Connect with us

News

Are hydrogen cars competition for Tesla?

Published

on

Reading the news and making sense of PR pitches is an art and a science. The art is reading through the pitches, determining where the motivation is and what lies behind. The science is re-articulating the message behind pitches. The latest news campaign is that hydrogen fuel cells cars are competition to Tesla and electric vehicles (EV).

Sifting through the news

Are hydrogen fuel cell cars competition to EVs? And if so, how are they competing? Those are basic, relevant questions we need to keep in mind when reading the news. Matthew Levy on Seeking Alpha believes Toyota and Hyundai’s hydrogen fuel cell vehicles compete with the Model S. The truth is, Toyota and Hyundai are not in the same league as Tesla Motors in terms of their respective segments and innovations.

hyundai-hydrogen-powered-fuel-cell-electric-vehicle

The article tries to make a point that by opening the doors to its charging protocols, Tesla won’t sue those who use these protocols in good faith. The article argues that Tesla’s new competitors are growing, but include the Detroit VIA Motors that converts pickup trucks to plug-in hybrids (PHEV) and Harley-Davidson’s new and loud Project LiveWire, a noisy electric motorcycle I covered on CarNewsCafe. According to Matthew Levy: “While these are not direct competitors to Tesla’s sedans, they do show the shift in attention to electric vehicles. Combined with Chevrolet’s Volt (GM) and the Nissan Leaf, the electric vehicle market is becoming crowded behind Tesla. With the availability of Tesla’s patents to other electric vehicle manufacturers (who have more resources than Tesla), the gap should continue to shrink.”, indeed, it will and it should. No one would argue that, least of all Elon Musk.

Vorsteiner V-FF 101 Tesla Model SThe article points to a theoretical advantage Tesla has over the competitors. “With the same driving range on the upgraded models,” we suppose the article refers to the P85, “as well as much longer charging times,” larger tanks take longer to fill as well, “the Model S only holds a slight advantage over its hydrogen competitors, if any.” Really? How so? Try an encyclopedia of advantages. It is a full electric vehicle that comes with the freedom of choice of accepting your very own home 110V outlets, your dedicated 240V plug, your home high-powered Tesla charger, the option for the free Supercharger, depending on your time to recharge and where you are. Now, add to this the fact that you and I can make electricity from solar energy, wind, hydro, and any other alternative and renewable energy, or simply just plug it in anywhere.

These are huge advantages hydrogen does not offer yet. Using hydrogen, we go back to the pump and are not in control of the energy price. To be fair, utilities are slowing down personal alternative energy systems and are trying to inflate energy prices, but almost anyone can choose which energy origin to use for their EVs. If you don’t like the grid, install an alternative energy system at home. The same can’t be said about hydrogen fuel cell. I can build an electric motor or buy one on the cheap, I can’t do the same with a fuel cell. EVs offer energy choice, hydrogen does not yet.

The hidden message and the driving motivation

It is obvious by now that the hydrogen phenomenon hasn’t taken the world by storm. Contrary to the article, Hyundai already has a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle offered to the public and Honda has had its Clarity for lease since 2008. Hydrogen fuel cell has its place in the world of energy, but so far it’s been limited to places where solar panels have limited application without better energy storage. Who is driving the push for hydrogen fuel cells when we already have proven EVs, such as the Model S that uses commodity batteries and achieves close to 300 miles? The question to ask is who has benefited the most from the automobile this past century.

Advertisement
-
Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming

Tesla’s Cybercab line now builds robotaxis faster than Tesla can deploy them, Lars Moravy says.

Published

on

By

Tesla’s Cybercab line in Texas can now build the two seat robotaxi faster than the company can put it into service, according to Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering. “We don’t run every day because the line can run so fast. It’s currently outpacing our deployments,” Moravy said in a new Cybercab deep dive from Munro Live. “So, it’s a bit of a race right now. Who’s going to go faster? Right now the manufacturing line’s ahead.”

Tesla’s official Robotaxi account shared a Cybercab analysis video on X on Monday, calling it a “Cybercab engineering deep dive.” Moravy’s comments go further than what he told analysts on the Q3 earnings call last week, when he said the Cybercab line’s listed capacity of more than 125,000 units a year undersells what it can actually run.

The tour shows where that speed comes from. Tesla’s unboxed process splits the Cybercab into front, rear, side and center modules that are built and tested on their own before they meet on a short final line. That final line has just 25 fully automated stations, which Tesla’s team estimated is a fifth to a tenth of what a Model Y needs. The full line is about 78% automated, the framing line is already at 100%, and the layout uses roughly 50% less floor space per vehicle. The stated goal is “100% automation in 10 second cycle time,” or one finished Cybercab every 10 seconds.

Tesla also deleted the paint shop. Only the side modules are coated, and the exterior panels get their color inside the molding machine. Engineers said the car is designed to run at least 500,000 miles, which matters for a vehicle that will spend most of its day carrying riders.

The battery got the same treatment. The Cybercab uses an 88S6P pack of 4680 cells in a steel enclosure, a first for Tesla, with each module potted separately so a single failed module can be swapped instead of the whole pack. Wireless battery management boards replace a wiring harness, and new contactors are fast enough to drop the pyro fuse entirely. Tesla’s battery director graded the pack an A minus, compared with a D for the Model Y structural pack and a B minus for Cybertruck. Up front, the drive unit runs an 11:1 gear ratio versus roughly 9:1 on most Teslas, since the Cybercab does not need a high top speed.

Advertisement
-

The deployment side is now the bottleneck Moravy described. Tesla had more than 50 Cybercabs working the Formula 1 weekend in Austin, and Texas records show 463 Cybercabs registered. Tesla said on its earnings call that Cybercab service will launch in Dallas next month, and Moravy said the company is aiming to get Cybercabs to customers by the end of 2026. Every unit built so far has gone into Tesla’s own fleet since the line moved into volume production in April.

Munro Live also asked when it could get a Cybercab to tear down. Tesla’s answer: “Not yet.”

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

How SpaceX Is raising Raptor’s sea-level thrust while holding engine mass steady

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

SpaceX’s Raptor engine family has steadily increased sea-level thrust while simultaneously reducing mass, turning iterative engineering gains into substantially higher performance for the Super Heavy booster. CEO Elon Musk shed more light on how powerful Raptor 4 will be, and it’s pretty crazy.

Raptor 1 delivered 185 metric tons of thrust at roughly 2,080 kilograms, while Raptor 2 raised that to 230 tons while cutting mass to about 1,630 kilograms. SpaceX data for Raptor 3 lists a target of 280 tons at 1,525 kilograms (with further reductions in associated vehicle hardware), while operational flight ratings have been cited near 250 tons.

This morning, Elon Musk stated that Raptor 4 is expected to reach 300 tons of sea-level thrust at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3. Across these versions, thrust has risen by more than 60 percent from the first engines while engine mass has fallen, producing a sharp improvement in thrust-to-weight ratio. This is a true testament to how great SpaceX engineering has been:

With 33 engines on SuperHeavy, the jump from earlier versions to a 300-ton Raptor 4 would produce roughly 9,900 metric tons of total liftoff thrust, nearly three times the Saturn V’s approximately 3,400 metric tons from its five F-1 engines.

This is not just a larger number on a data sheet, either, as sea-level thrust is the force available the moment the vehicle leaves the pad. This is when it is heaviest and still deep in Earth’s gravity well and dense atmosphere.

Higher levels of sea-level thrust directly improves the initial thrust-to-weight ratio of the full stack. A higher ratio produces faster acceleration off the pad, which shortens the time the rocket has to spend fighting gravity, and gravity losses during the first minute or two of the flight are a major drain on total available delta-v. Every second shaved off of that early climb preserves more propellant energy for reaching orbital velocity or for carrying extra payload.

Because Super Heavy’s engine count is constrained by vehicle diameter and packing density, increasing thrust per engine is the most straightforward way to raise total liftoff performance without redesigning the booster structure or design.

The same-mass target for Raptor 4 is equally important. Holding engine mass roughly constant while raising thrust improves the engine’s own thrust-to-weight ratio and reduces the structural and propellant mass fraction that must be carried solely to support the engines.

Earlier Raptor iterations also simplified or eliminated extensive vehicle-side hardware such as heat shields. These gains compound: more force for less installed mass leaves additional capacity for propellant, payload, or operational margins such as engine-out capability.

For Starship’s architecture, the practical effects are large. Greater liftoff thrust supports heavier vehicles, larger propellant loads, and higher payloads to low Earth orbit, figures SpaceX has targeted in the 100-plus-ton reusable range. That capacity underpins orbital refueling, lunar missions, and eventual Mars cargo and crew flights.

Continued growth in sea-level thrust therefore tightens the gap between theoretical rocket performance and the high flight rates and reusability needed to make large-scale space transport practical.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Assisted Driving expands to tenth EU country

Published

on

Tesla has expanded its Tesla Assisted Driving (TAD) suite to its tenth European country, as Latvia joined a growing list of European Union member states authorizing the company’s advanced driver assistance technology.

Tesla Europe announced this morning that the system is now approved in Latvia, with a software rollout to begin soon.

The approval and rollout follow recognition of a provisional European type approval originally granted by the Netherlands’ RDW authority on April 10.

Latvia’s Road Traffic Safety Directorate (CSDD) evaluated the Dutch documentation, coordinated with the other national authorities, and reviewed updates from Tesla. These included tightened limits on speed offsets, automatic resets of any manual speed adjustments after each trip, and stronger driver monitoring.

In Europe, the feature is marketed as Tesla Assisted Driving after a recent rule change that labeled the name “Full Self-Driving” as misleading.

Tesla starts showing how FSD will change lives in Europe

The system remains an SAE Level 2 driver assistance tool, not unsupervised autonomy. It can control speed, steering, braking, lane changes, and intersections while following a navigation route. Drivers need not keep their hands on the wheel at all times, yet they must continuously monitor the road and be prepared to intervene immediately.

The sequence of EU recognitions began with the Netherlands in April and continued through Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia, Czechia, Croatia, and Slovakia. Most have relied on mutual recognition of the single Dutch provisional approval rather than independent national testing.

These national clearances do not yet constitute bloc-wide authorization. An EU-wide decision requires a qualified majority in the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles: at least 15 of 27 member states representing 65 percent of the EU population. Larger markets, like Germany, France, and Italy, remain under review, and a vote is expected this December.

However, for Latvian Tesla owners with compatible vehicles and software, the imminent rollout expands access to the supervised system while underscoring that attentive human oversight remains essential.

Continue Reading