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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.