1500 amps.
The motor controller isn’t repairable by “civilians”. Fortunately, though, it’s easily replaced as a unit. I dunno if Tesla will consider selling those parts to third parties.
the module that controls the electrical power to the motors.
ok new Semis and Roadster, damn.
That was a pretty awesome presentation.
Semi:
500 mile range
0-60 in 5 seconds unloaded
0-60 in 20 s with 80k lb load
65 mph up 5% grade fully loaded
400 mile charge in 30 min
Lots of other goodies, like anti-jackknife torque vectoring and platooning.
Obviously, the unloaded 0-60 time is silly, but I think the loaded time is a serious benefit to both safety and courtesy. With CA onramps at least, trucks have a hard time merging safely into traffic due to their low acceleration.
Roadster:
0-60 in 1.9 s
0-100 in 4.2 s
1/4 mi in 8.9 s
250+ mph
620 mi range
200 kW-h battery
Looks fantastic, too. Only $250k to preorder…
#1 I don’t need it explained to me as if I were a child, I know how these things work
#2 Magiver’s concern is misplaced because every HEV/PHEV/EV has the same hardware and they’re not failing left and right
edit: Oh, you can “reserve” the Roadster for $50,000, or the “founders series” for $250,000? Sounds like Tesla needs another interest-free loan.
and I’m not the only one who thinks this is a sneaky way to raise capital:
At those prices, the size of the loan might total… one MEEELLION dollars!
“If I’m reading this correctly, 1,000 “founders” reservations at $250,000 a pop. That’s basically a $250M capital raise for Tesla.”
That’s 1,000 reservations available, not 1,000 reservations made.
Maybe you’re right and there’s a bunch of suckers who will want this car… when it delivers in seven years or whatever.
Where is your 1500 amp figure coming from?
I was calculating it as : 258 horsepower from model 3 drive motor. (from an EPA document)
745 watts per horsepower. 400 volts pack voltage. 258*745/400 = 480 amps.
Fun fact, in the industry I’m in, we’ve noticed a shortage of silicon carbide mosfets. To get 480 amps you need around 10-15 50-amp FETS per channel, which is around what people have found when tearing down model S motor controllers.
the Model S/Model X “P” variants.
Right. I thought we were talking more generally about Tesla at that point. Tesla made a big deal of their 3D printed contactor rated at 1500 A.
In any case, the numbers presented are only valid in the power-limited case. At zero RPM, the current (for a finite power draw) can be arbitrarily high, limited only by the resistance of the circuit (including cell resistance), and potentially by cooling
Oh look, another Ryan Felton article. What a surprise.
While I’m sure Tesla is happy to take people’s money, it’s not like $250M is going to make or break things. It’s small potatoes. The point of the Roadster is not to make money (though it shouldn’t lose money), but rather be a halo item. It’s there to continue demonstrating that EVs can be superior to ICEs not just in efficiency but in virtually every way that matters.
As best I can tell, Tesla built a hell of a motor for the Model 3 and now they’re using it for everything. The Roadster has three of them; the Semi has four; the AWD Model 3 will have two. So all of this extra stuff is, in part, a way of further amortizing Model 3 development costs.
How much utility does a semi with 300 miles of range have? Even 500? And batteries that size take a while to charge.
Delivery trucks with defined routes routes and batteries that can recharge between running routes as they are reloaded … that makes sense. A semi?
Seems to me that Tesla needs to focus more on executing their current project well before moving on to the next big idea.
Model 3 development is done. Now they’re working on production. Semi production is a ways off, but they need to develop it now if they want to be ready a few years from now. Development and production are different people; you can’t just arbitrarily move resources between them (though apparently they did temporarily steal some people on the semi project to help rewrite the pack assembly automation).
The semi will recharge 400 miles in 30 min. Refueling diesel tanks apparently takes 15 minutes, so this is hardly a difference at all.
One could argue that Tesla should have focused on shorter, local routes, but those are probably lower margin than long haul.
I think it’s in Tesla’s interest to find as many uses for their batteries as possible. Increased demand means more production at the Gigafactory, which means lower prices for everyone. Along with utility storage, the semi should be a big user–somewhere around 1000 kW-h per unit.
ad hominem. what’s wrong with his analysis? That is, apart from not being complimentary enough towards Tesla.
for long haul? Dubious, but we’ll wait and see. Long haul competitors like the Freightliner Cascadia and Kenworth T680 can carry 300+ gallons of diesel, and at roughly 8 mpg that’s 2400 miles total range per fill. I believe the limit for truck drivers is 11 consecutive on-road hours, so hauling something cross country at 65 mph gets you ~ 700 ish miles before the driver is legally required to stop for rest. The Tesla would already be tapped out. at least for a while, this doesn’t look like something an owner-operator would take a chance on.
that would make more sense, for a company-owned fleet with company-employed drivers (e.g. Wal*Mart, Meijer, etc.) The tractors are pretty much interchangeable, so drivers could make their deliveries, leave the tractor for recharging, and hop into a fully-charged one to take back to the warehouse. FCA does this with their regional inter-facility fleet except they run on CNG. Just roll trucks among drivers as they’re fueled (on site) as available.
well, yes; it’s rather strange to announce something like this while you’re still scrambling putting Model 3s together with chewing gum and baling wire.
your vehicle operations team should be involved in the design process from the start. you don’t wait until you have a finished design then fire it over to manufacturing and say “here you go, design the assembly line.” That work should have been nearly done back in March 2016 when they unveiled the first Model 3 prototypes.
There’s nothing wrong because there is no analysis. Again, if Tesla is losing a billion per quarter, then how is $250M capital raise supposed to be significant? It’s 3 weeks of burn rate. Ryan thinks that Tesla went through all the effort of building several prototype vehicles just to sustain the company for 3 more weeks? Not to mention that they’re been talking about both of these things for several years now, so somehow they predicted back in 2014 or whatever that they would need 3 weeks of extra cash here in 2017, so they better get started soon.
It’s all just ridiculous, conspiracy-level thinking.
As for the rest of the article, I’m not sure if he even watched the presentation. 0-60 times are fun to watch but the real point is that it comes for free when you have the power to maintain speed on significant grades. And that would well be important to truckers on many routes.
Sure, but the involvement will be small early on. It doesn’t take the entire production team to point out the ways that the design needs to be modified to be manufacturable. Whatever production issues are left to be solved on the Model 3 aren’t going to be affected by semi development at this stage.