Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Model S Has Bizarre 'Vampire-Like' Thirst For Electricity At Night
cartechboy writes "The Tesla Model S, for all its technical and design wizardry, has a dirty little secret: Its a vampire. The car has an odd and substantial appetite for kilowatt-hours even when turned off and parked. This phenomenon has been dubbed the 'vampire' draw, and Tesla promised long ago to fix this issue with a software update. Well, a few software updates have come and gone since then, and the Model S is still a vampire sucking down energy when it's shut down. While this is a concern for many Model S owners and would be owners, the larger question becomes: After nine months, and multiple software updates,why can't Tesla fix this known issue? Tesla has recognized the issue and said a fix would come, yet the latest fix is only a tiny improvement — and the problem remains unsolved. Is Tesla stumped? Can the issue be fixed?"
Why use kWh/day when we can use W? Do these guys really not understand units, or is there some silly love for kWh/day?
This just makes me cringe:
"[...] 4.5 kilowatt-hours per day. That's the equivalent of three 60-watt light bulbs burning 24/7."
Couldn't he just say "190 watts"? (Or 180 W if he wanted to round incorrectly to match the light bulbs example).
I'd look for heat.
That amount of energy drain will be making something warm.
I find this wrinkle hilarious, out of sympathy. I have never, EVER, in the course of using probably 10 laptops over the last 10 years, had one on which suspend/resume actually worked right. Many that worked a few times, or even a couple weeks, or that worked unless I used a docking station, or 3d acceleration, or WiFi. And yes, that includes my i7 MacBook Pro running OSX; plug and unplug the external display and network enough times, and sooner or later it will forget to wake up when you open the lid.
It is slightly different in that Tesla cars are a lot more energy efficient than gas driven cars.
That is, it isn't a simple matter of transferring the energy from the power company to the car instead of getting it from the pump, rather the car itself uses less energy period. This is mostly a result of combustion engines wasting most of their energy towards producing heat rather than actually putting the car in motion (Hybrids are also guilty here - their main saving grace is that energy production is at more of a constant rate as well as frequent re-use of kinetic energy, so less energy is wasted as heat than a regular car, but energy is still wasted almost as much.)
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Or use an infrared camera on a cold night.
This is ridiculous. How would this be in anyway have a basis for a lawsuit? Unless it is explicitly denied and hidden by the maker, which it isn't, why would you even consider that?
How about your TV. It also uses power while off... should we sue there? Your phone? Your laptop? How about your (traditional) car? It also slowly drains its battery while its parked in the garage... and I bet the car makers don't even recognize it officially. Should we sue?
My Sony compact audio system uses about 30W while off. My cable box uses about 20, with 10% more if it's on.
Now I have to say Pics or STFU.
You have to experience it first-hand to get it -- when you're outside the US it has no meaning. Then when you're in the US, at first, it's just like a bag of cement mix that has no warnings except in the "state of California" section, and it's a bit weird. When you finally visit the state and walk into a giant building (that is just like a train station or something) and the doors have a "this building contains materials that are known by the state of California to potentially cause cancer", it's just ridiculous.
Their "Welcome to California" signs on the highways and airports should have a "(there are materials in the state known by the state of California to cause cancer)" thing in the fine print.
And this is why an electric car should skimp on all of those gizmo-bells-and-whistles that really don't do much for the purpose. Take a Tesla, keep the batteries and charging, but give me a mechanically-driven speedometer and odometer, a nineties-era car stereo (with EEPROM for remembering the stations and a tiny CR2032 for keeping the clock running) and manually-controlled air conditioning and heat.
I don't need the touchscreen, the nav system, the multi-zone climate control, the internet connection, any of that stuff. I need the car to be comfortable, to work when I get in to drive, and to function properly.
And for those who'll argue, "but it's a luxury car! It has to have the electronics," I counter bullshit. My expensive bed doesn't have electronics, neither does my whirlpool bathtub, or my wetbar, or any of a huge number of other luxuries that I have afforded myself over the years. It needs to be simple, elegant, and to always work. It can be wrapped in expensive leather and finished with exotic wood and given the best comforting suspension and sound-insulated to almost silly levels without a single bit of electronics.
If the electronics compromise the basic function of the car then some serious reconsideration needs to be made for their inclusion.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Or in terms slashdot can understand: it's like when your online girlfriend tells you she's a hot chick but when you meet for sex, it's actually a dude.