If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   NYT journalist gives his side of the Tesla S story. Jeremy Clarkson smiling, stroking cat   (wheels.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 239
    More: Followup, NYT, Model S, detour, New Jersey Turnpike, cats, journalists, Lincoln Tunnel, Elon Musk  
•       •       •

15386 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Feb 2013 at 12:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



239 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-14 11:19:41 AM  
I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?
 
2013-02-14 11:27:38 AM  
Also, I think the most damning thing about this test drive comes from Musk's blog:

"When he first reached our Milford, Connecticut Supercharger, having driven the car hard and after taking an unplanned detour through downtown Manhattan to give his brother a ride, the display said "0 miles remaining." Instead of plugging in the car, he drove in circles for over half a mile in a tiny, 100-space parking lot. When the Model S valiantly refused to die, he eventually plugged it in."
 
2013-02-14 11:34:39 AM  
This asshole should be fired.
 
2013-02-14 11:55:04 AM  
The problem with all of this is that apparently Broder didn't do the necessary homework before testing out the car in the first place, at least according to the folks over at Torque News:

Any halfway experienced electric car driver can spot several mistakes that Broder made, and we don't need the blog post promised by Elon Musk to diagnose the missteps along the way.  We're relying on a blog post by a fellow, Peter, who has taken long distance trips with his Model S, and wrote an open letter to John Broder pointing out his mistakes. Most of what Peter wrote is conventional wisdom for EV owners, some of it is specific to the Model S.The critical failures were not grabbing full recharges at the Supercharger stations, and then not grabbing a trickle charge during his overnight stay. The trip would have been a success had he done either or both.

Source:http://www.torquenews.com/1075/ny-times-writer-broder-makes-e v-rookie- mistakes-failed-model-s-road-trip
 
2013-02-14 12:19:15 PM  
Both have obvious reasons to lie. Screw it, I'm going to watch Harlem Shake videos.
 
2013-02-14 12:47:30 PM  
I support alternative fuel sources because I still want to hear the scream of a v12 or the burble of a supercharged v8 in 2070.
 
2013-02-14 12:51:23 PM  
''didn't do the necessary homework before testing out the car''

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked

/not really...
 
2013-02-14 12:51:24 PM  
Charge this.
 
2013-02-14 12:54:11 PM  
I can say from a great deal of personal experience that the NY Times is full of shiat and has absolutely no interest in publishing the truth.
 
2013-02-14 12:54:12 PM  
Jeremy Clarkson is an assbag.
 
2013-02-14 12:54:16 PM  
He obviously left the dome light on overnight.
 
2013-02-14 12:55:56 PM  

RexTalionis: Also, I think the most damning thing about this test drive comes from Musk's blog:

"When he first reached our Milford, Connecticut Supercharger, having driven the car hard and after taking an unplanned detour through downtown Manhattan to give his brother a ride, the display said "0 miles remaining." Instead of plugging in the car, he drove in circles for over half a mile in a tiny, 100-space parking lot. When the Model S valiantly refused to die, he eventually plugged it in."


I kind of figured that was just circling to get a spot - as most folks that live in big cities have to do.  The spots are always all full, and you gotta circle (with a bunch of other vultures) to get a spot when one opens.

It ain't like a mall in Nebraska where the parking lots are mostly empty all the time.

And I'm sure there were only 2 spots with chargers, that people with non-electric cars had taken.
 
2013-02-14 12:56:00 PM  

RexTalionis: I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?


I rather doubt he personally thought that, but if that's the advice Tesla reps are giving to customers then it's correct he should follow that advice -- because that's what Tesla's real customers would mostly do.
 
2013-02-14 12:56:31 PM  
RexTalionis: "I think the most damning thing about this test drive comes from Musk's blog: "

The blog post is full of "wtf" data.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive

Musk clearly sounds like he has the right of it: this guy had an preconceived conclusion and set out to create some evidence to justify it.
 
2013-02-14 12:56:47 PM  
 
2013-02-14 01:00:03 PM  

RexTalionis: Also, I think the most damning thing about this test drive comes from Musk's blog:

"When he first reached our Milford, Connecticut Supercharger, having driven the car hard and after taking an unplanned detour through downtown Manhattan to give his brother a ride, the display said "0 miles remaining." Instead of plugging in the car, he drove in circles for over half a mile in a tiny, 100-space parking lot. When the Model S valiantly refused to die, he eventually plugged it in."


Jalopnik actually had some coverage on this - depending on the path taken, that gas station was big enough that driving around it once looking for the electric charger could be about half a mile.  http://jalopnik.com/tesla-claims-model-s-driving-logs-show-nyt-report e r-wor-192254006

To me, the whole thing seems pointless.  I mean seriously, it's an electric car that can go 300 miles on a charge, which is what a normal car does on about one tank of gas.  How many trips do you take that require more than one tank of gas?  Either you want one or you don't, but trying to split hairs about cross country performance or some crap is just silly.
 
2013-02-14 01:01:14 PM  
gweilo8888: " if that's the advice Tesla reps are giving to customers  "

But does that sound remotely plausible?  A maker of electric cars saying "Adding stop-and-go traffic to your trip will *improve* your total range"?
The only person claiming they got that advice is the author whose story was just gutted by the actual trip data.
Are we really supposed to take him at his word on this?
 
2013-02-14 01:03:18 PM  

noitsnot: I kind of figured that was just circling to get a spot - as most folks that live in big cities have to do.  The spots are always all full, and you gotta circle (with a bunch of other vultures) to get a spot when one opens.

It ain't like a mall in Nebraska where the parking lots are mostly empty all the time.

And I'm sure there were only 2 spots with chargers, that people with non-electric cars had taken.


This. Take a look at Google maps and you will see that half a mile is precisely 3.5 times around the perimeter of the car park. That's not unrealistic for somebody who's looking for a parking space, and endeavoring not to block other vehicles while they do so.

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.24586,-73.009073&z=17

Frankly, the language in Musk's blog post makes me doubt his claims far more strongly than I doubt the journo's claims. Especially given that, per Musk's own admission, NYT has given very fair reviews to the vehicle in the past.
 
2013-02-14 01:03:45 PM  
The logs that Tesla released directly contradict statements made by the reporter. Cue NYT Reporter accusing Tesla of falsifying data...
 
2013-02-14 01:04:53 PM  

RexTalionis: I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?


In this house we respect the laws of thermodynamics!

i188.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-14 01:06:27 PM  
Follow the money trail.  Which big oil company is adding to the reviewer's income?
 
2013-02-14 01:06:49 PM  

ringersol: But does that sound remotely plausible?  A maker of electric cars saying "Adding stop-and-go traffic to your trip will *improve* your total range"?
The only person claiming they got that advice is the author whose story was just gutted by the actual trip data.
Are we really supposed to take him at his word on this?


Frankly, yes, it does. When was the last time you spoke to a call center and got a *knowledgeable* employee? And when was the last time the call center staff member had a salary that would let them drive a US$100,000 car, to give them any personal experience to counter their lousy intuition and guesswork as to how the product operates?

So yes, it sounds more than plausible. Most likely the support droid was asked a question that wasn't covered by the handbook that is the only "knowledge" they have of a vehicle they've probably never even seen in person, or they simply forgot the handbook answer, and either way incorrect info was fed out.
 
2013-02-14 01:08:10 PM  

ChuckNorrisSays: Jeremy Clarkson is an assbag.


Possibly, but he did punch Piers Morgan in the face, so he does have that going for him.
 
2013-02-14 01:09:09 PM  

MadCat: The logs that Tesla released directly contradict statements made by the reporter. Cue NYT Reporter accusing Tesla of falsifying data...


Does it? Because frankly, I see periods of speeds not terribly dissimilar to what the journo claimed. In fact, similar and consistent enough that if anything, I'd guess the speedo is off on the car, and the journo was exceeding the speed he believed himself to be driving due to a hopelessly inaccurate speedo. (In other words, a speedo like pretty much every car I've ever driven -- few have ever come within 5mph of accurate while driving at 55mph for me, showing readings anywhere from sub-50 to over-60.
 
2013-02-14 01:11:29 PM  
Unless the Tesla logs are falsified, this reporter will be posting his resume in a New York Minute.

Based on contradiction of direct statements in his article I'm going to say he started with a premise; The EV would under-perform and made sure that conditions of the test ensured it failed. No different than some bozo who decides to drive an additional 50 miles after the gas warning light has come on in a standard vehicle.
 
2013-02-14 01:11:40 PM  

MadCat: The logs that Tesla released directly contradict statements made by the reporter.


Is there any doubt that they would? Still doesn't prove who's lying here.
 
2013-02-14 01:12:46 PM  
Popcorn Johnny: " I'm going to watch Harlem Shake videos. "

So, yeah.
I thought "that sounds interesting. is that like twerk? I like twerk videos."
And then I youtube'd and ... i don't... with the ... the fark did I just watch?
 
2013-02-14 01:13:38 PM  

lilbjorn: Follow the money trail.  Which big oil company is adding to the reviewer's income?


Probably one that's part of the same energy conglomerate that makes all the plastics in the Tesla, and profits from power generation for the public grid too.
 
2013-02-14 01:13:54 PM  

RexTalionis: I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?


Journalists are not renowned for their knowledge of fields other than journalism.
 
2013-02-14 01:14:59 PM  
Just so we're clear, this is the same newspaper that had an Editor-in-Chief ask their readers if they should do investigative reporting or not.

At first I thought they were trying to get into the "opinion" business.  Turns out, they just don't know how investigative journalism works.
 
2013-02-14 01:15:56 PM  
www.teslamotors.com
 
2013-02-14 01:17:22 PM  
MOM, he broke the vase!

No i didn't, he did!

No, it wasn't me, it was him!

Nuh-uh, he did it!


I'm just sitting here watching the kids argue...
 
2013-02-14 01:17:47 PM  

RexTalionis: I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?


Slow speed driving uses less energy than high speed driving. Even with stop-and-go, I'd expect two miles in city traffic to use less energy than two miles at motorway speeds.
 
2013-02-14 01:19:12 PM  

orbister: RexTalionis: I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?

Slow speed driving uses less energy than high speed driving. Even with stop-and-go, I'd expect two miles in city traffic to use less energy than two miles at motorway speeds.


You know why your car's "city" mpg rating is almost always lower than your "highway" rating?
 
2013-02-14 01:19:23 PM  
Most Americans won't change their driving habits or maximize the potential of the technology just because they have a car that runs on some other power source. He could have acknowledged that he was playing the part of the average crappy driver, not paying attention and not doing the necessary research -- because no one does that anyway -- or even admit that he was trying to sabotage the car to see what would happen. And this is how he outed himself as a terrible journalist, because his article didn't use the creative non-fiction techniques that would have made it the true hit piece he so desperately wanted it to be.
 
2013-02-14 01:19:42 PM  

RexTalionis: I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?


He was all like "fark Issac Newton" and shiat.
 
2013-02-14 01:21:28 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: MadCat: The logs that Tesla released directly contradict statements made by the reporter.

Is there any doubt that they would? Still doesn't prove who's lying here.


Hard raw data, un-manipulated, shows the reporter statement is false...that does prove who made the lying statement.  You seem to be implying because Tesla produced the logs they're obviously covering the whole thing up or making up data because it shows the Reporter fibbed on many accounts.
 
2013-02-14 01:21:51 PM  
orbister: "Even with stop-and-go, I'd expect two miles in city traffic to use less energy than two miles at motorway speeds."

You might be surprised by reality then.  There's an advantage to slow speed, but stop-and-go kinda ruins it and the highway penalty only kicks in when you're traveling at speeds the author claimed he only 'very briefly' achieved.

Further, even if you expected that 2 miles in the city would be better than 2 miles on the highway, surely you'd recognize that trip_distance + 2 miles is going to require more energy than trip_distance, regardless of how efficient the vehicle is during those extra 2 miles.
 
2013-02-14 01:22:30 PM  

RexTalionis: orbister: RexTalionis: I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?

Slow speed driving uses less energy than high speed driving. Even with stop-and-go, I'd expect two miles in city traffic to use less energy than two miles at motorway speeds.

You know why your car's "city" mpg rating is almost always lower than your "highway" rating?


Because Obama?
 
2013-02-14 01:22:47 PM  

Man On A Mission: The problem with all of this is that apparently Broder didn't do the necessary homework before testing out the car in the first place, at least according to the folks over at Torque News:

Any halfway experienced electric car driver can spot several mistakes that Broder made, and we don't need the blog post promised by Elon Musk to diagnose the missteps along the way.  We're relying on a blog post by a fellow, Peter, who has taken long distance trips with his Model S, and wrote an open letter to John Broder pointing out his mistakes. Most of what Peter wrote is conventional wisdom for EV owners, some of it is specific to the Model S.The critical failures were not grabbing full recharges at the Supercharger stations, and then not grabbing a trickle charge during his overnight stay. The trip would have been a success had he done either or both.

Source:http://www.torquenews.com/1075/ny-times-writer-broder-makes-e v-rookie- mistakes-failed-model-s-road-trip


but. that wasn't the point of the trip, he was specifically invited to test Tesla's net work of "gas stations" no tthe car itself, and frankly, his is more realistic test unless we think these cars should only be driven by people with EE degrees.  Your car can go for about 20-30 mils after the gauge reaches E for a reason
 
2013-02-14 01:23:12 PM  
The NYT used to be a great newspaper, but lately it seems that every section has its own political agenda. Pathetic. I should say that every new tech has issues that get worked out. I seem to recall the NYT laying into the Honda FCX Clarity due to using Hydrogen fuel cells, and it being difficult to fill on the east coast, thereby making the handling and ride bad.

They also called the Alero a good used car buy a few years back. I own an Alero, and I'm sure it was invented and built by Satan.

At this point, if the NYT likes a car, I avoid it. And vice versa.
 
2013-02-14 01:23:52 PM  
Jeremy Clarkson is probably my favorite reality show person and I love everything he says and does on Top Gear.  Last time I bought a car I treated each test drive as if I were Jeremy Clarkson doing something on Top Gear.  There are many used car salesmen who hate me.
 
2013-02-14 01:25:00 PM  

kalor: Hard raw data, un-manipulated, shows the reporter statement is false...that does prove who made the lying statement.


So tell me, how do you know it's un-manipulated?
 
2013-02-14 01:25:45 PM  

kalor: Hard raw data, un-manipulated,



A screenshot of a graph made by open office said...
 
2013-02-14 01:25:47 PM  
Tesla is my personal "boner " car.... If I had a dick, it would give me a boner. douchey Mc doucherton journalist hath ulterior motives, me thinks.
 
2013-02-14 01:27:18 PM  
I skimmed through this thread but it appears no one has pointed out that this is Broder's response from two days ago, before the data was released.
 
2013-02-14 01:28:16 PM  
Magorn: " his is more realistic test  "

Yeah, people take road trips all the time where they don't top off their fuel tank.
I know the last time I took a road trip and coasted into the first gas station on fumes, I made sure I only got three-quarters of a tank before I started the next, longer, leg of my drive.
And when the car says I only have enough fuel to make it half-way to my destination, I go ahead and stop fueling and try to make it anyway.
And when the car is repeatedly warning me we're out of fuel, I routinely roll past fueling stations.

Because, ya know, that's just how "real people" drive.
Maybe engineers do better, but we can't all have fancy educations.
 
2013-02-14 01:28:19 PM  

RexTalionis: orbister: RexTalionis: I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?

Slow speed driving uses less energy than high speed driving. Even with stop-and-go, I'd expect two miles in city traffic to use less energy than two miles at motorway speeds.

You know why your car's "city" mpg rating is almost always lower than your "highway" rating?


Because gas powered cars don't recover energy by regenerative braking? Unlike electric cars like, say, the Tesla S?
 
2013-02-14 01:30:08 PM  

MadCat: The logs that Tesla released directly contradict statements made by the reporter. Cue NYT Reporter accusing Tesla of falsifying data...


Yeah, the logs pretty much sides with Tesla.
 
2013-02-14 01:32:42 PM  

ringersol: Because, ya know, that's just how "real people" drive.


It is.

horrifically enough, that's exactly how lots of people drive.
 
2013-02-14 01:33:33 PM  

gweilo8888: MadCat: The logs that Tesla released directly contradict statements made by the reporter. Cue NYT Reporter accusing Tesla of falsifying data...

Does it? Because frankly, I see periods of speeds not terribly dissimilar to what the journo claimed. In fact, similar and consistent enough that if anything, I'd guess the speedo is off on the car, and the journo was exceeding the speed he believed himself to be driving due to a hopelessly inaccurate speedo. (In other words, a speedo like pretty much every car I've ever driven -- few have ever come within 5mph of accurate while driving at 55mph for me, showing readings anywhere from sub-50 to over-60.


That would relevant and interesting if car speedometers didn't tend read higher then your actual speed, to keep liability in speeding as a relative non-issue. If we apply the 'innacurate speedo' claim here we would have to assume that the speedo showed him 65 when he was actually traveling 60 and he claimed 54.
 
2013-02-14 01:33:52 PM  

T.M.S.: I can say from a great deal of personal experience that the NY Times is full of shiat and has absolutely no interest in publishing the truth.


please, share
 
2013-02-14 01:34:36 PM  

RexTalionis: Also, I think the most damning thing about this test drive comes from Musk's blog:

"When he first reached our Milford, Connecticut Supercharger, having driven the car hard and after taking an unplanned detour through downtown Manhattan to give his brother a ride, the display said "0 miles remaining." Instead of plugging in the car, he drove in circles for over half a mile in a tiny, 100-space parking lot. When the Model S valiantly refused to die, he eventually plugged it in."


But by "driving in circles" what Elon meant was  "he drove 0.5 miles in 5 minutes around a parking lot searching for a charging port or a free spot."
 
2013-02-14 01:34:42 PM  
In the periods he said he used cruise control, the data seems to show him using cruise control.  The "lie" seems to be that the data just show it being about 5mph higher than the article, which seems well within expected variation.

The key thing from the data for me is the graph that shows displayed remaining charge miles vs. actual miles traveled.  It looks like the displayed rating was consistently 30% over the actual achieved miles. Which seems like the basic claim the author was making.  The big overnight charge loss is supported in this graph as well; which I guess means that a trickle charge is pretty much required.
 
2013-02-14 01:35:32 PM  
And why do the logs not show his battery charge below zero in milford either?
 
2013-02-14 01:35:37 PM  
These two should just get a room and fark already.
 
2013-02-14 01:36:51 PM  

gweilo8888: ringersol: But does that sound remotely plausible?  A maker of electric cars saying "Adding stop-and-go traffic to your trip will *improve* your total range"?
The only person claiming they got that advice is the author whose story was just gutted by the actual trip data.
Are we really supposed to take him at his word on this?

Frankly, yes, it does. When was the last time you spoke to a call center and got a *knowledgeable* employee? And when was the last time the call center staff member had a salary that would let them drive a US$100,000 car, to give them any personal experience to counter their lousy intuition and guesswork as to how the product operates?

So yes, it sounds more than plausible. Most likely the support droid was asked a question that wasn't covered by the handbook that is the only "knowledge" they have of a vehicle they've probably never even seen in person, or they simply forgot the handbook answer, and either way incorrect info was fed out.


You're both dumbasses. It's called "regenerative braking" an it's been around since the first hybrids and the idea is that a car in motion has some measurable inertia and to use the brakes as a capture device for that energy. I'm no physicist, and I have my doubts about the efficiency of such a thing given our current technology, but I have no doubt it's possible and even beneficial and can extend the range of an electric car by a couple miles, if not more. Here, why don't you go learn something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_brake
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-parts/brakes/brake-types/regenera ti ve-braking.htm
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/04/16/greenlings-what-is-regenerative -b raking-and-what-types-are-ther/

There's even a youtube video for the spectacularly ignorant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8jRAwIzPTM

Oh what the hell, here's more links:

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-regenerative-braking.htm
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybridanimation/fullhybrid/fullhybrid br aking.html

From Tesla themselves:

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/magic-tesla-roadster-regenerative-br ak ing

They even call it magic.  So yeah, you two are idiots.
 
2013-02-14 01:37:13 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: kalor: Hard raw data, un-manipulated, shows the reporter statement is false...that does prove who made the lying statement.

So tell me, how do you know it's un-manipulated?


Last I heard, Tesla was not gong to release the raw data.

Tesla also claims the car was never fully discharged. The flatbed driver disagrees:
http://jalopnik.com/towing-company-the-nyt-tesla-model-s-was-dead-wh en -it-196100064
 
2013-02-14 01:37:16 PM  

RexTalionis: [www.teslamotors.com image 616x464]


Interesting that the reporter's report is always 5mph less than the graph. Almost as if there's a systematic error.
 
2013-02-14 01:39:30 PM  
BTW, I own an EV, and it's terrible range-wise in cold weather. The charging is slower and much less efficient, so you don't get the range you were hoping for on a standard overnight charge.
 
2013-02-14 01:39:33 PM  
I believe that Top Gear is going to test the Tesla in next week's show.  I'll definitely be watching now.
 
2013-02-14 01:39:53 PM  

DaAlien: Tesla also claims the car was never fully discharged. The flatbed driver disagrees:
http://jalopnik.com/towing-company-the-nyt-tesla-model-s-was-dead-wh en -it-196100064


The plot thickens.
 
2013-02-14 01:40:42 PM  

RexTalionis: orbister: RexTalionis: I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?

Slow speed driving uses less energy than high speed driving. Even with stop-and-go, I'd expect two miles in city traffic to use less energy than two miles at motorway speeds.

You know why your car's "city" mpg rating is almost always lower than your "highway" rating?


If you're talking about a combustion engine car, yes. In a full electric, nope - city driving gives about 30% more range. In stop and go, or streetlight to streetlight traffic, a vast majority of the energy to move an electric car is road friction and the energy required to accelerate. As others have pointed out, electric cars also regain much of that energy when braking. In comparison, a combustion car has a lot of parasitic loss at lower speeds (cooling pumps, alternators, drive belts, etc), and far less combustion efficiency. As you get past ~30mph, wind resistance becomes stronger and stronger. That is what reduces range on electric cars.

Tesla's range vs. speed charts:
4.bp.blogspot.com

The EPA MPG of a 2013 Nissan Leaf
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
/if it's too small for you to read, 130 MPGe city/ 102 MPGe highway
 
2013-02-14 01:42:52 PM  

RexTalionis: I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?


Came for this essentially.

"She said to shut off the cruise control to take advantage of battery regeneration from occasional braking and slowing down. Based on that advice, I was under the impression that stop-and-go driving at low speeds in the city would help, not hurt, my mileage. "

Which confirms that people go into things like Journalism, theater, etc because they are utterly stupid and cannot survive in any other "profession" in the world.
 
2013-02-14 01:43:14 PM  

RexTalionis: Also, I think the most damning thing about this test drive comes from Musk's blog:

"When he first reached our Milford, Connecticut Supercharger, having driven the car hard and after taking an unplanned detour through downtown Manhattan to give his brother a ride, the display said "0 miles remaining." Instead of plugging in the car, he drove in circles for over half a mile in a tiny, 100-space parking lot. When the Model S valiantly refused to die, he eventually plugged it in."


No, the most damning part is that he got to the last recharge station and only charged it enough to get halfway to his final destination.  On what planet do you say, "I need to go 60 miles, 30 miles worth of fuel ought to get me there"?

The circles in the parking lot could have been him looking for a spot, the temperature and speedometer readings were off, but not by that much.  Not adding enough fuel to make it where you're going and then blaming the car is idiotic.
 
2013-02-14 01:43:16 PM  

RexTalionis: You know why your car's "city" mpg rating is almost always lower than your "highway" rating?


Because I don't have regenerative braking, and because I drive an internal combustion engine which, unlike an electric car, uses a non-negligible amount of energy even when stopped in traffic.
 
2013-02-14 01:44:25 PM  

Great Janitor: Jeremy Clarkson is probably my favorite reality show person and I love everything he says and does on Top Gear.  Last time I bought a car I treated each test drive as if I were Jeremy Clarkson doing something on Top Gear.  There are many used car salesmen who hate me.


There's no way I'd buy a car from someone who wouldn't let me drive it like I'm Jeremy Clarkson.  Is there something wrong with the it that they are trying to hide?  If there's not, it should do 0-60 pretty close to what its published time is.
 
2013-02-14 01:46:11 PM  
fluffy2097: "horrifically enough, that's exactly how lots of people drive. "

For the sake of argument, let's grant that numerous such people exist.  I get in trouble for under-estimating the stupidity of people often enough, so you may well be right about that.
But such people would never get anywhere in any car ever invented.  So what exactly would be the point of even doing the test at that point?
The inevitable result of driving that way is "out of fuel."  You don't have to leave your easy chair to write that review.  You don't even have to know what vehicle is being tested.
 
2013-02-14 01:46:23 PM  
Man On A Mission: (quoting someone else)  Any halfway experienced electric car driver can spot several mistakes that Broder made

This reinforces my suspicion that Tesla owners and iDevice owners are basically the same sort of people, responding to any criticism of their purchase with (a) you did it wrong and (b) you shouldn't want to do that anyway.
 
2013-02-14 01:46:55 PM  
The speeding, the driving around in circles, the putting the heat up, the detour even the not charging it overnight - no one cares, because that's pretty normal driving behaviour for your average person (even though the reporter wasn't truthful about those aspects).

No, the problem was he unplugged the vehicle when it said 32mi of charge left to go on a 62mi trip, driving for over 20mi on 'empty', past other recharge stations. That's a sign he wanted the car to fail, quite deliberately.
 
2013-02-14 01:47:06 PM  
This is an interesting one. The Journo may have either made mistakes or may have wildly fudged his account. All Tesla had to do was shrug, release his data and simply say, this car obviously "has a practical application in todays driving world with some caveats".

The debate would then be about the severity or insignificance of those caveats. It irritated me that other Tesla owners joined the fray frothing at the mouth berating what could well have been an ideal test; A layman without specialised foreknowledge of the product who would simulate real world scenarios.

Musk went into the hyperbole like a teenage girl claiming a teacher attempted predatory antics after an inadvertent hug when winning a championship game. Take his Milford Supercharger rebuttal for instance.

Furthermore, having worked in an industry that primarily revolved against remote sensing, telemetry etc. and the wild data quality variations that occur without proper vetting, this whole flap has me curious about Teslas data chain from source.

Has anyone seriously vetted Tesla's telemetry setup? Protesting too hard against the NYT journo could easily open a discussion in that direction.

I liked Jalopniks coverage on the whole thing.
 
2013-02-14 01:48:32 PM  

noitsnot: I kind of figured that was just circling to get a spot - as most folks that live in big cities have to do.  The spots are always all full, and you gotta circle (with a bunch of other vultures) to get a spot when one opens.


Then why wouldn't the article author admit to doing that instead of blatantly lying and saying he wasn't even in a parking lot?
 
2013-02-14 01:49:17 PM  

DaAlien: Tesla also claims the car was never fully discharged.


It may never have been fully discharged. The Roadster shuts down completely at 5 or 10% charge to avoid battery damage. Anyone know if the Model S shows charge or usable charge remaining?
 
2013-02-14 01:51:27 PM  

gweilo8888: MadCat: The logs that Tesla released directly contradict statements made by the reporter. Cue NYT Reporter accusing Tesla of falsifying data...

Does it? Because frankly, I see periods of speeds not terribly dissimilar to what the journo claimed. In fact, similar and consistent enough that if anything, I'd guess the speedo is off on the car, and the journo was exceeding the speed he believed himself to be driving due to a hopelessly inaccurate speedo. (In other words, a speedo like pretty much every car I've ever driven -- few have ever come within 5mph of accurate while driving at 55mph for me, showing readings anywhere from sub-50 to over-60.


So you are saying the logs and the speed indicated on the speedometer are from different sources of data?  If the car's computer was capable of knowing and logging the actual speed why wouldn't that same data stream go to the speedometer as well?

While your point of speedometers often not indicating actual speed is probably correct, your conclusion is incongruous with the facts as we know them.
 
2013-02-14 01:51:29 PM  
Broder is just digging his hole deeper.  But there's no one to take his shovel away.
 
2013-02-14 01:53:58 PM  

themanuf: So you are saying the logs and the speed indicated on the speedometer are from different sources of data?


It's theoretically possible that the logs are based off the GPS data, rather than the speedometer data.
 
2013-02-14 01:54:22 PM  

themanuf: So you are saying the logs and the speed indicated on the speedometer are from different sources of data? If the car's computer was capable of knowing and logging the actual speed why wouldn't that same data stream go to the speedometer as well?


Because data logging is done via GPS tracking whereas speedometer readings are based off rotations of the wheels, which is something that varies depending on the diameter of the wheels you have.

/Has a GPS in his car
//Dash speedo is not connected to GPS speedo.
 
2013-02-14 01:57:55 PM  

fluffy2097: themanuf: So you are saying the logs and the speed indicated on the speedometer are from different sources of data? If the car's computer was capable of knowing and logging the actual speed why wouldn't that same data stream go to the speedometer as well?

Because data logging is can be done via GPS tracking whereas speedometer readings are based off rotations of the wheels, which is something that varies depending on the diameter of the wheels you have.


FTFY. We have no way of knowing whether the data logging was GPS data or speedometer data or both. Since it's a digital speedometer, the log could theoretically capture it.
Additionally, while you're correct about the speedometer readings being based of wheel rotation and size, one would expect a car on loan from the manufacturer would have the correct size wheels for its configuration data.
 
2013-02-14 01:58:00 PM  
Why on earth is the NYT still letting him publish under their name?  This asshole is an obvious shill who lacks any kind of journalistic integrity.  Fire his ass, NYT.  There are literally tens of thousands of unemployed journalism majors who would happily do a much better job than he ever could.
 
2013-02-14 01:58:02 PM  

Asterix: This is an interesting one. The Journo may have either made mistakes or may have wildly fudged his account. All Tesla had to do was shrug, release his data and simply say, this car obviously "has a practical application in todays driving world with some caveats".

The debate would then be about the severity or insignificance of those caveats. It irritated me that other Tesla owners joined the fray frothing at the mouth berating what could well have been an ideal test; A layman without specialised foreknowledge of the product who would simulate real world scenarios.

Musk went into the hyperbole like a teenage girl claiming a teacher attempted predatory antics after an inadvertent hug when winning a championship game. Take his Milford Supercharger rebuttal for instance.

Furthermore, having worked in an industry that primarily revolved against remote sensing, telemetry etc. and the wild data quality variations that occur without proper vetting, this whole flap has me curious about Teslas data chain from source.

Has anyone seriously vetted Tesla's telemetry setup? Protesting too hard against the NYT journo could easily open a discussion in that direction.

I liked Jalopniks coverage on the whole thing.



I would think the telemetry is a bit more accurate than "well, I'm pretty sure I never drove over 60".  Humans are god awful at estimating what they were doing with precision.
 
2013-02-14 01:59:00 PM  
I once ran out of gas, after I left my house with a gallon of gas in the tank, and tried to drive across the state.  How could this have happened to me?!
 
2013-02-14 01:59:58 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Why on earth is the NYT still letting him publish under their name?  This asshole is an obvious shill who lacks any kind of journalistic integrity.  Fire his ass, NYT.  There are literally tens of thousands of unemployed journalism majors who would happily do a much better job than he ever could.


(i) Because libel laws are  heavily slanted towards protecting the media.
(ii) Because if Musk can't actually prove that the shill lied, the NYT could argue that his credibility is increased and it's Tesla's that is diminished.
 
2013-02-14 02:00:57 PM  

Desquamation: Tesla has released their logs:

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive


That's why this Broder idiot needs to stop fighting his false reporting.  He needs to own up to his lies, or slink away quietly.  He can't win.  Tesla has farking computer data that tells them exactly what the car was doing for the whole test drive.
 
2013-02-14 02:02:16 PM  

Theaetetus: themanuf: So you are saying the logs and the speed indicated on the speedometer are from different sources of data?

It's theoretically possible that the logs are based off the GPS data, rather than the speedometer data.



Given the length of the drive, the GPS data should be quite accurate.  My GPS speed is always within 1 mph of my speedometer's.  Nowadays a lot of media and enthusiasts do their road performance timing using GPS devices.

When out in the open, a modern GPS with views of several satellites is extremely accurate.
 
2013-02-14 02:02:33 PM  

Theaetetus: one would expect a car on loan from the manufacturer would have the correct size wheels for its configuration data.


I expect it to be within 5mph +/-

The data discrepancy shows about 7-10 mph, but you've got that +/- 5mph on both tracking devices (Remember, civilian GPS is only accurate to a few meters we don't get milspec 2" accurate GPS).

methinks Elon doth protest to much.
 
2013-02-14 02:02:48 PM  

Theaetetus: (ii) Because if Musk can't actually prove that the shill lied, the NYT could argue that his credibility is increased and it's Tesla's that is diminished.


Did you read the Tesla blog post?  Assuming they didn't straight up fabricate all that raw data, it's pretty easy to draw a conclusion.  I don't think any judge or jury is going to take the word of a known shill with an axe to grind (and outside, non-neutral employers) over empirical computer data.
 
2013-02-14 02:03:02 PM  

Brother_Mouzone: I skimmed through this thread but it appears no one has pointed out that this is Broder's response from two days ago, before the data was released.


Came here to say this.  NYT "journalist" has thusfar failed to address the actual data released.
 
2013-02-14 02:03:39 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: Nowadays a lot of media and enthusiasts do their road performance timing using GPS devices.


Thats because GPS signals are signals sent from an atomic clock. They're using timecodes not the location data.
 
2013-02-14 02:03:41 PM  

fluffy2097: themanuf: So you are saying the logs and the speed indicated on the speedometer are from different sources of data? If the car's computer was capable of knowing and logging the actual speed why wouldn't that same data stream go to the speedometer as well?

Because data logging is done via GPS tracking whereas speedometer readings are based off rotations of the wheels, which is something that varies depending on the diameter of the wheels you have.

/Has a GPS in his car
//Dash speedo is not connected to GPS speedo.


I find it very hard to believe that the speed data in that chart is based of gps data.  My reasoning:

GPS will give you a location at any given moment.  You would have to be polling gps data at an insane rate and with very high accuracy to generate that chart.  Also, you would need to account for the time domain if you are going to calculate speed based on location/time data.  Correcting for the moments when the car wasn't moving would be difficult and annoying.
 
2013-02-14 02:03:55 PM  
Atreyou40: " I'm no physicist, "

That's an understatement.
Yes, I know what regenerative braking is.  You, unfortunately, do not.  You may think you do, but you don't.
The energy reclaimed from a stop is never, ever greater than the energy taken to move the car to get to that point.  It can not be, no matter what tech is invented, because of the second law of thermodynamics. (And before you farkers start: yes, if you were rolling down a hill *a given stop* might regenerate more energy, you pedant bastards. But it took you more energy than the 'extra' reclaimed energy to get up the damn hill in the first place. So unless you're on a one-way trip from Boulder to the damn sea, elevation is a wash, at best.)

So, yes, electric cars do better than ICE cars in traffic, because they don't waste energy when stopped.
And, yes, cars with regenerative braking do better in traffic than cars without, because they recoup some of the energy that would have been lost.

But that doesn't mean that an electric car with regenerative brakes in traffic is more efficient than an electric car with regenerative brakes, driven at 45-52 mph on the highway, as the author claimed he was doing.

And taking a 60 highway mile trip, and turning it into 60 highway miles + 2 city miles, is never, ever going to result in less energy needed for the whole trip. Even if the 2 city miles magically took 0 energy, it would simply be a wash.  And zero energy is, again, impossible unless your trip involves slowly rolling into the sea.  And we could only *be* so lucky, were that the case.
 
2013-02-14 02:05:10 PM  

gweilo8888: MadCat: The logs that Tesla released directly contradict statements made by the reporter. Cue NYT Reporter accusing Tesla of falsifying data...

Does it? Because frankly, I see periods of speeds not terribly dissimilar to what the journo claimed. In fact, similar and consistent enough that if anything, I'd guess the speedo is off on the car, and the journo was exceeding the speed he believed himself to be driving due to a hopelessly inaccurate speedo. (In other words, a speedo like pretty much every car I've ever driven -- few have ever come within 5mph of accurate while driving at 55mph for me, showing readings anywhere from sub-50 to over-60.


You need to get better cars. Seriously, you really need to buy better cars. I've owned 11 cars over the course of my life, ranging from a used 86 Cutlas to a new BMW, and never has the speedometer been off by more than 2mph when compared to radar results. The speedometer is usually dead on, which always surprises me.

Changing out wheel and tire sizes can have an effect on your speedometer reading, but I'm guessing a stock from the factory test car will have a speedometer off by more than 1mph.
 
2013-02-14 02:06:40 PM  

themanuf: GPS will give you a location at any given moment. You would have to be polling gps data at an insane rate and with very high accuracy to generate that chart. Also, you would need to account for the time domain if you are going to calculate speed based on location/time data. Correcting for the moments when the car wasn't moving would be difficult and annoying.


I  imagine that they probably polled it every 5 seconds or so. 2 days and 600 miles makes a 5 second polling time pretty reasonable, and even storing engine parameters, you're not going to generate more then a few GB of logfiles.
 
2013-02-14 02:09:08 PM  

ukexpat: ChuckNorrisSays: Jeremy Clarkson is an assbag.

Possibly, but he did punch Piers Morgan in the face, so he does have that going for him.


And poured water on his head.

I'll side with Clarkson. He's a dick, but charming and funny.
 
2013-02-14 02:09:59 PM  

Source4leko: Great Janitor: Jeremy Clarkson is probably my favorite reality show person and I love everything he says and does on Top Gear.  Last time I bought a car I treated each test drive as if I were Jeremy Clarkson doing something on Top Gear.  There are many used car salesmen who hate me.

There's no way I'd buy a car from someone who wouldn't let me drive it like I'm Jeremy Clarkson.  Is there something wrong with the it that they are trying to hide?  If there's not, it should do 0-60 pretty close to what its published time is.


That is exactly how I test drive too.  I was out test driving a Mazda 6 that was a good deal, not a bad car either.  I floored it going uphill to see what the pickup was like.  The automatic transmission froze when we hit 45 or so trying to shift, and it felt like getting punched in the lower back.

To his credit the salesman was pretty pissed out it too (probably since it injured his back), and when we got back to the dealership, we found out it had a lot of transmission issues when it was traded in.
 
2013-02-14 02:14:01 PM  

themanuf: So you are saying the logs and the speed indicated on the speedometer are from different sources of data?  If the car's computer was capable of knowing and logging the actual speed why wouldn't that same data stream go to the speedometer as well?


Perhaps they log GPS speed but display tyre speed?
 
2013-02-14 02:14:45 PM  

fluffy2097: I imagine that they probably polled it every 5 seconds or so. 2 days and 600 miles makes a 5 second polling time pretty reasonable, and even storing engine parameters, you're not going to generate more then a few GB of logfiles.


According to someone who broke down the data stream from the logging system on the roadster:

"Data while driving is saved once per second, minute and 10 minutes. Data from charging is once per minute as well as other unknown entries. " Link

So, yeah, datalogging every second doesn't point towards a GPS speed system
 
2013-02-14 02:15:25 PM  

Theaetetus: (ii) Because if Musk can't actually prove that the shill lied, the NYT could argue that his credibility is increased and it's Tesla's that is diminished.


The Streisand Top Gear effect at work.
 
2013-02-14 02:16:26 PM  
Yes there are some consistencies with the data and the reporter's account that could be explained by improperly calibrated gauges or telemetry. That's not the point. The one damning error the reporter made was putting in half as much juice as required for the subsequent leg of his trip after nearly running out of juice on prior legs. Expecting a car running on any energy source to be able to go 60+ miles on 31 miles worth of energy is insanity.

The reporter needs to admit that he made a mistake, only then can he defend the rest of his review.
 
2013-02-14 02:17:40 PM  

Famous Thamas: The automatic transmission


Well there's your problem...

/might as well start that fight in this thread too
 
2013-02-14 02:19:10 PM  

MadCat: Yes there are some consistencies with the data and the reporter's account that could be explained by improperly calibrated gauges or telemetry. That's not the point. The one damning error the reporter made was putting in half as much juice as required for the subsequent leg of his trip after nearly running out of juice on prior legs. Expecting a car running on any energy source to be able to go 60+ miles on 31 miles worth of energy is insanity.

The reporter needs to admit that he made a mistake, only then can he defend the rest of his review.


Before I set out from my home in suburban Washington, I informed Tesla that I intended to make a brief stop in New York and that I would spend the night in the vicinity of Milford rather than trying to make it to Boston, which was theoretically possible with a full charge at Milford, although it was a bitterly cold night - and that clearly affects the car's range. I added 185 miles of range at Milford, knowing that I wouldn't need 242 or 265 miles before recharging the next morning.
When I parked the car for the night at a hotel, the range meter showed 90 miles remaining, and I was about 45 miles from the Milford Supercharger. As I recounted in the article, when I awoke the next morning the indicated range was 25 miles.


/since you can't read the article
 
2013-02-14 02:21:11 PM  

DaAlien: Tesla also claims the car was never fully discharged. The flatbed driver disagrees:
http://jalopnik.com/towing-company-the-nyt-tesla-model-s-was-dead-wh en -it-196100064


iirc, the battery bricks if it fully discharges (and coincidentally isn't covered by insurance or warranty), so:

i.qkme.me
 
2013-02-14 02:21:30 PM  

themanuf: GPS will give you a location at any given moment.  You would have to be polling gps data at an insane rate and with very high accuracy to generate that chart.  Also, you would need to account for the time domain if you are going to calculate speed based on location/time data.  Correcting for the moments when the car wasn't moving would be difficult and annoying.


GPS also gives you speed information based on Doppler shift measurements of the signals received. No GPS sets do distance/time for speed. Apologies if you knew this.
 
2013-02-14 02:21:39 PM  
I lost all sympathy for the NYT reporter when his 2 mile detour was through downtown Manhatten. Yes, it's 2 miles. I've burned a quarter tank of gas doing 2 miles like that.
 
2013-02-14 02:22:53 PM  

Source4leko: Great Janitor: Jeremy Clarkson is probably my favorite reality show person and I love everything he says and does on Top Gear.  Last time I bought a car I treated each test drive as if I were Jeremy Clarkson doing something on Top Gear.  There are many used car salesmen who hate me.

There's no way I'd buy a car from someone who wouldn't let me drive it like I'm Jeremy Clarkson.  Is there something wrong with the it that they are trying to hide?  If there's not, it should do 0-60 pretty close to what its published time is.


If the engine (internal combustion) has <500-1500 miles on it, you better not drive like Jeremy Clarkson, else you just farked up someone else's new ride.  Cars have break-in periods.
 
2013-02-14 02:24:21 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: I lost all sympathy for the NYT reporter when his 2 mile detour was through downtown Manhatten. Yes, it's 2 miles. I've burned a quarter tank of gas doing 2 miles like that.


Did you forget the point where he told Tesla about the stop in NYC before leaving with the car?

Because that's an important point if you're going to lose all sympathy for him for doing it, when he was told he was able to.

It's also important to remember that he went to bed with 90 miles in his battery and woke up with 25 miles left?

Do you expect gasoline to leave your tank because it's a cold night?
 
2013-02-14 02:24:56 PM  

MadCat: Yes there are some consistencies with the data and the reporter's account that could be explained by improperly calibrated gauges or telemetry. That's not the point. The one damning error the reporter made was putting in half as much juice as required for the subsequent leg of his trip after nearly running out of juice on prior legs. Expecting a car running on any energy source to be able to go 60+ miles on 31 miles worth of energy is insanity.

The reporter needs to admit that he made a mistake, only then can he defend the rest of his review.


The thing is that the car crapping out was the main part of his review. It was the title, the lead in and the climax of the article. He can't go and say 'well, ok, the having to get towed bit was fully my fault for not filling up the tank at all and then passing charging stations while on empty, but the rest is all good', because most of the rest was leading into that part. There would be no defence of the rest of it at that point.

This is not going to go well for Broder however he swings it at this point, so he might as well stick to his guns and hope the NYT sticks by him.
 
2013-02-14 02:25:14 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: I lost all sympathy for the NYT reporter when his 2 mile detour was through downtown Manhatten. Yes, it's 2 miles. I've burned a quarter tank of gas doing 2 miles like that.


As has been pointed out, though, electric cars don't really care about stop-start driving in the way ic cars do.

Anyway, the reporter says he made a prearranged detour through Manhattan. Musk complains that the reporter made a detour through Manhattan. Big deal.
 
2013-02-14 02:28:11 PM  

fluffy2097: MadCat: Yes there are some consistencies with the data and the reporter's account that could be explained by improperly calibrated gauges or telemetry. That's not the point. The one damning error the reporter made was putting in half as much juice as required for the subsequent leg of his trip after nearly running out of juice on prior legs. Expecting a car running on any energy source to be able to go 60+ miles on 31 miles worth of energy is insanity.

The reporter needs to admit that he made a mistake, only then can he defend the rest of his review.

Before I set out from my home in suburban Washington, I informed Tesla that I intended to make a brief stop in New York and that I would spend the night in the vicinity of Milford rather than trying to make it to Boston, which was theoretically possible with a full charge at Milford, although it was a bitterly cold night - and that clearly affects the car's range. I added 185 miles of range at Milford, knowing that I wouldn't need 242 or 265 miles before recharging the next morning.
When I parked the car for the night at a hotel, the range meter showed 90 miles remaining, and I was about 45 miles from the Milford Supercharger. As I recounted in the article, when I awoke the next morning the indicated range was 25 miles.

/since you can't read the article


So nice of you to assume that's the situation I was referring to. It was actually the final charge at the Norwich station.  I did misremember the data point however, it was 35 miles of energy instead of 31.

/Reading comprehension wasn't your strong point was it?
 
2013-02-14 02:30:17 PM  

fluffy2097: Theaetetus: one would expect a car on loan from the manufacturer would have the correct size wheels for its configuration data.

I expect it to be within 5mph +/-


Since I believe Tesla complies with Federal law, I expect it to be within 2.5% +/-. So, 5mph off, if you're doing 100 mph. Not if you're at 45.

The data discrepancy shows about 7-10 mph, but you've got that +/- 5mph on both tracking devices (Remember, civilian GPS is only accurate to a few meters we don't get milspec 2" accurate GPS).

For instantaneous position, you're correct. However, you can assume that the car is not teleporting from a standstill every 3 meters, so, after averaging multiple position readings over time, the GPS-based average speed should be very, very accurate.
 
2013-02-14 02:34:31 PM  

orbister: RexTalionis: I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?

Slow speed driving uses less energy than high speed driving. Even with stop-and-go, I'd expect two miles in city traffic to use less energy than two miles at motorway speeds.


False. Acceleration uses energy. Maintaining a speed requires far less energy than constantly accelerating and decelerating.
 
2013-02-14 02:35:08 PM  

orbister: RexTalionis: I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?

Slow speed driving uses less energy than high speed driving. Even with stop-and-go, I'd expect two miles in city traffic to use less energy than two miles at motorway speeds.


Goddamn you're stupid.
 
2013-02-14 02:36:09 PM  

Theaetetus: fluffy2097: Theaetetus: one would expect a car on loan from the manufacturer would have the correct size wheels for its configuration data.

I expect it to be within 5mph +/-

Since I believe Tesla complies with Federal law, I expect it to be within 2.5% +/-. So, 5mph off, if you're doing 100 mph. Not if you're at 45.


Er, 200, obviously.
 
2013-02-14 02:37:29 PM  

Theaetetus: For instantaneous position, you're correct. However, you can assume that the car is not teleporting from a standstill every 3 meters, so, after averaging multiple position readings over time, the GPS-based average speed should be very, very accurate.


No, they should be precise.

Accurate is entirely different.

/you're still 3 meters off when you're off consistently by 3 meters.
 
2013-02-14 02:37:54 PM  

JMan245: MOM, he broke the vase!

No i didn't, he did!

No, it wasn't me, it was him!

Nuh-uh, he did it!


I'm just sitting here watching the kids argue...


...and parents like you are why we can't have nice things.
 
2013-02-14 02:39:05 PM  

Atreyou40: They even call it magic.  So yeah, you two are idiots.


Entropy, how does it work?
 
2013-02-14 02:39:22 PM  
TheDirtyNacho:
I would think the telemetry is a bit more accurate than "well, I'm pretty sure I never drove over 60".  Humans are god awful at estimating what they were doing with precision.

While I agree with you, sensors can also have huge accuracy variation in the real world too. Look at fuel mileage range estimations for instance. Hills, Temps etc. can affect displayed readings.
I have seen crazy things that I would never have believed until I was there to eyeball for myself.

Also, about the integrity of the Data musk provided. Is he a fella genuinely pissed precisely because his data proves he is a victim of Yellow Journalism, or did the Journo inadvertently expose shiat that prompted him to start some misconceived crusade to protect his brand?

Some of the contradictions of the narrative had me wondering.
 
2013-02-14 02:40:14 PM  

fluffy2097: It's also important to remember that he went to bed with 90 miles in his battery and woke up with 25 miles left?

Do you expect gasoline to leave your tank because it's a cold night?


www.teslamotors.com www.teslamotors.com
Does it look to anyone else that he set the cabin temp to max for a while at mile 400, right when his range dropped?

I wonder if, when "he went to bed," he bothered turning the car off.
 
2013-02-14 02:41:29 PM  

fluffy2097: Theaetetus: For instantaneous position, you're correct. However, you can assume that the car is not teleporting from a standstill every 3 meters, so, after averaging multiple position readings over time, the GPS-based average speed should be very, very accurate.

No, they should be precise.

Accurate is entirely different.

/you're still 3 meters off when you're off consistently by 3 meters.


If I'm "consistently off by 3 meters" in my distance measurement, then my speed is  perfectly accurate. Remember, dx/dt of a constant is 0.
 
2013-02-14 02:45:26 PM  

fluffy2097: Before I set out from my home in suburban Washington, I informed Tesla that I intended to make a brief stop in New York and that I would spend the night in the vicinity of Milford rather than trying to make it to Boston, which was theoretically possible with a full charge at Milford, although it was a bitterly cold night - and that clearly affects the car's range. I added 185 miles of range at Milford, knowing that I wouldn't need 242 or 265 miles before recharging the next morning.When I parked the car for the night at a hotel, the range meter showed 90 miles remaining, and I was about 45 miles from the Milford Supercharger. As I recounted in the article, when I awoke the next morning the indicated range was 25 miles.

/since you can't read the article


Yep, that's what he said - but not what he did.
www.teslamotors.com

He recharged only to 72% at Millford. Almost immediately after giving it a 3/4's charge, he did an 80+ mph stint in the car, and kept about 65mph for the next 60 miles (even when you factor in a 5mph error in the speedo). He then parked overnight, without plugging in the car. When he woke up, he sat in the car and ran the heater for 30 minutes (which you can see the large decline in battery power @ 400 miles).

If you look at the range after the brief Norwich charge, he had some 28% of battery charge left, and according to the author, he only needed to go 45 miles. If you look at the point of the Norwich charge and when the car was effectively empty, it suspiciously looks like he traveled at least 50 miles.

It's pretty easy to see that if he had done any of these actions, the review would be far different:
-Had the reviewer charged the car for 10 more minutes at the Millford super charger (let alone fully charge it), he would have made it
-Had the reviewer trickle charged while he was sleeping at the hotel, he would have made it.
-Had the reviewer charged for 20 more minutes more at Norwich, he would have made it.
-Had the reviewer not done illegal speeds on the interstate and kept to the speed limit, he would have made it.
 
2013-02-14 02:46:56 PM  

ChuckNorrisSays: Jeremy Clarkson is an assbag.


He punched Piers Morgan in the face. I really don't care whatever he says or does after that, he's elevated to sainthood. As it happens, however, he has continued to annoy all the right people.
 
2013-02-14 02:47:30 PM  

Theaetetus: Does it look to anyone else that he set the cabin temp to max for a while at mile 400, right when his range dropped?

I wonder if, when "he went to bed," he bothered turning the car off.


The car does not turn off. It runs heaters to keep the battery from freezing.

If those heaters can heat the cabin to 74 degrees, I don't know. You'd think Elon would be screaming about that though if it were true, given the loud mouth little brat he is with his logs and irrefutable data made by Open Office.

I believe what that shows is the fundamental problem with electric cars in cold climates. They leech their power directly into the air in cold weather, even when not moving.
 
2013-02-14 02:47:56 PM  

Theaetetus: fluffy2097: It's also important to remember that he went to bed with 90 miles in his battery and woke up with 25 miles left?

Do you expect gasoline to leave your tank because it's a cold night?

 
Does it look to anyone else that he set the cabin temp to max for a while at mile 400, right when his range dropped?

I wonder if, when "he went to bed," he bothered turning the car off.


Most likely just turned it on high in the morning to warm up the cabin, which would explain the spike. Still, it's the not filling up at Norwich which is the stupid part.
 
2013-02-14 02:49:56 PM  

maddermaxx: Most likely just turned it on high in the morning to warm up the cabin, which would explain the spike.


God. What an asshole. What kind of reviewer would do something like use heat in an electric Vehicle in the winter?
 
2013-02-14 02:50:02 PM  

ukexpat: ChuckNorrisSays: Jeremy Clarkson is an assbag.umad

Possibly, but he did punch Piers Morgan in the face, so he does have that going for him.

is this true?

he's even more awesome than i previously thought

even robert smith of the cure agrees
www.ridelust.com
 
2013-02-14 02:50:20 PM  

Theaetetus: Does it look to anyone else that he set the cabin temp to max for a while at mile 400, right when his range dropped?

I wonder if, when "he went to bed," he bothered turning the car off.


Remember, that isn't a charge of charge vs. time - it's a chart of charge vs. distance. Since he was sitting in a parking lot for quite some time, not moving, while running the heat full blast, you'd see a huge drop at one particular moment on the graph. Looks like he drained about 10% of the battery doing this.
 
2013-02-14 02:51:11 PM  

Theaetetus: fluffy2097: It's also important to remember that he went to bed with 90 miles in his battery and woke up with 25 miles left?

Do you expect gasoline to leave your tank because it's a cold night?

[www.teslamotors.com image 619x460] [www.teslamotors.com image 626x465]
Does it look to anyone else that he set the cabin temp to max for a while at mile 400, right when his range dropped?

I wonder if, when "he went to bed," he bothered turning the car off.


Not sure. Something caused the battery to lose charge, there's no question about that. Whether it was reporter error or environmentally related doesn't really matter. The issue is that the reporter did not take steps to remedy the problem after it occurred and then blamed the manufacturer. It's the equivalent of having all the gasoline siphoned out of your tank while you slept, replacing a gallon of it, then trying to drive 60 miles on that gallon. If this had been a regular car his friends and co-workers would have rightly slapped him upside the head and called him an idiot.
 
2013-02-14 02:53:00 PM  

MrSteve007: Yep, that's what he said - but not what he did.


You need new glasses. The logs and he both say he had 185 miles at Norwich
 
2013-02-14 02:55:45 PM  

JMan245: I'm just sitting here watching the kids argue...


Mom always said don't drive electric cars in the house.
 
2013-02-14 02:56:01 PM  

fluffy2097: maddermaxx: Most likely just turned it on high in the morning to warm up the cabin, which would explain the spike.

God. What an asshole. What kind of reviewer would do something like use heat in an electric Vehicle in the winter?


No offence, but you sound like an asshole when you attack a strawman like that, because no one called him an asshole for warming up the car.

Wait a sec, scratch the first two words, that offence was pretty deliberate.
 
2013-02-14 02:56:04 PM  
www.teslamotors.com

What asshole drives around in a parking lot with an area of 3.5 miles for 5 whole minutes and goes 0.6 whole miles to find a spot?

/oh, anyone who's ever been in a full parking lot.
//Seriously Elon? You want me to believe this sort of shiat is abuse?
 
2013-02-14 02:58:09 PM  

fluffy2097: MrSteve007: Yep, that's what he said - but not what he did.

You need new glasses. The logs and he both say he had 185 miles at Norwich


No, they both say he had 185 miles at Milford Supercharge #1. He had 35 miles when he left Norwich.

/Perhaps you should lay off the insults a bit?
 
2013-02-14 03:01:24 PM  

MadCat: No, they both say he had 185 miles at Milford Supercharge #1. He had 35 miles when he left Norwich.

/Perhaps you should lay off the insults a bit?


So you think its fine that he went from 90 miles to 25 overnight and was FORCED to stop at Norwich to limp to the superchargers that he was supposed to be testing? That's not a problem with the car at all could it be?
 
2013-02-14 03:05:00 PM  

IlGreven: JMan245: MOM, he broke the vase!

No i didn't, he did!

No, it wasn't me, it was him!

Nuh-uh, he did it!


I'm just sitting here watching the kids argue...

...and parents like you are why we can't have nice things.


if you only knew that i'm not a parent...
 
2013-02-14 03:05:38 PM  
Oh I fully agree it's a problem. The reporter should have reported on THAT problem. Instead he failed to take steps to replace the lost range and failed to disclose or acknowledge that he caused the car to run out of power. The article should have been about how he had to spend extra time at Norwich to replace overnight power loss, not about how he had to be towed back to a charge station.
 
2013-02-14 03:07:18 PM  
'Critiquing' is not a verb, 'criticizing' however, is.
 
2013-02-14 03:09:24 PM  

MadCat: Oh I fully agree it's a problem. The reporter should have reported on THAT problem. Instead he failed to take steps to replace the lost range and failed to disclose or acknowledge that he caused the car to run out of power. The article should have been about how he had to spend extra time at Norwich to replace overnight power loss, not about how he had to be towed back to a charge station.


The article was about the super charging system along the east coast and how it was supposed to allow a Tesla S to go on road trip just like you would with a gas powered car.

The supercharging stations did not do this. They caused him to run out of power because they were not close enough together (Something Elon Himself believes) and because the batteries are clearly severely discharged by cold weather.

/Teslas seem to run into a lot of "software glitches" that "cause lost battery capacity"
 
2013-02-14 03:09:36 PM  

fluffy2097: MadCat: No, they both say he had 185 miles at Milford Supercharge #1. He had 35 miles when he left Norwich.

/Perhaps you should lay off the insults a bit?

So you think its fine that he went from 90 miles to 25 overnight and was FORCED to stop at Norwich to limp to the superchargers that he was supposed to be testing? That's not a problem with the car at all could it be?


Then he should have just wrote that and been done with it. as it is, it's pretty deliberately driving the car to fail to leave without enough power to make your next stop. He could have charged it for a bit longer there, or a bit longer at the previous super-charger, or stopped off at another charger further along... But he didn't. He drove it until it died, to get a picture of it getting towed. His article was definitely lying in places, but if he stuck to the truth, and just griped at having to wait half an hour because the weather sapped his charge, he would have been fine.
 
2013-02-14 03:10:56 PM  

Erik_Emune: ChuckNorrisSays: Jeremy Clarkson is an assbag.

He punched Piers Morgan in the face. I really don't care whatever he says or does after that, he's elevated to sainthood. As it happens, however, he has continued to annoy all the right people.


this ^
 
2013-02-14 03:11:37 PM  

fluffy2097: MrSteve007: Yep, that's what he said - but not what he did.

You need new glasses. The logs and he both say he had 185 miles at Norwich


MadCat: No, they both say he had 185 miles at Milford Supercharge #1. He had 35 miles when he left Norwich.

/Perhaps you should lay off the insults a bit?


When I said he only needed to go 45 miles, I'm referring to this part in his article:

"I drove, slowly, to Stonington, Conn., for dinner and spent the night in Groton, a total distance of 79 miles. When I parked the car, its computer said I had 90 miles of range, twice the 46 miles back to Milford. It was a different story at 8:30 the next morning."

The reporter only had to drive 46 miles to get to the Millford supercharger when he woke up, which could have topped off his battery in less than an hour and given him some 280 miles of range. We can see that he had about 35% of the battery life when he got into the car at 400 miles into his trip. With a car equipped with an 85 kWh battery, leaving 5 kWh as reserve, he would have had 24 kWh of usable power in the car (the same capacity as a Nissan Leaf, which will travel 65 miles in those cold conditions). Instead, he sat in the car, running the heat for at least 30 minutes, and then drove to a much slower level II station - where he only briefly charged.
 
2013-02-14 03:13:26 PM  

fluffy2097: What asshole drives around in a parking lot with an area of 3.5 miles for 5 whole minutes and goes 0.6 whole miles to find a spot?


How many parking lots with 100 spaces have an area of 3.5 miles?
 
2013-02-14 03:14:46 PM  

fluffy2097: MadCat: Oh I fully agree it's a problem. The reporter should have reported on THAT problem. Instead he failed to take steps to replace the lost range and failed to disclose or acknowledge that he caused the car to run out of power. The article should have been about how he had to spend extra time at Norwich to replace overnight power loss, not about how he had to be towed back to a charge station.

The article was about the super charging system along the east coast and how it was supposed to allow a Tesla S to go on road trip just like you would with a gas powered car.

The supercharging stations did not do this. They caused him to run out of power because they were not close enough together (Something Elon Himself believes) and because the batteries are clearly severely discharged by cold weather.

/Teslas seem to run into a lot of "software glitches" that "cause lost battery capacity"


No, the super-chargers didn't cause him to run out of power, he caused himself to run out of power, quite deliberately. Complain about the technology if you like, and it is a new technology so it's far from perfect, but the reporter still lied.
 
2013-02-14 03:14:46 PM  

maddermaxx: He could have charged it for a bit longer there, or a bit longer at the previous super-charger,


He had enough range to make it to the next one when he left the first. Not all people brim their tank whenever they go anywhere, and Tesla also says you shouldn't actually fully charge the battery anyway, because it reduces its lifespan.

maddermaxx: or stopped off at another charger further along... But he didn't.


Because he was testing the supercharging system, not the Tesla S.

But please, lets ignore what the author says he was reviewing.
 
2013-02-14 03:16:29 PM  
1998 saturn sl.  218k miles.  40mpg highway (still).  take all the money i'm not spending on a new car and i'd rather have it than an electric.  drove 4 hours from atl to tuscaloosa and have 1/2 tank left (10 gal tank).
 
2013-02-14 03:16:48 PM  
fluffy2097:
The article was about the super charging system along the east coast and how it was supposed to allow a Tesla S to go on road trip just like you would with a gas powered car.

I see, so if someone stole your gasoline out of your car overnight you wouldn't have had to go spend time at a gas station to replace it?

Yes there may be a problem with the batteries in cold weather. Report on that. Report you lost charge overnight. It's the truth, it's factual and it's what reporters are supposed to do.

Do NOT try to make the story more sensational by deliberately running the car out of power. Your job is to report the news, not create it. That just shows bad journalistic integrity and misinforms your readers. Reporters have been canned for less in the past.
 
2013-02-14 03:17:07 PM  

orbister: themanuf: GPS will give you a location at any given moment.  You would have to be polling gps data at an insane rate and with very high accuracy to generate that chart.  Also, you would need to account for the time domain if you are going to calculate speed based on location/time data.  Correcting for the moments when the car wasn't moving would be difficult and annoying.

GPS also gives you speed information based on Doppler shift measurements of the signals received. No GPS sets do distance/time for speed. Apologies if you knew this.


Ah, that makes sense.  Didn't think about that, thank you.

I retract my previous statements.  It may in fact be based on gps data while he was looking at the speedometer which may have an offset from actual speed.
 
2013-02-14 03:17:26 PM  

ringersol: Atreyou40: " I'm no physicist, "

That's an understatement.
Yes, I know what regenerative braking is.  You, unfortunately, do not.  You may think you do, but you don't.
The energy reclaimed from a stop is never, ever greater than the energy taken to move the car to get to that point.


Good.  Then explain *the point* to me. I'm all ears. If there's no efficiency to be gained then why bother trying to recapture the kinetic energy of the car? I never said it was going to "be greater".  As long as it replaces some of the energy it takes then there is an efficiency gain. Seems to me the suggestion of the help desk person was trying to leverage that... she never suggested "drive slow, and drag the brake to recharge the batteries" which is how you're framing her comment.

So yes - tell me there's no efficiency to be gained from stop and go driving with electrics... like it's a loony idea... go on..
 
2013-02-14 03:17:57 PM  

fluffy2097: He had enough range to make it to the next one when he left the first.


I wonder what the range meter said 5 minutes after he left the supercharging station and decided to go blasting down the freeway at 83mph with the heater on full blast.
 
2013-02-14 03:18:45 PM  

cmunic8r99: fluffy2097: What asshole drives around in a parking lot with an area of 3.5 miles for 5 whole minutes and goes 0.6 whole miles to find a spot?

How many parking lots with 100 spaces have an area of 3.5 miles?


img.gawkerassets.com

Only most east coast highway service stations with actual services. Here's proof it could easily have been 0.4 miles to find a charger.
 
2013-02-14 03:20:29 PM  

DaAlien: Because gas powered cars don't recover energy by regenerative braking?


What do gas powered cars have to do with EPA-MPG-comparable ratings on hybrid and electric vehicles?
 
2013-02-14 03:22:16 PM  

MrSteve007: fluffy2097: He had enough range to make it to the next one when he left the first.

I wonder what the range meter said 5 minutes after he left the supercharging station and decided to go blasting down the freeway at 83mph with the heater on full blast.


Straw man, He pulled in for the night with enough range to reach the next station, and left in the morning without enough charge to get there.
 
2013-02-14 03:23:25 PM  

Magorn: Your car can go for about 20-30 mils after the gauge reaches E for a reason


Maybe it can, maybe it can't. I'd rather not test it myself.  But if you depend on that and run out of gas it's your fault and not the car.
 
2013-02-14 03:25:04 PM  

fluffy2097: Only most east coast highway service stations with actual services. Here's proof it could easily have been 0.4 miles to find a charger.


Heh, that zig-zaggy route on the map? Yeah, that's for the McDonalds. The other side of the freeway is the service station & tesla supercharger, and it doesn't really have much of a place to circle around like that (unless you want to go up the wrong way on a 1-way offramp). Link
 
2013-02-14 03:28:01 PM  

fluffy2097: MrSteve007: fluffy2097: He had enough range to make it to the next one when he left the first.

I wonder what the range meter said 5 minutes after he left the supercharging station and decided to go blasting down the freeway at 83mph with the heater on full blast.

Straw man, He pulled in for the night with enough range to reach the next station, and left in the morning without enough charge to get there.


And the part you refuse to accept: He pulled into a charging station that morning, granted not a supercharger, but a charging station non-the-less, and LEFT again even when the car TOLD him he didn't have enough power to make it to the supercharger.

This reporter decided that batteries losing charge overnight wasn't enough of a story. He had to create a situation where the car had to be rescued. That is what we're annoyed about,
 
2013-02-14 03:29:00 PM  

MrSteve007: fluffy2097: He had enough range to make it to the next one when he left the first.

I wonder what the range meter said 5 minutes after he left the supercharging station and decided to go blasting down the freeway at 83mph with the heater on full blast.


Ah, that one we can guess:

After he supercharged, he claims it said 185 miles. He then drove 61 miles to Norwich, and on arrival, it read 90 miles. Therefore, due to his driving and cabin settings, he was about 66% of the efficiency it estimated, and accordingly, the readout should've said something like 122.
 
2013-02-14 03:29:14 PM  

MrSteve007: Heh, that zig-zaggy route on the map? Yeah, that's for the McDonalds. The other side of the freeway is the service station & tesla supercharger, and it doesn't really have much of a place to circle around like that (unless you want to go up the wrong way on a 1-way offramp). Link


Oooh, scratch that. The arial map shows a supercharger at the McD's too. Although in order to zig zag that much, you'd have to first go through the drive-thru (or exit into the semi truck area), then circle the solar roofed Tesla Supercharger for a while (which is open to traffic on both sides). Link
 
2013-02-14 03:30:58 PM  

Atreyou40: You're both dumbasses. It's called "regenerative braking" an it's been around since the first hybrids and the idea is that a car in motion has some measurable inertia and to use the brakes as a capture device for that energy. I'm no physicist, and I have my doubts about the efficiency of such a thing given our current technology, but I have no doubt it's possible and even beneficial and can extend the range of an electric car by a couple miles, if not more.


What you're saying is you lack even a basic understanding of physics.

The only way regenerative braking could "add" energy to the car's closed energy system is if you braked while going downhill, and if your trip began at "uphill" from the downhill location. Using the engine (at less than 100% efficiency) to accelerate, then using the brakes (at less than 100% efficiency) cannot add charge to the system. Additionally, if you use energy to travel uphill, you cannot then gain energy by going downhill, unless the amount downhill is greater than the height uphill.
 
2013-02-14 03:31:46 PM  

MadCat: fluffy2097: MrSteve007: fluffy2097: He had enough range to make it to the next one when he left the first.

I wonder what the range meter said 5 minutes after he left the supercharging station and decided to go blasting down the freeway at 83mph with the heater on full blast.

Straw man, He pulled in for the night with enough range to reach the next station, and left in the morning without enough charge to get there.

And the part you refuse to accept: He pulled into a charging station that morning, granted not a supercharger, but a charging station non-the-less, and LEFT again even when the car TOLD him he didn't have enough power to make it to the supercharger.

This reporter decided that batteries losing charge overnight wasn't enough of a story. He had to create a situation where the car had to be rescued. That is what we're annoyed about,


Yep. Knowing he had to go 61 miles, he charged it up for 32.
 
2013-02-14 03:35:24 PM  

RexTalionis:


Wow, he went about 7 mph faster than he said he did, what a fake!

I so want this car to be awesome and i want to own one, but the more i learn about this aeon flux guy, the less i trust. somebody's full of shiat here, and it's not the reporter. the reporter made some mistakes while driving, but flux is giving him shiat for circling in a parking lot for a half mile? has he never been to a mall or a city?

People can say the reporter is a shill for an oil company all they like,but it's only speculation at best, deranged paranoia at worst. the only one with a proven financial incentive is flux.
 
2013-02-14 03:36:21 PM  

Bullseyed: Atreyou40: You're both dumbasses. It's called "regenerative braking" an it's been around since the first hybrids and the idea is that a car in motion has some measurable inertia and to use the brakes as a capture device for that energy. I'm no physicist, and I have my doubts about the efficiency of such a thing given our current technology, but I have no doubt it's possible and even beneficial and can extend the range of an electric car by a couple miles, if not more.

What you're saying is you lack even a basic understanding of physics.

The only way regenerative braking could "add" energy to the car's closed energy system is if you braked while going downhill, and if your trip began at "uphill" from the downhill location. Using the engine (at less than 100% efficiency) to accelerate, then using the brakes (at less than 100% efficiency) cannot add charge to the system. Additionally, if you use energy to travel uphill, you cannot then gain energy by going downhill, unless the amount downhill is greater than the height uphill.


The issue here I think is misuse of the word Add. Regenerative braking doesn't create new energy, but it does reclaim some of the energy you have already put into the system. This reclaimed energy is often shown as a momentary net positive on an electric car's energy usage display.
 
2013-02-14 03:37:44 PM  

rcuhljr: That would relevant and interesting if car speedometers didn't tend read higher then your actual speed, to keep liability in speeding as a relative non-issue. If we apply the 'innacurate speedo' claim here we would have to assume that the speedo showed him 65 when he was actually traveling 60 and he claimed 54.


What part of "showing readings anywhere from sub-50 to over-60" did you not understand?

I've seen and driven many, many cars that say they're going slower than they really are.
 
2013-02-14 03:39:14 PM  

MrSteve007: In stop and go, or streetlight to streetlight traffic, a vast majority of the energy to move an electric car is road friction and the energy required to accelerate.


Actually if you look at  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car  you will see that the Tesla Model S, the Chevy Volt, and the Ford Taurus all get better highway than city fuel economy.
 
2013-02-14 03:40:28 PM  

Atreyou40: You're both dumbasses. It's called "regenerative braking" an it's been around since the first hybrids and the idea is that a car in motion has some measurable inertia and to use the brakes as a capture device for that energy. I'm no physicist, and I have my doubts about the efficiency of such a thing given our current technology, but I have no doubt it's possible and even beneficial and can extend the range of an electric car by a couple miles, if not more. Here, why don't you go learn something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_brake
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-parts/brakes/brake-types/regenera ti ve-braking.htm
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/04/16/greenlings-what-is-regenerative -b raking-and-what-types-are-ther/

There's even a youtube video for the spectacularly ignorant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8jRAwIzPTM

Oh what the hell, here's more links:

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-regenerative-braking.htm
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybridanimation/fullhybrid/fullhybri ...


No, you're the spectacularly ignorant dumbass. Why? Because regenerative braking only recoups SOME of the energy lost to braking. In other words, if you slow down and then speed back up again, you lose energy versus staying at a steady speed.

If that wasn't the case, you'd have invented a perpetual energy machine.

So take your know-it-all attitude and shove it up your jacksie, you farking arrogant tool.
 
2013-02-14 03:41:47 PM  

Theaetetus: MadCat: fluffy2097: MrSteve007: fluffy2097: He had enough range to make it to the next one when he left the first.

I wonder what the range meter said 5 minutes after he left the supercharging station and decided to go blasting down the freeway at 83mph with the heater on full blast.

Straw man, He pulled in for the night with enough range to reach the next station, and left in the morning without enough charge to get there.

And the part you refuse to accept: He pulled into a charging station that morning, granted not a supercharger, but a charging station non-the-less, and LEFT again even when the car TOLD him he didn't have enough power to make it to the supercharger.

This reporter decided that batteries losing charge overnight wasn't enough of a story. He had to create a situation where the car had to be rescued. That is what we're annoyed about,

Yep. Knowing he had to go 61 miles, he charged it up for 32.


Interestingly, on the way to Milford, he drove past another charger that was less than 32 miles from Norwich.
 
2013-02-14 03:41:56 PM  

themanuf: So you are saying the logs and the speed indicated on the speedometer are from different sources of data?  If the car's computer was capable of knowing and logging the actual speed why wouldn't that same data stream go to the speedometer as well?

While your point of speedometers often not indicating actual speed is probably correct, your conclusion is incongruous with the facts as we know them.


Yes, they're from different data. One comes from a GPS tracking device. The other comes from a physical connection to the drivetrain. If that wasn't the case, you'd lose your speedo every time you drove in a tunnel.
 
2013-02-14 03:43:58 PM  

ajt167: RexTalionis:

Wow, he went about 7 mph faster than he said he did, what a fake!

I so want this car to be awesome and i want to own one, but the more i learn about this aeon flux guy, the less i trust. somebody's full of shiat here, and it's not the reporter. the reporter made some mistakes while driving, but flux is giving him shiat for circling in a parking lot for a half mile? has he never been to a mall or a city?

People can say the reporter is a shill for an oil company all they like,but it's only speculation at best, deranged paranoia at worst. the only one with a proven financial incentive is flux.


The reporter left a charging station with 35mi range, and a 62mi journey. He also passed other charging stations. He wanted the car to conk out so he could have a good story, that's what people are complaining about.
 
2013-02-14 03:44:00 PM  
 "Now that Tesla is striving to be a mass-market automaker, it cannot realistically expect all 20,000 buyers a year (the Model S sales goal) to beelectric-car  acolytes who will plug in at every Walmart stop."

So, they shouldn't expect people to treat it like an electric car? Interesting assertion, asshat.
 
2013-02-14 03:46:09 PM  

horsepocket: You need to get better cars. Seriously, you really need to buy better cars. I've owned 11 cars over the course of my life, ranging from a used 86 Cutlas to a new BMW, and never has the speedometer been off by more than 2mph when compared to radar results. The speedometer is usually dead on, which always surprises me.

Changing out wheel and tire sizes can have an effect on your speedometer reading, but I'm guessing a stock from the factory test car will have a speedometer off by more than 1mph.


Try paying more attention. The amount by which the speedo differs from the real speed typically varies significantly depending on the speed you're driving at. That's why I cited "at 55 mph", because that's what *I* typically pay most attention to, since that's the speed I most often drive at.

And I've driven plenty of cars, including American, Japanese, and European. Not sports cars, but more than a few expensive sedans. (And a couple of cheap ones, as well; interestingly one of the cheapest was one of the most accurate.)

Very few have been within 2-3mph, and I've yet to find a single car that was 100% accurate at 55mph, let alone at all speeds. And that's on stock rubber. (I never, ever put a different size wheel/tire on a car than it left the factory with.)
 
2013-02-14 03:47:52 PM  

fluffy2097: cmunic8r99: fluffy2097: What asshole drives around in a parking lot with an area of 3.5 miles for 5 whole minutes and goes 0.6 whole miles to find a spot?

How many parking lots with 100 spaces have an area of 3.5 miles?

[img.gawkerassets.com image 640x295]

Only most east coast highway service stations with actual services. Here's proof it could easily have been 0.4 miles to find a charger.


I work and live petty close to the Milford Rest Stop on I-95.

i1212.photobucket.com

I'm assuming that Broder used the Northbound service station at Milford, which is this one. As you can see, the parking lot on the Northbound lot is actually a pretty tiny lot. And it's really easy to find the Superchargers since they're pretty much directly in front of the McDonald's right there with big gigantic white Tesla charging banks in front of it. Plus, they're almost always open because, let's face it, there's not a whole lot of people, even in my part of the state (southern Connecticut) who own Tesla cars.

I don't know why he would continuously circle a lot that small to look for the Superchargers for .5 miles since they're so damn conspicuous and almost guaranteed to be open. A circle of that tiny lot is about .13 miles assuming you run a full circuit around the lot.

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2013-02-14 03:47:56 PM  

fluffy2097: /since you can't read the article


You quoted the wrong portion of the trip. You must have gone to public school.
 
2013-02-14 03:49:15 PM  

gweilo8888: themanuf: So you are saying the logs and the speed indicated on the speedometer are from different sources of data?  If the car's computer was capable of knowing and logging the actual speed why wouldn't that same data stream go to the speedometer as well?

While your point of speedometers often not indicating actual speed is probably correct, your conclusion is incongruous with the facts as we know them.

Yes, they're from different data. One comes from a GPS tracking device. The other comes from a physical connection to the drivetrain. If that wasn't the case, you'd lose your speedo every time you drove in a tunnel.



Speedometers calculate speed based on wheel revolutions. Car computers take the number of revolutions the wheel is making and use the manufacturer's tire radius specifications to calculate both distance traveled for your odometer and speed for your speedometer. Deviating even a little bit from the specified tire radius can have a significant impact on this information. That's part of the reason it's important to keep your tires at the proper pressure.
 
2013-02-14 03:52:22 PM  

MadCat: Speedometers calculate speed based on wheel revolutions. Car computers take the number of revolutions the wheel is making and use the manufacturer's tire radius specifications to calculate both distance traveled for your odometer and speed for your speedometer. Deviating even a little bit from the specified tire radius can have a significant impact on this information. That's part of the reason it's important to keep your tires at the proper pressure.


I am well aware of that. I have also never yet driven a car that gave a correct speed on the speedo at 55mph, on stock wheels / tires, with the tires inflated to the correct pressure.
 
2013-02-14 03:53:01 PM  

Bullseyed: Actually if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car you will see that the Tesla Model S, the Chevy Volt, and the Ford Taurus all get better highway than city fuel economy.


It makes sense in the Volt, since it runs a combustion engine at freeway speeds. It is curious that the Tesla S ranks ever so slightly better at freeways, but it appears to be the only pure EV that does that. The Ford Taurus isn't electric or hybrid - that appears to have been thrown in there as a gas car comparison. But if you look at every other EV on there (RAV4 EV, LEAF, BMW ActiveE, Fiat 500e, Mitsubishi i, Honda Fit EV, and Scion iQ EV, they all get quite a bit better city MPGe than highway.)
 
2013-02-14 03:58:53 PM  

fluffy2097: MadCat: No, they both say he had 185 miles at Milford Supercharge #1. He had 35 miles when he left Norwich.

/Perhaps you should lay off the insults a bit?

So you think its fine that he went from 90 miles to 25 overnight and was FORCED to stop at Norwich to limp to the superchargers that he was supposed to be testing? That's not a problem with the car at all could it be?


It is only a problem if you have zero understanding of science. You phone battery will run down overnight if you don't plug it in either. Imagine that!
 
2013-02-14 03:59:09 PM  
Atreyou40: " I never said it was going to "be greater". "

If you understand that you're losing energy, then you understand that every stop and go is a net loss.
Every single time, you lose energy. And the more it happens, the more energy you're losing. Even if you're not going very far.
So there can be a dramatic difference in energy consumption over 2 miles, based solely on how much stopping and going you do, even though you have super-neat regenerative brakes.

So if you happen to be driving through a section of road that's notorious for the absurd nature of its stop and go traffic -- and in winter, where climate control is eating your battery as a function of time, not distance -- then surely you realize that a detour of "only" 2 miles, may well be a significant drain on the battery,* even though* your regenerative brakes are making you much more efficient than if you'd been in an ICE car without them.

And *that* is "The Point".  Regenerative brakes are good, but not so good that they can remotely outweigh the energy losses of driving "only" 2 miles of *Manhattan*, in winter.
 
2013-02-14 04:00:38 PM  
Subby is full of shiat. Everyone knows Mays is the cat person in that group. Could you even picture Clarkson with a cat? Didn't think so.

/Wait, what were we talking about?
 
2013-02-14 04:01:12 PM  

gweilo8888: MadCat: Speedometers calculate speed based on wheel revolutions. Car computers take the number of revolutions the wheel is making and use the manufacturer's tire radius specifications to calculate both distance traveled for your odometer and speed for your speedometer. Deviating even a little bit from the specified tire radius can have a significant impact on this information. That's part of the reason it's important to keep your tires at the proper pressure.

I am well aware of that. I have also never yet driven a car that gave a correct speed on the speedo at 55mph, on stock wheels / tires, with the tires inflated to the correct pressure.


I'm sure that's true if you're looking for decimal point accuracy. For the majority of us it's enough that our speedometers match the automated police radar traps that display "current speed"

I'm a cab driver and light duty mechanic, I've driven hundreds of different vehicles over the last couple months and I have yet to find one that failed this test on stock wheels and properly inflated tires. When they don't match it's always been due to improper replacement tire selection, or low tire pressure.
 
2013-02-14 04:01:18 PM  

fluffy2097: Because he was testing the supercharging system, not the Tesla S.


If he was testing the supercharging system, he would have plugged in the car, observed that it did in fact charge, and been done with his test.
 
2013-02-14 04:02:43 PM  

ringersol: So if you happen to be driving through a section of road that's notorious for the absurd nature of its stop and go traffic -- and in winter, where climate control is eating your battery as a function of time, not distance -- then surely you realize that a detour of "only" 2 miles, may well be a significant drain on the battery,* even though* your regenerative brakes are making you much more efficient than if you'd been in an ICE car without them.

And *that* is "The Point". Regenerative brakes are good, but not so good that they can remotely outweigh the energy losses of driving "only" 2 miles of *Manhattan*, in winter.


FYI, compared to driving to and from work on an open freeway, 50 miles, traveling at 60mph - and days with mostly stop an go traffic (even when below freezing and running the heat), I always arrive with quite a bit more energy (at least 10% more) when driving on the high traffic days.
 
2013-02-14 04:03:48 PM  

fluffy2097: Only most east coast highway service stations with actual services. Here's proof it could easily have been 0.4 miles to find a charger.


Your account is way too old to be a shill or a paid troll, so I am sort of wondering why you are so diligently siding with the reporter on this one.  Yes, I agree Musk is coming across pretty douchy, but in this case the facts really do seem to show that the reporter was even more of a douchbag.

If the data logs are un-modified, then the reporter is clearly in the wrong.  This is a big IF, and I have a feeling that if the NYT doubles down on this derp, then we are going to see how admissible they are in court, and how solid an evidence trail they can construct.  However, it would be very difficult to fake this data.  They could manipulate speed graphs, but there are too many interconnected factors that would no longer add up.  If they just stretched the scale to show him driving faster, the area under the curve is going to grow into a distance substantially longer than the trip he took.  As someone who used to work in an engineering lab, I don't think that Tesla had long enough to construct a false data-set that would hold up to any sort of scrutiny.  Remember it is not just the speed, distance, and charge data they would have to fake, but also the voltage loads on various components, mechanical data, and other internal information.  The only problem Tesla has is that most Americans are too dumb to interpret graphs.

So guess you are either a troll (paid?) looking for reactions, or you have some sort of personal attachment to the NYT or the 'reporter.'
 
2013-02-14 04:09:15 PM  

The WindowLicker: So guess you are either a troll (paid?) looking for reactions, or you have some sort of personal attachment to the NYT or the 'reporter.'


Or he has an antipathy towards electric vehicles.
 
2013-02-14 04:09:34 PM  

Atreyou40: If there's no efficiency to be gained then why bother trying to recapture the kinetic energy of the car?


You're obviously incredibly unintelligent, the the point where attempting explanation is a waste of time and energy. But here is to hoping someone else reading is less stupid than you are.

The trip begins and ends with the car at a complete stop. Ergo the net effect of energy gain from stopping the car between driving styles is zero. An object in motion tends to remain in motion, while an object at rest tends to remain at rest. Ergo the energy necessary to maintain speed is always less than the energy to initiate motion. Ergo it is always more energy efficient to travel at a consistent speed than to start and stop repeatedly.

There may be design flaws in things like transmissions, gear and axles, aerodynamics, etc with the car. For example, Nisan and Toyota love those boxy retarded cars which suffer greatly aerodynamically. A properly designed car will always have better highway rating than city rating. That is why the Tesla Model S, Chevy Volt and Ford Taurus do better on highways, while trash cars like the Nisan Leaf do not.
 
2013-02-14 04:10:28 PM  
This post was made prior to Tesla's releasing the trip logs; it's not a response to them.
 
2013-02-14 04:10:37 PM  

Theaetetus: The WindowLicker: So guess you are either a troll (paid?) looking for reactions, or you have some sort of personal attachment to the NYT or the 'reporter.'

Or he has an antipathy towards electric vehicles.


There's no need to bring in people's families.  It's ugly enough already without calling each other's uncles and aunties names.
 
2013-02-14 04:10:50 PM  

fluffy2097: (Remember, civilian GPS is only accurate to a few meters we don't get milspec 2" accurate GPS)


That is factually incorrect. Civilian GPS has been exactly as accurate as military GPS for more than a decade, and modern GPS satellites do not even have the capability to selectively degrade the service.
 
2013-02-14 04:11:22 PM  

themanuf: fluffy2097: themanuf: So you are saying the logs and the speed indicated on the speedometer are from different sources of data? If the car's computer was capable of knowing and logging the actual speed why wouldn't that same data stream go to the speedometer as well?

Because data logging is done via GPS tracking whereas speedometer readings are based off rotations of the wheels, which is something that varies depending on the diameter of the wheels you have.

/Has a GPS in his car
//Dash speedo is not connected to GPS speedo.

I find it very hard to believe that the speed data in that chart is based of gps data.  My reasoning:

GPS will give you a location at any given moment.  You would have to be polling gps data at an insane rate and with very high accuracy to generate that chart.  Also, you would need to account for the time domain if you are going to calculate speed based on location/time data.  Correcting for the moments when the car wasn't moving would be difficult and annoying.


You are correct.  If my 2012 Toyota pickup's ECM knows its speed, slew rate, steering wheel and gas pedal positions without the help of GPS or other external devices (and it does), then I fully expect the Tesla to have all that and more.
 
2013-02-14 04:11:45 PM  

fluffy2097: MrSteve007: fluffy2097: He had enough range to make it to the next one when he left the first.

I wonder what the range meter said 5 minutes after he left the supercharging station and decided to go blasting down the freeway at 83mph with the heater on full blast.

Straw man, He pulled in for the night with enough range to reach the next station, and left in the morning without enough charge to get there.


1.) You demonstrate here that you don't even know what a strawman is, by using the term incorrectly.
2.) You're talking about an entirely different leg of the trip. Due to your repeated misuse, it must be assumed that either you're illiterate or intentionally repeatedly referencing the wrong leg of the trip because you are utterly wrong.
 
2013-02-14 04:14:35 PM  

MadCat: The issue here I think


The issue here is you're arguing against people on both sides...
 
2013-02-14 04:17:27 PM  

Bullseyed: MadCat: The issue here I think

The issue here is you're arguing against people on both sides...


I'm sorry, I didn't know I had to take sides. You want to provide some evidence to show me where I'm wrong, or are you just looking for a fight?
 
2013-02-14 04:18:27 PM  

MrSteve007: But if you look at every other EV on there (RAV4 EV, LEAF, BMW ActiveE, Fiat 500e, Mitsubishi i, Honda Fit EV, and Scion iQ EV, they all get quite a bit better city MPGe than highway.)


Luckily we're on an article about the Model S, so that doesn't mean shiat, moron.
 
2013-02-14 04:18:29 PM  

Bullseyed: There may be design flaws in things like transmissions, gear and axles, aerodynamics, etc with the car. For example, Nisan and Toyota love those boxy retarded cars which suffer greatly aerodynamically. A properly designed car will always have better highway rating than city rating. That is why the Tesla Model S, Chevy Volt and Ford Taurus do better on highways, while trash cars like the Nisan Leaf do not.


FYI, the 2013 Nissan Leaf's drag coefficient is  Cd=0.28, the same as the Chevy Volt - and lower than a Corvette.

The Tesla S has one of 0.24, which is one of the lowest of any production car. The 2010 Ford Taurus? 0.32. Link
 
2013-02-14 04:20:54 PM  

Bullseyed: MadCat: The issue here I think

The issue here is you're arguing against people on both sides...


I think that speaks for his credibility, rather than against it.
 
2013-02-14 04:23:06 PM  

RatOmeter: themanuf: fluffy2097: themanuf: So you are saying the logs and the speed indicated on the speedometer are from different sources of data? If the car's computer was capable of knowing and logging the actual speed why wouldn't that same data stream go to the speedometer as well?

Because data logging is done via GPS tracking whereas speedometer readings are based off rotations of the wheels, which is something that varies depending on the diameter of the wheels you have.

/Has a GPS in his car
//Dash speedo is not connected to GPS speedo.

I find it very hard to believe that the speed data in that chart is based of gps data.  My reasoning:

GPS will give you a location at any given moment.  You would have to be polling gps data at an insane rate and with very high accuracy to generate that chart.  Also, you would need to account for the time domain if you are going to calculate speed based on location/time data.  Correcting for the moments when the car wasn't moving would be difficult and annoying.

You are correct.  If my 2012 Toyota pickup's ECM knows its speed, slew rate, steering wheel and gas pedal positions without the help of GPS or other external devices (and it does), then I fully expect the Tesla to have all that and more.


Yes, I have no doubt the on-board computer does know all of that info; but we ended up debating whether the data in the speed graph was from the computer itself or based on gps data.  I am still of the assumption it is based on the computer data, but we can't rule out that it is based on gps data.

Thus back to the original post that I took exception to, the reporter may not be lying about his speed as he would have been looking at the speedometer while the plot showing he was going faster than he said was based on gps.

However, to counter my counter, as someone said above, it is rare for a speedometer to read low.  Especially so low as to account for the difference in what he said and what the data shows.  Ergo, in my opinion he is lying.
 
2013-02-14 04:23:22 PM  

MadCat: Bullseyed: MadCat: The issue here I think

The issue here is you're arguing against people on both sides...

I'm sorry, I didn't know I had to take sides. You want to provide some evidence to show me where I'm wrong, or are you just looking for a fight?


In this thread you have argued:

1.) That regenerative brakes are a magical perpetual motion device
2.) That regenerative brakes can never add distance city vs highway because of the law of conservation of energy

There is always "sides" when it comes to physics, because one side is factual and the other side is either idiots or trolls.
 
2013-02-14 04:28:40 PM  

themanuf: RatOmeter: themanuf:

You are correct.  If my 2012 Toyota pickup's ECM knows its speed, slew rate, steering wheel and gas pedal positions without the help of GPS or other external devices (and it does), then I fully expect the Tesla to have all that and more.

Yes, I have no doubt the on-board computer does know all of that info; but we ended up debating whether the data in the speed graph was from the computer itself or based on gps data.  I am still of the assumption it is based on the computer data, but we can't rule out that it is based on gps data.

Thus back to the original post that I took exception to, the reporter may not be lying about his speed as he would have been looking at the speedometer while the plot showing he was going faster than he said was based on gps.

However, to counter my counter, as someone said above, it is rare for a speedometer to read low.  Especially so low as to account for the difference in what he said and what the data shows.  Ergo, in my opinion ...


I can't think of any sensible reason for Telsa to use anything but the car itself for sensing and logging.  At the worst, if they don't have logging built in (I'm sure they do), add-on OBD-II and CAN based programmable loggers are available.
 
2013-02-14 04:31:19 PM  

ringersol: If you understand that you're losing energy, then you understand that every stop and go is a net loss.Every single time, you lose energy. And the more it happens, the more energy you're losing. Even if you're not going very far.


... I wonder if you lose energy going faster too. Like, perhaps air drag increases.
 
2013-02-14 04:34:04 PM  

Bullseyed: In this thread you have argued:

1.) That regenerative brakes are a magical perpetual motion device
2.) That regenerative brakes can never add distance city vs highway because of the law of conservation of energy

There is always "sides" when it comes to physics, because one side is factual and the other side is either idiots or trolls.


... Based on a quick skim of the thread, I think you have him confused with someone else.
 
2013-02-14 04:35:10 PM  

evaned: ringersol: If you understand that you're losing energy, then you understand that every stop and go is a net loss.Every single time, you lose energy. And the more it happens, the more energy you're losing. Even if you're not going very far.

... I wonder if you lose energy going faster too. Like, perhaps air drag increases.


Good read for this exact question.

http://phors.locost7.info/phors06.htm

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved= 0C GAQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fevaosd.fartoomuch.info%2Fphysics%2Fphysics.pp s&ei=71cdUc-xGLO80AGG7oHwDA&usg=AFQjCNE-Dh5mhZhlhcMqb94CIYM1F6a2zA&sig 2=s9gCJ0VsSjN02cU3otFmvw&bvm=bv.42452523,d.dmQ&cad=rja
 
2013-02-14 04:35:32 PM  

Bullseyed: The trip begins and ends with the car at a complete stop. Ergo the net effect of energy gain from stopping the car between driving styles is zero. An object in motion tends to remain in motion, while an object at rest tends to remain at rest. Ergo the energy necessary to maintain speed is always less than the energy to initiate motion. Ergo it is always more energy efficient to travel at a consistent speed than to start and stop repeatedly.


This is false.  An object in motion tends to remain in motion as long as the net forces on it add up to zero.  As long as the atmospheric drag is balanced by locomotive force, the vehicle will remain in motion.  Unfortunately, aerodynamic drag goes up as the square of velocity.  At highway speeds a vehicle will always be less efficient from an energy-consumed standpoint than that same vehicle at lower speeds.  Most cars have transmissions and motors which are optimized for (more efficient at) highway speeds, but all that means is that they waste energy at lower speeds.

In the US, it is uncommon to drive long distances at city speeds.  If we were ok with this as consumers, our vehicles would have much smaller motors, and they would maintain fantastic mileage with the much decreased aerodynamic loadings... but you are right, they would still get better constant mileage than start/stop milage, because the mechanical systems are not optimized for the lower speeds.

However, if the efficiency of the motor and the regenerative braking system are high enough, a consumer auto can get better energy efficiency at low speeds.  While no energy system is 100% efficient (thermo kills that) if your regenerative braking system captures a significant amount of your acceleration energy, then it is possible that your combined power losses to rolling/mechanical friction, and power transmission and regeneration, are going to be lower than the aerodynamic drag at high speeds.  Remember friction is proportional to velocity, while drag is the square of velocity.

So it is possible for an electric car with a high efficiency motor and transmission to be more efficient in start/stop city traffic than at highway speeds.
 
2013-02-14 04:44:40 PM  

Bullseyed: MadCat: Bullseyed: MadCat: The issue here I think

The issue here is you're arguing against people on both sides...

I'm sorry, I didn't know I had to take sides. You want to provide some evidence to show me where I'm wrong, or are you just looking for a fight?

In this thread you have argued:

1.) That regenerative brakes are a magical perpetual motion device
2.) That regenerative brakes can never add distance city vs highway because of the law of conservation of energy

There is always "sides" when it comes to physics, because one side is factual and the other side is either idiots or trolls.


I have argued neither point. You must have me confused with another poster. My one and only post on the subject was to point out that regenerative breaking reclaims a portion of the energy already placed in the system, which displays as an increase in available energy.

To expand further and for the first time actually "take sides" just to make you happy:

At that moment in time the energy available to the car is in fact increasing, however when netted with the energy used to bring the car up to speed before braking occurred you will see a net decrease. This does not exclude an increase in range due to regenerative braking however. In normal braking operation much of the energy introduced to the system by the previous acceleration up to speed is lost to the environment in the form of waste heat. This is not energy created or destroyed, it is simply transferred. Regenerative braking allows some of this energy to be stored back in the car's battery for use later. Again, this is not energy created nor destroyed. The energy is still transferred, but instead of transferring it to the environment in the form of heat, we transfer it to the battery in the form of an electrical charge.

/I am a firm believer in the laws of physics
//Living where I do they are constantly on display
 
2013-02-14 04:54:02 PM  

gweilo8888: noitsnot: I kind of figured that was just circling to get a spot - as most folks that live in big cities have to do.  The spots are always all full, and you gotta circle (with a bunch of other vultures) to get a spot when one opens.

It ain't like a mall in Nebraska where the parking lots are mostly empty all the time.

And I'm sure there were only 2 spots with chargers, that people with non-electric cars had taken.

This. Take a look at Google maps and you will see that half a mile is precisely 3.5 times around the perimeter of the car park. That's not unrealistic for somebody who's looking for a parking space, and endeavoring not to block other vehicles while they do so.


If you say so. I've never toured a parking lot that many times in my life for a spot; can't remember the last time I even did more than a full circuit - including when I lived near Milford CT, which is apparently part of the route.
 
2013-02-14 04:56:35 PM  
The WindowLicker:  However, if the efficiency of the motor and the regenerative braking system are high enough, a consumer auto can get better energy efficiency at low speeds.  While no energy system is 100% efficient (thermo kills that) if your regenerative braking system captures a significant amount of your acceleration energy, then it is possible that your combined power losses to rolling/mechanical friction, and power transmission and regeneration, are going to be lower than the aerodynamic drag at high speeds.   Remember friction is proportional to velocity, while drag is the square of velocity.

Except for a little bit of a problem at the end there (friction, at least in the technical sense, does not depend on velocity -- this is Coulomb's law) everyone who posts in this thread now having not read your post should be hit.
 
2013-02-14 04:56:55 PM  
MrSteve007: "I always arrive with quite a bit more energy (at least 10% more) when driving on the high traffic days."

CSB?  I'm not sure I see the point.  But since you mention it: how much energy do you think you'd have left if you tacked on 'only' 2 miles of Manhattan detour?
 
2013-02-14 04:57:13 PM  
To add further to my last post, energy loss to the environment doesn't have to be from heat due to braking. It can be due to the drag incurred while trying to maintain a high rate of speed. The same laws apply. As The WindowLicker pointed out, at low speeds aerodynamic drag is much less of a factor, at the same time allowing for less energy use in maintaining speed, and allowing the regenerative braking system to reclaim more of the energy that was used from the system.
 
2013-02-14 05:01:08 PM  

inner ted: ukexpat: ChuckNorrisSays: Jeremy Clarkson is an assbag.umad

Possibly, but he did punch Piers Morgan in the face, so he does have that going for him.
is this true?

he's even more awesome than i previously thought

even robert smith of the cure agrees
[www.ridelust.com image 300x200]


Yup it's true alright: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_clarkson#Piers_Morgan_feud
 
2013-02-14 05:02:07 PM  

syberpud: Journalists are not renowned for their knowledge of fields other than journalism.


Period.

And that's not even including the silicone-injected bobblehead shills that Fox employees.
 
2013-02-14 05:02:26 PM  
evaned: "... I wonder if you lose energy going faster too. Like, perhaps air drag increases. "

Who are you people?  Are you farking serious?
Of course you're less efficient at high speeds than at optimal speeds.
But the author of the 'review' claimed he had the cruise control set at 45mph.
So we're not talking about stop-and-go vs 95mph.

Do you really think Manhattan stop-and-go is more efficient than 45mph on the highway, because of drag?
 
2013-02-14 05:04:13 PM  

evaned: Except for a little bit of a problem at the end there (friction, at least in the technical sense, does not depend on velocity -- this is Coulomb's law) everyone who posts in this thread now having not read your post should be hit.


Yes it does, remember that mechanical loads are transmitted via the tires and axles.  The normal force applied to them will increase in direct proportion to propulsive force applied by the tires on the road.

At low speeds where aerodynamic drag is low, the normal force against the axle bearings is going to be dominated by the weight of the vehicle, at higher speeds, that normal force is going to increase as the force required to overcome aerodynamic resistance increases.

You are right, there is no velocity component to friction, but the cause of the normal force is directly linked to velocity.
 
2013-02-14 05:10:13 PM  

ringersol: evaned: "... I wonder if you lose energy going faster too. Like, perhaps air drag increases. "

Who are you people? Are you farking serious?
Of course you're less efficient at high speeds than at optimal speeds.
But the author of the 'review' claimed he had the cruise control set at 45mph.
So we're not talking about stop-and-go vs 95mph.

Do you really think Manhattan stop-and-go is more efficient than 45mph on the highway, because of drag?


Actually that is exactly what we are arguing.

However I think most of the people in this thread arguing about efficiency realize that the reporter was full of crap, because he did not limp at 45mph for any amount of time.

Try to mentally decouple the argument about physicist from the article about the asshole reporter who faked an article.  Part of the problem we have, is that the physics of electrical vehicles is poorly understood.  People think they understand physics from their observations of the world.  Very frequently they are wrong.  That is why almost every 100 level physics course starts by explaining how a dropped ball moving horizontally and a dropped ball dropping with no horizontal component hit the ground at the same time.
 
2013-02-14 05:22:42 PM  

ringersol: Do you really think Manhattan stop-and-go is more efficient than 45mph on the highway, because of drag?


If you have decent regenerative braking, I don't see why it's so hard to believe that it  isn't.
 
2013-02-14 05:25:34 PM  
TheWindowLicker: "Actually that is exactly what we are arguing."

If that's the argument they want, I'm out.  Because there's a trivially true answer.
A few horsepower to counter drag at 45mph is nothing compared to the energy lost in start-and-stop traffic on a "Manhattan" scale. Not even after we account for energy recaptured by regenerative brakes.

And if we're being pedants, sure, I'll concede it's absolutely possible for a skilled driver in a dedicated vehicle to travel such a route using less energy than the Tesla Model S uses at 45mph.

But a naive driver in Manhattan stop and go in the Model S is going to eat more energy over 2 miles than that same driver, in that same car, at 45mph on the highway.

And, further, the physics of electrical vehicles aren't so poorly understood that we can't tell whether a detour through Manhattan would have a notable impact on range.
Tesla's sitting on a mountain of data and in this particular case could tell us fairly precisely how many additional miles could have been driven with the energy lost in Manhattan.

They could even spell out roughly how many miles could have been had under the false scenario the writer presented and under the true scenario of their highway travel.
 
2013-02-14 05:29:49 PM  
evaned: "I don't see why it's so hard to believe that it isn't"

It's possible to construct a context where that's true.
But that context does not map to the situation at issue.

If you guys are headed off to hypothetical-land, I wish you the best of luck, but I was only ever talking about the situation at issue.
 
2013-02-14 05:46:31 PM  

Man On A Mission: apparently Broder didn't do the necessary homework before testing out the car in the first place


I'd argue that if the objective to make an electric car that's as easy to drive as a gasoline-fueled car, then the driver shouldn't be faulted for assuming that there's no homework that needs to be done.
 
2013-02-14 05:55:42 PM  

ringersol: If that's the argument they want, I'm out. Because there's a trivially true answer.
A few horsepower to counter drag at 45mph is nothing compared to the energy lost in start-and-stop traffic on a "Manhattan" scale. Not even after we account for energy recaptured by regenerative brakes.

And if we're being pedants, sure, I'll concede it's absolutely possible for a skilled driver in a dedicated vehicle to travel such a route using less energy than the Tesla Model S uses at 45mph.

But a naive driver in Manhattan stop and go in the Model S is going to eat more energy over 2 miles than that same driver, in that same car, at 45mph on the highway.


You may be right, but I don't think the answer is as trivial as you want it to be.  I don't know any of the constants involved, but for a wild ass guess I would be willing to give even odds that the break even point is at or below 60 mph (the speed the reporter actually averaged) and I am quite convinced that break even point is below the reporters 80+mph maximum speed.

A purely electric drive train can be incredibly efficient.  The assumptions you are making to make your "trivial" solution are all developed by your experiences with internal combustion power trains.  These are systems that are extremely inefficient at city driving.  IC systems are especially inefficient when compared to direct drive electric motors.  Just compare the torque/power curves of an IC motor and an electric motor.

The Tesla S has a very low drag coefficient; I am not sure where aerodynamic forces start to dominate.  I would go so far as to say you are probably right that it is above 45mph, but I don't think it is far enough that you should be comfortable assuming it is a trivial comparison.
 
2013-02-14 06:03:56 PM  

Atreyou40: gweilo8888: ringersol: But does that sound remotely plausible?  A maker of electric cars saying "Adding stop-and-go traffic to your trip will *improve* your total range"?
The only person claiming they got that advice is the author whose story was just gutted by the actual trip data.
Are we really supposed to take him at his word on this?

Frankly, yes, it does. When was the last time you spoke to a call center and got a *knowledgeable* employee? And when was the last time the call center staff member had a salary that would let them drive a US$100,000 car, to give them any personal experience to counter their lousy intuition and guesswork as to how the product operates?

So yes, it sounds more than plausible. Most likely the support droid was asked a question that wasn't covered by the handbook that is the only "knowledge" they have of a vehicle they've probably never even seen in person, or they simply forgot the handbook answer, and either way incorrect info was fed out.

You're both dumbasses. It's called "regenerative braking" an it's been around since the first hybrids and the idea is that a car in motion has some measurable inertia and to use the brakes as a capture device for that energy. I'm no physicist, and I have my doubts about the efficiency of such a thing given our current technology, but I have no doubt it's possible and even beneficial and can extend the range of an electric car by a couple miles, if not more. Here, why don't you go learn something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_brake
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-parts/brakes/brake-types/regenera ti ve-braking.htm
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/04/16/greenlings-what-is-regenerative -b raking-and-what-types-are-ther/

There's even a youtube video for the spectacularly ignorant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8jRAwIzPTM

Oh what the hell, here's more links:

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-regenerative-braking.htm
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybridanimation/fullhybrid/fullhybri ...


Here's the premise you're missing in as little math as possible and as simple as possible.

10-9+1=2    Final - Initial = -8 (Regenerative braking)
10-9=1        Final - Initial = -9 (Non-regenerative braking)
10-0=10      Final - Initial = 0 (No braking at all, ignoring friction, drag etc)

Regenerative braking reduces energy lost, but braking still loses energy period.
Leave physics to the people who understand it.
 
2013-02-14 06:07:07 PM  

ringersol: TheWindowLicker: "Actually that is exactly what we are arguing."

If that's the argument they want, I'm out.  Because there's a trivially true answer.
A few horsepower to counter drag at 45mph is nothing compared to the energy lost in start-and-stop traffic on a "Manhattan" scale. Not even after we account for energy recaptured by regenerative brakes.

And if we're being pedants, sure, I'll concede it's absolutely possible for a skilled driver in a dedicated vehicle to travel such a route using less energy than the Tesla Model S uses at 45mph.

But a naive driver in Manhattan stop and go in the Model S is going to eat more energy over 2 miles than that same driver, in that same car, at 45mph on the highway.

And, further, the physics of electrical vehicles aren't so poorly understood that we can't tell whether a detour through Manhattan would have a notable impact on range.
Tesla's sitting on a mountain of data and in this particular case could tell us fairly precisely how many additional miles could have been driven with the energy lost in Manhattan.

They could even spell out roughly how many miles could have been had under the false scenario the writer presented and under the true scenario of their highway travel.


You're making some grand assumptions there that would be 100% correct if dealing with a typical internal combustion engine. This is an electric car however subject to different energy use parameters. It takes quite a bit of electrical energy maintain 45mph against drag. It takes significantly less electrical energy to maintain typical city speeds of 25-35 against drag, and exactly zero electrical energy to maintain a standstill in the middle of a Manhattan traffic jam.

The question is whether the energy required to increase speed to 25-35mph is offset enough by regenerative braking to make it purely a drag issue. This is a question that unfortunately cannot really be answered without more technical data.
 
2013-02-14 06:14:07 PM  

Bullseyed: RexTalionis: I'm confused. He thinks stop and go will actually use less power than simply cruising at speed? Even with battery regeneration from braking, did he think that he's not expending more power having to accelerate a car from zero to whatever than he will get back through regeneration?

Came for this essentially.

"She said to shut off the cruise control to take advantage of battery regeneration from occasional braking and slowing down. Based on that advice, I was under the impression that stop-and-go driving at low speeds in the city would help, not hurt, my mileage. "

Which confirms that people go into things like Journalism, theater, etc because they are utterly stupid and cannot survive in any other "profession" in the world.


Electric motors (and cars) get better mileage in stop and go traffic, as <a target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" users="" mrsteve007"="">MrSteve007 pointed out upthread.   It's why the Prius has a higher city mileage rating than highway.

With regenerative braking, you also get "free" energy from going downhill.
 
2013-02-14 06:17:12 PM  

ringersol: If you guys are headed off to hypothetical-land, I wish you the best of luck, but I was only ever talking about the situation at issue.


So I got all curious now, (sorry if I won't leave you alone) and I wanted to figure out what some actual numbers are.

From http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32557 the Tesla S gets 88MPGe City and 90 MPGe Highway.

From the EPA testing details page: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml you can see that the average speed of the highway test is 48mph, and the average speed of the city test is 21mph.  The City course has 23 stops over 11 miles in a time of about 32 min.  I have not driven in Manhattan, but I have a feeling that there is a whole lot more starting and stopping.  However, the city course also gets up to 56mph; a speed I am confident is not driven frequently in downtown Manhattan.

Assuming the Epa tests are relatively balanced, it looks like the Tesla S is more efficient in stop/start traffic, than it is at some average speed slightly above 48mph -lets guess 50- so I will concede that you are right about your guess with 45mph.  I will also say that you are nowhere near as blatantly right as you thought you were.
 
2013-02-14 06:30:22 PM  

MadCat: I'm sure that's true if you're looking for decimal point accuracy. For the majority of us it's enough that our speedometers match the automated police radar traps that display "current speed"

I'm a cab driver and light duty mechanic, I've driven hundreds of different vehicles over the last couple months and I have yet to find one that failed this test on stock wheels and properly inflated tires. When they don't match it's always been due to improper replacement tire selection, or low tire pressure.


Yeah, no. If you find them matching that consistently, then you're not testing in an accurate manner. Sorry, but that's simply the only option, because it is not difficult to find new cars that fail the test.

I have driven many myself, mostly with a reading that's 3-5mph faster than you're actually doing, and occasionally (eg. the now-discontinued Mitsubishi Diamante) the rarer car that reads 3-5mph slower than you're doing. Only a couple have come within 1mph of accurate, and I have never yet seen a vehicle that precisely nails it at 55mph. And that is with tires inflated precisely (checked using multiple different, accurate pressure monitors) and using stock wheels / tires.
 
2013-02-14 06:32:21 PM  

Broom: If you say so. I've never toured a parking lot that many times in my life for a spot; can't remember the last time I even did more than a full circuit - including when I lived near Milford CT, which is apparently part of the route.


I can't comment on the locale; I've never been to CT. I've been to plenty of other places where it would be believable, and to places where even half an hour's circling might not net you a space, but I doubt anywhere in the US except perhaps New York or LA is the latter.
 
2013-02-14 07:18:02 PM  

gweilo8888: horsepocket: You need to get better cars. Seriously, you really need to buy better cars. I've owned 11 cars over the course of my life, ranging from a used 86 Cutlas to a new BMW, and never has the speedometer been off by more than 2mph when compared to radar results. The speedometer is usually dead on, which always surprises me.

Changing out wheel and tire sizes can have an effect on your speedometer reading, but I'm guessing a stock from the factory test car will have a speedometer off by more than 1mph.

Try paying more attention. The amount by which the speedo differs from the real speed typically varies significantly depending on the speed you're driving at. That's why I cited "at 55 mph", because that's what *I* typically pay most attention to, since that's the speed I most often drive at.

And I've driven plenty of cars, including American, Japanese, and European. Not sports cars, but more than a few expensive sedans. (And a couple of cheap ones, as well; interestingly one of the cheapest was one of the most accurate.)

Very few have been within 2-3mph, and I've yet to find a single car that was 100% accurate at 55mph, let alone at all speeds. And that's on stock rubber. (I never, ever put a different size wheel/tire on a car than it left the factory with.)


The speedometer in our 10 year old Hyundai---not exactly a high-end car---is consistently about 2mph under the speed reported by our GPS.  I think I'd be very annoyed if it were off any more than that.
 
2013-02-14 07:27:06 PM  
Woah woah woah!!!

I've been assured by multiple farkers multiple times that the media is NOT BIASED.
 
2013-02-14 07:43:00 PM  
Given the number of comments, I poked in looking for boobies. Leaving drained.
 
2013-02-14 07:43:52 PM  

gweilo8888: MadCat: I'm sure that's true if you're looking for decimal point accuracy. For the majority of us it's enough that our speedometers match the automated police radar traps that display "current speed"

I'm a cab driver and light duty mechanic, I've driven hundreds of different vehicles over the last couple months and I have yet to find one that failed this test on stock wheels and properly inflated tires. When they don't match it's always been due to improper replacement tire selection, or low tire pressure.

Yeah, no. If you find them matching that consistently, then you're not testing in an accurate manner. Sorry, but that's simply the only option, because it is not difficult to find new cars that fail the test.

I have driven many myself, mostly with a reading that's 3-5mph faster than you're actually doing, and occasionally (eg. the now-discontinued Mitsubishi Diamante) the rarer car that reads 3-5mph slower than you're doing. Only a couple have come within 1mph of accurate, and I have never yet seen a vehicle that precisely nails it at 55mph. And that is with tires inflated precisely (checked using multiple different, accurate pressure monitors) and using stock wheels / tires.


I've had the same experience. My car consistently reads 2.5mph faster than I'm actually going. Tire pressure, size are all according the manufacturer and this happens even with brand new tires that aren't worn down. GPS and those radars at the side of the road show my true speed.

I compensate for this when I go my typical 8 mph over the speed limit.
 
2013-02-14 08:06:45 PM  

FizixJunkee: The speedometer in our 10 year old Hyundai---not exactly a high-end car---is consistently about 2mph under the speed reported by our GPS.  I think I'd be very annoyed if it were off any more than that.


Interestingly, the most accurate I can recall was in a cheap late 90s Kia, long since scrapped I'm sure. (It *was* a Kia, it was horribly built even when new.) ;-) That was only off by 1-2 mph. The Koreans must be big on accuracy.
 
2013-02-14 08:23:52 PM  
God forbid you pay a fortune for a car and just expect it to get you somewhere without any trouble.
 
2013-02-14 08:52:06 PM  
Man, a lot of you guys seem to have a fetish for testing your spedos.
 
2013-02-14 09:03:35 PM  
Call me when I can get one for $25k, until then it's just another toy for the wealthy.
 
2013-02-14 09:09:22 PM  
Tesla owners and fans are the worst sort of evangelist for "their" product and Elon Musk is probably the worst of them all. I have no doubt he'd falsify data for the "cause" because he's a true believer. This is the same kind of behavior that leads to priests abusing children and not being reported.
 
2013-02-14 09:43:06 PM  
Ask yourself, who has the greater motive to lie:

1. A gabillionaire struggling to create credibility for a corporation that took half a billion in federal alt-energy money, and sells a beautiful electric car for twice what most Americans make in a year.

2. Or a long-time reporter for the best newspaper in the world, a guy who has never had his credibility seriously questioned, who has written on the environment for decades.

Ask yourself whether it's possible that the data is somehow screwed up -- heaven knows I could produce a chart right now proving that you are actually a cat.

Seriously. Elon Musk isn't gonna give you a ride in his rocket because you White Knight him on Fark or Reddit.
 
2013-02-14 09:58:30 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Both have obvious reasons to lie. Screw it, I'm going to watch Harlem Shake videos.


i think i'm officially old. i have no idea why harlem shake videos are popular. i've watched a few, and wasn't amused at all, and i am very easily amused

 i just don't get it
 
2013-02-14 10:25:20 PM  

animal color: Ask yourself, who has the greater motive to lie:

1. A gabillionaire struggling to create credibility for a corporation that took half a billion in federal alt-energy money, and sells a beautiful electric car for twice what most Americans make in a year.

2. Or a long-time reporter for the best newspaper in the world, a guy who has never had his credibility seriously questioned, who has written on the environment for decades.

Ask yourself whether it's possible that the data is somehow screwed up -- heaven knows I could produce a chart right now proving that you are actually a cat.

Seriously. Elon Musk isn't gonna give you a ride in his rocket because you White Knight him on Fark or Reddit.


I'm also not sure I'll jump on the bandwagon that he purposefully created the outcome, but I do think he didn't drive the car as it was meant to be driven. The car has been reviewed by quite a few organizations, many of which you can view on youtube, and none of them had issues when they treated it like an EV.

So, what we have here is a technological misunderstanding, or to say it another way...a journalist who failed to do his research.
 
2013-02-14 10:31:06 PM  
 
2013-02-14 10:37:18 PM  

BackwardsHatClub: Tesla owners and fans are the worst sort of evangelist for "their" product and Elon Musk is probably the worst of them all. I have no doubt he'd falsify data for the "cause" because he's a true believer. This is the same kind of behavior that leads to priests abusing children and not being reported.


You do realize that one is owned by the other, right?

/ 1/10, you got me.
 
2013-02-15 01:35:33 AM  
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/15/autos/tesla-model-s/index.html

CNN Money redid the trip in a model-S. The Verdict? "With a full battery, there was no need -- none at all -- to nurse the car's battery."

Also, he Tweeted:

Um... Not that hard. At @TeslaMotors Milford SuperCharger. Been leadfootin' last 20 miles

Seems Broder has some 'Splaining to do.
 
2013-02-15 09:24:47 AM  
The WindowLicker: "I have not driven in Manhattan, but I have a feeling that there is a whole lot more starting and stopping."

And this is where our entire divergence happened.  Because driving in Manhattan isn't even like a *pessimistic* EPA city route.  It's like a worst-case.  Because it's not 25-35, and neither is it a stand-still.  It's 20-ish city blocks per mile in NYC and if you made it 40 blocks with 20 stops through Manhattan, it would have to be midnight on Christmas.  Further, these aren't idealized starts and stops.  These aren't slow rolls off the line.  This is quick acceleration to keep from getting cut off.  Quick stops to avoid constant obstacles.  And regenerative braking also doesn't work nearly as well when people aren't coasting to a stop.

If we were talking about 2 miles through a normal city or US metropolitan/suburban sprawl, I would agree the detour was a relative non-issue for a car like the Tesla S.  And it may well be debatable whether it was notably less efficient than the highway at 45 mph.  I agree it certainly wouldn't be an easy call.  But in the case we're talking about, yeah, it is an easy call.  It's as easy as saying a teenager in Daddy's sportscar isn't coming anywhere close to the EPA fuel efficiency numbers.
 
2013-02-15 09:31:00 AM  

ringersol: And this is where our entire divergence happened. Because driving in Manhattan isn't even like a *pessimistic* EPA city route. It's like a worst-case. Because it's not 25-35, and neither is it a stand-still. It's 20-ish city blocks per mile in NYC and if you made it 40 blocks with 20 stops through Manhattan, it would have to be midnight on Christmas. Further, these aren't idealized starts and stops. These aren't slow rolls off the line. This is quick acceleration to keep from getting cut off. Quick stops to avoid constant obstacles. And regenerative braking also doesn't work nearly as well when people aren't coasting to a stop.


Apparently, Broder admitted that he drove into Manhattan via the Lincoln tunnel. Loltastic.
 
2013-02-15 10:18:18 AM  
This is how the article reduces to me.

"I knew it was 200 miles to the next charge station and I had 200 miles' worth of power in the battery.  I took a detour through Manhattan, so my trip was 202 miles instead of 200.  I can't figure out why I didn't make it!"
 
2013-02-16 02:18:03 AM  

Johnsnownw: animal color: Ask yourself, who has the greater motive to lie:

1. A gabillionaire struggling to create credibility for a corporation that took half a billion in federal alt-energy money, and sells a beautiful electric car for twice what most Americans make in a year.

2. Or a long-time reporter for the best newspaper in the world, a guy who has never had his credibility seriously questioned, who has written on the environment for decades.

Ask yourself whether it's possible that the data is somehow screwed up -- heaven knows I could produce a chart right now proving that you are actually a cat.

Seriously. Elon Musk isn't gonna give you a ride in his rocket because you White Knight him on Fark or Reddit.

I'm also not sure I'll jump on the bandwagon that he purposefully created the outcome, but I do think he didn't drive the car as it was meant to be driven. The car has been reviewed by quite a few organizations, many of which you can view on youtube, and none of them had issues when they treated it like an EV.

So, what we have here is a technological misunderstanding, or to say it another way...a journalist who failed to do his research.


The problem here is that he wasn't driving the car as "it was meant to be driven" - he started out with the intention of driving the car like a normal person along the most electric-friendly 500 mile route that exists in the US right now.  He called Tesla numerous times along the way to check about the battery life, and they repeatedly told him either the wrong information or they had too much faith in the car.

Considering most people aren't calling Tesla for advice while driving their cars, it's still up in the air.
 
2013-02-16 08:37:49 AM  

Lsherm: Johnsnownw: animal color: Ask yourself, who has the greater motive to lie:

1. A gabillionaire struggling to create credibility for a corporation that took half a billion in federal alt-energy money, and sells a beautiful electric car for twice what most Americans make in a year.

2. Or a long-time reporter for the best newspaper in the world, a guy who has never had his credibility seriously questioned, who has written on the environment for decades.

Ask yourself whether it's possible that the data is somehow screwed up -- heaven knows I could produce a chart right now proving that you are actually a cat.

Seriously. Elon Musk isn't gonna give you a ride in his rocket because you White Knight him on Fark or Reddit.

I'm also not sure I'll jump on the bandwagon that he purposefully created the outcome, but I do think he didn't drive the car as it was meant to be driven. The car has been reviewed by quite a few organizations, many of which you can view on youtube, and none of them had issues when they treated it like an EV.

So, what we have here is a technological misunderstanding, or to say it another way...a journalist who failed to do his research.

The problem here is that he wasn't driving the car as "it was meant to be driven" - he started out with the intention of driving the car like a normal person along the most electric-friendly 500 mile route that exists in the US right now.  He called Tesla numerous times along the way to check about the battery life, and they repeatedly told him either the wrong information or they had too much faith in the car.

Considering most people aren't calling Tesla for advice while driving their cars, it's still up in the air.


CNN who did the exact same route while speeding part of the way and had absolutely no problems demonstrates the issue with the story is this particular reporter.  You may argue Tesla is fudging the data but you can't argue CNN is in bed with Tesla when they put out their own story confirming its absolutely  possible and easy to do without restricting the ride one bit.
 
Displayed 239 of 239 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report