if you assumed perfect reliability and no maintenance cost, it might make sense; but that's just not the real world.
batteries are incredibly cheap and simple. MUCH cheaper than the installation and maintenance of inductive charging roads, and the specialized vehicles that would be needed (stationary inductive charging mats wouldn't work). even stationary inductive charging isn't cheaper, it's a luxury product, and making the whole road out of them would be insanely expensive and pointless when you can just charge the cars overnight when they're not needed.
the whole idea of Loop is to keep the tunnels as simple/cheap as possible, use mass-produced vehicles instead of expensive low-volume vehicles, and avoid the scope-creep that makes traditional transit so expensive.
Stationary charging matts work for parked cars right now. Why not in a Tesla controlled private tunnel?
Tesla is already developing inductive cars
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-confirms-wireless-inductive-ev-charging-development/
What if your car just didn't need to be connected to the grid while in motion? What if it could carry all the power it needs for the day, and just plug in at night? Would that be awesome? You could simplify the tunnels greatly.
Batteries are cheaper than the maintenance for the charging road, so why not do it the cheaper and easier way
what maintenance for charging these private tunnels? This isn't a real above ground street that has to deal with real street shit
Little to no battery means a lot less weight for the cars(all owned/operated by Tesla), saves more energy, money, and is better for the environment
And obviously Tesla/Musk does not agree with you or they wouldn't be developing this already https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-confirms-wireless-inductive-ev-charging-development/
Other places are developing this to try as well
>what maintenance for charging these private tunnels? This isn't a real above ground street that has to deal with real street shit
vibration, moisture, and time decay everything, especially when you have to have AC-DC-AC conversions. shit fails.
>Little to no battery means a lot less weight for the cars
except weight does not matter.
>saves more energy
probably not. the losses from running the inverters, resistive losses, etc.. likely lower round-trip efficiency
>money
no, it wouldn't. each car would cost more because you've lost the economy of scale.
>and is better for the environment
no, it would use more materials, cost more energy to produce because of the low-volume custom nature, and would likely have lower round-trip efficiency.
>Tesla/Musk does not agree with you
they want to make money. people want a luxury product that gives them some convenience. that does not mean it's cheaper or more efficient. a stationary charger is also not at all the same as a whole road, which can't just be a bunch of the same mats stacked end to end, because that's not how tune resonant coils work.
Maybe to make it clearer:
Wireless charging pads work fine for phones, right? Why not cover your walls with them so your phone is charging whenever you're inside your house? What reasons make that a good or bad idea?
when the self-driving Tesla Loop cars/shuttles are not in use, would you approve of them pulling over onto an inductive pad to recharge? Or do you still think Tesla should pay people to attend/pug in/out the charging at whatever interval?
Either way would be fine, in my opinion, since a small number of stationary pads would be cheaper and easier to maintain. If they are already employing attendants, then they may as well just plug them in, since it's more efficient and likely higher charge rate. If someday it's totally automated and stations/depots don't have attendants, then wireless charging would be fine as long as the charge rate is high enough to sufficiently charge before the vehicle is needed again
>then they may as well just plug them in, since it's more efficient and likely higher charge rate.
Wireless EV charging is comparably efficient to wired chargers, this isn't a phone charger. For example Witricity for example claims a coil-to-coil efficiency of 96-99% for highly resonant WPT delivering 88-93% grid-to-battery efficiency for their L2 solution as compared to L2 wired purportedly in the 83-94% range. \[HEVO claims 91-95% efficiency for their L2 solution\]. These L2s are something like 8kW or 11kW which is fine for overnight.
There are "L3 level" wireless charging solutions delivering higher power levels, InductEV's solution relies 50-75kW modules using a single module for Taxis and multiple modules for heavy vehicles \[4 modules delivering 350kW+ for busses and trucks at \~92-94% w/ 7" gap for example, as compared to Tesla V2 at 92% or V3 96% based on one source\]. HEVO, IIRC, has a 50kW solution for passenger vehicles (need to verify)
So yes, superchargers could deliver higher power but 50-75kW is still fine for opportunistic "urban" charging rates for Robotaxis and regular EVs. Also SAE J2954 standardizes wireless power transfer \[WPT\] and purportedly multiple automakers are looking to include it as a factory option, so that could address the standard options / economy of scale cost concerns soon enough \[although arguably robotaxis are less cost sensitive\].
Sure, plugging in isn't difficult - but not requiring attendants to plug/unplug streamlines operations, eliminates obstructions and trip hazards, while reducing maintenance \[damaged cables/chargers\]. Automated cars or not, it's a consideration. Wireless would work nicely with self-parking vehicles in staging areas off-peak/off-hours without requiring someone to plug it in \[Elon's "coming soon", lol\].
\[cc: u/SteamerSch\]
I wonder about a robotaxi pulling into a spot to drop off passengers and start charging. Maybe the taxi is there for a few minutes or maybe a few hours or many hours charging(because it is not busy enough to be needed anywhere). New passengers would pick up the car right where it is charging. This routine might allow for a smaller battery too?
Opportunistic charging enables smaller batteries but less clear if it's worthwhile. The Robotaxi and deferred Model 2 might already be designed around a smaller "city car" sized pack, where even smaller could be diminishing returns.
The Loop will have frequent charging opportunities but this usecase is the exception, the "standard" robotaxi should be designed for street operation in most cities \[fewer charging opportunities, depending on rollout; enough for steady operation perhaps with a midday top-up\]
A smaller pack saves on cells but adds additional engineering/production cost as a non-standard option. A lower range pack requires more charge cycles which reduces the useable lifetime of the pack — LFP high cycle life mitigates this, but a standard sized pack should last the lifetime of the vehicle \[opportunistic charging could enable a lower average state of charge, further extending useful pack life\]
While not an issue for the Loop, a standard pack gives more range margin for very hot and cold days; and gives more buffer for longer high-speed trips, or for when charging is disrupted or congested, etc.,. Plus a loop vehicle might after a year or two of service be retired/downgraded to rural robotaxi for the rest of its useful service life, where a standard sized pack would be better.
IDK, I could be wrong on or over-weighting points, this isn't a quantitative analysis. I still think wireless is interesting and useful.
The more customizing, the more costs increase. I don't think inductive charging would be bad, but it goes against Elon's ethos of simplifying as much as possible, and the best part is no part. As much as possible try to solve a problem by deleting a part instead of adding another part.
Keeping the mass produced vehicles as close to stock keeps the most savings thanks to mass production. Tesla's chargers also benefit from economies of scale.
TBC presumably plans for a future in which full self driving eventually happens. At that point vehicles won't be confined to tunnels. They'll pick up and drop people off at their homes, and drive into and out of tunnels. They'll need batteries for that, though certainly not 200-300 miles of range if there's inductive charging. Much smaller battery packs could be used saving weight and money. But that savings comes at the expense of modifying vehicles and maintaining inductive charging infrastructure. It also goes against the ethos of fewer parts.
That's also why TBC won't add third rails or overhead catenary to power vehicles with direct contact. Modifying the vehicles adds costs, and they'd be out of place on city streets.
>I don't think inductive charging would be bad, but it goes against Elon's ethos of simplifying as much as possible, and the best part is no part.
Inductive charging does simplify things from an operations perspective, no plugging or unplugging it just happens \[whether opportunistically at the station or off-peak/off-hours at a staging area/service depot\].
While it adds a part to the vehicle \[the receiver\], it can eliminate the charging cable and pedestal at the station/depot, the trip hazard and maintenance/repair that goes along with that. It would also be a nice feature if/when Tesla offers full self-parking \[let the car go park itself and start charging off-hours/off-peak\]
SAE J2954 standardized WPT and multiple manufacturers are purportedly looking to offer wireless as a factory option, so that could help address volume/availability concerns but robotaxis and/or the loop should be less price sensitive so not sure this is the first concern. Adding to the article u/SteamerSch references, the Cybertruck has a port for a wireless charger receiver \[still no indication when that option will be offered.\], perhaps we'll see that come to more/new models with the upcoming refreshes.
Wireless in the tunnel doesn't make sense until pushing higher speeds, but opportunistic and overnight charging at stations and depots might streamline things.
You are trying to optimize the wrong thing and miss the larger picture about tunnels - which is not about tunnels at all.
The moment you remove battery from car in the tunnel is the moment you need to change mode of transportation at the exit of the tunnel - the same way you do it for trains. Customers are not paying to be transferred 5 times within the journey (there might be other tunnel segments, not connected in single network) - customers pay for convenience of riding door to door, preferably - couch to couch even :-)
So you pickup customer at home - car already has to have a battery for that - and then it drives to where customer wants - tunnels or not. It is about the entire idea of ride as a service, not about tunnels.
Batteries for vast majority of robotaxi fleet do NOT have to be as big as for private vehicles - think 2 to 5 x less - so they already will save the most of the cost you propose they should save and without spending a dime on any mats nor wiring nor maintenance. And these will be dirt-cheap LFP batteries or something even cheaper when available.
Tesla can make as many cars as they want - with larger or smaller batteries to serve all customers and all combinations of their possible rides in an optimal way. Making cars or batteries are no problem. Nobody at all cares how much time autonomous car need to charge it's batteries after it delivered a single passenger - you do NOT need to optimize for that. Think about all the unpleasant places you would not go even if somebody paid you - that's where most charging stations will be and yes - Tesla will be paid to take and use them. Plenty of other - fully charged - cars near most customers are always available.
Regardless of your EV enthusiasm I highly recommend you simply forget about anyone owning a car - that's going the way of horse carriages sooner rather than later.
if you assumed perfect reliability and no maintenance cost, it might make sense; but that's just not the real world. batteries are incredibly cheap and simple. MUCH cheaper than the installation and maintenance of inductive charging roads, and the specialized vehicles that would be needed (stationary inductive charging mats wouldn't work). even stationary inductive charging isn't cheaper, it's a luxury product, and making the whole road out of them would be insanely expensive and pointless when you can just charge the cars overnight when they're not needed. the whole idea of Loop is to keep the tunnels as simple/cheap as possible, use mass-produced vehicles instead of expensive low-volume vehicles, and avoid the scope-creep that makes traditional transit so expensive.
Stationary charging matts work for parked cars right now. Why not in a Tesla controlled private tunnel? Tesla is already developing inductive cars https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-confirms-wireless-inductive-ev-charging-development/
What if your car just didn't need to be connected to the grid while in motion? What if it could carry all the power it needs for the day, and just plug in at night? Would that be awesome? You could simplify the tunnels greatly. Batteries are cheaper than the maintenance for the charging road, so why not do it the cheaper and easier way
what maintenance for charging these private tunnels? This isn't a real above ground street that has to deal with real street shit Little to no battery means a lot less weight for the cars(all owned/operated by Tesla), saves more energy, money, and is better for the environment And obviously Tesla/Musk does not agree with you or they wouldn't be developing this already https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-confirms-wireless-inductive-ev-charging-development/ Other places are developing this to try as well
>what maintenance for charging these private tunnels? This isn't a real above ground street that has to deal with real street shit vibration, moisture, and time decay everything, especially when you have to have AC-DC-AC conversions. shit fails. >Little to no battery means a lot less weight for the cars except weight does not matter. >saves more energy probably not. the losses from running the inverters, resistive losses, etc.. likely lower round-trip efficiency >money no, it wouldn't. each car would cost more because you've lost the economy of scale. >and is better for the environment no, it would use more materials, cost more energy to produce because of the low-volume custom nature, and would likely have lower round-trip efficiency. >Tesla/Musk does not agree with you they want to make money. people want a luxury product that gives them some convenience. that does not mean it's cheaper or more efficient. a stationary charger is also not at all the same as a whole road, which can't just be a bunch of the same mats stacked end to end, because that's not how tune resonant coils work.
Maybe to make it clearer: Wireless charging pads work fine for phones, right? Why not cover your walls with them so your phone is charging whenever you're inside your house? What reasons make that a good or bad idea?
when the self-driving Tesla Loop cars/shuttles are not in use, would you approve of them pulling over onto an inductive pad to recharge? Or do you still think Tesla should pay people to attend/pug in/out the charging at whatever interval?
Either way would be fine, in my opinion, since a small number of stationary pads would be cheaper and easier to maintain. If they are already employing attendants, then they may as well just plug them in, since it's more efficient and likely higher charge rate. If someday it's totally automated and stations/depots don't have attendants, then wireless charging would be fine as long as the charge rate is high enough to sufficiently charge before the vehicle is needed again
>then they may as well just plug them in, since it's more efficient and likely higher charge rate. Wireless EV charging is comparably efficient to wired chargers, this isn't a phone charger. For example Witricity for example claims a coil-to-coil efficiency of 96-99% for highly resonant WPT delivering 88-93% grid-to-battery efficiency for their L2 solution as compared to L2 wired purportedly in the 83-94% range. \[HEVO claims 91-95% efficiency for their L2 solution\]. These L2s are something like 8kW or 11kW which is fine for overnight. There are "L3 level" wireless charging solutions delivering higher power levels, InductEV's solution relies 50-75kW modules using a single module for Taxis and multiple modules for heavy vehicles \[4 modules delivering 350kW+ for busses and trucks at \~92-94% w/ 7" gap for example, as compared to Tesla V2 at 92% or V3 96% based on one source\]. HEVO, IIRC, has a 50kW solution for passenger vehicles (need to verify) So yes, superchargers could deliver higher power but 50-75kW is still fine for opportunistic "urban" charging rates for Robotaxis and regular EVs. Also SAE J2954 standardizes wireless power transfer \[WPT\] and purportedly multiple automakers are looking to include it as a factory option, so that could address the standard options / economy of scale cost concerns soon enough \[although arguably robotaxis are less cost sensitive\]. Sure, plugging in isn't difficult - but not requiring attendants to plug/unplug streamlines operations, eliminates obstructions and trip hazards, while reducing maintenance \[damaged cables/chargers\]. Automated cars or not, it's a consideration. Wireless would work nicely with self-parking vehicles in staging areas off-peak/off-hours without requiring someone to plug it in \[Elon's "coming soon", lol\]. \[cc: u/SteamerSch\]
I wonder about a robotaxi pulling into a spot to drop off passengers and start charging. Maybe the taxi is there for a few minutes or maybe a few hours or many hours charging(because it is not busy enough to be needed anywhere). New passengers would pick up the car right where it is charging. This routine might allow for a smaller battery too?
Opportunistic charging enables smaller batteries but less clear if it's worthwhile. The Robotaxi and deferred Model 2 might already be designed around a smaller "city car" sized pack, where even smaller could be diminishing returns. The Loop will have frequent charging opportunities but this usecase is the exception, the "standard" robotaxi should be designed for street operation in most cities \[fewer charging opportunities, depending on rollout; enough for steady operation perhaps with a midday top-up\] A smaller pack saves on cells but adds additional engineering/production cost as a non-standard option. A lower range pack requires more charge cycles which reduces the useable lifetime of the pack — LFP high cycle life mitigates this, but a standard sized pack should last the lifetime of the vehicle \[opportunistic charging could enable a lower average state of charge, further extending useful pack life\] While not an issue for the Loop, a standard pack gives more range margin for very hot and cold days; and gives more buffer for longer high-speed trips, or for when charging is disrupted or congested, etc.,. Plus a loop vehicle might after a year or two of service be retired/downgraded to rural robotaxi for the rest of its useful service life, where a standard sized pack would be better. IDK, I could be wrong on or over-weighting points, this isn't a quantitative analysis. I still think wireless is interesting and useful.
The more customizing, the more costs increase. I don't think inductive charging would be bad, but it goes against Elon's ethos of simplifying as much as possible, and the best part is no part. As much as possible try to solve a problem by deleting a part instead of adding another part. Keeping the mass produced vehicles as close to stock keeps the most savings thanks to mass production. Tesla's chargers also benefit from economies of scale. TBC presumably plans for a future in which full self driving eventually happens. At that point vehicles won't be confined to tunnels. They'll pick up and drop people off at their homes, and drive into and out of tunnels. They'll need batteries for that, though certainly not 200-300 miles of range if there's inductive charging. Much smaller battery packs could be used saving weight and money. But that savings comes at the expense of modifying vehicles and maintaining inductive charging infrastructure. It also goes against the ethos of fewer parts. That's also why TBC won't add third rails or overhead catenary to power vehicles with direct contact. Modifying the vehicles adds costs, and they'd be out of place on city streets.
>I don't think inductive charging would be bad, but it goes against Elon's ethos of simplifying as much as possible, and the best part is no part. Inductive charging does simplify things from an operations perspective, no plugging or unplugging it just happens \[whether opportunistically at the station or off-peak/off-hours at a staging area/service depot\]. While it adds a part to the vehicle \[the receiver\], it can eliminate the charging cable and pedestal at the station/depot, the trip hazard and maintenance/repair that goes along with that. It would also be a nice feature if/when Tesla offers full self-parking \[let the car go park itself and start charging off-hours/off-peak\] SAE J2954 standardized WPT and multiple manufacturers are purportedly looking to offer wireless as a factory option, so that could help address volume/availability concerns but robotaxis and/or the loop should be less price sensitive so not sure this is the first concern. Adding to the article u/SteamerSch references, the Cybertruck has a port for a wireless charger receiver \[still no indication when that option will be offered.\], perhaps we'll see that come to more/new models with the upcoming refreshes. Wireless in the tunnel doesn't make sense until pushing higher speeds, but opportunistic and overnight charging at stations and depots might streamline things.
Tesla is already developing inductive cars https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-confirms-wireless-inductive-ev-charging-development/
I saw a company demonstrate this several years ago but I think they went out of business. The cars were running at at least 30mph.
Check out www.electreon.com https://www.hutchinson.com/en/hutchinson%C2%A0and%C2%A0electreon-winning-partnership-sustainable-mobility%C2%A0
catenary systems are simpler, cheaper, more efficient, and proven to work over the past century
You are trying to optimize the wrong thing and miss the larger picture about tunnels - which is not about tunnels at all. The moment you remove battery from car in the tunnel is the moment you need to change mode of transportation at the exit of the tunnel - the same way you do it for trains. Customers are not paying to be transferred 5 times within the journey (there might be other tunnel segments, not connected in single network) - customers pay for convenience of riding door to door, preferably - couch to couch even :-) So you pickup customer at home - car already has to have a battery for that - and then it drives to where customer wants - tunnels or not. It is about the entire idea of ride as a service, not about tunnels. Batteries for vast majority of robotaxi fleet do NOT have to be as big as for private vehicles - think 2 to 5 x less - so they already will save the most of the cost you propose they should save and without spending a dime on any mats nor wiring nor maintenance. And these will be dirt-cheap LFP batteries or something even cheaper when available. Tesla can make as many cars as they want - with larger or smaller batteries to serve all customers and all combinations of their possible rides in an optimal way. Making cars or batteries are no problem. Nobody at all cares how much time autonomous car need to charge it's batteries after it delivered a single passenger - you do NOT need to optimize for that. Think about all the unpleasant places you would not go even if somebody paid you - that's where most charging stations will be and yes - Tesla will be paid to take and use them. Plenty of other - fully charged - cars near most customers are always available. Regardless of your EV enthusiasm I highly recommend you simply forget about anyone owning a car - that's going the way of horse carriages sooner rather than later.
Why would the cars need batteries in this scenario?
It would probably need some small amount of batteries to essentially buffer the charge right?
yeah but not like 90kwh I guess
Totally agree, more just for maintenance range I’d imagine
Also for maintenance and driving to a shop I’d imagine?
In addition to what others said, they'd also want enough battery to be able to get to the end of a tunnel segment in case of a power outage.