> "instead of applying engine breaking when the driver takes their foot off the pedal, they went to great lengths to _move the break pedal_ in proportion to the amount of engine breaking that is currently being applied as per the VCUs command"
Regenerative braking slows the car more aggressively than an ICE where you take your foot of the gas, so the pedal change isn't putting on the brakes, it's communicating to a driver used to ICE that the car is slowing more than might be expected.
There may also be a sports-related reason for people who habitually left-foot brake.
It depends how much you draw from the motor/generator. One can modulate it as they want, whatever can't go into the battery due to chemistry or drive constraints can be disposed of as heat.
You clearly have never used a car like that. You develop muscle memory for where the pedal is - finding that the pedal is not where it used to be does not inspire much confidence.
Every other manufacturer has managed to control regen breaking via throttle modulation - even ICE hybrid cars have been doing that for ages.
I've used left-foot-braking in my (ICE-powered) daily driver for years.
Regenerative braking is very different to taking your foot off the accelerator in a conventional ICE car, it's much more powerful a stopping force than traditional engine-braking.
I understand the rationale for moving the pedal to illustrate the amount of "braking" force. I'll admit I'm not exactly a typical driver though.
I'd support that. It does feel unusual in most cars' cruise control that you can push the accelerator to three-quarters of its travel before you start to accelerate (e.g. if cruise control is at 50–60mph).
If you push the gas pedal, you'd expect to go faster, wouldn't you?
They used to, but not by design. Back when throttles were still cabled I could feel the cruise control doing its thing by lightly resting on the pedal.
For the AMG GT4 there will be 3 motors: two at the rear, and one at the front.
My interpretation (and my German's pretty lousy) is that each motor is combined with a gear system in a single package, and they're calling the overall package (motor plus gears) a High Performance Electric Drive Unit (HP.EDU).
The two rear motors will probably be independent, so no need for a mechanical rear diff (it'll be electronically controlled).
There's no mention of a front diff, so it's unknown whether that's built into the front HP.EDU or is a separate mechanical diff).
Kind of orthogonal. Traditional AWD and part-time 4WD systems are solutions to get power from a single motor to both the front and rear of a vehicle. AWD has a center differential to account for differences in front and rear driveshaft speeds when driving on high-traction surfaces. 4WD just locks the front and rear driveshaft rotation together, which is a simple and robust solution that only works on loose surfaces.
With separate front and rear electric motors, there's no center differential to worry about, and a sufficiently sophisticated motor control system can make it behave well on and off road.
This is probably the most succinct explanation I've ever read of the differences and the advantages of one over the other. I've been trying to understand this from different sources for years now.
I'm not sure that the traditional notion of traction control applies, given that there are three independent suppliers of power, so you don't necessarily need the mechanics of diffs and computer-controlled brakes to provide maximum traction.
What would it mean to "turn off" traction control in a car with independent motors per wheel? (OK this is a 3-motor/4-wheel scenario, but hypothetically…)
With software control and independent motors, we're likely to see increases in low-traction capability (for the right price-point and probably aimed at particular buyers)
The data centres aren't inherently spikey, in general use their consumption is reasonably predictable.
However, if a DC detects that the _grid_ is wobbly (voltage or frequency deviations) the DC will disconnect without warning, and switch to its batteries and generators.
The grid complains because it's suddenly lost hundreds of MW of load. For the DC to have isolation capability, it would need a load-sink which can consume roughly the same power as the DC in normal operation, and can take in that load at a moment's notice.
It's a hard problem to solve, and probably better managed at grid-level than DC-level.
> The grid complains because it's suddenly lost hundreds of MW of load. For the DC to have isolation capability, it would need a load-sink which can consume roughly the same power as the DC in normal operation, and can take in that load at a moment's notice.
Thats why always have all the EVs be connected all the time (except the 20 mins they drive). EVs can provide demand as a service and take excess power whenever its available (instead of solar curtailment), and also provide an immediate source of load when events like this happen. Its a shame US is anti EV, it has the best systems at scale that can be leveraged to transform the entire energy ecosystem.
My intuition is that there would be a fairly stable base load, but doing something like switching on a new training run of a frontier model would be incredibly spiky, thousands of GPUs going from somewhat idle to 100% in seconds.
This is where a smart grid would really shine, because the utility could drop the electricity price to 0 or even negative and turn on 100,000 air conditioners/heaters to effectively give people free climate control to absorb the load imbalance.
1kg of gold displaces 51.75 cm3 of water.
1kg of lead displaces 88.18 cm3 of water.
Fresh water: 1000 g/litre
Salt water: 1025 g/litre
In fresh water:
1kg gold = (1000g negative buoyancy - 52g water displacement) = 9948g negative buoyancy
1kg lead = (1000g negative buoyancy - 88g water displacement) = 9912g negative buoyancy
In salt water:
1kg gold = (1000g negative buoyancy - 53g water displacement) = 9947g negative buoyancy
1kg lead = (1000g negative buoyancy - 90g water displacement) = 9910g negative buoyancy
As a scuba-diving weight, gold is less than 1% more efficient (by weight) than lead.
It's counter-intuitive: gold is nearly twice as dense as lead, but the importance in scuba diving is the weight of the, er, "weight", vs the weight of the water it displaces (Archimedes principle).
Gold weights per kilo are a tiny amount more efficient than lead per kilo, but much smaller and much sparklier. Anyone who wants to donate me a gold weight-belt, please be assured I would display it to its full magnificance. Around 8kg would be fine :-)
> For example, d4vd is a famous musician, and search stats may indicate his potential popularity and future record sales.
I wasn't really aware of that as I guess I am not the target demography. However, I can think of multiple ways of making money off this information, I still don't see why people are so sure it is worthless
That's the land allocation rather than the building-size / data-centre size.
The average data centre is 10,000 square metres (2.5 acres).
As well as compute and network facilities, DCs also need to accommodate parking, personnel areas, cooling, fire-suppression, power substations, power redundancy (generators), ground-security…
244 acres is absolutely at the upper end of any DC site.
Most hyperscalers now prefer to build larger sites as “campuses” which may consist of many buildings each consuming 40-100MW, and then yes each building needs most of what you mentioned, so it adds up.
A few sites are now also contemplating BTM or ‘behind the meter’ power generation which takes additional space.
Then some sites like Microsoft’s Fairwater design are optimized for a very large number of Accelerator cabinets — think GPU, TPU, etc. Those cabinets are each consuming 140kW today and with a path to 700-1000kW cabinets soon, so that’s one super dense building instead of a campus of less dense buildings filled with Compute.
> Utah’s 40,000 acre datacenter proves it’s not absolutely at the upper end
So far it seems to be more of a concept of a plan. I wouldn’t be surprised if they build smaller scale data centers first, then cancel the 40000 acres expansion. That sorts of feel like a marketing tactic. If not and they are serious, are we close to peak bubble?
Amazon is probably deploying in the range of 250,000 racks per year into AWS. That’s millions of square feet before you get into all the infrastructure around them so they’re powered, cooled and operated the way they need.
Figure on ~10 million square feet of conditioned DC space per year, approximately 5-10GW of additional power consumption to power those 250k cabinets (depending on the exact mixture of what’s in the racks — Compute, Storage, Network, Accelerators), and that’s just for one hyperscaler.
There are at least 5-7 companies in the hyperscaler weight class although likely none individually meaningfully larger than AWS, they’re the 800lb bear and everyone else is in the 500-750lb range.
It’s a lot. Datacenters also take long enough to build that a hyperscaler is pouring concrete today for shells they expect to serve real workloads in 2029 - 2031. What you’re seeing come online today in response to customer demand really started being built in 2021 - 2023.
10,000 square meters sound suspiciously small for a datacenter, even more so if you have to account for supporting facility? Maybe a small one? it's just 100m by 100m, which is smaller than most Walmart Supercenter.
Building on grade is much cheaper. There is in general plenty of surface area on Planet Earth.
Datacenters aren’t built next to Nordstrom. Theres just no reason to spend on engineering and construction that increases density like underground parking.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/09/worlds-first-w...
reply