Elon Musk walks back Apple Car, Apple Watch aspersions in Twitter confessional

124678

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 156
    ireland wrote: »

    Your comment isn't any better.
    My blood ran cold this morning when I saw "Ireland quoted you in a post" in my email list.
  • Reply 62 of 156
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    techlover wrote: »
    I hope that if Apple is indeed making and electric vehicle that they use the industry standard charging port that is compatible with all of the existing charging stations.

    The last thing we need is one standard that charges just about every electric vehicle made, and then an Apple proprietary charging port.

    You mean like the proprietary standard they're using for Apple Pay....oh wait....
  • Reply 63 of 156
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TechLover View Post



    I hope that if Apple is indeed making and electric vehicle that they use the industry standard charging port that is compatible with all of the existing charging stations.



    The last thing we need is one standard that charges just about every electric vehicle made, and then an Apple proprietary charging port.




    You mean like the proprietary standard they're using for Apple Pay....oh wait....

    Apple Pay uses NFC. NFC is an industry standard.

  • Reply 64 of 156
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,682member
    This is coming from man who started an online payment system. Like that is jumping off point for building a car. I think Apple and its engineers are more qualified to make car than Musk ever will be.
  • Reply 65 of 156
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sebastian37 View Post

    Musk may have a point. The working conditions at Apple may be so harsh (extreme hours, weekends) that many car industry engineers will not be interested. I work with several car companies and people have told me the way Apple tries to get experienced managers and engineers to switch is not working very well. As far as I have been told, Apple will not tell the person what he/she will be working on before the person has signed the contract. Why would anyone take a gamble like this with a company which has not declared its commitment to the car business? On top of that the contracts seem to have non-disclosure clauses which exclude talking to your own family about any aspects of your work. That is unheard of in the car industry and will keep a lot of great people from working at Apple. Therefore it makes sense when Musk suggests only people fired from Tesla are interested in working for Apple.

     

    Interesting speculation, but I'm not convinced that smart engineers in general think that taking a gamble on working for Apple (clearly a newcomer to the auto industry) is the same risk as taking a gamble with most other companies. And the idea that potential hires are turned off by having to keep aspects of their work from their family sounds like a fairly decent de facto method of filtering out people who are not ideal for Apple's "R&D information black hole" corporate strategy. I have no idea about what Apple is doing, but if Apple's approach is not typical of the car industry, then it seems to me that it may be a good thing if they can hire a subset of talented engineers are able to "think different" and take the plunge with Apple.
  • Reply 66 of 156
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,491member

    While I still don't necessarily believe that Apple is going to produce a car, if they did produce one, wouldn't it be funny if Apple turned out to be the low-cost producer (as compared with Tesla)?   I'd think they'd have to be because who would they sell it to if it were any more expensive?    The price of these cars really has to drop to half of today's prices before they can even be considered a luxury car.    

  • Reply 67 of 156
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Michael_C View Post





    It's just a matter of time, and the mirrors will go the way of the buggy whip. The whole paradigm is shifting with driver assist and self driving autonomous cars, and that will make the mirrors obsolete. Aerodynamics, and fuel efficiency wouldn't be enough reason for regulators to stick their necks out - to be fair, boldness in their area is seldom rewarded.

    Mirrors aren't an aerodynamic issue on cars, albeit at high speeds, they would absorb some HP output of the vehicle. This is an issue for cars on a track, not for anybody on public roads of any kind.

     

    The largest factor of aerodynamic drag is cross sectional area; the Coefficient of Drag (C/D) is the aerodynamic drag (D) of that cross sectional area (C) as measured in a wind tunnel. For passenger cars, the Prious pretty much defines an ideal compromise between aerodynamics and packaging of passengers; it has a C/D of 0.26. Tesla S has a C/D of 0.24. I cringe at the dipshits that don't understand the reason for the definitive Prious tail design, nor essentially of its overall shape;

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunibald_Kamm

     

    The Prious has sold somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 million copies, and as it is a Hybrid, that's actually a lot of experience manufacturing electrical drives for automobiles. It wouldn't be a big leap for Toyota, or any of the majors to enter to EV market, and many already have. What's holding back EV's is a necessary cost reduction in batteries.

     

    Tesla's innovation is creating a market for cars with relatively large battery packs, at a time when batteries are quite expensive. He accomplished this by designing cars that are luxury performance cars with extensive range options, appealing to the same environmental sentiment as Prious owners.

     

    The Gigafactory is designed to reduce that battery cost, which will benefit Tesla, but also everyone else in the EV business. The chicken and egg problem of battery production goes away when the market for EV's is growing, even against historically low gas prices. As more entities enter battery production, the cost of batteries lowers enough to drive wide sales of EV's. Interestingly enough, the adoption of EV's will have an impact on stabilizing gas production and pricing.

     

    Innovation that Apple might provide would be green offsets to power production that would be included in the vehicle lease; perhaps Apple would bundle the equivalent of 12,000 miles a year of power into the lease. These could be easily created as Apple adds solar and wind investments in future years. Tesla is pursuing a more localized solution with sales of solar panels and storage.

     

    Arguably, Tesla has been a shot in the arm to EV's, but it may not actually end up being a profitable entity, and will likely be absorbed in the future by one of the Majors for its brand.

  • Reply 68 of 156
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tmay View Post

     
    Mirrors aren't an aerodynamic issue on cars, albeit at high speeds, they would absorb some HP output of the vehicle. This is an issue for cars on a track, not for anybody on public roads of any kind.


    Not according to this:

     

    http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/143193.pdf

     

    "The drag is of great importance when it comes to velocities over 60 kph." 

     

    That is only about 37 miles per hour. Not high speed in the slightest. Other than residential areas, most cities allow travel of 35-45 miles per hour. Of course there is highway travel where people often travel at least 70 miles per hour.

     

    "The mirrors increase the total amount of drag by 2-7 percent."

     

    "The mirror plays a major role in drag contribution for the entire car and therefore mirror optimization is considered very important."

     

    That is significant. Every percent counts when you start adding them all up. Like this article points out:

     

    http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/28/ford-could-save-america-billions-if-it-gets-rid-of-side-mirrors/

  • Reply 69 of 156
    Originally Posted by TechLover View Post

    I hope that if Apple is indeed making and electric vehicle that they use the industry standard charging port that is compatible with all of the existing charging stations.



    You know nothing whatsoever about Apple, do you. They’ll make their own port to which everyone else will switch, because it will be better, operationally, than anything on the market today. 

  • Reply 70 of 156
    brometheus wrote: »
    <div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/189076/elon-musk-walks-back-apple-car-apple-watch-aspersions-in-twitter-confessional#post_2789058" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Sebastian37</strong> <a href="/t/189076/elon-musk-walks-back-apple-car-apple-watch-aspersions-in-twitter-confessional#post_2789058"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a><br/><br/><p>Musk may have a point. The working conditions at Apple may be so harsh (extreme hours, weekends) that many car industry engineers will not be interested. I work with several car companies and people have told me the way Apple tries to get experienced managers and engineers to switch is not working very well. As far as I have been told, Apple will not tell the person what he/she will be working on before the person has signed the contract. Why would anyone take a gamble like this with a company which has not declared its commitment to the car business? On top of that the contracts seem to have non-disclosure clauses which exclude talking to your own family about any aspects of your work. That is unheard of in the car industry and will keep a lot of great people from working at Apple. Therefore it makes sense when Musk suggests only people fired from Tesla are interested in working for Apple.</p>
    </div></div><p> </p>

    Interesting speculation, but I'm not convinced that smart engineers in general think that taking a gamble on working for Apple (clearly a newcomer to the auto industry) is the same risk as taking a gamble with most other companies. And the idea that potential hires are turned off by having to keep aspects of their work from their family sounds like a fairly decent de facto method of filtering out people who are not ideal for Apple's "R&D information black hole" corporate strategy. I have no idea about what Apple is doing, but if Apple's approach is not typical of the car industry, then it seems to me that it may be a good thing if they can hire a subset of talented engineers are able to "think different" and take the plunge with Apple.

    The problem is that in the car industry you cannot keep a product secret for long. It needs thousands of miles of testing in the real world and is a lot more obvious than a smartphone or tablet. So the policy makes little sense. And as far as I was told Apple will not even allow you to talk about ANY aspect of your work.
  • Reply 71 of 156
    The problem is that in the car industry you cannot keep a product secret for long. It needs thousands of miles of testing in the real world and is a lot more obvious than a smartphone or tablet. So the policy makes little sense. And as far as I was told Apple will not even allow you to talk about ANY aspect of your work.

    Adding to that, the testing for use in a nation or state is more severe than just some FCC requirement, and then the shear size means you can't as easily put a cover over it, like they do with iPhone testing in the wild. Then you could have the sourcing of materials, especially aluminium, would probably increase substantially, and there would likely be patent filings that would also make it hard to hide. This tells me Apple would do best to get out in front of it so they can control the media coverage.


    PS: Tesla did it right. They made a car that turned heads -and- had impressive specs. This has been a huge boon for EVs, which seems to be his goal, especially with the giving away of the Tesla patents, so it seems odd to me that he'd disparage Apple in any way for making an EV. I would have expected him to say something like, "This is exactly the sort of thing I had hoped would happen because of Tesla's innovation."
  • Reply 72 of 156
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,463member
    So no backpedaling in any way.
    Just an elaboration on the aWatch - that's completely right by the way, although I think it will take 5 gererations or more for Apple to get it right -; of course the people who confuse their identity with Apple view this in an irrational way... what can you expect.
    It seems that Elon Musk is the man to listen to currently, because everyone does.
  • Reply 73 of 156
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TechLover View Post

     

    Not according to this:

     

    http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/143193.pdf

     

    "The drag is of great importance when it comes to velocities over 60 kph." 

     

    That is only about 37 miles per hour. Not high speed in the slightest. Other than residential areas, most cities allow travel of 35-45 miles per hour. Of course there is highway travel where people often travel at least 70 miles per hour.

     

    "The mirrors increase the total amount of drag by 2-7 percent."

     

    "The mirror plays a major role in drag contribution for the entire car and therefore mirror optimization is considered very important."

     

    That is significant. Every percent counts when you start adding them all up. Like this article points out:

     

    http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/28/ford-could-save-america-billions-if-it-gets-rid-of-side-mirrors/


    Read this form the same thesis:

     

    "After various tests, one can observe that small changes to the mirror, such as change edges radius, inclinations, adding gutters, and edges, affect the flow both around the mirror and in the rear of the car. The best drag reduction was achieved when the housing curvature of the mirror was changed from rather bulky to flatter model which produced the same drag reduction as having no mirrors at all."

     

    I agree that a poor mirror design increases drag substantially, but those mirrors designed to minimize the the total drag of a car do not. I would make the argument that modern cars that are designed for aerodynamics would have well designed mirrors as well; likely at or under the 2% of the total drag of a car, and hence not a large factor in overall drag.

     

    More to the point, there are a number of other losses

     

    http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/vehicle_energy_losses.html

     

    The worst case is an IC engine, at 64%.

     

    EV's eliminate that inefficiency.

     

    I don't disagree that eliminating mirrors will cut drag, just that it isn't a big factor in the overall efficiency when well designed.

     

    From a comment on Quora;


     

     

    Phillip YipEngineer


    340 Views






     





    To overcome air resistance alone, it looks like you'd need to produce 9hp.



    The equation for air drag (via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dra... is 

    P = .5 * p * v^3 * A * Cd



    Where 

    P = Power required to overcome drag

    p = density of air

    v = velocity of your car

    A = frontal area of the car

    Cd = coefficient of drag of your car



    Using 

    p = 1.2041kg.m^3 for the density of air

    v = 60 mph (26.8 m/s)

    A = 2.23 m^2 (via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aut..., using values from a 2004 Prius) (fixed an error, thank you Marcin Romaszewicz)

    Cd = 0.26 (also via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aut..., using values from 2004-2009 Priuses) 



    you get P = 6723W or 9hp.



    There's a ton of other sources of resistance but at the very least, you will have to overcome air resistance.  It looks like 1hp won't be enough, unfortunately.



    Based on Quora User's answer, I'd guess it'd take about 9hp to maintain 60mph in your Prius."


     


    The frontal area of the Tesla S is the same as the Prius; 6.2 feet, so it's aerodynamic drag is a bit less than the Prious.


     






     

    "The relatively compact CLA is next up at 7.0 sq ft, the Volt hits 6.7, and both the Prius and the much larger Model S feature a drag area of just 6.2 square feet. The Insight, on account of its tiny 20.1 square-foot frontal area (over 5 sq-ft less than the Model S) has a wind-cheating drag area of just 6 square feet.

     

    The numbers get even more interesting: Did you know, for example, that a Model S requires just 14 horsepower to maintain 70 mph, 4 hp less than a Leaf?"

  • Reply 74 of 156
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,463member

    You know nothing whatsoever about Apple, do you. They’ll make their own port to which everyone else will switch, because it will be better, operationally, than anything on the market today. 

    That's a patent violation, Tesla did it first...
  • Reply 75 of 156
    knowitall wrote: »
    So no backpedaling in any way.
    Just an elaboration on the aWatch - that's completely right by the way, although I think it will take 5 gererations or more for Apple to get it right -; of course the people who confuse their identity with Apple view this in an irrational way... what can you expect.
    It seems that Elon Musk is the man to listen to currently, because everyone does.

    Oh, go away.

    Please.
  • Reply 76 of 156
    rogifan wrote: »
    What's funny is all the Watch haters think Musk's tweet was a diss of the Watch. But no where did he say the Watch as an IDEA was bad, just that it's going to take a few generations for it to become really good and you could say that about almost any Apple product. The first really good iPhone was the 3GS. The first iPad and first MacBook Airs weren't great; subsequent generations were much better. The same will be the case with the Watch.

    no. the first iPhone and iPad were great, and toasted the status quo before. they just weren't the final destination, and that's fine. they just got even better. they weren't some unfinished Google-esque beta products.
  • Reply 77 of 156
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tmay View Post

     

    Read this form the same thesis:

     

    "After various tests, one can observe that small changes to the mirror, such as change edges radius, inclinations, adding gutters, and edges, affect the flow both around the mirror and in the rear of the car. The best drag reduction was achieved when the housing curvature of the mirror was changed from rather bulky to flatter model which produced the same drag reduction as having no mirrors at all."

     

    I agree that a poor mirror design increases drag substantially, but those mirrors designed to minimize the the total drag of a car do not. I would make the argument that modern cars that are designed for aerodynamics would have well designed mirrors as well; likely at or under the 2% of the total drag of a car, and hence not a large factor in overall drag.

     

    More to the point, there are a number of other losses

     

    http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/vehicle_energy_losses.html

     

    The worst case is an IC engine, at 64%.

     

    EV's eliminate that inefficiency.

     

    I don't disagree that eliminating mirrors will cut drag, just that it isn't a big factor in the overall efficiency when well designed.

     

    From a comment on Quora;


     

     

    Phillip YipEngineer


    340 Views






     





    To overcome air resistance alone, it looks like you'd need to produce 9hp.



    The equation for air drag (via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dra... is 

    P = .5 * p * v^3 * A * Cd



    Where 

    P = Power required to overcome drag

    p = density of air

    v = velocity of your car

    A = frontal area of the car

    Cd = coefficient of drag of your car



    Using 

    p = 1.2041kg.m^3 for the density of air

    v = 60 mph (26.8 m/s)

    A = 2.23 m^2 (via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aut..., using values from a 2004 Prius) (fixed an error, thank you Marcin Romaszewicz)

    Cd = 0.26 (also via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aut..., using values from 2004-2009 Priuses) 



    you get P = 6723W or 9hp.



    There's a ton of other sources of resistance but at the very least, you will have to overcome air resistance.  It looks like 1hp won't be enough, unfortunately.



    Based on Quora User's answer, I'd guess it'd take about 9hp to maintain 60mph in your Prius."


     


    The frontal area of the Tesla S is the same as the Prius; 6.2 feet, so it's aerodynamic drag is a bit less than the Prious.


     






     

    "The relatively compact CLA is next up at 7.0 sq ft, the Volt hits 6.7, and both the Prius and the much larger Model S feature a drag area of just 6.2 square feet. The Insight, on account of its tiny 20.1 square-foot frontal area (over 5 sq-ft less than the Model S) has a wind-cheating drag area of just 6 square feet.

     

    The numbers get even more interesting: Did you know, for example, that a Model S requires just 14 horsepower to maintain 70 mph, 4 hp less than a Leaf?"


    All good points.

     

    I was mainly saying that every percent counts, even fractions of a percent, and it starts to add up to very significant numbers.

     

    Just that little lip you see on the top of the tail gate on newer pickup trucks is enough to make an effect on drag and it adds up to a significant fuel savings at the scale of numbers pick up trucks are sold and driven.

  • Reply 78 of 156
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,463member
    blazar wrote: »
    Bravado is why Musk is where he is and the rest us are just commenting ln these forums. There is also the possibility that he is right, even though it may not be a good PR move to be honest.

    Might be he is commenting himself somewhere, might even be here.
  • Reply 79 of 156
    irelandireland Posts: 17,685member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post



    My blood ran cold this morning when I saw "Ireland quoted you in a post" in my email list.



    Haha.

  • Reply 80 of 156
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,463member
    Oh, go away.

    Please.

    I'm staying a while, it's just too much fun...
Sign In or Register to comment.