Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Thursday April 24, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-06-2012, 02:24 PM   #126
elirentz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 70082
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: charleston, sc
Vehicle:
2005 sti, 02 s2000
88 944 beater

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby921 View Post
Tesla does appear to have the best motor and battery technology. Why else would Toyota have partnered with them for the Rav4-EV? They want to test and examine the technology and learn how to make their own EV drive systems as good. Any of the major auto manufacturers will build a better overall car than Tesla at this point. Tesla does not have the built up binder of lessons learned for all the various features and processes that go into producing a vehicle. I hope they get there.
Agreed, though I will add that in some ways they don't have the built up "set in their ways" mentality that can sometimes hold new and good ideas back.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
elirentz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 04:02 PM   #127
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
1971 240Z

Default

Has it ever occurred to you guys that Toyota, the largest automaker in the world, bought out Tesla not because they were better, but because it was just far cheaper. To think they needed Tesla technology is laughable. It was the shortest line between two points. They wanted an all electric vehicle NOW.

I would think that Tesla will get FAR more out of the exchange than Toyota will.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 05:27 PM   #128
elirentz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 70082
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: charleston, sc
Vehicle:
2005 sti, 02 s2000
88 944 beater

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
Has it ever occurred to you guys that Toyota, the largest automaker in the world, bought out Tesla not because they were better, but because it was just far cheaper. To think they needed Tesla technology is laughable. It was the shortest line between two points. They wanted an all electric vehicle NOW.

I would think that Tesla will get FAR more out of the exchange than Toyota will.
You're right. Tesla just had the best tech available on the market at the time and Toyota didn't want to spend the time/ resources doing it themselves. Yeah, this deal is much more important to Tesla than Toyota. The Rav4 EV is only a tiny blip on Toyota's radar but its a hugely important deal to Tesla. They need all the business they can get to turn profitable.
elirentz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 05:47 PM   #129
Scooby921
Thanks Sir Alex!
Moderator
 
Member#: 88606
Join Date: Jun 2005
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Clarkston
Vehicle:
2011 GMC Sierra
'13 JCW

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elirentz View Post
Agreed, though I will add that in some ways they don't have the built up "set in their ways" mentality that can sometimes hold new and good ideas back.
Smaller companies can implement their crazy new ideas because they may only need to implement or build it 100 times. There are plenty of people thinking up the same crazy or amazing ideas at GM, Ford, Honda, Toyota, etc, but their ideas get holes shot through them when you have to consider building 100k+ vehicles a year, or maintaining timing on the assembly line to complete a process. I'd bet there are plenty of things Tesla put into the Model S that other major manufacturers have thought up, tested, and decided were not possible or cost-effective to implement on a large scale.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
Has it ever occurred to you guys that Toyota, the largest automaker in the world, bought out Tesla not because they were better, but because it was just far cheaper. To think they needed Tesla technology is laughable. It was the shortest line between two points. They wanted an all electric vehicle NOW.

I would think that Tesla will get FAR more out of the exchange than Toyota will.
Yes and no. They bought the "powertrain" from Tesla for the Rav4-EV based on timing AND the desire to study their technology. Their initial goal was to have the Rav4-EV out before the Nissan Leaf. Any future EV's that Toyota produces will use their own internally developed technology which is sure to contain a lot of engineered content based on the benchmark study done on the Tesla hardware.

Its a different type of "need". We all need to eat and drink to survive. Toyota needed Tesla's technology in order to improve their own. It isn't about survival, but it is about keeping up with market technology and content. Its no secret that Tesla has a fantastic battery and motor system. It appears to be the best in the market. Anyone with an inferior product needs to get a hold of Tesla's stuff, figure out what they did and how they did it, and find ways to improve their own stuff. This is what every manufacturer does. This is the point of benchmarking. Toyota also had a Chevrolet Volt at their technical center as they were studying the hybrid/electric technology that GM has developed.

Standard practice is to perform a bunch of vehicle tests to check out ride and handling and NVH. Then bring it inside the building and run whatever dyno related tests. Then tear the whole damn thing to the ground and pass out the various components to your own engineers who develop similar parts and have them test, analyze, and report on what they find. Take what you learn and improve your products where possible. If you were to enter any major manufacturer's technical center you are guaranteed to see competitor vehicles being driven and tested for the sake of development and improvement.


I certainly hope that Tesla gets/got something out of the exchange. I hope they learn a lot about component characteristics and durability testing.
Scooby921 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 07:57 PM   #130
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elirentz View Post
The volt charges its 16 kWh from a 240 v outlet in 3 hours. The base model S charges 40 kWh pack in 4 hrs from a 240v outlet. The car definitely has an effect on the current coming out of the wall as the loads will be different for different chargers and charge rates.

I'm not saying the S is drastically more advanced just that it does charge faster. I'd say the crash test record shows the battery safety systems in the S are better as well . Not trying to take anything away from the volt it obviously has its pluses. Same with the karma.

I agree about the proprietary charging thing. For Tesla to be successful in the future they need to get on board and help push the standards forward.
You really don't understand. The circuit breaker determines the current available. Not the car. The car has an amount of energy it can take, but if the panel doesn't have capacity it is irrelevant. The S doesn't charge faster unless you have a higher capacity circuit breaker. Just like the spark, the leaf, the *insert EV here.

The crash record of the S is non existent so it shows nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
Has it ever occurred to you guys that Toyota, the largest automaker in the world, bought out Tesla not because they were better, but because it was just far cheaper. To think they needed Tesla technology is laughable. It was the shortest line between two points. They wanted an all electric vehicle NOW.

I would think that Tesla will get FAR more out of the exchange than Toyota will.
Yes the line was drawn between the point of EV mandate in CA and some other states and not wasting time on a vehicle they don't think will sell well. Nissan wants the Leaf to do well. Toyota tolerates the Rav4 EV.

Scooby Toyota did not need to partner with Tesla to tear it down and figure it out. They partner for any patent issues. Further the "Tesla battery" was really thermal management and so forth. The battery is just Panasonic cells. Toyota is a Japanese company and Panasonic is a Japanese brand. It is hardly surprising that they are doing it. LG is korean and it is possible the ANL tech isn't being allowed out. This isn't to say Tesla isn't doing anything, the thermal management and cell matching and all the other stuff going on does matter. Nissan skimped, and the Prius PHV skimped on that as well.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 09:10 PM   #131
elirentz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 70082
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: charleston, sc
Vehicle:
2005 sti, 02 s2000
88 944 beater

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty View Post

You really don't understand. The circuit breaker determines the current available. Not the car. The car has an amount of energy it can take, but if the panel doesn't have capacity it is irrelevant. The S doesn't charge faster unless you have a higher capacity circuit breaker. Just like the spark, the leaf, the *insert EV here.

The crash record of the S is non existent so it shows nothing.
No I understand fully. Given the same 40 A breaker in the panel (not that uncommon) the Tesla's charging system charges faster. It does this by having a higher wattage charger. These specs are for the base charging package higher wattage setups are available.

The Tesla has been crash tested just like the volt was.

Edit: now I see what youre trying to say. Again all Im trying to say is that the charging system is more complicated and faster than the volt.

Last edited by elirentz; 12-06-2012 at 09:16 PM.
elirentz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 06:39 AM   #132
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elirentz View Post
No I understand fully. Given the same 40 A breaker in the panel (not that uncommon) the Tesla's charging system charges faster. It does this by having a higher wattage charger. These specs are for the base charging package higher wattage setups are available.

The Tesla has been crash tested just like the volt was.

Edit: now I see what youre trying to say. Again all Im trying to say is that the charging system is more complicated and faster than the volt.

The charger on the roadster was actually slower for a given energy input. They spent a lot of the energy pumping liquid around and so forth. Not sure how the S will pan out yet. That is not a bad thing it is why their battery is good they actually take care of it.

As to crash testing last I checked

Quote:
The 2012 Tesla Model S hasn't yet been crash-tested by either the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) or the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Given the low production volumes in its first year or so, it may be a while before that happens.
If you have different information feel free to share it.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 11:22 AM   #133
elirentz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 70082
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: charleston, sc
Vehicle:
2005 sti, 02 s2000
88 944 beater

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty View Post
The charger on the roadster was actually slower for a given energy input. They spent a lot of the energy pumping liquid around and so forth. Not sure how the S will pan out yet. That is not a bad thing it is why their battery is good they actually take care of it.
But from what I've read the volt only comes with a ~ 3.3 kW charger so it will only draw roughly 15 A from whatever 220v outlet you choose that has a breaker larger than 15 A. If you have a 240v 16 A source for the Roadster the charge rates are comparable but the roadster is capable of charging much faster with higher current. The lowest 240 v breaker I have in my house is 30 A. Connected to that source the roadster would charge a good deal faster. That's all I'm trying to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty View Post
As to crash testing last I checked

If you have different information feel free to share it.

It supposedly just recieved all around 5 star ratings.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/22/t...-s-crash-test/

But the only info I can find about it is quoting Musk so who knows. I just figured they had to test it to go into production,

Last edited by elirentz; 12-07-2012 at 12:14 PM.
elirentz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 02:19 PM   #134
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

They don't have to be tested to be in production. But it seems a good idea. The volt also got 5 star rated, but then the problem was totally blown up out of proportion (puns for the win) since no one would be in the vehicle then. Anyway I just had not seen the testing results for the S hopefully at some point more information is released. I am kinda surprised though given the recent bruhaha that netflix is facing from the SEC that Tesla would do something similar (tweet something like that).

(I put the link in since yours was broken (but then you fixed it )
http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/22/t...-s-crash-test/

It is true that the volts charger is not super high capacity, but as I already stated it doesn't make much sense to do so on a PHEV anyway. I read that it is 240V16A=3.8kW but that is pretty close. It will need to be a 20amp circuit to accommodate that constant draw though. A full charge in a few hours is plenty for most PHEV owners I would imagine.

The high rate DC charging makes much more sense for a EV since there are possible corner cases where you need to charge it quickly. And there as I said others have fast charging as well.

edit:
Don't get me wrong Tesla's are cool. Mainly because of what Lutz said. They are cars I would like. I just don't suddenly think they are the most innovative company doing amazing things is all.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 04:06 PM   #135
shikataganai
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 92634
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Vehicle:
2007 Land Cruiser
2013 LEAF

Default

The Volt's default home EVSE is 240V 16A. The on-board charger, the rate limiting factor as elirentz noted, is 3.3 kW. In other words, with the right adapter you could plug in a Tesla High Power Wall Connector (20 kW x 2) yet the Volt would still charge at 3.3 kW max.
shikataganai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 04:49 PM   #136
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shikataganai View Post
The Volt's default home EVSE is 240V 16A. The on-board charger, the rate limiting factor as elirentz noted, is 3.3 kW. In other words, with the right adapter you could plug in a Tesla High Power Wall Connector (20 kW x 2) yet the Volt would still charge at 3.3 kW max.
I am not sure what you are talking about.

You agreed with what I said about the volt's EVSE, but you are saying that it is limited by the onboard electronics to 3.3? At least I think. I still don't know what your point is though. It has nothing to do with the actual discussion about how advanced the battery and charging circuitry is. Bigger != more advanced. And as I stated already c-rate is what matters and in these cases it is quite low. From the previous post the Tesla was actually charging more slowly in terms of replenishing battery capacity b/c the battery is bigger. 4 hours vs. 3 hours. The shorter the time is to charge the battery the more you have to do in terms of thermal management.

Dumping a bunch of electricity into it is easy if you don't care about anything else.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 05:50 PM   #137
shikataganai
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 92634
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Vehicle:
2007 Land Cruiser
2013 LEAF

Default

I agree with your point about the C rate wrt charging, but the confusion seems to stem from EVSE vs. on-board charger capabilities.

The EVSE is a smart circuit breaker and cord, more or less. It's not a charger. The charger on board the car determines the max charging power, so in the case of the Volt the EVSE isn't the limiting factor unless it itself is limited to some figure below the power of the Volt's charger, which is 3.3 kW.
shikataganai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 10:19 AM   #138
elirentz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 70082
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: charleston, sc
Vehicle:
2005 sti, 02 s2000
88 944 beater

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty View Post
The shorter the time is to charge the battery the more you have to do in terms of thermal management.

Dumping a bunch of electricity into it is easy if you don't care about anything else.
Exactly this is why the Tesla's charging system is more complicated. From what I've read the volt only fills ~60% of its battery for battery safety where as Tesla slows the charge rate down linearly at different starting points for different charging scenarios to fill the rest of the capacity safely. Though I haven't looked at the actual schematics if what I've read is correct I can take a decent educated guess which one is more complicated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shikataganai View Post
I agree with your point about the C rate wrt charging, but the confusion seems to stem from EVSE vs. on-board charger capabilities.

The EVSE is a smart circuit breaker and cord, more or less. It's not a charger. The charger on board the car determines the max charging power, so in the case of the Volt the EVSE isn't the limiting factor unless it itself is limited to some figure below the power of the Volt's charger, which is 3.3 kW.
Precisely the point I was trying to make (poorly). The Tesla's on board charger can communicate with the EVSE and adjust the load for various values of available voltage (240 or 120) and current (15 A - 40 A) so that it doesn't trip the breaker. There's an option for dual chargers for a combine 20 kW of charging power meaning the charger can draw over 80 A.

Last edited by elirentz; 12-08-2012 at 10:40 AM.
elirentz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 11:01 AM   #139
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

I am pretty sure a bunch of chargers can adjust the load down. I heard they monitor the current and if it decreases they make the assumption that the wire is heating up and lower the draw. Or something similar to that. Anyway it is nice that an EV can charge at a higher rate, but for high rates a DC charger in the end makes more sense b/c there is no reason to carry around the heavy electronics in the car when they can be stationary.

The Volt only allows the user to use a smaller portion of the battery so it lasts longer. EVs allow access to more of the battery assuming most of the time consumers will still not use it, but if they need it then they do. In a PHEV you turn on the engine so there is no reason to shorten battery life by allowing full use (from the OEM perspective).
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 03:08 PM   #140
elirentz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 70082
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: charleston, sc
Vehicle:
2005 sti, 02 s2000
88 944 beater

Default

Yeah, again not saying anything against the volt or the reason it was designed the way it was. It only makes sense that charging, battery capacity, etc be smaller scale for a hybrid.
elirentz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Black box on board New standards for automotive big brother take effect in 2012 AVANTI R5 Non-Subaru News & Rumors 38 04-21-2012 11:06 AM
Study says U.S. government incentives for battery-powered cars arenít cost effective AVANTI R5 Non-Subaru News & Rumors 5 09-29-2011 12:39 PM
02-07 WRX/STi/2.5 Impreza airbag set - perfect replacement for wrecked car jamesfacts Interior/Dressup/Audio & Security 5 02-27-2009 10:09 AM
Lexus eases up on certified standards for used cars AVANTI R5 Non-Subaru News & Rumors 0 12-24-2007 12:13 PM
Todt and Ferrari setting a new standard for LAMENESS. meebs Motorsports 1 03-02-2005 05:01 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.