Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(CNN)   CNN Money decides to step into the spat between Tesla and the New York Times by driving the same Boston to D.C. route in the Model-S as the NYT's reviewer did. "With a full battery, there was no need -- none at all -- to nurse the car's battery"   (money.cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Model S, cnnmoney, NYT, flatbed trucks, District of Columbia, New Jersey Turnpike  
•       •       •

14385 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2013 at 7:46 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



368 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-02-15 07:29:08 AM  
Well, duh.
 
2013-02-15 07:34:33 AM  
The douchebag from the NYT did a hatchetjob smear article on the Tesla, and he got caught. Should have realized that the cars' computer would track enough information to debunk his claims, especially with GPS. Whoops! This new report just verifies Tesla's data.

NYT disavows and fires reporter in 3... 2... 1...
 
2013-02-15 07:50:27 AM  
Remember this the next time you read *ANYTHING* in *ANY* news outlet.

Gell-Mann Amnesia.
 
2013-02-15 07:50:40 AM  
Apparently the NYT reporter received some really poor advice from a Tesla spokesperson about how much battery charge was required.  He kept calling that same spokesperson for help during the trip and received more bad advice.

That spokesperson no longer works for Tesla.
 
2013-02-15 07:50:44 AM  
NYT is just the propaganda arm of the GOP (well the less extremist part of the GOP if that still exists).  So of course they're going to do whatever it takes to smear clean energy sources, because it cuts into the profits of big oil.
 
2013-02-15 07:51:22 AM  
art.penny-arcade.com

/Somewhat relevant
 
2013-02-15 07:54:59 AM  
Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH
 
2013-02-15 07:55:09 AM  
You know who ELSE tried to smear Tesla???

(it was Edison....)
 
2013-02-15 07:55:33 AM  
Well, glad that debate is over. The supercharger system works fine DC to Boston if you actually charge the car like your supposed to on the way.
 
2013-02-15 07:55:43 AM  
War of the Shills™
 
2013-02-15 07:58:52 AM  

Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH


Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.
 
2013-02-15 07:59:08 AM  

Kiwimann: Apparently the NYT reporter received some really poor advice from a Tesla spokesperson about how much battery charge was required.  He kept calling that same spokesperson for help during the trip and received more bad advice.

That spokesperson no longer works for Tesla.


Link to this? Because I've been following this pretty closely and haven't heard anything like that.

I find it pretty hard to swallow that someone from Tesla would tell him to go 62mi with only 32 rated miles left on dial. I find it harder still that he didn't even think to question it.
 
2013-02-15 07:59:48 AM  

Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH


It isn't a supercar. and considering other $100k dollar sedans cost around $100 USD to fill up with gas I think it is a fair trade
 
2013-02-15 08:00:28 AM  

verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.


Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.
 
2013-02-15 08:02:05 AM  
Every time I read about this story, I get an earworm.

/some say....
 
2013-02-15 08:03:14 AM  

csnake24: NYT is just the propaganda arm of the GOP (well the less extremist part of the GOP if that still exists).  So of course they're going to do whatever it takes to smear clean energy sources, because it cuts into the profits of big oil.


I live with my mom. You need to start with something halfway believable before you expand on it.
 
2013-02-15 08:03:33 AM  

Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.


And you have to spend an hour "refueling."

$100k supercar is a piece of crap. That's just what I want to do when I drive, constantly worry if I can make it to the next recharging station and then spend an hour cooling my heels. Who the fark would be retarded enough to buy one of these?
 
2013-02-15 08:04:42 AM  
Well thank God fuel guzzling muscle cars are still way cheaper
 
2013-02-15 08:05:05 AM  

Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

 It's still a nascent technology, yeah, and if you're driving where there aren't many quick charge stations (even though there are quite a few other sorts of charging stations) you probably should be cautious still, but it doesn't mean you have to keep it under 60MPH anyway.


If you drove across a desert with few petrol stations, you'd probably be cautious about your fuel status too. More charging stations will come, and when they do, it'll get easier. Remember, Petrol has had a hundred years to get all of it's infrastructure in place, give electrics a bit of time.
 
2013-02-15 08:05:11 AM  

Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.


once there are more charging stations that won't be necessary. also most people just use their vehicle for short commutes and an electric car would be ideal for that. also no carbon emissions,no noise pollution,no terrorist funding petrol.
 
2013-02-15 08:05:55 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

And you have to spend an hour "refueling."

$100k supercar is a piece of crap. That's just what I want to do when I drive, constantly worry if I can make it to the next recharging station and then spend an hour cooling my heels. Who the fark would be retarded enough to buy one of these?


If I was insanely wealthy I'd buy one, and have my servant follow me in a ZR1. We would then swap when I have to recharge. But then he'd never be able to catch up, as I could refuel in like 3 minutes.

I'd never see my loyal servant again.
 
2013-02-15 08:07:56 AM  
Media Controversy Advertising Step 3: have Shill B debunk the the negative claims of Shill A, profit.
 
2013-02-15 08:08:09 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

once there are more charging stations that won't be necessary. also most people just use their vehicle for short commutes and an electric car would be ideal for that. also no carbon emissions,no noise pollution,no terrorist funding petrol.


Of course, I don't doubt that. But as it stands, if I bought a Tesla (or, given my income level, a Nissan Leaf), I'd still have to have a second car, as sometimes I like to drive longer distances. If I want to drive from Ohio to North Carolina, I'd rather not have to stop and wait for 30 minutes every X miles.

That's why I struggle with pure electric cars: Unless they can get charge time to like... 5 minutes, I can't see owning one. Hybrids? Sure. Makes sense.
 
2013-02-15 08:09:07 AM  

Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH


Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.


Super trolls at work, here. TAKE NOTES! This is how it is done!


/Totally gonna get one of these
//debating if I need the supercharging option...
 
2013-02-15 08:10:26 AM  

dittybopper: Remember this the next time you read *ANYTHING* in *ANY* news outlet.

Gell-Mann Amnesia.


Except news media is just the ultimate outlet for a variety of sources.  The op-ed on the subject with which you are familiar comes from some local yahoo with his own byline, and the story about Palestine or whatever comes from the international AP wire, which employs actual investigative journalists.

This assumption that one element of a paper being wrong invalidates the rest of it is 1. illogical given the above and 2. the reason why idiots dismiss entire publications as "right wing" or "left wing" shills even when both publish literally the same story in the same words.

So, basically... no.  Ethos does not work that way.  Newspapers don't have peer review or even fact check, stop being lazy and read the author or source citation and make some effort to be actually informed about things.

//And of course, as a general rule, technical subject and in-paper analysis = grain of salt, recounting of events and direct quotes from primary sources = probably all right.
//Not rocket science.
 
2013-02-15 08:10:30 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Who the fark would be retarded enough to buy one of these?


It would be absolutely perfect for a well-to-do liberal living in a city suburb who pretty much always flies anywhere if he's going more than 150 miles. Also a green married couple that's solidly in the upper middle class. They could own two vehicles and just take the gas one if they're worried about a long trip.
 
2013-02-15 08:10:37 AM  

csnake24: NYT is just the propaganda arm of the GOP (well the less extremist part of the GOP if that still exists).


Right.   That's why the NYT has endorsed only democrats for president since 1960.  Must be a double-bluff.  It's an X-K-Red 27 technique.
 
2013-02-15 08:10:59 AM  

maddermaxx: Kiwimann: Apparently the NYT reporter received some really poor advice from a Tesla spokesperson about how much battery charge was required.  He kept calling that same spokesperson for help during the trip and received more bad advice.

That spokesperson no longer works for Tesla.

Link to this? Because I've been following this pretty closely and haven't heard anything like that.

I find it pretty hard to swallow that someone from Tesla would tell him to go 62mi with only 32 rated miles left on dial. I find it harder still that he didn't even think to question it.


The only information that he was supposed to have gotten from the Telsa spokesperson that he followed was to turn off cruise control to allow for more braking regeneration. I'd also like to see a link because the other advice he received from Tesla employees he apparently totally ignored.
 
2013-02-15 08:11:33 AM  

mekkab: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

Super trolls at work, here. TAKE NOTES! This is how it is done!


/Totally gonna get one of these
//debating if I need the supercharging option...


I'm genuinely not trying to troll, but if I was going to spend my entire year's income on a car, I'd rather not have to wait 30 minutes every X miles to recharge. I just can't fathom who, beyond the super rich, this car is for.

I'm sure they're fantastic, awesome, incredible vehicles with amazing torque and awesome handling and all of that jazz, but can you honestly imagine owning one in a day to day life, without having a second car? That just seems like such an awkward proposition.
 
2013-02-15 08:11:34 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

And you have to spend an hour "refueling."

$100k supercar is a piece of crap. That's just what I want to do when I drive, constantly worry if I can make it to the next recharging station and then spend an hour cooling my heels. Who the fark would be retarded enough to buy one of these?


you have to spend an hour refueling after you traveled 240 MILES.

95% of your normal usage is:  drive around town, go home, plug in

The other 5%?  Drive for 4 hours, stop for food, drive for another 4 hours, stop to stretch pee, read for the other 50 minutes...drive 4 hours..  Seriously.

if I had the 100K *I* would buy one.

Its geek girl magnet time.
 
2013-02-15 08:11:45 AM  
The supercharger stations are supposed to charge it in much less time. And I think with the big battery the rang is pretty good. Perhaps not enough to take a long road trip. But, most people could do their normal driving and have no worries about the battery. Recharge it at night and its good to go the next morning.
 
2013-02-15 08:11:50 AM  

Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH


Unless you're on a German autobahn, why would you ever need a car that goes over 60 MPH? Last I heard, there are these things called "speed limits" and electric cars like the Tesla can reach them.

My commiserations about your tiny penis. Have you considered buying a great big fark-off gun to make yourself feel better?
 
2013-02-15 08:12:39 AM  

dittybopper: Remember this the next time you read *ANYTHING* in *ANY* news outlet.

Gell-Mann Amnesia.


Soooo... You linked to a conservative Catholic philosophical magazine that essentially says that we should discount all media accounts (except presumably theirs). You're not noticing how medieval Catholic that is? Discount science, discount that heathen Greek philosophy, don't read the Bible directly, just trust our version of everything... Hey, give us enough money you can go right to heaven!

/First Things is actually decent for what it is
//But that's a dangerous thing to advocate, given the history
 
2013-02-15 08:13:22 AM  

Greywar: Prank Call of Cthulhu: Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

And you have to spend an hour "refueling."

$100k supercar is a piece of crap. That's just what I want to do when I drive, constantly worry if I can make it to the next recharging station and then spend an hour cooling my heels. Who the fark would be retarded enough to buy one of these?

you have to spend an hour refueling after you traveled 240 MILES.

95% of your normal usage is:  drive around town, go home, plug in

The other 5%?  Drive for 4 hours, stop for food, drive for another 4 hours, stop to stretch pee, read for the other 50 minutes...drive 4 hours..  Seriously.

if I had the 100K *I* would buy one.

Its geek girl magnet time.


I'd buy one too, if I could drop 100k on a car like that. It'd be neat to have one. But I can't really see "reading for 50 minutes on a road trip" as a legitimate suggestion.
 
2013-02-15 08:13:57 AM  
How hard would it be to treat electric car batteries like propane tanks?  You stop at the station and and swap your empty one for a full one.  Or am I missing an obvious problem with that?
 
2013-02-15 08:14:05 AM  

csnake24: NYT is just the propaganda arm of the GOP

 
2013-02-15 08:14:06 AM  

dittybopper: Remember this the next time you read *ANYTHING* in *ANY* news outlet.

Gell-Mann Amnesia.


The thing is, newspapers aren't all written by the same person, so while I might write off one correspondent, I usually will give the benefit of the doubt to the next one. Unless the entire publication reaches a critical mass of bullsh*t, at which point it becomes a tabloid.
 
2013-02-15 08:14:46 AM  

YixilTesiphon: csnake24: NYT is just the propaganda arm of the GOP


Uh, let's try that again.

reverberated.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-15 08:14:48 AM  
That mere 70 miles of buffer made me a little nervous, especially after I missed an exit and added a few miles to the trip. I followed Tesla's recommendations and kept the cruise control pegged to between 60 and 65 much of the way and kept the climate control at 72 degrees. And I minimized stops.

That is a pretty shiatty driving experience for $100k.
 
2013-02-15 08:16:31 AM  

alowishus: How hard would it be to treat electric car batteries like propane tanks?  You stop at the station and and swap your empty one for a full one.  Or am I missing an obvious problem with that?


That could work, but it makes people very uncomfortable. You'd have to come up with a complicated pricing scheme. You'd have to sell the car sans battery. Batteries are not a fungible product. No one wants to walk out of a dealership with a new battery and on their first long trip swap it for one that has been through 800 charge cycles. Some people have proposed a system whereby you purchase the car without the battery at great discount and then pay a service to lease the battery, but this takes the good feeling out of not having to pay for gas.
 
2013-02-15 08:17:34 AM  
Fine, except that the NYT's journey was taken in exceptionally cold conditions which borks the batteries.

Hotdog453: can you honestly imagine owning one in a day to day life, without having a second car?


No, but how many people with $100k cars don't own a second car? If your commute was in and out of LA I can absolutely see the appeal.
 
2013-02-15 08:18:44 AM  
This controversy over Tesla has gone on for so long, I wish the San Bernadino Police would just throw it in a cabin and set it on fire so it would end.
 
2013-02-15 08:18:45 AM  

Trapper439: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Unless you're on a German autobahn, why would you ever need a car that goes over 60 MPH? Last I heard, there are these things called "speed limits" and electric cars like the Tesla can reach them.


Uh, around these parts the speed limit on the Interstate is 70 MPH.
 
2013-02-15 08:18:46 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: That mere 70 miles of buffer made me a little nervous, especially after I missed an exit and added a few miles to the trip. I followed Tesla's recommendations and kept the cruise control pegged to between 60 and 65 much of the way and kept the climate control at 72 degrees. And I minimized stops.

That is a pretty shiatty driving experience for $100k.


So go buy a Viper.

"I don't think something is worth as much as what it's sold for, so no one else should be allowed to buy it and it should stop existing."

Some people have plenty of money and it's worth it to them to make a strong statement about not contributing to pollution and consumption of fossil fuels.
 
2013-02-15 08:19:41 AM  

FarkinNortherner: Fine, except that the NYT's journey was taken in exceptionally cold conditions which borks the batteries.


Sure, but it also contains proven lies, which is the real point.
 
2013-02-15 08:19:55 AM  

Trapper439: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Unless you're on a German autobahn, why would you ever need a car that goes over 60 MPH? Last I heard, there are these things called "speed limits" and electric cars like the Tesla can reach them.

My commiserations about your tiny penis. Have you considered buying a great big fark-off gun to make yourself feel better?


60 MPH is lower than a huge majority of highway speed limits.  Lots of places have 75 MPH speed limits.

And to everyone complaining about cost, it's just like every new thing.  The price will most likely come down, maybe not for Tesla's specifically, but other electric cars, if the market goes that way.
 
2013-02-15 08:20:28 AM  

Hotdog453: mekkab: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

Super trolls at work, here. TAKE NOTES! This is how it is done!


/Totally gonna get one of these
//debating if I need the supercharging option...

I'm genuinely not trying to troll, but if I was going to spend my entire year's income on a car, I'd rather not have to wait 30 minutes every X miles to recharge. I just can't fathom who, beyond the super rich, this car is for.

I'm sure they're fantastic, awesome, incredible vehicles with amazing torque and awesome handling and all of that jazz, but can you honestly imagine owning one in a day to day life, without having a second car? That just seems like such an awkward proposition.


Do you think a lot of people who spend $100k+ on a car don't have a second and third vehicle?
 
2013-02-15 08:21:03 AM  

Tommy Moo: alowishus: How hard would it be to treat electric car batteries like propane tanks?  You stop at the station and and swap your empty one for a full one.  Or am I missing an obvious problem with that?

That could work, but it makes people very uncomfortable. You'd have to come up with a complicated pricing scheme. You'd have to sell the car sans battery. Batteries are not a fungible product. No one wants to walk out of a dealership with a new battery and on their first long trip swap it for one that has been through 800 charge cycles. Some people have proposed a system whereby you purchase the car without the battery at great discount and then pay a service to lease the battery, but this takes the good feeling out of not having to pay for gas.


Are't the batteries huge and weigh several hundred pounds? I suppose an infrastructure could be designed to make them easily changed but there are some real challenges.
 
2013-02-15 08:21:37 AM  

Trapper439: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Unless you're on a German autobahn, why would you ever need a car that goes over 60 MPH? Last I heard, there are these things called "speed limits" and electric cars like the Tesla can reach them.

My commiserations about your tiny penis. Have you considered buying a great big fark-off gun to make yourself feel better?


You drive 60 MPH in the left lane too don't you?
 
2013-02-15 08:21:41 AM  

Hotdog453: I'm genuinely not trying to troll, but if I was going to spend my entire year's income on a car, I'd rather not have to wait 30 minutes every X miles to recharge. I just can't fathom who, beyond the super rich, this car is for.

I'm sure they're fantastic, awesome, incredible vehicles with amazing torque and awesome handling and all of that jazz, but can you honestly imagine owning one in a day to day life, without having a second car? That just seems like such an awkward proposition.


Yes.  I imagine the potential of once a year going over 200 miles at a time without at least stopping 30 minutes for lunch would be an INCREDIBLE hassle to rent some other vehicle for.  Much better to have a second vehicle or just give up entirely and buy some other 100k sedan gas hog.  Yes.  That sounds like a sane and logical position to worry about.

/You own a pickup truck because you moved to a new house once 3 years ago, don't you?
 
2013-02-15 08:22:26 AM  
Link to this? Because I've been following this pretty closely and haven't heard anything like that.

I find it pretty hard to swallow that someone from Tesla would tell him to go 62mi with only 32 rated miles left on dial. I find it harder still that he didn't even think to question it.


http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/that-tesla-data-what-it-s ay s-and-what-it-doesnt/

FTA: Beginning early in the morning of my second day with the car, after the projected range had dropped precipitously while parked overnight, I spoke numerous times with Christina Ra, Tesla's spokeswoman at the time, and Ted Merendino, a Tesla product planner at the company's headquarters in California. They told me that the loss of battery power when parked overnight could be restored by properly "conditioning" the battery, a half-hour process, which I undertook by sitting in the car with the heat on low, as they instructed. That proved ineffective; the conditioning process actually reduced the range by 24 percent (to 19 miles, from 25 miles).

It was also Tesla that told me that an hour of charging (at a lower power level) at a public utility in Norwich, Conn., would give me adequate range to reach the Supercharger 61 miles away, even though the car's range estimator read 32 miles - because, again, I was told that moderate-speed driving would "restore" the battery power lost overnight. That also proved overly optimistic, as I ran out of power about 14 miles shy of the Milford Supercharger and about five miles from the public charging station in East Haven that I was trying to reach


.....

I haven't followed this story religiously, but I've been in the same situation of receiving bad advice from poorly trained tech support (particularly with my Dell laptop).  If you don't know what you're doing, and tech support doesn't know what they're doing, it's a pretty painful mix and I could see that being a major contributing factor to the NYT reporter's experience.
 
2013-02-15 08:22:44 AM  

MayoBoy: Trapper439: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Unless you're on a German autobahn, why would you ever need a car that goes over 60 MPH? Last I heard, there are these things called "speed limits" and electric cars like the Tesla can reach them.

My commiserations about your tiny penis. Have you considered buying a great big fark-off gun to make yourself feel better?

You drive 60 MPH in the left lane too don't you?


Must be from Maryland
 
2013-02-15 08:23:01 AM  
Oh look, a Tesla thread where Farkers worship a car they will never be able to afford.
 
2013-02-15 08:23:45 AM  

Trapper439: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Unless you're on a German autobahn, why would you ever need a car that goes over 60 MPH? Last I heard, there are these things called "speed limits" and electric cars like the Tesla can reach them.

My commiserations about your tiny penis. Have you considered buying a great big fark-off gun to make yourself feel better?


I see from your profile that you are in Australia, It's been a while since Ive been there, but according to Wikipedia  "130 km/h speed limits are found on the Stuart, Barkly, Victoria and Arnhem Highways"

130kp/h is 81 mph - no Autobahn needed.

Most of the way from LA to Vegas is 65 MPH

Sorry about your ability to do math
 
2013-02-15 08:24:53 AM  
Would get a 650 hp Shelby for less, and have a lot more fun.
 
2013-02-15 08:25:23 AM  

Hotdog453: mekkab: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

Super trolls at work, here. TAKE NOTES! This is how it is done!


/Totally gonna get one of these
//debating if I need the supercharging option...

I'm genuinely not trying to troll, but if I was going to spend my entire year's income on a car, I'd rather not have to wait 30 minutes every X miles to recharge. I just can't fathom who, beyond the super rich, this car is for.

I'm sure they're fantastic, awesome, incredible vehicles with amazing torque and awesome handling and all of that jazz, but can you honestly imagine owning one in a day to day life, without having a second car? That just seems like such an awkward proposition.


For most people nearly every journey they make is well under the range of one charge. For them they drive the car, never stop at a gas station and the car magically has a full tank of "gas" every morning.
 
2013-02-15 08:25:25 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

And you have to spend an hour "refueling."

$100k supercar is a piece of crap. That's just what I want to do when I drive, constantly worry if I can make it to the next recharging station and then spend an hour cooling my heels. Who the fark would be retarded enough to buy one of these?


people with short commutes.  I test rode a Nissal Leaf a while ago.  Nice car, but the cruising range isn't good for me, and it's just too expensive for a second car.  I'll keep my trusty 02 Prius.
 
2013-02-15 08:25:55 AM  
Of course, I don't doubt that. But as it stands, if I bought a Tesla (or, given my income level, a Nissan Leaf), I'd still have to have a second car, as sometimes I like to drive longer distances. If I want to drive from Ohio to North Carolina, I'd rather not have to stop and wait for 30 minutes every X miles.

That's why I struggle with pure electric cars: Unless they can get charge time to like... 5 minutes, I can't see owning one. Hybrids? Sure. Makes sense.


That's the idea behind Better Place;
http://www.betterplace.com/How-it-Works

Instead of selling you the car they sell you the battery, so besides charging you can swap them out quickly.

nope, don't work for them, just like the idea.
 
2013-02-15 08:27:48 AM  

alowishus: How hard would it be to treat electric car batteries like propane tanks?  You stop at the station and and swap your empty one for a full one.  Or am I missing an obvious problem with that?


They're already doing it. Look up Better Place battery swapping. 1min automated change, and it can take all sizes and shapes of batteries, so companies won't be constrained in design (as long as the automated release catches are standardised).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lp_6VyIeSY

They're being installed in Japan, Israel and Denmark to start with. If they manage to be successful (we'll see), it could be expanded out. But the technology is definitely there.
 
2013-02-15 08:29:36 AM  

Hotdog453: Of course, I don't doubt that. But as it stands, if I bought a Tesla (or, given my income level, a Nissan Leaf), I'd still have to have a second car, as sometimes I like to drive longer distances. If I want to drive from Ohio to North Carolina, I'd rather not have to stop and wait for 30 minutes every X miles.

That's why I struggle with pure electric cars: Unless they can get charge time to like... 5 minutes, I can't see owning one. Hybrids? Sure. Makes sense.


Maybe not.  For most people, normal driving would be just fine in something like that.  Commuting back and forth to work, weekend trips to the grocery, etc.  For those longer weekend trips, rent the most appropriate vehicle.  It'd be cheaper that way for the majority of the population.
 
2013-02-15 08:30:31 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Except news media is just the ultimate outlet for a variety of sources.  The op-ed on the subject with which you are familiar comes from some local yahoo with his own byline, and the story about Palestine or whatever comes from the international AP wire, which employs actual investigative journalists.


The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect doesn't just apply to op-eds.  It applies to *ALL* reporting.

Think about it:  A journalist who reports on, say, medicine is almost certainly not a doctor or other medical professional themselves.  A journalist who reports on, well, pretty much anything is going to have a limited view of what they are looking at.  This is for a number of reasons:

1. They generally have limited knowledge, if any at all, on the subject they are reporting on.
2. They have a deadline, so the can't or won't fact check everything in their articles/stories
3. They have biases.  This isn't a value judgement, it's just an observation that all everyone has their own biases, and they color our view of the world.   Someone from an inner city area is unlikely to view guns as a net social positive, whereas someone from a rural area is, and that can color how they report a story about gun control initiatives, for example.  Note I'm not talking about a conscious decision here.
4. Access.  Being critical, even if it's truthful, can lead to a cut-off of access to a particular news source.  So you report what you can, without being seen as overly critical, but it's necessarily incomplete.  It's a form of self-censorship.
5. Agenda.  This is related to 3, but more "overt", and may be at the heart of the article we are discussing.  This is "spin", and it doesn't just happen in opinion pieces, though it's more likely to be blatantly obvious in those situations.
6.  A limited view of what happens.  There is a reason why kings and generals stopped leading from the front:  They could only see what was happening around them.  A reporter can only see what is around them.  Often focusing on the minutiae of something leads to a misunderstanding of the overall picture.

There are some other reasons, I think,  but those are the big ones.

Now, I've read a lot of stories about things which I had in-depth knowledge.  In almost every case (and I'm talking things like basic Newtonian physics, not just "X said Y" kind of reporting), the reporting is wrong in some critical way.    Yet I'm almost as guilty about taking news reports as gospel myself.  I don't often read a story and say "Hey, I wonder what they got wrong?", even though I've known about this phenomenon for years.
 
2013-02-15 08:30:53 AM  
If I was his editor, I'd demand to see his bank account statements for the last 6 months.
 
2013-02-15 08:31:44 AM  

Hotdog453: but can you honestly imagine owning one in a day to day life, without having a second car?


I wouldn't be in that position, but I can.   However I'm the same kind of person who thinks "an iPad is a computer" because most users don't do video editing/compile kernels/any programming at all, really/things that require a bigger general purpose CPU.  They read emails, the browse the web, they watch netflix, they youtube.  99% of your needs, taken care of.

I think this car fits into a very similar niche.  The niche being "this covers 90% of your driving." You can take a 100 mile drive in the country on weekends and not even think about recharging the car.

Tommy Moo: Also a green married couple that's solidly in the upper middle class. They could own two vehicles and just take the gas-hybrid one if they're worried about a long trip.



FTFY
 
2013-02-15 08:32:14 AM  
Like all liberal news outlets, the NYTs is full if nothing but lies and propaganda. The Enquirer is more legitimate.
 
2013-02-15 08:33:00 AM  

Kiwimann: Link to this? Because I've been following this pretty closely and haven't heard anything like that.

I find it pretty hard to swallow that someone from Tesla would tell him to go 62mi with only 32 rated miles left on dial. I find it harder still that he didn't even think to question it.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/that-tesla-data-what-it-s ay s-and-what-it-doesnt/

FTA: Beginning early in the morning of my second day with the car, after the projected range had dropped precipitously while parked overnight, I spoke numerous times with Christina Ra, Tesla's spokeswoman at the time, and Ted Merendino, a Tesla product planner at the company's headquarters in California. They told me that the loss of battery power when parked overnight could be restored by properly "conditioning" the battery, a half-hour process, which I undertook by sitting in the car with the heat on low, as they instructed. That proved ineffective; the conditioning process actually reduced the range by 24 percent (to 19 miles, from 25 miles).

It was also Tesla that told me that an hour of charging (at a lower power level) at a public utility in Norwich, Conn., would give me adequate range to reach the Supercharger 61 miles away, even though the car's range estimator read 32 miles - because, again, I was told that moderate-speed driving would "restore" the battery power lost overnight. That also proved overly optimistic, as I ran out of power about 14 miles shy of the Milford Supercharger and about five miles from the public charging station in East Haven that I was trying to reach

.....

I haven't followed this story religiously, but I've been in the same situation of receiving bad advice from poorly trained tech support (particularly with my Dell laptop).  If you don't know what you're doing, and tech support doesn't know what they're doing, it's a pretty painful mix and I could see that being a major contributing factor to the NYT reporter's experience.


It doesn't show that the Tech was fired, which was what I was inquiring after after you said it. The claim that he was told by a tech to drive off with only 32mi left is still uncorroborated - and like I said, I find that highly dubious.
 
2013-02-15 08:33:19 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

once there are more charging stations that won't be necessary. also most people just use their vehicle for short commutes and an electric car would be ideal for that. also no carbon emissions,no noise pollution,no terrorist funding petrol.


Where are these magical electricity trees? There is still pollution, it is just shifted somewhere else.
 
2013-02-15 08:34:10 AM  

Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH


fta Instead, I found myself maneuvering around slower cars. Now, I normally spend most of my time on the New Jersey Turnpike out in the left lane going at least 10 or 15 miles an hour faster than I was in the Model S. But sitting in the middle lane, I was keeping up with traffic. I certainly didn't feel out of place -- except for the fact that I wasn't burning any gasoline.

Is it your point, Kanemano, that he should have been driving 80mph in 60mph traffic?
 
2013-02-15 08:34:41 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: Must be from Maryland

North Carolina

'First in flight', my ass!

/Marylanders suck, 'specially in precipitation, but North Carolinians in the I-95 corridor truly get my goat
 
2013-02-15 08:35:05 AM  

Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH


This won't be an issue as they add more charging stations.

This just in, in the stretches no-mans land in Texas and New Mexico where you see a gas station every 300 miles, you have to drive conservatively or you might run out of gas mid way.
 
2013-02-15 08:35:08 AM  

alowishus: How hard would it be to treat electric car batteries like propane tanks?  You stop at the station and and swap your empty one for a full one.  Or am I missing an obvious problem with that?


Liability problems. If a driver turns in a damaged/broken/messed up battery, and the service station gives it to someone else and it causes problems or injuries or death, they could get sued. Which is why places that swap propane tanks don't accept damaged or rusty ones. Unfortunately, with batteries, it's not as simple as seeing it's dented or rusty.

Supply problems. Every 'gas station' ('electron station'?) would need to have a good supply of these things, a place to store them while charging, equipment to move them around (batteries are heavy), etc. Oh, and the electrical capacity to charge them.

Standardization problems. Gas can be poured into any size or shape tank. But a battery pack needs to fit a specific receptacle. That means they must be a standard size/shape. Any change to the standard requires having both 'old' and 'new' types, (see 'Supply problems' above.)

Customer Service problems. "You're taking my fresh, new, shiny batteries, and giving me those nasty, dirty things? I'm the customer and I'm always right! I want -those- batteries. Whatta you mean they're not charged yet? I wanna see your manager!"
 
2013-02-15 08:35:33 AM  

tentaculistic: dittybopper: Remember this the next time you read *ANYTHING* in *ANY* news outlet.

Gell-Mann Amnesia.

Soooo... You linked to a conservative Catholic philosophical magazine that essentially says that we should discount all media accounts (except presumably theirs). You're not noticing how medieval Catholic that is? Discount science, discount that heathen Greek philosophy, don't read the Bible directly, just trust our version of everything... Hey, give us enough money you can go right to heaven!

/First Things is actually decent for what it is
//But that's a dangerous thing to advocate, given the history


Google "Gell-Mann Amnesia".  The idea itself was invented by Michael Crichton, based upon his discussions about the media with physicist Murray Gell-Mann.  I merely picked one of the first links that Google returned that quoted Crichton on the subject.  Doesn't really matter if it was Stormfront or a blog devoted to Mother Teresa's used underwear, it's the idea, not the source, that's important.
 
2013-02-15 08:35:59 AM  

Tommy Moo: "I don't think something is worth as much as what it's sold for, so no one else should be allowed to buy it and it should stop existing."


I didn't say any of that. By definition, since people are willing to buy the car for $100k, the car is worth $100k. If rich people want to waste money on stupid shiat, that's their problem, they're more than free to do so. I'm just trying to figure out why you would want to shell out twice what a bottom-end luxury car costs and get a far inferior driving experience. My car (not a luxury car) cost $28k, goes 450 miles between refueling stops (which take about two minutes to accomplish and can happen almost anywhere), doesn't need to be babied by driving at just 60mph, and I can set the cabin temperature to whatever I like. My driving experience and comfort are superior to the Tesla. The only thing I lose out on is (a) I don't look as cool, and (b) I can't be quite as smug about "saving the planet." I can achieve coolness and smugness for much less than the $72k price difference between the two cars.

Perhaps if every time I stopped at a red light, the coolness factor of the Tesla caused nubile young women to hop in and provide copious amounts of road head, the additional $72k might be a good investment.
 
2013-02-15 08:36:02 AM  

Kanemano: Most of the way from LA to Vegas is 65 MPH


heck, most of Washington DC to Chicago is 65 - 70 mph.
 
2013-02-15 08:36:41 AM  

MyRandomName: Where are these magical electricity trees?


I have a 7.2kw photovoltaic array on my house.  It's as close as you can get. And I wouldn't call it a tree, more of a black-winged angel... (shout out to all y'all Godflesh fans!)

/yes, yes. pollution is shifted to the production of the panels...
 
2013-02-15 08:38:22 AM  

Thunderpipes: Would get a 650 hp Shelby for less, and have a lot more fun.


The honesty of the New York Times reporter depends on my ability to afford the product he reviewed? What a weird concept.
 
2013-02-15 08:38:51 AM  

MyRandomName: Where are these magical electricity trees? There is still pollution, it is just shifted somewhere else.


Electric cars still are far more efficient, and produce less emissions. There was a study done where they found that even with 70% of your power coming from coal, you still produce fewer emissions with an electirc than a petrol car. As only about 30% of US power now comes from coal, Electrics are far and away the better option.
 
2013-02-15 08:39:31 AM  
I would kill for an electric vehicle. I drive on average a max of 35 miles a day for my daily commute total, and on occasion make long drives up the East Coast to visit my family. I'm a perfect candidate for an EV, and unlike this chucklefark I would actually, you know, take the time to charge the battery and not be a pansy about it. I hate driving with a burning passion, and if I could use the excuse that the car needs to charge to take a half hour break in the middle of that 5.5 hour slog I would do it in a heart beat.
 
2013-02-15 08:40:56 AM  

SpdrJay: You know who ELSE tried to smear Tesla???

(it was Edison....)


J.P. Morgan?
 
2013-02-15 08:41:05 AM  
You get 265 miles from the Tesla, at 60 miles an hour you can drive for 4 hours straight.  That's time for lunch so unless you are eating fast food the time it takes you will mean the car is charged.

265 miles is a decent distance that not very many people drive very often.  If you are in sales and are all over the place then duh this isn't the car for you.  Pure electric is the way of the future and if we can get the government to drop a ton of money on infrastructure then we would be better off.
 
2013-02-15 08:42:22 AM  

Thunderpipes: Oh look, a Tesla thread where Farkers worship a car they will never be able to afford.


Yet, oddly, there's very little 'worship' going on. Project much?
 
2013-02-15 08:42:43 AM  

MindStalker: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

This won't be an issue as they add more charging stations.

This just in, in the stretches no-mans land in Texas and New Mexico where you see a gas station every 300 miles, you have to drive conservatively or you might run out of gas mid way.


Actually, probably not.   Most cars will go at least 300 miles even when driven very aggressively.   In my car, I lose around 4 to 5 MPG between driving very conservatively and driving very aggressively.  I've got an 11 gallon tank, and with "normal" driving, I get about 36 mpg.  Aggressive driving (all above 75 MPH, and often between 80 and 85) generally nets me about 33 MPG, and I can get up to about 38 MPG driving slowly (55 to 60 MPH).

Even if I were to drive so aggressively that my mileage were to drop to 30 MPG, I could still make a 300 mile stretch with 30 miles left in the tank as a reserve, and I could stretch that to nearly 40 miles if I had to.

/Yes, I do regularly measure my mileage.
//A 100 mile round trip commute will make you do that.
 
2013-02-15 08:43:02 AM  
As with so many of these innovations, it will be at least a few years before I can touch this car. Probably more than a few.

s20.postimage.org


Until then, I hope the Dork-Mobile holds out.......

images.dealer.com
 
2013-02-15 08:43:15 AM  

mekkab: MyRandomName: Where are these magical electricity trees?

I have a 7.2kw photovoltaic array on my house.  It's as close as you can get. And I wouldn't call it a tree, more of a black-winged angel... (shout out to all y'all Godflesh fans!)

/yes, yes. pollution is shifted to the production of the panels...


At least you saved me the response.

But even with solar, how much of U.S. electricity is generated from it. More could be but it is costly. Germany has a fairly large tax hit per citizen to subsidize their solar build up.
 
2013-02-15 08:43:18 AM  

Thunderpipes: Oh look, a Tesla thread where Farkers worship a car they will never be able to afford.


Oh look, someone hasn't been reading the posts.
 
2013-02-15 08:43:44 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Tommy Moo: "I don't think something is worth as much as what it's sold for, so no one else should be allowed to buy it and it should stop existing."

I didn't say any of that. By definition, since people are willing to buy the car for $100k, the car is worth $100k. If rich people want to waste money on stupid shiat, that's their problem, they're more than free to do so. I'm just trying to figure out why you would want to shell out twice what a bottom-end luxury car costs and get a far inferior driving experience. My car (not a luxury car) cost $28k, goes 450 miles between refueling stops (which take about two minutes to accomplish and can happen almost anywhere), doesn't need to be babied by driving at just 60mph, and I can set the cabin temperature to whatever I like. My driving experience and comfort are superior to the Tesla.


The fact your car cost under $30k means you aren't in Telsa's market. A S600 costs $140k an A8 costs around $100k. Both these cars get under 15 mpg in the city and are likely second cars for someone who buys a Telsa for their daily commute and make it so the person never has to worry about stopping for gas since it charges while they sleep so it saves time.
 
2013-02-15 08:45:05 AM  

fredklein: alowishus: How hard would it be to treat electric car batteries like propane tanks?  You stop at the station and and swap your empty one for a full one.  Or am I missing an obvious problem with that?

Liability problems. If a driver turns in a damaged/broken/messed up battery, and the service station gives it to someone else and it causes problems or injuries or death, they could get sued. Which is why places that swap propane tanks don't accept damaged or rusty ones. Unfortunately, with batteries, it's not as simple as seeing it's dented or rusty.

Supply problems. Every 'gas station' ('electron station'?) would need to have a good supply of these things, a place to store them while charging, equipment to move them around (batteries are heavy), etc. Oh, and the electrical capacity to charge them.

Standardization problems. Gas can be poured into any size or shape tank. But a battery pack needs to fit a specific receptacle. That means they must be a standard size/shape. Any change to the standard requires having both 'old' and 'new' types, (see 'Supply problems' above.)

Customer Service problems. "You're taking my fresh, new, shiny batteries, and giving me those nasty, dirty things? I'm the customer and I'm always right! I want -those- batteries. Whatta you mean they're not charged yet? I wanna see your manager!"


They already have the technology, and it's already in action. Look up Better Place battery swapping. All of these issues can be over-come pretty easily.

And no one cares if a battery on the bottom of your car is a bit shabby, because it's right under your car, you can't see it. Assuming they keep them in good working order (and they'd be insured and removed from the system if damaged in an accident or whatever, I'm sure), no one will care.
 
2013-02-15 08:46:20 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

And you have to spend an hour "refueling."

$100k supercar is a piece of crap. That's just what I want to do when I drive, constantly worry if I can make it to the next recharging station and then spend an hour cooling my heels. Who the fark would be retarded enough to buy one of these?


You DO realize that you're basically saying what people in the late 1800s did about gasoline- powered cars, right? This is how new technology is- the early ones have limitations, and are stupid expensive. Then, as the companies recoup their initial investment, the price drops and the limitations start disappearing.

Or are we still using 8- bit computers that run at 1 MHz, have 128k of RAM, and cost the equivalent of $3,000 in today's dollars? I also remember that Apple had a 10 MB hard drive back in 1985.It was called the Sider. (because it sat on the side, and was an apple. har har.) Anyhow, that thing was about the size of a cinder block and cost $700- about $1400 or so in today's dollars.

My point is that these things will get better and cheaper. Give it some time.
 
2013-02-15 08:46:26 AM  

Grimble Crumble: SpdrJay: You know who ELSE tried to smear Tesla???

(it was Edison....)

J.P. Morgan?


I can think of some things I would have smeared on Jaye P. Morgan in her prime.
 
2013-02-15 08:46:48 AM  

Notabunny: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

fta Instead, I found myself maneuvering around slower cars. Now, I normally spend most of my time on the New Jersey Turnpike out in the left lane going at least 10 or 15 miles an hour faster than I was in the Model S. But sitting in the middle lane, I was keeping up with traffic. I certainly didn't feel out of place -- except for the fact that I wasn't burning any gasoline.

Is it your point, Kanemano, that he should have been driving 80mph in 60mph traffic?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_TurnpikeSpeed limitsThe minimum speed limit for all zones on the Turnpike is 10 mph (16 km/h) below the maximum speed limit. Between the southern terminus and milepost 97.2, the maximum speed limit is 65 mph (105 km/h) with a minimum speed of 55 mph (89 km/h), for example.

In reality, as someone who has driven on the NJ Turnpike, 70 is what the right lane is driving.
 
2013-02-15 08:49:23 AM  

TNel: You get 265 miles from the Tesla, at 60 miles an hour you can drive for 4 hours straight.  That's time for lunch so unless you are eating fast food the time it takes you will mean the car is charged.

265 miles is a decent distance that not very many people drive very often.  If you are in sales and are all over the place then duh this isn't the car for you.  Pure electric is the way of the future and if we can get the government to drop a ton of money on infrastructure then we would be better off.


As the price for all-electric cars drops, demand for charging stations will increase. My guess is that municipalities will then begin buying all-electric cars for their fleets. I think the infrastructure will grow quickly at that point.
 
2013-02-15 08:49:24 AM  

maddermaxx: And no one cares if a battery on the bottom of your car is a bit shabby, because it's right under your car, you can't see it.


You've never had a Customer Service job, have you? Customers biatch about anything/everything.
 
2013-02-15 08:51:51 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: $100k supercar is a piece of crap. That's just what I want to do when I drive, constantly worry if I can make it to the next recharging station and then spend an hour cooling my heels. Who the fark would be retarded enough to buy one of these?


For all the knee-jerk hatred people are spewing about these cars in the wake of this scandal, the truth is that if these cars really were so bad and unlikable, the NYT reviewer wouldn't have needed to lie in order to disparage them.
 
2013-02-15 08:52:00 AM  
And yet still nobody talks about the fact it went from a 90 mile range to 25 overnight for no apparent reason, and that loss of range was the only reason the NYT reviewer wasn't able to drive the car like an end user would and make it from whats its fark to Boston on 3 incomplete charges.

The only interesting discrepancy in the data logs and nobody will farking talk about it.

Kiwimann: Apparently the NYT reporter received some really poor advice from a Tesla spokesperson about how much battery charge was required.  He kept calling that same spokesperson for help during the trip and received more bad advice.

That spokesperson no longer works for Tesla.


you shut the fark up here with your facts! THIS IS AN ELON MUSK CIRCLE JERK!
 
2013-02-15 08:53:06 AM  
Broder, talking about Elon Musk: "He did not share that data, which Tesla has now posted online, with me at the time. "

In other words, I got caught lying because I didn't know there was data to rebut what I was saying.
 
2013-02-15 08:53:19 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Prank Call of Cthulhu: $100k supercar is a piece of crap. That's just what I want to do when I drive, constantly worry if I can make it to the next recharging station and then spend an hour cooling my heels. Who the fark would be retarded enough to buy one of these?

For all the knee-jerk hatred people are spewing about these cars in the wake of this scandal, the truth is that if these cars really were so bad and unlikable, the NYT reviewer wouldn't have needed to lie in order to disparage them.


Exactly. Had the reviewer finish the trip and said "The Tesla made the journey but it took 14 hours instead of 10 and I was forced to find a hotel I could plug in my car" it would have been a completely valid criticism.
 
2013-02-15 08:54:19 AM  

Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH


I really thought this would be too stupid for anyone to seriously comment on. But look, a whole thread just running with it. Congrats, I guess.
 
2013-02-15 08:54:45 AM  

Notabunny: As the price for all-electric cars drops, demand for charging stations will increase. My guess is that municipalities will then begin buying all-electric cars for their fleets. I think the infrastructure will grow quickly at that point.


Charging a Tesla S with the supercharging system requires 90Kw of power.

That's as much electricity as the average house uses in an entire year.

To charge your car.

If you think quick charging stations are going to stay cheap, or that our electrical grid can handle them without a 100% complete overhaul to double plant and transmission line capacity, you are insane.
 
2013-02-15 08:54:49 AM  
Notabunny:

As the price for all-electric cars drops, demand for charging stations will increase. My guess is that municipalities will then begin buying all-electric cars for their fleets. I think the infrastructure will grow quickly at that point.

They need to get the military to switch to them like they had them switch to E85, that would get the ball rolling faster.
 
2013-02-15 08:55:46 AM  

Kanemano: Notabunny: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

fta Instead, I found myself maneuvering around slower cars. Now, I normally spend most of my time on the New Jersey Turnpike out in the left lane going at least 10 or 15 miles an hour faster than I was in the Model S. But sitting in the middle lane, I was keeping up with traffic. I certainly didn't feel out of place -- except for the fact that I wasn't burning any gasoline.

Is it your point, Kanemano, that he should have been driving 80mph in 60mph traffic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_TurnpikeSpeed limitsThe minimum speed limit for all zones on the Turnpike is 10 mph (16 km/h) below the maximum speed limit. Between the southern terminus and milepost 97.2, the maximum speed limit is 65 mph (105 km/h) with a minimum speed of 55 mph (89 km/h), for example.

In reality, as someone who has driven on the NJ Turnpike, 70 is what the right lane is driving.


The speed limit isn't the point. The point is that he was staying with the flow of traffic without a problem.

Also fta But as I drove into Connecticut, I realized something amazing. Not only did I have enough battery range left, I had plenty. I had at least 40 miles -- more than an entire Chevy Volt's worth of electricity -- left to play with. I sped up, cruising over 70, riding in the left lane, mashing the gas pedal just to feel how fast the car could shoot from 65 to 80. I was practically giddy.
In the end, I made it -- and it wasn't that hard.


So, he stayed with the flow of traffic, and then, when the opportunity presented itself, he sped up and had a little fun. According to tfa, the car completed the task and exceeded expectations.

At issue here isn't the capability of the car. At issue is the integrity of the NYT reporter.
 
2013-02-15 08:57:33 AM  
I see the usual collection of people stilll can't grasp why anyone would buy something that doesn't 100% logically fit their supposed needs.  Personally I've driven a CNG Opel minivan for years.  Yes the range is a constraint but if you're the kind of person who can organize their shiat, the running costs are amazingly low.  It's a simple question of are you the kind of person who can efficiently deal with the disadvantages and turn the advantages to your favor, all the while furthering the R&D necessary to achieve much more viable future solutions..

And, if all consumers truly made auto purchase decisions based on their actual needs, we wouldn't have Soccer Moms and other single drivers driving around in behemoth 4WD SUVs whose offroad capabilities will never, ever be utillized.  Probably half of American consumers buy the type of wasteful cars they don't really need.  As a country in economic decline, that's the kind of capital we shouldn't really be squandering.
 
2013-02-15 08:58:24 AM  

TNel: Notabunny:

As the price for all-electric cars drops, demand for charging stations will increase. My guess is that municipalities will then begin buying all-electric cars for their fleets. I think the infrastructure will grow quickly at that point.

They need to get the military to switch to them like they had them switch to E85, that would get the ball rolling faster.


They've been buying up Chevy Volts at a quick pace.
 
2013-02-15 08:58:39 AM  

Greek: Prank Call of Cthulhu: Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

And you have to spend an hour "refueling."

$100k supercar is a piece of crap. That's just what I want to do when I drive, constantly worry if I can make it to the next recharging station and then spend an hour cooling my heels. Who the fark would be retarded enough to buy one of these?

You DO realize that you're basically saying what people in the late 1800s did about gasoline- powered cars, right? This is how new technology is- the early ones have limitations, and are stupid expensive. Then, as the companies recoup their initial investment, the price drops and the limitations start disappearing.

Or are we still using 8- bit computers that run at 1 MHz, have 128k of RAM, and cost the equivalent of $3,000 in today's dollars? I also remember that Apple had a 10 MB hard drive back in 1985.It was called the Sider. (because it sat on the side, and was an apple. har har.) Anyhow, that thing was about the size of a cinder block and cost $700- about $1400 or so in today's dollars.

My point is that these things will get better and cheaper. Give it some time.


UUmmm, time allows inflation to do it's thang and, in theory, income increases.
But, the times are a changing. Don't expect the economic scenery to resemble anything you are used to.
Batteries will improve, but the dangerous aspects of them will increase exponentially.

We tried steam and electric long ago. There were shortcommings.
Both technologies are inherantly dangerous. Too much potential energy can be realized in too short a time. In other words, boomable by stupidity.
Both techs are potentially weaponizable, easily.
 
2013-02-15 08:58:42 AM  

MyRandomName: But even with solar, how much of U.S. electricity is generated from it. More could be but it is costly. Germany has a fairly large tax hit per citizen to subsidize their solar build up.


some states (like Maryland) are going the SREC route;  but again, infrastructure costs.  The ROI on my panels is 7 years after credits, SRECs, etc.   But this only inches things along, vs. Germany going whole hog and taxing out.

so I think we're in violent agreement?
 
2013-02-15 08:58:55 AM  

fluffy2097: Notabunny: As the price for all-electric cars drops, demand for charging stations will increase. My guess is that municipalities will then begin buying all-electric cars for their fleets. I think the infrastructure will grow quickly at that point.

Charging a Tesla S with the supercharging system requires 90Kw of power.

That's as much electricity as the average house uses in an entire year.

To charge your car.

If you think quick charging stations are going to stay cheap, or that our electrical grid can handle them without a 100% complete overhaul to double plant and transmission line capacity, you are insane.


Lol, bullshiat much? Average house uses 20kWH per day.
 
2013-02-15 08:59:40 AM  

maddermaxx: MyRandomName: Where are these magical electricity trees? There is still pollution, it is just shifted somewhere else.

Electric cars still are far more efficient, and produce less emissions. There was a study done where they found that even with 70% of your power coming from coal, you still produce fewer emissions with an electirc than a petrol car. As only about 30% of US power now comes from coal, Electrics are far and away the better option.


there was a really damned good map of the US with this information on it published in Scientific American that I just can't find a good link for that showed this information.  It was geared more at plug-in hybrids, but it showed the emission savings from the very clean Texas to the filthy, filthy coal powered northeast.  It's cleaner all around.  Turns out that it's much easier to clean up emissions at a single power station than at a thousand individual cars.
 
2013-02-15 09:00:32 AM  

fluffy2097: Notabunny: As the price for all-electric cars drops, demand for charging stations will increase. My guess is that municipalities will then begin buying all-electric cars for their fleets. I think the infrastructure will grow quickly at that point.

Charging a Tesla S with the supercharging system requires 90Kw of power.

That's as much electricity as the average house uses in an entire year.

To charge your car.

If you think quick charging stations are going to stay cheap, or that our electrical grid can handle them without a 100% complete overhaul to double plant and transmission line capacity, you are insane.


You have to get over being sheeple before you can have nice things.
Peak Sheeple Profit says, this is as good as it gets.
 
2013-02-15 09:00:36 AM  

maddermaxx: fluffy2097: Notabunny: As the price for all-electric cars drops, demand for charging stations will increase. My guess is that municipalities will then begin buying all-electric cars for their fleets. I think the infrastructure will grow quickly at that point.

Charging a Tesla S with the supercharging system requires 90Kw of power.

That's as much electricity as the average house uses in an entire year.

To charge your car.

If you think quick charging stations are going to stay cheap, or that our electrical grid can handle them without a 100% complete overhaul to double plant and transmission line capacity, you are insane.

Lol, bullshiat much? Average house uses 20kWH per day.


We went over this yesterday with you. You're retarded. Remember?  Power and energy are different.
 
2013-02-15 09:00:38 AM  

Thunderpipes: Oh look, a Tesla thread where Farkers worship a car they will never be able to afford.


aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand not 2 minutes later:

Thunderpipes: Would get a 650 hp Shelby for less, and have a lot more fun.


Nice job genius.  We don't need to mock you when you own yourself.   WEll done.
 
2013-02-15 09:01:11 AM  

fredklein: maddermaxx: And no one cares if a battery on the bottom of your car is a bit shabby, because it's right under your car, you can't see it.

You've never had a Customer Service job, have you? Customers biatch about anything/everything.


Farking THIS x1000.

//CAE for Comcast.
 
2013-02-15 09:01:18 AM  
So have we given up on hydrogen fuel cell cars yet?

/Really like hydrogen fuel cell cars.
 
2013-02-15 09:01:43 AM  

MyRandomName: But even with solar, how much of U.S. electricity is generated from it.


About 0.17%, as of 2011, per the DOE.
 
2013-02-15 09:02:19 AM  

Ebbelwoi: And, if all consumers truly made auto purchase decisions based on their actual needs, we wouldn't have Soccer Moms and other single drivers driving around in behemoth 4WD SUVs whose offroad capabilities will never, ever be utillized.


THIS.  I imagine the people screaming and crying about the range restrictions of driving an electric car are the same people who, when confronted with the efficiency problems of a Hummer, scream and cry about how it's not important because of how "fun" the car is.
 
2013-02-15 09:03:36 AM  

mekkab: MyRandomName: Where are these magical electricity trees?

I have a 7.2kw photovoltaic array on my house.  It's as close as you can get. And I wouldn't call it a tree, more of a black-winged angel... (shout out to all y'all Godflesh fans!)

/yes, yes. pollution is shifted to the production of the panels...


It will be really nice when the solar system and the car's battery pack are integrated so that the car's battery
power can feed an inverter to run the home's critical loads when the grid is down.

That way, in an emergency, you can use the car battery to store excess solar power generated during the day, or from a generator run, then run the fridge, well pump, furnace, etc. at night off the car's battery pack until power is restored.
 
2013-02-15 09:04:13 AM  

fluffy2097: We went over this yesterday with you. You're retarded. Remember? Power and energy are different.


'We' didn't go over anything, but you're acting like an asshole. It costs less than $10 of power to completely fill a series-S. how much do you spend on power a year? Remember, they charge you at the same rate.
 
2013-02-15 09:04:37 AM  

fluffy2097: And yet still nobody talks about the fact it went from a 90 mile range to 25 overnight for no apparent reason, and that loss of range was the only reason the NYT reviewer wasn't able to drive the car like an end user would and make it from whats its fark to Boston on 3 incomplete charges.

The only interesting discrepancy in the data logs and nobody will farking talk about it.


If you follow electric car news or stories, this is not considered much of a discrepancy. Temperature differences cause moderate fluctuations in the battery range. This was one of the reasons Honda has given for the original tests of their electrics only in CA. All of the electric car manufacturers that I'm aware of recommend to always leave the car on trickle charge mode at night to take care of this issue. It would appear that he may not have been aware of this issue with current all-electric vehicles.
 
2013-02-15 09:05:51 AM  

Trapper439: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Unless you're on a German autobahn, why would you ever need a car that goes over 60 MPH? Last I heard, there are these things called "speed limits" and electric cars like the Tesla can reach them.

My commiserations about your tiny penis. Have you considered buying a great big fark-off gun to make yourself feel better?


really?  why would you "need" a car that goes over 60 - well because the speed limit is 70 and driving 60 makes me want to smack people.  probably people like you with whirled peace and coexist stickers all over their 1986 subaru.

/dumbass
 
2013-02-15 09:06:11 AM  

Tommy Moo: So go buy a Viper.


www.richardhammond.org.uk

The only man who ever liked driving a Viper .... in the world
 
2013-02-15 09:06:50 AM  

realityVSperception: That way, in an emergency, you can use the car battery to store excess solar power generated during the day, or from a generator run, then run the fridge, well pump, furnace, etc. at night off the car's battery pack until power is restored.


I believe you already can. The equipment to tie your house into the grid and sync everything up isn't cheap though.  One of the few good things for the power grid about EV's is they can be used while charging as load balancers. If local demand for power is too high, charging EV's can start dumping their power back into the grid to compensate.
 
2013-02-15 09:08:02 AM  

maddermaxx: They already have the technology, and it's already in action. Look up Better Place battery swapping.


Looks like they only have things set up in small countries, like Denmark:
"The Gladsaxe station is the first of 20 planned battery switch stations"

20 whole stations. Wow. I'm sure the USA will require a few more than that. There's almost 200,000 gas stations in the US right now, and electric cars have less range, and so need more, closer recharging stations. Setting up a few prototypes is cool and all, but it's a long way from having a working (workable) nationwide system. And having a few stations set up doesn't 'solve' any of the problems I mentioned.
 
2013-02-15 09:09:18 AM  

YixilTesiphon: YixilTesiphon: csnake24: NYT is just the propaganda arm of the GOP

Uh, let's try that again.


I see you didn't make a sacrifice to the gods of irony,.
 
2013-02-15 09:10:08 AM  

Hotdog453: mekkab: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

Super trolls at work, here. TAKE NOTES! This is how it is done!


/Totally gonna get one of these
//debating if I need the supercharging option...

I'm genuinely not trying to troll, but if I was going to spend my entire year's income on a car, I'd rather not have to wait 30 minutes every X miles to recharge. I just can't fathom who, beyond the super rich, this car is for.

I'm sure they're fantastic, awesome, incredible vehicles with amazing torque and awesome handling and all of that jazz, but can you honestly imagine owning one in a day to day life, without having a second car? That just seems like such an awkward proposition.


If you lack any vision at all.  Which is probably why Elon makes rocket ships that can travel to the ISS, electric cars that can drive across almost any European country in one charge and PayPal, while you're poo-pooing innovation as being too expensive and impractical.
 
2013-02-15 09:10:35 AM  

csnake24: NYT is just the propaganda arm of the GOP (well the less extremist part of the GOP if that still exists).  So of course they're going to do whatever it takes to smear clean energy sources, because it cuts into the profits of big oil.


Heh.  Idiot.
 
2013-02-15 09:10:57 AM  

fluffy2097: Notabunny: As the price for all-electric cars drops, demand for charging stations will increase. My guess is that municipalities will then begin buying all-electric cars for their fleets. I think the infrastructure will grow quickly at that point.

Charging a Tesla S with the supercharging system requires 90Kw of power.

That's as much electricity as the average house uses in an entire year.

To charge your car.

If you think quick charging stations are going to stay cheap, or that our electrical grid can handle them without a 100% complete overhaul to double plant and transmission line capacity, you are insane.


You mean the charging stations that have solar panels on them?
 
2013-02-15 09:11:30 AM  
Kiwimann: "Apparently the NYT reporter received some really poor advice from a Tesla spokesperson about how much battery charge was required."

And if the NYT reporter had actually topped off the charge when he decided to recharge, particularly on the last leg where he decided to stop charging and try to make it 62 miles when the car said it was only good for 30, he would never have had to call Tesla in the first place.
 
2013-02-15 09:11:33 AM  
Came in here to say cue to the trollerific anti EV shills, but alas I'm too late it seems.
 
2013-02-15 09:12:06 AM  

Kanemano: Notabunny: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

fta Instead, I found myself maneuvering around slower cars. Now, I normally spend most of my time on the New Jersey Turnpike out in the left lane going at least 10 or 15 miles an hour faster than I was in the Model S. But sitting in the middle lane, I was keeping up with traffic. I certainly didn't feel out of place -- except for the fact that I wasn't burning any gasoline.

Is it your point, Kanemano, that he should have been driving 80mph in 60mph traffic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_TurnpikeSpeed limitsThe minimum speed limit for all zones on the Turnpike is 10 mph (16 km/h) below the maximum speed limit. Between the southern terminus and milepost 97.2, the maximum speed limit is 65 mph (105 km/h) with a minimum speed of 55 mph (89 km/h), for example.

In reality, as someone who has driven on the NJ Turnpike, 70 is what the right lane is driving.


In reality, after an hour of driving on a single major highway, your traffic-neighbors are all going about the same speed.  Cause the people who drive 70 pulled ahead, and the people driving 50 fall behind, and you wind up in the pack, going your speed anyway.

Think about it.
 
2013-02-15 09:12:13 AM  

fredklein: maddermaxx: They already have the technology, and it's already in action. Look up Better Place battery swapping.

Looks like they only have things set up in small countries, like Denmark:
"The Gladsaxe station is the first of 20 planned battery switch stations"

20 whole stations. Wow. I'm sure the USA will require a few more than that. There's almost 200,000 gas stations in the US right now, and electric cars have less range, and so need more, closer recharging stations. Setting up a few prototypes is cool and all, but it's a long way from having a working (workable) nationwide system. And having a few stations set up doesn't 'solve' any of the problems I mentioned.


All 200,000 stations were built in 1920s?  EV is new how many gas stations were around when the Model Ts came out?  You can kick and scream about technology all you want but gas powered cars are going away.  It might take 10-20 years from now but it is going to happen.
 
2013-02-15 09:12:16 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: MayoBoy: Trapper439: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Unless you're on a German autobahn, why would you ever need a car that goes over 60 MPH? Last I heard, there are these things called "speed limits" and electric cars like the Tesla can reach them.

My commiserations about your tiny penis. Have you considered buying a great big fark-off gun to make yourself feel better?

You drive 60 MPH in the left lane too don't you?

Must be from Maryland


Well the right lane is for passing after all
 
2013-02-15 09:13:00 AM  

fluffy2097: Notabunny: As the price for all-electric cars drops, demand for charging stations will increase. My guess is that municipalities will then begin buying all-electric cars for their fleets. I think the infrastructure will grow quickly at that point.

Charging a Tesla S with the supercharging system requires 90Kw of power.

That's as much electricity as the average house uses in an entire year.

To charge your car.

If you think quick charging stations are going to stay cheap, or that our electrical grid can handle them without a 100% complete overhaul to double plant and transmission line capacity, you are insane.


Oh hey, this is your new argument?

Truly, your intellect is dizzying, after all you seamlessly moved from this

Zomg!  There aren't enough EVs to support wide spread charging stations!

...to this...

Zomg!  There are so many EVs that hotels will be booby trapping their outlets!

...to this...

zOMG there are going to be so many that our entire electrical grid will collapse!

...oh and a bonus argument of...

zomg!  merchants might charge a user fee for their stations!

Why do you hate capitalism and free markets, no one is buying electric cars thinking it is entirely cost free, it is emissions free which is good.  You are clearly confused, stop changing your arguments so much and maybe you could keep things straight.

REally, dude, if we can hook your arguments up to the electric grid, we wouldn't need to worry about providing enough spinning magnetos to create power.
 
2013-02-15 09:13:06 AM  

ringersol: Kiwimann: "Apparently the NYT reporter received some really poor advice from a Tesla spokesperson about how much battery charge was required."

And if the NYT reporter had actually topped off the charge when he decided to recharge, particularly on the last leg where he decided to stop charging and try to make it 62 miles when the car said it was only good for 30, he would never have had to call Tesla in the first place.


yea It's like running out of fuel is suddenly Tesla's fault here, if this had been a good ole fasioned gas guzzler would we be calling ford out because the engine combusted all the gasoline in the tank before the reporter was done trying an impossible distance for what was left?
 
2013-02-15 09:13:09 AM  

fredklein: maddermaxx: They already have the technology, and it's already in action. Look up Better Place battery swapping.

Looks like they only have things set up in small countries, like Denmark:
"The Gladsaxe station is the first of 20 planned battery switch stations"

20 whole stations. Wow. I'm sure the USA will require a few more than that. There's almost 200,000 gas stations in the US right now, and electric cars have less range, and so need more, closer recharging stations. Setting up a few prototypes is cool and all, but it's a long way from having a working (workable) nationwide system. And having a few stations set up doesn't 'solve' any of the problems I mentioned.


Yep, it won't be coming to America any time soon, because the investment needed to cover enough places would be astronomical. That's why they're focusing on small countries first, getting the system ready. The thing is, all of those gas stations you go cost a lot of money too, but they weren't all set up in a few years, but over decades and more.
 
2013-02-15 09:13:44 AM  

SpdrJay: You know who ELSE tried to smear Tesla???

(it was Edison....)


[iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg]
 
2013-02-15 09:15:00 AM  

maddermaxx: fluffy2097: We went over this yesterday with you. You're retarded. Remember? Power and energy are different.

'We' didn't go over anything, but you're acting like an asshole. It costs less than $10 of power to completely fill a series-S. how much do you spend on power a year? Remember, they charge you at the same rate.


http://green.autoblog.com/2009/11/19/greenlings-whats-the-difference -b etween-kw-and-kwh/

Shut up and don't come back until you learn the difference, retard.

Tesla's superchargers run at 400 volts and 200 amps. Most houses run a 200 amp breaker at 110v (or 240 if you use both phases).

I'll let you do the math. If you know, you're capable of it.

Needless to say, if you had a supercharger installed in your home, you'd need the electric company to come out and run entirely new power lines from the poll for it.

Even the home charge systems they use now can require a direct line from the poll. Not everyone wants to be limited to 240v and 30 amps.

Luckily, the slower you charge the thing, the less outrageous a load it is to deal with. Still, a world of all EV's would require the replacement of the countries entire electrical infrastructure.
 
2013-02-15 09:15:41 AM  

TNel: That's time for lunch so unless you are eating fast food the time it takes you will mean the car is charged.


Assuming there's a restaurant at which I want to eat lunch that is within walking distance of the charging station. And from the NYT article, I seem to recall at least one of his stops was next to a Chez Mac's.

Carth: The fact your car cost under $30k means you aren't in Telsa's market.


No, the fact that I like to drive long distances without fretting about where my next fillup is coming from and not wanting to spend more than a couple minutes doing it is what means I'm not in Tesla's market. I guess I could sell my car throw in a few $k more, finance the remaining $70k for five years and have like a $1200/month car payment. That's only about $750/month more than what my car payment used to be, so it's not like the car isn't unaffordable. It just doesn't seem worth it (to me) to pay a lot more money for an inferior ride. Again, I'm glad other people find it worthwhile. In the pantheon of stupid shiat upon which the wealthy can waste their money, it's not that offensive, provides some jobs, possibly helps the environment, and may pave the way for development of electric cars that are actually useful.
 
2013-02-15 09:16:24 AM  
Tesla is targeting BMW and Mercedes demographics with this sedan.  They have priced the base model (160 mile range) squarely in the ballpark of that demographic.  A BMW 5 series with no options starts around $50k, the tesla S starts at $53k.

Basically, if you were going to buy a BMW or a Mercedes for your daily work commute, then the Tesla S absolutely makes sense to at least consider.  Most people in this demographic have more than one vehicle per household, and the other vehicle is usually a luxury car as well.
 
2013-02-15 09:16:50 AM  

asmodeus224: Why do you hate capitalism and free markets, no one is buying electric cars thinking it is entirely cost free, it is emissions free which is good.  You are clearly confused, stop changing your arguments so much and maybe you could keep things straight.


THIS.  I've never seen people so personally invested in convincing  other people to not buy a particular car.  I don't understand the motivation.  And if all the haters can come up with are blatant lies and misinformation like  fluffy2097 and this NYT reporter, it's clear that they've got no good reason.
 
2013-02-15 09:18:36 AM  

fluffy2097: maddermaxx: fluffy2097: We went over this yesterday with you. You're retarded. Remember? Power and energy are different.

'We' didn't go over anything, but you're acting like an asshole. It costs less than $10 of power to completely fill a series-S. how much do you spend on power a year? Remember, they charge you at the same rate.

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/11/19/greenlings-whats-the-difference -b etween-kw-and-kwh/

Shut up and don't come back until you learn the difference, retard.

Tesla's superchargers run at 400 volts and 200 amps. Most houses run a 200 amp breaker at 110v (or 240 if you use both phases).

I'll let you do the math. If you know, you're capable of it.

Needless to say, if you had a supercharger installed in your home, you'd need the electric company to come out and run entirely new power lines from the poll for it.

Even the home charge systems they use now can require a direct line from the poll. Not everyone wants to be limited to 240v and 30 amps.

Luckily, the slower you charge the thing, the less outrageous a load it is to deal with. Still, a world of all EV's would require the replacement of the countries entire electrical infrastructure.


No it wouldn't require "replacement of the countries entire electrical infrastructure" but would require significant modernization, which has been overdue (with or without EV) for the last 20 years. It's OK, you can keep trying though.
 
2013-02-15 09:19:08 AM  

MmmmBacon: The douchebag from the NYT did a hatchetjob smear article on the Tesla, and he got caught. Should have realized that the cars' computer would track enough information to debunk his claims, especially with GPS. Whoops! This new report just verifies Tesla's data.

NYT disavows and fires reporter in 3... 2... 1...


This. People too stupid to know what a computer logger is shouldn't be working as reporters.
 
2013-02-15 09:19:27 AM  

Greek: Prank Call of Cthulhu: Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

And you have to spend an hour "refueling."

$100k supercar is a piece of crap. That's just what I want to do when I drive, constantly worry if I can make it to the next recharging station and then spend an hour cooling my heels. Who the fark would be retarded enough to buy one of these?

You DO realize that you're basically saying what people in the late 1800s did about gasoline- powered cars, right? This is how new technology is- the early ones have limitations, and are stupid expensive. Then, as the companies recoup their initial investment, the price drops and the limitations start disappearing.

Or are we still using 8- bit computers that run at 1 MHz, have 128k of RAM, and cost the equivalent of $3,000 in today's dollars? I also remember that Apple had a 10 MB hard drive back in 1985.It was called the Sider. (because it sat on the side, and was an apple. har har.) Anyhow, that thing was about the size of a cinder block and cost $700- about $1400 or so in today's dollars.

My point is that these things will get better and cheaper. Give it some time.


Apples first hard drive it offered was in the early 80s it was called the profile, it retailed for 3500 bucks.

The Sider was not an Apple branded product, it was by First Class Peripherals, and it did cost around 700.  As well as Corvus made a great drive for less money, but Apple branded hard drives and modems were always insanely costly.
 
2013-02-15 09:21:12 AM  

fredklein: maddermaxx: They already have the technology, and it's already in action. Look up Better Place battery swapping.

Looks like they only have things set up in small countries, like Denmark:
"The Gladsaxe station is the first of 20 planned battery switch stations"

20 whole stations. Wow. I'm sure the USA will require a few more than that. There's almost 200,000 gas stations in the US right now, and electric cars have less range, and so need more, closer recharging stations. Setting up a few prototypes is cool and all, but it's a long way from having a working (workable) nationwide system. And having a few stations set up doesn't 'solve' any of the problems I mentioned.


You would probably require less dedicated stations - unlike gas vehicles, electrics can be recharged at home. Much less need for stations everywhere when the majority of vehicles start out with a full charge every morning.
 
2013-02-15 09:21:34 AM  

enry: You mean the charging stations that have solar panels on them?


So they don't work on cloudy days? Cute, but they are still running as part of the grid. It's just when they aren't charging cars, they're making money for the station owners by feeding power back into the grid. (It's probably the only reason service stations agreed to install them to begin with, they get a free solar install)

Once you've got 3 or 4 cars there constantly charging, those solar panels will not be enough.
 
2013-02-15 09:22:29 AM  
The New York Times hasn't endorsed a Republican president since Dwight Eisenhower.

I'd hardly call it a right wing newspaper.
 
2013-02-15 09:22:33 AM  
There are a lot of things that just doesn't add up for me in Broder's account of the trip. Broder explained that when he was circling a parking lot at the Milford Service Plaza, he was only actually looking for the Supercharger station.

Here's a picture of the Milford Service Plaza:

i1212.photobucket.com

As you can see, the parking lot is tiny. I measured a full circuit on Google Maps and it's only about  0.14 miles to make a complete loop around. I don't know why he would have to drive .6 miles to find the Tesla Superchargers, which are literally right in front of the McDonald's and facing the entrance ramp.

Also, the Tesla Superchargers are not exactly inconspicuous - they're huge shiny white obelisks parked in front 2 of the best parking spots in the lot. Even at night, you can't miss them.

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2013-02-15 09:23:08 AM  

trialpha: Much less need for stations everywhere when the majority of vehicles start out with a full charge every morning.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-15 09:23:13 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: TNel: That's time for lunch so unless you are eating fast food the time it takes you will mean the car is charged.

Assuming there's a restaurant at which I want to eat lunch that is within walking distance of the charging station. And from the NYT article, I seem to recall at least one of his stops was next to a Chez Mac's.

Carth: The fact your car cost under $30k means you aren't in Telsa's market.

No, the fact that I like to drive long distances without fretting about where my next fillup is coming from and not wanting to spend more than a couple minutes doing it is what means I'm not in Tesla's market. I guess I could sell my car throw in a few $k more, finance the remaining $70k for five years and have like a $1200/month car payment. That's only about $750/month more than what my car payment used to be, so it's not like the car isn't unaffordable. It just doesn't seem worth it (to me) to pay a lot more money for an inferior ride. Again, I'm glad other people find it worthwhile. In the pantheon of stupid shiat upon which the wealthy can waste their money, it's not that offensive, provides some jobs, possibly helps the environment, and may pave the way for development of electric cars that are actually useful.


It is not bug free nor without its shortcomings...you are 100% right.  I have you favorited because you are not an idiot and you have shown yourself worthy yet again.  My 'THIS' is bolded up there.  Tesla are providing for exactly how this has to happen...the car has to be directed at wealthy-ish people who see it as a luxury toy or who like cutting edge tech (or who are trying to support a green cause with their purchases), and the infrastructure that gets built on these cars will top down a lot of charging stations while hybrid that plug into home plugs will bottom up the tech for us poorer schlubs.

Oil companies are not happy that refueling at homes and resturaunts will cut into their grub-n-gas hubs, but i won't miss those oversized gas and convenience stores that draw traffic and noise at all hours.  Go EVs!
 
2013-02-15 09:23:13 AM  

fluffy2097: maddermaxx: fluffy2097: We went over this yesterday with you. You're retarded. Remember? Power and energy are different.

'We' didn't go over anything, but you're acting like an asshole. It costs less than $10 of power to completely fill a series-S. how much do you spend on power a year? Remember, they charge you at the same rate.

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/11/19/greenlings-whats-the-difference -b etween-kw-and-kwh/

Shut up and don't come back until you learn the difference, retard.

Tesla's superchargers run at 400 volts and 200 amps. Most houses run a 200 amp breaker at 110v (or 240 if you use both phases).

I'll let you do the math. If you know, you're capable of it.

Needless to say, if you had a supercharger installed in your home, you'd need the electric company to come out and run entirely new power lines from the poll for it.

Even the home charge systems they use now can require a direct line from the poll. Not everyone wants to be limited to 240v and 30 amps.

Luckily, the slower you charge the thing, the less outrageous a load it is to deal with. Still, a world of all EV's would require the replacement of the countries entire electrical infrastructure.


Charging a Tesla S with the supercharging system requires 90Kw of power.

That's as much electricity as the average house uses in an entire year.

To charge your car.


Fark, I just realised I'm getting trolled. Going on about how much a house 'uses in a year' but then saying you don't mean kWH but just kWs, and then linking to a post which explains why you're an idiot... lol.
 
2013-02-15 09:24:26 AM  

csnake24: NYT is just the propaganda arm of the GOP (well the less extremist part of the GOP if that still exists).  So of course they're going to do whatever it takes to smear clean energy sources, because it cuts into the profits of big oil.


Utterly false. Cutting usage of oil only hurts the government, because they make far more money off gas taxes than the oil companies make. Oil companies are really energy companies, most electricity comes from coal and the same people are going to profit no matter what kind of energy you use.
 
2013-02-15 09:24:57 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: TNel: That's time for lunch so unless you are eating fast food the time it takes you will mean the car is charged.

Assuming there's a restaurant at which I want to eat lunch that is within walking distance of the charging station. And from the NYT article, I seem to recall at least one of his stops was next to a Chez Mac's.

Carth: The fact your car cost under $30k means you aren't in Telsa's market.

No, the fact that I like to drive long distances without fretting about where my next fillup is coming from and not wanting to spend more than a couple minutes doing it is what means I'm not in Tesla's market. I guess I could sell my car throw in a few $k more, finance the remaining $70k for five years and have like a $1200/month car payment. That's only about $750/month more than what my car payment used to be, so it's not like the car isn't unaffordable. It just doesn't seem worth it (to me) to pay a lot more money for an inferior ride. Again, I'm glad other people find it worthwhile. In the pantheon of stupid shiat upon which the wealthy can waste their money, it's not that offensive, provides some jobs, possibly helps the environment, and may pave the way for development of electric cars that are actually useful.


I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that owns a Tesla that doesn't have at least one other car. You want to go for a long drive some weekend? Great, take your Lexus LS 600h . Going on your daily commute? Take the Tesla and never have to worry about stopping at a gas station.

If you have to finance more than half the cost of car you can't afford it.
 
2013-02-15 09:25:23 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: THIS. I've never seen people so personally invested in convincing other people to not buy a particular car.


When have I said it's a bad car? Or people shouldn't buy it?

I'm pointing out flaws in the idea that

"OMG EV'S WILL SAVE THE WORLD AND WE WON'T HAVE TO DO A THING THEY'RE SO WONDERFUL SQUEEEEEEEEEE"

Because there's kind of a circle jerk about that going on here and it's important we think about many things, like fact that replacing all of America's cars with EV's, or even half of them, would require a multi trillion dollar investment in our power grid.

/you farks are worse then apple tards.
 
2013-02-15 09:25:46 AM  
So basically, we have a $100,000 pretty POS
in a perfect world this car should be able to go blah miles if you drive under the speed limit
I have lots of money and I'm a complete nincompoop
my god, this thing is perfect!

electric vehicles have been around since 1839
this is the best science can offer?
 
2013-02-15 09:25:52 AM  

fredklein: alowishus: How hard would it be to treat electric car batteries like propane tanks?  You stop at the station and and swap your empty one for a full one.  Or am I missing an obvious problem with that?

Liability problems. If a driver turns in a damaged/broken/messed up battery, and the service station gives it to someone else and it causes problems or injuries or death, they could get sued. Which is why places that swap propane tanks don't accept damaged or rusty ones. Unfortunately, with batteries, it's not as simple as seeing it's dented or rusty.

Supply problems. Every 'gas station' ('electron station'?) would need to have a good supply of these things, a place to store them while charging, equipment to move them around (batteries are heavy), etc. Oh, and the electrical capacity to charge them.

Standardization problems. Gas can be poured into any size or shape tank. But a battery pack needs to fit a specific receptacle. That means they must be a standard size/shape. Any change to the standard requires having both 'old' and 'new' types, (see 'Supply problems' above.)

Customer Service problems. "You're taking my fresh, new, shiny batteries, and giving me those nasty, dirty things? I'm the customer and I'm always right! I want -those- batteries. Whatta you mean they're not charged yet? I wanna see your manager!"


Whats one of those batteries cost?  A propane tank is what $30 or so? (the tank not the gas).  I seem to remember those batteries being thousands a piece.  How many people fill up at a typical busy gas station a day?  A thousand or so?  Having to have a few million of dollars of inventory on hand seems like a pretty big problem both in terms getting new stations started as well as for security reasons.
 
2013-02-15 09:26:00 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: asmodeus224: Why do you hate capitalism and free markets, no one is buying electric cars thinking it is entirely cost free, it is emissions free which is good.  You are clearly confused, stop changing your arguments so much and maybe you could keep things straight.

THIS.  I've never seen people so personally invested in convincing  other people to not buy a particular car.  I don't understand the motivation.  And if all the haters can come up with are blatant lies and misinformation like  fluffy2097 and this NYT reporter, it's clear that they've got no good reason.


Same as Android vs Apple though.  People defend what they are used to.
 
2013-02-15 09:26:02 AM  

Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH


A car designed to not break the law? That's just crazy.
 
2013-02-15 09:26:16 AM  

TheGreatGazoo: I'd hardly call it a right wing newspaper.


On the other hand, as I recall, Judith Miller beat the war drum for Iraq so hard her arm nearly fell off, so there is that.
 
2013-02-15 09:29:21 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

And you have to spend an hour "refueling."

$100k supercar is a piece of crap. That's just what I want to do when I drive, constantly worry if I can make it to the next recharging station and then spend an hour cooling my heels. Who the fark would be retarded enough to buy one of these?


An hour refueling if you plan on driving 300 miles non-stop. Anyone who drives more than 300 miles a day and isn't a trucker, probably has made some really poor life decisions.

I drive to and from work at the beginning/end of the day, and again on lunch to feed my dog. That's about 30 miles a day.
 
2013-02-15 09:29:27 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Ebbelwoi: And, if all consumers truly made auto purchase decisions based on their actual needs, we wouldn't have Soccer Moms and other single drivers driving around in behemoth 4WD SUVs whose offroad capabilities will never, ever be utillized.

THIS.  I imagine the people screaming and crying about the range restrictions of driving an electric car are the same people who, when confronted with the efficiency problems of a Hummer, scream and cry about how it's not important because of how "fun" the car is.


Not me.

I scream and cry about the range restrictions of driving an electric car, and I drive a Hyundai Accent, because I'm all about the cheapest per-mile total cost*, and right now, electrics ain't there.

*This includes *ALL* costs, including the cost of the car itself.
 
2013-02-15 09:30:43 AM  

Hotdog453: Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.


If you're driving a sports car on the highway, you are doing it wrong.

That said, I have easily driven down California canyon and mountain roads for hundreds of miles in a trip.

I'd run out of power before I was done having fun in a Tesla I suspect. It'd be annoying.
 
2013-02-15 09:31:35 AM  
Well.. did they charge it up to 90%, or 100%.  the latter may reduce pack life.
 
2013-02-15 09:31:39 AM  

Carth: If you have to finance more than half the cost of car you can't afford it.


I financed 100% of my car, because they were offering 0% financing. Quite affordable! There's probably a better rule of thumb analogous to "your rent/mortgage should be no more than 1/3 of your paycheck". Your car payment should probably be no more than 5-10% of your paycheck, I suspect.
 
2013-02-15 09:31:50 AM  
TheGreatGazoo: "The New York Times hasn't endorsed a Republican president since Dwight Eisenhower."

To be fair, the GOP trended from "right wing" to "fairly extreme right wing" starting around that time.
So it's quite possible to be Right Wing and disagree with the current GOP.
(Fun game: try to find a *single* policy of Obama's that wasn't originally an official GOP position or right-wing think-tank wet dream.)

So, sure, it's not literally a GOP mouthpiece.  But that doesn't mean it isn't notably right of center.
 
2013-02-15 09:31:52 AM  

Bullseyed: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

A car designed to not break the law? That's just crazy.


Actually, that *WOULD* be crazy, and that's why cars aren't equipped with speed governors that limit them to 60 or 65 MPH, even though doing so would undoubtedly save a ton of money and reduce emissions.
 
2013-02-15 09:32:27 AM  

dittybopper: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Ebbelwoi: And, if all consumers truly made auto purchase decisions based on their actual needs, we wouldn't have Soccer Moms and other single drivers driving around in behemoth 4WD SUVs whose offroad capabilities will never, ever be utillized.

THIS.  I imagine the people screaming and crying about the range restrictions of driving an electric car are the same people who, when confronted with the efficiency problems of a Hummer, scream and cry about how it's not important because of how "fun" the car is.

Not me.

I scream and cry about the range restrictions of driving an electric car, and I drive a Hyundai Accent, because I'm all about the cheapest per-mile total cost*, and right now, electrics ain't there.

*This includes *ALL* costs, including the cost of the car itself.


Because screaming and crying will make the range better?  First gen of any new tech is nowhere near as good as the later models.  Gas cars have been around for what a hundred years now?  Think what EV cars will be like in 100 years.
 
2013-02-15 09:32:32 AM  

Bullseyed: Anyone who drives more than 300 miles a day and isn't a trucker, probably has made some really poor life decisions.


Or they like driving their $100,000 car a whole lot, and are willing to dedicate all day to the act of driving it.
 
2013-02-15 09:32:32 AM  

fluffy2097: Notabunny: As the price for all-electric cars drops, demand for charging stations will increase. My guess is that municipalities will then begin buying all-electric cars for their fleets. I think the infrastructure will grow quickly at that point.

Charging a Tesla S with the supercharging system requires 90Kw of power.

That's as much electricity as the average house uses in an entire year.

 ...

not without adding a time term in there, it isn't. Plus, as others have pointed out, a house uses a lot more than 90kWh in a year.
You later try to make the argument that what you really meant was  supply: most houses aren't wired for 240V, 400A service, which is true. But talking about  instantaneous capacity is very, very different from use over time.
 
2013-02-15 09:32:41 AM  

fluffy2097: maddermaxx: fluffy2097: We went over this yesterday with you. You're retarded. Remember? Power and energy are different.

'We' didn't go over anything, but you're acting like an asshole. It costs less than $10 of power to completely fill a series-S. how much do you spend on power a year? Remember, they charge you at the same rate.

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/11/19/greenlings-whats-the-difference -b etween-kw-and-kwh/

Shut up and don't come back until you learn the difference, retard.

Tesla's superchargers run at 400 volts and 200 amps. Most houses run a 200 amp breaker at 110v (or 240 if you use both phases).

I'll let you do the math. If you know, you're capable of it.

Needless to say, if you had a supercharger installed in your home, you'd need the electric company to come out and run entirely new power lines from the poll for it.

Even the home charge systems they use now can require a direct line from the poll. Not everyone wants to be limited to 240v and 30 amps.

Luckily, the slower you charge the thing, the less outrageous a load it is to deal with. Still, a world of all EV's would require the replacement of the countries entire electrical infrastructure.


Most people will be charging their car at night in their driveway/garage.  Off-peak and overnight.  Fast charging is not a requirement or even a necessity in this scenario.   The power requirements can stay well within the values your house currently has, and no major changes to the electrical system would be needed for a very long time.  Adoption is most likely going to be localized to major metropolitan areas for a long time, those equipped to handle higher power loads and moreerratic swings between peak/off-peak.  For many, MANY years, all the cars will be doing is leveling the difference between peak / off peak consumption rates.

It will most likely be decades before the strain of increased EVs will require large-scale replacement of the electrical system.  During that time, many of the older, failing components of the electrical system will also be getting replaced, anyway.
 
2013-02-15 09:32:46 AM  

natas6.0: So basically, we have a $100,000 pretty POS
in a perfect world this car should be able to go blah miles if you drive under the speed limit
I have lots of money and I'm a complete nincompoop
my god, this thing is perfect!

electric vehicles have been around since 1839
this is the best science can offer?


Did you even read the Article? Says that the CNN team managed to drive all the way, no worries, no nursing, going at or over the speed limit. Considering that EVs are more suited to city commuting, that's pretty cool, and a sign of things to come. Meanwhile, I'm sure there were people back in 1900 who were saying 'those new fangled automobiles will never catch on. So expensive, and the fuel is hard to find! A good horse can eat grass from the roadside, but your auto-doodad can't do that! I'll stick with the carriage thankyou".
 
2013-02-15 09:34:39 AM  

natas6.0: electric vehicles have been around since 1839
this is the best science can offer?




No, it's the starting point of what a startup with limited capabilities was able to offer. From here on, things will improve dramatically, just like the internal combustion engine improved since the model T days.
 
2013-02-15 09:34:50 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: Well.. did they charge it up to 90%, or 100%.  the latter may reduce pack life.


Tesla states specifically that Supercharging is not good for the battery pack and should be avoided when possible. Fully charging the battery is another thing to be avoided, if you want your battery to have as long a lifespan as possible.
 
2013-02-15 09:36:08 AM  

Driedsponge: Most people will be charging their car at night in their driveway/garage. Off-peak and overnight.


Except when most people are dumping a huge load onto the electric grid every single night, overnight becomes peak hours.
 
2013-02-15 09:36:09 AM  

alowishus: How hard would it be to treat electric car batteries like propane tanks?  You stop at the station and and swap your empty one for a full one.  Or am I missing an obvious problem with that?


Or have an extra battery in the trunk.
 
2013-02-15 09:36:25 AM  

Bullseyed: An hour refueling if you plan on driving 300 miles non-stop. Anyone who drives more than 300 miles a day and isn't a trucker, probably has made some really poor life decisions.


What about all the diaper-wearing astronauts who are on a mission to kidnap someone?
 
2013-02-15 09:39:40 AM  

fluffy2097: Driedsponge: Most people will be charging their car at night in their driveway/garage. Off-peak and overnight.

Except when most people are dumping a huge load onto the electric grid every single night, overnight becomes peak hours.


Most people won't have electric cars for quite some time
 
2013-02-15 09:40:28 AM  

Notabunny: fluffy2097: Driedsponge: Most people will be charging their car at night in their driveway/garage. Off-peak and overnight.

Except when most people are dumping a huge load onto the electric grid every single night, overnight becomes peak hours.

Most people won't have electric cars for quite some time


And by the time they do, our grid system would be quite different from our current grid system.
 
2013-02-15 09:40:37 AM  
Having a hard time figuring out why people think the NYT reporter is lying, but do not think Elon Musk is lying. As far as I can tell, there has been no independent verification of Musk's data, and the reporter clearly took good notes (recordings?) of calls with Tesla reps where bad advice was given.
 
2013-02-15 09:43:37 AM  

gsiofa: reporter clearly took good notes (recordings?) of calls with Tesla reps where bad advice was given.


Where?
 
2013-02-15 09:43:59 AM  

Tommy Moo: Prank Call of Cthulhu: Who the fark would be retarded enough to buy one of these?

It would be absolutely perfect for a well-to-do liberal living in a city suburb who pretty much always flies anywhere if he's going more than 150 miles. Also a green married couple that's solidly in the upper middle class. They could own two vehicles and just take the gas one if they're worried about a long trip.


That would be me....and I'm strongly considering it
 
2013-02-15 09:44:57 AM  

gsiofa: Having a hard time figuring out why people think the NYT reporter is lying, but do not think Elon Musk is lying. As far as I can tell, there has been no independent verification of Musk's data, and the reporter clearly took good notes (recordings?) of calls with Tesla reps where bad advice was given.


because elon musk circle jerk.

When the 12v battery on a tesla dies, The parking brake locks on. Which would explain why the logs show power left in the battery yet the car needing to be towed. I doubt "attach jumper cables" is something you can easily do to a Tesla.
 
2013-02-15 09:45:04 AM  
Also, Tesla has been plagued with issues since its inception, including delays in Model S development and production, delays in Roadster production, a recall of 75% of Roadsters on the road in 2010, and the sudden unannounced closure of their Detroit office (it was later reopened) that included firing most of their staff in Michigan.

So why is this company's CEO to be trusted so readily?
 
2013-02-15 09:45:47 AM  

gsiofa: Also, Tesla has been plagued with issues since its inception, including delays in Model S development and production, delays in Roadster production, a recall of 75% of Roadsters on the road in 2010, and the sudden unannounced closure of their Detroit office (it was later reopened) that included firing most of their staff in Michigan.

So why is this company's CEO to be trusted so readily?


Because Elon Musk circle jerk.
 
2013-02-15 09:45:51 AM  

fluffy2097: Driedsponge: Most people will be charging their car at night in their driveway/garage. Off-peak and overnight.

Except when most people are dumping a huge load onto the electric grid every single night, overnight becomes peak hours.


That seems like a weird concern. How many years will it take before "most people" have electric cars, given that this one is $100k? Engineers won't think to examine the energy infrastructure and take things like this into consideration as behaviors change? Parking lots at offices and the like won't install increasing numbers of daytime charging stations if "most people" have electric cars? Why wouldn't people adjust to this theoretical huge shift in behavior?

I wouldn't buy one at this stage but you're worrying about a problem a LONG ways out as an excuse to nay-say the beginnings of something that by all accounts is a step we need to take for long-term energy concern.
 
2013-02-15 09:46:22 AM  
it isn't clean energy and nonpolluting unless the electricity is generated that way.  just sayin.

Small, clean thorium reactors around the US to run the charging stations?  Now we are talking.
 
2013-02-15 09:47:00 AM  

fluffy2097: Driedsponge: Most people will be charging their car at night in their driveway/garage. Off-peak and overnight.

Except when most people are dumping a huge load onto the electric grid every single night, overnight becomes peak hours.


Which I made mention of when I said:

Driedsponge: For many, MANY years, all the cars will be doing is leveling the difference between peak / off peak consumption rates.


You are also assuming that everyone will drive the full range of 300 miles in a day, and you will have to charge your entire battery overnight.  If the average commute is 30-60 miles, and your charger can trickle charge all night to refill it, then my statement still stands...it will be decades before any major change to the electrical system will be required to support the EV network.

My daily commute is <10 miles.  My car never gets more than 50-60 miles put on it in a day.  I could trickle charge the car all night on a 110V outlet, never run out of power, never hit the max range, and never have to stop at a gas station again.  If I needed a long trip?  We'd take the wife's Rav4.
 
2013-02-15 09:48:03 AM  

RexTalionis: gsiofa: reporter clearly took good notes (recordings?) of calls with Tesla reps where bad advice was given.

Where?


Where what? Where notes? Musk never refuted the reporter's quotes that were attributed to Tesla reps. Constant poor handling from Tesla helped create the problems on the test drive. Which, by the way, it wasn't even supposed to be a test drive, but rather a test of the charging system. Musk's silly public reaction is the only reason I (and probably many people) even heard of the story.
 
2013-02-15 09:48:08 AM  

Electromax: Engineers won't think to examine the energy infrastructure and take things like this into consideration as behaviors change?


Considering it's been something like 40 years since the last major investment in our energy infrastructure...

No, I don't think we'll do it in the next 40 either. To many NIMBYs.
 
2013-02-15 09:48:44 AM  

RexTalionis: Notabunny: fluffy2097: Driedsponge: Most people will be charging their car at night in their driveway/garage. Off-peak and overnight.

Except when most people are dumping a huge load onto the electric grid every single night, overnight becomes peak hours.

Most people won't have electric cars for quite some time

And by the time they do, our grid system would be quite different from our current grid system.


Correct. Overnight charging, anticipated this far before it becomes an issue, will probably never become an issue.
 
2013-02-15 09:50:14 AM  
Ok I'm curious now, couldn't they put solar panels in the roof of the car to run the inside electronics leaving the batteries to take care of the major tasks? Wouldn't this increase distance and possibly decrease charging time (by having the solar panels supply electricity to the batteries in charging mode?)
Seems to me they could streamline the process and add distance for a relatively low cost, or I could be talking out of my ass which has been known to happen, which would explain why I install windows and doors and not design earth shattering, world changing ideas.
 
2013-02-15 09:51:25 AM  

gsiofa: RexTalionis: gsiofa: reporter clearly took good notes (recordings?) of calls with Tesla reps where bad advice was given.

Where?

Where what? Where notes? Musk never refuted the reporter's quotes that were attributed to Tesla reps. Constant poor handling from Tesla helped create the problems on the test drive. Which, by the way, it wasn't even supposed to be a test drive, but rather a test of the charging system. Musk's silly public reaction is the only reason I (and probably many people) even heard of the story.


Where did he take these good notes or recordings? Because as far as I can tell, every time he had a failure, he just said "Tesla reps told me to only charge 1 hour even though the range says 32 miles and I had 51 miles to go" or "Tesla reps told me to sit in the car and blast the heat for half an hour because this will magically 'condition' my battery so I get more power."
 
2013-02-15 09:51:26 AM  
art.penny-arcade.com
 
2013-02-15 09:51:29 AM  
Anyone know the temperature through the duration of the NYT reporter's drive, vs the temperature during the CNN Money reporter's drive, and what (if any) effect that would have?
 
2013-02-15 09:52:55 AM  

Tee_Many_Martoonies: Ok I'm curious now, couldn't they put solar panels in the roof of the car to run the inside electronics leaving the batteries to take care of the major tasks? Wouldn't this increase distance and possibly decrease charging time (by having the solar panels supply electricity to the batteries in charging mode?)
Seems to me they could streamline the process and add distance for a relatively low cost, or I could be talking out of my ass which has been known to happen, which would explain why I install windows and doors and not design earth shattering, world changing ideas.


They do have solar panels in their roof for interior stuff.

The 12v system and the high power battery for moving the car are separate systems. You can't power one with the other without a big, heavy, hot, transformer.
 
2013-02-15 09:53:47 AM  

gsiofa: RexTalionis: gsiofa: reporter clearly took good notes (recordings?) of calls with Tesla reps where bad advice was given.

Where?

Where what? Where notes? Musk never refuted the reporter's quotes that were attributed to Tesla reps. Constant poor handling from Tesla helped create the problems on the test drive. Which, by the way, it wasn't even supposed to be a test drive, but rather a test of the charging system. Musk's silly public reaction is the only reason I (and probably many people) even heard of the story.


So you take issue with the fact Tesla can't confirm or deny a tech's quotes because they (presumably) didn't record the calls, but you'll happily say that Elon Musk faked the data wholesale, despite the reporter admitting many of the facts of the drive (and which he left out of the original article) were true?
 
2013-02-15 09:54:02 AM  

TNel: dittybopper: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Ebbelwoi: And, if all consumers truly made auto purchase decisions based on their actual needs, we wouldn't have Soccer Moms and other single drivers driving around in behemoth 4WD SUVs whose offroad capabilities will never, ever be utillized.

THIS.  I imagine the people screaming and crying about the range restrictions of driving an electric car are the same people who, when confronted with the efficiency problems of a Hummer, scream and cry about how it's not important because of how "fun" the car is.

Not me.

I scream and cry about the range restrictions of driving an electric car, and I drive a Hyundai Accent, because I'm all about the cheapest per-mile total cost*, and right now, electrics ain't there.

*This includes *ALL* costs, including the cost of the car itself.

Because screaming and crying will make the range better?  First gen of any new tech is nowhere near as good as the later models.  Gas cars have been around for what a hundred years now?  Think what EV cars will be like in 100 years.


Yes, screaming and crying *WILL* make the range better, because those who work on that sort of thing hear about it, understand that's a sticking point for most people, and work towards bettering it.  Screaming and crying about the range issues is a *FEATURE*, not a bug, and if you are a BEV advocate, you should be screaming and crying along with the rest of us instead of saying "well, you'll need to adjust your habits".

Also, electric cars have also been around for over 100 years.

The problem is recharge time.  It's less convenient to recharge pure battery electric vehicle than it is to refuel a liquid fueled vehicle.  I can't see battery recharge times getting to the "5 minutes for 300+ mile range" you can get with liquid fuels.  "Liquid fueled" doesn't necessarily mean petroleum based, or even internal combustion:  It could also apply to fuel cell electrics, which I think are the technology of the future to watch.  You can also leverage the already installed liquid refueling infrastructure to handle it.
 
2013-02-15 09:56:06 AM  

gsiofa: Anyone know the temperature through the duration of the NYT reporter's drive, vs the temperature during the CNN Money reporter's drive, and what (if any) effect that would have?


Low of 14 (when he stopped for the night) vs 31.

Government keeps track of temperature records luckily, so if you don't believe me, go look it up.

However, many Teslas are sold in cold climates. It shouldn't be an issue like what he experienced.

Which means he did something (Like leave the cabin heater on 74 all night), or something in the Tesla did went wrong.
 
2013-02-15 09:56:25 AM  
gsiofa: "Having a hard time figuring out why people think the NYT reporter is lying, but do not think Elon Musk is lying "

Plenty of people are arguing about whether Musk's data supports his accusations.  Even without considering that it might be fake.
So it's not like people are just taking Musk at face value.

It just isn't getting as much attention because even *those* people aren't arguing that Broder's experience was reasonable.

Keep in mind that this CNN Money guy in TFA is not the first journalist to take a Tesla around the East Coast without a problem. Including another journalist at the NY Times.
And if six people take a given road trip in a given car, five have a blast and rate the car highly and one basically says the car's core technology is confusing and problematic and it doesn't even really work, who should we *expect* to be off?  It's certainly *possible* the outlier had a novel experience that exposed a problem.  But that would put him in a place where he has to back up his case.  And when he actually admits, right in his original piece, that he re-charged less and less every time he plugged in? You don't need Musk's data to laugh off Broder's critique of the car's range.
 
2013-02-15 09:56:26 AM  

TNel: fredklein: maddermaxx: They already have the technology, and it's already in action. Look up Better Place battery swapping.

Looks like they only have things set up in small countries, like Denmark:
"The Gladsaxe station is the first of 20 planned battery switch stations"

20 whole stations. Wow. I'm sure the USA will require a few more than that. There's almost 200,000 gas stations in the US right now, and electric cars have less range, and so need more, closer recharging stations. Setting up a few prototypes is cool and all, but it's a long way from having a working (workable) nationwide system. And having a few stations set up doesn't 'solve' any of the problems I mentioned.

All 200,000 stations were built in 1920s?  EV is new how many gas stations were around when the Model Ts came out?  You can kick and scream about technology all you want but gas powered cars are going away.  It might take 10-20 years from now but it is going to happen.


That's not the point.

Lets say it's 200,000 stations. Each gas station has how many customers a day? 10? 100? 200? I dunno. (Googled it, found numbers around 200, so lets use that.)

200 swaps a day. Lets assume a full recharge time of 1 hour. (Yeah,right. "Usually about 7-8 hours" on 240 volts!) So, on average, a station that's open 20 hours a day needs a minimum of 10 batteries in the back That's assuming the swaps happen exactly on the hour, every hour. In real life, they don't, so you'd probably need twice that many spares charging. And busy stations need even more.

That's 40,000,000 swaps a day in the USA. That means at least 40,000,000 batteries that need to be charged every day. That's a hell of a drain on the electrical system. (And no, you can't just at night, because you need to swap those batteries back to customers today. Unless you want to double the number of batteries again). I don't know how much power it takes to charge one, but multiply that by 10, 20, even 40 for ONE station ( 200 amp service HA! Try 2000 or more! That means re-wiring and new transformers, etc.)

The batteries weigh 550- 600 pounds. Each. That means heavy equipment to move them. Several sets of equipment, unless people want long waits. I know the prototypes automatically remove/insert from under the car, but that doesn't help "Joes garage" in bumfark Idaho- he doesn't have a Million dollars lying around for a fancy-smancy underground battery changer- he has to change them manually. Unless you plan on driving him out of business, of course.

The batteries are "250-300 L" in size, or about 10 cubic feet in size. That's a lot of storage space.

And so on.

Again, prototypes are cool. but I don't think they scale up.
 
2013-02-15 09:57:21 AM  

Hotdog453: If I was insanely wealthy I'd buy one, and have my servant follow me in a ZR1. We would then swap when I have to recharge. But then he'd never be able to catch up, as I could refuel in like 3 minutes.

I'd never see my loyal servant again.


Of course not.  You just traded him a car that only has room for one other passenger vs 6, costs $20 to go 100 miles vs $1.50, and is slower 0-60.

I'd hide from you too.
 
2013-02-15 09:57:25 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

And you have to spend an hour "refueling."

$100k supercar is a piece of crap. That's just what I want to do when I drive, constantly worry if I can make it to the next recharging station and then spend an hour cooling my heels. Who the fark would be retarded enough to buy one of these?


I know right? Remember back in the 80s and 90s when they tried to make wireless telephones? Those giant bricks had almost no talk time and were expensive as hell.

Glad we gave up on those.
 
2013-02-15 09:57:46 AM  

RexTalionis: gsiofa: RexTalionis: gsiofa: reporter clearly took good notes (recordings?) of calls with Tesla reps where bad advice was given.

Where?

Where what? Where notes? Musk never refuted the reporter's quotes that were attributed to Tesla reps. Constant poor handling from Tesla helped create the problems on the test drive. Which, by the way, it wasn't even supposed to be a test drive, but rather a test of the charging system. Musk's silly public reaction is the only reason I (and probably many people) even heard of the story.

Where did he take these good notes or recordings? Because as far as I can tell, every time he had a failure, he just said "Tesla reps told me to only charge 1 hour even though the range says 32 miles and I had 51 miles to go" or "Tesla reps told me to sit in the car and blast the heat for half an hour because this will magically 'condition' my battery so I get more power."


In this article summing up the back and forth, the NYT reporter names "Tesla representatives Christina Ra and Ted Merendino" as providing the poor instructions that led to the premature end of the drive. My presumption is that the reporter's notes were strong enough so he could keep track of who said what, and attribute statements accordingly. If Tesla does not counter the statements from Ra and Merendino then it looks like a win for the reporter, in my opinion.
 
2013-02-15 09:59:41 AM  

maddermaxx: gsiofa: RexTalionis: gsiofa: reporter clearly took good notes (recordings?) of calls with Tesla reps where bad advice was given.

Where?

Where what? Where notes? Musk never refuted the reporter's quotes that were attributed to Tesla reps. Constant poor handling from Tesla helped create the problems on the test drive. Which, by the way, it wasn't even supposed to be a test drive, but rather a test of the charging system. Musk's silly public reaction is the only reason I (and probably many people) even heard of the story.

So you take issue with the fact Tesla can't confirm or deny a tech's quotes because they (presumably) didn't record the calls, but you'll happily say that Elon Musk faked the data wholesale, despite the reporter admitting many of the facts of the drive (and which he left out of the original article) were true?


Yeah, I didn't say that. I asked why so many people were willing to take Musk at his word, and if the data could be verified. I didn't say he was lying, just like I wouldn't say the reporter made up the story either.
 
2013-02-15 09:59:47 AM  

fluffy2097: Tee_Many_Martoonies: Ok I'm curious now, couldn't they put solar panels in the roof of the car to run the inside electronics leaving the batteries to take care of the major tasks? Wouldn't this increase distance and possibly decrease charging time (by having the solar panels supply electricity to the batteries in charging mode?)
Seems to me they could streamline the process and add distance for a relatively low cost, or I could be talking out of my ass which has been known to happen, which would explain why I install windows and doors and not design earth shattering, world changing ideas.

They do have solar panels in their roof for interior stuff.

The 12v system and the high power battery for moving the car are separate systems. You can't power one with the other without a big, heavy, hot, transformer.


So what your saying is once again my world changing idea was already thought of? Well drat, I guess I won't give up on my day job and I better tell the wife to stop packing for that world tour.

/thanks for the info I'd never heard that and was actually curious.
 
2013-02-15 10:00:01 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: I can't be quite as smug about "saving the planet."


You are really passionate about the freedom to live a destructive lifestyle aren't you?
 
2013-02-15 10:00:32 AM  

gsiofa: RexTalionis: gsiofa: RexTalionis: gsiofa: reporter clearly took good notes (recordings?) of calls with Tesla reps where bad advice was given.

Where?

Where what? Where notes? Musk never refuted the reporter's quotes that were attributed to Tesla reps. Constant poor handling from Tesla helped create the problems on the test drive. Which, by the way, it wasn't even supposed to be a test drive, but rather a test of the charging system. Musk's silly public reaction is the only reason I (and probably many people) even heard of the story.

Where did he take these good notes or recordings? Because as far as I can tell, every time he had a failure, he just said "Tesla reps told me to only charge 1 hour even though the range says 32 miles and I had 51 miles to go" or "Tesla reps told me to sit in the car and blast the heat for half an hour because this will magically 'condition' my battery so I get more power."

In this article summing up the back and forth, the NYT reporter names "Tesla representatives Christina Ra and Ted Merendino" as providing the poor instructions that led to the premature end of the drive. My presumption is that the reporter's notes were strong enough so he could keep track of who said what, and attribute statements accordingly. If Tesla does not counter the statements from Ra and Merendino then it looks like a win for the reporter, in my opinion.


So, you're willing to make the assumption that Elon Musk fabricated his data, but you won't entertain the notion that Broder might've mislead on the content of the calls.
 
2013-02-15 10:02:41 AM  

ringersol: gsiofa: "Having a hard time figuring out why people think the NYT reporter is lying, but do not think Elon Musk is lying "

Plenty of people are arguing about whether Musk's data supports his accusations.  Even without considering that it might be fake.
So it's not like people are just taking Musk at face value.

It just isn't getting as much attention because even *those* people aren't arguing that Broder's experience was reasonable.

Keep in mind that this CNN Money guy in TFA is not the first journalist to take a Tesla around the East Coast without a problem. Including another journalist at the NY Times.
And if six people take a given road trip in a given car, five have a blast and rate the car highly and one basically says the car's core technology is confusing and problematic and it doesn't even really work, who should we *expect* to be off?  It's certainly *possible* the outlier had a novel experience that exposed a problem.  But that would put him in a place where he has to back up his case.  And when he actually admits, right in his original piece, that he re-charged less and less every time he plugged in? You don't need Musk's data to laugh off Broder's critique of the car's range.


I get what you're saying, but it does seem there are many comments in this thread showing blanket support for Musk no matter what. He's a smart guy, and his businesses have done very interesting work, without question. I do also think that because of this many here do take his words "at face value", when we should be skeptical of what he has to say, too.
 
2013-02-15 10:03:25 AM  

fluffy2097: Notabunny: As the price for all-electric cars drops, demand for charging stations will increase. My guess is that municipalities will then begin buying all-electric cars for their fleets. I think the infrastructure will grow quickly at that point.

Charging a Tesla S with the supercharging system requires 90Kw of power.

That's as much electricity as the average house uses in an entire year.

To charge your car.

If you think quick charging stations are going to stay cheap, or that our electrical grid can handle them without a 100% complete overhaul to double plant and transmission line capacity, you are insane.


Um, no.  Energy usage of a house is measured in terms of KwH (Kilowatt Hours) not Kw (Kilowatts).  You are attempting to compare apples and oranges.  You're missing the time component.
 
2013-02-15 10:03:41 AM  

RexTalionis: gsiofa: RexTalionis: gsiofa: RexTalionis: gsiofa: reporter clearly took good notes (recordings?) of calls with Tesla reps where bad advice was given.

Where?

Where what? Where notes? Musk never refuted the reporter's quotes that were attributed to Tesla reps. Constant poor handling from Tesla helped create the problems on the test drive. Which, by the way, it wasn't even supposed to be a test drive, but rather a test of the charging system. Musk's silly public reaction is the only reason I (and probably many people) even heard of the story.

Where did he take these good notes or recordings? Because as far as I can tell, every time he had a failure, he just said "Tesla reps told me to only charge 1 hour even though the range says 32 miles and I had 51 miles to go" or "Tesla reps told me to sit in the car and blast the heat for half an hour because this will magically 'condition' my battery so I get more power."

In this article summing up the back and forth, the NYT reporter names "Tesla representatives Christina Ra and Ted Merendino" as providing the poor instructions that led to the premature end of the drive. My presumption is that the reporter's notes were strong enough so he could keep track of who said what, and attribute statements accordingly. If Tesla does not counter the statements from Ra and Merendino then it looks like a win for the reporter, in my opinion.

So, you're willing to make the assumption that Elon Musk fabricated his data, but you won't entertain the notion that Broder might've mislead on the content of the calls.


Again, I did not say he fabricated his data. I did ask if it could be independently verified, which is not an unreasonable thing to ask.
 
2013-02-15 10:04:55 AM  

ringersol: It's certainly *possible* the outlier had a novel experience that exposed a problem.


The problem is that he is of the "Drive it on fumes" personality type.

You know that friend who always needs 5 bucks in gas money anytime you go anywhere with them because their tank is always empty?

That's Broder, and that's the problem he had.
 
2013-02-15 10:05:17 AM  

fredklein: That's not the point.


So you really think that EVERYONE will change their battery everyday? How about maybe 10 people a day TOPS per station. 265 miles with charging overnight will cover (pulling number out of my ass here) atleast 90% of most peoples daily driving.


dittybopper: Also, electric cars have also been around for over 100 years.


Yeah but nobody really cared about electric cars in the past because gas was under $1 a gallon up until the late 90s making electric not really worth it when it only cost $15 to fill your car.  Now it costs $50 to fill your tank and electric has a lot more standing ground.
 
2013-02-15 10:05:21 AM  

fluffy2097: gsiofa: Anyone know the temperature through the duration of the NYT reporter's drive, vs the temperature during the CNN Money reporter's drive, and what (if any) effect that would have?

Low of 14 (when he stopped for the night) vs 31.

Government keeps track of temperature records luckily, so if you don't believe me, go look it up.

However, many Teslas are sold in cold climates. It shouldn't be an issue like what he experienced.

Which means he did something (Like leave the cabin heater on 74 all night), or something in the Tesla did went wrong.


Not a "if you don't believe me" issue. It was a genuinely curious question.
 
2013-02-15 10:06:33 AM  

maddermaxx: The thing is, all of those gas stations you go cost a lot of money too, but they weren't all set up in a few years, but over decades and more.


Gas stations require:
A tank to store the gas.
A pump to...pump the gas.

Battery swap stations require:
Heavy equipment to move heavy batteries around.
Lots and lots of storage space for lots and lots of heavy batteries.
Lots and lots of electrical supply to be able to charge the batteries.
Lots and lots of electricity to charge the batteries

Gas stations are CHEAP compared to Battery swap stations. Personally, I think the 'future' of cars lies not with electricity and batteries, but rather with an artificial liquid fuel. Perhaps something produced by bacteria eating cellulose. That way we can use the existing gas stations. Why reinvent the wheel?
 
2013-02-15 10:06:46 AM  

Zarquon's Flat Tire: I know right? Remember back in the 80s and 90s when they tried to make wireless telephones? Those giant bricks had almost no talk time and were expensive as hell.


See, the difference is, it's not like there already were wireless telephones and someone was introducing a more expensive, less capable version. The phone equivalent of the Tesla would be if someone right now introduced a new cell phone, but it had only half an hour of talk time, took three days to recharge, and cost $10,000. But it looked really, really cool and was powered by farts  instead of electricity.
 
2013-02-15 10:07:21 AM  
Tee_Many_Martoonies:

So what your saying is once again my world changing idea was already thought of? Well drat, I guess I won't give up on my day job and I better tell the wife to stop packing for that world tour.

/thanks for the info I'd never heard that and was actually curious.


Some cars even have solar powered fans on the roof to vent out excess heat when the interior of the car gets to a certain temperature.  Cool things have been happening in the last 7 or so years.
 
2013-02-15 10:07:27 AM  

fluffy2097: circle jerk


Reddit Like Typing Detected
 
2013-02-15 10:08:07 AM  
We also even know that Broder admits that he would take hilariously stupid interpretations of Tesla's advice, so I don't know how much stock to put into Broder following or relaying any instructions given to him by anyone at Tesla:

"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. "

Essentially:

Rep says: Hey, turn cruise control off so you can recapture some energy when you slow down and brake occasionally.

Broder: OKAY! I'm going to assume that means it's the go-ahead for me to go through extremely low speed stop and go traffic through the Lincoln Tunnel and Manhattan!
 
2013-02-15 10:08:48 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: See, the difference is, it's not like there already were wireless telephones and someone was introducing a more expensive, less capable version.


I don't know... the iPhone sold pretty well...
 
2013-02-15 10:10:22 AM  

Pin Fiften Clob: 60 MPH is lower than a huge majority of highway speed limits.  Lots of places have 75 MPH speed limits.


The car can go over 80, it just won't get 270 miles per charge.

Protip: a car going over 80 won't get 270 miles per tank of gas either.
 
2013-02-15 10:10:42 AM  

MyRandomName: Where are these magical electricity trees?


Usually in open spaces away from cities.

i49.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-15 10:11:22 AM  

Bullseyed: Protip: a car going over 80 won't get 270 miles per tank of gas either.


Mine would. Although, to be fair, I also have a 20 gallon tank.
 
2013-02-15 10:13:00 AM  

CeroX: Prank Call of Cthulhu: I can't be quite as smug about "saving the planet."

You are really passionate about the freedom to live a destructive lifestyle aren't you?


The Tesla doesn't strike me as a particularly good way of saving the planet. A lot of electricity is created by burning fossil fuels. Granted, there's some efficiency in pollution control by remediating at one source (the power plant) rather than many (each car). But producing all those batteries isn't exactly environmentally friendly either. Does it beat driving a ridiculously impractical gas guzzling SUV? Absolutely! But it have a significant positive impact worth being smug about? I have no idea, but I suspect not. I'm willing to listen to arguments, though.
 
2013-02-15 10:13:16 AM  
The first journalist clearly had an agenda, and I'm not sure how he thought he could get away with it.
 
2013-02-15 10:13:34 AM  

trialpha: You would probably require less dedicated stations - unlike gas vehicles, electrics can be recharged at home. Much less need for stations everywhere when the majority of vehicles start out with a full charge every morning.


True. But with a gas car, i can carry one or more of these:

lonelyconservative.com

and have extended range (like say I was traveling across Arizona or something). With an electric car, there needs to be a charging station at least every 'X' miles, no matter where you are.
 
2013-02-15 10:13:55 AM  

fluffy2097: Prank Call of Cthulhu: See, the difference is, it's not like there already were wireless telephones and someone was introducing a more expensive, less capable version.

I don't know... the iPhone sold pretty well...


+1. I was wondering if I should drop an iPhone crack or let someone else do it. Enjoy the taste of that delicious, low-hanging fruit.
 
2013-02-15 10:14:05 AM  

ronaprhys: Maybe not.  For most people, normal driving would be just fine in something like that.  Commuting back and forth to work, weekend trips to the grocery, etc.  For those longer weekend trips, rent the most appropriate vehicle.  It'd be cheaper that way for the majority of the population.


Who are these people driving four and five hours straight every weekend? I've never met a single one of them.
 
2013-02-15 10:14:34 AM  

Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH


Guess what happens to the Veyron when you drive it at 150mph? Oh right it'll run out of gas quickly.

Only difference here is that you can't run a gas can to the Tesla. You people are idiots.
 
2013-02-15 10:15:38 AM  

RexTalionis: Bullseyed: Protip: a car going over 80 won't get 270 miles per tank of gas either.

Mine would. Although, to be fair, I also have a 20 gallon tank.


likewise, at 17.5 gallons.
 
TWX
2013-02-15 10:15:50 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

And you have to spend an hour "refueling."

$100k supercar is a piece of crap. That's just what I want to do when I drive, constantly worry if I can make it to the next recharging station and then spend an hour cooling my heels. Who the fark would be retarded enough to buy one of these?


How often does one need to make a journey of this distance by road?

I'm thinking that the point is that if a driver spends 99% of their time in one city, one can choose a car based on the miles that one expects to drive, and if one needs to occasionally leave the city, one can, even if it's a little less than ideal to do so.

This is not intended to be a roadtrip car necessarily, but with the expensive one having a 300+ mile range, it's not unrealistic to have a meal after four to five hours of driving.
 
2013-02-15 10:17:45 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: +1. I was wondering if I should drop an iPhone crack or let someone else do it. Enjoy the taste of that delicious, low-hanging fruit.


I'm waiting for apple to sue Tesla for having rounded corners on their cars.

Tesla in turn, will sue apple over failing batteries.
 
2013-02-15 10:18:40 AM  

Tee_Many_Martoonies: Ok I'm curious now, couldn't they put solar panels in the roof of the car to run the inside electronics leaving the batteries to take care of the major tasks? Wouldn't this increase distance and possibly decrease charging time (by having the solar panels supply electricity to the batteries in charging mode?)


Not significantly, no.  Simple math:   A solar cell that is 20% efficient and 4 square meters in size should produce about 800 watts on average.  A Tesla S with the "300 mile range" battery has a capacity of 85,000 watt-hours.  In the 5.5 hours it would take to drive 300 miles at 55 MPH (the speed for which the range claim is made), that solar panel would add 4,400 watt-hours to the battery, assuming no losses, and that would be about (4,400 / (85,000/300) ) = 16 miles extra range at best.  That's an addition of about 5% more range.

Putting the solar cells on the base model would add about 9 miles to the range (the base model is apparently more efficient because less battery weight).  It still only works out to be about 6% more range.
 
2013-02-15 10:19:29 AM  

fredklein: maddermaxx: The thing is, all of those gas stations you go cost a lot of money too, but they weren't all set up in a few years, but over decades and more.

Gas stations require:
A tank to store the gas.
A pump to...pump the gas.

Battery swap stations require:
Heavy equipment to move heavy batteries around.
Lots and lots of storage space for lots and lots of heavy batteries.
Lots and lots of electrical supply to be able to charge the batteries.
Lots and lots of electricity to charge the batteries

Gas stations are CHEAP compared to Battery swap stations. Personally, I think the 'future' of cars lies not with electricity and batteries, but rather with an artificial liquid fuel. Perhaps something produced by bacteria eating cellulose. That way we can use the existing gas stations. Why reinvent the wheel?


Most modern fuel stations cost between $150k to over $800k from what I could find. Underground tanks and safety equipment isn't cheap. The swapping stations cost about $500k at the moment, but that'll come down with repetition. It's hard to predict exactly what we'll all end up using, but as an interim, electric vehicles will be with us for a while, I wager.
 
2013-02-15 10:19:38 AM  

APE992: Only difference here is that you can't run a gas can to the Tesla


Nah dude. All EV owners fill there trunks with these things for just such occasions. You can just keep plugging one into another and run power for miles to reach your stranded EV.

www.alliesparty.com
 
2013-02-15 10:20:02 AM  

Tee_Many_Martoonies: Ok I'm curious now, couldn't they put solar panels in the roof of the car to run the inside electronics leaving the batteries to take care of the major tasks? Wouldn't this increase distance and possibly decrease charging time (by having the solar panels supply electricity to the batteries in charging mode?)
Seems to me they could streamline the process and add distance for a relatively low cost, or I could be talking out of my ass which has been known to happen, which would explain why I install windows and doors and not design earth shattering, world changing ideas.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVYUPmjJ9bU
 
2013-02-15 10:20:40 AM  

dittybopper: Tee_Many_Martoonies: Ok I'm curious now, couldn't they put solar panels in the roof of the car to run the inside electronics leaving the batteries to take care of the major tasks? Wouldn't this increase distance and possibly decrease charging time (by having the solar panels supply electricity to the batteries in charging mode?)

Not significantly, no.  Simple math:   A solar cell that is 20% efficient and 4 square meters in size should produce about 800 watts on average.  A Tesla S with the "300 mile range" battery has a capacity of 85,000 watt-hours.  In the 5.5 hours it would take to drive 300 miles at 55 MPH (the speed for which the range claim is made), that solar panel would add 4,400 watt-hours to the battery, assuming no losses, and that would be about (4,400 / (85,000/300) ) = 16 miles extra range at best.  That's an addition of about 5% more range.

Putting the solar cells on the base model would add about 9 miles to the range (the base model is apparently more efficient because less battery weight).  It still only works out to be about 6% more range.


I should point out in all fairness that you'd get better numbers down in, say, Arizona or New Mexico, then you would up in Maine or Alaska.  Those are an "average" for the US.
 
2013-02-15 10:22:53 AM  

RexTalionis: We also even know that Broder admits that he would take hilariously stupid interpretations of Tesla's advice, so I don't know how much stock to put into Broder following or relaying any instructions given to him by anyone at Tesla:

"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. "

Essentially:

Rep says: Hey, turn cruise control off so you can recapture some energy when you slow down and brake occasionally.

Broder: OKAY! I'm going to assume that means it's the go-ahead for me to go through extremely low speed stop and go traffic through the Lincoln Tunnel and Manhattan!


From Broder's follow-up: "The stop in Manhattan was planned from the beginning and known to Tesla personnel all along."
 
2013-02-15 10:24:51 AM  

dittybopper: Not significantly, no.  Simple math:


Yeah, well how about putting a windmill on the car and harvesting that free energy? Huh? How about that, smart guy?

trollscience.com
 
2013-02-15 10:25:29 AM  

gsiofa: RexTalionis: gsiofa: "Tesla reps told me to only charge 1 hour even though the range says 32 miles and I had 51 miles to go" or "Tesla reps told me to sit in the car and blast the heat for half an hour because this will magically 'condition' my battery so I get more power."

In this article summing up the back and forth, the NYT reporter names "Tesla representatives Christina Ra and Ted Merendino" as providing the poor instructions that led to the premature end of the drive.
.


Um, their advice let to the car driving 51 miles on only 32 miles worth of charge. I'd say their advice worked. It was the idiot reporter who constantly under-recharged the car who is to blame.
 
TWX
2013-02-15 10:28:11 AM  

RexTalionis: Bullseyed: Protip: a car going over 80 won't get 270 miles per tank of gas either.

Mine would. Although, to be fair, I also have a 20 gallon tank.


Yeah, I think that my '95 Impala SS would probably get close to 300.  I find that my overly-high-speed highway driving range is on par with my city driving range.
 
2013-02-15 10:28:33 AM  

fluffy2097: maddermaxx: fluffy2097: We went over this yesterday with you. You're retarded. Remember? Power and energy are different.

'We' didn't go over anything, but you're acting like an asshole. It costs less than $10 of power to completely fill a series-S. how much do you spend on power a year? Remember, they charge you at the same rate.

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/11/19/greenlings-whats-the-difference -b etween-kw-and-kwh/

Shut up and don't come back until you learn the difference, retard.

Tesla's superchargers run at 400 volts and 200 amps. Most houses run a 200 amp breaker at 110v (or 240 if you use both phases).

I'll let you do the math. If you know, you're capable of it.

Needless to say, if you had a supercharger installed in your home, you'd need the electric company to come out and run entirely new power lines from the poll for it.

Even the home charge systems they use now can require a direct line from the poll. Not everyone wants to be limited to 240v and 30 amps.

Luckily, the slower you charge the thing, the less outrageous a load it is to deal with. Still, a world of all EV's would require the replacement of the countries entire electrical infrastructure.


So just keep using crude oil, right?
 
2013-02-15 10:28:46 AM  
Just visited the Tesla website. Realized that I wouldn't be able to afford one any time soon.

Haz a sad.
 
2013-02-15 10:28:47 AM  
I said that electric cars have been around since 1839
 a fellow farker said these things are just starting..and the tech will get better
you are somehow missing the point

I stated that you had to drive it under the speed limit to get blah miles
 Maddermax accused me of not reading the article
where the writer said they 'pegged' the needle between 60-65mph
which is below the speed limit for most of america

The point is
these expensive vehicles are inarguably below the standard of petrol or hybrid autos
champion them if the smug is what you measure yourself by
but these are a bad investment with nothing new to offer
 
2013-02-15 10:30:11 AM  

fluffy2097: Tee_Many_Martoonies: Ok I'm curious now, couldn't they put solar panels in the roof of the car to run the inside electronics leaving the batteries to take care of the major tasks? Wouldn't this increase distance and possibly decrease charging time (by having the solar panels supply electricity to the batteries in charging mode?)
Seems to me they could streamline the process and add distance for a relatively low cost, or I could be talking out of my ass which has been known to happen, which would explain why I install windows and doors and not design earth shattering, world changing ideas.

They do have solar panels in their roof for interior stuff.

The 12v system and the high power battery for moving the car are separate systems. You can't power one with the other without a big, heavy, hot, transformer.


There you go, conflating voltage with power.  How many volts does the Tesla's high-power battery put out?  More importantly, how much power does the 12-volt system draw?  The size of the step-down transformer necessary to convert the big battery voltage to the 12 volts needed by the interior electronics is driven far more by the current draw of the interior electronics than the voltage difference between the drive system and the interior electronics.
 
2013-02-15 10:30:31 AM  

TNel: fredklein: That's not the point.

So you really think that EVERYONE will change their battery everyday? How about maybe 10 people a day TOPS per station. 265 miles with charging overnight will cover (pulling number out of my ass here) atleast 90% of most peoples daily driving.



ASSuming that to be true, that's still only 90% of 200, leaving 20 swaps a day per station, not '10 tops'.

"Road trip?"
"Forget it, i gotta get my car home to charge."
 
2013-02-15 10:34:36 AM  

gsiofa: From Broder's follow-up: "The stop in Manhattan was planned from the beginning and known to Tesla personnel all along."


And Musk says that it was an unplanned detour. Guess we have one of them he-said-she-said situations.
 
2013-02-15 10:35:30 AM  

Flint Ironstag: For them they drive the car, never stop at a gas station and the car magically has a full tank of "gas" every morning.


Not really-

Description
120V Your basic, standard wall outlet.
Charge time
Usually about 22-24 hours, depending on the car.


So, unless you have a dedicated 240 volt outlet (that only takes 7-8 hours!), you'll need a full day to charge.
 
2013-02-15 10:36:04 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: dittybopper: Not significantly, no.  Simple math:

Yeah, well how about putting a windmill on the car and harvesting that free energy? Huh? How about that, smart guy?


assets.inhabitat.com
Sounds good to me.
 
2013-02-15 10:36:57 AM  

RexTalionis: gsiofa: From Broder's follow-up: "The stop in Manhattan was planned from the beginning and known to Tesla personnel all along."

And Musk says that it was an unplanned detour. Guess we have one of them he-said-she-said situations.


We'll see. I have a feeling this one's not over.
 
2013-02-15 10:37:10 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: dittybopper: Not significantly, no.  Simple math:

Yeah, well how about putting a windmill on the car and harvesting that free energy? Huh? How about that, smart guy?

[trollscience.com image 800x1041]


I'm going down to the garage to get started right now, where does the intercooler go?
 
2013-02-15 10:38:02 AM  

fredklein: Flint Ironstag: For them they drive the car, never stop at a gas station and the car magically has a full tank of "gas" every morning.

Not really-

Description
120V Your basic, standard wall outlet.
Charge time
Usually about 22-24 hours, depending on the car.

So, unless you have a dedicated 240 volt outlet (that only takes 7-8 hours!), you'll need a full day to charge.


Bear in mind that the person who has a 30 mile commute and plugs it in at night doesn't need a full charge each time.
 
2013-02-15 10:38:15 AM  

fredklein: TNel: fredklein: That's not the point.

So you really think that EVERYONE will change their battery everyday? How about maybe 10 people a day TOPS per station. 265 miles with charging overnight will cover (pulling number out of my ass here) atleast 90% of most peoples daily driving.


ASSuming that to be true, that's still only 90% of 200, leaving 20 swaps a day per station, not '10 tops'.

"Road trip?"
"Forget it, i gotta get my car home to charge."


So if it takes an hour to charge what's the issue?  You have to store no more than 5 at a time, maybe 6.  If your station "runs out" and someone has to wait 10 min they can go the the next station down the road.  You are making a bigger issue from something that most likely will never happen.

If your station was on the turnpike you would probably store 50 of them but you would be charging more for them anyways.  All of these issues can be easily fixed.
 
2013-02-15 10:39:57 AM  

fredklein: gsiofa: RexTalionis: gsiofa: "Tesla reps told me to only charge 1 hour even though the range says 32 miles and I had 51 miles to go" or "Tesla reps told me to sit in the car and blast the heat for half an hour because this will magically 'condition' my battery so I get more power."

In this article summing up the back and forth, the NYT reporter names "Tesla representatives Christina Ra and Ted Merendino" as providing the poor instructions that led to the premature end of the drive.
.

Um, their advice let to the car driving 51 miles on only 32 miles worth of charge. I'd say their advice worked. It was the idiot reporter who constantly under-recharged the car who is to blame.


The reporter wrote: [quoting Musk],  "For [Broder's] first recharge, he charged the car to 90%. During the second Supercharge, despite almost running out of energy on the prior leg, he deliberately stopped charging at 72%. On the third leg, where he claimed the car ran out of energy, he stopped charging at 28%. Despite narrowly making each leg, he charged less and less each time. Why would anyone do that?"

[Broder's response]: I stopped at 72 percent because I had replenished more than enough energy for the miles I intended to drive the next day before fully recharging on my way back to New York. In Norwich, I charged for an hour on the lower-power charger, expressly on the instructions of Tesla personnel, to get enough range to reach the Supercharger station in Milford.
 
2013-02-15 10:42:04 AM  

alowishus: How hard would it be to treat electric car batteries like propane tanks?  You stop at the station and and swap your empty one for a full one.  Or am I missing an obvious problem with that?


Sounds good to me, although the battery packs on a Prius weigh ~120 pounds and are hard to swap out by design (ZAP! You're dead). But future car designs could accommodate such emergency battery swaps if the charging issue over long road trips proves to be a problem.

/may make more sense to run an emergency car generator off of propane anyway
 
2013-02-15 10:43:32 AM  

dittybopper: csnake24: NYT is just the propaganda arm of the GOP (well the less extremist part of the GOP if that still exists).

Right.   That's why the NYT has endorsed only democrats for president since 1960.  Must be a double-bluff.  It's an X-K-Red 27 technique.


What a stupid thing to say.

/ London Underground is not a political movement.
 
2013-02-15 10:44:18 AM  

Theaetetus: fredklein: Flint Ironstag: For them they drive the car, never stop at a gas station and the car magically has a full tank of "gas" every morning.

Not really-

Description
120V Your basic, standard wall outlet.
Charge time
Usually about 22-24 hours, depending on the car.

So, unless you have a dedicated 240 volt outlet (that only takes 7-8 hours!), you'll need a full day to charge.

Bear in mind that the person who has a 30 mile commute and plugs it in at night doesn't need a full charge each time.


Don't rechargeable batteries need to be fully cycled? Something about a 'memory effect'?? Maybe it's my age showing (I was around when rechargeable batteries first came out), but I've never had much luck with rechargeable batteries. Seems to me they quickly degrade. When bought, they take an hour to charge and give 4 hours of use, but after a few cycles, they take 2 hours to charge and give 2 hours of use (for example).
 
2013-02-15 10:44:27 AM  

MyRandomName: mekkab: MyRandomName: Where are these magical electricity trees?

I have a 7.2kw photovoltaic array on my house.  It's as close as you can get. And I wouldn't call it a tree, more of a black-winged angel... (shout out to all y'all Godflesh fans!)

/yes, yes. pollution is shifted to the production of the panels...

At least you saved me the response.

But even with solar, how much of U.S. electricity is generated from it. More could be but it is costly. Germany has a fairly large tax hit per citizen to subsidize their solar build up.


It would be interesting to compare Germany's solar tax expenditures to the externalities America pays in treasury and military lives to maintain the global oil supply.

/Pollution as well.
//And the simple fact that sweet crude is getting continually harder to find, while sunlight is more or less constant.
 
2013-02-15 10:45:14 AM  

CheekyMonkey: How many volts does the Tesla's high-power battery put out? More importantly, how much power does the 12-volt system draw?


You'd need to step down 375 volts to 12 volts. If the Tesla has an alternator powered by the motor somehow, it'd only need a trickle charge of lets say 10 amps.  If it doesn't then it needs 100 amps (Just average for a car alternator) and it would have to be there (Which would make me wonder how you could possibly kill the 12v system in the first place with 100 amps of power always at the ready to charge the 12v battery).
 
2013-02-15 10:46:45 AM  
maddermaxx:
Did you even read the Article? Says that the CNN team managed to drive all the way, no worries, no nursing, going at or over the speed limit. Considering that EVs are more suited to city commuting, that's pretty cool, and a sign of things to come. Meanwhile, I'm sure there were people back in 1900 who were saying 'those new fangled automobiles will never catch on. So expensive, and the fuel is hard to find! A good horse can eat grass from the roadside, but your auto-doodad can't do that! I'll stick with the carriage thankyou".

Why is this argument being made repeatedly in this thread?

Cars offered significant advantages in terms of distance, speed, passenger numbers, comfort and safety over horses pretty much as soon as they came out of production.

The Tesla offers... Quietness, dubious green credentials and no need to worry about gears? At the expense of being expensive to buy (2-3 times what a car of that performance would be expected to cost), expensive survicing, very long charge times and limited range
 
2013-02-15 10:47:25 AM  

Trapper439: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Unless you're on a German autobahn, why would you ever need a car that goes over 60 MPH? Last I heard, there are these things called "speed limits" and electric cars like the Tesla can reach them.

My commiserations about your tiny penis. Have you considered buying a great big fark-off gun to make yourself feel better?


For the record, most highway speed limits are 75, some are even 80mph. In-city highways are often as high as 65.

These are ALL faster than 60 mph, in case you're having trouble understanding "why you would ever need a car that goes over 60 mph".
 
2013-02-15 10:47:26 AM  

MyRandomName: Hobodeluxe: Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

once there are more charging stations that won't be necessary. also most people just use their vehicle for short commutes and an electric car would be ideal for that. also no carbon emissions,no noise pollution,no terrorist funding petrol.

Where are these magical electricity trees? There is still pollution, it is just shifted somewhere else.


There are lots of ways to generate energy with almost no pollution in comparison to creating the same energy using an internal combustion engine in a car, and generating that energy and controlling those emissions in power plants in a more sophisticated way is easier than trying to control those emissions on every car individually.
 
2013-02-15 10:47:41 AM  
How big a difference does 10-20 degrees make on a battery?

It seems to get worse as it gets colder...ie 90 dgrees to 80 or 70 no difference. 30 degrees to 20 or 10 degrees and there seems to be a big difference.
 
2013-02-15 10:49:42 AM  

fredklein: Don't rechargeable batteries need to be fully cycled? Something about a 'memory effect'?? Maybe it's my age showing (I was around when rechargeable batteries first came out), but I've never had much luck with rechargeable batteries. Seems to me they quickly degrade. When bought, they take an hour to charge and give 4 hours of use, but after a few cycles, they take 2 hours to charge and give 2 hours of use (for example).


Different batteries have different requirements.


Old laptop batteries needed to be deep discharged. Nicads I think.

New laptop and phone batteries (Lithium ion) actually retain their charge capacity best if you never let them run low or completely full.

Lithium ion batteries also lose about a third of their charge capacity after the first few recharges. It levels out after that for a few years and then they decline rapidly and die completely.

Lead acid batteries like in your car, are only designed to be deep discharged if they are deep cycle batteries.
 
2013-02-15 10:50:21 AM  

gsiofa: [Broder's response]:... I charged for an hour on the lower-power charger, expressly on the instructions of Tesla personnel, to get enough range to reach the Supercharger station in Milford.


So, in his mind, 32 miles > 60 miles??

The point is, if he had charged fully the first two times (instead of 90% and 72%), he would have made it. If he had the math skills of a 1st grader, enough to see that 32 was less than 60, he would have charged the battery enough the last time. He simply didn't follow "the instructions of Tesla personnel, to get enough range to reach the Supercharger station in Milford." He deliberately stopped charging it before he had enough range.
 
2013-02-15 10:50:33 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Zarquon's Flat Tire: I know right? Remember back in the 80s and 90s when they tried to make wireless telephones? Those giant bricks had almost no talk time and were expensive as hell.

See, the difference is, it's not like there already were wireless telephones and someone was introducing a more expensive, less capable version. The phone equivalent of the Tesla would be if someone right now introduced a new cell phone, but it had only half an hour of talk time, took three days to recharge, and cost $10,000. But it looked really, really cool and was powered by farts  instead of electricity.


Remember back in the 80's and 90's when we had cassette players and CD players you could buy for $20, and then some idiot came up with an MP3 player that held about 10 songs and cost a bloody fortune?  It's a good thing that idea died a quick and painful death.

Remember back in the early 1900's when we had perfectly good horse carriages, but someone came up with this 'automobile' idea that was slower, required fuel not readily available to the public, and the government restrictions dictated you had to have someone walking in front waving a flag because they were considered too dangerous.  Also, it required 3 people to run the damned thing.  It's a really good thing we killed that technology dead right from the start.
 
2013-02-15 10:51:40 AM  

gsiofa: fredklein: gsiofa: RexTalionis: gsiofa: "Tesla reps told me to only charge 1 hour even though the range says 32 miles and I had 51 miles to go" or "Tesla reps told me to sit in the car and blast the heat for half an hour because this will magically 'condition' my battery so I get more power."

In this article summing up the back and forth, the NYT reporter names "Tesla representatives Christina Ra and Ted Merendino" as providing the poor instructions that led to the premature end of the drive.
.

Um, their advice let to the car driving 51 miles on only 32 miles worth of charge. I'd say their advice worked. It was the idiot reporter who constantly under-recharged the car who is to blame.

The reporter wrote: [quoting Musk],  "For [Broder's] first recharge, he charged the car to 90%. During the second Supercharge, despite almost running out of energy on the prior leg, he deliberately stopped charging at 72%. On the third leg, where he claimed the car ran out of energy, he stopped charging at 28%. Despite narrowly making each leg, he charged less and less each time. Why would anyone do that?"

[Broder's response]: I stopped at 72 percent because I had replenished more than enough energy for the miles I intended to drive the next day before fully recharging on my way back to New York. In Norwich, I charged for an hour on the lower-power charger, expressly on the instructions of Tesla personnel, to get enough range to reach the Supercharger station in Milford.


Musk: "The final leg of his trip was 61 miles and yet he disconnected the charge cable when the range display stated 32 miles. He did so expressly against the advice of Tesla personnel and in obvious violation of common sense."
Broder: The Tesla personnel whom I consulted over the phone - Ms. Ra and Mr. Merendino - told me to leave it connected for an hour, and after that the lost range would be restored. I did not ignore their advice.

So, his own words are that they told him to plug it in for a while to restore range. So he thought that plugging it in for a while would make everything fine, even if the display still showed he was 30mi short of the range needed for that leg of the journey. Broder is an idiot. If the techs didn't explicitly tell him that it was fine to drive even with the range being only half that needed, he has no one to blame but himself.
 
2013-02-15 10:51:42 AM  
Why in the world would I buy some unproven, expensive technology when a cheaper, more reliable system is already in place? That's why I ride my horse around, rather than one of these 'motor-cars'. I hear you have to stop and put some kind of beastly chemical in them. My horse can crop grass by the road!

And they are always breaking down, so expensive! A new hose here, some gasket there! When my horse goes lame, its off to the glue factory with him and and on to the stable for a replacement. No muss, no fuss!

I dare say that motor-cars will never catch on.
 
2013-02-15 10:51:49 AM  
What many of you seem to be overlooking is the fact that fully electric cars and infrastructure to support them are still in their infancy. So yes, right now things are going to be a bit inconvenient and not optimal. Just like the first gas powered cars were horribly inefficient and everyone was talking poorly on them and sticking to riding horses. But time will pass and these technologies will become more efficient.

Speaking of which, scientists have discovered a way to charge lithium ion batteries 30 to 120 times faster than they are currently able to. source:  http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134635-scientists-develop-lithium- i on-battery-that-charges-120-times-faster-than-normal when this tech becomes a reality in the electric automotive industry, a full charge could be accomplished in under 1 minute instead of 1 hour. Once that takes root and charging stations become more ubiquitous, it will be leaps and bounds better than what it is now.

Just because a technology in its infancy does not match up to the status quo that has been improved over the past hundred years does not mean we should abandon it.
 
2013-02-15 10:52:41 AM  

fredklein: Don't rechargeable batteries need to be fully cycled? Something about a 'memory effect'?? Maybe it's my age showing (I was around when rechargeable batteries first came out), but I've never had much luck with rechargeable batteries. Seems to me they quickly degrade. When bought, they take an hour to charge and give 4 hours of use, but after a few cycles, they take 2 hours to charge and give 2 hours of use (for example).


Batteries don't usually develop a memory anymore, and if/when they do, you can re-calibrate the battery.

Fun fact: The battery that starts your car successfully every morning is rechargeable.
 
2013-02-15 10:53:24 AM  

fredklein: Theaetetus: fredklein: Flint Ironstag: For them they drive the car, never stop at a gas station and the car magically has a full tank of "gas" every morning.

Not really-

Description
120V Your basic, standard wall outlet.
Charge time
Usually about 22-24 hours, depending on the car.

So, unless you have a dedicated 240 volt outlet (that only takes 7-8 hours!), you'll need a full day to charge.

Bear in mind that the person who has a 30 mile commute and plugs it in at night doesn't need a full charge each time.

Don't rechargeable batteries need to be fully cycled? Something about a 'memory effect'?? Maybe it's my age showing (I was around when rechargeable batteries first came out), but I've never had much luck with rechargeable batteries. Seems to me they quickly degrade. When bought, they take an hour to charge and give 4 hours of use, but after a few cycles, they take 2 hours to charge and give 2 hours of use (for example).


NiCads, yes, Li-ions, no.
 
2013-02-15 10:55:23 AM  

gsiofa: The reporter wrote: [quoting Musk], "For [Broder's] first recharge, he charged the car to 90%. During the second Supercharge, despite almost running out of energy on the prior leg, he deliberately stopped charging at 72%. On the third leg, where he claimed the car ran out of energy, he stopped charging at 28%. Despite narrowly making each leg, he charged less and less each time. Why would anyone do that?"

[Broder's response]: I stopped at 72 percent because I had replenished more than enough energy for the miles I intended to drive the next day before fully recharging on my way back to New York. In Norwich, I charged for an hour on the lower-power charger, expressly on the instructions of Tesla personnel, to get enough range to reach the Supercharger station in Milford.


On Broder's charge at Milford, he stopped at 185 miles. The driving distance on I-95 from Milford to Boston is 168 miles. He literally gave himself only 17 miles of estimated leeway to get to Boston.

That's insane! That's like if I had filled up my tank to 2 gallons only because it'll be just enough to get to my location 40 miles away (my car gives 23 mpg on the highway).
 
2013-02-15 10:56:34 AM  

Greek: Prank Call of Cthulhu: Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

And you have to spend an hour "refueling."

$100k supercar is a piece of crap. That's just what I want to do when I drive, constantly worry if I can make it to the next recharging station and then spend an hour cooling my heels. Who the fark would be retarded enough to buy one of these?

You DO realize that you're basically saying what people in the late 1800s did about gasoline- powered cars, right? This is how new technology is- the early ones have limitations, and are stupid expensive. Then, as the companies recoup their initial investment, the price drops and the limitations start disappearing.

Or are we still using 8- bit computers that run at 1 MHz, have 128k of RAM, and cost the equivalent of $3,000 in today's dollars? I also remember that Apple had a 10 MB hard drive back in 1985.It was called the Sider. (because it sat on the side, and was an apple. har har.) Anyhow, that thing was about the size of a cinder block and cost $700- about $1400 or so in today's dollars.

My point is that these things will get better and cheaper. Give it some time.


Yes, actually, we do still use many 486 era tech processors.  That class, and similar ones, are widely used on spacecraft because they are easier to radiation harden compared to modern ones.  They have greater fault tolerances as well.
 
2013-02-15 10:59:02 AM  

RexTalionis: There are a lot of things that just doesn't add up for me in Broder's account of the trip. Broder explained that when he was circling a parking lot at the Milford Service Plaza, he was only actually looking for the Supercharger station.

Here's a picture of the Milford Service Plaza:

[i1212.photobucket.com image 850x715]

As you can see, the parking lot is tiny. I measured a full circuit on Google Maps and it's only about  0.14 miles to make a complete loop around. I don't know why he would have to drive .6 miles to find the Tesla Superchargers, which are literally right in front of the McDonald's and facing the entrance ramp.

Also, the Tesla Superchargers are not exactly inconspicuous - they're huge shiny white obelisks parked in front 2 of the best parking spots in the lot. Even at night, you can't miss them.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 480x360]


The man was either born stupid or something doesn't add up. Given he has a known bias against electric cars I'd say both.
 
2013-02-15 10:59:24 AM  

enry: fluffy2097: Notabunny: As the price for all-electric cars drops, demand for charging stations will increase. My guess is that municipalities will then begin buying all-electric cars for their fleets. I think the infrastructure will grow quickly at that point.

Charging a Tesla S with the supercharging system requires 90Kw of power.

That's as much electricity as the average house uses in an entire year.

To charge your car.

If you think quick charging stations are going to stay cheap, or that our electrical grid can handle them without a 100% complete overhaul to double plant and transmission line capacity, you are insane.

You mean the charging stations that have solar panels on them?


Wo cares what they put up for decoration?

Solar panels put out about ten watts per square foot under optimum conditions. You'd need a football field worth of panels to fast charge an EV.
 
2013-02-15 10:59:33 AM  

maddermaxx: gsiofa: fredklein: gsiofa: RexTalionis: gsiofa: "Tesla reps told me to only charge 1 hour even though the range says 32 miles and I had 51 miles to go" or "Tesla reps told me to sit in the car and blast the heat for half an hour because this will magically 'condition' my battery so I get more power."

In this article summing up the back and forth, the NYT reporter names "Tesla representatives Christina Ra and Ted Merendino" as providing the poor instructions that led to the premature end of the drive.
.

Um, their advice let to the car driving 51 miles on only 32 miles worth of charge. I'd say their advice worked. It was the idiot reporter who constantly under-recharged the car who is to blame.

The reporter wrote: [quoting Musk],  "For [Broder's] first recharge, he charged the car to 90%. During the second Supercharge, despite almost running out of energy on the prior leg, he deliberately stopped charging at 72%. On the third leg, where he claimed the car ran out of energy, he stopped charging at 28%. Despite narrowly making each leg, he charged less and less each time. Why would anyone do that?"

[Broder's response]: I stopped at 72 percent because I had replenished more than enough energy for the miles I intended to drive the next day before fully recharging on my way back to New York. In Norwich, I charged for an hour on the lower-power charger, expressly on the instructions of Tesla personnel, to get enough range to reach the Supercharger station in Milford.

Musk: "The final leg of his trip was 61 miles and yet he disconnected the charge cable when the range display stated 32 miles. He did so expressly against the advice of Tesla personnel and in obvious violation of common sense."
Broder: The Tesla personnel whom I consulted over the phone - Ms. Ra and Mr. Merendino - told me to leave it connected for an hour, and after that the lost range would be restored. I did not ignore their advice.

So, his own words are that they told him to plug it in for a while to restore range. So he thought that plugging it in for a while would make everything fine, even if the display still showed he was 30mi short of the range needed for that leg of the journey. Broder is an idiot. If the techs didn't explicitly tell him that it was fine to drive even with the range being only half that needed, he has no one to blame but himself.


Not that he deserves it, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, I can envision this scenario:
1. Car shows 90 miles of range, he goes to sleep.
2. Wakes up, it's really cold, car shows 30 miles of range. He calls Tesla and says, "it's farking cold, battery said 90 miles last night, but only shows 30 now."
3. Someone - him, the phone support person? - suggests warming the car up to see if the battery's just reading low because it's cold, but that the battery actually has tons of power. Doesn't help.
4. Someone - him, the phone support person? - suggests that giving the battery a bit of a charge will heat it up better, and that if it has tons of power, the range should come up as it warms up. Doesn't help.
5. He believes that driving will warm it up even more, so the range should recover, so he takes off with it showing 30 miles.

If, for example, he thought it was a glitch because the sensor was cold, then that's not an insanely idiotic sequence of events. But then when it turns out to not be such a glitch, he shouldn't whine because his presumptions were false.
 
2013-02-15 11:00:53 AM  

abigsmurf: Cars offered significant advantages in terms of distance, speed, passenger numbers, comfort and safety over horses pretty much as soon as they came out of production.


Sounds like someone needs to brush up on their early car history.  There were a few advantages, but not many.  The only reason the automobile worked is because a few rich people decided the few advantages it did have were worth investing in.  It started out pretty much as a status symbol before a lot of the kinks were worked out.

Exactly like the Tesla with the roadster.
 
2013-02-15 11:04:11 AM  

Trapper439: Unless you're on a German autobahn, why would you ever need a car that goes over 60 MPH?


I don't know, maybe because the speed limit on almost all interstate highways in America is 70mph and lots of traditional 4 lanes have 65mph limits?
 
2013-02-15 11:05:50 AM  

JustGetItRight: Trapper439: Unless you're on a German autobahn, why would you ever need a car that goes over 60 MPH?

I don't know, maybe because the speed limit on almost all interstate highways in America is 70mph and lots of traditional 4 lanes have 65mph limits?


Depends on where you are. The speed limit on the Garden State Parkway and, I think, the NJ Turnpike is 55 mph.
 
2013-02-15 11:07:52 AM  

maddermaxx: gsiofa: fredklein: gsiofa: RexTalionis: gsiofa: "Tesla reps told me to only charge 1 hour even though the range says 32 miles and I had 51 miles to go" or "Tesla reps told me to sit in the car and blast the heat for half an hour because this will magically 'condition' my battery so I get more power."

In this article summing up the back and forth, the NYT reporter names "Tesla representatives Christina Ra and Ted Merendino" as providing the poor instructions that led to the premature end of the drive.
.

Um, their advice let to the car driving 51 miles on only 32 miles worth of charge. I'd say their advice worked. It was the idiot reporter who constantly under-recharged the car who is to blame.

The reporter wrote: [quoting Musk],  "For [Broder's] first recharge, he charged the car to 90%. During the second Supercharge, despite almost running out of energy on the prior leg, he deliberately stopped charging at 72%. On the third leg, where he claimed the car ran out of energy, he stopped charging at 28%. Despite narrowly making each leg, he charged less and less each time. Why would anyone do that?"

[Broder's response]: I stopped at 72 percent because I had replenished more than enough energy for the miles I intended to drive the next day before fully recharging on my way back to New York. In Norwich, I charged for an hour on the lower-power charger, expressly on the instructions of Tesla personnel, to get enough range to reach the Supercharger station in Milford.

Musk: "The final leg of his trip was 61 miles and yet he disconnected the charge cable when the range display stated 32 miles. He did so expressly against the advice of Tesla personnel and in obvious violation of common sense."
Broder: The Tesla personnel whom I consulted over the phone - Ms. Ra and Mr. Merendino - told me to leave it connected for an hour, and after that the lost range would be restored. I did not ignore their advice.

So, his own words are that they told him to plug it in for a while to ...


His own words say he chose the advice of the people he spoke with at that moment over the readout on the car's display. Why is it so impossible to think someone at Tesla screwed up and helped make a routine situation a bad experience?
 
2013-02-15 11:07:55 AM  

Theaetetus: Not that he deserves it, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, I can envision this scenario:
1. Car shows 90 miles of range, he goes to sleep.
2. Wakes up, it's really cold, car shows 30 miles of range. He calls Tesla and says, "it's farking cold, battery said 90 miles last night, but only shows 30 now."
3. Someone - him, the phone support person? - suggests warming the car up to see if the battery's just reading low because it's cold, but that the battery actually has tons of power. Doesn't help.
4. Someone - him, the phone support person? - suggests that giving the battery a bit of a charge will heat it up better, and that if it has tons of power, the range should come up as it warms up. Doesn't help.
5. He believes that driving will warm it up even more, so the range should recover, so he takes off with it showing 30 miles.

If, for example, he thought it was a glitch because the sensor was cold, then that's not an insanely idiotic sequence of events. But then when it turns out to not be such a glitch, he shouldn't whine because his presumptions were false.


To steal a quote from the NYT comments page:

"It was [Tesla] who cleared me to leave Norwich after an hour of charging." This implies that someone at Tesla said, "Unplug from the charger with 32 miles of range and go on a 61 mile drive." But since you are happy to repeatedly imply that without actually saying it, we're left to suspect that what actually happened is that someone at Tesla said, "Try charging for an hour. That should give you enough range." But it didn't. And you left anyway. Which is why, despite our otherwise similar experiences, you didn't make it to your destination, but I did.
 
2013-02-15 11:09:17 AM  

RexTalionis: JustGetItRight: Trapper439: Unless you're on a German autobahn, why would you ever need a car that goes over 60 MPH?

I don't know, maybe because the speed limit on almost all interstate highways in America is 70mph and lots of traditional 4 lanes have 65mph limits?

Depends on where you are. The speed limit on the Garden State Parkway and, I think, the NJ Turnpike is 55 mph.


The parkway in North NJ is 65 in many places (I think above exit 140ish).  I-287 above Rt 80 is also 65.
 
2013-02-15 11:10:03 AM  

RexTalionis: gsiofa: The reporter wrote: [quoting Musk], "For [Broder's] first recharge, he charged the car to 90%. During the second Supercharge, despite almost running out of energy on the prior leg, he deliberately stopped charging at 72%. On the third leg, where he claimed the car ran out of energy, he stopped charging at 28%. Despite narrowly making each leg, he charged less and less each time. Why would anyone do that?"

[Broder's response]: I stopped at 72 percent because I had replenished more than enough energy for the miles I intended to drive the next day before fully recharging on my way back to New York. In Norwich, I charged for an hour on the lower-power charger, expressly on the instructions of Tesla personnel, to get enough range to reach the Supercharger station in Milford.

On Broder's charge at Milford, he stopped at 185 miles. The driving distance on I-95 from Milford to Boston is 168 miles. He literally gave himself only 17 miles of estimated leeway to get to Boston.

That's insane! That's like if I had filled up my tank to 2 gallons only because it'll be just enough to get to my location 40 miles away (my car gives 23 mpg on the highway).


I don't disagree with you on that.
 
2013-02-15 11:13:21 AM  

gsiofa: His own words say he chose the advice of the people he spoke with at that moment over the readout on the car's display. Why is it so impossible to think someone at Tesla screwed up and helped make a routine situation a bad experience?



The way he phrased it, it sounds like he talked to someone at the beginning of the charge. If someone says "try charging it for an hour, and that should work" and an hour later it hasn't, it's not their fault if you drive off anyway. He drove off knowing he had 31mi for a 62mi journey. Really, I think he just wanted a picture of the Tesla on a tow truck - makes for a good story, far more exciting than just a 'tesla was good, but range was still a worry at times' article. That's why he made the break-down the title, lead in and climax of his article - it was a story he could really get noticed with.
 
2013-02-15 11:14:19 AM  

maddermaxx: Musk: "The final leg of his trip was 61 miles and yet he disconnected the charge cable when the range display stated 32 miles. He did so expressly against the advice of Tesla personnel and in obvious violation of common sense."
Broder: The Tesla personnel whom I consulted over the phone - Ms. Ra and Mr. Merendino - told me to leave it connected for an hour, and after that the lost range would be restored. I did not ignore their advice.

So, his own words are that they told him to plug it in for a while to ...


He's saying they told him to plug it in for an hour, so he plugged it in for exactly one hour regardless of what was displayed.
 
2013-02-15 11:17:52 AM  

gsiofa: maddermaxx: Musk: "The final leg of his trip was 61 miles and yet he disconnected the charge cable when the range display stated 32 miles. He did so expressly against the advice of Tesla personnel and in obvious violation of common sense."
Broder: The Tesla personnel whom I consulted over the phone - Ms. Ra and Mr. Merendino - told me to leave it connected for an hour, and after that the lost range would be restored. I did not ignore their advice.

So, his own words are that they told him to plug it in for a while to ...

He's saying they told him to plug it in for an hour, so he plugged it in for exactly one hour regardless of what was displayed.


No, he's very very specifically NOT saying that, he's implying that.
 
2013-02-15 11:18:42 AM  

MyRandomName: Hobodeluxe: Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

once there are more charging stations that won't be necessary. also most people just use their vehicle for short commutes and an electric car would be ideal for that. also no carbon emissions,no noise pollution,no terrorist funding petrol.

Where are these magical electricity trees? There is still pollution, it is just shifted somewhere else.


True enough -- just to get this out of the way, I don't hunt, fish, or grow food crops either.
 
2013-02-15 11:20:26 AM  

neutronstar: What many of you seem to be overlooking is the fact that fully electric cars and infrastructure to support them are still in their infancy. So yes, right now things are going to be a bit inconvenient and not optimal. Just like the first gas powered cars were horribly inefficient and everyone was talking poorly on them and sticking to riding horses. But time will pass and these technologies will become more efficient.

Speaking of which, scientists have discovered a way to charge lithium ion batteries 30 to 120 times faster than they are currently able to. source:  http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134635-scientists-develop-lithium- i on-battery-that-charges-120-times-faster-than-normal when this tech becomes a reality in the electric automotive industry, a full charge could be accomplished in under 1 minute instead of 1 hour. Once that takes root and charging stations become more ubiquitous, it will be leaps and bounds better than what it is now.

Just because a technology in its infancy does not match up to the status quo that has been improved over the past hundred years does not mean we should abandon it.


It's an interesting article, thanks for posting.  The author does raise the real issue at the very end, though.  How thick is that cable gonna be to charge a 56Kw battery bank in under a minute?  It might actually not be practical/safe to do this with the battery in the vehicle...
 
2013-02-15 11:22:37 AM  

Driedsponge: abigsmurf: Cars offered significant advantages in terms of distance, speed, passenger numbers, comfort and safety over horses pretty much as soon as they came out of production.

Sounds like someone needs to brush up on their early car history.  There were a few advantages, but not many.  The only reason the automobile worked is because a few rich people decided the few advantages it did have were worth investing in.  It started out pretty much as a status symbol before a lot of the kinks were worked out.

Exactly like the Tesla with the roadster.


The Duryea (first commercially available petrol car) could already cruise at a speed that would tire out horses very quickly and offered plenty of clear advantages, even at a "rich man's toy" level that would make horses no longer viable.

An electric car offers slightly simpler engine mechanics, a slightly greener energy source and quietness.

Even if electric cars' issues improve massively, the advantages over a car with and electric car will still be small and, without a revolution in battery tech, will remain much more expensive.

The internal combustion engine never suffered an issue comparable to the capactity, cost and charge time issue holding back electric cars.
 
2013-02-15 11:23:01 AM  

Driedsponge: Sounds like someone needs to brush up on their early car history.  There were a few advantages, but not many.


One of the big advantages of early cars vs. horses was a lack of pollution.

Yes, that's right:  When your entire short-range delivery and passenger infrastructure is based on horses, that's a *LOT* of horse crap that gets left on the street on a daily basis.

/And don't get me started on the beefareeno.
 
2013-02-15 11:32:32 AM  
The conflation of the reporters account vs Musk and his logs into the larger counterrevolution against the viability of electric cars is most unfortunate.
 
2013-02-15 11:44:36 AM  

ObeliskToucher: just to get this out of the way, I don't hunt, fish, or grow food crops either.


Why not?   Over 29 million people in the US bought fishing licenses last year, and nearly 15 million people bought hunting licenses.

That's an increase over previous years, and in fact, in the last 3 years we have numbers, the number of people licensed to hunt in the US jumped by from 14.448 million to 14.961 million, nearly 4%.
 
2013-02-15 11:45:07 AM  

abigsmurf: Driedsponge: abigsmurf: Cars offered significant advantages in terms of distance, speed, passenger numbers, comfort and safety over horses pretty much as soon as they came out of production.

Sounds like someone needs to brush up on their early car history.  There were a few advantages, but not many.  The only reason the automobile worked is because a few rich people decided the few advantages it did have were worth investing in.  It started out pretty much as a status symbol before a lot of the kinks were worked out.

Exactly like the Tesla with the roadster.

The Duryea (first commercially available petrol car) could already cruise at a speed that would tire out horses very quickly and offered plenty of clear advantages, even at a "rich man's toy" level that would make horses no longer viable.

An electric car offers slightly simpler engine mechanics, a slightly greener energy source and quietness.

Even if electric cars' issues improve massively, the advantages over a car with and electric car will still be small and, without a revolution in battery tech, will remain much more expensive.

The internal combustion engine never suffered an issue comparable to the capactity, cost and charge time issue holding back electric cars.


Electric cars also offer the ability to charge at home when they aren't using it, something few people can do with a normal car.

Electric motors are much more energy efficient than internal combustion engines.  Instead of ~30% efficient, you get ~90% efficiency.  Increasing efficiency at a handful of power plants is a lot easier than increasing efficiency on hundreds of millions of gas engines.

You are correct in that the internal combustion engine hasn't suffered the same capacity, cost and charge times.  However, gas is a non-renewable resource, whereas electricity doesn't have to be.  In a decade, when you are paying $8-$10 a gallon for gas in the US, you'll be really glad Tesla started building out the EV network early.
 
2013-02-15 12:03:07 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

once there are more charging stations that won't be necessary. also most people just use their vehicle for short commutes and an electric car would be ideal for that. also no carbon emissions,no noise pollution,no terrorist funding petrol.


I'm all in favor of alternatives, but "no carbon emissions"?

Afaik, most electricity in the US comes from burning coal...even with scrubbers, that's a HUGE amount of carbon...which electric cars will be adding to.

Now, you CAN get some savings by charging at night, when loads tend to be lower, and standby plants are running anyway...but I doubt they'll be completely carbon-neutral.
 
2013-02-15 12:11:18 PM  

PunGent: Hobodeluxe: Hotdog453: verbaltoxin: Kanemano: Whoopee a $100K +super car that you have to drive at 60 MPH

Except it's not a super car. It's a sedan.

Whoopee. A 100k+ sedan that you have to drive at 60MPH.

once there are more charging stations that won't be necessary. also most people just use their vehicle for short commutes and an electric car would be ideal for that. also no carbon emissions,no noise pollution,no terrorist funding petrol.

I'm all in favor of alternatives, but "no carbon emissions"?

Afaik, most electricity in the US comes from burning coal...even with scrubbers, that's a HUGE amount of carbon...which electric cars will be adding to.

Now, you CAN get some savings by charging at night, when loads tend to be lower, and standby plants are running anyway...but I doubt they'll be completely carbon-neutral.


30% comes from coal, not most, and it's still hugely more efficient than petrol cars. Even if it were 70% coal, EVs would still be more efficient and produce less CO2, so with how things actually are, they are far and away the better choice.
 
2013-02-15 12:11:40 PM  

fluffy2097: maddermaxx: fluffy2097: Notabunny: As the price for all-electric cars drops, demand for charging stations will increase. My guess is that municipalities will then begin buying all-electric cars for their fleets. I think the infrastructure will grow quickly at that point.

Charging a Tesla S with the supercharging system requires 90Kw of power.

That's as much electricity as the average house uses in an entire year.

To charge your car.

If you think quick charging stations are going to stay cheap, or that our electrical grid can handle them without a 100% complete overhaul to double plant and transmission line capacity, you are insane.

Lol, bullshiat much? Average house uses 20kWH per day.

We went over this yesterday with you. You're retarded. Remember?  Power and energy are different.


Either way if this requires 90kW of power, in 1 hour you will use 90kWh of electricity. Running rate for a killowatt hour is http://www.energyenforcer.com/2011/09/energy-costs-kwh-by-state/  about 10 cents.
So $9.00 of electricity (though you'll pay a premium at supercharging stations I'm sure).
Btw, your typical oven runs about 3.6 kW, so 25 ovens running for an hour to get you 200 miles :)
 
2013-02-15 12:16:02 PM  
fluffy2097: "The problem is that he is of the "Drive it on fumes" personality type."

I'd be willing to bet Broder hasn't run out of gasoline in his car a single time in the last five years.
His personality type seems to be more "tabloid journalist", where facts and reasonable assumption take a back seat to a nice salacious narrative.
 
2013-02-15 12:21:43 PM  

fluffy2097: Notabunny: As the price for all-electric cars drops, demand for charging stations will increase. My guess is that municipalities will then begin buying all-electric cars for their fleets. I think the infrastructure will grow quickly at that point.

Charging a Tesla S with the supercharging system requires 90Kw of power.

That's as much electricity as the average house uses in an entire year.

To charge your car.

If you think quick charging stations are going to stay cheap, or that our electrical grid can handle them without a 100% complete overhaul to double plant and transmission line capacity, you are insane.


Son, my microwave uses a KW. I'd guess that it gets used for around 5 minutes a day. That's 35 minutes a week and around 30 hours a year. If you're trying to suggest my microwave accounts for a third of my household electrical needs, you're a farking idiot.

According to this page, the average American household uses 958 KW-hr a month. That puts you two orders of magnitude off of being right. I hope you also realize that your units are wrong. Please, get educated before you open your fool mouth.

While it is true that if everyone suddenly needed an additional 90 KW-hrs/day, the grid would collapse, it's also irrelevant. There is not going to be a sudden spike in demand. Rather, it will rise slowly and the grid will be built up as demand increases.

Around here, 90KW-hrs is around $7.20 at the moment. I know my daily driving would not necessitate a full charge (around 60 miles) but does take almost two gallons of gas. I can't justify a $100k car for economic reasons, but I will surely buy an all electric car when it makes sense to.
 
2013-02-15 12:24:50 PM  
Teslas are wonderful cars, but lets be honest. The infrastructure is not there yet. Perhaps not for the next decade.
Until the infrastructure gets to the point that there are several mid priced and entry (Sub $20K) options available, I am forced to hold off.

Until then, LPG or Diesel would be the direction I am inclined to take.
 
2013-02-15 12:25:46 PM  

fluffy2097: Charging a Tesla S with the supercharging system requires 90Kw of power.

That's as much electricity as the average house uses in an entire year.


Uhh, both of my computers combined can eat that power up in 3 months, considering 1kW power supplies.

My electric oven (240V @ 10A) will eat up that much in 37 hours. I know I do more than that just baking monthly.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3

Again, you prove you know nothing. 90kWh a year (your claim) versus 11,496 kWh a year (US Energy Information Administration data.)
 
2013-02-15 12:26:42 PM  

MindStalker: So $9.00 of electricity (though you'll pay a premium at supercharging stations I'm sure).


Supercharger stations (the ones at the rest stops) are free for Tesla drivers.
 
2013-02-15 12:35:49 PM  
An Ev runs on 42% green as grass "Clean Coal" combustion.

Infrastructure for EV is a toy and will be so expensive to go prime time with current technology that it doesn't compute.

Not drill Baby, drill, it is burn, Baby burn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power" sab="42">Coal power in the United States accounted for 42% of the country's electricity production in 2011.1] Utilities buy more than 90 percent of the coal mined in the United States.2]


In 2009, there were 1436 coal-powered units at the electrical utilities across the US, with the total nominal capacity of 338.732 ht3] (compared to 1024 units at nominal 278 GW in 2000).4] The actual average generated power from coal in 2006 was 227.1 GW (1.991 trillion kilowatt-hours per year),5] the highest in the world and still slightly ahead of China (1.95 trillion kilowatt-hours per year) at that time.">[6] Back in 2000, the US average production of electricity from coal was 224.3 GW (1.966 trillion kilowatt-hours per year).">[5] In 2006, the U.S. consumed 1,026,636,000 short tons (931,349,000 metric tons) or 92.3% of coal for electricity generation.7]
 
2013-02-15 12:36:59 PM  
Here is my problem with electric cars that no one will address.

It takes a half hour to charge this car at a proper charging station (480V).  1 hour to charge it with a 220V outlet and over 6 hours to charge it with 120V.

So if you have to drive more than 270 miles in this car you are screwed unless you want to take a half hour break at a charging station.  I am canadain. We drive long distances.

Personally I would rather have a turbo diesel that I can drive for 650 miles without stopping.
 
2013-02-15 12:37:20 PM  

dittybopper: csnake24: NYT is just the propaganda arm of the GOP (well the less extremist part of the GOP if that still exists).

Right.   That's why the NYT has endorsed only democrats for president since 1960.  Must be a double-bluff.  It's an X-K-Red 27 technique.


Have you seen who all the Republicans have run since 1960?

Nixon "I am not a crook."
Reagan "Iran-Conta? I don't recall"
Bush 1 "Read my lips: no new taxes!"
Bush 2 "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
 
2013-02-15 12:38:56 PM  

snocone: Infrastructure for EV is a toy and will be so expensive to go prime time with current technology that it doesn't compute.


Uhh, all it takes is wiring chargers into existing power infrastructure. Then as more EV comes in, reduce base load-generating lights.

Swap through, no problems.

The only crappy infrastructure is in the center of the US and some parts of the NorthWest.

Everything else is fairly reliable. Even California got its crap together and I haven't seen a rolling brownout or full blackout since I moved here. Not even during earthquakes.
 
2013-02-15 12:39:22 PM  

Asterix: Teslas are wonderful cars, but lets be honest. The infrastructure is not there yet. Perhaps not for the next decade.


The infrastructure isn't there yet? You have to make an effort to find someplace that doesn't have electricity in the US. Any wall outlet is a potential recharging station.


maddermaxx: 30% comes from coal, not most, and it's still hugely more efficient than petrol cars. Even if it were 70% coal, EVs would still be more efficient and produce less CO2, so with how things actually are, they are far and away the better choice.


40-45% comes from coal, last I checked, but it varies depending on who you ask.

The overall point stands, though: even if it were 100% coal, the carbon footprint of a mediocre EV is no worse than a vehicle getting 33 MPG (PDF) which is a good improvement over the status-quot.

snocone: Infrastructure for EV is a toy and will be so expensive to go prime time with current technology that it doesn't compute.


My house already has electricity. It's had electricity since the day it was built. What's the problem, exactly?
=Smidge=

 
2013-02-15 12:43:05 PM  
Everyone's worried about recharging stations and noone seems to concerned that the less we spend on gas, the less funding our highways get.
 
2013-02-15 12:47:23 PM  

fredklein: True. But with a gas car, i can carry one or more of these:

and have extended range (like say I was traveling across Arizona or something). With an electric car, there needs to be a charging station at least every 'X' miles, no matter where you are.



You can do that too, if you are uber paranoid.  You carry one of these:

and it will generate power.   As a side benefit you can use it if you decide to go camping or if
Hurricane Sandy Blows to aggressively for you.
 
2013-02-15 12:47:27 PM  

Girion47: Everyone's worried about recharging stations and noone seems to concerned that the less we spend on gas, the less funding our highways get.


Then instead of subsidizing oil companies and corn farmers with taxpayer dollars, we should subsidize the roads with taxpayer dollars.
 
2013-02-15 12:48:45 PM  
sigh....

www.mowersatjacks.com
 
2013-02-15 12:48:51 PM  

Smidge204: Asterix: Teslas are wonderful cars, but lets be honest. The infrastructure is not there yet. Perhaps not for the next decade.

The infrastructure isn't there yet? You have to make an effort to find someplace that doesn't have electricity in the US. Any wall outlet is a potential recharging station.


maddermaxx: 30% comes from coal, not most, and it's still hugely more efficient than petrol cars. Even if it were 70% coal, EVs would still be more efficient and produce less CO2, so with how things actually are, they are far and away the better choice.

40-45% comes from coal, last I checked, but it varies depending on who you ask.

The overall point stands, though: even if it were 100% coal, the carbon footprint of a mediocre EV is no worse than a vehicle getting 33 MPG (PDF) which is a good improvement over the status-quot.

snocone: Infrastructure for EV is a toy and will be so expensive to go prime time with current technology that it doesn't compute.

My house already has electricity. It's had electricity since the day it was built. What's the problem, exactly?
=Smidge=


Just that current infrastructure will not satify any signifigant increase in demand.
Watt you gonna do?

I'm pushin her as hard as I can, Jim. She won't take no more.
 
2013-02-15 12:52:55 PM  

dittybopper: ObeliskToucher: just to get this out of the way, I don't hunt, fish, or grow food crops either.

Why not?   Over 29 million people in the US bought fishing licenses last year, and nearly 15 million people bought hunting licenses.

That's an increase over previous years, and in fact, in the last 3 years we have numbers, the number of people licensed to hunt in the US jumped by from 14.448 million to 14.961 million, nearly 4%.


Lack of interest, time, and patience.
 
Ehh
2013-02-15 12:54:51 PM  

fredklein: alowishus: How hard would it be to treat electric car batteries like propane tanks?  You stop at the station and and swap your empty one for a full one.  Or am I missing an obvious problem with that?

Liability problems. If a driver turns in a damaged/broken/messed up battery, and the service station gives it to someone else and it causes problems or injuries or death, they could get sued. Which is why places that swap propane tanks don't accept damaged or rusty ones. Unfortunately, with batteries, it's not as simple as seeing it's dented or rusty.

Supply problems. Every 'gas station' ('electron station'?) would need to have a good supply of these things, a place to store them while charging, equipment to move them around (batteries are heavy), etc. Oh, and the electrical capacity to charge them.

Standardization problems. Gas can be poured into any size or shape tank. But a battery pack needs to fit a specific receptacle. That means they must be a standard size/shape. Any change to the standard requires having both 'old' and 'new' types, (see 'Supply problems' above.)

Customer Service problems. "You're taking my fresh, new, shiny batteries, and giving me those nasty, dirty things? I'm the customer and I'm always right! I want -those- batteries. Whatta you mean they're not charged yet? I wanna see your manager!"


"I want certified organic, cruelty-free SPIN DOWN electrons, dammit! Do you know who I am?"
 
2013-02-15 01:13:12 PM  

snocone: Just that current infrastructure will not satify any signifigant increase in demand.


Bullsh*t. Adding an EV charger to your home adds no more power demand than adding a large-ish window AC unit (3kw). Even the most demanding home EV charger pulls 7kW which is about what my electric stove sucks up boiling a pot of water. Why don't we hear about the grid collapsing more often?

Actual electric utility companies who are actually responsible for monitoring and maintaining the electrical grid have done actual studies and determined that the worst case scenario is they'll have to upgrade a handful of neighborhood-level transformers a few years early and change their rate structures to incentivize overnight charging when the grid is way under-utilized anyway. No billions of dollars of decades-long infrastructure buildouts required.


Girion47: Everyone's worried about recharging stations and noone seems to concerned that the less we spend on gas, the less funding our highways get.


Unless you live in Washington state, then you as an EV owner pay a $100 annual fee for road maintenance. I think fees should be tied to miles driven and vehicle weight, but an annual flat fee is a start I suppose.

Plus a tax on light-vehicle gasoline fuel is a subsidy for freight trucks anyway. Your car does dick-all damage to your typical road compared to a single road tractor with full trailer, but if you distribute the costs according to the actual contribution to road wear then the price of goods would likely skyrocket... assuming you could even come up with a reasonable way to properly bill the truck drivers/owners without creepy GPS tracking measures.


Nutsac_Jim: You can do that too, if you are uber paranoid. You carry one of these:


i1182.photobucket.com

Propane fueled gas turbine generator with 480V ChaDeMo charging unit on lightweight trailer :D (Weather cover removed)

Toting around a generator-trailer is by no means a new idea, and it's actually a pretty good idea for those people who complain about not being able to drive 50000+ miles without having to stop for more than five seconds to recharge or whatever absurd extremes they always bring that argument to. Best part is you can rent a trailer and not have to pay for/lug around a gen set when you don't actually need it.
=Smidge=
 
2013-02-15 01:14:38 PM  

Girion47: Everyone's worried about recharging stations and noone seems to concerned that the less we spend on gas, the less funding our highways get.


Thats why the government will have to mandate gps trackers in vehicles for a mileage tax.
 
2013-02-15 01:35:09 PM  
I was keeping up with traffic. I certainly didn't feel out of place -- except for the fact that I wasn't burning any gasoline.

I sped up, cruising over 70, riding in the left lane, mashing the gas pedal just to feel how fast the car could shoot from 65 to 80. I was practically giddy.


hmm....interesting
 
2013-02-15 01:39:39 PM  

Giltric: Girion47: Everyone's worried about recharging stations and noone seems to concerned that the less we spend on gas, the less funding our highways get.

Thats why the government will have to mandate gps trackers in vehicles for a mileage tax.


If only there were a network of people and facilities set up to inspect automobiles at pre-defined intervals that would make sure your car was functioning within legal limits, verify proper paperwork, and record your cars odometer reading.....maybe they could even combine it with some form of registration service that would charge an additional fee each year to make sure you and your car are certified to drive on public roads.
 
2013-02-15 01:43:33 PM  

Driedsponge: Giltric: Girion47: Everyone's worried about recharging stations and noone seems to concerned that the less we spend on gas, the less funding our highways get.

Thats why the government will have to mandate gps trackers in vehicles for a mileage tax.

If only there were a network of people and facilities set up to inspect automobiles at pre-defined intervals that would make sure your car was functioning within legal limits, verify proper paperwork, and record your cars odometer reading.....maybe they could even combine it with some form of registration service that would charge an additional fee each year to make sure you and your car are certified to drive on public roads.


You must live in a state that does those bullshiat safety inspections and checking for a CEL to see if your emissions are okay.
 
2013-02-15 01:50:53 PM  

Driedsponge: and record your cars odometer reading.....


Easily spoofed.

You can disconnect the cables, you can reprogram the chips to have your mileage say anything you want it to say.

Mine currently says 8008135
 
2013-02-15 01:53:05 PM  
Lots of farkers on the Tesla bandwagon. Just don't drive over 65 or make too many stops and you might make it where you're going.
 
2013-02-15 01:54:08 PM  

RexTalionis: MindStalker: So $9.00 of electricity (though you'll pay a premium at supercharging stations I'm sure).

Supercharger stations (the ones at the rest stops) are free for Tesla drivers.


You're still paying for them.  Built into the price of the car.
 
2013-02-15 01:57:48 PM  

dittybopper: RexTalionis: MindStalker: So $9.00 of electricity (though you'll pay a premium at supercharging stations I'm sure).

Supercharger stations (the ones at the rest stops) are free for Tesla drivers.

You're still paying for them.   Built into the price of the car.


Then, logically, you can't be "pay[ing] a premium at supercharging stations," now can you?
 
2013-02-15 01:59:25 PM  

RexTalionis: JustGetItRight: Trapper439: Unless you're on a German autobahn, why would you ever need a car that goes over 60 MPH?

I don't know, maybe because the speed limit on almost all interstate highways in America is 70mph and lots of traditional 4 lanes have 65mph limits?

Depends on where you are. The speed limit on the Garden State Parkway and, I think, the NJ Turnpike is 55 mph.


Actually, this is incorrect. The speed limit on both the Turnpike and the Parkway is 65 mph for most of their lengths. Only in the more congested areas is this reduced to 55.

The actual, practical speed limit on the Turnpike is closer to 80. Speed limits are much more strictly enforced on the GSP, at least on the sections I travel
 
2013-02-15 02:06:27 PM  

RexTalionis: dittybopper: RexTalionis: MindStalker: So $9.00 of electricity (though you'll pay a premium at supercharging stations I'm sure).

Supercharger stations (the ones at the rest stops) are free for Tesla drivers.

You're still paying for them.   Built into the price of the car.

Then, logically, you can't be "pay[ing] a premium at supercharging stations," now can you?


:) If they did charge for them (obviously in the long run we're not going to see charging stations for free forever, eventually everyone will be paying for a charge), it wouldn't be at the 10cent a kW hour rate.
 
2013-02-15 02:08:01 PM  

Girion47: Everyone's worried about recharging stations and noone seems to concerned that the less we spend on gas, the less funding our highways get.


Half of highway funding in my state comes from the general fund.  I'm sure that's more or less true in most places.
 
2013-02-15 02:08:38 PM  

Smidge204: Toting around a generator-trailer is by no means a new idea, and it's actually a pretty good idea for those people who complain about not being able to drive 50000+ miles without having to stop for more than five seconds to recharge or whatever absurd extremes they always bring that argument to. Best part is you can rent a trailer and not have to pay for/lug around a gen set when you don't actually need it.
=Smidge=


I've thought that having an electric car that has a standard battery in place, and an optional bay available for either a fuel tank/generator combo or an additional battery would be the optimum.

You could sell three separate versions:

1. Base model with the standard battery only and pig iron weight in the empty bay to preserve the weight distribution.  This would be the "urban commuter" version that got less than 100 miles per charge, but was relatively cheap, and could recharge overnight.

2. Extended range electric model.  Replace the ballast with an additional battery.  You get something akin to the Model S, an electric vehicle for those who need a bit more range than the base model.

3. The Hybrid version.  Replace the ballast with a fuel tank/generator combo.  This would give you a car with the flexibility similar to a Chevy Volt, but one that could travel on electrical power only for short trips.

The idea is that you make it modular so a person who buys the base model can upgrade if their circumstances change. Get a job that's 50 miles away now, instead of 10?  Don't buy a new car, just get the battery pack upgrade!  Find yourself making long trips intermittently?  Get the genpack upgrade!  Conversely, find that you no longer need the extended range from the genpack?  Trade it in for the extra pack!

If you design the car so a mechanic can do the switch and have it tested and running in, say, an hour or so, you'd have a real winner, especially if you could rent the hybrid genpacks to people who needed to drive down to visit Aunt Edna in Florida, or whatever.   They don't have to rent a separate vehicle, and the dealer gets to make some cash (and perhaps the opportunity to "upsell" that customer later).
 
2013-02-15 02:11:02 PM  

CheekyMonkey: It's an interesting article, thanks for posting.  The author does raise the real issue at the very end, though.  How thick is that cable gonna be to charge a 56Kw battery bank in under a minute?  It might actually not be practical/safe to do this with the battery in the vehicle...


Assuming you mean a 56kWh battery, that works out to 3360kW, or 3.3MW in 1 minute.

I can't find what gauge of wire you'd need to use that can carry that, I don't think it would be ridiculously large, submarine cables don't look that big, and can carry 630MW.
 
2013-02-15 02:12:14 PM  
You realize you just admitted to a federal offence, right?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa l_Odometer_Act

The point is they already have a system set up to monitor yearly mileage, and very few drivers are going to risk massive fines or jail time to spoof their odometer.
 
2013-02-15 02:13:04 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: You can do that too, if you are uber paranoid. You carry one of these:

and it will generate power.


Riiiight.

I dunno about this particular car ( although I'd bet it's close), but the 'Better Place' ones mentioned earlier say this about charging:

120V Your basic, standard wall outlet. Usually about 22-24 hours, depending on the car.
http://www.betterplace.com/How-it-Works/switchable-batteries/3

So, yeah, you can bring a portable generator... and enough gas to run it for 24 hours. That is, if you don't mind stopping for a day in the middle of nowhere.
 
2013-02-15 02:16:17 PM  
At this point they should just sue the NYT for libel and slander. There is enough data straight out in the open where all can see.

This is what it looks like when the GOP tries to bury an industry.
 
2013-02-15 02:17:46 PM  

Driedsponge: You realize you just admitted to a federal offence, right?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa l_Odometer_Act

The point is they already have a system set up to monitor yearly mileage, and very few drivers are going to risk massive fines or jail time to spoof their odometer.


damn mobile viewer.
 
2013-02-15 02:19:47 PM  
The only thing that makes sense when shopping for a new car is to buy the one with the lowest cost of ownership for the class of vehicle you need. Here's the list of the vehicles for 2013 with the lowest total cost of ownership over the first 5 years.

Compact Crossover/Wagon 2013 Volkswagen Jetta TDI Wagon
Compact Passenger Car 2013 Toyota Prius c
Convertible 2013 MINI Cooper Convertible
Crossover/Wagon 2013 Toyota Prius v
Full-Size Crossover/Wagon 2013 Toyota Highlander V6
Full-Size Pickup LD 2013 Toyota Tundra CrewMax
Full-Size SUV 2013 GMC Yukon Denali
Luxury Crossover/Wagon 2013 Acura MDX
Luxury Passenger Car 2013 Mercedes-Benz E350 BlueTEC
Luxury Performance Car 2013 Porsche 911 Coupe
Minivan 2013 Toyota Sienna V6
Passenger Car 2013 Toyota Prius
Performance Car 2013 Subaru Impreza WRX STI Wagon
Premium Compact Crossover/Wagon 2013 Audi A3 TDI
Premium Compact Passenger Car 2013 Lexus CT 200h
Premium Convertible 2013 Lexus IS 250C
Premium Crossover/Wagon 2013 Lexus RX 450h
Premium Passenger Car 2013 Lexus ES 350
Premium Performance Car 2013 Porsche Boxster S
Premium Sporty/Coupe 2013 Audi TT Coupe
Premium SUV 2013 Lexus GX 460
Sporty/Coupe 2013 Toyota Yaris 2-Door Hatchback
SUV 2013 Toyota FJ Cruiser
 
2013-02-15 02:21:49 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: The only thing that makes sense when shopping for a new car is to buy the one with the lowest cost of ownership for the class of vehicle you need. Here's the list of the vehicles for 2013 with the lowest total cost of ownership over the first 5 years.

Compact Crossover/Wagon 2013 Volkswagen Jetta TDI Wagon
Compact Passenger Car 2013 Toyota Prius c
Convertible 2013 MINI Cooper Convertible
Crossover/Wagon 2013 Toyota Prius v
Full-Size Crossover/Wagon 2013 Toyota Highlander V6
Full-Size Pickup LD 2013 Toyota Tundra CrewMax
Full-Size SUV 2013 GMC Yukon Denali
Luxury Crossover/Wagon 2013 Acura MDX
Luxury Passenger Car 2013 Mercedes-Benz E350 BlueTEC
Luxury Performance Car 2013 Porsche 911 Coupe
Minivan 2013 Toyota Sienna V6
Passenger Car 2013 Toyota Prius
Performance Car 2013 Subaru Impreza WRX STI Wagon
Premium Compact Crossover/Wagon 2013 Audi A3 TDI
Premium Compact Passenger Car 2013 Lexus CT 200h
Premium Convertible 2013 Lexus IS 250C
Premium Crossover/Wagon 2013 Lexus RX 450h
Premium Passenger Car 2013 Lexus ES 350
Premium Performance Car 2013 Porsche Boxster S
Premium Sporty/Coupe 2013 Audi TT Coupe
Premium SUV 2013 Lexus GX 460
Sporty/Coupe 2013 Toyota Yaris 2-Door Hatchback
SUV 2013 Toyota FJ Cruiser


woohoo, my car made the list....sort of.   Buying an STI doesn't make much sense financially, you can get the same performance out of a WRX with about 2K in mods.  The only true advantage is the 6 speed transmission and brembo brakes.
 
2013-02-15 02:28:27 PM  
snocone:
Just that current infrastructure will not satify any signifigant increase in demand.
Watt you gonna do?


I sees what you did thar.

Smidge204:
The infrastructure isn't there yet? You have to make an effort to find someplace that doesn't have electricity in the US. Any wall outlet is a potential recharging station.

The same could be argued about Video Rental places in the 70s right? Many people had T.Vs, didn't they? But there was a time a huge clunky Recorder was closer to $500 - $1K.

Like with every new product, there needs to be a critical mass before production costs and ultimately prices fall. Like many have pointed out, I may not always have access to a charging station. For example, just how easy is it to always have a wall outlet? Difficulty: On street parking at your primary address.

I also casually looked into a few fairly large cities that I am familiar with using (http://www.chargingstations.com/) and discovered in many instances that I would have to go out of my way to find a charging station. I used to have a diesel car and even then filling up was not always super convenient.

I am not arguing against the technology or concept. I am just saying that I will be a little late after the curve.
 
2013-02-15 02:38:13 PM  

MmmmBacon: The douchebag from the NYT did a hatchetjob smear article on the Tesla, and he got caught. Should have realized that the cars' computer would track enough information to debunk his claims, especially with GPS. Whoops! This new report just verifies Tesla's data.


I notice this latest test did not have an overnight stop in which the car lost 80% of its charge. An effect confirmed even by the Tesla Motors "data".
 
2013-02-15 02:38:45 PM  

Girion47: Popcorn Johnny: The only thing that makes sense when shopping for a new car is to buy the one with the lowest cost of ownership for the class of vehicle you need. Here's the list of the vehicles for 2013 with the lowest total cost of ownership over the first 5 years.

woohoo, my car made the list....sort of.   Buying an STI doesn't make much sense financially, you can get the same performance out of a WRX with about 2K in mods.  The only true advantage is the 6 speed transmission and brembo brakes.


A factory warranty doesn't hurt, either.
 
2013-02-15 02:41:17 PM  

alowishus: How hard would it be to treat electric car batteries like propane tanks?  You stop at the station and and swap your empty one for a full one.  Or am I missing an obvious problem with that?


It would be easy if all electric cars used the same battery and a nightmare otherwise. It would also required the refuelling costs to pay for battery depreciation, which is about $10,000 per annum for a Tesla Roadster - or was. Maybe a bit less now.
 
2013-02-15 02:49:17 PM  

RexTalionis: "Tesla reps told me to sit in the car and blast the heat for half an hour because this will magically 'condition' my battery so I get more power."


Sounds plausible. Cold Li-ion batteries don't give up their charge like warm ones. There is a lot of sophisticated battery temperature management on a Tesla car, and that includes heating as well as cooling.
 
2013-02-15 02:55:37 PM  

Driedsponge: You realize you just admitted to a federal offence, right?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa l_Odometer_Act

The point is they already have a system set up to monitor yearly mileage, and very few drivers are going to risk massive fines or jail time to spoof their odometer.


yeah yeah we also have restrictions on committing murder, extra punishment for using a firearm to commit murder, laws about smoking pot, doing lines and driving drunk.....tell me how successful that system is, would you?

When the country switches to a mileage tax instead of a fuel tax you will see alot more people only driving 300 miles a year if they were going to solely use an odometer reading because more and more people will be throwing their mechanic some extra money to disconnect their odometer..
 
2013-02-15 03:02:56 PM  

maddermaxx: Most modern fuel stations cost between $150k to over $800k from what I could find.


My local pterol station dispenses at about 0.5 litres per second. That's about 0.35 kg per second. At 45 MJ/kg, that's an energy delivery rate of 16MW. If we assume that a petrol engine has a thermal efficiency of about 20% and an electric care has an efficiency of 80%, the petrol pump is equivalent to a 4MW charging station. Even a Tesla Supercharger is only 90kW, so roughly speaking you need 45 times as many Superchargers as pumps to service the same number of cars.

The situation isn't too bad at the moment, as there are hardly any electric cars around and those that are around are mainly used for short distance journeys and charged at home.
 
2013-02-15 03:04:30 PM  

fredklein: Um, their advice let to the car driving 51 miles on only 32 miles worth of charge. I'd say their advice worked. It was the idiot reporter who constantly under-recharged the car who is to blame.


Why would you blame him if he followed Tesla advice? It appears that they may have thought that the charge apparently lost overnight would reappear as the battery warmed up, which is why they advised a relatively low charge.
 
2013-02-15 03:07:11 PM  

gsiofa: [Broder's response]: I stopped at 72 percent because I had replenished more than enough energy for the miles I intended to drive the next day before fully recharging on my way back to New York. In Norwich, I charged for an hour on the lower-power charger, expressly on the instructions of Tesla personnel, to get enough range to reach the Supercharger station in Milford.


My prediction: Tesla Motors will shortly be looking for replacement customer service staff and Mr Musk is going to regret that he ever raised this fuss. Of all the ways to handle it, he chose by far the worst.
 
2013-02-15 03:22:25 PM  

Giltric: Driedsponge: You realize you just admitted to a federal offence, right?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa l_Odometer_Act

The point is they already have a system set up to monitor yearly mileage, and very few drivers are going to risk massive fines or jail time to spoof their odometer.

yeah yeah we also have restrictions on committing murder, extra punishment for using a firearm to commit murder, laws about smoking pot, doing lines and driving drunk.....tell me how successful that system is, would you?

When the country switches to a mileage tax instead of a fuel tax you will see alot more people only driving 300 miles a year if they were going to solely use an odometer reading because more and more people will be throwing their mechanic some extra money to disconnect their odometer..


I know someone who did that.  He leased a van for his business, and he had to pay for extra mileage at the end of the lease.  He had the mechanic disable it for a while so he wouldn't go over the mileage limit.

/Back when it was a mechanical odometer.
 
2013-02-15 03:35:54 PM  

Giltric: Driedsponge: You realize you just admitted to a federal offence, right?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa l_Odometer_Act

The point is they already have a system set up to monitor yearly mileage, and very few drivers are going to risk massive fines or jail time to spoof their odometer.

yeah yeah we also have restrictions on committing murder, extra punishment for using a firearm to commit murder, laws about smoking pot, doing lines and driving drunk.....tell me how successful that system is, would you?

When the country switches to a mileage tax instead of a fuel tax you will see alot more people only driving 300 miles a year if they were going to solely use an odometer reading because more and more people will be throwing their mechanic some extra money to disconnect their odometer..


Like someone else said, that's a federal offense.  I doubt a mechanic is going to want to take that kind of liability.
 
2013-02-15 03:41:37 PM  

Tommy Moo: alowishus: How hard would it be to treat electric car batteries like propane tanks?  You stop at the station and and swap your empty one for a full one.  Or am I missing an obvious problem with that?


I'd put money on electric double-layer capacitors (AKA Supercapacitors) eventually supplanting batteries as the energy storage system for EVs. Even if in the future they hold half the Amp-Hours of a battery, they last longer, aren't damaged by running them to 0 volts,  and charge really, really quickly. Imagine driving 150 miles and "refueling" in 5 minutes (I ride a motorcycle almost exclusively -- it has a 130mile range)

EV technology just needs time: remember that the early cars were slow, unreliable, and had limited range.
 
2013-02-15 04:02:19 PM  
Why do people keep saying it's $100K+?

Two seconds on their site reveals the prices on the sedan to be:
$52,400 40kWh battery
$62,400 60kWh
$72,400 85kWh
$87,400 85kWh "performance" model with upgraded drivetrain, suspension and interior

Still expensive but hardly insane by luxury car standards and not over $100,000.
 
2013-02-15 04:08:14 PM  

mllawso: Tommy Moo: alowishus: How hard would it be to treat electric car batteries like propane tanks?  You stop at the station and and swap your empty one for a full one.  Or am I missing an obvious problem with that?

I'd put money on electric double-layer capacitors (AKA Supercapacitors) eventually supplanting batteries as the energy storage system for EVs. Even if in the future they hold half the Amp-Hours of a battery, they last longer, aren't damaged by running them to 0 volts,  and charge really, really quickly. Imagine driving 150 miles and "refueling" in 5 minutes (I ride a motorcycle almost exclusively -- it has a 130mile range)

EV technology just needs time: remember that the early cars were slow, unreliable, and had limited range.


Wouldn't capacitors have the problem of bleeding back to no charge when parked? You'd have to charge them whenever you were going to drive, unless they could insulate them really, really well.
 
2013-02-15 04:18:24 PM  

Girion47: I doubt a mechanic is going to want to take that kind of liability.


Some of them  already do.
 
2013-02-15 04:22:43 PM  

bin_smokin: Here is my problem with electric cars that no one will address.

It takes a half hour to charge this car at a proper charging station (480V).  1 hour to charge it with a 220V outlet and over 6 hours to charge it with 120V.

So if you have to drive more than 270 miles in this car you are screwed unless you want to take a half hour break at a charging station.  I am canadain. We drive long distances.

Personally I would rather have a turbo diesel that I can drive for 650 miles without stopping.


Multiple people have addressed it. The answer is for you to not buy an electric car if you regularly need to drive over 270 miles without stopping. Or, if those trips are a rare occurrence take a second car when road tripping.  People with 80-100k to spend on a car generally have a second vehicle. EVs are still a new technology it will be a decade before they can do everything you want them to.
 
2013-02-15 04:29:42 PM  

Girion47: Like someone else said, that's a federal offense. I doubt a mechanic is going to want to take that kind of liability.


They already do it. Just like all the other federal offenses that are violated.

You can even pay for an inspection sticker if your vehicle has no chance of meeting emission or safety standards.....shocking that people break laws right?
 
2013-02-15 04:31:14 PM  

fredklein: maddermaxx: The thing is, all of those gas stations you go cost a lot of money too, but they weren't all set up in a few years, but over decades and more.

Gas stations require:
A tank to store the gas.
A pump to...pump the gas.

Battery swap stations require:
Heavy equipment to move heavy batteries around.
Lots and lots of storage space for lots and lots of heavy batteries.
Lots and lots of electrical supply to be able to charge the batteries.
Lots and lots of electricity to charge the batteries

Gas stations are CHEAP compared to Battery swap stations. Personally, I think the 'future' of cars lies not with electricity and batteries, but rather with an artificial liquid fuel. Perhaps something produced by bacteria eating cellulose. That way we can use the existing gas stations. Why reinvent the wheel?


Do you remember (if you are old enough) the size of first computers, hard disk or even the size of cell phones when they came out initially?  Hell even the size of monitors or your TV? Its funny how technology evolves.
 
2013-02-15 04:31:16 PM  

dittybopper: /Back when it was a mechanical odometer.


Now they can be reflashed with an OBDII, or other diagnostic tools.
 
2013-02-15 04:40:06 PM  

Tommy Moo: Wouldn't capacitors have the problem of bleeding back to no charge when parked? You'd have to charge them whenever you were going to drive, unless they could insulate them really, really well.


Yes you would. Of course, that is by no means the reason why supercapacitors will never be used for EVs.

The BATTERY is not the limiting factor for charge times. It hasn't been for decades. The limiting factor in charge time falls into one of two categories:

1) The amount of power available at the charging location. This means you're limited to things like 12kW for a home, or 80-100kW for a business or standalone installation. But even if you're able to access higher powers, you are limited by...

2) The amount of power that can safely be handled without special training and equipment. At ~400V battery voltage, you're already pushing 200+ amps with ChaDeMo/Tesla Supercharger equipment. 200 amps, 400 volts. That's "kill you dead right now" territory.

For comparison, a gasoline dispenser nozzle has a raw energy throughput in the neighborhood of twenty megawatts. A 14-gallon gas tank holds about 470 kWh of energy (~80% of which you waste as heat, though, so really it's like 90kWh usable). Unlike electricity, gasoline is very stable and you can safely transfer it at those rates.

If you want to recharge an EV in the time it takes to fill a gas tank, you need something in the neighborhood of 280kW. Only licensed electricians would be qualified to wave a cord around at that power level.

But the real problem with EV haters/skeptics is they fail to understand a critical point: There is absolutely no need whatsoever to recharge that quickly. Recharging an EV requires a fundamentally different culture than refueling a traditional car. "Stopping for gas" is so habitualized that few can see operating a vehicle in any other way.


dittybopper: I've thought that having an electric car that has a standard battery in place, and an optional bay available for either a fuel tank/generator combo or an additional battery would be the optimum.


We had this discussion - it was a silly idea then and it's a silly idea now. A trailer hitch accomplished exactly this and does not require a visit to a service station with specialized installation equipment, nor would it require anything vehicle-specific.
=Smidge=
 
2013-02-15 04:54:44 PM  

fluffy2097: Notabunny: As the price for all-electric cars drops, demand for charging stations will increase. My guess is that municipalities will then begin buying all-electric cars for their fleets. I think the infrastructure will grow quickly at that point.

Charging a Tesla S with the supercharging system requires 90Kw of power.

That's as much electricity as the average house uses in an entire year.

To charge your car.

If you think quick charging stations are going to stay cheap, or that our electrical grid can handle them without a 100% complete overhaul to double plant and transmission line capacity, you are insane.


Please explain how Tesla S use 90kW to charge once!  I am all ears (and eyes). I am interested in the car but if its taking that much electricity then screw it.
 
2013-02-15 04:56:25 PM  

dittybopper: Giltric: Driedsponge: You realize you just admitted to a federal offence, right?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa l_Odometer_Act

The point is they already have a system set up to monitor yearly mileage, and very few drivers are going to risk massive fines or jail time to spoof their odometer.

yeah yeah we also have restrictions on committing murder, extra punishment for using a firearm to commit murder, laws about smoking pot, doing lines and driving drunk.....tell me how successful that system is, would you?

When the country switches to a mileage tax instead of a fuel tax you will see alot more people only driving 300 miles a year if they were going to solely use an odometer reading because more and more people will be throwing their mechanic some extra money to disconnect their odometer..

I know someone who did that.  He leased a van for his business, and he had to pay for extra mileage at the end of the lease.  He had the mechanic disable it for a while so he wouldn't go over the mileage limit.

/Back when it was a mechanical odometer.


Glad you added that disclaimer. Try disconnecting speed sensors on modern vehicles and you'll wind up with a trans stuck in "limp home mode"
 
2013-02-15 05:12:39 PM  

fluffy2097: Driedsponge: Most people will be charging their car at night in their driveway/garage. Off-peak and overnight.

Except when most people are dumping a huge load onto the electric grid every single night, overnight becomes peak hours.


As others have said many house AC units draw more kwh than a Tesla home charger, and millions of homes have those without problems during the day.
 
2013-02-15 05:14:04 PM  

orbister: fredklein: Um, their advice let to the car driving 51 miles on only 32 miles worth of charge. I'd say their advice worked. It was the idiot reporter who constantly under-recharged the car who is to blame.

Why would you blame him if he followed Tesla advice? It appears that they may have thought that the charge apparently lost overnight would reappear as the battery warmed up, which is why they advised a relatively low charge.


Yes, and they were correct (51 miles on a 32 mile charge). But I seriously doubt they said "Let it charge to 32, then try to drive it 60+ miles". They probably said something like "Plug it in for an hour or so, to get the charge you need", and he (deliberately or not) misinterpreted that as "Plug it for 47 minutes and go, even if it's not charged enough". Now, that could be a simple mistake, but when you add in the other things he did, liek not charging it completely to begin with.....
 
2013-02-15 05:16:30 PM  

mllawso: Even if in the future they hold half the Amp-Hours of a battery, they last longer, aren't damaged by running them to 0 volts,  and charge really, really quickly. Imagine driving 150 miles and "refueling" in 5 minutes


It's a nice idea, but there are three fundamental problems to overcome. First of all, the energy stored in a  capacitor is 1/2 C V^2. That means that you need electrical systems which can (a) cope with a range of 0 to full in the capacitor and (b) handle very, very large currents as the charge gets low. This is very non-trivial. Batteries which retain a constantish voltage are far more tractable.

Secondly, you really, really on;t want to short a capacitor in an accident. No insoluble, but significant protection is needed.

Finally, recharging in five minutes is a lovely idea, but difficult to implement. A Tesla Supercharger is 90kW and charges a reasonable range in an hour. To get that charge rammed in in 5 minutes means something like 1MW. This also is non-trivial.

Supercapacitors may well have a role to play in future electric cars - perhaps soaking up and releasing regenerative braking output in the very short term and around a set point - but I really doubt that we'll see them as main energy store.
 
2013-02-15 05:19:46 PM  

Smidge204: But the real problem with EV haters/skeptics is they fail to understand a critical point: There is absolutely no need whatsoever to recharge that quickly. Recharging an EV requires a fundamentally different culture than refueling a traditional car. "Stopping for gas" is so habitualized that few can see operating a vehicle in any other way.


There is a need to recharge as fast as an IC car if you are going to do long drives. For short trips it's different, I agree.
 
2013-02-15 05:23:37 PM  
There's also been talk of wireless recharging via road lanes that will charge you as you drive over them ala F-Zero
 
2013-02-15 05:28:52 PM  

fredklein: Flint Ironstag: For them they drive the car, never stop at a gas station and the car magically has a full tank of "gas" every morning.

Not really-

Description
120V Your basic, standard wall outlet.
Charge time
Usually about 22-24 hours, depending on the car.

So, unless you have a dedicated 240 volt outlet (that only takes 7-8 hours!), you'll need a full day to charge.


From that link: "Charge times from empty"

How many people will travel 300 miles to work every day, charge at work and then drive 300 miles back home?  Or even 150 miles to work, no charge at work and then 150 miles back home?

To put it another way, how many people buy a full tank of gas every single day?

For 99.9% of people they will drive anywhere from five to fifty miles to work and their car will only need a top up charge each night, not the full 24 hour charge.
 
2013-02-15 06:07:06 PM  

Flint Ironstag: fredklein: Flint Ironstag: For them they drive the car, never stop at a gas station and the car magically has a full tank of "gas" every morning.

Not really-

Description
120V Your basic, standard wall outlet.
Charge time
Usually about 22-24 hours, depending on the car.

So, unless you have a dedicated 240 volt outlet (that only takes 7-8 hours!), you'll need a full day to charge.

From that link: "Charge times from empty"

How many people will travel 300 miles to work every day, charge at work and then drive 300 miles back home?  Or even 150 miles to work, no charge at work and then 150 miles back home?

To put it another way, how many people buy a full tank of gas every single day?

For 99.9% of people they will drive anywhere from five to fifty miles to work and their car will only need a top up charge each night, not the full 24 hour charge.



In addition to the fact that your car is most likely in your garage for 12 to 16 hours a day.
 
2013-02-15 06:37:09 PM  
While know-nothing and trolling farkers pontificate as to why EV's won't work for Americans, Nissan announced this week the selling of their 50,000th Leaf, is rapidly spinning up a domestic manufacturing plant; Tesla still has waiting lines for new cars, and the range extending Chevy Volt has seen nearly two years of steadily increasing sales.As you guys whine, scream and moan about imagined failures, the world is already changing around you. Affordable, mass manufactured EV's are available in showrooms today, and American's are snatching them up by the tens of thousands.
 
2013-02-15 07:42:28 PM  

chandler_vt: Please explain how Tesla S use 90kW to charge once! I am all ears (and eyes). I am interested in the car but if its taking that much electricity then screw it.


The "Supercharger" - a device you will never have in your typical home - can deliver up to 90kW. However it will charge just as easily (though more slowly) on much less power, so you can still plug it into a standard 110V outlet if that's all you have. Most people would have a "Level 2" charger installed in their house if possible, which will easily deliver 7-8kW if configured for it... about the same power draw as a large central AC system, electric clothes dryer, electric water heater, or two pads on an electric stove. Not the end of the world.

orbister: There is a need to recharge as fast as an IC car if you are going to do long drives. For short trips it's different, I agree.


I still peg that as a cultural issue more than a technical issue. I grant you it would be a convenience, but not a necessity. Take breaks, you should not be in that much of a hurry... being in a hurry is part of the cultural issue I'm talking about.

If I have to drive a significant distance (>200mi/day) then I rent a vehicle. It's not a significant cost ($10-$30 per day, plus fuel) and I can save the wear and tear on my own vehicle. Rental cars are pretty underrated all around, IMHO.
=Smidge=
 
2013-02-15 08:00:43 PM  

MrSteve007: While know-nothing and trolling farkers pontificate as to why EV's won't work for Americans, Nissan announced this week the selling of their 50,000th Leaf, is rapidly spinning up a domestic manufacturing plant; Tesla still has waiting lines for new cars, and the range extending Chevy Volt has seen nearly two years of steadily increasing sales.As you guys whine, scream and moan about imagined failures, the world is already changing around you. Affordable, mass manufactured EV's are available in showrooms today, and American's are snatching them up by the tens of thousands.


True. Stating as fact that because a certain car can't do a certain range or tow a speedboat it is therefore "useless" is bizarre. Two seater cars are very limited for many uses but how many people buy two seater sports cars or trucks and manage that drawback willingly? The answer is literally millions. The fact that they have limitations does not in any way make them "useless". If it is not suitable for your specific needs, then don't buy one. But don't try to tell everyone else that it will not suit their needs!

This car is a five seater with 300 mile range and excellent performance which will be bought by people who will almost certainly have a second and third car in the house, possibly more.

If it comes to the UK I'd love one. 300 miles is half way across the whole of the country!
 
2013-02-15 08:12:14 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: And you have to spend an hour "refueling."


Disclaimer: I know nothing about cars.  I have no interest in cars.  I don't drive at all, ever.

Here's my question: How hard are the batteries in these to change?  Wouldn't it make more sense to have battery CHANGING stations, not battery CHARGING stations?

You know, pull in, pay some guy $20 to change the battery for a fresh one, and off you go.  The station can charge the batteries and put them in cars that come along later.

People would probably be more willing to change to electric cars if not for the recharge time.
 
2013-02-15 10:17:52 PM  

if_i_really_have_to: Prank Call of Cthulhu: And you have to spend an hour "refueling."

Disclaimer: I know nothing about cars.  I have no interest in cars.  I don't drive at all, ever.

Here's my question: How hard are the batteries in these to change?  Wouldn't it make more sense to have battery CHANGING stations, not battery CHARGING stations?

You know, pull in, pay some guy $20 to change the battery for a fresh one, and off you go.  The station can charge the batteries and put them in cars that come along later.

People would probably be more willing to change to electric cars if not for the recharge time.


Put this in earlier, but look up Better Place battery swapping, especially their videos of their stations in action. They use tech developed for loading missiles onto planes, looks very cool.They've got chains in Israel and Denmark, great small markets for this type of thing, and are heavily backed by Renault. The technology is already in the field and working, it's just that building up the infrastructure in larger places like America will be so costly that it'd kill most startups before they began operating, so it has to be done cautiously. As it is, we'll see if Better Place pulls through in it's starting markets, but the technology is definitely workable.
 
2013-02-15 11:39:45 PM  

Smidge204: dittybopper: I've thought that having an electric car that has a standard battery in place, and an optional bay available for either a fuel tank/generator combo or an additional battery would be the optimum.

We had this discussion - it was a silly idea then and it's a silly idea now. A trailer hitch accomplished exactly this and does not require a visit to a service station with specialized installation equipment, nor would it require anything vehicle-specific.
=Smidge=


Wait:  A series of cars that are 80 to 90% identical is a silly idea, but a farkin' trailer with a generator on it isn't?

*REALLY*?

I mean, not everyone is going to be adequately served by a pure BEV.  For those who aren't, being able to have an efficient hybrid instead of a BEV is a decent solution, and if you can leverage a common vehicle you get economies of scale that helps the BEV side of the equation.
 
2013-02-15 11:46:54 PM  

if_i_really_have_to: Prank Call of Cthulhu: And you have to spend an hour "refueling."

Disclaimer: I know nothing about cars.  I have no interest in cars.  I don't drive at all, ever.

Here's my question: How hard are the batteries in these to change?  Wouldn't it make more sense to have battery CHANGING stations, not battery CHARGING stations?

You know, pull in, pay some guy $20 to change the battery for a fresh one, and off you go.  The station can charge the batteries and put them in cars that come along later.

People would probably be more willing to change to electric cars if not for the recharge time.


I don't know much about electric cars (I own a regular hybrid) but that's a great idea but someone mentioned earlier that the size of these batteries is the biggest issue. You will need a big inventory and charging stations to charge that many batteries (to accommodate decent number of users). Its certainly an idea car manufacturers can explore to reduce battery size. I am assuming if the range is reduced 150 miles and battery is made smaller to make your suggestion feasible then there might be more takers.
 
2013-02-16 12:04:57 AM  

Smidge204: We had this discussion -


Yes, we did, and reading back on it, you made some seriously silly assumptions, like all the manufacturers would standardize to a single batterie so everyone would be honky-dory with battery swaps, but a generator pack built by a single manufacturer for a single vehicle is a silly idea because the same genpack wouldn't be appropriate for both an SUV or a compact car.

It's like you were thinking you had to swap out the genpack every time it ran out of gas or something.

This is especially silly:
But now you're throwing out even MORE numbers. $500? $1,000? A new (rebuilt) engine alone will run you over $3,000. Presumably this "module" would also contain all the appurtenances system will need (cooling systems, etc) ... I'd say $8,000 is a better estimate for the swap.

First, the engine would be smaller and cheaper than a conventional car engine:  It only has to have enough power to keep the car cruising at highway speeds, and you'd rely on charge from the battery for acceleration.  That means a significant savings in size and cost over a convention engine, and it doesn't even necessarily have to be a piston engine.  Since it doesn't have to directly spin the wheels, torque isn't a problem, so you could have a very small, high RPM engine that is very efficient.

Second, if you're *SWAPPING* a battery out for the genpack, or vice versa, you're going to be getting some credit for the pack you are returning.   Perhaps $1000 was a bit optimistic, maybe it's double that, when you add in labor.  But that's still cheaper than buying a whole new car because your circumstances changed (either you have a longer commute and need the extra range of the genpack/battery equipped vehicle, or you got a job closer to home, and you want to swap the genpack for a battery).

In any case, I did say that most people wouldn't need to swap:
 Module swaps after purchase would be a rare thing: You'd pick the modules you want when you buy the car, and the dealer installs them (either Bat/Bat or Bat/Gen), and that's it for most people.

In other words, you'd get your choice of modules at purchase time (or even lack thereof, if you wanted the cheap shorter-range pure BEV with just the standard base battery).  Most people wouldn't swap after that, but you *COULD* if you need to.
 
2013-02-16 08:10:53 AM  
Are you related to kitsuneymg? Cuz you sound an awful lot like kitsuneymg. (Just curious, no biggie)
 
2013-02-17 07:12:39 AM  

dittybopper: It's like you were thinking you had to swap out the genpack every time it ran out of gas or something.


No, the impression is you'd have to swap in the genpack every time you felt that battery alone wasn't adequate for your needs. The assumption here is you would not want to be lugging around an ICE for the 99.9% of the time you use the vehicle, and would only burden yourself with gasoline when absolutely necessary and unburden yourself when the need has passed. Any other path is a recipe for regret.


dittybopper: First, the engine would be smaller and cheaper than a conventional car engine: It only has to have enough power to keep the car cruising at highway speeds, and you'd rely on charge from the battery for acceleration.


For highways speeds most vehicles use ~20kW (~25hp) so right off the cuff your "smaller, cheaper" engine module is already larger than the front end of your typical lawn tractor, which of course would not meet emissions standards without significant modification. Now add the smallish-watermelon-sized genset, cooling system and exhaust system. I can guarantee this "module" will be larger than the under-the-hood space of most sedan class vehicles. I don't think you appreciate how much integration is involved in automotive design.


dittybopper: But that's still cheaper than buying a whole new car because your circumstances changed (either you have a longer commute and need the extra range of the genpack/battery equipped vehicle, or you got a job closer to home, and you want to swap the genpack for a battery).


If you're leasing it would almost certainly be better to trade it in and get a new vehicle.

If you own outright and it's in decent shape, the trade-in value should be several thousand bucks. So you have a choice of either spending 7-8 grand on a new module for your old, worn, no-longer-warrantied, depreciated car or spending 10-15 grand on a whole new vehicle. This is not necessarily a no-brainer decision... most people would not opt to put a whole new engine or transmission in their ten-year-old Honda in lieu of just buying a new one.

So assuming, again, that you work out the technical difficulties of the "module" concept, you are basically going to develop a whole new style of vehicle for a niche of a niche market of people stupid enough to buy a new car that will not satisfy their needs a few years down the road, which are presumably foreseeable otherwise they would not even be considering the possibility of getting an "upgradable" vehicle in the first place.
=Smidge=
 
2013-02-17 01:45:16 PM  

Smidge204: dittybopper: It's like you were thinking you had to swap out the genpack every time it ran out of gas or something.

No, the impression is you'd have to swap in the genpack every time you felt that battery alone wasn't adequate for your needs. The assumption here is you would not want to be lugging around an ICE for the 99.9% of the time you use the vehicle, and would only burden yourself with gasoline when absolutely necessary and unburden yourself when the need has passed. Any other path is a recipe for regret.


This is what I wrote:   Module swaps after purchase would be a rare thing: You'd pick the modules you want when you buy the car, and the dealer installs them (either Bat/Bat or Bat/Gen), and that's it for most people.

That's a direct quote.


dittybopper: First, the engine would be smaller and cheaper than a conventional car engine: It only has to have enough power to keep the car cruising at highway speeds, and you'd rely on charge from the battery for acceleration.

For highways speeds most vehicles use ~20kW (~25hp) so right off the cuff your "smaller, cheaper" engine module is already larger than the front end of your typical lawn tractor, which of course would not meet emissions standards without significant modification. Now add the smallish-watermelon-sized genset, cooling system and exhaust system. I can guarantee this "module" will be larger than the under-the-hood space of most sedan class vehicles. I don't think you appreciate how much integration is involved in automotive design.


This online tool seems to indicate that a relatively efficient car would consume about 11.4 KW to go 65 MPH.  You can get a generator rated at 12.5KW that weighs 360 lbs and it would fit under the hood of my Hyundai Accent with room to spare.

I'm not saying you'd use that same exact generator, just that it's possible to build something that would easily fit and be powerful enough while also being light enough.

dittybopper: But that's still cheaper than buying a whole new car because your circumstances changed (either you have a longer commute and need the extra range of the genpack/battery equipped vehicle, or you got a job closer to home, and you want to swap the genpack for a battery).

If you're leasing it would almost certainly be better to trade it in and get a new vehicle.

If you own outright and it's in decent shape, the trade-in value should be several thousand bucks. So you have a choice of either spending 7-8 grand on a new module for your old, worn, no-longer-warrantied, depreciated car or spending 10-15 grand on a whole new vehicle. This is not necessarily a no-brainer decision... most people woul ...


That generator I linked to cost less than $2,700 before the "discount".  You could build a generator module with emissions controls for under $4,000.  Probably, you could get the price point down to $3,000 if you were building them in bulk for a popular car model and for after-market use.

Personally, if I had a car that had, say, 50 or 60k miles and all of a sudden I had to drive a much further distance, I'd be very interested in paying ~$1K-$3K extra instead of

Conversely, if the situation changed the other way, I'd be interested in getting a $500 or $1000 check for trading in a genpack, or perhaps paying $500 to replace the genpack with the extra battery module.

Again, though, that would be the exception to the rule.

It would also make engine repairs dirt simple for the dealership, btw:  Person comes in with a bad generator module, instead of it having to spend a day or two in the shop, they just pull the bad module out, swap in a new one, and the consumer is on their way in an hour or two.  Bad generator module can be reconditioned and re-installed in the next vehicle that has a bad genpack.

Same thing for the extra battery version:  When that battery goes bad, either through normal use or manufacturing defect, it's a simple swap for the dealer.

Integration would be mostly at the software level.  You'd design 3 different modules, a ballast module that weighs the same as the genpack and batpack that is there for the base model short range BEV (50 miles at 80% charge) to preserve weight distribution.

To put in either the genpack or the batpack, you'd bolt it in place of the balllast, and connect them to both the main electrical bus of the car and a separate connection to the main electronics bus.  For the genpack, you'd have to additionally bolt an exhaust pipe under the car.  That's it.

The main computer of the car would recognize the presence of the respective modules and manage the car appropriately.  If it doesn't see a generator or battery pack, it bases range calculations based upon the standard base battery pack.  If it sees the generator pack, it gives you a display that also includes the amount of fuel in the tank (sensor is in the genpack), along with RPMs and fuel efficiency.  If it sees the extra battery pack instead, it adjusts the range reading accordingly.


A car that you could to that with would be a damned good intermediate step towards purely electrical vehicles, and it would allow pure BEVs to be much cheaper because of economies of scale.  I just don't see why you are so down on the idea.

It's like you've got a block against anything that isn't ideologically pure.  I've always maintained that pure BEVs have their place, but that they'll never be general purpose vehicles until the range and recharge times are brought more in line with what people are used to.  This would be a step towards that, because as battery technology got better and better, we could expect that fewer people would purchase generator modules when they buy their cars and would get the extra battery modules instead.

But because it's not what you want right *NOW*, you reject it out of hand.

I've got news for you:  This is a path towards what you want.  It gets people conditioned to driving electric cars, it allows time to beef up the electrical grid gradually.  It reduces dependence on fuels which cause pollution.  I just don't understand why you don't care for the idea, unless it's because you are so Procrustean in your outlook that nothing short of the perfect solution you envision is good enough.
 
2013-02-18 07:44:29 AM  

dittybopper: This online tool seems to indicate that a relatively efficient car would consume about 11.4 KW to go 65 MPH. You can get a generator rated at 12.5KW that weighs 360 lbs and it would fit under the hood of my Hyundai Accent with room to spare.


That tool is useless unless you plug in real-world values. It seems you just left everything at their defaults... don't you think there's something fundamentally wrong with your approach?

And even if we accept your halfassed approach, that 12.5kW standalone generator isn't legal for use in an automotive nor is it designed to run in an enclosed space. You need extra bits if you want it up to snuff... I already discussed that.

dittybopper: But because it's not what you want right *NOW*, you reject it out of hand.


To reject something out of hand is to reject without cause or reason. I gave reasons. You systematically failed to address (or perhaps even recognize) those reasons adequately. And now you want to include a "ballast module" which will do absolutely nothing except add weight and cost to the vehicle?
=Smidge=
 
Displayed 368 of 368 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report