NotMyOldRedditName

Okay so my comment was about the EPA stuff and SK stuff NOT tesla fudging the numbers.

Is that hard to understand?

The article also talks about that.

You have to plan your trips like that?

The tesla navigation systems just plans it for you and takes that all into account. Unless you're excessively speeding it's almost always within 1% or 2% (over or under), and that takes elevation, speed limits above optimal efficiency, heating, cooling, I believe even ambient temperature into account.

I've never ever had to think about it.

Now, if I didn't use the trip planner and relied solely on the displayed KM I'd never trust it, because there are so many variables to take into account. The car can legitimately get the EPA rated range in the EPA test conditions, but those conditions aren't every day driving conditions. I would never trust if it says 400km that I'd be able to do 390km trip. There's too many things to consider and the software does it all automatically.

The whole making more exaggerated numbers at full vs 50% is sketchy if true, but people really should be using % vs km. Km are always going to have problems. And people should be using the trip planner for any lengthy trip.

Some people would probably complain if they had a 100mile trip up a mountain pass and it took more than 100 miles of energy.

At least when you plan a route the % indicator takes that into account vs a plain estimation.

My best trip once going up a pass was around 70km of the reading staying within 1 or 2km the entire time when going down it.

But ya there's so many variables. But if they were fudging calculations that'd be bad.

That's only what part of the article is about.

My comment was very specific

This is really the EPAs fault for real world numbers.

Real world driving conditions especially on highways where people want to get the stated range have higher speeds than what the test tests.

If you want the EPA number to match real world speeds make the test run at real world speeds.

If you want the population to know EVs run worse in the cold, have a cold weather test be part of the test and require reporting the number. It'd showcase how good the cars heating system is and help people make a decision.

The EPA probably wanted auto manufacturers to be able to report higher numbers and incorrectly chose a lower speed. WLPT numbers are even worse for being wrong (but if I recall, the wrong is more consistent)

If it's unsure, but for whatever reason this failed, it seemed sure.

I've had the car slow in unsure situations before so it can and does.

It just got this one very wrong for some reason

If you've watched any of their recent AI talks, they talk a lot about these unusual and complex intersections. Lane mappings in complexe intersections being one of the hardest problems. Currently they're taking data from numerous cars to reconstruct intersections like this to then turn into a simulation and train it so it learns more and more complex things.

There really are only 2 options.

Solve this with vision and AI, or solve this with HD maps.

But it has to be solved.

They're just going to change the laws to allow it instead.

https://www.gpb.org/news/2023/04/11/kids-at-work-states-try-ease-child-labor-laws-at-behest-of-industry

Somewhere in the 60-70k range is probably where it'll land ya.

That'd be 15-25k more after inflation (instead of 20-30k more)

Edit: at least it should fully qualify for the 7500 federal rebate since it uses the 4680 cells. Was reading the m3 might lose the full rebate in 2024

Well we really can't speak to any ulterior motives that aren't public and maybe there is. Killing rail outright helps sell more cars, but like you said I doubt we'll ever know one way or the other.

In theory, excluding unknowable hidden motives, the goal was to help halt this very specific plan in hopes they'd come up with something better.

By the time it was cancelled the cost had gone from mid 40 billion to 77 billion and it wasn't going to stop there.

~~I imagine that the vast vast majority of this isn't the cost of the actual train hardware but the cost of land rights, environmental studies etc. It's expensive as fuck.~~

~~I wouldn't be surprised if 3/4 of the cost has nothing to do with the train or engineering itself, especially as it ballooned to 77b (edit this could actually be looked up to some extent I'm sure, I just don't know)~~ I did some more looking and while it's a factor I was indeed off. Things like expensive tunnels are a big factor.

Knowing this, wouldn't it make sense to spend more and make something better and more advanced if you have to sink so much money into all the other stuff before you can even build it? Put the best thing we can through that expensive tunnel.

I think there's a fair distinction of, wanted to kill high speed rail in California (this post) and wanting some form of high speed rail / transport that would be better than what was proposed given the expected costs and overruns, and better technology in general

We'll really never know, but there is a difference in context there.

Edit: looks like it actually is still happening, I thought things got halted other than 1 section of track. Estimates are now 88b-128b.

It wouldn't be reasonable to expect the 40k price after the crazy inflation we've seen

What I want to know is how much higher is it after taking inflation into account..

Edit: looked it up. 40k in 2019 is 47.7k today. 40k in 2021 the planned release day/price, in 2023 is 45k. The 45k number probably makes the most sense. That's assuming the random site I used is anywhere near correct.

There's a difference between an apologist and correcting something ~~entirely~~ somewhat out of context.

If I was trying to say it's okay for musk to say FSD is going to be ready this year every year for the past 6 or whatever years it is, that's different.