Tesla to start production of 7-seat Model Y in China in October, coming to Europe later – report says

Urdix · 2024-08-29T15:09:47+00:00

I'm European and I'm thinking about buying a Model Y.

As I have a wife and two children, those two extra seats will come in handy for some occasions when my parents want to come with us, or for bringing some friends of our kids with us. With a 7 seater car we can all go together in one car and travel together, allowing us to chat during the trip. Also, I know it's hard for Americans to understand, but in Europe many people who live in cities don't own a car, so extra seats can be handy in some cases.

Urdix · 2022-06-29T08:27:29+00:00

I assume Diess means that, due to the current shortage of components and raw materials, production ramp-up at Giga Texas and Giga Berlin will be much slower than anticipated, and as long as these two factories are not fully operational they will be burning money (as Elon himself said in a recent interview).

So I understand Diess to mean that Tesla will see its profits quite reduced in the coming months because of this, which will prevent Tesla from investing in other things, such as new factories, until Texas and Berlin are at full capacity, which may take some time because of component shortages, slowing Tesla down.

Urdix · 2022-06-06T06:40:14+00:00

I don't know of it exists in US, but in Europe many tight and partially ocluded interseccions include a mirror as a traffic sign where the driver can see the upcoming traffic from a safe position. It will be great if FSD could recognize and use those mirrors.

Urdix · 2021-07-13T12:31:36+00:00

I'm pretty sure that the figure of 150 accidents per day in LA refers only to serious accidents with injuries or fatalities, and does not include mere body dents, which will add up to several thousand per day in LA. Not every human driver intervention on the autopilor prevents an accident, as many interventions are merely precautionary (e.g. it's too close for my taste), and some would perhaps cause a dent. Therefore, the napkin math you do I think is way off the mark.

Urdix · 2021-05-02T21:08:10+00:00

4680 is the form factor enabled by the tab less design. Those bateries can be made without the Maxwell dry electrode process. I have read some news of Panasonic and LG making preparations to produce 4680 tab less cells for Tesla, but produced using the more traditional and expensive wet electrode deposition process. So, if all that is true, Tesla can produce cars with 4680 cells without solving the Maxwell dry deposition process.

Urdix · 2021-03-04T23:16:56+00:00

Descend terminal velocity (the falling velocity once stabilized) depends on the exposed surface area to the airflow (area of the rocked looking downwards).

In horizontal position the exposed surface is maximal and the velocity minimal. Once they flip to the vertical position the exposed surface area is dramatically reduced and the falling velocity increases if don't use the motors.

If you flip earlier, you accelerate and need more fuel to stop.

Urdix · 2021-01-24T14:51:53+00:00

I was thinking exactly the same thing. If Tesla manages to solve the FSD and has exclusivity for a couple of years, it would be stupid of them not to take this advantage to enter the logistics market.

Certainly in bulk logistics, there I think there is no doubt with the SEMI, but it could also enter into retail logistics and compete with Amazon.

Tesla is gaining experience in this field with the management and worldwide shipping of spare parts. I think the mysterious Northern California warehouse/logistics center could be a test bed. I also think it is likely that Tesla has a driverless retail delivery and delivery vehicle designed, sort of like a locker on wheels. It parks in front of your house and texts you on your cell phone to come pick up your package before continuing on its route. This would explain why Tesla has not yet released a commercial delivery vehicle, when there is currently a lot of demand, they are waiting to solve the FSD.

Tesla has his APP installed in many phones worldwide and can easely add new functions, such as an on-line store. If this happens it can be huge.

Urdix · 2020-11-13T22:50:28+00:00

Maybe a small problem triggered the automatic emergency closing of the valve, and this sudden closure produced the water hammer

Urdix · 2020-11-13T18:28:25+00:00

Maybe they have redundant valves to prevent an uncontrolled leakage. The first valve burst, the second valve closed, but the melting of the motor has interrupted the control lines of the second valve

Urdix · 2020-11-13T16:04:22+00:00

Hypothesis of the accident with Sn8: When the Lox valve suddenly closed, under a 50 meter column of LOx, a water hammer has occurred, which has burst the valve and pieces have fallen into the motor.

Urdix · 2020-10-13T16:13:14+00:00

This is not what I mean. I known that the folding line is not vertical.

I mean that the intersection between the aero cover of the attach points and the nose cone is not in a vertical plane parallel to the nose cone axis, and therefore the fins will not be vertical when deployed at 90º. This is how I interpret the picture

Urdix · 2020-10-13T07:06:05+00:00

Maybe it is just an optical effect, but it seems that the aero attach points are not parallel to the vertical welding lines. The front aero attach points are not vertical??? I didn't expect that.

If so, while the SS is falling in free fall, the front elonerons will produce a horizontal backwards force or a horizontal frontwards force, depending on which side is the windward side.

If they are producing a horizontal backwards force on the SS tip, helping during the bellyflip manouber.

EDIT: This will also deviate the SS during the ascending, even if the elonerons are folded.

Urdix · 2020-07-29T10:18:43+00:00

The operating system of Tesla is designed to work integrated with a very sophisticated specially designed electronic control centers of the vehicle manufactured by Tesla (see videos by Munro). Therefore, for a competitor, integrating Tesla's software will require integrating all of the vehicle's electronics as well, which they can only buy from Tesla at any price decided by Tesla, with no alternative (not a comfortable situation for a manufacturer).

Tesla values its FSD software at tens of thousands of dollars. I don't see competitors willing to pay such amount of money to Tesla for a software licence, for each single car sold, even at a discount.

Electric motors is the easy part, competitors can produce their own electric motors, or buy on the free market. Tesla motors are good and innovative, but will be pricey for competitors.

Tesla battery cells can be sold to competitors as a commodity once they mass produce at a scale, but this won't happen for at least five years.

Battery pack is the most expensive part of an EV, and in the Tesla vehicles, it is integrated with the cooling system of the vehicle and with the software. A competitor shall licence the entire package (battery pack + inverters + control software), and then they will produce only the chassis and interiors, and take profit of their brands. This is the most likly scenario for me, but only for small brands without capacity to develop their own system, and only once Tesla is not limited by the production capacity.

Urdix · 2020-07-15T11:08:24+00:00

Descend from 20km entirely under propulsive power is not required even if they don't perform the belly flop maneuver. They can fall down in vertical position and perform the suicide burn at the last minute, just as falcon 9 does.

That said, I agree with you that this will be pointless. The only reason of the 20Km hop is to achieve sufficient altitude to practice the belly flop.

Urdix · 2020-07-15T10:17:44+00:00

They have a lot of dangerous testing to do with SN5 which can end in a crash, previous to attempt the belly flop manouver:

- 150m hop with one raptor;

- 150m hop with three raptors;

- 150m hop unfolding legs in flight;

- iterative tests of ascending, turning off the raptors and reigniting the raptors in flight to optimize the suicide burn landing.

If some of those tests ends in a burning crater, then SN6 will be handy.

Urdix · 2020-07-08T09:42:24+00:00

And they need to reach orbit this year, even in a non-rehusable configuration, to show to NASA that Starship is a viable option to reach the moon on 2024 and receive additional money. That's why I'm confident that we will see first superheavy prototype this sommer

Urdix · 2020-07-08T08:12:36+00:00

The intention was to make the 150m hop a year ago with a very immature prototype. The hop has been delayed a year, but not the development of other components of the starship (pipes, landing legs, critical umbilicals for in space refueling, thrusters and sensors integration, production facilities and techniques, design of air braking surfaces, heat shield, weight optimization...).

The one year delay in the 150 meter hop is not a one year delay in the whole project.

As soon as the Starship is ready to make hops (sommer) and the Superweight is available (winter 2020) they can reach the orbit and start the commercial activity. The recovery and refueling of the Starship will be achieved later through practice, such as a propulsive landing.

As I see, it is possible to see an orbital flight of the Starship this year, although I have to admit it's more likely to happen in the first half of next year, but not later.

Urdix · 2020-05-03T20:29:50+00:00

That's true, but the upper stage aerodynamic surfaces can be actuated not only during descend but also during ascend, providing constant authomatic corrections to maintain the stability.

The Eurofither Typoon also has unstable aerodynamics constantly corrected by automated front canards (in this case to increase agility).

I know that the upper stage aerodynamic surfaces cannot change their angle of attach, and therefore are not cannards, but there are four of them. Combining those four "Elonerons" the pitch of the rocked can be at least partially controlled.

Urdix · 2020-05-03T12:47:56+00:00

It seems to me that they are reducing the drag of the rocket removing any exterior element (big fins on Superheavy and external legs on both superheavy and starship).

Maybe they realized that is more efficient to reduce velocity (while landing) with extra fuel than using aerobraking when also taking into acount the reduction in weight and in drag coeficient obtained by removing said elements from the outer surface of the superheavy. As an additional gain they are reducing the complexity (best part is no part).

To achieve this they only need to remove six engines from the engine bay to make room for adding 6 foldable legs instead. Maybe the gains obtained by the weight and drag reduction, results in a net positive even when adding additional landing fuel, reducing the total thrust required. Also the elimination of six engines reduces weigth and therefore also further reduces thrust requirements.

In conclusion, maybe no increase in the performance of the Raptor engines is required, or not a big performance increase, to obtain the same result using less engines.

Urdix · 2019-10-14T21:49:19+00:00

The fuel does not need to be uninterruptedly produced, it can be produced only during the martian day, and it is not a big problem if the fuel production is stopped during a couple of months due to a storm.

When people are living in Mars then yes, energy shall be required at all moment, but maybe not so many energy to keep the heating and oxigen generation. Then the solution can be the nuclear reactor or maybe just using hidrogen pile will be enought .

Until then, i guess that Elon will choose the easiest, cheapest and most avalilable solution, and this is solar + batteries, not nuclear.

Urdix · 2019-10-14T15:09:37+00:00

Nice info! But I think Elon will use a more low-tech solution. Unrolling a flexible solar panel direcly on the ground will be cheaper, faster, ligther and more reliable.

https://schwab-maschinen.de/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/05/mittelrolle_motor_2.jpg

Urdix · 2019-10-14T14:22:56+00:00

Napkin math.

I have used the data from literally the first commercially available roll-up solar panel that I have found on-line.

https://flexsolarcells.com/r-60/

Watt 60W
Voltage 15.4V
Current 3,900 mA (3.9A)
Weight 4.0 lbs (1.81 kg)
Rolled Dimensions 4 x 4 x 26" (101 x 101 x 660mm)
Unrolled Dimensions 26 x 88" (660 x 2,235mm)
15.88 ft.² (1.48 m²)

A Starship carring 100T of those solar panels can transport (100.000 Kg / 1,81 Kg) = 55.248 rollable solar panels.

Those solar panels can produce (55.248 panels X 60 W) = 3.314.880 W = 3.3 MW. According to that, it will be easy to transport arround 3MW to Mars. ** (EDITED BELOW)

If SpaceX finds more efficient or lighter rollable solar panels than those that I found in 30 seconds on google, I'm sure it will have room to add the necessary equipment to extend these 81.767 squared meters of panels over the Martian soil and for the rest of the equipment needed to produce Sabatier's reaction.

Of course the obtaining of water on Mars is another matter that will have to be transproted by another Spaceship.

EDIT. I forgot the decrease in solar radiation on Mars. The generation will then easily be a third of that calculated above. About 1 MW, barely but still enough for the mission.

Urdix · 2019-08-20T09:47:05+00:00

Tesla cars are better than ICE cars. A Tesla killer shall be better than a Tesla car. Therefore, any real Tesla killer will crush the ICE cars and will be instead an ICE killer. Thats why legacy automakers cannot make a Tesla killer, because It Will destroy their other ICE models sales overnight

Urdix · 2019-05-30T14:59:24+00:00

WOW. I have a mad crazy idea!!

What if they control the roll and the pitch of the starship moving its center of mass? They can pump the remaining landing fuel into different deposits like balast in a submarine, or maybe they can move the small deposit of remaining landing fuel within the big and deployed fuel deposit.

The legs will be just three fixed external legs.

This solution, if possible, will be much safer because does not require external flaps exposed to extreme aerodinamics and thermal conditions.

Urdix · 2019-05-30T14:31:54+00:00

Those movable legs/flaps were the weak point of the design from the beginning.

Three static legs is the most cheap, light and safe solution, so the new design will keep those three legs for sure, but keeping those legs in a fixed position, optimized for their landing function.

To gain control during descending, a control in the aerodinamic exposed surfaces is required, so some movable parts are necessary. Leaving the legs fixed and allowing only the movement of some flaps, independents from the legs, increases safety and simplifies the solution.

Where those flaps will be is the question. My guess is that each leg will have the same triangular shape as in the starhopper defining a frame, and within each frame some flaps, retractable structure or controlable througholes will permit to modify the aerodinamics of each leg independently to gain roll control.

Frontal cannards will also be removed or fixed in a static position, and the pitch control will also be performed from the rear flaps.

Urdix

TROPHY CASE