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!
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.
a) People also read about Ferraris, even though they'll never own one.
b) This sort of tech is what most people will be driving a few years from now.
No sig today...
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?
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?
As I understand it Tesla's buisness plan is to first make a high performance sports car (Roadster) to work out the bugs in the technology, then make a cheaper sedan to scale up production of components as the more components that are made the cheaper they get. Once enough production capacity is built they can then make cheaper cars using what will then be off the shelf components.
It's the chicken and the egg problem - if nobody mass produces electric cars they will never get cheap, so by mass producing lots of expensive high performance cars they build up the infrastructure to support making cheap ones.
Everyone is going gaga over Tesla because they are succeeding, and with each car they sell we get that much closer to having a cheap yet powerful electric car.
For your health you should be taking a break after 4 hours of driving anyway.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Yeah, I wish I could still buy one of those $1999 VW Beetles, new.
But, the reality is, the average price of a new car in the US is now over $30K.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
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?
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.
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 there are many more solar powered homes now than there were 10 years ago.
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.
I just think this Tesla company is getting all a lot of hype for a car that the overwhelming majority of people won't be able to afford.
Most of the equipment you take for granted in your car (air conditioning, airbags, ABS, traction control, etc.) started life in cars the overwhelming majority of people couldn't afford.
Now a lot of it is mandatory even in cheap cars.
No sig today...
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.
Batteries don't work as well when they are cold. Surely this is common knowledge to everyone over 12 years old (and younger if they happen to have taken up any hobbies that use batteries like say RC cars).
It's why the "charge it a little to recondition the batteries" isn't completely nonsensical (well the terminology is wrong) since charging will warm up the batteries.
A lot of the journalists story makes sense, and Tesla support could very well have given him bad advice. That's significantly undermined by it being pretty obvious he lied about some things (or at least didn't recollect them correctly) making it harder to take his claims about what he was told to do at face value.
But people don't post stories about Ferraris on mainstream publication's websites.
*cough*bullshit
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
And frankly, at least for me, there's an element of rooting for the underdog here. Tesla is doing what the big dogs said couldn't be done, and shouldn't be done, and they're doing it way better than what the big guys are doing. I haven't crunched any numbers, but I'll bet Tesla have accomplished way more (in terms of advancing the technology) with their time and $$ investments in the roadster and sedan than say GM has with the volt or Nissan with the leaf, despite those mega-corps having much more experience building cars.
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.
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.
Why didn't Broder take an picture of the dashboard to show us that the car did indeed shutdown, as he sad it did.
why bother? tesla admits as much with their logs..
what musk should explain is why the range went down when parked overnight so much. if it's a battery heater eating the juice(apparently differently from roadster) then it's something that would be worth knowing..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
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.
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