWh (well past 500,000 miles used range) and high ESR making it non-useful for >100kW discharge... it's still got a use as grid backup. That would allow many more people to go completely off grid.There's a guy on the Tesla forums right now in the process of converting a Model S battery from a wrecked car into a solar storage system. It's worth a look to see what goes on in one of these packs, it's quite impressive:http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/34934-Pics-Info-Inside-the-battery-packIt also shows how the packs can be maintained in the future when warranties have long expired. I'm sure there's a way of getting that lid off the pack without brute force... It should be possible to replace individual modules at 5.3kWh a piece, and repair modules out of the pack.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 09:09:22 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on September 11, 2014, 07:35:04 pmSource?I recall seeing numbers from a total lifecycle analysis where an EV starts to save fossil fuel after 100k km on a relatively clean electricity mix. Lifecycle analysis is very difficult and without a good analysis it's just making stabs in the dark. Maybe the process of refining crude oil seems power hungry because it is one big process but all the smaller processes required to make the battery of an EV make are probably just as power hungry. I don't know. What I'm saying is that one seemingly efficient step in a process doesn't make the entire process efficient. A lot of people stare themselves blind on the efficiency of an electric engine compared to an ICE and think that an EV must consume less fuel by definition.

author: SirNick
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 09:26:14 pm
content: YOU REQUIRE MORE VESPENE GAS.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 09:29:40 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 11, 2014, 09:09:22 pmHEREandHEREThe second paper is probably the one you recall. It gives BEVs a 9%-14% advantage compared to gasoline vehicles at 100,000 km which goes up from there. But note: this is even without taking into consideration the full energy/CO2 required to produce the liquid fuels as I mentioned earlier.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2014, 09:34:18 am
content: Quote from: zapta on September 09, 2014, 03:50:34 pmWhen the alternatives are taxed, to get the money for that subsidies, they become massively more expensive, witch makes the scam even faster "profitable"

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2014, 10:59:15 am
content: QuoteYes. The world runs on oil so when you tax it heavily, you get inflation.But that's the price we have to pay for our future - not about that CO2 emission bullshit, however - sooner or later we will run out of oil and consequently petrochemical products. What do we do then?In comparison. CO2 emission is nothing -> it is a fertilizer to plants and has minimum greenhouse effect.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2014, 10:22:28 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on September 11, 2014, 09:29:40 pmActually the efficiency of refining crude oil into fuel isn't that bad; it is over 90% (see page 3 ofhttp://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/635.PDF)

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 13, 2014, 04:43:35 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Submitted for your perusal the below ABC US article. It contains a few new facts, which to my mind are in its favor, and make it seem like much less of rat hole, than the Chrysler and GM deals. And if it fails, it is going to cost the State of Nevada much, much less than the 11.2 billion the US lost on the GM deal. Of course Musk has the advantage of not having to bailout looted union pension funds, and is locating in a state much less hostile to business in general. No dealers, no unions, and less redistribution. It could happen!http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/tesla-qa-teslas-nevada-gigafactory-faqs-25473370"Conveying food through the ether wirelessly for unlimited distance."From Gernsback's Electrics Magazine February 1909, The Interplanetarian Wireless Food Co.Hugo Gernsbacher - Hugo Gernsback1894 - 1967Best RegardsClear Ether

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2014, 08:26:29 am
content: Sounds like subsidized labour to me. I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung and other battery manufacturers will open even bigger factories in China making it hard for the US based factory to be profitable without government subsidies. So expect Tesla's factory to be milking the government forever.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 14, 2014, 08:02:51 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Included below is an article about EV racing which compares EV fire statistics with conventional vehicles. Although there is precious little in terms of frequency in the database, and said database needs to be controlled for age and driving times of both, I think that the best and worst that can be said right now as per EV and ICE fire occurrences, is that, per mile driven they appear so far to be on the same order of magnitude. Short but good article about EV racing, which quotes Musk. I include it here because this is the newest EV thread and there is little point in starting another just yet. Enjoy!http://mashable.com/2014/09/13/electric-car-race-crash/"Does not squirrel crack nuts on bough of oak tree."Lao Fu 1411 - 1623Best RegardsClear Ether

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2014, 08:30:19 pm
content: There is not much in the article then some references to other articles and some quotes from Musk. It's almost a Tesla advertorial!If the author was balanced he had included this news item and noted that the electric racing car appearantly was much more able to deal with a high speed crash than Tesla's Model-S:http://green.autoblog.com/2014/07/05/man-steals-crashes-catches-on-fire-tesla-model-s/

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 14, 2014, 08:41:59 pm
content: Dear Nctnico:--I was not trying to be balanced, I was just providing a link to a short article. Previously I have been called out for blowing the Tesla fires out of proportion. Please, anyone who would like to post anything to keep this thread in balance, I am your huckleberry."Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she laid an asteroid."Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens ) 1835 - 1910Best RegardsClear Ether

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2014, 09:28:47 pm
content: My beef is not with you but with the article. I like to play the ball not the man O0

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 14, 2014, 09:44:25 pm
content: Dear Nctnico:--Oh I see, well, er, uh--, never mind, as Emily Litella was wont to say.“If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is.”John von Neumann 1903 -1957Best RegardsClear Ether

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2014, 02:17:54 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 14, 2014, 08:30:19 pmIt's not even remotely comparable. The structural design of the race car is optimised for collisions into the barrier and has to preserve a single passenger only. There are also no air bags so the structure of the chassis is even more important. The driver wears a neck brace so the crumple zone design takes this into account.I'd like to see YOU make a car that didn't have a risk of fire if split in half. You've got fuel lines running in an ICE car down the chassis, plus a high current 12V system available.After the Tesla LA crash the electronic dashboard survived. There's a picture on a forum somewhere of it still lit up showing a message - "Car Needs Service. Contact Tesla Service." Shows the good system design: even without a HV battery present (I'm not sure you can say if half a battery pack counts) the low voltage system is still available for emergencies. (such as four-ways... or whatever-is-left-ways in this case.)EV risks are different, but not necessarily worse. For example, I'd much prefer a slow burning fire to one that could rapidly engulf a vehicle while doing something as simple as fuelling my car...Compare to an EV fire, which would take at least 5 minutes to reach the engine compartment... sure the end result is the same, your car is destroyed, but you have time to escape the burning wreck...--With the Gigafactory, Nevada sees no direct tax income for 1-20 years but tax 21 years onwards.With no Gigafactory, Nevada sees no direct tax income EVER.Plus tax income from suppliers, indirect purchases by employees, etc.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2014, 02:58:30 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on September 15, 2014, 02:17:54 pmThe point is that sacrificing the car saves the passenger(s).QuoteThey already did that. There is a fuel pump cut-off switch which activates in a collision in every car so only the fuel in the lines itself could catch fire. The negative wire of the battery is the weakest link and will burn out controlled in case the battery is shorted. Over here it is very rare that a car catches fire after an accident.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2014, 03:10:35 pm
content: Plus the oil in the vehicle engine bay... and transmission fluid... and fuel lines in the engine area... and not to mention any flammable coolants... plus you've got a high CCA battery capable of supplying huge energy into a fault. (The Model S battery is a little bigger than a motorcycle battery, and unlike a vehicle system, each major load group is fused at the battery rather than at a distant fusebox.)It's worth noting that most EVs have coolant too. I don't know if it is flammable, but most coolants are.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2014, 03:15:59 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 15, 2014, 02:58:30 pmEvery modern passenger car is built this way - Tesla included.The differences are with skateboard design EVs are in the overall vehicle packaging which assists with crash safety. For example the "frunk" area contains a large amount of cooling/pumping/HVAC systems, but they are all mounted near the bottom of the chassis. A large crumple zone is made where an engine would go. There are additional crossmembers that are not present in any other front-engined car. Should a frontal collision occur, you would be very safe. Should a side collision occur, the rigid battery pack adds torsional strength and weight to the bottom of the chassis, reducing the risk of rollover and intrustion into the chassis.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2014, 05:39:03 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on September 15, 2014, 03:15:59 pmActually you are not safe at all in a rigid car. In extreme tanks suffer from the same problem. Because they are rigid the personel is injured or shaken to death when the tank hits a mine or an IED. The safest car is the one which crumbles up to the passenger compartment. Unfortunately for Tesla the information on how to design a really crash safe car is a closely guarded secret.BTW: the coolants used in a car are not flammable; they consist mostly of water. Oil won't burn that easely either. You can throw a burning match in a bucket with oil and it won't ignite. I already wrote the battery is connected to the chassis with a fuseable link. Please read more about how cars are built and work.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2014, 06:57:18 pm
content: The low mounted battery helps keep the passenger cell intact. That's not to say it doesn't crumple (the edges of the pack have a crash structure designed to crumple, and the cell arrays aren't entirely rigid), but that's not what the battery pack is intended to do. The battery pack would also increase the force required to split the car in half. (Obviously, if you throw enough force at a vehicle, you will be able to split it in half. This applies for any vehicle. There's very little any engineer can do about a ~120mph impact into a rigid pole. Something will give; quite frankly, it's amazing the guy didn't die at the scene.)Detail of Tesla battery pack diagrams.https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20120160583A1/US20120160583A1-20120628-D00007.png- cross members providing rigidityDetail of battery wall showing crash structurehttps://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/US20120160583A1/US20120160583A1-20120628-D00004.pngTesla has hired many vehicle engineers from VW, Lotus (including their former chief engineer Peter Rawlinson, and Nick Sampson, vehicle and chassis engineering), Mazda and GM. I am sure they know how to engineer a vehicle for crash safety.Here's an interesting clip (from Tesla) showing the front crash members. You can see that you wouldn't be able to fit these in any vehicle with a large engine up front. This is an obvious benefit that arises from moving the powertrain and batteries onto the "skateboard".

author: Dago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2014, 04:28:17 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 15, 2014, 05:39:03 pmYou can actually throw a burning match to gasoline too and it probably won't igniteOh youth... had to test everything.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2014, 09:33:15 am
content: Quote from: Dago on September 16, 2014, 04:28:17 amI can even set sand on fire but throwing a match into gasoline is something I wouldn't try

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2014, 09:47:03 am
content: QuoteThat would suggest that mid-engined cars are safer than front-engined cars - that's statistically not true.What you want, from passenger safety point of view, is to drive around in a rigid passenger compartment surrounded by soft structures. When the X5 was introduced, BMW ran a crash test commercial showing a X5 after a collsion - the engine bay is completely gone, yet the markers on the passenger compartment are still well aligned.Front engines are not a big issue today as the engine mounts are designed to break in a collision to allow the engine to slide out. On high(er) end cars anyway.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2014, 10:21:37 am
content: You've still got that huge engine in there, which is a rigid, heavy body. It will impede on the passenger cabin despite the best efforts of the engineers. (They can just hope to make it move as little as possible, or to move down and under, so you only risk injury to your legs.)Mid engined is a rare configuration in a four-door passenger vehicle. Rear engined would be benefical - like Porsche 911 or early VW beetle, but I don't think either have crash safety as a critical factor (the 911 is a performance vehicle, so weight reduction is key. I'm not sure if NHTSA have tested it.)GM had a skateboard design in 2002 - Hydrogen fuel cell concept. Neat design comes from packaging things into such a compact chassis. Great for performance, keep the CoG as low as possible. Of course, fuel-cell EV is a non-starter and one of those great things for car manufacturers to use as a "look, we're trying to be green" excuse,http://www.supercars.net/cars/2109.html

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2014, 11:05:21 am
content: QuoteAnything will "impede" the passenger compartment, a bird will, an insect will. The fact that they will impede the passenger compartment does not make them a safety threat, let along a "material" safety threat.QuoteMost of those vehicles are considered mid-engined (aft the passenger compartment but in front of the rear axle) - the porsches, ferraris, or some BMWs (the M1). A true "rear engined" car is very rare - I actually have never seen one.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2014, 01:51:09 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on September 16, 2014, 11:05:21 amOk, for the purposes of this discussion, let's say anything that could lead to leg, foot or knee injury (this includes things such as the throttle pedal moving upwards into the cabin, or the steering wheel moving) is "impeding" into the passenger compartment. An EV has the benefit that there is no large engine to potentially impede. There are electronics mounted at the bottom of the chassis area, but these are near the floor pan area, mounted very low. (Again CofG being a consideration, also maximising space in frunk area.)Quote from: dannyf on September 16, 2014, 11:05:21 amDidn't know that, thanks - so are these all performance vehicles? I don't think any sedan/saloon/conventional passenger car has been made in a mid/rear-engined configuration in a long time?

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2014, 02:10:43 pm
content: QuoteI guess I am trying to say that based on the safety record of mid-engined cars, such a benefit, if it exists, is non-material.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2014, 03:33:14 pm
content: Again my point being here that the mid/rear-engined cars are sporty vehicles, so crash safety is not as important as, for example, weight saving and performance. People also tend to drive them far faster than ordinary vehicles. So you might see worse accidents in them because of that.How can having a massive weight at the front of the vehicle which could potentially intrude into the cabin not increase the risk?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2014, 07:20:08 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on September 16, 2014, 03:33:14 pmSports cars tend to be involved in much more severe crashes (the amount of energy released in a crash is a square function of the speed). How on earth do you come to the conclusion that in their design safety has to be a lesser concern to the manufacturer?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2014, 07:31:08 pm
content: Well, it is. That's why for example the Porsche 911 (two-seater Carrera model) only comes asstandard with driver and passenger airbags- the minimum legal requirement - despite it costing a lot more than for example a Ford Focus, which asstandard comes with side and driver/passenger airbags for the driver as well as rear passengers. (Yes rear passengers don't matter in a 2-seater car; the 911 doesn't have driver side protection either.) This is one example of many. The crumple zones will be minimised as they add weight and size to the vehicle, so the vehicle won't perform as well in a crash. People who buy such cars understand that they are taking a risk. They consider that risk acceptable. (I probably would too.)This is nothing against Porsche. I'm just noting that in general rear or mid engined cars are optimised for performance rather than safety in an accident (less active safety, more passive safety - good brakes/suspension etc.) So it's NOT a valid comparison to say that because mid/rear engined cars appear less safe, does not mean the engine position has made this difference. (Correlation != Causation...)When a performance car manufacturer moves to a carbon-fibre frame for example, again, that's reducing weight, improving rigidity but reducing crash safety, because it's more likely to crack or shatter in an accident, leading to a faster deceleration.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2014, 03:15:15 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on September 16, 2014, 07:31:08 pmSome sport cars have seats that are not really intended for use. They are small, barely can fit a child, an are rarely use. The Audi TT for example comes with a warning to be aware of rear passengers heads when you close the rear hatch. ;-)As for two seater mid engine car being too light and therefore unsafe, I think this is a gross generalization. Take the Cayman 981 for example, 3000lb (heavy), mid engine and good airbag coverage.(it has a standard roof, made transparent for illustration).

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2014, 06:13:37 pm
content: This discussion really was only about mid/rear engine configurations being safer - I was trying through deductive reasoning to indicate that they are not relevant to skateboard EV design.