Just a shiny male toy…

  • 2 Posts
  • 544 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle






  • No, it doesn’t solve the wear problem, that’s precisely my point. It moves it, and at a monetary cost.

    Easy example of adding complexity to help meet a goal, geared turbofan engines. Simplicity and reduced short term cost? Antithetical. Long term costs thanks to efficiency savings? In spades.

    I still see parroting of seeming truisms versus actual understanding on choices made, based on changes observed since the 70s onward. “Solid state always beats mechanical”, for instance, something that _seemed_obvious in the 70s and 80s. This makes you out to be around what, 55 is my guess.

    The tribal knowledge of implementation details have changed since the solid state revolution, some applications of solid state are still past the edge of solid state capabilities if your goal is cost reduction. That was Eberhard’s intent, and what a geared motor would help solve, never mind the expected initially high costs.

    How/what kind of motor is built dictates its favored unloaded RPM, haven’t you seen exposed A/C motors spinning fans for e.g. pumps or Aircon condensors? 20k rpm as an argument?? Jesus. I read between the lines and see your actual understanding of the matters.

    So listen, I’m not interested in converting a zealot. I personally also believe solid state is the way to go for controls and other parts of a system, but the difference between a junior and experienced engineer when it comes to production at international consumption levels is knowing what tools are appropriate, and where, in that system. A lot of the rest of your argument text is a red herring, I encourage you to reread it and discard it as I have.



  • Oh, just lol. I can see the nuances of the engineering choices aren’t getting through here.

    That very choice is a critical part of why there aren’t many cheap EVs on the market. If you’ll recall, Eberhard was trying to keep costs down so that ordinary folks could afford the vehicle. Smaller motor plus gearbox costs less and reduces other costs as well. Elon changed the engineering goals, forcing the roadster to be priced yet higher.

    A large, custom motor “solves” the problem inelegantly by replacing an undersized mallet with a sledge, as you’d expect from a moron. Correspondingly larger IGBTs, larger switching losses, more battery capacity lost to needing to parallel vs series for feeding the larger motor a lot of current. There were and yet remain many downstream negatives to that decision.

    As for the rest of the market following, why are you surprised that the same market which kept saying “10yrs away” also couldn’t be imaginative enough to innovate?

    It’s obvious you don’t want to shift from your position either, the funny bit is that at least one of us here has evaluated merits vs problems with any technical background. Keep on drinking that corporate Kool aid.



  • Yawn. Hello ad hominem, early on. Lots of unnecessary verbiage.

    The rest of your argument is both trite & false, and again reveals a lack of engineering prowess/understanding. It’s not always intuitive, so I don’t blame you much. Quick example: gears add contact friction, but also significantly reduce bearing loads on the motors, among other things. You trade some efficiency for better lifetimes on the parts experiencing the most pressure. Further, Teslas still have a gearbox, and even as a single stage system, they still experience failures. “No part” eh?

    If there was anything to learn from reading a carefully manicured blog where honesty isn’t guaranteed, it’s that there wasn’t enough of a commitment to getting it right, iterating takes time, which is still why I won’t buy one of those styrofoam-padded shitboxes. Still buying an EV, just one that was actually well designed.

    That you feel attacked by my laughing at your conclusions, well… Cry about it.