|
IOwnCalculus posted:They scripted a bit (shocking!) in which they push an "out of charge" Roadster back into the garage. That's it? Did the people at Tesla ever watch a Top Gear episode before? Sounds like they're blowing poo poo out of proportion.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
in_cahoots posted:I don't see Musk's claims as convincing, really. Driving 0.6 miles in a parking lot sounds like what you'd do if you missed the charging station, which is what Broder's claiming. This Atlantic article does a pretty good job of breaking the arguments down: That article tries to brush off the biggest discrepancy though, that he only charged it enough for 30 odd miles when he had over 60 to go. quote:Broder also explains that he did not charge fully because of the time it took to charge. He wanted to show the real world experience of a real driver, who might not want to endure the hour and a half it takes to charge up, when only needing a certain amount of energy to get to point B. Except the real-world experience for anyone who isn't a lobotomy patient would be to, oh I don't know, put in as much energy as you need to get to where you're going. Further more, according to the charge rates from Tesla's sites, the supercharger station takes an hour to add about 300 miles of range, it would have only taken 15 minutes to give him enough range for where he needed to get to, yet he only charged for something like 7 minutes apparently. Sorry but that reeks of him engineering a failure. EDIT: Ok, I was wrong one one point, the Norwich charge was apparently a standard charger, which isn't that fast. However, that still doesn't answer the question of why he didn't charge it with enough juice at the Milford Supercharger. ReelBigLizard fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
leica posted:That's it? Did the people at Tesla ever watch a Top Gear episode before? The whole segment kind of poo poo all over electric cars in general and blasted it for having poor battery life and how its brakes overheated on the track (I think) and a few other things if I remember correctly. It was far and away more critical than pretty much any piece I have seen them do aside from the clearly joke ones they did for that 3 wheeled car or other vehicles of that nature.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Squibbles posted:The whole segment kind of poo poo all over electric cars in general and blasted it for having poor battery life and how its brakes overheated on the track (I think) and a few other things if I remember correctly. It was far and away more critical than pretty much any piece I have seen them do aside from the clearly joke ones they did for that 3 wheeled car or other vehicles of that nature. I was totally gonna buy a Robin until that episode opened my eyes to its poor handling at speed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
Here's the Tesla review. Now to see if I remembered it right: http://www.streetfire.net/video/top-gear-reviews-tesla-roadster_206233.htm
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
^^^ YOU MUDDA FUKKA^^^Squibbles posted:The whole segment kind of poo poo all over electric cars in general and blasted it for having poor battery life and how its brakes overheated on the track (I think) and a few other things if I remember correctly. It was far and away more critical than pretty much any piece I have seen them do aside from the clearly joke ones they did for that 3 wheeled car or other vehicles of that nature. http://www.streetfire.net/video/top-gear-reviews-tesla-roadster_206233.htm Engine overheated on one car and the brakes broke on the other car. Still worth the watch, I hadn't seen it before.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
ReelBigLizard posted:That article tries to brush off the biggest discrepancy though, that he only charged it enough for 30 odd miles when he had over 60 to go. From the way I read the NYT piece, he left because the agents on the phone told him the car would gain range as he drove. At the very least, he's claiming that the agents gave him explicit permission to leave Norwich. The agents called it a 'software glitch' - not a problem with the mileage itself. Musk seems to be just as guilty of cherry-picking as Broder. The graphs show that the range of the car did drop by more than half overnight. The thermostat was set to 64 degrees, just not at the mileage that Musk claims (which is itself a loose interpretation of the article). Nothing in the data shows that he was 'driving in circles,' let alone that the additional 0.6 miles were an attempt to drain the battery. If anything, this seems to be combination of someone not knowing much about EV and communication problems between the agents and the driver.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
InterceptorV8 posted:^^^ YOU MUDDA FUKKA^^^ http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20048815-48.html quote:Tesla filed suit against "Top Gear" for libel and malicious falsehood. In the "Top Gear" episode containing the review, Clarkson claimed that the Roadster, as tested on the track, had a range of only 55 miles. The show also portrayed both Roadster models supplied to the show as breaking down and running out of electricity, halting testing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Nobody comes out of this NYT thing looking good at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Squibbles posted:Here's the Tesla review. Now to see if I remembered it right: drat, the Stig posted the same time as a GT3 with it on the track. Also if they said the brakes "broke" because of a fuse popping that's hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
Here's the reply from Broder: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/that-tesla-data-what-it-says-and-what-it-doesnt/#more-180855. The only question I have is whether he called Tesla before leaving Norwich. He's pretty clear that they told him an hour's charging would give him the range to reach Milford, but not whether he contacted them after that hour. Otherwise, most of Broder's claims seem to hold up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
That link doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
leica posted:That link doesn't work. Strange, it works for me. It's the top post (right now at least) on http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/ .
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
The issue here isn't who is right or wrong here (Tesla and the NYT will both come out of this with egg on their faces), but whether or not the Tesla represents a viable alternative to the conventional ICE-powered car. The answer to that is a resounding no. When you look at all the instructions Tesla gave that journalist to maximize his battery range (turn down the climate control, drive at 55 mph or less, enter a special mode to get the maximum potential out of the battery, preheat the car for a half an hour before driving it), it makes the resulting slapfight look utterly pointless. In a conventional car, you pretty much have none of these concerns, or they are so diminished that they're nearly irrelavent. Elon Musk is delusional if he thinks that his car is mature enough to break the status quo, and it sounds like he'd rather shout down anyone who says otherwise rather than address or even acknowledge the Tesla's shortcomings. I'm not defending this journalist or the NYT for their conduct - what they did was unacceptable, no matter how you look at it. It's what they didn't lie about that concerns me most.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The issue here isn't who is right or wrong here (Tesla and the NYT will both come out of this with egg on their faces), but whether or not the Tesla represents a viable alternative to the conventional ICE-powered car. The answer to that is a resounding no. When you look at all the instructions Tesla gave that journalist to maximize his battery range (turn down the climate control, drive at 55 mph or less, enter a special mode to get the maximum potential out of the battery, preheat the car for a half an hour before driving it), it makes the resulting slapfight look utterly pointless. In a conventional car, you pretty much have none of these concerns, or they are so diminished that they're nearly irrelavent. Elon Musk is delusional if he thinks that his car is mature enough to break the status quo, and it sounds like he'd rather shout down anyone who says otherwise rather than address or even acknowledge the Tesla's shortcomings. I'm thinking the bolded part is bullshit. If I were to take a conventional vehicle on a road trip to test its maximum range, I drat well need to consider speed, operating temp, and accessory usage as well. Hell, if I went to a manufacturer saying I was going to do such a test, and how would they recommend I get the longest range, they'd probably give me as a long of a list as what Tesla gave. The only things electric cars are lagging behind on compared to gas powered cars are maximum range to a "tank" and the convenience of filling with gas (takes 10 minutes, available "everywhere").
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
And a judge kicked out both lawsuits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Brigdh posted:I'm thinking the bolded part is bullshit. If I were to take a conventional vehicle on a road trip to test its maximum range, I drat well need to consider speed, operating temp, and accessory usage as well. Hell, if I went to a manufacturer saying I was going to do such a test, and how would they recommend I get the longest range, they'd probably give me as a long of a list as what Tesla gave. The only things electric cars are lagging behind on compared to gas powered cars are maximum range to a "tank" and the convenience of filling with gas (takes 10 minutes, available "everywhere"). I agree with you on some issues, but what I said isn't bullshit when you think about it. Sure, if you drive at 55 mph with the climate control off and your windows rolled up, you're going to get better fuel economy than if you drive at 80 mph with the heat/AC blasting and whatnot. Now here's the rub - no matter how you drive, there are severe limitations on a battery electric car that simply don't exist in an ICE car. For example, my fuel economy varies about 3 mpg from summer to winter; much of that is due to my winter tires, to be honest. Therefore, regardless of temperature, my expected range varies by about 55 miles, regardless if its -30 or +30. Due to the chemical processes in a battery, range varies dramatically depending on temperature; even given ideal driving, the range of a BEV can drop by half (or more) if the temperature drops from 50F to 0F. It gets even worse if you run your defrost (which is a critical safety system in the winter), heated seats or other comfort features. Sure, it cost me a bit of fuel economy in my car, but it is nearly imperceptible compared to what it does in a BEV. And your notion that BEVs are on par with ICE-powered cars is absurd; who in their right mind would want to suffer in a cold Canadian winter with no heat or defrost because the car disabled it to conserve its battery life (as it did in this test) when a normal car will (or at least should) produce abundant heat essentially for free (it was just going to be sent out the tailpipe or through the radiator anyway). Or better still, go to a Christmas party and find out that your car's range dropped below what you need to get it home the next day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
I think his point is that if you had infrastructure density like for gas stations that it would be much less of an issue. I'm not sure I agree with that or not; it would definitely mitigate the issues. I could get by on most of my driving with the Tesla with a pretty good wiggle factor. I think that it wouldn't need to shut down the climate control or what have you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
Brigdh posted:I'm thinking the bolded part is bullshit. If I were to take a conventional vehicle on a road trip to test its maximum range, I drat well need to consider speed, operating temp, and accessory usage as well. Hell, if I went to a manufacturer saying I was going to do such a test, and how would they recommend I get the longest range, they'd probably give me as a long of a list as what Tesla gave. The only things electric cars are lagging behind on compared to gas powered cars are maximum range to a "tank" and the convenience of filling with gas (takes 10 minutes, available "everywhere"). I'd say it's not bullshit. The difference in maximum range is not a few percent, it's more than double - and it's a difference that crosses a distance threshold for many people - how often do you want to fill up / recharge - every trip? Or once a week? The "average" commuter might put 50 miles (or whatever) behind them in an "average" day, but that mean value has no importance without some estimation of the variation. And that's not considering the frequency of trips of much longer distances - the often-seen response "just rent something for your annual road-trip" is trite and useless* - people drive widely different distances over the course of a single week, and there are so many unplanned (or poorly planned) trips that estimating "typical" distances and basing a decision on range being "good enough" is basically impossible. * Please note I am not calling out anybody for saying something like that. I'm trying to head off that response before it happens, because I think it's annoying. People have gotten used to the kinds of ranges and speeds achievable with internal-combustion technology. Electric cars need to achieve similar abilities to be taken seriously as direct competitors, rather than as filling niches currently poorly-served by gasoline-powered cars, such as urban commuters in dense traffic. A gasoline-powered car that wasn't designed with range or fuel efficiency as priorities - something with a big, gas-guzzling engine and a normal-sized (or small) fuel tank could still easily outrange a Tesla, without needing to adopt super-conserving driving behaviour. Yes, if you went to a manufacturer and said you were going to test the range of one of their cars, they'd ask you to do such things. But if you went to a manufacturer and said you wanted to test-drive the car under something like normal driving conditions (which involves, among other things, setting the interior temperature to a comfortable level, stop-and-go traffic, hills, a range of speeds up to whatever the limit is on the local freeway, etc.), they'd hand you the keys and ask you not to scratch up the paint. If a Tesla car can't acheive even an approximation of usefulness under real-world conditions WITHOUT unrealistic special considerations, it's not a useful car. It can still be exciting, and heralding a new era, and fast around a track, and fun to drive, and a status symbol, but it won't be good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I'd say it's not bullshit. The difference in maximum range is not a few percent, it's more than double - and it's a difference that crosses a distance threshold for many people - how often do you want to fill up / recharge - every trip? Or once a week? The "average" commuter might put 50 miles (or whatever) behind them in an "average" day, but that mean value has no importance without some estimation of the variation. And that's not considering the frequency of trips of much longer distances - the often-seen response "just rent something for your annual road-trip" is trite and useless* - people drive widely different distances over the course of a single week, and there are so many unplanned (or poorly planned) trips that estimating "typical" distances and basing a decision on range being "good enough" is basically impossible. Did you miss the part where I blatenly said that electric cars need the range of their gasoline counterparts? That seems to be your entire point, so I'm not sure what you are arguing... MrChips posted:I agree with you on some issues, but what I said isn't bullshit when you think about it. Sure, if you drive at 55 mph with the climate control off and your windows rolled up, you're going to get better fuel economy than if you drive at 80 mph with the heat/AC blasting and whatnot. Now here's the rub - no matter how you drive, there are severe limitations on a battery electric car that simply don't exist in an ICE car. For example, my fuel economy varies about 3 mpg from summer to winter; much of that is due to my winter tires, to be honest. Therefore, regardless of temperature, my expected range varies by about 55 miles, regardless if its -30 or +30. You bring up logical points, but I don't think they point out fundamental issues with BEVs since they also affect ICEs. The chemical processes argument is a bit bullshit as Tesla vehicles redirects heat from the motors to the battery pack to keep it at a good operating temperature. Its even been explicitly mentioned as one of the reasons why the Roadster and S work in the cold in one of the articles that came out this week. ICE engines have the same issue, they are extremely inefficient until warm, ie coolant temp is at around 200 degrees F. The only advantage ICEs might have is that they generate significantly more waste heat, which helps keep them at operating temp, although waste heat is wasted energy that could be doing something like contributing to moving the vehicle. Running defrost should be more efficient in a BEV. In an ICE, you have to convert rotational energy from the crankshaft into electrical energy via the alternator to run the defroster. Mechanical to electrical energy conversions are not 100% efficient. In a BEV, you already have the electrical energy sitting in a battery. You seem to think producing abundant heat as ICEs do, is a good thing. The problem is that heat is wasted energy, it could be used to propel the vehicle. Of the total amount of energy in an amount of gas, only about 12% actually gets used in an ICE. The rest of it goes out your tailpipe as you say. So, in an ICE we are throwing away energy, which is why running your heater has minimal effect on your gas mileage (if we ignore the electrical drain from running the fan). So really, we are back to the storage issue that I acknowledge is a current issue, where its relatively difficult to store enough practical electrical energy in a format that allows rapid but controllable discharge. Solve that issue, and BEVs just became equal to or better than ICEs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Brigdh posted:Did you miss the part where I blatenly said that electric cars need the range of their gasoline counterparts? That seems to be your entire point, so I'm not sure what you are arguing...
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I'd say it's not bullshit. The difference in maximum range is not a few percent, it's more than double - and it's a difference that crosses a distance threshold for many people - how often do you want to fill up / recharge - every trip? Or once a week? The "average" commuter might put 50 miles (or whatever) behind them in an "average" day, but that mean value has no importance without some estimation of the variation. And that's not considering the frequency of trips of much longer distances - the often-seen response "just rent something for your annual road-trip" is trite and useless* - people drive widely different distances over the course of a single week, and there are so many unplanned (or poorly planned) trips that estimating "typical" distances and basing a decision on range being "good enough" is basically impossible. The over-arching argument here is one of cultural change. As of right now, we don't want to fill up every day, because we're used to filling up once a week or more. That doesn't mean it'll stay that way. Remember back in the day, when you had a Nokia brick that took hours to charge, but you only needed to charge it once a week? And now we've all got glorious smartphones that do every-goddamn-thing and charge in about an hour or two but you have to charge them daily or they're useless. People just got used to plugging their phone in every night, or whenever the opportunity arose, instead of charging once and not worrying about it for the rest of the week. I don't see why this cultural change won't happen with electric cars. Once they become 'normal', nobody will care that they have to charge them for a few hours at work, or every night when they get home. It's just part of owning one. And if a company can figure out a way to make electric cars a cool thing to own (Tesla is certainly trying hard in this regard), people will accept a lot of shortcomings just to be the kind of person who owns one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
I'm normally very pro BEV's but I want to say you raised some excellent points.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
drat, I got beaten to the smartphone comparison. But it's completely right; it's a tradeoff that, 8 years ago, nobody would believe that they'd be willing to make. "Charge my phone two or three times a day? Ridiculous, why should I be bothered to do that?" Turns out being able to play angry birds and browse facebook while taking a poo poo are good enough reasons. Once people warm to the fact that they can do all their errands in comfort without having to fill their car with loving ancient hydrocarbons pumped out of the ground, they'll be completely ok with having to kick it for 45 minutes at a charging station. Maybe they can even play some angry birds and browse facebook on the can while they wait.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 04:12
|
|
|
The "killer app" for smartcars -err- electric cars will be implementing some sort of Roomba technology that works so that once you've been delivered to work or wherever you're going, the car drives itself to the nearest charge point and plugs itself in until fully charged or summoned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:Turns out being able to play angry birds and browse facebook while taking a poo poo are good enough reasons. Once people warm to the fact that they can do all their errands in comfort without having to fill their car with loving ancient hydrocarbons pumped out of the ground, they'll be completely ok with having to kick it for 45 minutes at a charging station.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
Plus charging stations on major routes would probably have stuff to do to pass the time, so your thumb isn't up your rear end waiting to charge up. I don't think it will be a big deal at all, it's better to relax a bit on road trips anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
That weird word compartmentalization that goes on where homonyms never register as the same word kicked in for me -- I only just realized that "Supercharger" is already an automotive term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
I think absent the revelation that Broder was purposefully sandbagging the car, which he doesn't seem to be doing, I think it's a lose for Tesla. The purpose of the test is to see how the car would function in a real world driving conditions: from Washington DC to Boston; which is a typical trip and one which even the most lovely econobox could handle with absolute ease. At the end of the day, the Tesla S at this point doesn't compare favorably to the hypothetical econobox because of range degradation in the cold (which is a serious issue in cold climates such as the MidAtlantic/New England). Also, it seems like a real pain in the rear end as compared to a conventional car.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:A gasoline-powered car that wasn't designed with range or fuel efficiency as priorities - something with a big, gas-guzzling engine and a normal-sized (or small) fuel tank could still easily outrange a Tesla, without needing to adopt super-conserving driving behaviour. A Model S has greater range than my Land Cruiser, and does it while driving faster. People now have just gotten used to the idea of only filling up once a week instead of every day like I had to when I used my FJ40 to commute. Right now the last thing I do before I leave the house in the morning is walk over to the garage door and push the button. I could very easily unplug a car at that moment and it would take me 5 seconds or less. It would be less time out of my week to plug/unplug a car in a place I'm already at, while warm and dry, than out in the cold wind and rain after stopping to delay my arrival home. Oh, and I imagine they smell a whole lot better and I wouldn't feel the need to air out the garage before closing the door to keep the heat in. The argument that all electric cars are terrible is the same argument that says nobody should own a Miata. 'But most people have kids! They can't do their every day kid hauling with it!' Sorry, but people still buy roadsters. Are electric cars the vehicle everybody should own right now? No. But they do make sense for enough of the population at this moment to justify production.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:A Model S has greater range than my Land Cruiser, and does it while driving faster. People now have just gotten used to the idea of only filling up once a week instead of every day like I had to when I used my FJ40 to commute. I'm not trying to argue "Don't buy a Tesla". People have raised some excellent points, and the way the technology is progressing I expect the range issue to become less and less important, pretty quickly. No car can be all things to everyone, but something that could compete head-to-head with a Camry or a Civic (or a F-150 or a Landcruiser, for that matter) but with all the inherent advantages of electricity rather than exploding pentane would be more than a game changer, it would be truly revolutionary. I'm hoping Tesla's pushing with their performance machines, a small but significant market, will help usher in this revolution a bit faster. And more sexily - I don't much like the front end, but those are overall drat fine looking cars. Early all-electrics didn't compete with anything, hoping to open up a new market for tiny urban commuters and short-trip runabouts. Tesla, to their everlasting credit, have identified a market segment they might be able to crack, prestige sports cars. The closest all-ICE competitors I can think of to something like a Model S tend to be driven short distances, with some quickness (where the law or daring allows) and don't worry too much about interior comfort, concerning themselves more with looks and reputation. In my impression, at least. The comparison with smartphones is interesting - another device that relies on battery power. I agree, getting used to plugging it in every evening is pretty easy, and I can see something similar happening with a car. I am still concerned, however, that no amount of diligence regarding daily charging will enable spontaneous 1000-km road trips to areas that are without flush toilets, never mind high-amperage/high-voltage charging stations. The cultural change that replaces the current standard of gas stations (and truck stops) with something that doesn't give you herpes if you sit down will be of at least the magnitude of the change that leads to habitual plugging-in of the family car. To push things in a slightly different direction for a moment: I ran out of fuel a couple of weeks ago on a stretch of highway without cell-phone access (I am a blithering idiot on a semi-regular basis). I was rescued by a friendly couple, who stopped within seconds of me raising the bonnet - still the international signal for "mein auto ist kaputt". They quickly offered to return to the nearest town, back the direction from which we'd all come, buy a jerry can, and fill it for me. This they did, so once again, Thanks Mate! Anyway, would a portable add-on power battery be at all a possibility for people wishing to achieve longer range than will ever likely be possible? I know of roads that currently lack sufficient fuel stations for normal cars without carrying a jerry can - "Next Fuel 750 km" is a sign just northwest of Edmonton.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 09:27
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I think absent the revelation that Broder was purposefully sandbagging the car, which he doesn't seem to be doing, I think it's a lose for Tesla. The purpose of the test is to see how the car would function in a real world driving conditions: from Washington DC to Boston; which is a typical trip and one which even the most lovely econobox could handle with absolute ease. At the end of the day, the Tesla S at this point doesn't compare favorably to the hypothetical econobox because of range degradation in the cold (which is a serious issue in cold climates such as the MidAtlantic/New England). Also, it seems like a real pain in the rear end as compared to a conventional car. Here's the thing though. I've looked at the numbers and had the posted in the last thread before it got gassed. There's a sizable chunk of the population that electric cars work for. We're talking people that own their own home, a home that is a single family detached house. With more than two people of driving age live there. I think there's something like 1.9 cars per 1.8 drivers, so each of these two driver person households will have two cars at least. And more than likely one of them drives 30 miles per day for most days of the month. That's everything you need to make an electric car work, especially one like a Model S which has range comparable to my ICE car, which can only go 250 to 275 miles on a tank. Plus I don't have a gas pump at home I can feel up with at night.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I think absent the revelation that Broder was purposefully sandbagging the car, which he doesn't seem to be doing, I think it's a lose for Tesla. The purpose of the test is to see how the car would function in a real world driving conditions: from Washington DC to Boston; which is a typical trip and one which even the most lovely econobox could handle with absolute ease. Assuming you actually fill up the tank when you stop instead of giving up and trying to make it on fumes. The test was actually to go from point A to point B using the SuperCharger network, which he seemed to have visited but not actually used long enough to make it to the end. Edit: And here's CNN doing the same drive, but filling the car all the way: http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/15/autos/tesla-model-s/index.html duz fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Feb 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
Tesla S, yeah you have to wait for it to recharge, deal with it! They need this slogan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Seeing as there are tons of people who daily drive Leafs around here in Seattle, I think it depends on your city. It's pretty rare for a Seattle commute to be >20mi each way. That might stretch the range on a Leaf if you have that maximum commute, but most of the people I know live ~5mi from where they work. Obviously, a Tesla Model S (or even a roadster!) isn't an issue at all under those cases. (I also work 2 blocks from a Tesla garage/dealership, so that increases the numbers of those and other EVs that I see weekly) If you need to drive 200+ miles regularly, then yes, a current-generation EV is not for you. But for people who drive under 50mi a day like most of the people I know around here, plugging it in each night instead of pumping gas once every week or two is pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
Is anyone marketing tow-behind generators as range extenders & extra storage space for EVs? I mean, I can see that being a really big market for people who want an EV for local use, but have the occasional need to drive long distances. I know they exist, but I've never once heard them mentioned with respect to the Model S or Leaf. Do any EV cars sold right now have charging jacks that could be used with a tow-behind generator? Let's face it- if you want to drive your Tesla on a track, unless you live like 2 miles away, you're going to to flatbed it there and back. No sense dragging around a heavy- and 99% of the time unnecessary- engine for daily commuting, though. grover fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Feb 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
duz posted:Edit: And here's CNN doing the same drive, but filling the car all the way: http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/15/autos/tesla-model-s/index.html Why isn't there at least a map of the route they took? Or how long it took? 60-65 cruise what's the normal speed limit in those areas? Christ, write a loving story of flashing titties or something, not that tee hee hee I made it and didn't die! While off topic, but kinda cool anyway, LNG stations for semis have finally started popping up, and now they are on major routes, I believe you can go coast to coast and north and south now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
grover posted:Is anyone marketing tow-behind generators as range extenders & extra storage space for EVs? I mean, I can see that being a really big market for people who want an EV for local use, but have the occasional need to drive long distances. I know they exist, but I've never once heard them mentioned with respect to the Model S or Leaf. Do any EV cars sold right now have charging jacks that could be used with a tow-behind generator? Seriously. Ive been curious why no one does this yet. I remember years ago seeing a guy making his own electric BMW and had built a generator trailer. Just seems like a good idea for extending range. You could put a small high efficiency turbo diesel or turbo gas motor back there, have it operate at most efficient RPM if it was sized right and still get pretty drat good MPG I feel like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
InterceptorV8 posted:Why isn't there at least a map of the route they took? Or how long it took? 60-65 cruise what's the normal speed limit in those areas? Christ, write a loving story of flashing titties or something, not that tee hee hee I made it and didn't die! You seem to have confused CNN with a news organization.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
grover posted:Is anyone marketing tow-behind generators as range extenders & extra storage space for EVs? I mean, I can see that being a really big market for people who want an EV for local use, but have the occasional need to drive long distances. I know they exist, but I've never once heard them mentioned with respect to the Model S or Leaf. Do any EV cars sold right now have charging jacks that could be used with a tow-behind generator? That's essentially what a hybrid does, only you carry it around all the time obviously. Sadi posted:Seriously. Ive been curious why no one does this yet. I remember years ago seeing a guy making his own electric BMW and had built a generator trailer. Just seems like a good idea for extending range. You could put a small high efficiency turbo diesel or turbo gas motor back there, have it operate at most efficient RPM if it was sized right and still get pretty drat good MPG I feel like. That is what the Volt does. I imagine once battery technology matures to a certain point more vehicles will be going all electric obviously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 20:23
|
|
