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 63
    More: Followup, Model S, cnnmoney, NYT, flatbed trucks, District of Columbia, New Jersey Turnpike  
•       •       •

14372 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2013 at 7:46 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-15 07:34:33 AM  
8 votes:
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 08:05:05 AM  
7 votes:

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 07:50:27 AM  
6 votes:
Remember this the next time you read *ANYTHING* in *ANY* news outlet.

Gell-Mann Amnesia.
2013-02-15 07:58:52 AM  
4 votes:

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 08:10:26 AM  
3 votes:

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 07:59:08 AM  
3 votes:

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 07:55:09 AM  
3 votes:
You know who ELSE tried to smear Tesla???

(it was Edison....)
2013-02-15 07:50:44 AM  
3 votes:
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 10:51:42 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:38:02 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:23:13 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:22:33 AM  
2 votes:
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 08:58:55 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:46:20 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:18:45 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:13:57 AM  
2 votes:
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 08:11:50 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:11:34 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:10:37 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:10:30 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:05:11 AM  
2 votes:

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 07:59:48 AM  
2 votes:

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 07:50:40 AM  
2 votes:
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 12:11:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:45:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:23:01 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:17:52 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:13:21 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:00:53 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:51:40 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:50:33 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:47:26 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:42:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:28:47 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:25:29 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-02-15 10:13:16 AM  
1 votes:
The first journalist clearly had an agenda, and I'm not sure how he thought he could get away with it.
2013-02-15 09:57:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:54:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:48:08 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:45:04 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:18:36 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:16:50 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:57:33 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:53:19 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:53:06 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:49:24 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:45:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:43:18 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:43:02 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:33:19 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:32:14 AM  
1 votes:
Like all liberal news outlets, the NYTs is full if nothing but lies and propaganda. The Enquirer is more legitimate.
2013-02-15 08:30:31 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:27:48 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:25:55 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:25:23 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:24:53 AM  
1 votes:
Would get a 650 hp Shelby for less, and have a lot more fun.
2013-02-15 08:23:01 AM  
1 votes:
Oh look, a Tesla thread where Farkers worship a car they will never be able to afford.
2013-02-15 08:17:34 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:10:59 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:09:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:00:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:55:33 AM  
1 votes:
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 07:51:22 AM  
1 votes:
art.penny-arcade.com

/Somewhat relevant
 
Displayed 63 of 63 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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