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 368
    More: Followup, Model S, cnnmoney, NYT, flatbed trucks, District of Columbia, New Jersey Turnpike  
•       •       •

14358 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2013 at 7:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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=

 
Displayed 50 of 368 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report