‘Tesla Killers’ are struggling to live up to their names

Given the struggles faced by most new electric vehicle (EV) releases over the last few years, it may be time to put away the phrase ‘Tesla Killer’ in favor of a more realistic label like ‘Tesla Kind-of Competitor.’ With brands like Faraday Future and Fisker Inc. already come and (almost) gone in the same EV arena that Tesla continues to thrive in, each new entrant looks to be the next at-risk for being an ‘also-ran’ in the quest for success in the consumer market.

As more tech knowledge is gained, supply deals are made, and Tesla continues educating potential buyers about the positive realities of electric car ownership, perhaps the ‘Tesla Killer’ label will be bandied about again. In the meantime, however, competitors like the Jaguar I-PACE and the Audi e-tron are left with the cold, hard reality: They’re just not Tesla, and that’s not yet a good thing for shoppers to be thinking about their product right now.

“If a customer is choosing the I-PACE over the comparable Tesla, they are making the conscious decision: I don’t want the Tesla,” said Ed Kim, an analyst at the car-market research and consulting firm AutoPacific, as quoted in an article on Bloomberg about Tesla’s struggling competition. “You really have to be someone who doesn’t like Tesla, who doesn’t want the Tesla product, in order to go for this.”

Faraday Future’s FF 91 is not the ‘Tesla Killer’ it was once hailed as anymore. | Image: Faraday Future

The e-tron and the I-PACE might actually stand a good chance at breaking into a market dominated by Tesla given their brands’ experience and financial resources in the automotive world already. As Bloomberg’s article pointed out, their sales numbers are going to have to perk up soon, though, and given some advertising tactics taken up by both brands, they’re aware of this need. Jaguar is currently offering a $3,000 ‘Tesla Conquest’ incentive, meaning current Tesla owners buying an I-PACE will receive an additional $3,000 credit towards their purchase as part of a combined $15,000 savings package program. Last month, Audi infamously decided to block Superchargers in order to spark marketing-driven conversations with Tesla owners there to ‘fill’ up.

There are a variety of reasons why ‘Tesla Killers’ aren’t living up to their name – some are speculation and some have pretty solid facts to support their case. Getting a late start in the EV game is probably the most glaring shortcoming of Tesla’s competitors, but that’s not always the determining factor. Although Tesla is lauded as a technology company that also makes cars, a sentiment expressed to applaud their achievements, there’s no rule saying they will keep that crown forever. (My source: Pirates of Silicon Valley meets Tesla Goes to China). With the kind of deep pockets legacy auto still has, they could throw their money around and make some magic happen there, if you will.

Education of the sales force seems to be a serious shortcoming as well, especially according to owners who’ve experienced it directly. In early July this year, one Jaguar I-PACE owner shared a very frustrating tale with Teslarati which involved his car failing to meet its stated battery range by a significant amount, a lack of working charge stations, and delays in servicing due to limited know-how when it came to the company’s new electric vehicle. Tesla is often chided for its growing pains in service, but legacy auto doesn’t always have a pristine record, and Tesla is always working to improve and can move at an incredible speed to do so.

Then there are theories put forth by people like Sandy Munro, a teardown specialist who has made waves in the Tesla community for his comments about the Model 3 manufacturing process. Commenting on the underwhelming battery range from Tesla competitors such as the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-PACE in an interview with Sean Mitchell of AllThingsEV, Munro noted that this is simply because of their lack of vertical integration. “(It’s) because they’re buying them from somebody else,” he mused. Other comments made in the interview involved the long-term nature of any battery development outside of Tesla and the major battery manufacturers thanks to patents and licensing requirements. In other words, Jaguar and Audi might not be victims of ‘you snooze, you loose,’ per se, but rather ‘you don’t stay awake, you pay.’

To the extent that it’s amusing watching Tesla move so far ahead in the EV race, it’s not a terrible thing if they end of sharing the stage a bit with others down the road. Elon Musk has noted on several occasions that Tesla alone can’t achieve the total transformation that’s needed to achieve his sustainability goals. It’s good that others are trying, and a handful of actual ‘Tesla Killers’ that keep the brand on its toes is good for everyone, even those just in it for the cool factor. Better competition for Tesla means Tesla just gets better. Then they get better to keep up. And so it goes.

‘Tesla Killers’ are struggling to live up to their names

<!–

View Comments

–>

Source

Tesla patent reveals ‘High Speed Wiring’ design for full self-driving safety

Tesla has filed a recently-published patent application titled “High-Speed Wiring System Architecture” that addresses an important aspect of its Full Self-Driving (FSD) suite: redundancy.

Traditional computer wiring systems often have no redundancy in their communications. Individual devices are connected to a central point (such as a processor), and each device receives communications separately from that point via some sort of cable. If one of the connections fails, communications to the device fails, and in a self-driving situation, that could mean complete system failure.

Simply adding more backup cables isn’t really a great solution, either. More wires mean more connection points, and if you’ve ever worked with microcontrollers or circuit boards professionally or as a hobby, you can already see the downside to this. More connection points mean bigger boards, and bigger boards mean higher manufacturing costs.

This is where Tesla’s new wiring system comes in, which was published on August 15, 2019 as US Patent Publication No. 2019/0248310.

“High-Speed Wiring System Architecture” patent application figure, one embodiment. | Image: Tesla/USPTO

The wiring architecture, as described, comprises a bi-directional backbone cable that forms a loop to and from a processor; along that backbone are connected devices (i.e., segments) with hubs inside associated with one or more cameras and/or radars. The backbone can function as two separate loops, meaning if one portion of the backbone fails, data from all the devices and hubs can still be sent to and from the processor thanks to the dual-loop capacity.

Perhaps a good way to visualize this is to imagine bumper cars or a marble traveling in a loop unimpeded. If a barrier were to suddenly be erected, the car and marble would bump the barrier and travel in the opposite direction. Or, instead of a barrier to bump, imagine a sharp U-turn came up, forcing the travel back in the other direction. The U-turn would happen on either side of the barrier, meaning motion (communication) would still continue back and forth to the processor despite a break in the larger loop (backbone).

The specific advantage of this new architecture over traditional systems, other than less cables connected to the processor, is that each hub within the devices is also connected in serial or in parallel to the other hubs via the backbone. If one hub within a device fails, the other hubs can still transmit to the backbone and thus to the processor. In a traditional system, if one cable to/from a device fails, all communications to/from radars and cameras inside the device fails.

A traditional computer wiring architecture. | Image: Tesla/USPTO

Essentially, what Tesla’s done here is mitigate the damage of one thing failing in an FSD system to just that one thing. Here’s how the application sums up that concept: “In embodiments, when backbone is formed using a bi-directional cable…then the wiring system architecture can tolerate one fault in the backbone while still maintaining communication pathways for all hubs and devices.”

Notably, Tesla’s patent application also specifies that its technology could be used in a variety of vehicles, including semi-trucks, indicating the company may intend to use the architecture as a standard setup for all its FSD programs in the future. Additionally, language is included to broaden the architecture’s application to farming, nautical, and other industrial applications.

A few of Tesla’s recent patent applications have demonstrated numerous efforts being made to improve the safety of FSD systems wherever opportunities for improvement are found. For example, an application published in May titled “System and Method for Handling Errors in a Vehicle Neural Network Processor” describes a way to safely handle errors encountered in self-driving software. Another application titled “Autonomous Driving System Emergency Signaling” describes a method of quickly communicating emergency information from vehicle sensors feeding into autonomous driving software. While Full Self-Driving may take a significant amount of time to be fully implemented for a variety of reasons, there’s no question that Tesla is working hard to make it a reality.

Tesla patent reveals ‘High Speed Wiring’ design for full self-driving safety

<!–

View Comments

–>

Source

‘Raven’ Tesla Model S Performance crushes muscle cars in multiple drag races

Even before it received Tesla’s “‘Raven” updates, the Model S P100D is already a monster on the drag strip. Equipped with two electric motors and a hefty 100 kWh battery pack, the pre-Raven Tesla Model S P100D broke electric car stereotypes when it regularly outran supercars, thanks in no small part to its instant torque that allowed a ludicrous 0-60 mph time of 2.28 seconds. 

The Raven updates to the Model S brought even more range and efficiency to an already impressive vehicle. Thanks to an updated drive unit and other optimizations, the Model S’s range was raised to an industry-leading 370 miles per charge on the non-performance long-range variant. The range of the Model S Performance, formerly the P100D, has also been raised to 345 miles per charge. Coupled with other updates such as Fully Adaptive Suspension, the Raven Model S was improved with even more torque and power. 

These improvements were notably evident in a recent video posted by the Tesla Racing Channel on YouTube, which involved a stock Raven Tesla Model S Performance racing against a lineup of opponents including Ford Mustangs, a Corvette, a Chevy Camaro, and a heavily-tuned Honda Civic. The results, to say the least, were quite cruel, at least for the Model S’ opponents. 

The Tesla Racing Channel team is known for going head-to-head against some of the most aggressive vehicles on the drag strip and beyond. The team’s experience certainly played a factor in the Raven Model S Performance’s race results, as the vehicle was able to make quick work of each opponent, leaving them off the starting line and pulling until the end of the race. 

During a bout against a notably loud Ford Mustang, the Model S Performance was even able to reset the stock Tesla record by running the quarter-mile in 10.546 seconds at 126.08 mph. Overall, only the Chevy Camaro showed some fight against the all-electric premium sedan, crossing the quarter-mile mark at 133.80 mph, which is about 8.4 mph more than the Model S’ trap speed of 125.39 mph. 

What is particularly remarkable is that the Raven Model S was able to accomplish its dominating feat while being fully stock. With an upgraded set of wheels and brakes, and perhaps a stripped interior (the Tesla Racing Channel team has done this in the past, to impressive results), Tesla’s fastest sedan would likely prove even faster. 

Watch the Raven Tesla Model S Performance duel several muscle cars and a tuned Japanese classic in the video below. 

[embedded content]

‘Raven’ Tesla Model S Performance crushes muscle cars in multiple drag races

<!–

View Comments

–>

Source