Slashdot Mirror

They have a very thorough section here: http://www.teslamotors.com/true-cost-of-ownership including how long you spend at the gas station and tax incentives. I still think for about 70k (their cheapest car seemingly) they may be in more of a premium market kind of like the land rover.

No idea about the manufacturing side, but Tesla recycles their batteries as efficiently as possible.

Tesla has made a map of where they intend to put the stations and how far you can drive from them. http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger

Capable? Yes, it could probably be done. Will it be done? No. Elon is a smart man and he knows how to say the right things to the right audience to get what he wants.

More importantly, he's selling his second-generation made-in-USA car to thousands of buyers, and winning awards.

However, as a practical matter the Model S already has difficulty competing with fossil fuel powered vehicles on range and even then only by making the batteries fully integrated components molded into every bit of spare room in the vehicle frame.

The Model S chassis is a thing of beauty. A compact high-power motor and reduction gearing, and a flat battery pack fills the frame because there's nothing else down there. No muffler, catalytic converter, oil pan, etc. Why not use the lot for batteries instead of taking away trunk space?

In fact it's more like an alternative to the S class Mercedes for limousine liberals...

Don't oversell your straw man. The $95,000 S Class is more expensive and quite a bit more luxurious.

... who want to appear green using our green (aka money). Tell me again why my tax dollars should be subsidizing Musk and Tesla?

Tesla just repaid its $465M loan under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program set up under the G.W. Bush administration; Ford and Nissan received billions under the same program. If you're referring to the $7500 tax credit, it lets buyers keep more of their money for the worthwhile goal of "ending America's addiction to foreign oil", as every Republican president since Nixon has intoned. Tell me again why my tax dollars should be subsidizing your home mortgage, or any other tax rebate?

Your sneering tone about "appearing green" ignores the genuine increase in efficiency from an electric drive. No doubt you'll bleat about coal powered cars, ignoring the increasing role of cleaner natural gas in USA's electricity generating mix, and that many buyers will install solar PV to reduce their carbon footprint further. Meanwhile a Mercedes E-Class (is everyone driving that a "limousine whatever" too?) is a lot slower and at around 25 mpg will consume 15 tons of gasoline over 120,000 miles. Plug in cars are definitely better for the environment.

" A Supercharger can charge about half the battery in 30 minutes. All Model S vehicles with the 85 kWh battery can use Superchargers as can properly equipped 60 kWh battery vehicles."

http://www.teslamotors.com/charging#/onthego

Without a significant existing electric car userbase, the only real way to make money on this would be to get a manufacturer to buy in. But the only manufacturer that seems willing to spend much money on any kind of quick-charge network is Tesla, and they chose an alternate solution.

Perhaps Tesla is starting to learn what PR is about. However Elon Musk's response to the last road test was defensive and rude. Elon Musk may be a genius and a useful slave driver when it concerns production, but in PR he is an idiot who cannot be allowed to speak publicly. Many excellent engineers have the same trait. The later analysis done by others is more cool-headed.

Regardless of all that, the exit clause of "deliberate abuse" of the battery is pretty open-ended. Who determines if the battery was abused? I should actually rephrase: who is the only person|company on the planet that can come to such conclusion? In other words, I do not trust Tesla because for all their company history they attacked the messenger and stuck him with a bill. To compare, a Prius's NiMH battery is unconditionally, short of a crash, warrantied for 10 years. Very few batteries ever went bad, and in each case the batteries were replaced by Toyota under warranty. I have reason to trust Toyota in this aspect because they do what they promise.

It's interesting to note that concerns about longevity of Prius's battery were also voiced on the Internet, just as they are now voiced about EVs. There was only one process that alleviated those concerns, and that was personal experience of millions of car owners. For example, without those owners we would have never learned that the heat in Arizona significantly hurts Leaf's performance. Per Nissan, it would be all peachy.

Seriously? You recommend this much overkill?

Well, of course that's not feasible. But an EV in the garage, plugged into 240V, 100A circuit is a dangerous thing. There were several fires caused by a plugged Volt (and more that were not caused by a Volt that was in the same garage.) There was even fire in a parking lot, with Karma. Batteries are dangerous things; one of my friends charged batteries for radios, and he had to do it in an enclosure that protected everyone from explosion if it were to happen. Boeing got hit with battery fire, as were several notebook manufacturers. Gasoline fire, on the other hand, is rare, unless the car is destroyed in a wreck - then all bets are off. Gasoline will not self-ignite; but a battery can; a plugged charger that is capable of 100A charge current is just one p-n junction away from a spectacular failure; and there are many of those junctions in a charger, and they all were made by the lowest bidder somewhere between Taiwan and Philippines.

checking to see that the car is still charging once a month would be more than sufficient.

I'm not so sure. If the power fails one week after the caretaker checks it, the battery in a Roadster will be a brick by the next visit. As you say, Tesla may have fixed this, I don't know, but that's what killed those Roadsters. Tesla is adamant that their EVs must be always plugged in, hell or high water. (BTW, how do all these EVs react to being submerged? If a car falls into a river, what happens? A gas car just stalls.)

But Li-Ion batteries are pushed much harder. If a battery needs replacement, you lose about half of the original cost of the car at that very instant.

With a Leaf, maybe. Tesla warranties their batteries for 8 years/125k miles.

They're on record saying that they expect their 60 kwh pack to last at least 200k miles, and you can pre-purchase a new 60kwh battery pack replacement in 8 years for $10k today.

Batteries can be damaged by full charge and by low charge, so we have to see how it plays out IRL. Traditional cars aren't going to need any such service after only 75K miles. After 150K - maybe. But then an EV would surely be on its second, if not third, battery pack.

Not from what I'm seeing. At 150k there's a chance it'll be on it's 2nd. In addition, Different battery chemistries have different behaviors, characteristics, and quirks. Still, consider that when you have a multi-thousand dollar battery you're not just clamping any old charge system to it. They're carefully mated for optimal performance and lifespan.

For example, from what I've read, '100%' charge for the common EV's is actually only 90% of the battery's capacity, which reduces battery degradation substantially, and we've come a long way in LiIon manufacturing. With long range EV's, the battery pack actually ends up so huge that even a 'fast charge' is more like a normal charge for smaller battery packs. A fast charge for a NiMH cell is something like 10 minutes, and will cause problems with heat and such. An equivalent 'fast charge' for an EV takes over an hour even with a special fast charge station due to the sheer size of the battery pack.

With regard to noise, a lot of that insulation also dampens road noise - which is not going to be any lower, until you switch to antigravity. So you probably still need a lot of that foam and rubber.

As Rioki mentioned, it's been my perception that motor noise has always overpowered road noise, especially at higher speeds, as the engine power necessary to maintain a given speed to goes up exponentially as your speed increases due to wind resistance.

That's an extra 43% that you're paying for the comfort of the ICE you're used to. If you extend that out to 20 years, you get $80K vs. $40K.

That looks like what people pay for mortgage. Same approach and same thinking. Those extra 43% do not need to be paid in any visible future. They don't need to be paid at all if you sell the car, if you wreck the car, or if you lose your job and don't need to drive to the office anymore.

Assuming you get 10 years of service out of the vehicle (I'm from the Rust Belt, not Cali)

Sorry to hear that. Good weather is very important, for people and for equipment alike. 10 years old car in CA is just like new, at least in terms of rust.

At this point, the long term reliability and maintenance costs of EVs aren't well known.

To make matters worse, Tesla actively refuses, as I understand, to make any promises and any warranties with regard to battery packs. There were several articles about bricked Roadsters, and Tesla just demanded money for a new battery pack. Those bricked cars are parked now, since the battery for a Roadster is something about $40K. The owners were at fault, of course, all of them - they failed in their duty to daily care and pamper the machine (they foolishly thought that it should be the other way around :-) Fail to charge your EV for 2-3 weeks, and it is dead. Doesn't matter what your reasons were. If you fell down, broke a leg and got a heart attack in the process, by the time you are out of hospital you will also learn that your brand new car needs a new battery at a low cost of $10-20K.

There were also cases of fire - while charging and while parked. Those batteries are dangerous. Remember what happened to Boeing 787 just a few months ago?

I personally believe that EVs - even those that are already on the market - would benefit greatly from openness about their capabilities. A simulator of an EV would be great; one would enter trips via Google Earth, specify frequency, and he'd know exactly what SoC would be at every point. As I said, I have no clue myself how would an EV behave on a hilly terrain. I'm not going to pay $30K to find out. This is ridiculously simple to do, and I don't understand why this tool is not already available.

For example, a combination of improvements could bump the full-charge range up to 600 miles and make it so a 15 minute quick-charge could add another 300 miles (i.e. not necessarily just making it so that you can completely recharge your 300-mile battery in 5 minutes at a fueling station).

This is already more than I would ask for. I don't need 600 miles without charge; it would be nice, but not with these batteries. A 15 min. charge that is sufficient for 30 miles (not for 300!) would be also adequate. I believe Tesla's Superchargers can do that already, but nobody publishes any specifics! Again, it's easier to find on the Internet all the secret orders of Hillary Clinton than a simple chart that shows Tesla's SoC vs. time.

Would you tie up an extra $3,300 initially to save $2,500 a year in fuel costs?

Yes, but only if someone at Tesla does his job and explains, with specific numbers, how their vehicle is going to work for me. They are based in Silicon Valley, they know better than anyone else what hills and mountains surround the place. But they have no calculator for that.

They have other calculators, which suspiciously stop at 65 mph. This may be the top legal speed on intra-city freeways, but I-5 allows 70 mph, and 73-75 mph is common. There is no telling how the car will perform. My car? I know exactly; it would be about 46 mpg regardless of gas tank's "SoC."

Using other calculators, I discover that for 15K miles per year my car (at average 45 mpg) will cost me $1300 in fuel. Tesla will cost me $467. I'd be saving $800 per year. Will that compel me to pay $5K premium? Perhaps. The break-even will be in 7 years. But if th

Tesla doesn't allow towing. Apparently the car is too flimsy for that. Also, this would kill the battery even faster.

"Too flimsy"? You're being an idiot. I recently bought a Toyota-built hybrid sedan close to the Tesla Model S in wheelbase and overall length. (The Tesla's much heavier, though, due to the battery.) I put my car's owner's manual PDF on my phone a while back, so I just searched on "hitch". Predictably, the official word is that the car isn't designed for towing and they do not recommend modifying it to add a towing hitch of any kind.

This sort of disapproval has nothing to do with whether a car's "flimsy". All car manufacturers tend to Officially Frown Upon aftermarket mods of any type. If they didn't get to do the engineering, there's no way they're going to be caught dead endorsing the mod. And this is especially true when it's something with enormous safety implications, like towing. (Can a trailer towed using an incompetently designed hitch attached to a suspension not designed for towing greatly increase the risk of rollover or other kinds of 1-vehicle accidents? You bet!)

Combined with the astronomical price of Tesla, you would be better off today buying a hybrid. A Prius, like the one I have, or a Volt if you have too much money.

More you-being-an-idiot. The car brands people actually cross-shop against a Tesla Model S are Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, and so forth, not Toyota or Chevrolet. Nor are cars as small and slow as the Prius and Volt real substitutes for a long-wheelbase luxury/sport sedan, regardless of the brand name.

Tesla management is on record that they're deliberately using a strategy of starting upmarket and moving down as they grow. High volume manufacturing is difficult, requires a lot of capital investment, and is very risky for a small startup (assuming they even get the capital to try). That's why Tesla's first generation product was an extremely limited-appeal sports car which totaled about 2500 units made over four or five years, with lots of assemblies made to order by other companies, with final assembly in temporary facilities. And it's why the current-generation Model S is a somewhat less expensive luxury sedan, with a greater percentage built by Tesla itself, in Tesla's new permanent factory (the old Toyota/GM NUMMI plant in Fremont, CA), using more Tesla-owned tooling. But it's still not even close to being a high volume product.

You can complain about Tesla's pricing relative to the Prius if and when they've grown enough to design a vehicle actually intended to compete directly with the Prius. For now, they're targeting an entirely different market.

An EV is only an option for people who *know* that they will never reach the end of the EV range of Tesla. A very wealthy grandmother may buy one to drive to the church, for example... if she'd understand *why*.

Why are you spending so much time Carefully Pointing Out that 2013 Teslas aren't for everyone? Nobody's said otherwise! Luxury cars have limited appeal due to price, news at 11! And why are you spending so much time wisecracking about Teslas being flimsy and invoking dumb stereotypes straight out of the idiot conservative / libertarian HUR HUR REAL MEN BURN GAS playbook? (comparing them to golfcarts, etc)

One might almost think you have an axe to grind.

Tesla doesn't allow towing. Apparently the car is too flimsy for that. Also, this would kill the battery even faster.

Combined with the astronomical price of Tesla, you would be better off today buying a hybrid. A Prius, like the one I have, or a Volt if you have too much money. An EV is only an option for people who *know* that they will never reach the end of the EV range of Tesla. A very wealthy grandmother may buy one to drive to the church, for example... if she'd understand *why*.

It's also worth noting that Tesla has publicly committed to paying off its ATVM loans 5 years ahead of time. Of course, the DOE is making them pay off the loans early, but that's another matter... http://www.teslamotors.com/no_NO/blog/early-repayment-tesla%E2%80%99s-atvm-loan http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/update-elon-musk

It's also worth noting that Tesla has publicly committed to paying off its ATVM loans 5 years ahead of time. Of course, the DOE is making them pay off the loans early, but that's another matter... http://www.teslamotors.com/no_NO/blog/early-repayment-tesla%E2%80%99s-atvm-loan http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/update-elon-musk

To put some perspective on your point consider that a pre-paid replacement battery set for a Tesla is $12,000 I would say that they have some headway to work with. That figure is what they estimate the price will drop down to in several years, and for insurance purposes the batteries have a listed replacement cost of $30,000.

The real question is how long can these batteries last for like kind performance and life (number of recharge cycles etc)? Once you have that you can perform an apples to apples comparison.

And if you look at what Toyota did with the Prius battery system: they initally sold the car as getting 50 mpg, but they noticed that the battery systems got run down quickly, so they reconfigured the car computer so that the battery systems are used less and thus will last longer. But this decreased usage of the battery system greatly decreases that promised high mileage efficiency. So now the battery lasts longer, but you're not saving as much gas as they promised you would. Some people are just getting a little over 35 mpg, which they could get with a pure combustion engine alone.

It's easy to get the numbers. My Tesla already handles 90KW for charging and the connector isn't all that large. The battery charges at 250A, 360V DC. This type of power is regularly handled without much difficulty, especially when you consider that the peak energy usage of my model S is 320KW. The battery, inverter and motor are water cooled with a radiator that is significantly smaller than is used for an internal combustion engine. Charging Li-Ion batteries is highly efficient, 85-90%+. Capacitors are also extremely efficient. Inverters are typically also highly efficient, usually at least 85% efficient. Cooling is no more difficult than cooling a typical internal combustion engine which is far less efficient. The thermodynamics is not that big of a problem.

The 90KW cable also isn't that big, certainly smaller than the hose that fills a conventional car. The inverter at the supercharging station is less than half the size of a normal refrigerator and is external to the car.

Most houses have anywhere from 100A to 200A service. The overhead wires are not *that* thick and running a higher voltage, i.e. 600V, is not all that difficult either. Hell, internally my Prius steps up the 200V from the battery to 500V to run the electric motor.

http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric has some information. The rest is easily available via Wikipedia or Google.

The might be concerned about global warming... or... more likely... The Netherlands has had one of the largest oilfields in the world for decades.

I suspect you mean gas, not oil.

So large in fact that for much of the past several decades the Netherlands has had very low gas prices.

Natural gas, maybe. Gasoline, definitely not. Last I checked, the Netherlands was tied with Denmark for most expensive gasoline in the world.

On top of that, their entry into the European union meant that there is now a 19% VAT tax

The Netherlands was one of the founding members of the EU, so there isn't much "entry" to it. Also, the VAT is still under the control of the member states, as far as I know. I also believe the Netherlands recently raised the VAT from 19% to 21%.

It's estimated that 65% of the price of gas in the Netherlands is now taxes. The end result is the current price of Gas in the Netherlands is the highest in the world at over $9/gallon, and it will continue to climb as their oil fields become more depleted.

65% sounds roughly right for gasoline. Highest in the world sounds about right, too. But it doesn't have much to do with depletion of oil fields; it's really the taxes.

So... concern for Global warming? Or concern for their pocketbook... you be the judge.

Funny thing is, I lived in the Netherlands until about a year and a half ago, and I haven't really heard much talk of people switching to other power sources because of the high prices. I predicted that people would be switching to electric cars for cost reasons before 2015, but I don't really see that happening yet. That said, a lot of people drive Diesel cars, Diesel being somewhat cheaper than gasoline for the same distance driven (taxes on Diesel are lower in the Netherlands). Plus, the Netherlands doesn't have a culture of driving like some other countries; a lot of people ride bikes and/or use public transportation.

If gas were $9/gallon here I'm fairly sure you'd see charging stations popping up all over the place.

Maybe. Somebody has to pay for that. I live in the San Francisco bay area now, and a lot of companies here install charge points for use by employees and/or customers. That's with gasoline being about half the price that it is in the Netherlands. I think it's really more a matter of will than a matter of gasoline prices.

Electric cars and chare points are also kind of a chicken and egg proposition; I can understand why there wouldn't be a lot of will to install charge points if virtually nobody has a vehicle to use them with. As more affordable electric cars hit the market, there should be more demand for charge points.

Keep in mind those charging stations are being powered by coal fired power plants... so this idea that you're saving the environments a little laughable.

That one has been disproven so many times it's getting a bit long in the tooth. First of all, electricity isn't purely generated from coal. In the Netherlands, there are several providers of electricity purely from renewable sources, the big ones being biomass and wind. Since you get to choose your provider, the charge points may actually be powered by 100% renewable energy.

Secondly, comparing energy at the source to energy actually used to drive the wheels, electric cars are so much more efficient than gasoline cars that even if the electricity is almost all produced by burning coal, you can still end up saving on CO_2 emissions. See e.g. http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#electricity for some data points.

Can you keep a secret: :-)

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-between-you-and-me

you mean like their supercharger?

Gas stations at freeway rest stops are always near the entrances or exits; why would Broder expect the charger to be anywhere else?

Here's what I found on the Tesla site: http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger

Milford, CT
I-95 Northbound
Milford Travel Plaza
Between Exits 40 and 41
McDonald's, Subway, Dunkin' Donuts, Dog Walk

Milford, CT
I-95 Southbound
Milford Travel Plaza
Between Exits 40 and 41
McDonald's, Subway, Dunkin' Donuts, Dog Walk

Newark, DE
I-95 Turnpike
Delaware Welcome Center and Travel Plaza
Between Exits 1 and 3
Starbucks, Baja Fresh

So even if Broder is not malicious, which is doubtful, he's a big idiot.

Broder said that his car came equipped with the 19" rims instead of the 21's and that may have accounted for the speed difference. Although, the speedometer should show the same number as the logs and according to teslamotors.com the 19's are the stock size which suggests the speedometer is more likely to be calibrated for those anyway:

"19" aluminum alloy wheels with all-season tires (Goodyear Eagle RS-A2 245/45R19). Note: optional 21" wheels come with Continental Extreme Contact DW 245/35R21 high-performance tires"

...So, the stock 245/45R19 tires used in the NYT article have a diameter of ~23.341" and the optional 245/35R21 tires have a diameter of ~24.376" which is about a 9% increase in circumference.

I consider that statement to be one of those things that Politifact would rate "half true" or even "mostly false"; I think Musk overstates his case, and as a result I can't tell how much of a case he has. (At the moment, I don't find either side particularly credible.)

In particular, let's look at the portion where the battery died. Based on charging, this was (1) leave Milford, (2) arrive and spend the night at Groton, (3) do a tiny recharge in Norwich, (4) try to make it back to Milford.

Google maps says that the Milford->Groton distance is 60 miles. So in Milford, if you're trying to figure out how much you'll need to get to Groton and back, you only need 120. Now, Broder took a long-cut and increased that to 79 miles on the trip there, meaning that he'd really need 140 miles. (He was planning on taking a shorter path back, actually a bit less than my 60 miles: "I drove, slowly, to Stonington, Conn., for dinner and spent the night in Groton, a total distance of 79 miles. When I parked the car, its computer said I had 90 miles of range, twice the 46 miles back to Milford." Musk's data says that, despite charging for less time than the original review said, he still stopped charging at 185 miles -- at least for someone used to gas driving (i.e. me) who doesn't have to worry about how the car takes into account heating and such in that range estimation, that's plenty of wiggle room. Nothing particularly dumb yet.

For some reason -- the four possibilities that come to mind are the range estimate ignoring the effects of cold weather + heater use, other causes of a very bad estimate on the part of the Tesla; a dumb mistake on the part of Broder, or deliberate malfeasance on the part of Broder -- the estimated range when leaving Milford was dramatically high. It's certainly possible that the cause of this was Broder's doing, but it seems equally likely to me that it was not, given that the Consumer Reports reviewer didn't exactly have a ton of leeway when they made it. And the Consumer Reports author (1) started from Milford with a larger charge, and (2) had warmer weather from what they say in their articles (which is admittedly very imprecise, but it was perhaps 15 or even 20 degrees difference). Anyway, if it was the car (very plausible), then there's no dumbness on Broder's part.

That leaves his behavior on the morning he left Groton. He took a detour to Norwich to get a trickle charge, which Musk's data shows he stopped at 28%. This is the one time that Broder left a charging station with a report that he had inadequate charge. How much this is "dumb" depends on your level of risk factor. Under a reasonable assumption, it was risky but reasonable to do. He felt that the Tesla was underreporting its available mileage. This is a reasonable assumption -- the batteries output less power when they're cold, and driving along was supposed to warm them up. That was the purpose of the conditioning. After all, this exact thing happened to the Consumer Reports reviewer, and is the reason I posted that link at the GP. ("The night before my voyage back to work, I had 88 miles left, according to the car's computation. ... But while parked outside my house overnight, the temperature dipped and so did the indicated range, which now read only 58 miles. (Yes, a little range anxiety began to set in.) ... According to Tesla, the car's computer takes into account the freezing temperature and readjusts the remaining range. The company also said that, upon restarting, the battery warms up and the computer once again updates the range.") Broder's or

270 miles is usually way more than I drive in a day. The furthest trips I make are 237 miles (each way) from my home in MA to my cabin in ME. I rarely make a round trip in a single day, and if I do, I would have parked the vehicle for long enough to get a full or near full charge in between. Once 350 to 400 mile range is achieved in these cars, I will consider purchasing one, even if the insaneocharge stations are not available in my area. Tesla's charging calculator here: http://www.teslamotors.com/charging#/calculator My cabin has a 10kw generator that burns about 2 gallons per hour under a heavy load, so using 2x 240V 40A chargers (best it gets) it would take about 4:45 to get max charge on the tesla, that would burn approximately 9 gallons of gas at $3.79 a gallon would cost around $34 to get a full charge burning fossil fuels off the grid, of course not including the cost of the generator or maintenance, but I use it to power the cabin while I am there regardless, so that comes to around 33.33mpg I'm currently paying $.10/kWh, so pulling down the 84.9 kWh plugged into the grid will cost me $8.49. Anyways, To get a full 300 mile charge in a Tesla for me on grid is $8.49 compared to $34 via dinosaur powered generator. My point is that even using T-Rex to charge the Tesla would still result in decent mileage, comparable to that of my VW bug.

When he started on that 61 mile leg, the *car* told him it would go 32 miles. By rights, he should have been left 29 miles short of his destination. Instead, the car made it 51 miles, leaving him only 10 miles short. Still, it's no different than attempting to drive 60 miles on one gallon of gas in a car that gets 30 MPG. Only an idiot would try that and blame the *car* when they failed,

I would blame the Service Rep I had been in contact with the entire trip who repeatedly assured me that, despite the 30 mile range display, the gas tank would be JUST FINE to make that 60 mile trip as soon as the gas vapors recoalesced, which is about the closest analogy I can think of.

Tesla's logs show that, despite Broder's claims, he *didn't* fully charge the vehicle at any stage after the initial charge to start the trip.

He always charged it so that the indicated range was greater than the distance to the next charging station, which is reasonable considering that the time the cars take to charge (Even at a supercharger station) . The problem here, and Broder's only complaint, was the MASSIVE CHUNK OF BATTERY THAT DISAPPEARED OVERNIGHT. The one which Tesla repeated assured him wasn't REALLY gone, he just had to warm the batteries up by driving it. And they were partially right, but the 90 miles before he went to sleep only yielded 52 (which is still more than the indicated 30).

If he can provide a recording of the call I'll believe him. Until then, I'm going to consider him an idiot who can't even tell that 32 is *less* than 61.

I've seen Tesla make the same claim in the past, that battery lost overnight in cold weather can be 'reclaimed' by driving, because the range isn't really lost, but rather the computer thinks it is because the cold battery is putting out less because the redox is reacting slower because of the cold... once the battery is warmed up, the power 'magically' reappears. I've seen it in other gadgets, it's not really that absurd. The only problem is, in this case, charge DID 'just vanish'. TESLA'S OWN LOGS EVEN SHOW THAT (Look at the 400 mile mark)

Maybe it was something as simple as the reporter forgetting to turn the lights off, maybe the battery conditioning pack used the power to prevent permanent damage, or maybe the cold was just too much... but Musk made a serious accusation of fraud, and hasn't provided a single shred of anything which backs up intentional malfeasance...

According to Tesla's specs, the Model S with 19" wheels uses Goodyear Eagle RS-A2 245/45R19 tires, which roll at 755 revs per mile. With 21" wheels, Continental Extreme Contact DW 245/35R21, which roll at 750 revs per mile.

So the different wheel/tire combos differ by 0.7%.

Dude, are you seriously trying to argue that a Tesla employee told the reporter "sure man, I know the car's only displaying 32 miles of charge left but you're totally okay to go for 61 miles"?

Here's an image where the Tesla blog highlighted the data this idiot published himself - he knew the car was saying "you've got 32 miles left", he knew his next stop was more than 32 miles away, and he in fact published that he drove 51 miles, 19 of which were on an "empty" battery.

The only real issue in this whole debacle is the large loss in battery charge while the car was parked overnight. Looking at the graph that Musk posted here I can see the battery charge taking a steep dip right as the car is supposedly parked. The graph of remaining miles shows it even more clearly - obviously the computer was extrapolating from the sudden battery charge drop.

So, what caused the sudden drop? The speed graph isn't fine enough to determine of the car was driven, and although there is a cabin temperature spike, the reporter says that happened the next morning when he was told to run the heater for a while. The engineers were obviously thinking it was temperature related, and thought that with a bit of "conditioning" it would all be ok. Thus the suggestion to run the heater, and to slow-charge. Finally the assumed the computer had it wrong and told him it was ok to drive - and were probably wrong.

So, the only real conclusion left is that the battery actually lost charge overnight. Did Broder sabotage the result by running the heater longer than claimed, or drove around in circles (again) to run it down, or maybe he just left the headlights on overnight?. We'll probably never know.

The alternative is that the Tesla batteries discharge substantially when not being used in cold weather. That should actually be pretty easy for someone else to test.

The only real issue in this whole debacle is the large loss in battery charge while the car was parked overnight. Looking at the graph that Musk posted here I can see the battery charge taking a steep dip right as the car is supposedly parked. The graph of remaining miles shows it even more clearly - obviously the computer was extrapolating from the sudden battery charge drop.

So, what caused the sudden drop? The speed graph isn't fine enough to determine of the car was driven, and although there is a cabin temperature spike, the reporter says that happened the next morning when he was told to run the heater for a while. The engineers were obviously thinking it was temperature related, and thought that with a bit of "conditioning" it would all be ok. Thus the suggestion to run the heater, and to slow-charge. Finally the assumed the computer had it wrong and told him it was ok to drive - and were probably wrong.

So, the only real conclusion left is that the battery actually lost charge overnight. Did Broder sabotage the result by running the heater longer than claimed, or drove around in circles (again) to run it down, or maybe he just left the headlights on overnight?. We'll probably never know.

The alternative is that the Tesla batteries discharge substantially when not being used in cold weather. That should actually be pretty easy for someone else to test.

If you didn't find it on your first time circling the small 100 car lot, why wouldn't you just slow down to look for it rather than going in circles around the lot 30-40 times at a speed too fast to carefully look?

30-40 times? Hah.

My estimate of the perimeter around the main parking lot area is about 500 feet. That would put it at 6-7 times max to get 0.6 miles.

But look: the Tesla charger isn't in that group of parking spaces, it's lower down to the left. Directly in front of the building. (Google helpfully has it marked.) Going around the whole building would take the distance up quite a bit more, depending on what path you follow. (It's not totally clear from there what paths are legal, and there doesn't seem to be street view.) If you got there, drove around the main parking lot a couple times looking for something that wasn't there, went up and down an aisle or two, then found yourself going around the north side of that building, that'd probably be sufficient to hit 0.6 miles.

And furthermore, 0.6 is even an overestimate. Based on Musk's own graphic, that 0.6 includes much of the exit into the service plaza. Just that exit could easily account for 20% of that 0.6 miles.

I'm not saying that Broder is in the right when it comes to the whole story. I think there are a number of unanswered questions, and some parts of his review + Musk's data that are suspicious. But, I also think that a couple part in particular of Musk's post are grasping at straws, and I think "Broder was driving around trying to run the car out of power" is one of them -- I find Broder's explanation way more credible than Musk's pseudo-accusation of sabotage.

Here's the fourth graphic in Musk's blog attacking Broder, based on one of those logs that "don't like, BITCH!".

They don't huh. Go back and read the text on that graphic. Notice anything funny? Musk is accusing Broder of trying to drain the battery on the expensive sports car by driving around a large rest stop (the one with the Tesla recharging station) for an awesome amount of time (5 minutes) through a staggering range of 0.6 miles.

Think about it. If Broder had been cynically trying to sabotage his trip and stall out the Tesla, and didn't know about the monitoring (which evidently he didn't) do you think he would drive in circles for five minutes around that rest stop? No, he would get off the fucking highway and go off riding around towns, or Manhattan (which Musk claims Broder did, but can't back up).

Mr. Elon Musk, you gotta be fucking kidding. That 0.6 miles driving around that service center parking lot is one of your main "proofs" of sabotage?

Musk is a showman, in the tradition of P.T. Barnum and Donald Trump. When these people say something and put their personalities behind it, lots of people believe them. But, you gotta slow down and look at the details. The details lie.

The top model is $87,400. That's mass market for luxury cars (niche luxury car would be a Bentley).

The starter model is $52,400. That's in reach of upper middle class buyers (lawyers, doctors, businessmen, etc.)

http://www.teslamotors.com/models/options

A $100,000 car is "mass market"?

They were originally targeting a $50k price tag with the S but rapidly gave up on that idea. Cool car though.

-l

The Model S starts at $52k. That seems pretty close to me.

Every car is currently custom built. This makes it pretty much impossible to meet production volumes that would easily allow it to get under $50K. It also makes it pretty much impossible to quote a realistic price. The highest end model comes in at $87.4k before the buyer adds options. And some of what Tesla sells as an option are pretty much standard equipment on most 50K cars.

They are selling them faster than they can make them and it has received spectacular reviews from the automotive press--or at least any automotive press that hadn't already made up their minds that "electric cars suck". This is a car which is more than competitive within its segment (luxury sports sedan). It's just a matter of time until the technology becomes more affordable and trickles down into mass market segments.

Hold on there....

They are purposely holding production down to just under what the market will absorb, because its important not to have a "sale" on a $87,000 car. With only a few charging stations around, they had to grow that network before they could possibly expect to sell cars in any volume.

Musk has already stated this is company policy for the first few years:

"To produce a vehicle that meets our quality standards requires us to carefully analyse each step of our production ramp, improve the efficiency of our manufacturing processes and continue to train our employees,"

Further, the car under review, Model S Performance isn't price competitive with the vary same car that Tesla's own website prefers to compare it with (the BMW 535i).

True, the car is well within the range of a wealthy owner. And the range has finally reached an acceptable level (265 miles on the largest available battery). And the promised (but not likely to be met) 20,000 vehicles in 2013 should see the car gain some traction in the market.

But to say they are selling them faster than they can make them is a bit of a twist on the fact that they are making them only as fast as they are selling. Read their sales page. Every car is bespoke. They are not producing ahead of a confirmed ($5000 minimum) reservation order.

They are selling them faster than they can make them and it has received spectacular reviews from the automotive press--or at least any automotive press that hadn't already made up their minds that "electric cars suck". This is a car which is more than competitive within its segment (luxury sports sedan). It's just a matter of time until the technology becomes more affordable and trickles down into mass market segments.

Hold on there....

They are purposely holding production down to just under what the market will absorb, because its important not to have a "sale" on a $87,000 car. With only a few charging stations around, they had to grow that network before they could possibly expect to sell cars in any volume.

Musk has already stated this is company policy for the first few years:

"To produce a vehicle that meets our quality standards requires us to carefully analyse each step of our production ramp, improve the efficiency of our manufacturing processes and continue to train our employees,"

Further, the car under review, Model S Performance isn't price competitive with the vary same car that Tesla's own website prefers to compare it with (the BMW 535i).

True, the car is well within the range of a wealthy owner. And the range has finally reached an acceptable level (265 miles on the largest available battery). And the promised (but not likely to be met) 20,000 vehicles in 2013 should see the car gain some traction in the market.

But to say they are selling them faster than they can make them is a bit of a twist on the fact that they are making them only as fast as they are selling. Read their sales page. Every car is bespoke. They are not producing ahead of a confirmed ($5000 minimum) reservation order.

The obvious thing to do is to keep the car charging overnight

The Tesla owners manual says that if you leave it unplugged it will only lose ~14% over a two week period.

Oh the lying liars and the lies they tell:

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

101k dollars buys me a lifetime of fuel.

How many years of fuel comes with a Honda Civic when you drive it off the lot?

Besides, the high end price is only for the limited edition early adopter model, which appears to be sold out. The low end version starts at $52k, not all that far off from a Lexus (we are talking luxury cars, here).

101k dollars buys me a lifetime of fuel.

How many years of fuel comes with a Honda Civic when you drive it off the lot?

Besides, the high end price is only for the limited edition early adopter model, which appears to be sold out. The low end version starts at $52k, not all that far off from a Lexus (we are talking luxury cars, here).

Of course Elon has proof to back up his claims.

(not that these can't be faked but...) There are Vehicle Logs graphs at the bottom of the Musk rebuttal that discredit Broder's account:
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/speeddistance0.jpg

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/socdistance0.jpg

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/ratedrangeremaining0.jpg

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/speedmph0.jpg

...and maps:

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/norwichtrip.jpg

Of course Elon has proof to back up his claims.

(not that these can't be faked but...) There are Vehicle Logs graphs at the bottom of the Musk rebuttal that discredit Broder's account:
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/speeddistance0.jpg

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/socdistance0.jpg

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/ratedrangeremaining0.jpg

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/speedmph0.jpg

...and maps:

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/norwichtrip.jpg

Of course Elon has proof to back up his claims.

(not that these can't be faked but...) There are Vehicle Logs graphs at the bottom of the Musk rebuttal that discredit Broder's account:
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/speeddistance0.jpg

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/socdistance0.jpg

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/ratedrangeremaining0.jpg

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/speedmph0.jpg

...and maps:

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/norwichtrip.jpg

Of course Elon has proof to back up his claims.

(not that these can't be faked but...) There are Vehicle Logs graphs at the bottom of the Musk rebuttal that discredit Broder's account:
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/speeddistance0.jpg

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/socdistance0.jpg

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/ratedrangeremaining0.jpg

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/speedmph0.jpg

...and maps:

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/norwichtrip.jpg

Of course Elon has proof to back up his claims.

(not that these can't be faked but...) There are Vehicle Logs graphs at the bottom of the Musk rebuttal that discredit Broder's account:
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/speeddistance0.jpg

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/socdistance0.jpg

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/ratedrangeremaining0.jpg

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/speedmph0.jpg

...and maps:

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/norwichtrip.jpg

I'll probably replace the Honda when it is around 10 years old, which makes the total cost (excluding maintenance, which is likely to be way cheaper than on the Tesla), on the order of $20,000.

OK, how in the holy fuck did you figure that?

If you knew anything about electrical motors, is that they are extremely low maintenance. That's what you get for not burning things with fire.

http://www.teslamotors.com/models/options

So, battery then? Says 8 *year* warranty on battery, so probably should last a while more after that too.

I would complain about initial cost of the vehicle - mostly thanks to cost of the battery. These cars remain expensive in comparison to gas powered. We still need 10x price/power_density reduction in battery costs for electrics to become superior to gasoline for everyday needs, or gas to become 10x as expensive. $40/gal gas? Maybe.

But bitching about maintenance? Please! You do NOT know what you are talking about.

PS. Comparing a $10k car to a brand new, high end car like Tesla is kind of stupid. Kind of like comparing your Civic to a Cadillac ATS and then bitching that Cadillac is soooo expensive. But then even Cadillac is not even close to torque of Testa's electric cars, never mind the Civic.

Completely different market segments.

A $100,000 car is "mass market"?

They were originally targeting a $50k price tag with the S but rapidly gave up on that idea. Cool car though.

-l

So many lies being passed around here. Here is the price list for the Tesla Model S. Base price: $52 400. With the large battery it is $72 400. With the high performance options, it is $87 400. I don't know whether you are lying deliberately or whether you simply don't care about the truth of what you write.

Posting anonymously because I moderated.

Then, on the NYTimes' original response to the controversy (at http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/the-charges-are-flying-over-a-test-of-teslas-charging-network/ ) Broder writes:

Yet the graphic presented by Elon Musk ( http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/speeddistance0.jpg ) of speed vs. distance clearly shows that Broder's statement is false, unless Elon Musk is presenting false data logs. Of course, one possible explanation could be an uncalibrated speedometer, which showed Broder the numbers he wrote in his article. But considering the digital-ness of this fancy-schmancy electric car, I expect that the display is a digital display of speed and that the console speed displayed actually matches the speeds logged and graphed by Musk.
.
Now little things lke "I but the climate control to low at 182 miles" when he really did it at 212 miles (approximately eyeballed by me) which would have seemed like picking at details and mistakes takes on a sadder dirtier note of trying to spin the story the way he wanted it to turn out.
:>(
How sad for the nytimes if Elon Musk's allegations turn out to be true and Broder lied.

The plot of estimated range vs. miles traveled is particularly interesting... if the range estimation was accurate, the slope while driving should be -1. However, it's pretty consistently around -1.3, with the exception of the section between about 400 and 475 miles (note that the x and y axis scales aren't the same, so you can't just eyeball the line or measure the pixels). I.e., an estimate of 130 miles only gets you about 100 miles of actual driving. Which Broder also noted in his original article: "At 68 miles since recharging, the range had dropped by 85 miles." Why doesn't the estimate adapt to driving conditions and style? In my gas-powered car, the estimated range remaining does seem to take into account the current running average mpg.

In any case, I'm not really interested in what happens after the Milford supercharge (at ~320 miles): he should've charged to completion there, or charged longer at Norwich. The Delaware to Milford supercharge is the portion that's interesting to me. Musk claims that Broder drove the car hard during that section, but I'm not seeing it in the logs. He was going about 60mph during most of that (Musk quibbles that Broder said he set the cruise at 54mph--whatever; neither 54 or 60 are driving the car hard). The slope of the estimated range vs. actual mileage for that section is about -1.25. The distance between the Delaware and Milford stations is 200 (or 202) miles. The estimated range after a 90% charge at Delaware is 242 miles. So factoring in the inaccuracy, an estimated 242 miles translates to an actual 193 miles--not quite enough to reach the destination. And that's while driving below the speed limit.

This isn't the kids of car you plan long cross country tips in anyway. (Well until the infrastructure is there). This is the one you drive every day to work and the grocery store.

That's not what Tesla is selling - do these cars look like they're on a grocery run? OK, you don't shoot car porn on the parking lot of the local mall, but notice how they're headlining the range (while failing to point out that, when that's up, the car is a brick for an hour or so). If I was spending $60k on a car, it would be precisely because I wanted something comfortable for long trips. If you can afford $60k for a Tesla and a similar price for a 'long trip' car then why not send the freakin' maid to get the groceries?

The idea of a small electric 'second car' for commuting/grocery runs is fine (maybe not as small as this but that's the general principle) - provided you have somewhere to charge it overnight. The idea of a plug-in hybrid that can get through a typical day on an overnight charge without starting the petrol engine is also fine. (Lets assume that your electricity is coming from a nice green source and not the local coal-burner) The idea of an electric-only 'primary' car that will leave you high and dry if you deviate from your meticulous journey plan.

"What? The baby's coming? It wasn't due until Saturday! No, of course I can't come now, I've just got in from a 200-mile drive and the car's recharging! Whaddya mean 'take the bus'? I didn't pay $60k for a car so I could take the bus!?"

In a way, the original Telsa Roadster made more sense - if you're trying to justify buying an expensive roadster on practical grounds you're doing it wrong. The model S is pretending to be a regular car. The X is a SUV, for fsck's sake!

The highest price for model S is $87,400.

$87,400 base, according to your link. But then there's options (also according to your link):

Fancy paint (which TFA alludes to it having): $1,500.
Panoramic glass roof: $1,500.
21" wheels: $3,500.
"Tech package": $3,750.
7.1 Dolby: $950.
Rear-facing seats: $1,500.
Paint armor: $950.
Dual chargers: $1,200.

== $102,250.

Drop the dual chargers, or any other ~$1,000 option, and $101,000 becomes a perfectly presentable round figure for what a car like this might cost.

At $101,000 there's a very targeted market for this car....

The highest price for model S is $87,400. The lowest priced model for which the range is still defined (60kWh battery) is $62,400. Me thinks you are using the prices for the Roadster.