Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Model 3 Falls Short of Consumer Reports Recommendation (cnbc.com)
Consumer Reports published their review of the Tesla Model 3 today. The product review site liked the vehicle's range of the battery and agile handling, but had issues with braking, controls, and ride quality. Overall, it failed to get a recommendation. CNBC highlights the key shortfalls: "Our testers also found flaws -- big flaws -- such as long stopping distances in our emergency braking test and difficult-to-use controls," said a review in the publication. In particular, the car's stopping distance of 152 feet from a speed of 60 miles per hour was slower than any of its contemporaries, including the Ford F-150, a full-size pickup. The location of almost all of Tesla's controls on a touchscreen and the vehicle's ride quality were also factors in the group's decision. Tesla issued a statement in response to Consumer Reports' stopping distance claim: "Tesla's own testing has found braking distances with an average of 133 feet when conducting the 60-0 mph stops using the 18-inch Michelin all season tire and as low as 126 feet with all tires currently available. Stopping distance results are affected by variables such as road surface, weather conditions, tire temperature, brake conditioning, outside temperature, and past driving behavior that may have affected the brake system. Unlike other vehicles, Tesla is uniquely positioned to address more corner cases over time through over-the-air software updates, and it continually does so to improve factors such as stopping distance."
Most people buy Tesla's to be cool, not to be practical.
Table-ized A.I.
CR doesn't accept manufacturer-provided samples for testing. They pose as a buyer and buy the product just as a regular customer would. This includes cars. So the car they test in their review is a true random sample. If Tesla is getting 133 ft stopping distances in their internal testing, while CR got a 152 ft stopping distance, that would suggest a QA problem at Tesla is resulting in large variability in the effectiveness of the brakes. Which given all the problems they've had with their Model 3 production wouldn't be that surprising.
Unlike other vehicles, Tesla is uniquely positioned to address more corner cases over time through over-the-air software updates, and it continually does so to improve factors such as stopping distance."
Eyeroll. I'm sure you'll be able to make major changes to stopping distance via a software update.
Fly my pretties, fly!
Were they using Chrome on the car, with custom settings?
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Even if the 133 feet stopping distance is the correct one that really is quite woeful for a car that size though at least it would then be slightly better than the F150.
Oh Noes !
Some not-very-cheap car that you can only buy next year (if you're lucky) has the same stopping distance as a Ferd F-teenthousand.
But when will we see Slashdot articles about the New Dacia Sandero ? (read last part in James May's voice)
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
From MotorTrend's testing:
They measured an average braking distance of 119ft, vs. 123 ft for the BMW 330i.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against CR. But their testing mechanisms often seem really poorly controlled. Which can go either way - they found a 350 mile range for the Model 3 LR with 18" wheels, which is well further than normal. Their range measurement isn't a drive cycle, it's just a guy driving, which is obviously going to introduce a lot of randomness. One likes to hope that their braking tests are better controlled, but somehow I doubt that. They got hugely divergent braking distance results on the Model 3, with their first measure being around 130 feet, but others much higher dragging the average up.
Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
I see another flaw right there, but this one is not Tesla's fault.
#DeleteFacebook
The Chevy Bolt EV has a stopping distance of 128 feet. Has a range of 238 miles (Tesla Model 3 range is 220 miles), normal controls just like in any other car, comes with cruise control (Tesla Model 3 only does if you include autopilot), and does not restrict your right to repair like Tesla does. You can buy it right now for $37k (Tesla Model 3 starts at $35k) with no waiting period. Most importantly, you will never have to deal with that weasel Elon Musk.
Teslas probably use some combination of regenerative braking and traditional friction brakes with brake pads. This smells like the automated system isn't aggressive enough in engaging the friction brakes when the pedal is hit hard -- they probably prioritize using the brakes to recharge the batteries and not wearing out the brake pads. Maybe the software needs to be rewritten to prioritize friction braking when the pedal is pressed "suddenly."
As far as the giant LCD, it's abominable. It intrudes into the passenger and driver seat spaces and is likely easily broken due to its design. I've often put furniture or even lumber into a car's front passenger seat -- in the Tesla, this would virtually guarantee damage to the screen. It's also not tactile and hard to use with gloves on in winter.
The 2018 Leaf has a much more practical interior, even if it's not artsy-fartsy minimalist.
Lets keep in mind that the Model 3 is really a $75,000 car. It is NOT a $35,000 car. You cannot buy one for $35,000 (and it may never become available at all). Meanwhile other companies are producing affordable EVs, right now. Nissan and Hyundai have EVs that you can buy today starting at around $30,000. Ford and Chevy also make affordable EVs. The Chevy Bolt is around $38,000.
Tesla is a terrible investment. They are stopping their Model 3 production line again. Executives and engineers are leaving. They just put their Fremont factory up as collateral against their lines of credit.
The location of almost all of Tesla's controls on a touchscreen
I want controls you can adjust without looking, and with gloves in the winter. Why is every car getting away from usability? It is a horrible trend.
Also if the brakes are simply under sized, how is that fixed with a firmware update?
Here's the video on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojaU187nnEk
They wanted a controversy so that they drive up circulation numbers. Here's the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Motor_Corp._v._Consumers_Union_of_the_U.S.,_Inc.
Hydrogen? Really? You know, we've been there, done that. We had hydrogen powered cars driving around in the late '70's and '80's - gov research programs after that little oil embargo dust up. We even had cryogenic liquid fuel tanks that could keep most of the fuel from evaporating away for weeks at a time, and when a little did evaporate away it went through a nickel catalyst and was converted to harmless water.
Don't even think about compressed gas storage or porous adsorption techniques. The volumetric efficiency of the cryogenic liquid is bad enough. Compressed gases and adsorption storage in a typical vehicle might rival the range of a bicycle day trip. Maybe.
A minor change in metallurgy was required to keep turbo charger vanes from failing due to hydrogen embrittlement. Any internal combustion engine can be converted (hint - change your ignition timing to about ZERO degrees before tdc, and reduce or eliminate the vacuum/throttle advance. Hydrogen burns so much faster than traditional hydrocarbons that any timing advance will result in a broken crank). They burn cleaner, last longer, and don't need oil, right? And fuel cells are even better, right?!
Wrong!
Without truly massive investments in nuclear or other power plants to make hydrogen, and an equal investment in all new distribution systems for hydrogen, hydrogen is otherwise made by reforming natural gas and coal flue gas. Yeah, let's do that!
Except lots of studies and research has shown that converting a hyrdrocarbon to hydrogen, then pumping and shipping it around, is far less efficient and far more polluting than just charging batteries. Fuel cells don't change this reality. Also, how come we don't see fuel cell power plants? Hmm, that's curious!
Hydrogen is an Exon Mobile unicorn. Oil companies _love_ the prospect of a "hydrogen" economy.
I know, hydrogen is the fuel of choice for the Tesla haters. It's sad, really. I want you to have your unicorn, I really do, so here you go:
http://pbfcomics.com/comics/th...
I just took my brand new Tesla Model 3 on a 260 mile round trip business trip. No charging needed, but if I did need a charge I had my choice of 3 different superchargers all along my route, and this was not in or near CA or the East coast.
Supercharging a Tesla M3 takes about 30 minutes, not hours.
As for only premium, expensive Tesla model 3's being currently available - that's because they've already sold 400,00 of these cars. This was, and still is, the largest product launch ever.
It is not a crime to clean up crap punctuation before posting. If you don't see anything visibly wrong here, please view it in a browser on a Windows PC.
nd flawsâ"big flawsâ"such as
Every single car I was interested in was belittled and not picked, but oh boy do they love Lexus and BMW sedans and similar styled vehicles. If you prefer another type or make of vehicle look elsewhere for unbiased opinion.
Since the original went over like a lead mod point, let me rephrase it: "Most people buy Tesla's to try to be cool, not to be practical."
Table-ized A.I.
Maybe the brakes have been move to the touch screen as well, and the test driver had gloves on?
The next model should be gaze controlled. You want to turn left, just look that way. That would be very cool indeed.
Is that like Upgraadde with a Double D for the Double Dose of Pimping. This one has a double Acent Grave for the Double Dose of Awesome
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
how about you give me the best stopping distance you possibly can without my having to wait for a software update?
A long time ago I saw a joke in either Car & Driver or maybe it was Road & Track. In the background were several bespectacled men in white lab coats with clipboards making notes as cars were being driven off a cliff. In the foreground are two guys. One says to the other, "Oh, that's just Consumer Reports testing cars again"
And as for their "statistical analyses" they are a joke. They only survey CR subscribers. They won't disclose their numbers. They won't disclose their methodology. They seem to feel it is all proprietary. And it goes without saying they have no numbers at all on the Model 3. It's too bad people take these jokers seriously.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
One of my vehicles is a 2004 Mitsubishi Endeavor. CR gave it a Do Not Buy rating about 167,000 miles ago.
This SUV has been a beast, plowing through snow drifts in Michigan and sweltering heat in Texas. I would buy another one in a heartbeat.
Sure, with stopping distances that long you're bound to get a few thrills while gaining on that semi up ahead.
I'm FAR more inclined to believe testing done by car enthusiast magazines like Car & Driver or Road & Track than anything out of Consumer Reports.
This is the same group that consistently gives a "do not recommend" type rating to the Jeep Wrangler, despite it being Chrysler/Fiat's flagship best seller and money maker that keeps the whole business afloat as they try to restructure.
C.R. is too focused on their subjective list of key points THEY feel are the only ones car buyers need to be concerned with. This leads to them giving top ratings to some of the most bland, boring boxes on wheels to ever hit the roads while not comprehending at all what makes a vehicle desirable to a big segment of the population.
(The Wrangler will ALWAYS fare poorly in C.R. testing because they don't like things like the poor fuel economy and harsh ride, or the "sparse interior". Clearly, they don't understand the interest people have in owning a vehicle that's capable of driving off-road in places few other motor vehicles can go? Just last week, all the rain we got flooded out the only roads back to our house. Many cars were stranded along-side the highway. My wife was coming back from a meeting and in her Wrangler Unlimited, was able to drive right through, once she determined the water wasn't much more than 14" - 18" deep. Wranglers are designed to be able to do water crossings with up to 30" of water. They also fail to understand the interest in the configurability of a Wrangler. You can use it like a convertible with the soft top down, or put a hard top on it and have it act more like a traditional SUV. You can take just the front panels off the hard top and have the equivalent of t-tops or a sunroof. You can take the whole top off completely if you prefer. Even the doors can come off and the front windshield could even be folded down if you desired. What other vehicles offer all of that?)
I just bought a used Model S (P85D) and I'm no expert on it, by any means. But from driving it so far, I got the impression that the regenerative braking wasn't factored in as part of the total stopping distance they measure/report?
You can disable that feature at will, since some drivers find it difficult to get used to or just don't care for it. And yes, they turn it off for nearly full batteries too. (The default settings on the Model S only allow the battery to charge up about 90% of the way. So there should usually be a margin there.... They recommend that since fully charging the battery isn't good for it, long-term.)
I had to do a panic stop on the freeway in it, thanks to everyone suddenly slamming on their brakes in front of me, and it certainly seemed to me like the resistance provided by the regen braking wasn't much of a contributor to the force needed to stop the car quickly.
This points to 'coefficient of friction' variance in Tesla 3 choice of OEM tire and the rubber compound thermal characteristics supplied to Consumer Reports rather than mechanical, software or ABS system. After all, Consumer Reports recorded deadSTOP by its own test data which 119 ft was reported.
Tesla have three choice of actions: Do nothing, Market safety first, Mfgr safety data specification for OEM standard.
No. No. No. No. You're holding it wrong (that's a reference to the antennae issue with an early version of the iPhone, for those who didn't get it :-).
Tesla has become the new champion of 'courage' in product development.
Attempt #3: "Most Tesla buyers do not buy them for their practicality, but instead for some form of "coolness", as perceived by themselves and/or those who see them with the car."
Attempt #4: "Most Tesla buyers do not buy them for their practicality, but instead for real or perceived coolness, social cred, and/or a fashion statement."
Table-ized A.I.