Slashdot Mirror
Consumer Reports Says Tesla Model S Is Best Overall Vehicle
cartechboy writes "When one thinks of Consumer Reports, refrigerator ratings and car seat reviews usually come to mind, but the organization actually reviews cars too. In fact, it just released a new round of top vehicle picks and it said the Tesla Model S is is the Best Overall Car you can buy. It's unusual, to say the least, for an outlet that typically names a Toyota or Lexus to choose an electric car that costs nearly $100,000 in most popular configurations from a Silicon Valley upstart. Interestingly, the Toyota Prius was named the Best Green Car. Isn't the Model S green? But I digress. A company that many thought would be bankrupt and closed by now has produced a brand-new electric car from scratch that Consumer Reports feels is the best car it's actually tested since 2007."
$100K car is better than a bunch of $20-30K cars.
"f you wanna live, you'd better step on the gas! Oh wait, is this a Tesla? Shit! Well press on the prissy pedal!" - Cartman
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Interestingly, the Toyota Prius was named the Best Green Car. Isn't the Model S green? But I digress
Because the Prius is completely ordinary (or even sub par) in every aspect EXCEPT for it's "green" profile.
The Tesla S is a genuinely great car. From power to handling to in vehicle infotainment systems, everything in the Model S is top notch.
That might be related to the price tag of a Model S being about triple that of the Prius, but hey, you get what you pay for.
This signature is false.
Correction: Hybrid cars can be greener than electric ones. I'm sure you didn't mean to lump the hybrid SUVs in when you blanket claimed all hybrids were greener than all electrics. Especially since technically a golf cart should also count as an electric car (or at least could be retrofitted into one) and that would definitely be greener, if a bit less refined than a Tesla.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Where are the other cars with interesting technology? Having stories for run of the mill ICE cars would be a mistake. But geeks do tend to be interested in EVs and AVs.
Consumer Reports controls the Nobel prize committee, or at least did in 2008? Whoa, when did that happen?
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Are you saying that boring cars that aren't EV / Hybrid / Autonomous are really that interested to the "news for nerds" crowd? For that matter, what about Ford F-150 story? That's definitely not EV / Hybrid / Autonomous, unless you count the little spies built into the vehicle. But go ahead. You were busy trying to downplay the newsworthiness of a vehicle which manages to impress everybody despite a sizable contingent devoted to grinding all EVs into dust.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
So, the best car overall is a $100,000 luxury vehicle that can drive, at most, 4 hours and then needs to recharge for 5 hours??? Obviously Consumer Reports has a different set of standards than 99% of people who live in North America. Most of us are lucky if we afford one car worth $30K, let alone two (Tesla for city driving and another one for long distance).
I thought that the Consumer Reports mission was to test and report on consumer items not luxury goods...
I wanted to read TFA (no, I'm not new here) to see if they said anything about that... but apparently CR can't take a slashdotting? Lame.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
It's a big deal because a year later, lots of people STILL think it's the best car on the market.
I don't respond to AC's.
The Consumer Reports article plus solid financial news and analyst forecasts for Tesla today and widely circulating speculation about their planned Gigafactory to be announced in a couple weeks with an aim of cutting battery costs by at least 50%, all lead to a surge in the stock today (2/25).
Even the confirmation that the Model X would indeed not surface until 2015 seemed to have no effect.
The stock was up as high as 17%, and closed up just under 14% (+$30 on the day to $248). With Morgan Stanley estimating a $320 price there is probably significant growth left, It seems they will have no problem funding that 5 to 7 Billion dollar battery plant. The "giga" refers to Tesla's need to build the equivalent of all of the world’s current production of lithium ion batteries under one factory roof. May be time to invest in on Lithium stocks as well.
Of course, the next drunk that crashes his car and lives to watch it burn will provide a stock dip, but that just sounds like importunity knocking.
Still, I predict Haters going to Hate. They should be arriving in about 3 seconds.....
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I have yet to meet anybody who thought Tesla "would be bankrupt and closed by now" who wasn't actively scheming toward that end. And yes, FUD counts as actively scheming.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Your typical power station is much more efficient in converting fossil fuels into electricity than a typical ICE is at converting fossil fuels into kinetic energy.
Coal Power: 40-45% efficient
Natural Gas Power: 50-60% efficient
ICE: 25-30% efficient
Even with transmission loss, you are still ahead of the efficiency game compared to an ICE.
I have to disagree with you there. The Hennessey Venom GT's 270.49 mph run on the space shuttle landing strip was a far more interesting technological accomplishment than this, and completely ignored by the Slashdot editors. Why should a car somehow count as "interesting technology" because electricity makes it go? So what, golf carts can do that.
Alright Mr. Pedantic, let me fix that headline for you:
"Consumer Reports Says Tesla Model S Is Best Overall Land-based Self-moving Street-legal Consumer Vehicle"
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Is Tesla and their cars great because they have to be -- selling a new kind of car at a high price to a customer base that demands to be catered to, in small enough quantities to care?
Or are they great because they're doing it better and even if some magic happens to the basic technology and they can sell a mid-sized sedan with model S specs in the mid-$40s will they still be great, or will they just devolve into yet another car company with all the car company shenanigans?
Or, to put it another way is the Tesla S a really great car with a great ownership experience and can owning any future Tesla aimed at the larger marketplace remain this way?
The Hennessey Venom GT's 270.49 mph run on the space shuttle landing strip was a far more interesting technological accomplishment than this, and completely ignored by the Slashdot editors.
It might be interesting for gear-heads. It's not interesting for geeks. Perhaps you're on the wrong site.
Why should a car somehow count as "interesting technology" because electricity makes it go? So what, golf carts can do that.
And if golf carts were new, they'd be interesting too.
I haven't driven one but played around with the interior at the mall. The human/car interface is by far the best one I've used. The multitouch screen is responsive and intuitive. The material quality is top of the line. I totally would buy one if I had the money.
CR is paywalled. Have to subscribe to read the full report.
Learn to love Alaska
... and that even includes surveys from pretending-to-be-non-profit-organisations, as recently exposed about the ADAC "Car of the Year" survey.
We haven't had any major technological investments in propulsion of any type for a long time now, so going by your criteria we haven't had anything interesting happen in about 40 or 50 years now related to vehicular transportation.
The reason they gave the Prius "most green" is that is green in many areas - city, country, and for long commutes.
In the True West (BC, WA, OR, CA) the Tesla S would be greener, in that we have cheaper electricity that is anywhere from 2/3 to 99.8 percent green (hydro, wind, solar) and we have the highway infrastructure of Tesla charging stations to allow long drives (say from Vancouver BC to San Diego CA) on all electric without more stops than a gas powered car would use.
Different measures. If you lived in a place where your electricity for most of your trips came from coal or natural gas, you'd want to buy a Prius.
Note: a 60 mpg car (they do exist in Canada) that you own for 10 years is greener than a full electric car that you power with coal-based electricity.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Best vehicle does not imply it can do everything every other vehicle can. If that was a necessary qualification, then no vehicle could ever be awarded a "best" award.
You know, its priced at 89K, but that does not indicate its cost, so your analysis is at best flawed, and that's being generous.
Some things are priced simply to get what the market will bear.
Other things are priced to hold down demand, because they have only managed to build 30,000 of them, and they believe quality is more important than quantity.
Some things are priced to pay back the investment, so that they can expand and add new production capacity and build battery plants.
Somethings are priced high so that the labor can be paid a good wage.
But very few things (other than commodities) are priced based on the cost of raw materials that went into them.
Next time you go shopping, wander into a jewelry story and look at a Rolex (any Rolex) and compare it to a similar sized watch.
Then come back and tell us how price is a good indication of resources consumed.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Ok. The Tesla S is the best vehicle that does not require either a ground support team, a special license or a two man crew.
You're talking about a scam in a Tesla article and mention Le Car and the Nobel Peace Prize? Do you know what the definition of a scam is?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I'd argue that the new electronic (no mechanical link) steering and ability of the car to drive itself under certain conditions make the Infinity Q50 worthy of a mention. It's at least as geeky cool as coupling a battery to an electric motor.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I get the Slashdot love for autonomous cars. Running off of computer, pushing the limits of AI, society having to come to terms with legal and liability issues raised by new technology. Good stuff.
But why should running off of electricity somehow make a car interesting? Because it's "new"? No, people have experimented with electric cars since the 19th century, the main difference now is we have batteries that make it semi-practical. Because storing power in a battery gives it something in common with geeky devices like laptops and tablets? Because some geeks also happen to be into environmental causes? Seriously, what is so exciting about this car that it gets so many Slashdot stories?
Home version:
"It was on sale for 50% off, so I was able to buy it with the money I saved!"
Silicon Valley version:
"We lose $40 on each one but we make it up in volume!"
(see Osborne Computer)
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
And now CR Best Overall? Tesla's on fire!
*ducks*
I am Audience.
And it starts at $50,000 (take-home price for most people.) Still well in to "luxury" territory for most people, but it's disingenuous to always refer to it as a $100K vehicle.
I can only go by what was printed in the article. If the true take home cost is $50,000 after rebates, tax deductions, etc. then that makes it more affordable. But I can't find anything that backs this figure up.
expanding that to best vehicle is beyond absurd.
Not half as absurd as your examples.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Because in terms of geeky, nerdy topics of discourse, Tesla Model S pretty much is the perfect trifecta: environmentally clean, advanced (computer) technology, and cars. The only thing that's anywhere near as close is Google's autonomous car, but that only hits two of the three, and doesn't have nearly as much going on around it as the Model S currently does.
Oh yeah, Tesla is also something of an underdog, taking on Big Auto and Big Oil at the same time.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Besides how much the car costs how much does it cost to get your electrical installation in your house upgraded to support charging the car? (My house was built in the 50s and it can barely handle the load of a modern house. I'm thinking I'd need to upgrade it if I want to have a tesla. I know I have to upgrade it if I wanted to add central air.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
The cheapest Tesla can be had after credits for about 60 grand. It's just that most people don't want the small 40kWh (software limited 60kWh) battery.
I get the Slashdot love for autonomous cars. Running off of computer, pushing the limits of AI, society having to come to terms with legal and liability issues raised by new technology. Good stuff.
But why should running off of electricity somehow make a car interesting? Because it's "new"? No, people have experimented with electric cars since the 19th century, the main difference now is we have batteries that make it semi-practical. Because storing power in a battery gives it something in common with geeky devices like laptops and tablets? Because some geeks also happen to be into environmental causes? Seriously, what is so exciting about this car that it gets so many Slashdot stories?
It isn't that it runs off of electricity -- it's that it does it in a way that is comparable with an ICE vehicle, combined with the development strategy that Musk uses at the company, plus the fact that this is an OTA reprogrammable software-controlled drive-by-wire vehicle.
Basically, there's a lot of nerdy stuff going on here, and nerds are interested in how it turns out. If this were done in an ICE vehicle, there'd probably also be a significant amount of interest -- but all the traditional manufacturers tend to stick to traditional design, manufacturing, and development methods (we even had a slashdot article on this exact issue not too long ago). Batteries? They're really not what all the hoopla is about. Nerds are fascinated by design and implementation, not by batteries.
As for your last question... Nissan is apparently asking the same question :) I hope they find the answer, as it would be great to have competition in the "let's do things in a new way" department.
Think of it as Indy music vs the RIAA, but swap Tesla in for the Indy producer and the MV conglomerate for the RIAA. Same story, different industry. So far though, the MV industry seems to be getting it, even if they're moving slowly. Probably due to the fact that our lives are on the line in their industry.
Because of Musk. Geeks have also a thing for famous people voyeurism, just not regular star or singer.
I'm not sure how many people are interested in the electric motor in the Tesla; I'm not. I'm more interested in their development methodology and their software/hardware interface.
That said, the Q50 is indeed worthy of a mention -- why not submit a few articles about it? After all, that's what gets Tesla mentioned -- people find it interesting enough to submit articles until a few of them stick to the front page.
Tesla's are expensive due to:
1-Extensive Aluminum construction, Aluminum is called bottled electricity due to costing far more in electricity than anything else to make it. But Aluminum can be recycled. And electricity could come from solar, wind or nuclear. Steel pretty much needs to be made with coal (metalurgical coal), melting aluminium doesn't require putting all that electricity in again
2-Battery components are expensive, but much like Aluminum, can also be recycled
And yeah, Tesla is expensive because it's a startup company that is growing with cash flow instead of borrowed money. They already have a 25% gross margin on the car. And unless they drop the price, in 3 or 4 years that margin should get above 30% with the battery cell cost reduction from the giga factory and other economies of scale.
Sure, Steel can be recycled, but it's not as expensive to make to begin with.
Musk said raw materials alone on a li-ion battery pack costs US$ 80 / kWh, or US$ 6800 on the big 85 kWh alone. I bet the aluminium costs another US$ 25k.
But there's one factor you are ignoring. A Tesla durability should easily exceed a regular car except for the battery pack and motor, Aluminium doesn't corrode like steel (over decades).
Tesla already states that except for the battery, the model S should last 15 years, essentially requiring replacing the motor by then.
If you keep your model S for 15 years and drive about 20k miles / year, just the hard cash savings on gas and maintenance will fully pay the car compared to a non hybrid car. For a heavy commuter or a cab, it might pay itself (as in the whole cost of the car) in 10 years.
If you want to be green, keep your car for 10 years or more.
First and foremost it is considered a disruptive and transformative technology; it's one of Elon's pets; and it's an aspirational product for geeks. All of which, but especially the first point mean that any Tesla article will attract a sizable crowd.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
My typical powerstation is horrible at converting fossil fuels to electricity.
Now rain water, that it converts very well.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I get the Slashdot love for Tesla. Running at usable power, pushing the limits of electrochemical storage, society having to come to terms with legal and liability issues raised by an unusual business model. Good stuff.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
"When one thinks of Consumer Reports, refrigerator ratings and car seat reviews usually come to mind"
...wait, they review car seats too?
Actually i bought my subscription to Consumer Reports specifically because of the car reviews, and if i were to name the top two things that come to my mind when i think of them it would probably be cars and TVs.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Sadly, it's said to have vague and inconsistent steering feel and the hybrid doesn't get particularly exciting mileage. The Q50 is a yawn of a car.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
the fact that electric cars are no greener than what the energy company uses to generate and transport electricity.
An electric vehicle powered entirely by coal generated electricity creates less pollution and CO2 than a Prius. Coal plants are rapidly being replaced by natural gas, which is far cleaner. West of the Mississippi, a much larger percentage of our power comes from nuclear and hydroelectric.
The current process of creating lithium ion batteries isn't as clean as we'd like. That's not a problem with electric vehicles. That's a problem with how we currently make those batteries.
People have known for a long time that putting enormous turbochargers into a small light car can make it go very fast. I like the Venom GT and read about it on /r/cars this week- but this isn't the right crowd.
Have you ever seen a golf cart do a quarter mile in 12.5 seconds? I haven't.
Well, I drive a yawn of a car (two, actually) - but it can't drive itself!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Consumer Reports has been reviewing cars forever, and I relied on them for my first two car purchases. Then I zeroed in on a Jeep (needed to get into the back country) and CR went out of its way to expressly say "DO NOT BUY THIS VEHICLE". I bought it anyway, and it was the best I've ever owned. Repair record was not perfect but still better than all those previously highly recommended vehicles, and the ergonomics were superior to anything I've have before or since. If that same model were still made today I'd buy another.
If you are looking to buy a new vehicle, ignore CR.
Tax credits vary depending on where you live. Regardless, for US customers there's a federal tax credit of $7,500 for personal use EVs. State incentives can bump that up to $15,000. Base cost is $69,000.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Yeah, and most of them have never even driven one! That's what's most amazing.
A fully loaded Fusion Hybrid Energi Titanium is about $35K.
And from 50 feet away it's nearly indistinguishable from a Tesla.
It also has a gasoline engine that'll get me home when the batteries are depleted.
I've seen 'em, sat in them. I think it'd be a tough sell convincing me it's $55K better.
It's easily $55K better. Sorry.
Lithium isn't that hard to extract. ICE cars have usually lousy acceleration starting out of the gate. Electricity can be generated from a lot of different sources.
Actually when you compare a non-hybrid SUV to a hybrid mileage-wise, they are more green because they save more gas. However, that's leaving unchallenged the customer's perceived need to buy an SUV in the first place (not that ther aren't some that do need one.)
Someone had to do it.
Are the ones discussing the fires "slasvertising"? If that were happening, wouldn't the stories be more favorable?
Learn to love Alaska
But why should running off of electricity somehow make a car interesting? Because it's "new"? No, people have experimented with electric cars since the 19th century, the main difference now is we have batteries that make it semi-practical.
So you're saying there's something new now that wasn't possible before?
Seriously, what is so exciting about this car that it gets so many Slashdot stories?
Well, compare it to the other electric cars, and I don't mean golf carts or the ones that were being built in the 19th century. Compare the Model S to its contemporaries, who can and do use the same battery technology that makes electric cars feasible now. The Model S has a much larger range. The Model S accelerates faster. The Model S doesn't make the annoying high pitched sound the Prius does, and is relatively silent. The Model S looks better. The Model S isn't trying to get its range by being smaller and lighter, and is a nice spacious car. Tesla is making it such that you can drive everywhere it not by compromising and making it a hybrid, but by building an infrastructure of chargers and battery swapping stations.
What's exciting about the Model S isn't that it's an electric car. You're right, there's nothing interesting about that. What's exciting about the Model S is that it's a no compromise electric car. It's not just a great electric car, it's just a great car, period. You can't say that about any other electric car. If they weren't electric, you'd steer clear from them because a short-range, small and heavy vehicle is a horrible idea. But if the Model S was an internal combustion vehicle, people would still want to buy it, at that same price point. It wouldn't be making press, but it would still be a great car.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Not a world record, didn't do it twice, not a "production vehicle". Tesla is more interesting because you can actually buy one. The Hennessey is a limited run that looks to be all sold out. You can only get one used, not go out and buy an available new model. When Hennessey makes 500+ of them, give us a call.
Elecrtic vehicles are 100+ years old. Though the second coming of them is much more interesting. The Tesla would replace the primary car in most US households without them hitting limitations on a regular basis. When I was younger and owned an unreliable vehicle, I rented a car for a cross-counrty trip. Why does everyone assume that's a dumb idea? So many places have unlimited miles, rent something better suited to a once-a-year or less event. If we accept that, then the Tesla is a very interesting vehicle. One of the few commercially successful electric cars. Not like the EV1, that was expected to be a failure, so it was never "sold", or so many hybrids they try to hint at the electricness of.
Learn to love Alaska
Yes, and if you note, lots of Google car submissions are accepted.
Learn to love Alaska
... that electric cars are no greener than what the energy company uses to generate and transport electricity.
What's funny is it would take someone only a few seconds to look up the relevant facts, but they never do. If someone is opposed to "green technology," they just let their confirmation bias decide that statements that align with their beliefs are obviously true. ICE engines are incredibly inefficient. All that noise that requires a muffler is wasted energy. All that heat that requires a radiator is wasted energy.Power plants are fairly efficient, as are electric motors. Don't believe me? Run the numbers:
Using the magical power of the internet, we can find out that a power plant burning petroleum produces 12.7 kWh per gallon. Tesla recently drove two Model S cars across the country (3,464.5 miles). The total energy consumed by both cars was 1197.8 kWh. It would take a power plant 94.3 gallons of gasoline (1197.8 kWh / 12.7 kWh / gallon) to generate the electricity used by both cars, so each car drove 3,464.5 miles on the equivalent of less than 48 gallons of gasoline. That's 72 MPG. What 5 seater, high performance, luxury hybrid gets 72 MPG?. It doesn't matter if the power plant is burring coal, power plants and electric motors are so freakin' efficient they blow everything else out of the water. Furthermore, it's much easier to scrub the exhaust of a power plant, than of a car.
And guess what, the US produces energy using all sorts of fuels: coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, wind and solar. Hybrids only burn gas, no alternative. Electric cars are green, get over it and stop spreading FUD to people too lazy to google reliable sources and perform simple math.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
The rich document bags use disproportionately more resources. Targeting them gets the greatest effect per person. And they are some of the few that can afford green. The middle class can't. The poor are green because they can't afford anything.
Learn to love Alaska
I understand you didn't RTFA, but perhaps you can try next time to RTFS(ummary) "the Tesla Model S is is the Best Overall Car you can buy"
CR didn't say it was the best vehicle on the planet, but the best overall car (assumption: within their test criteria).
Learn to love Alaska
Well, I drive a yawn of a car (two, actually) - but it can't drive itself!
Anything less than fullly automated driving is just jerking off, and really a danger as it can lull a driver into a false sense of security. You can compare it to ABS, which certainly has its uses (for example, maintaining control of a vehicle while attempting to brake on snow or ice) but which also doesn't improve accident rates because people count on it to save their bacon in too many situations.
I look eagerly forward to completely self-driving automobiles, although I still think the proper technology for that has been around for many decades and is called rail.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The cheapest Tesla can be had after credits for about 60 grand. It's just that most people don't want the small 40kWh (software limited 60kWh) battery.
It *could* be had for that amount. The 40kWh model was only really "available" for a few days. A few hundred people were grandfathered in.
Does the 25% gross margin include the zero emission vehicle credits that they sell to other manufacturers or is that just gravy?
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
About as green as the mining the coal (not green) for the first battery.
Of course, unlike coal, batteries are 100% recyclable and no longer require large amount of energy to mine and refine the materials. So, for battery 2 and on, extremely green.
I actually sold my other car. In 8 months I had only driven my other car once. I have no regrets. It just wasn't worth the hassle of having my other car constantly in my driveway and paying the registration on it. Since I sold it to a relative I can always borrow it if I need to.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
You can't deny that the engineering it takes to push a car to 270mph is impressive. The make up of the Tesla S is also impressive.
It is not necessary to read about the same model S every day. How about take one of those days to post a story about the Hennessey?
Not to mention the electricity for the Tesla (tada!) isn't free.
24 cents per mile.
Nice try. They measured a drag race up to 111 miles per hour.
Actual representative cost per mile is available here and note that the cost per mile column is in CENTS, not dollars. (That chart largely agrees with Tesla's calculator on their official site.
Its a lot closer to 2.14 cents per mile in my state.
Even in California, where your cherry was picked from the real cost is 3.82 cents per mile.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
If you post a story in which you strongly insinuate that a reviewer is biased, then it's a good idea to either not be biased yourself, or to try to conceal that bias. There are several indications of bias in the post, I only mentioned one, which was to round off the price tag advertised in the review ($89,500) all the way to $100,000, instead of say, to $90,000. The exaggeration obviously helps advance the case further, since $100,000 seems significantly more than $89,500 than $90,000.
Jake Fisher, CR's head of auto testing, put even that drawback in context when he enthused: "If it could recharge in any gas station in three minutes, this car would score about 110."
In a nutshell make the batteries themselves removable and generic, but what do I know. Like everything that requires a standard it ain't gonna happen any time soon until some level of extreme public input makes it happen. The oil companies would crap if all of a sudden there was a simple way to store huge amounts of solar power in local automobile service stations. UNTIL WE GET TOGETHER and stop sucking on the teat of big oil and the industry of wars we will not mature as a civilization deserving of this planet. This is ET is calling and if you don't hear the call you will be left in the dust.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
In the 1960s, the top speed for a wheel driven vehicle (not a jet powered one, but '60s tech driving wheels) was over 400 mph. 50 years later, production cars (which this limited run doesn't even qualify for), are nearing 70% of what was achieved in the '60s. Managing to hit 70% of what was done 50 years ago isn't going to awe me. Top speed is one of the least interesting performance measures of a car. Why would top speed matter in a road car when it's never legal or safe for a car to do it on the road?
Learn to love Alaska
I expected as much, but kept the wording because it was funny.
Learn to love Alaska
First of all, it doesn't take multiple hours of downtime for charging. Generally stops at the Superchargers are only around 30-40 minutes. In the next few months it will only take 90 seconds when battery swapping is added. The Superchargers are also free and guaranteed to be free forever. Battery swapping will cost about the same as filling up a similar luxury car. Besides, usually it doesn't matter how long charging takes. I always wake up each morning to a full tank (or in my case usually 60% charge to help extend the battery life), so to speak. It takes me 5 seconds to plug in at night and 5 seconds to unplug in the morning. In a typical week I spend far less time waiting for my car to charge than I do waiting to fill up my gas car, which I've sold since I drive it so rarely now. In the cross country trip Tesla spent 80% of their time driving and 20% charging while driving through some fairly nasty weather. If you stop for the night, as most drivers do, then you wake up in the morning with a full tank. Tesla's sales have been anything but a flop. They can't make them fast enough. They're outselling the gasoline cars in their class by a fair amount and they're making a decent profit from each one sold (over 25% margins).
Add to that that there's not much that can keep up with it, gasoline or electric. Most electric cars aren't selling all that well because they have poor range, poor battery life, or are just plain ugly. They're econoboxes that can't go 100 miles. For example the battery in the Leaf is only warrantied for 5 years and people are seeing significant degradation after only two years in hot climates.
The model S does not have any of these compromises. The car handles beautifully and is very responsive with quality materials and it looks great, not like a frog, even though it has one of the lowest coefficients of drag of any car out there. It has tons of room since the battery is a flat skateboard under the car with an electric motor the size of a watermelon that delivers 445 ft/lbs of torque, 416HP with minimal transmission losses. The climate control works well as does the user interface which is extremely responsive (it's based on Qt and runs on Linux on a Tegra 3). Driving it is a blast, especially with 0-60 in 4.2 seconds (3.9 according to Car & Driver). While the range is typically around 240 miles of real-world driving that's not that different than many ICE cars I've driven. The response is instantaneous. There is no lag. There's very little maintenance required other than rotating the tires and replacing the cabin air filter and wiper blades. The brakes should last nearly forever due to regenerative braking. The one-pedal driving of the car is quite addictive. It lets you configure how it behaves as well, like if you want strong regeneration or not if you let off of the gas or if you want it to creep forward when you let off the brake.
The Superchargers are usually at locations where there's places to eat and stretch ones legs. On my last trip to Lake Tahoe I stopped in Folsom to charge. By the time I was done with my burger my car was charged and ready to go and there was plenty of range left when I got to my destination at 7200 feet near the summit of Kingsbury Grade.
In the next three months Tesla will have battery swapping between the Bay Area and LA. By the end of the year 80% of the country will be covered by charging. Already the West coast is pretty well covered as is much of the East coast. I can drive from San Diego to Vancouver without spending a dime on fuel and spend at least 75% of my time driving.
The car has a ton of space in it, far more than my Prius ever did. I have far more luggage space, not even counting the frunk, which I find quite useful.
Tesla's goal was to create the best car, not the best electric car. In many ways they succeeded. They've also done away with a lot of things that suck about buying a car like the dealerships and dealing with dealership service. Their warranty covers everything except the wheels and tires and I do me
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
That "prissy pedal" makes the Model S go from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds and do a quarter mile in 12.5s. That's faster than a Porsche 911.
And that's much of why Tesla beats the competition.
Electrtic cars inherently COULD accelerate as much as possible given the coefficient of friction of tires on pavement. Electric motors generally have max torque at stall. All you need is a big enough motor and power supply. (What matters is being able to apply the necesary power during accelleration, which is a whole separate issue from cruising mileage.)
Unfortunately, other electric car manufacturers have been thinking "eco freeks in their underpowered compact and mini cars" and building underpowered electric powertrains. Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, along with the engineering team they assembled, did not make that mistake. Instead they designed a vehicle with the horsepower to have high performance.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Tesla vehicles are not green. The fact that it costs close to $100k should indicate that it is a very resource intensive product.
Actually it indicates that the early adopters are paying for building a car company and designing the car, not just the car itself, This is a proven model for new tech.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The Superchargers are usually at locations where there's places to eat and stretch ones legs. On my last trip to Lake Tahoe I stopped in Folsom to charge. By the time I was done with my burger my car was charged and ready to go and there was plenty of range left when I got to my destination at 7200 feet near the summit of Kingsbury Grade.
Just make sure you don't get stuck anywhere without a charge. I highly doubt that there are roving tow trucks that carry battery packs with them. All you need with an ICE car is a siphon hose to borrow enough gas to get to the next gas station.
A Tesla durability should easily exceed a regular car except for the battery pack and motor, Aluminium doesn't corrode like steel (over decades). Tesla already states that except for the battery, the model S should last 15 years, essentially requiring replacing the motor by then.
That sounds quite awful. My car is 15 years old and hasn't required any major work. Is the 15 year life limit assuming 20K miles per year (so 300K miles, which sounds a lot better), or does it apply regardless of mileage?
This space intentionally left blank
If someone is opposed to "green technology," they just let their confirmation bias decide that statements that align with their beliefs are obviously true.
The problem is that Tesla promotes the car as a "0 emissions" vehicle, as if it runs on unicorn farts and pixie dust. While it certainly produces less CO2 than a gasoline vehicle, most of the coal plants in the US are notoriously filthy beasts and you can feel free to Google what other not-so-nice stuff comes out the business end of a coal plant.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
The thing is that there are more charging spots than gas stations. The car is quite good at telling you how much range is left. What happened to the NY Times reporter was due to his own stupidity. He charged the car for fewer miles than his destination. The car went 20 miles further than it said it could and he blamed the car for the fact that the car said it didn't have enough miles when he started.
In a pinch the Tesla can be charged any place there's an outlet, including all of the RV hookups which are typically NEMA 14-50 outlets or TT-30 outlets. I have adapters for virtually all 110 and 220 outlets including a 20A 110 adapter.
I have never once run out of gas in my 26 years of driving and none of the gas cars I've had told me the number of miles to empty. Only one time have I had to stop somewhere unexpectedly to charge. I knew well ahead of time I would have to do so and ended up having to stop in Monterey for an hour to charge for an hour.
Some trucks are starting to carry generators to charge electric cars in my area.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
So, the best car overall is a $100,000 luxury vehicle that can drive, at most, 4 hours and then needs to recharge for 5 hours??? Obviously Consumer Reports has a different set of standards than 99% of people who live in North America. Most of us are lucky if we afford one car worth $30K, let alone two (Tesla for city driving and another one for long distance).
If you have 70k to drop on a Model S, you'll get a tax rebate back because it's electric and it will save you money over the long run in "fuel" costs. Though, if you have that kind of disposable income, the cost of gas probably isn't stopping you from taking that vacation to Disney World. If you're like me and you cringe every time you stick your credit card into the pump, you probably view the Tesla as just another way that being rich helps the rich stay rich (okay, a game of Monopoly teaches that, too).
In the grand scheme of things, if you care absolutely nothing about being "green" and just want to drop a few grand on something that'll give you a return on your investment, a few computers stuffed with high end ATI video cards mining the crypto currency du jour (probably Dogecoin for the moment) will probably line your pockets way better than the fuel savings of a Tesla Model S. Which leads me to believe people are buying these cars not because of the fuel savings, but because it's a smug status symbol and a decent enough car for its price.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Batteries are energy agnostic. They can get their energy from solar, nuclear or some tech of the future (fusion etc.). In 10,000 years, we'll still be building cars with batteries as the energy provider since they're just so flexible and efficient.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Off the top of my head:
* Much faster chargers than anything else (superchargers)
* Free power at said chargers
* Battery Giga-factory being built soon - equal to the production of all the LIon battery production in the world.
* Safest car ever
* Tons of space in car
* An aesthetically pleasing design compared to other EVs
* Best acceleration for a car in its class (luxury big sedan)
* No dealers to take 15% of cash or each car sold
* Battery at floor of car makes handling amazing
* Range for a single charge (200-300 miles) off the scale compared to other EVs
* Fair pricing (in China, Teslas are not double or triple of the cost of elsewhere in the world)
* Amazing giant screen (e.g: for maps or rear camera)
* Updates over the air
* No noise, exhaust/smell/CO2 and little maintenance compared to even hybrid cars
* Visionary CEO who wants to change the world and get us all off ICE cars ASAP.
Did you know all of those?
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Should be 15 years with higher than average usage.
Elon Musk is known to be very conservative on this kind of statement, so I expect the cars to last even more than advertised.
I believe that doesn't include any types of credits.
It means the average cost of making the car versus the average revenues from selling them.
Of course it indirectly includes consumer credits, since they are a rebate on the sticker price, the consumers get that credit, not Tesla.
True, and counter to my own point, there was a story about an autonomous Nissan in Japan a while back. (Nissan is the parent company of Infinity.)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
and really a danger as it can lull a driver into a false sense of security.
While your rationale seems logical, I have to assume that Nissan has done their homework. If I'm wrong, we'll see cars like the Q50 go the way of the dodo as insurance carriers jack up rates.
I like rail, too, but you have to couple rail with sensible development - and that cat is already out of the bag. Also, the government seems incapable of running these systems cost-effectively. I live in an old suburb with decent rail service every half hour. A 20-minute ride downtown costs about $5, and the same on the way back. Even off-peak, it is almost $4. Take the kids downtown on the weekend (if I plan ahead and get the lower rate from the ticket office) and I'm out $24 for what would be a 6 mile drive. And that's heavily subsidized!
To be fair, the system is geared towards commuters who can buy a pass for around $100/month. That works out to roughly $5/working day, which is 1/2 price. Still only barely competitive with a carpool, which is a shame - though again, to be fair roads are also subsidized somewhat.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It takes very few emissions to send something twice around the world these days. Don't make the mistake of looking at the absolute carbon cost of a modern vessel vs. a single piece of its cargo. A modern container ship can transport somewhere around 18 million cubic feet of cargo from China to the US using ~4,800 tons of fuel (1.3 million gallons). So a gallon of fuel can move approximately 14 cubic feet of stuff from the US to China (or back).
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Your calculation misses some crucial points. .85) ...
Refinery energy losses (typically
Transmission costs (varies by location since most oil is delivered by boat and gasoline is delivered by truck)
Also energy needed to manufacture the engine, refine the steel, etc, pp.
Its telling that the full lifecycle energy cost of a Tesla's power is still better than only one component of an ICE vehicle, don't you think?
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Even their "green" credentials are on very thin ice, what with all those batteries full of Lithium and rare earths that travel all around the world after having been mined and extracted with horrifically polutting methods.
As opposed to oil, which is often extracted with polluting methods then shipped by boat around the world to be refined before being shipped again to its destination? And that happens for every tank, not just for manufacture.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
As long as you consider "no compromise" to mean paying a hundred grand and getting less than 250 miles of range and having to wait extended periods of time to recharge, with the distinct possibility of not having a Supercharger station available before the power runs out. It's a nice car, but it's still not terribly practical for most people.
Most people - especially those in the $80K car market - fly somewhere when they need to go over 300 miles in a single trip without ending up back where they started.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Using the magical power of the internet, we can find out that a power plant burning petroleum produces 12.7 kWh per gallon. Tesla recently drove two Model S cars across the country (3,464.5 miles). The total energy consumed by both cars was 1197.8 kWh. It would take a power plant 94.3 gallons of gasoline (1197.8 kWh / 12.7 kWh / gallon) to generate the electricity used by both cars, so each car drove 3,464.5 miles on the equivalent of less than 48 gallons of gasoline. That's 72 MPG. (...) Electric cars are green, get over it and stop spreading FUD to people too lazy to google reliable sources and perform simple math.
Pot, meet kettle. If we for simplicity's sake assume the oil tanker drove as far to deliver it to the power plant as the gas station, then an apples to apples comparison needs to take into account the 93% average transmission and distribution efficiency of the US power grid and the approximately 80% charging efficiency of the Tesla. So to consume 1197.8 kWh in the car you must provide 1197.8 / 0.8 / 0.93 / 12.7 kWh = 126.8 gallons of fuel at the power station which puts it at a more modest 55 MPG. Yes, power plants are somewhat more efficient but when you include the overhead of producing it one place, sending it by wire, charging a battery wtih it then discharging it instead of just using it directly much of the advantage is lost.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Still only barely competitive with a carpool, which is a shame - though again, to be fair roads are also subsidized somewhat.
Urban roads cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 million per lane mile (and up from there). Also remember that most roads have at least two lanes. Even adding a lane to an existing road can cost ~$5 million per mile. Commuter rail is usually dirt cheap in comparison to road expansion, but since maintenance and construction costs are so much less they have far fewer voices during bond elections than the concrete guys do.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Extracting and refining oil isn't exactly "green" either - especially now that we're used a lot of the conventional sources, and tar sand etc. is getting profitable.
There must be more to it than that. Rail gets taxpayer money - even a piece of the gas tax! I'd be pissed if I lived out in the boonies on some potholed road while my gas tax was going towards rail... I get that point of view. Also, I think your cost numbers are off. I think light rail averages around $35/mile in the US. Wikipedia seems to think that rail and road are comparable when it comes to capital cost/mile.
Maintenance is probably just as important, but I can never find numbers on that. Much of the true labor cost is obscured by pension obligations and the like, which don't always get factored in. Slowly we'll automate the trains like Singapore does, which ought to help quite a bit.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
"getting less than 250 miles of range" That's pretty much like a city driven Ford F150 truck that quite many people use as a commuter car. So, I'd say it's nothing to scoff at. I get only 400 miles on a 20 gallon tank in a Volvo S80.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Wikipedia seems to think that rail and road are comparable when it comes to capital cost/mile.
They are about the same in the worst case, and rail is ten times better in the best case. But the rail would be even cheaper if we were using PRT; you don't have the same requirements for moving people as you do for moving massive cargo. So-called "light rail" is a foolish boondoggle because it doesn't use light rail at all. PRT would also preserve the car companies for a time, permitting them to be phased out gracefully.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sounds exactly like the buzz about Obama back in about 2007...
Yep, and years later, lots of people STILL think he's the best president in over a decade.
We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion.
?? You're really desperate to make Teslas sound terrible. Keeping an eye on an electronic fuel gauge which can tell you exactly how far you can go (as opposed to simply guessing, as in the majority of ICEs) isn't exactly difficult. Plus the tow truck you mentioned can tow a car. Plus ICE cars break down frequently (due to the greater number of moving parts) etc. You really need to try harder. In a few years people will look back at folks like you and scratch their heads that you ever graced the world with your short-sighted, Luddite presence. It's the 21st century. You're boring.
I do like the idea of PRT, but I'm somewhat skeptical due to it not having been implemented anywhere in the world in any meaningful way. Once there are self-driving cars, it will only be a matter of time before we get self-driving cabs - those would be very similar to PRT in practice, and might be a reasonable alternative to car ownership.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Also the subsidies for an ICE (oil and refinery subsidies) vehicle are built into the subsidized fuel price. So the $7,500 electric vehicle subsidy should be included as part of the price as well for an Apples to Apples vehicle cost comparison.
Why does the motor need to be replaced?
Also the subsidies for an ICE (oil and refinery subsidies) vehicle are built into the subsidized fuel price. So the $7,500 electric vehicle subsidy should be included as part of the price as well for an Apples to Apples vehicle cost comparison.
Exactly.
Most of those so called "subsidies" are provided in the form of facilities. Roads.
Take what ever you prefer to think of as a subsidy, and compare it to the cost of roads. The cost to build roads exceeds all other supposed "subsidies" you can marshal.
So since Electric Cars pay no gas tax, you can make the case that tax break they get is exactly backward, and it should perhaps be a $1430 tax bill instead.
The US fleet average for cars 35.6 MPG. (Note: that seems unrealistically optimistic).
The average US gas tax is 49.72 cents per gallon.
Its easy to get 100,000 miles out of current production cars.
So the average car will consume an optimistic 2,857 gallons of fuel over 100k miles, and pay gas taxes of around $1430 to the road maintenance fund.
A more realistic estimate of MPG is probably closer to 20, which would show the ICE vehicle contributing $2,270 to road maintenance over the same 100k miles.
Since there is no reason to expect an EV to damage the roads LESS than an ICE vehicle, they might not be paying their fair share of road maintenance tax. States are already becoming aware of this because gas tax revenues are falling short simply due to better MPG in recent years, and having a whole new class of electric only vehicles is going to impact that shortfall even more.
I think you can expect to see that $7500 tax break disappear over the next few years.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Nerds are often interested in cars. Cars have tech. But pure HP wars aren't nerdy enough for Slashdot. The editors know that anything about any EV/hybrid will generate lots of posts about coal and politics and such, so they encourage/reward them. If the commentators could remain on topic, the number would drop drastically. But we are off topic discussing the related or unrelated stories.
Learn to love Alaska
I've never heard of it, and the things you mention don't even make it into the wiki entry, nor the review I found on Google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Not convinced it has any geek cred so far.
It may be that people that are both gear heads and geeks can't separate the two interests.
Even their "green" credentials are on very thin ice, what with all those batteries full of Lithium and rare earths that travel all around the world after having been mined and extracted with horrifically polutting methods.
Lithium is a finite mined resource, just as fossil fuels are. The difference is that the Lithium in batteries is recycled into new batteries. Fossil fuels on the other hand are used once, then contribute to global warming.
Well, I hope the self-driving cabs (which I agree are likely) are the gateway to accepting PRT. I enjoy my car blah blah blah but cars suck and they will always suck unless we get some really magical energy storage technology. And even then, there's tire dust.
Here's hoping, though.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Here in CT we're still getting our electricity from the Filthy Five power plants http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07... which were exempt from the Clean Air Act in 1977 because they would be shut down for obsolescence "soon". There isn't a car on the road whose exhaust is worse than these babies.
On the other hand, some western location that gets power from Grand Coulee Dam...
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Let's not forget that the subject of this thread is what is interesting technology to talk about on /.
The article we are commenting on is about the Tesla being Consumer Reports best car. Not anything about the tech in the Tesla S, but that it was voted best car by a magazine. Even if it's been bested by a lot, going 270 mph is more interesting than being voted best car by Consumer Reports.
Wear and tear I think. But it's likely they will last much longer if you don't drive much.
The thing about electric motors is they don't have parts that needs periodic replacing, oiling, greasing, but when they fail, it's something critical that shorts, or something serious. If they last 15 years, they are probably designed to be recycled instead of repaired.
But the electric motor is probably cheaper than the battery pack, and the pack is expected to last half as much anyhow.
I apologize if you have already hit your NY Times limit for the month, but here's a pretty decent article describing the features in non-geek terms.
In case you did hit your paywall limit, here's the relevant text:
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Don't forget massive amounts of road salt! :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Yes, but given the number of stories about the Tesla, any news about the CEO, stock price, or awards would likely be gauged to be newsworthy, regardless of comparitive interest of any single story. Once a single subject is being covvered in absurd detail, all details will be covered, without regard to whether any individual detail is newsworthy.
Learn to love Alaska
You've convinced me. That is interesting for geeks. So what it needs is someone like you to submit stuff like this as a story.
No how much CO2 and other contaminants are emitted from a power plant? Does the Tesla recharge itself? Of course it also depends on what fuel the plant uses.
Depends where you live. A number of countries such as Norway and Iceland are 100% renewable for electricity. A few more are in the 90%+ range. Others have committed themselves to 100% by various target dates.
My country, the UK, is doing badly with about 4% renewables. The USA better than the UK, but still fairly poor with about 13%.
Still all of those are better than the Prius, that uses 0% renewables.
Also bear in mind that there are people who charge their EVs at home using their own power from solar or wind. And that some public charging points are similarly 100% renewable.
Note also that the percentage of electricity coming from renewables increases year on year. So will get better over the life of the car.
As my Civil engineering friend would always point out though, gas taxes barely cover a small fraction of a road's expenses. Most DOT construction budgets come out of the general funds.