Slashdot Mirror
CNN Replicates John Broder's Drive In the Tesla Model S
karlnyberg writes "Adding a third voice to the conflict between Tesla's Elon Musk and New York Times Reporter John Broder, CNN/Money's Peter Valdes-Dapena drove from DC to Boston (primarily to test the SuperCharger network). As he says in the article: In the end, I made it — and it wasn't that hard. ... As for the Supercharger network? Turns out that works, too.' He expands on this a bit: 'Looking back on the trip, it would be even easier if Tesla would install one of their fast-charging Superchargers along the New Jersey Turnpike. (These charging stations can fill up a nearly dead battery in Tesla's longest-range cars in about an hour, which is enough time to stop for a meal.) Tesla's working on that, spokeswoman Shanna Hendricks said. But the first priority was to install enough to make this trip, even if you had to take it easy most of the way. But I didn't have to take it that easy, which is good because the Model S provides a pretty amazing mix of smooth and silent performance along with brain-squishing acceleration. So even if you're not driving from Washington to Boston, it's an impressive car, all on its own.'"
On one side you have John Broder who it seems like wants to see this tech fail for some reason or the other (This is just my personal opinion from reading his prior articles). That is the kind of mindset he was in before he even started test driving this. On the other side you have Elon Musk who wants to sell people this new tech which will obviously have some issues in the beginning (which Musk would rather not talk about instead and blame everyone else for it.) . The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. However, Musk's blog post was so convincing I almost find myself not rooting for John Broder at all!
I don't understand why everyone is so gaga over these Tesla's. Is it a beautiful car? Yeah. Is it well made? Yeah. But, the base price remains at $57,400. This is not a car for the masses. It's like writing about an all-electric Mercedes. Who cares?
To me, 270 mile range sounds fantastic (my car only gets 210 miles to a tank). I know charging points aren't yet as ubiquitous as fuel stations and that's the point of these tests, but seriously 270 mile range is more than enough for most people to do 95% of their regular driving without even considering range.
The New York Times reporter just had the car run out of power, because it makes for an entertaining and popular article.
Much like when the earlier model Tesla was tested on the UK's Top Gear TV show, just to be shown running out of battery far below its predicted range.
Populism.
While you were busy working, the masses have learned that credit is cheap and so they're buying $50,000 cars now. I am not objecting to your point, because it's a good one, but am pointing out that for many people this is no longer a (mental) barrier to purchase.
Its been previously stated that powering the Tesla S to max range is equivalent to burning 3 gallons of gas.
Compared to the usual 10-12 gallon gas tank of a car, that's pretty much a win no matter how you get the electricity (as long its not frm baby farts; while smelly, they arent very large or practical for a pwoerplant)
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Traffic? Did he stop overnight?
10 degrees or 45?
First, spoken like a true MBA, you cleary never made anything you where passionate about.
Second, of course it was staged, that was the ENTIRE POINT, it was supposed to be staged, they first one was staged, but the guy didn't stick to the script, then said it didn't work like they (Tesla) said it would. The had a specific scenario in mind that everyone agreed on, then the guy said the car failed the scenario, but as it turns out he did exactly follow the plan, which is fine, but you cant then claim it failed the scenario that everyone agreed on.
For your health you should be taking a break after 4 hours of driving anyway.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
The logs in the previous test show that the speed was, for the most part, perfectly reasonable, yet projected range fell at 10% faster than should be expected.
They also showed a huge loss in projected range when the car was stopped.
Do Teslas not work in the cold?
Lets be honest here and say that a coal/gas/oil burning plant can be much more efficient than a gasoline engine. By the time the engines power reaches the wheels, something like 80% of the gasoline's energy is wasted, mostly in the form of heat, the rest from drive line losses (also heat from friction.)
A coal/oil power station can reach 33% efficiency while a combined cycle plant can reach 50-60%. And if they use district heating like Con Edison does in NYC, then you go even higher because the waste heat is sold to heat buildings (among other things). BUT I am not sure about transmission losses and the efficiency of the charging stations (probably around 90-95%, just a guess). But overall I am sure an electric car charged by a well tuned power plant will be more efficient than a gasoline car.
Also, there are many rebate and assistance plans for adding solar power to your home. My friend just signed a contract last month for a 10kW system to be installed on his house. Within the next 10 years or so I am sure you will see many more solar powered homes.
Man, if only there were some way for you to find data to support your proposition that "A gasoline-burning car is probably less polluting than a coal-burning electrical plant." Maybe we could create some sort of globally-connected network of computers, with advanced tools to search through all the data.
Oh wait. We have those things. You are wrong, and it would have taken about eighteen seconds to find that out. Economies of scale, man - your local power plant generates energy more efficiently and deals with pollution more effectively than your tiny little internal combustion engine. Even an electric car driven off of oil-burning power plants is less polluting (although only by about 1/3) per mile driven than an internal combustion engine.
Then you probably don't commute from Baltimore to New York City via car.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
why do I always see fifteen cars in the drive-thrus, idling for up to a half hour while they get their "food"?
well, if they were electric cars, they wouldn't be idling, they'd just be sitting there. electric car FTW!
Are we nuclear yet? For us to do that, we have to take the maintenance of these plants out of the hands of potential Homer Simpsons.
Similar to the core concept here in question, be careful not to mix media bias with technological facts. Comparing the average American nuclear worker to Homer Simpson is not accurate.
Information about American nuclear plant operators.
Aside from the actual day-to-day operation, the maintenance of the American nuclear plants is above and beyond what is necessary.
Operational Maintenance
It's fusion power, just long-distance.
Well, then so is gasoline.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Within the next 10 years or so I am sure you will see many more solar powered homes.
That's what they said 10 years ago. Just sayin...
because it's ABSOLUTELY impossible to install more chargers.
Is it too cold there for your brain to work or do you work for the NYT?
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
"that's pretty much a win no matter how you get the electricity (as long its not frm baby farts; while smelly, they arent very large or practical for a pwoerplant)"
But it counts as "green" energy, right?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
A gasoline-burning car is probably less polluting than a coal-burning electrical plant.
There are huge advantages in economies of scale when centralizing pollution controls. For example each gasoline powered currently car has to carry around a certain mass of equipment in order to comply with current pollution standards. Removing that mass from a moving vehicle and putting it in a fixed location gives you an instant efficiency gain as you no longer have to waste energy carting it around with you.
In addition, centralizing the power distribution of cars to current power stations allows you to flip over to a different primary source sometime in the future, without upsetting the consumption side. So while it may use fossil fuels now, that doesn't mean it still has to 10 years down the track. Think of it as refactoring the hardware to aid in future system changes.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
You must not eat then...
"I'd like to eat this burger, but really by the time I'm done it would have cost me $80 in billable hours!"
In the NY Times article there was considerable discussion on the weather being cold. Affecting the battery directly by draining power via the heater and indirectly with the possibly lower performance of batteries in the cold. In the CNN article I did not see a discussion on the temperature. The follow up article from teh Times is also interesting.
No, $60k isn't a car for everybody. But it's the only car out there in production which has managed to combine all-electric with useful range in something that doesn't look like something out of an Anime cartoon. It's, for lack of a better term, a real car that happens to be all electric - and it something that nobody else has managed to pull off and produce.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
But overall I am sure an electric car charged by a well tuned power plant will be more efficient than a gasoline car.
You forgot another key thing -- when you take your foot off the gas in a gasoline car, it doesn't start magically creating new fuel and putting it back in your tank the way an EV does.
For around $250 billion a 50km x 50km array of photovoltaics could be constructed in an isolated spot in the South-western US and provide enough power for the entire US.
You'd need to add some way of storing unused power for night-time use, depending on location compressed air, hydroelectric or some other form of potential energy storage could be used.
Figures are based on average production of 4kWh per m2, £100 per m2 for photovoltaics and average annual energy consumption in the US of around 3.7billion MWh per year. Prices are continually dropping, but equally energy consumption continues to grow.
Within the next 10 years or so I am sure you will see many more solar powered homes.
That's what they said 10 years ago. Just sayin...
As I look through my window right now, I can see 16 homes.
6 of those have got solar panels on their roofs generating electricity (2 have also got solar water heating).
10 years ago none of them had any solar.
Just sayin'...
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
And we do see many more today than we did 10 years ago. If a similar growth rate continues, it will be pretty normal. Where I live tons of people use solar water heaters, even if they aren't using PV.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Long distance through space *and time*.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
I can go to my parents home with 270 miles range. And if I had a car (actually I do not need one), 270 miles would be more than necessary for me to go from home to work and back, many times. Where do I get one for me? I can not imagine anything better for driving in a city than a car that does not need to keep the engine running when stopped at a traffic light and does not pollute the air.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
When that becomes a problem, it will be worth building more of them. Right now there are more than enough.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Solar is actually where the rapid charge stations get their power, and part of why they are free...a little research before you go on a rant next time would be fucking stellar.
Did you ever wonder what filling up your gas tank was like before gasoline became the default fuel in the US?
I'll give you a hint. As a power source for a car becomes more popular, more filling stations are built to accommodate the increased demand.
Also, because these charging stations don't require massive, underground tanks for storage, they can be put just about anywhere, including the parking lot of a restaurant. Given the low cost to charge an electric vehicle from empty to full, charging could even end up being 'free with purchase of a meal' to encourage people to stop at a particular restaurant.
And there are many more solar powered homes now than there were 10 years ago.
Yup. Not having to worry about power-to-weight ratio can help you get MAJOR improvements in both efficiency AND emissions controls.
There's also the fact that while we're not anywhere close to 100% nuclear, we do have a decent amount of nuclear (and other non-coal) power installed.
A grid-powered EV is a win even on a 100% coal-powered grid. It's significantly more so in our current mixed-power grid.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Where will you charge your $60,000 toy when Tesla is no more?
Tesla could disappear tomorrow and you would still be able to charge at home, as you can today. Come on, fucktards, if you are going to troll at least make some coherent points.
Are we nuclear yet? Or still burning coal?
A gasoline-burning car is probably less polluting than a coal-burning electrical plant.
Are we nuclear yet? For us to do that, we have to take the maintenance of these plants out of the hands of potential Homer Simpsons.
Have we yet covered the Southwest with solar panels? The tech seems ripe. As long as we don't obstruct any areas where protected species are, this should be a good source of power. It's fusion power, just long-distance.
Why do I still have to commute via car, and why do I always see fifteen cars in the drive-thrus, idling for up to a half hour while they get their "food"?
I make an exception for Taco Bell of course.
Mod parent down. An energy-equivalent number of ICEs produce substantially more pollution than any operating US power plant. The plant doesn't have to move itself so they get to use all sorts of very heavy technologies to reduce pollution that can't effectively be installed in cars.
Also, electrical -> mechanical is more efficient than chemical -> heat -> mechanical.
No. We use wind power. We have a lot of it and sometimes the rotors are stopped because too much electricity is available. Lets dump that in cars.
That wasn't a troll. If one presumes that you were actually using these rapid chargers, then one can presume that you'd miss it when it's gone.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I look forward to reading your calculation of line loss to get the power from the SW to upstate New York. I also suspect that a 2500 square km field of PV panels will cause significant climate shift in the local vicinity (those panels will get pretty warm in the sun). They might also have unanticipated effects on wildlife behaviour and migration. But feel free to try the same thing on the moon.
Wood? LOL.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
oh its very green. unless it's been eating carrots. then its a bright bright orange.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Are we nuclear yet? Or still burning coal?
Depends on the politicians in your state. Yes
A gasoline-burning car is probably less polluting than a coal-burning electrical plant.
One car vs the entire plant..yes, for the amount of power produced, not even close.(or to put it in simple terms, how many electric cars could run off a single power plant, compare that level of pullution). And make sure to compare apples to apples. Just like nuclear, there has been a lot of advancements in the last 30 years but very few new plants built due to political bullshit.
Are we nuclear yet? For us to do that, we have to take the maintenance of these plants out of the hands of potential Homer Simpsons.
You should look at the designs for new power plants. No new plants in the US have been built in the last 30 years again due to complete political bullshit. Say what you will about G.W. Bush, but at least he opened up for new license application that will allow some new nuclear reactors to be built. IIRC, the TN one is supposed to be online in early 2016.
Have we yet covered the Southwest with solar panels? The tech seems ripe. As long as we don't obstruct any areas where protected species are, this should be a good source of power. It's fusion power, just long-distance.
First, the quality of a solar power source has nothing to do with protected species. The tech is still too costly(without subsidies) and horrible inefficient. Plus one of our major problems is distribution from large solar farms to the heavily populated areas that actually need the power. Come back when all the people advocating solar power have ponied up and covered their own roofs with panels.
Why do I still have to commute via car, and why do I always see fifteen cars in the drive-thrus, idling for up to a half hour while they get their "food"?
I make an exception for Taco Bell of course.
Because it is cold as hell out here in MN, I personally prefer to park and go in but that is more so I can somewhat watch some illegal immigrant make my burger and make sure they don't give me some premade crap from under a warming lite.
Those subsidies are paid for on the backs of other working taxpayers. I like green energy, but not government favoritism.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
My campus (4 buildings) is fully off-grid solar, and has been for a few decades. It easily charges my Chevy Volt, which is my daily driver.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
A gasoline-burning car is probably less polluting than a coal-burning electrical plant.
Absolutely not.
Modern large-scale coal plants are both substantially more efficient and much cleaner. They also tend to be in better locations.
In terms of particulates, because coal plants operate at much higher temperatures (for a more complete burn) and can use much larger and more effective scrubbers, gasoline engines are much worse -- even with a catalytic converter installed. Ditto for sulfur and other chemical pollutants. And we can typically put those coal plants well away from other major pollution sources to spread the pain, while automobile exhausts are concentrated where people are.
Coal plants emit lots of CO2, of course, but because they're more efficient at converting the fossil fuel into usable energy, the mileage per ton of CO2 generated is greater. There are also more opportunities for the CO2 to be captured and sequestered, which is far less feasible in hundreds of millions of tiny power plants.
Then there's also the fact that EVs can recover a significant amount of their kinetic energy by regenerative braking, making them lower energy consumers. Of course, gasoline-burning hybrids can do this as well, so it's a weaker argument.
Energy to power EVs is much, much cleaner than that for gas burners. EV construction is probably a little "dirtier" than gas burner construction, though, because of the big batteries. On the other hand, EVs tend to be simpler and lighter than ICE vehicles, which may offset some of that.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Oh for the love of all that is sacred - must EVERY last second of time in a person's life be equated to money? Can't you just count unscheduled, spent time as wasted TIME and not lost revenue? Must every last second of your life be spent eating, sleeping, or making money!? /me loses a little more hope for the future of humanity.
Pure electrics really aren't for road trips. If that's what you're into, and don't want to sacrifice luxury - get a Volt. Fallback to hybrid mode is seamless.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
A gasoline engine is horrendously inefficient. Only about 30% of the energy from burning the dead dinos is converted to motion - the rest is waste heat.
Electric motors, much more efficient. What you lose at the power plant you get back in miles per erg, polution-wise.
And if we had gone to nuclear plants or wind or solar, there'd be NO pollution from driving electric cars. We made the choice for coal, because it was easy, and because we fallaciously believe that a nuke plant disaster is worse than pounding trillions of pounds of carbon into the atmosphere. Also a little deal with free market ideological nuttery, which believes new tech should pay its own way and old tech somehow isn't massively subsidized (free land, tax gifts, wars to get the land).
A grid-powered EV is a win even on a 100% coal-powered grid.
That's only necessarily true assuming working emissions controls. I will bet you a dollar that if you could drop a sensing probe down literally any coal plant smokestack in the USA, you would find it well over the legal emissions limits. I personally know someone who used to climb them and sample them for a living (refineries, coal plants, etc etc) and he said that literally everything he sampled was over. Everything. We can find excessive polluters (by the legal definition) as fast as we can pay people to check their output. Given that improperly controlled coal emissions emit metric shitloads of radioactives directly into the air, including significant portions of "hot" ones, I doubt the accuracy of your statement.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
For example each gasoline powered currently car has to carry around a certain mass of equipment in order to comply with current pollution standards.
The total weight of the system is around ten pounds. You've got a cat filled with mostly air, which replaces part of the exhaust system, mitigating the weight cost. You've got a carbon cylinder filled with a carbon filter, usually made of plastic. And you've got some heated O2 sensors, at least two of them for a vehicle with an inline engine, up to four of them on some vehicles. They don't weigh much, nor does their wiring (it's light-gauge.) It's negligible compared to the overall vehicle, at maybe half a percent.
In addition, centralizing the power distribution of cars to current power stations allows you to flip over to a different primary source sometime in the future, without upsetting the consumption side.
That's the big benefit today: preparing for the future. But that's about the only big benefit, aside from people who live where you live; if you live in a city, driving an EV is good for everyone around you, because it improves local air quality. It may not, however, improve anything for The World, depending on your driving habits, how long you keep the car, where you live, and what else you might have bought, including nothing. Most vehicles run out at around 400k, by keeping an older car going longer you can extend the amount you save. Only about a third of the total lifetime energy consumption of a car goes into its production, the rest is fuel and maintenance. But if you keep a car three times longer than average, which is possible with meticulous maintenance or simply by choosing a venerable classic and performing normal maintenance, you can save the lifetime energy cost of an entire car.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Granted you lose power over the line as you transmit it. But your points are valid.
Is it too cold there for your brain to work or do you work for the NYT?
Maybe he "accidentally" left it running all night and now it's depleted?
You can't pump your own gas in New Jersey, what makes you think you should be allowed to plug in your vehicle for charging?
>Or still burning coal?
Less coal all the time. Natural Gas has its issues for sure, and not a long term solution, but it is better than coal, and it has been really doing a number on coal.
>For us to do that, we have to take the maintenance of these plants out of the hands of potential Homer Simpsons.
What? Homer doesn't even do maintenance. And he is, you know, a comedic cartoon character. Why would you think that a power plant would keep on, or even hire a person as incompetent as him? What does The Simpsons have to do with real life at all?
>Have we yet covered the Southwest with solar panels?
No
>The tech seems ripe.
The cost has been getting better and better. It isn't quite ready to totally take off with the current economics, though it probably would be if we factored in more "externalities"
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
Leaf owners in Arizona are finding that they have lost up to a third of the range in less than a year due to the hot conditions. Even in ideal climates they lose 20% of their range a year. That is how LiPo works. I agree that 270miles is a range suitable for most, but by the end of 5 years you will be down to 88 in a nice climate, and the battery replacement is going for about $8k for the leaf which is a much smaller battery pack than the tesla's.
Also a note about calling a car with a 900lb battery pack a roadster.... don't. I want my electric powered miata/mgb/lotus as a daily driver as much as anyone, but the batteries simply aren't there yet. If the wealthy want to have them as a toy that is great, but tricking normal people who need a car that just works into getting one is dishonest.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
Why didn't Broder take an picture of the dashboard to show us that the car did indeed shutdown, as he sad it did.
Install HVDC lines and the losses aren't that big, 3%/1000 km according to Wikipedia. PV panels don't need to be installed in the wilderness. Cover parking lots instead. Addition of a roof will not impact the local environment any more than covering the ground with asphalt did. Space is not a problem for PV, price is.
There are: http://irecusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/IREC-Solar-Market-Trends-Report-June-2011-web.pdf (PDF)
See figure 2, on page 6
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
There seems to be a misconception on the temperature difference.
Go Read Broders piece, He said he recieved the car on a Sunny 30F day. He mentioned the temperature while driving was in 30's on day 1.
It only hit 10F overnight while the car was parked. This was the major difference. He parked the car overnight, CNN kept going.
Some have commented on the temperature difference or the fact that Broder did an overnight, stop with the car unplugged.
But the real difference is that Broder who was ostensibly testing the supercharging network, short charged it the Milford Supercharger.
The CNN folks fully charged theirs.
Broder has given multiple questionable excuses for that short charge, so it is looking more and more like it was setting the Tesla up for failure to drama up his story.
A single trip with a single car proves nothing. My neighbor has had his car in the shop 4 times over the past year because of a recurring "check engine light" problem, but my car, of the exact same model and year hasn't had a single problem.
Neither of our anectdotal experiences show that this model is crap, nor that it is good.
Let's see what happens after a 100 or a thousand people drive the car over the route.
You do realize that BBC won the court case because it argued that "top gear reviews are not actual reviews but scripted comedy skits" successfully?
The New York Times is not generally considered a "comedy" publication, grouped into the same category as The Onion.
Though I guess that could change.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Think of it as refactoring the hardware to aid in future system changes.
Damm you just used a tech analogy to a car story - BRAVO
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
This is a summary of an article showing that DC transmission of electric power is cost effective up to about 7000km (4300 mi). It's rather old, but I don't think anything has changed in terms of physics. Also superconducting power lines have started being installed, which was not the case when this article was written: http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/technical-articles/transmission/cigre/present-limits-of-very-long-distance-transmission-systems/index.shtml Regarding the climate change, I think that is debatable. The amount of incoming energy is the same whether or not PV panels are present or not. More may be reflected from white sand than a dark panel, but a lot of the heat the PV panels generate is reradiated upwards. And you also have to factor in the reduction in CO2 output the PV panels give you vs gasoline engines, coal, etc.
If I only had one gas station every 200 miles, I'd get quite nervous in my car as well. (It does 300 miles per re-fill.) The solution would be a joint-venture with a chain of gas stations, or perhaps for Musk to buy a 50% share in one outright. Are all the gas station chains in North America owned by big mineral oil companies, or are there independent ones? If these chains installed sufficient charging stations, one could get rid of this problem. Once there are more EV on the road, a problem of scalability will crop up. You'll need many more power points at a station than you have now (for gas) if it takes an hour to re-charge. That takes some real estate...
For the short term, think of truck stops - big stores with restaurants and showers for professional drivers of long-haul freight trucks (tractor-trailer rigs.) Modify them a bit or add charging stations to movie theaters or high-end restaurants or fashion malls (because guys with $50k to drop an a new car will have spending cash) and you might have a viable business model (until the problem of more rapid charging is solved or enough stations are built that you don't need to do a full charge every time for fear of not finding another station in range.)
So you must be really pissed about the oil industry's subsidies...
Been done--in Europe, during WWII, many cars were converted to use producer gas derived from wood...
Where will you fill up your gas burner when those stations are gone?
If supercharging charges the 85 kWh battery in one hour, that's an 85 kW draw. Only 12 people charging draws over 1 MW. I think we need to get our electric grids straight and add some generating capacity before electric cars get too common.
The energy density of coal is half that of gasoline. The typical termal efficiency of a gasoline engine is 25%. For coal it's 33%. Additionally, waste from coal isn't just a matter of CO2 emissions. There's also particulate matter, not to mention that coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste. In fact, those super efficient coal plants that "burn off" the waste in turn generate coal ash that is more radioactive by weight than it would be otherwise. I won't even mention the toll coal mining takes on the local environment and the people who do it, because I think you've gotten the idea by now. The question of whether we should be using electricity or gasoline to power cars ignores something much larger anyway: transporting people in cars is not energy efficient, period.
Solar powered heating, huh? No wonder your grits are still cold.
I kid, I wish I had panels and reflective tank heater
The failure of a single company will not make the tens of thousands of gas stations in the US disappear.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The thing about these Tesla journey's is that they read like an newspaper column about automobile touring from 1902:
AUTOMOBILES IN BOSTON; Sixty-nine Machines Complete First Half of the Journey.
BOSTON, Oct. 11, 1902. -- The first half of the 500-mile reliability contest of the Automobile Club of America from New York to Boston ended at 5:15 to-night in a drenching rain, when Kenneth A. Skinner, in a De Dion-Bouton car, arrived at the finishing point.
Of the 75 machines which left New York Thursday morning 69 finished. The roads from New York to Springfield were excellent, but from Springfield to Boston they were poor and muddy, and the tourists were well splattered with mud when they arrive.
The severest test was Foster's Hill, a severe 12 per cent climb. Several machines went into the side ditches in an effort to clear some that were stalled. In many instances it was necessary for the riders to get out and push the cars up the incline.
Does if you've got a hybrid, though.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
I'm surprised Europe had enough forest. Thanks for pointing me on a Wikipedia odyssey :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Think Sweden. Plenty of trees. Swedes like it when people think of their country as high tech, but mining and forestry are still much bigger industries there...
Nor electrical outlets.
You shouldn't be surprised at being labeled a "troll" when you talk about Tesla's demise as a fait accompli...
The correct name for this proceedure is Hooning.
You need to take into account Broder's and Tesla's history if you're going to try to judge that without evidence. Broder has a long-standing animus towards electric vehicles. Tesla does not, so far as I can tell, have a history of wildly inflated claims about what their cars can do.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
At least this time, the NYT isn't helping lie about war, just a car.
Ironically though, both lies helped Big Oil.
If an EV instantly goes into regen braking when letting off the throttle, then no thanks. Constant, perceptible deceleration instead of freewheel (or slushbox) coasting would get real old, real quick.
If you plug a Tesla S into a regular electrical outlet somewhere along I-95 it will take 46 hours to get a full charge. If you somehow find access to a 220V outlet, you would only be sitting there for 8-10 hours. It's fair to say that the demise of Tesla would have a significant impact on your ability to quickly "gas up" the car. If that is not your use case, then there really is no risk. I'm not saying that Tesla will fail (though the odds are against them) - I'm saying that your usage of the quick-charge stations is completely dependent on their survival. Not only that, but efforts to sell the car will be hampered when the maker is no longer in business. My neighbor picked up a very cheap Saab for this very reason.
Now my use of the word "toy" is kind of trollish, but I can't see how they can be regarded as something else. They certainly make no economic sense. I view them as a toy, like a Corvette or a Porsche 911.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Ah, yeah, that makes sense. For some reason I was picturing places like Great Britain and France. I imagine those "forests" wouldn't last long :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I can guarantee that when EVs are more than a novelty, we will not only have to pay for the electricity to charge them, but will have to pay the road fuel taxes that the EVs are presently avoiding.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
> I'm saying that your usage of the quick-charge stations is completely dependent on their survival.
Well this is just silly. Most places don't have them, and they are only of value for long day trips, yet Tesla hasn't had any difficulty selling their cars... I don't need to be the 100th person to note here that most people rarely need to drive over 250 miles a day, and that there are simple solutions when such people do need them. I estimate that of my family's two vehicles, one of them (30k odometer) has never been more than 100 miles from home and the other has only about 2-3% of its miles in this scenario...
Why is there some assumption that an EV must outperform gas cars in every single use case?
...And that tax credit for mortgage interest. Why should mortgage payers get a break?
Well this is just silly.
I disagree. This whole kerfuffle is over Tesla pushing this network in their marketing.
I don't need to be the 100th person to note here that most people rarely need to drive over 250 miles a day, and that there are simple solutions when such people do need them.
I agree completely. If your usage is for your daily commute and you have another car for long trips, the Tesla will do fine. Actually, the high-mileage model is way overkill. Tesla could go bust tomorrow, and you could still drive it the same way you drive it today.
Why is there some assumption that an EV must outperform gas cars in every single use case?
I'm certainly not on that bandwagon. When an electric car makes economic sense, I'll be jumping on the bandwagon. They are already practical from a use standpoint, now it's just cost. My commute is only 10 miles and my wife's is only 5, so we'll be prime candidates.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
> They are already practical from a use standpoint, now it's just cost. My commute is only 10 miles and my wife's is only 5, so we'll be prime candidates.
You might want to consider something like a Nissan Leaf. I drove one as a rental for a month when someone rear-ended my Prius. Really nice. Plugged it in whenever I arrived home. No other concerns.
Because in 5 or 10 years, when that much less-new used car prices hit them, people like me may well buy a used Tesla (Roadster|S). Even with a half-dead battery pack it'd have more range than a leaf (which is plenty for midwestern small-city USA), cost less, and be a hell of a lot more fun to drive*.
*: Disclaimer: We (Wife and I) sat in a leaf when we were considering a second vehicle. Performance/range/etc don't matter when its uncomfortable to start with. I also sat in a Roadster when they took one on a tour to the Detroit auto show a few years ago and while it was ... certainly not plush, it was not uncomfortable.
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
Given the record of previous behavior and the incentives to each party, it's far more believable that the author made something up because it would give him fame and fortune while justifying his documented pre-existing dislike of currently shipping electric vehicles. Occam's razor, amirite? One party has something to gain, and a record of such behavior, but the other sure doesn't have anything to gain by telling people to ignore their dash readouts!
And that's the takeaway - you're dead right! It's a "he said/she said" situation so the test data has to be discarded. Repeat the test multiple times if you want the truth, or, if you don't care about truth, pick whichever side of the argument agrees with your existing biases.
BTW medcalf, I've met two people that said they were Jesus, and I'm pretty sure BOTH of them were wrong.
Yeah, it's on the top of the list when the price comes down. Right now I'd just buy something like a Versa. At 10 miles per day, I'd have to own the Versa for a looooooong time before I used enough gas to pay for the Leaf. It's falling fast - they knocked off 5 or 6k last year, so in 5 years or so when I'm ready for a new car, it could be a real contender. Presumably, gas will have gone up as well.
We'll hang on to the minivan for longer trips. It gets a whopping 20 miles a day of use, so we don't expect to replace that anytime soon, either :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I would say they're not for road trips *yet*. The technology is still very much in its infancy (at least when it comes to mass production and general availability), so it's at least interesting to see what the available electric vehicles can currently do.
That said, sportscars in general aren't for road trips, nor are they that practical.
LegendMUD
One of them was wrong. The other - well just you wait and see.
If an EV instantly goes into regen braking when letting off the throttle, then no thanks. Constant, perceptible deceleration instead of freewheel (or slushbox) coasting would get real old, real quick.
It does, because it needs to mimic the friction you get in a normal drivetrain. As to how much it does, that is selectable on most EVs. Some people (arguably most, from what I've seen) prefer the aggressive regen -- it basically has the same feel as taking your foot of the gas in a manual transmission car.
Does if you've got a hybrid, though.
To a very small extent, yes. Because hybrids have small battery packs, and tend to try to keep them charged all the time (burning gas to do so), there's only just so much regen they can absorb.
...to be fair, I don't think EVs magically create new fuel and put it back in their tank either. That might be due to them not having tanks, or possibly the lack of magic. Not sure (IANAM - magician).
LegendMUD
Sorry, that should be read as a half tank being between 6 and 7 gallons of fuel; the entire tank is somewhere between 12 and 13 gallons.
Palm trees and 8
It's more like putting your data onto a central server and doing all your work on terminals. Whereas the old way would be like having all of your data on 3.5 ROM diskettes behind you and you've got an Apple II with one disk drive.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
You forgot another key thing -- when you take your foot off the gas in a gasoline car, it doesn't start magically creating new fuel and putting it back in your tank the way an EV does.
That doesn't happen in an EV. I don't know if you forgot your [sarcasm] tags, but we try not to violate the first law of thermodynamics in these forums.
How many charging stations do you need? I can refuel my car in 5-10 minutes. Charging takes 1-3 hours. That means you need 10-20 times as many recharging stations as gas pumps. Didn't think that one through, did you, you mental midget?
Waiting 5 or 10 minutes to fill 'er up is annoying but acceptable. Will you wait in line an hour so you can wait another hour while your battery recharges?
you pull-into one of those fancy 1-hour charge stations and there are four cars in line ahead of you each needing a 1-hour charge????
All's well if you are the only rich guy in the county with one of these, but there's a lot here that seems not well planned, and while I'll admit somebody might be asking these questions while doing their reports and reviews, I seem to have missed it.
The panels can only warm up by the amount the ground would do so anyway. If anything, they would mean that the area gets cooled down, as they tend to reflect more light back than e.g. sand. And of course the amount of energy converted into electricity won't end up as warmth. Of course, no one would set up a single panel of 50x50 km square in a single piece, but distribute it across the continent, both limiting the possible local impact and the power distribution problems. This example just shows that only a tiny part of the US would needed to be covered with solar cells.
It does, because it needs to mimic the friction you get in a normal drivetrain. As to how much it does, that is selectable on most EVs. Some people (arguably most, from what I've seen) prefer the aggressive regen -- it basically has the same feel as taking your foot of the gas in a manual transmission car.
Seriously cool info that I had no clue of. You should get mod'd up big time!
I would have assumed you just coast.
I've read that this trip normally takes about 7-8 hours. How long did it take with the hour+ recharge stops? I wouldn't buy an electric car until the range and the recharge time is improved.
I suppose the nice thing about these SuperCharger stations is that there isn't any waiting since so few people are buying EVs. I wonder how long it will take for these to start being vandalized or being used to power other things.
But scaled to all the cars worldwide... half a percent of ~900 million cars in not negligible.
(posting anon as not to undo moderation)
Newer coal plants reach around 36% efficiency. Most ICE also have a transmission which robs roughly 8%-20% of total efficiency. Average is around 10%. By a wide margin, coal + electric motors are a superior option.
The only issue with Tesla is the absurd price.
I am a fan of Tesla's business plan.
Start out making a toy for rich people. Low volume high cost production, make an expensive toy, make a profit and learn.
Then make a more-affordable car for upper-middle-class and above. Higher volume lower cost production, make a car that fits in the luxury car category like high-end BMW, make a profit and learn.
Next, they plan to make an even-more-affordable care that middle-class can afford. Using everything they have learned, make a car that is inexpensive enough that there is a chance the middle class will buy it.
Two decades from now, if they continue this, they may be competing with Ford and Honda. And good for them if the can make it.
Right now, it just isn't possible for them to make an electric car that they can sell for the cost of a Honda Accord. They could make something that they could sell at that price, but not a no-compromises all-around car, which is what they want to sell.
I think Tesla has accepted some government loans or grants, but mostly they are just following a plan that makes money, and I approve of that. They are selling outstanding electric cars today, and making a profit; and they have plans to get the cost down in the future.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Probably never.
But logically, only one is necessarily wrong.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
he didn't say more efficient, he said "less polluting". Probably true that a single car pollutes less than a coal plant.