Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Motors Battles the New York Times
redletterdave writes "Days after the New York Times released a brutal review of Tesla's electric Model S sedan, Tesla CEO Elon Musk has fired back, claiming the Times article was completely bogus and misleading. In the article in question, Times writer John Broder took the Tesla Model S on a test drive from Washington to Boston, stopping at various service plazas in Delaware and Connecticut well within the projected 265-mile range of the car, as rated by the EPA. However, Broder's Tesla Model S, despite a heftier 85 kilowatt-hour battery for an extra 100 miles of range in 'ideal conditions,' died shortly before reaching its final destination. Broder blames the cold weather and heating issues for his abridged trip; Musk, however, claims the driver did not follow Tesla's instructions, which is why his trip was cut so short. 'We've taken great pains to ensure that the car works very well in the cold, which is why we're so incensed by this ridiculous article,' Musk said."
You're driving it wrong.
Delete your nytimes cookies and then you should be able to read the article.
Lithium batteries really don't handle cold temperatures very well at all -- one of the many reasons that aircraft have continued to use good old fashioned Nickel-cadmium or lead-acid batteries (until the Dreamliner came along).
When they're too cold, they neither take a full charge, nor do they deliver their rated capacity or maximum current.
I would say that, given the weather on the East Coast of the USA during the drive, this played a significant factor in the lack of range encountered -- but I acknowledge that it may not be the only factor.
Perhaps another factor is the enhanced need to heat the passenger compartment. Unlike a regular IC-powered car, there's very little "waste heat" in an EV so perhaps over-zealous use was made of the electric heating - thus producing further heavy drain on the battery and reducing range.
The problem (for Tesla) is that people don't want an EV that comes with a long list of "don'ts" and "cautions" in respect to power management and the effects of low/high temperatures on range. They just want a car they can unplug, jump in and drive -- with an unqualified guarantee of a known range. That's effectively what they get now with their IC-powered cars and that's what they want from any replacement.
nor do I own a car with a battery.
Do tell? Do you have to start it lawnmower style?
Since I'm not rich enough to afford one of these, yet I still have two cars, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I wouldn't expect people to use their electric luxury car for long trips. Hell, we take our less-efficient car (minivan) on trips because it is more comfortable. It seems to me that the Times was looking for a way to fail the car to make their story better. Most of us would probably commute in this thing.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I used to have a 2005 BMW. Whenever I filled it up it would show 330 miles to empty. Yet after 200 city miles the tank would be dry. Amazingly the car was not able to see the future and know how many lights I'd have to stop at. What a crap car. I'll write a scathing article about it.
Do you want a car that you have to remember to plug-in overnight?
Do you want a car that won't start just because you forgot to turn the headlights off overnight?
Do you want a car that won't start just because you lost your key?
Do you want a car that won't drive sideways just because the rear wheels are fixed?
Do you want a car that can only travel on the ground?
Do you want a car that spews noxious nitrogenous and greenhouse-inducing exhaust? That even spews exhaust at all?
Do you want a car that stops just because you ran over some sharp detritus?
I could go on, but perhaps you get the point that we have learned to put up with a lot of bullshit from our cars. Slightly different bullshit is slightly different.
The reported range dropped overnight because HE FAILED TO PLUG IT IN. Which the manual tells you do. So he disregarded the manual. Then he got in a car reporting 32 miles of range and drove it 51 miles until the battery was empty. Would a reasonable person do that? No.
The difference is, with a gas car, once a week. With an all electric, every day.
A 20 gallon tank at 14MPG (aka a typical pickup) or an 11 gallon tank at 26MPG (typical passenger sedan) both have a comparable total range. You don't, however, generally drive 300 miles a day (or if you do, you know the location and hours of every gas station on the way), so you wouldn't need to "top off" your EV any more "daily" than you would that same pickup or sedan.
That said - Every night, you park your car somewhere in the vicinity of conveniently available grid power. In exchange for five seconds of plugging it in every night, you never need to stop at a gas station in the cold rain and then need to go inside to see the clerk when the stupid damned machine can't read your credit card or the ticket printer breaks.
Do I sound too much like an apologist there? Hey, the Tesla S costs way too much and I don't have one. But I won't hold things against it that apply to any vehicle on the road. Cars take a certain minimum level of basic care and feeding, whether you feed them dead dinosaurs or uranium electrons, to function properly. Simple as that.
Right, the power needs to come from somewhere. But electricity transmission is significantly more efficient than gas transmission, there's the difference. A non-trivial amount of gas is used to drive gas to a station so you can get it. Last time I checked, the EPA estimates that electrical transmission is 10% more efficient than taking gas to a gas station.
Doesn't change the fact that coal is shitty, but you can't really polish a turd.