LNG: TESLARATI

The polarizing Tesla Cybertruck has caught the attention of automotive industry veteran Sandy Munro, who offered his honest opinion on the electric car manufacturer’s all-electric pickup during an interview with E for Electric‘s Alex Guberman.

Munro’s initial thoughts had to deal with the design and aesthetics of the truck. Citing the flat panels and simplistic design, Munro feels the vehicle will be relatively easy to build and produce. This will end up making its production rate higher than vehicles whose design contains contours. “The truck itself, because its all flat panels and whatnot, its a much much easier product to manufacture than anything that’s got lots of curves and whatnot,” Munro said.

While Elon Musk gave ample warning about the design of the Cybertruck, the real-life look of the vehicle was met with mixed reviews anyway. Nevertheless, the quarter of a million pre-orders the pickup received were enough to show that people were interested in its hip and unique design.

A product of Detroit’s rich history in automotive production, Munro currently drives a Jeep Rubicon, a vehicle he purchased for his hobby of off-roading. “The only relaxing thing I do is run over plants and be probably nasty to nature. So this kind of a vehicle to me is pretty interesting. I’m very happy that Tesla decided to put out something like this,” he said.

It is assumed that Tesla was aiming to not only release a vehicle that would compete with the traditional, petrol-powered trucks, but also would appeal to those who have an interest in the outdoors. Fellow electric car maker Rivian will begin producing its R1T pickup truck next year, and the company has geared its products toward people with hobbies that include camping and off-roading. While it is unknown if Tesla wanted to produce a truck that would compete with the ruggedness of the R1T, it is apparent that the company is interested in reaching out to the outdoor crowd, especially with the release of its electric ATV.

Guberman touched on the battery technology Tesla would utilize for the Cybertruck. After mentioning Tesla’s acquisition of Maxwell Technologies in late 2019, Guberman contributed this business move to the impressive 500+ mile range of the Cybertruck’s tri-motor variant. In the past, Munro has complimented Tesla’s battery technology, which he attributes to the company’s complete focus on EVs. Munro estimates that Tesla holds somewhere around a 10-year lead in this category, an idea he expressed in a past interview with electric car enthusiast Sean Mitchell.

Munro is noted as an industry expert in the E for Electric interview, and with an extensive resume where he held positions with Ford Motor Company and Kia Motors, it is understandable why he holds this title. Munro has spoken highly of Tesla in the past and has even done a teardown of the Model 3 Long Range variant. During this analysis of the vehicle, he notes the in-house development of Tesla vehicles as the primary reason why the company continues to have such large profitability.

You can watch Sandy Munro’s complete interview with E for Electric‘s Alex Guberman below.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk showed off a holiday-themed Raptor engine “Christmas tree” with its very own star on top. Musk noted via a tweet that the company’s Starship propulsion team is “making great progress” building, testing, and refining the Raptor engines that will one day propel the next-generation rocket to Earth orbit and beyond.

On December 13th, Musk revealed that SpaceX is preparing to ship the 17th completed Raptor engine to the company’s McGregor, Texas rocket test and development facilities, the site of several dedicated test stands for the Starship engine. Likely one of the most complex rocket engines ever designed, built, or tested, Raptor relies on an exotic combustion cycle, referring to the specifics of how engines turn their propellant into meaningful thrust.

Raptor uses what is known as full-flow staged combustion (FFSC) and is the first FFSC engine to graduate beyond ground testing and actually fly, thus far having completed two flight tests in July and August 2019 as part of SpaceX’s Starhopper test campaign. In simple terms, the FFSC cycle aims to extract as much energy from a rocket’s propellant as efficiently as possible, resulting in what is theoretically the most efficient possible chemical propulsion from a given fuel and oxidizer combination.

Due to the sheer complexity required to achieve full-flow staged combustion, the engine type is incredibly rare and only two other (once) functional examples exist – one developed by Soviet engineers in the 20th century and the other built, tested, and inexplicably scrapped by NASA in the 2000s. In fact, the Soviet RD-270 engine’s thrust-to-weight ratio is likely second only to SpaceX’s own Merlin 1D engine, an absolutely spectacular achievement for a propulsion bureau operating in the late 1960s.

RD-270 had major development challenges and would likely have taken years of additional hardware-rich (i.e. destructive trial and error) testing to produce an engine actually capable of reliable flight. Before the program was cancelled in 1970, 22 engines were tested and no single RD-270 survived to perform a fourth static fire, a testament to the immense challenge of FFSC engines.

SpaceX appears to have had a much better go of it with Raptor, although many, many engines have definitely been destroyed or irreparably damaged since the full-scale engine’s February 2019 static fire debut. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says that the 17th completed Raptor engine is almost ready to head to McGregor, Texas to kick off development and acceptance testing.

It remains to be seen when exactly Raptor engines will be mature and reliable enough to perform the 3-10 minute burns needed to send a Starship to orbit, let alone the Moon or Mars, but Musk appears confident that SpaceX is making great progress along those lines.

Per photos and info posted by NASASpaceflight.com earlier today, Raptor engine SN15 is already installed on a recently-reactivated McGregor test stand ahead of its first rocket-related test in almost half a decade.

Formerly used to test Falcon 9 first stages before SpaceX built a new stand for Falcon 9 and Heavy, that tripod stand has been reactivated for the sole purpose of supporting vertical Raptor engine static fire testing, which Musk says will simplify and expedite development by making test conditions much more flight-like. As of now, all subscale and full-scale Raptor engine static fire testing has been performed at horizontal test stands in McGregor, apparently resulting in wear and behavior that would not likely appear if engines were tested vertically.

SpaceX has gone through the same process with its Merlin engine programs, beginning with horizontal testing (far easier and simpler) but ultimately building a number of dedicated vertical test bays to ensure that engine acceptance and development tests can be performed under more flight-like conditions.

According to NASASpaceflight, SpaceX may have already fired up Raptor SN15 on its reactivated tripod test stand earlier this week, kicking off Raptor’s first Starhopper-free vertical static fire testing. It’s now unclear where the twin horizontal Raptor test bays will fit into future engine testing given Musk’s comments. More importantly, every completed Starship and Super Heavy rocket will require several dozen new Raptor engines and every one of those engines will likely need to pass acceptance testing (including static fires) in McGregor before they can be installed on a launch vehicle.

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket already requires 10 engines per new booster and upper stage, a test burden SpaceX has only managed with the help of two Merlin 1D stands and one Merlin Vacuum stand, all vertical. In other words, it’s safe to say that the reactivated tripod stand is likely just the first of several vertical Raptor test stands to come.

Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Over the last few weeks, SpaceX’s Florida Starship launch pad construction has made some major progress and the structure that will one day support the first East Coast Starship and Super Heavy flight tests have grown several stories tall and show no signs of slowing down.

In a bid to make what could otherwise be an extremely expensive and time-consuming ordeal much faster and cheaper, SpaceX’s Starship/Super Heavy launch pads will be quite a bit different from the company’s several existing launch pads. This includes Kennedy Space Center’s LC-39A pad, leased and operated by SpaceX for Falcon Heavy and Crew Dragon missions and formerly used for dozens of Space Shuttle launches and all Saturn V Apollo Moon missions.

In a very on-brand move, SpaceX has decided to build Starship’s East Coast orbital pad within the bounds of Pad 39A but without using the pad’s existing launch mount or concrete flame trench. Instead, SpaceX is building a separate steel mount and water-cooled thruster diverter designed to stand up to the fury of a Super Heavy booster without allowing the rocket’s plume to dig a crater in the ground after ever ignition.

While choosing to pursue a dramatically different launch pad design for Starship may at first glance seem risky, SpaceX actually has more than a decade of experience building and operating similar mount and flame diverter setups at its McGregor, Texas rocket development and test facilities. A step further, NASA itself once heavily relied on similar technologies and strategies to rapidly build, test, and fly rockets larger than anything that came before them.

Most notably, the Saturn I rocket that preceded the massive Saturn V used a launch mount and flame diverter that looks quite similar to a conceptual setup SpaceX recently showed off in an updated Starship launch render.

SpaceX’s Starship mount is substantially taller, has gone with steel instead of reinforced concrete, and will have a fixed flame deflector, but the similarities are otherwise significant. Conceptually, both mounts are topped with a flat surface with numerous support arms and a large cutout for the rocket to sit atop and its exhaust to exit through. Similar to Falcon 9, the single-core Super Heavy booster mount shown in SpaceX renders will likely have four hold-down clamps and two tail service masts (TSMs), umbilical connections that supply the rocket with propellant, electricity, connectivity, and any other required fluids.

As described and pictured above, Starship’s Pad 39A launch mount has rapidly grown from a few metal beams into a major structure in just the last few weeks. By rough estimate, the existing mount is already 20 or so meters (70+ ft) tall and has large mounts for the installation of additional structures on top of it, while the conceptual mount shown in SpaceX renders appears to be about 25-30 m (80-100 ft) tall.

In the last few days, technicians have begun installing the first framework of the flame diverter SpaceX will use to prevent Starship from damaging itself or its surroundings during static fires and launches. Given the fact that Starship’s Super Heavy booster – as currently described – will be the single most powerful launch vehicle in history, such a vast amount of energy is not easy to dissipate. To accomplish that task, SpaceX revealed in August 2019 planning documents that the 39A diverter would be water-cooled.

The largest thrust diverter SpaceX has built supports the company’s McGregor, Texas booster test stand and has supported dozens upon dozens of integrated static fire tests. Originally designed to enable integrated triple-booster Falcon Heavy testing, SpaceX ultimately decided not to use that capability but the diverter is still immense, likely measuring at least 15m (50 ft) tall and 10m (33 ft) wide. By building dozens of pipes into the surface and structure of the diverter and filling those pipes with recirculating water, it can survive several minutes of hot rocket exhaust without suffering catastrophic erosion or outright melting.

It’s safe to say that Super Heavy will require a diverter that is far larger still to survive thrust equivalent to more than three Falcon Heavy rockets, but that very diverter and launch mount are already well on their way to completion at SpaceX’s Kennedy Space Center launch pad.

Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Tesla quietly updated the price of the Model 3 in its online design studio, increasing the price of the non-Performance variants by $500.

Price for the Model 3 Rear-Wheel Drive Standard Range Plus now costs $39,990, from $39,490, while the Dual Motor All-Wheel Drive Long Range version now goes for $48,990, from $48490. The price of the Performance variant remains unchanged at $56,990.

The Model 3 price adjustment comes in the final weeks of Q4 and the full year. With expectations of setting record deliveries this quarter, making a price increase this late in the game could imply that the company is on track on meeting its 2019 full-year guidance of 360,000 units delivered.

During its Q3 2019 Update, the carmaker posted a positive outlook “where deliveries should increase sequentially and annually, with some expected fluctuations from seasonality. We are highly confident in exceeding 360,000 deliveries this year.”

Tesla is also encouraging consumers to take delivery of one of its electric vehicles before December 31, 2019 before the final phase-out of the remaining $1,875 – one-fourth of the original $7,500 federal electric vehicle tax credit. The carmaker recently sent emails to potential buyers to place their orders and take delivery before the year-end.

“Place your order and take delivery by December 31, 2019 to be eligible for the federal tax credit. Orders placed near the end of the year are not guaranteed to be delivered by December 31,” the email read.

Recently, the Tesla Model 3 was recognized by Edmunds as the Best Electric Vehicle of The Year when it released its 2020 #TopRated list. It described the car as “unlike any other vehicle on sale, electric or ICE.” The publication added that no other electric vehicle comes close to the all-around appeal of the Model 3.

With such recognition, one can only expect even higher demands for the vehicle, plus the word-of-mouth marketing that works magic for the Tesla brand.

“What we’re seeing is that word of mouth is more than enough to drive our demand in excess of production. We have no plans to advertise at this time,” said CEO Elon Musk.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Tesla’s Autopilot and Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) features were recently highlighted in a video depicting the system’s ability to avoid collisions with pedestrians and obstacles.

In a series of videos posted on Twitter, Tesla community member and resident hacker @greentheonly demonstrated how Autopilot, under version 2019.40.1.1, safely and successfully avoided contact with a cardboard dummy fondly referred to as “Sir Steady”. When being driven steadily on Autopilot, the vehicle recognized the pedestrian and slowed down, showing that the vehicle’s computer successfully recognized Sir Steady from a distance.

On one attempt, AEB abruptly stopped the vehicle when Autopilot detected the fake pedestrian. While the use of the AEB system managed to avoid contact with Sir Steady, Autopilot did not recognize him. Fortunately, AEB did manage to keep the pedestrian safe and avoid any damage to the vehicle.

We’ll start with the ideal case. Car on AP, driving steadily when we encounter pedestrian firmly in our way.
We can see him from far away so we gracefully slow down, just like a real human! Perfect score! This happened 3 times out of 4. pic.twitter.com/w3ttt3ieAx

— green (@greentheonly) December 6, 2019

Making the experiment more difficult, @greentheonly then moved Sir Steady on the side of a lane. This test showed that Autopilot and AEB both still need improvement. The vehicle collided with Sir Steady on all four attempts. Interestingly, AP did recognize an obstacle because the vehicle beeped when approaching the dummy. It just failed to stop in time. The AP view confirmed to the Tesla enthusiast that lane positioning within the software was incorrect, even though Sir Steady was clearly in the road.

This happened 4 out of 4 times. Let’s examine the metadata.
Here we see that the lane positioning is all wrong even while we can see him firmly in our lane. Also radar-vision fusion happened later than expected.

This somewhat confirms AP tendency to misjudge offset objects pic.twitter.com/vxHrHrEzXe

— green (@greentheonly) December 6, 2019

In the past, AEB has saved numerous Tesla owners from violent accidents. According to Tesla’s Owners Manual, the AEB system utilizes a series of forward-facing cameras and a radar sensor to recognize and avoid colliding with obstacles. It first determines the object’s distance from the front of the car and then applies the braking system as necessary. Many examples of the AEB system show it is an effective safety technique, there is room for improvement.

Autopilot has improved in many ways throughout Tesla’s continuous software updates. Most recently, the 2019.40.2 update gave Tesla owners “Adaptive Lane Speed Adjustment,” a feature allowing vehicles to adjust their speed according to the speed of vehicles on adjacent lanes. Tesla has also added the recognition of some obstacles like traffic cones, to Autopilot’s software.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Electric car startup Rivian has submitted a patent for a “Swing and Drop Tailgate” door that would allow for easier access to the bed of the R1T pickup truck.

Rivian’s patent was inspired by a traditional truck’s tailgate door, which tends to restrict access to the bed of a pickup. The new design for the tailgate door utilizes multiple hinges, allowing several different trajectories of movement and multiple resting positions. The idea behind this patent is to improve upon the traditional truck bed door design, a concept Rivian feels has drawbacks.

“One drawback to this motion is that the tailgate now protrudes rearward of the vehicle, blocking the user from standing closer to the vehicle,” the patent states.

Other truck manufacturers have seen this traditional door as a drawback and have utilized a door that opens from the side with a hinge, a setup that’s pretty much identical to a regular door that’s used in homes or buildings.

However, Rivian argues that this idea also has its issues, citing the need for excessive amounts of space to open the side-hinged door. “Other motions of a tailgate, such as a side-hinged tailgate that opens to the side may allow a user to stand closer to the vehicle, but this motion requires significant clearance and does not allow the increased horizontal space that the dropped down tailgate provides. It would be desirable for a tailgate to be capable of more than one motion, along more than one trajectory, to more conveniently adapt to a user’s needs,” the patent’s description added.

Illustrations of the new tailgate patent from Rivian show the door having the ability to open much like a traditional tailgate, but also the ability to swing down behind the rear of the vehicle. This would give a person trying to gain access to the bed the ability to get closer to the truck, allowing for easier loading and unloading of items on the R1T’s primary cargo area.

Credit: YouTube/Auto INTERIOR

Rivian’s illustration for a “Swing and Drop Tailgate” design. (Credit: Rivian)

Rivian’s “Swing and Drop Tailgate” design ultimately allows the R1T’s tailgate to move in multiple different ranges of motion. This design brings several advantages, with its different movements and trajectories allowing users to not worry about the space available around them. Rivian discusses these advantages further in its patent.

“A swing and drop tailgate assembly is configured to undergo more than one motion to provide access to cargo space, for example. For example, a tailgate assembly may be arranged at a boundary of the cargo space (e.g., the rear of a vehicle bed), and is configured to undergo more than one motion to allow access to the cargo space,” the patent description says.

The initial production dates of the Rivian R1T pickup are scheduled for late 2020 or early 2021 according to RJ Scaringe, the company’s CEO. The truck has been available for viewing at a number of Rivian’s reservation holder events and will also be on location at the Fully Charged event in Texas in February 2020. The electric pickup sports an impressive 750 horsepower, three feet of wading depth, 0-60 MPH in three seconds, and a 400+ mile range on its highest-tier variant.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Tesla’s Gigafactory 4 in Berlin, Germany will reportedly begin construction around January 2020. This comes just after Tesla reportedly reached an agreement with local government officials to purchase a piece of land where the company’s electric vehicle and battery production facility will be built.

CEO Elon Musk announced that Berlin would become the home of Tesla’s next vehicle production factory last month. A report from Deutsche Bank appearing to be published on December 9 states the company “expects construction to start in Berlin around January 2020 and will begin with Model Y production and then Model 3 will follow.” Following the announcement of Gigafactory 4 at the Golden Steering Wheel Awards in Germany, Musk tweeted that the factory “will build batteries, powertrains & vehicles, starting with Model Y.”

GF4 BRANDENBURG

1. construction start January 2020

2. vehicle production in 2021, max 2 years

3. Model Y first, Model 3 to follow

4. investment cost Shanghai +alpha pic.twitter.com/ABdBY15hLJ

— JPR007 (@jpr007) December 10, 2019

Tesla expects Model Y production at Gigafactory 4 to begin in 2021, or “a maximum of two years after the groundbreaking ceremony.” It is not known when Tesla will begin Model 3 production, nor is the exact dollar figure of how much the company will invest in the upcoming facility. However, there is speculation that the cost will be “slightly” higher than the estimated $2 billion investment Tesla had building Gigafactory 3 in Shanghai, as noted by the Shanghai Planning and Land Resources Administration.

According to Bild, Tesla’s purchase agreement for 300 hectares of land for production and logistics space will become valid following approval from Brandenburg’s Finance Committee. However, the electric car maker based out of Silicon Valley, California reportedly plans to begin building its new plant before approval is received. “Tesla is likely to start at his own risk even before the approval, if a positive decision can be expected,” Brandenburg Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Climate Protection Axel Vogel said.

Economy and Energy Minister Joerg Steinbach says the project is on schedule and “the building area is expected to be cleared by mid-March.” Steinbach and other government officials have been openly supportive of Tesla’s presence in Germany. Economy Minister Peter Altmaier was alongside Steinbach at a press conference in Potsdam, Germany following the announcement of Gigafactory 4, where they spoke highly about Tesla’s decision.

“We see it as recognition of Germany as a location for making cars. We think we now have the chance, in the coming years, to become an important international centre in this future-oriented sector,” Altmaier said.

Musk and Tesla saw several advantages in bringing the company’s new factory to Germany. “Everyone knows that German engineering is outstanding, for sure. That’s part of the reason why we are locating our Gigafactory Europe in Germany,” the Tesla CEO stated. Tesla expects Gigafactory 4 to assist in the production of its increasingly popular vehicles, especially the Model Y crossover, a vehicle that will be competing in the highly competitive crossover segment, which is among the most lucrative in the auto market.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Tesla recently informed California regulators that its upcoming Cybertruck will likely qualify as a Class 2B-3 medium-duty vehicle, hinting that the vehicle will have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), similar to that of the Ford F-250. Tesla’s senior managing policy advisor Sarah Van Cleve detailed the company’s position in a letter dated Dec. 9 to the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

“While we have not yet begun production of the Cybertruck, we expect it to have a towing capacity of 7,500-14,000+ lbs., and it should very likely qualify as a ‘Class 2B-3 medium-duty vehicle,” the policy advisor wrote.

Class 2B pickup trucks are those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,501 lbs. to 10,000 lbs. This segment includes Ford’s F-250, the Chevrolet Silverado 2500, and the Ram 2500. Considering that all variants of the Cybertruck have a payload capacity of 3,500, the three versions of the vehicle will likely weigh somewhere around 5,000 to 6,500 lbs.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

In the same letter to CARB, Tesla also pushed for the strengthening of the Advanced Clean Truck rules in the state. The company also recommended stricter sales requirements for Class 2B-3 pickup truck manufacturers so California can meet both state and federal clean air requirements.

“Tesla appreciates CARB’s continued leadership in developing innovative clean air policies like the Advanced Clean Truck rule. However, we urge CARB to set more ambitious zero-emission vehicle sales percentages right from the start of the regulation given the urgency of California’s emissions reductions requirements and the fact that the truck industry can move more quickly,” Tesla wrote.

Recently, there was another viral video where YouTubers put a Ford F-150 Raptor against a Tesla Model X P100D in a tug-of-war match. With access to instant torque, the Model X was able to move the Ford F-150 but naysayers point to the difference between the off-road tires on the Raptor and the Model X’s tires, which are perfectly suited for pavement.

It is yet to be seen if there will be a rematch between the Cybertruck and a Ford truck but the Tesla all-electric pickup truck will likely prove to be a towing monster that can instantly use mass amounts of torque, unlike traditional trucks like the F-150. Tesla CEO Elon Musk mentioned this on a previous tweet to stress this point. “Electric motors also have insane torque. If we load both trucks to the max, electric still wins. Physics is the law, everything else is a recommendation,” Musk wrote.

Likewise, a cost of ownership analysis put on spotlight the benefits of owning a Tesla Cybertruck compared to owning a Ford F-150 or any gas-powered pickup for that matter. In California, the upcoming electric pickup truck from Tesla is expected to have a total cost of ownership of $53,379 over five years while the popular Ford truck will cost $72,459. That’s a difference of $19,080 spread over a five-year ownership period.

Read Tesla’s letter to California regulators below.

Tesla Cybertruck Letter by Simon Alvarez on Scribd

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});