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."

Comments

Won't matter

[Tablizer]

Most people buy Tesla's to be cool, not to be practical.

Re:Won't matter

[DontBeAMoran]

You prefer coal batteries?

Re:Won't matter

[HornWumpus]

You don't know much about Tesla (the man) do you?

Re:Won't matter

[LynnwoodRooster]

He meant virtue signalling, which some this is also cool...

Re:Won't matter

[Bing Tsher E]

Tesla was a talented engineer and scientist in his younger years and up into middle age. But he faced attacks and opposition from people like Edison and degenerated into a weird crank in his later years. He ended his life with the same reputation as Aleister Crowley or Madam Blavatsky, and the coffee-table books about Tesla on the remainder table at big-box bookstores have the same occult aura about them.

Re:Won't matter

[50000BTU_barbecue]

"Hydrogen"??? People still cling to that debunked nonsense?

Re: Won't matter

[c6gunner]

Hydrogen had incredibly low energy density. If you don't know that you probably shouldn't be commenting on these topics.

Re:Won't matter

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Since when are Tesla cars cool?

Since they have a coolant loop in the battery?

Re:Won't matter

[K. S. Kyosuke]

People who argue for hydrogen vehicles seem to have little awareness of the network effects and complementarity and substitution involved. You either produce the hydrogen by traditional or clean means. The traditional means make your car not much better than a gasoline more car, but it is still very expensive. The clean means by virtue of complementarity and networks involved simultaneously strongly props up battery powered vehicles. But the battery vehicles still enjoy twice the roundtrip efficiency and diminished cost of infrastructure. So why exactly would hydrogen be the strongly preferred alternative? With sole the exception of range being comparatively high, it loses on all points.

Re:Won't matter

[dgood]

I prefer hydrogen because I can refill it to maximum range in under 5 minutes. I think if they can get electric cars to fully charge in under 10 minutes there won't be any reason for fuel cell cars. It'll mainly depend on whether researchers can accomplish that before they find a way to more efficiently produce hydrogen via renewable means. There's work ongoing on finding better catalysts for electrolysis that looks promising as well as other ways of producing hydrogen efficiently. It seems to me that it'll be easier to do that than to come up with the means to quickly transfer huge amounts of electrical energy without damaging the battery, but time will tell.

Re: Won't matter

[c6gunner]

Yep, what the other guy said.

Re: Won't matter

[c6gunner]

No, you're just badly misinformed. Volume is the limiting factor, not weight. Even as a liquid, hydrogen contains only 1/4 the energy of gasoline by volume. So my 70 litre fuel tank would have to baloon to 280 litres in order to accommodate the same amount of energy. But if we're using liquid hydrogen I can't have a simple relatively thin walled tank like I can with gasoline; I need an insulated tank which also adds volume and weight. Additionally I need added plumbing in order to convert the liquid hydrogen to a gassesous state prior to use, plus I need a safety system for venting pressure when it heats up despite the added insulation.

Gaseous hydrogen avoids all the complexities and added weight of a liquid hydrogen system, but increases the required volume even more.

Either way, the energy density of hydrogen is a huge problem. Only a fool would claim that hydrogen is better because it's "energy dense".

Re:Won't matter

[kaybee]

Do you own an all-electric car? I have had a Model S for 3 years and the inconvenience of an occasional 20 minute supercharger stop is more than made up for by the convenience of never having to go to the gas station

Re: Won't matter

[c6gunner]

Ok so a 4x difference in volume is important according to you. So hydrogen is > 4x better than batteries by volume. case closed.

If volume is as important as you suggest where do they put all those batteries.

That's a very good point, but there are a couple of key factors which significantly change the equation:

1. Efficiency of battery to motor is a lot better than hydrogen to fuel cell to motor. The efficiency of a good fuel cell is around 50%. That means roughly half of the volume of gas you're carrying around is wasted when compared to a battery.

2. The fuel cell itself adds volume above what would be required in a battery electric.

3. Fuel cell vehicles still require some batteries in order to take advantage of regenerative breaking.

4. Battery volume is different than hydrogen tank volume in that batteries can be made to roughly fit any shape and contour. Hydrogen tanks have to be roughly cylindrical. You can design the vehicle around the tanks so that they don't waste too much space, but it is much easier to fit batteries into a vehicle vs trying to fit a vehicle around hydrogen tanks.

All of this is nicely illustrated in the real world by the hydrogen vehicles on the market today, such as the Toyota Mirai. The two hydrogen tanks on it weigh more than a full gas tank does in my much larger ICE vehicle, and take up a significant amount of space, yet they deliver leas range than either my gas tank or a Tesla battery.

The lower overall system efficiency of hydrogen (including production, compression, and transportation losses) is also pretty bad compared to batteries, but we don't even have to go that far to see that batteries have a distint advantage.

There are certainly cases where hydrogen may hold an advantage; such as home energy storage and perhaps powering large vehicles like trucks, buses, boats, etc. The larger the vehicle, the less of a factor volume tends to be. But we were talking about cars and, at least in that scope, the energy density of hydrogen is a distinct disadvantage.

Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[Solandri]

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.

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[mellon]

In that case how did they get a car? At this point it's invitation only. I haven't noticed an issue with stopping power—it seems quite good.

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[Anonymous Coward]

Little thing called confirmation bias. You don't want to feel like you've wasted your money, so you tell yourself the stopping power (sic) is good. Doesn't matter what is measured.

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla can't tell the difference between John Smith and Charlie Roberts posing for Consumer Reports. CR probably tossed in for a car as soon as they could authorize the funds internally for the preorder.

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[avandesande]

Probably because a poorly stopping contemporary car still does better than one from 10 or 15 years ago... hence 'seems quite good'

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[HornWumpus]

What? At the performance end, cars ARE stopping a _little_ shorter. Brembo 6 pistons, factory big brakes etc. but 99% tires being better.

Average cars are still average cars. 1 piston calipers, average low cost discs etc. Very little new under the sun. Even active, individual wheel ABS was available 15 years ago. It still isn't on econo cars. The cheap end of ABS is still very cheap. 10 or 15 years ago ABS was already required and standard.

There is a little improvement in tires. But 15 year old cars are rarely on 15 year old tires. If they are, they are rolling hazards.

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[Dare nMc]

Report in 2011 with several cars made before 2003 22 cars that stop better than 100 feet from 60

That is at least 33 feet better than the Tesla, more like over 50 feet. And in a car that out accelerates half of them????

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[avandesande]

2006 camry 144 ft
2018 camry 122 ft

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[scamper_22]

Isn't it amazing how CR idea of testing makes more sense to me than the government testing.

Even for all these emissions scandals that we've been hit with. Wouldn't it make more sense to just take a random car and drive it around the city with some stops and then on a clear highway.

You'd get a pretty good sampling of the needed data. It might not be exact enough to distinguish a car with 7.0 L/100 KM versus 7.2 L/100 KM. But who really cares about that 0.2 as a consumer.

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[farble1670]

In that case how did they get a car? At this point it's invitation only.

How'd you get yours? Maybe they got an invitation?

I haven't noticed an issue with stopping power—it seems quite good.

I'm going to go with decades of experience testing cars over random guy on the internet.

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[avandesande]

standard on 2006 camry really try a little harder before saying something stupid

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[mea_culpa]

ABS came standard on Camry's even in 1998

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[Rei]

(For anyone who cares) - Just minutes ago Musk responded to this:

Very strange. Model 3 is designed to have super good stopping distance & others reviewers have confirmed this. If there is vehicle variability, we will figure it out & address. May just be a question of firmware tuning, in which case can be solved by an OTA software update.

Oh, now another:

Even if a physical upgrade is needed to existing fleet, we will make sure all Model 3’s having amazing braking ability at no expense to customers

Lots of people responding that they think that the CR report is BS because their cars stop better than any other car they've ever had, yadda yadda... but I'm glad Musk isn't being dismissive.

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[Rei]

Another:

The CR braking result is inconsistent with other reviewers, but might indicate that some Model 3’s have longer braking distances than others. If so, we will address this at our expense. First time we’ve seen anything like this.

Also responded to a person who wrote "Elon any chance of adding air compressors at Superchargers to fill up our tires ??" with "Good point. Yeah, we will do that for the bigger locations."

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[AmiMoJo]

It's a little bit scary that an OTA firmware update can alter braking ability. Normally such firmware gets extensive testing...

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[djinn6]

I wonder how reproducible CR's method is. Brake testing is relatively simple, but for fuel efficiency, there are a lot of environmental factors that can affect the results, such as quality of the road surface, minor elevation changes, tire inflation, altitude, air pressure, temperature, wind, size of cars in front of you, quality of the fuel, and driver habits.

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[HornWumpus]

One example proves nothing.

You cherry picked the year and model, right after rollover protection added weight to all cars.

Re: Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[triffid_98]

I have a 25 year old car that does it in 114 so color me unimpressed. It's all about contact patch vs weight unless you're going for repeated stops (aka brake fade), and in an EV one is small (low rolling resistance = more range) and the other is big (lots of batteries = more range).

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[Rei]

How does it make a difference whether the update comes in over the air or whether you have to drive your car in to a dealership?

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[Rei]

More updates after I went to bed:

Looks like this can be fixed with a firmware update. Will be rolling that out in a few days. With further refinement, we can improve braking distance beyond initial specs. Tesla won’t stop until Model 3 has better braking than any remotely comparable car.

Also, Consumer Reports has an early production car. Model 3 now has improved ride comfort, lower wind noise & many other small improvements. Will request that they test current production

To be clear, all Model 3 cars, incl early production will have same great braking ability. Nature of any product, however, is that if you care about perfection, you make constant small refinements. Today’s Model S is far more refined than initial production.

Asked " What’s the explanation for variability in stopping distance?" he responded:

ABS calibration algorithm

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[hackertourist]

But the variability of everyday driving is far more than 0.2 l/100 km. I've seen as much as 2 l/100 km variation on the same stretch of road due to weather (temp, wind) and traffic.

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[Rei]

There was more information after I went to bed (see above). It's #1 - an ABS calibration issue on the vehicles CR had (which appear to be early model vehicles - which also explains the wind noise and stiff suspension, which were fixed in later build vehicles). Tesla already has a fix ready, and plans to start rolling it out in a few days.

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[AmiMoJo]

You wake up one day, start driving to work and surprise your brakes are less effective today!

Japanese Teslas don't get updates these days because the regulator isn't happy about this potential.

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[thegarbz]

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

Or more likely it would represent variances in testing. Where's your control group?

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[jeremyp]

ABS doesn't shorten stopping distance.

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[Rei]

My humblest apologies for reading about - and conveying information about - a topic that I find interesting. I shall chop off my fingers and never post again due to my insolence of A) staying informed and B) writing on-topic posts.

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[farble1670]

Yes, it does.

ABS generally offers improved vehicle control and decreases stopping distances on dry and slippery surfaces

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[Cederic]

It's all about contact patch vs weight

Damn, you mean I wasted all that money getting my worn brake pads replaced?

Re: Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[Rei]

Right. One should totally ignore a company's response to news about said company. That's surely the proper way to be informed about the topic. A fix for the issue coming out in a couple days? Who needs to know about that? Best we all just plug our ears and collectively chant, "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!".

Also, my Tesla Paid Troll Check is late in the mail again. Any clue why that might be? Company must be going bankwupt. :(

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[sootman]

> 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.

OR it suggests a problem with CR's testing. Why would you assume the fault lies with Tesla?

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[tsa]

That's only with inexperienced drivers behind the wheel. That means almost everyone but the best racing drivers though :).

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[houghi]

If you want to compare, you need to have something that is the same to compare. If you do random tests, you do not have a serious test and wasted the money.

So what needs to be done is to refine the test. e.g. not just put a car on rollers and drive 55 MPH for a certain time, but simultate increase and deacrease in speed and also see that wind is accounted for.

The problem you will have is that you then will need to know what an average trip is. Do people look at the speed while accelaration or not? Do they do it on what other cars are doing or what their car is able of doing?
Going from 0-30MPH in a high muscle car will be different when you drive than with a small car, most likely. And that will infliuence the outcome as well.

So to compare, it is still better to have the car coll a fixed speed for a fixed amount of time, as that will give something to compare.

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[Thelasko]

I

Even for all these emissions scandals that we've been hit with. Wouldn't it make more sense to just take a random car and drive it around the city with some stops and then on a clear highway.

This method would certainly find cheating. However, it would introduce a huge amount of uncertainty in the data. The randomness of the cycles would mean the tests wouldn't be repeatable, which is a major element to scientific testing. Furthermore, the low emissions standards mean background emissions are non-negligible. Driving the test vehicle past a power plant could change a pass to a fail.

Real world testing to check for gross failures is a good idea. It's already done for some types of vehicles with relaxed standards to account for the measurement errors. However, the only way to get a true measure on emissions is through testing in a controlled environment.

Vehicle emissions is my profession.

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[stoatwblr]

The very best humans can beat ABS under the very best conditions if they're prepared for it.

As soon as the road gets slippery or the braking effectiveness differs from one side of the car to another (eg: one wheel on paint) ABS _will_ stop you faster. In the latter case a human will virtually always spin the vehicle.

Re: Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[UnknowingFool]

I think one thing CR noted was the high variability in stopping distance. Normally that might mean an issue in the testing methodology but CR has been doing these tests a long time.

Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[gordguide]

If you read the summary (yeah, I know ...) you would have also read that CR (whom I have no love for, as they get so much wrong about so many things) also confirmed the performance of their Model3 by borrowing a consumer-owned Model3 and repeating their tests. Result was essentially no difference; the first braking event was similar to the CR event at 133 feet and all subsequent events were longer, again similar to CR's 150+ feet results.

There was a strange element to this ... CR tried a change in the routine, by making the initial stopping event then (rather than driving for 1 mile to cool then re-testing the brakes) letting the Model3 rest overnight before the second brake test. The second test still had an unusually long stopping distance, again essentially the same as the previous results with their standard test regimen on the two cars under test (theirs and the consumer's).

Re: Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla

[triffid_98]

Provided there was still some pad material on them, um...yes?

Brakes won't stop a car on their own, only the bits they're connected to (tires) can do that. Wider and stickier ones do a far better job.

Really?

[Luthair]

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.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

regenerative braking

Re:Really?

[ShanghaiBill]

regenerative braking

In an emergency braking scenario, the ability of the regen system to absorb energy should never be the limiting factor. Teslas do regen, but they also have brake pads. Sure, you put as much energy as possible back into the battery, but the brake pads should also be engaged so that the limiting factor is the static friction between the tire and the road.

The only software that should matter is the firmware in the ABS. I doubt if that can be modified OTA.

Re:Really?

[dmitrygr]

I doubt if that can be modified OTA.

Prepare to be terrified

Re:Really?

[Dare nMc]

Also model 3 is RWD only. So regen only happens on the rear wheels. Most consider 2/3 of braking force of a hard stop to be from the front wheels.

It is a (relatively) heavy car, granted the F150 is a couple hundred pounds more, but trucks get some big brakes because they often have to stop some big loads and trailers. The Tesla will need similar to compete. But likely do not have as much room behind the front wheels to put them, or the cooling flow.

Re:Really?

[farble1670]

Exactly, Tesla is trying to optimize for two things (energy recovery and stopping). Most other car companies are only optimizing one (stopping).

Your life v. 0.0134% improved range.

Re:Really?

[Bing Tsher E]

Prepare to be terrified

Terrified by OTA brake system hacking by some random thug?

It's not that likely, but it is a possibility that should be heavily guarded against.

Re:Really?

[Bing Tsher E]

Let's be more realistic and talk about 15% improved range. And that toddler that's 130 feet ahead.

Re:Really?

[mea_culpa]

I doubt if that can be modified OTA.

Go ask Michael Hastings

Re: Really?

[The Grim Reefer]

If and kicks on and is incorrectly applying the brake pressure, causing longer distances, that is one thing that can be adjusted remotly.

If it needs an update to fix this, it should have never been sold to a customer.

Re:Really?

[farble1670]

Let's be more realistic and talk about 15% improved range. And that toddler that's 130 feet ahead.

So you think this is the difference between using regen brakes, or not? There's nothing in between, like say using them slightly, slightly less. Or not using them in high-stress braking situations?

Re:Really?

[djinn6]

Doesn't have to be a hacker. Microsoft has blue-screened plenty of people without ever intending to.

Re:Really?

[djinn6]

Exactly, Tesla is trying to optimize for two things (energy recovery and stopping). Most other car companies are only optimizing one (stopping).

Or you know, they can hire engineers with common sense and optimize for stopping distance when you stomp on the brake, and energy recovery when it's gently pressed.

Not to mention other car manufacturers aren't necessarily optimizing for stopping distance, limiting brake wear and minimizing the jolt to passengers are also considerations.

Re:Really?

[HornWumpus]

They should, but apparently haven't. A Tesla S has brakes the same size as a Camaro. A car that weighs 1000 lbs less.

Re:Really?

[thegarbz]

Eyeroll. I'm sure you'll be able to make major changes to stopping distance via a software update.

Are you ignorant of just how much software and fine tuning is involved in the ABS systems that you rely on to bring your car to a stop in these incredibly short distances?

Re:Really?

[Geeky Don]

Eyeroll...they improve acceleration via software updates, why not stopping distance?

Re: Really?

[Barsteward]

Virtually every car manufacturer has had safety recall notices out on its vehicles. At least the brakes worked.

Re: Really?

[The Grim Reefer]

At least the brakes worked.

Tesla should use that as a marketing slogan for autopilot.

Re:Really?

[ShanghaiBill]

it's not to shorten distance but to prevent skidding.

If you prevent skidding, you shorten the distance. For rubber on pavement, static friction is stronger than kinetic friction.

Unleash the Lawyers!

[l0ungeb0y]

Fly my pretties, fly!

Better Check

[mentil]

Were they using Chrome on the car, with custom settings?

Oh Noes !

[psergiu]

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)

Re:Oh Noes !

[gumbi west]

the expensive version isn't exactly a bowl of peaches either, having much higher insurance claims, severity, and totals http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/st...

Meanwhile:

[Rei]

From MotorTrend's testing:

Nine times out of 10, this first brake application and steering cut says most of what I need to know; up ahead are loopy black tire marks where a few notable sport sedans have already half-spun. As the arc of orange cones appears on the right, I straighten my ankle into the brake pedal. The 3’s nose barely sinks, I can lower it like a micrometer, as I’m gauging my stopping rate to within a foot or two. Very precise braking.

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.

Re:Meanwhile:

[Luthair]

They're following an industry standard test.

Re:Meanwhile:

[Rei]

There could be some randomness with the braking distance, and if so, that should be remedied. But Car and Driver did six stops and ended up with an average of 119 feet. It's the difference between the averages of Car and Driver and CR that's strange. Car and Driver found it averaging better than a BMW. CR found it averaging worse than a Ford Pickup. Even if individual braking events are variable, the averages should be much closer than that.

Re:Meanwhile:

[Rei]

ED: Wait, you were linking Motor Trend, not Car and Driver.

Re:Meanwhile:

[Rei]

ED: Other way around. Argh, I give up. Wish you could edit posts here :P

Re:Meanwhile:

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The industry standard set when there is no regenerative braking possible in the cars.

Re:Meanwhile:

[gravewax]

and how is that relevant? all that is relevant is how long it takes for the car to stop. (also note the motor trend one was not average, 119 was the best, it also was between laps as the vehicle and tires were cooling so most likely also done with warm tires).

Re:Meanwhile:

[Cederic]

From the very fucking article you linked:

Chris inserts emergency brake stopsâ"his best in the Model 3, at 119 feet

That's not an average, but hey, keep posting your lies to Slashdot to try and boost the stock price.

I'm genuinely not sure if you're employed by Tesla or just fucking deluded but please, stop spamming every single Tesla article with your bullshit.

Re:Meanwhile:

[goose-incarnated]

I'm curious about how you keep getting +5s on your comments for every Tesla story for obvious incorrect information.

Tell me how I can also get +5s on made-up bullshit - inquiring minds want to know

Re:Meanwhile:

[Barsteward]

Its a pity that more posters don't do the research Rei does, its a subject he seems to enjoy and you could learn something if you read his posts. I'd rather see more informative posts like Rei's than childish troll posts that pollute this forum from idiots that seem to do no research at all.

Re:Meanwhile:

[Barsteward]

He corrected that post. His informative posts negate the bullshit the ignorant anti-tesla trolls post

Re:Meanwhile:

[Cederic]

He corrected that post.

No, he did not. Unless you're sat next to him in Tesla head office and thought he'd already hit 'Post'.

He also repeated it in a reply to another comment in the same thread.

His informative posts negate the bullshit the ignorant anti-tesla trolls post

His posts are miraculously automatically +5 moderated despite being (as I highlighted) bullshit themselves.

His other claims may or may not be factual, I can't be arsed to check; the one I did look at was blatantly lying.

Means I have to immediately give more credence to the people to whom he replies. Maybe they're not the trolls around here.

Re:Meanwhile:

[LinuxIsGarbage]

Craziness! Next you'll want to post Unicode, or punctuation marks on an iPhone.

Re:teslas numbers also bad.

[Rei]

Motor Trend measured an average of 119ft.

â"big flawsâ"

[DontBeAMoran]

"Our testers also found flawsâ"big flawsâ"

I see another flaw right there, but this one is not Tesla's fault.

Hybrid brakes

[b0s0z0ku]

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.

Re:Hybrid brakes

[whoever57]

This smells like the automated system isn't aggressive enough in engaging the friction brakes when the pedal is hit hard

I don't think that Tesla brakes work like that. You lift off the accelerator and you get full regenerative braking. Then you push on the brake pedal and you get brake application. Tesla doesn't modulate the brake pedal for regenerative braking.

Other possibilities: firmware update overnight or bad test methodology.

Re:Hybrid brakes

[110010001000]

LOL. "Firmware update overnight". Pathetic.

Re:Hybrid brakes

[b0s0z0ku]

With Autopilot cars, it's all in software. No hydraulic connection between the brakes and the pedal, 'puker uses an electric motor to "fake" resistance in the pedal. https://teslamotorsclub.com/tm...

Re:Hybrid brakes

[Dare nMc]

Stock model S has similar issues with stopping distance, you need much bigger brakes to stop a heavier car. Most S packages have a seriously up-sized brake package that gets the stopping numbers in the ballpark. Batteries are heavy, tires for heavy cars with low rolling resistance (ie more range) are also not the best at stopping.

Also keep in mind, Model 3 is rear wheel drive only, so regen only happens on the rear wheels. 2/3 of hard braking is generally considered to be front wheels only, so the Tesla needs them front brakes to be solid, regen can't capture much of a hard stop energy from the rear wheels of the car.

Re:Hybrid brakes

[vtcodger]

"... or bad test methodology."

CR is holding it wrong?

Re:Hybrid brakes

[Bing Tsher E]

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.

You evoked fond memories from the past. On a few occasions years ago I hauled aprox. 20 8-foot 2x4s in my Saturn SL2. You could fold down the back seat and run a whole lot of LONG pieces of lumber diagonally forward through the trunk and into the front passenger foot space. Once the first two or three boards are in you can pile in a LOT, and the trunk even closes completely.

Not quite as extreme as when I hauled two Tektronix 500-series vacuum tube oscilloscope mainframes in the trunk of my '84 Jetta GLI, of course. That thing had an immense trunk.

Re:Hybrid brakes

[whoever57]

No hydraulic connection between the brakes and the pedal,

You know that some manufacturers did this decades ago? Citroen and Rolls Royce.

Re:Hybrid brakes

[AmiMoJo]

Maybe they tested with a full battery. When the battery is fully charged regen is disabled or reduced. Same on the Leaf. I think it also reduces when the battery is very cold or hot.

Re:Hybrid brakes

[b0s0z0ku]

French cars aren't known for reliability, Rollers are nice toys for people with more sense than money.

Re:Hybrid brakes

[jeremyp]

What? When I lift off the accelerator, I don't want braking, I want to slow down slowly or not at all e.g. if I am on a slight down hill run. If I want braking, I press the brake pedal with varying degrees of force depending on how quickly I want to slow down.

Given that Tesla's are relatively heavy because of the battery, the idea of applying regenerative braking when you just lift off the accelerator is stupid. Using the kinetic energy off the car to maintain speed will be more efficient than converting it into chemical energy in the battery and then converting it back to kinetic energy via the motor.

Re:Hybrid brakes

[froggyjojodaddy]

I you drive a Hybrid, you want regenerative braking and you get used to the different driving characteristics pretty quickly. My Ford has it and it's pretty inconspicuous - I lift off the gas and the car starts coasting but is regenerating (dashboard indicator animation starts). If I press the brakes slightly, the regenerative motor kicks in harder, but you're still coasting. Press harder still and the physical brakes engage just like a normal car.

You do quickly change your driving habits to account for this. For example, If there's no-one behind me and I see a red light, I'll start coasting really early to get the max regenerative braking. If travelling downhill, again with no-one behind me, I'll let it coast for as long as possible.

The speed loss from regenerative braking is pretty mild. It's much less than I get with my other ICE car in 'sport' mode. When I lift off the gas in that car, it 'blips' up a higher gear at a certain speed and that really feels like it's slowing down.

Re:Hybrid brakes

[BostonPilot]

Certainly this is something people differ on. I prefer the opposite - I like one pedal driving and with the two electric cars I've had (Fit EV and Volt) I would have wanted even more regenerative braking, i.e. I love one pedal driving.

the idea of applying regenerative braking when you just lift off the accelerator is stupid. Using the kinetic energy off the car to maintain speed will be more efficient than converting it into chemical energy in the battery and then converting it back to kinetic energy via the motor.

Yeah, but that's not generally what's going to happen... when you need to coast, you just let off the pedal enough to coast... It's pretty obvious when you have the pedal in the right position... but then when you want to decelerate even more you just let off a little more. It's much more natural than having to move your foot back and forth. Most of the EVs have a drive mode that's similar to what you're used to... like an automatic transmission car, and then they also have a "more regen" mode for people who are used to one pedal driving.

My biggest complaint is that some of the EVs don't have enough regen... it should be a driver setting. I liked the Fit EV which would decelerate going downhill... but even then there were cases that I wish I could have dialed in more regen.

Re:Hybrid brakes

[whoever57]

Paraphrased: "Waaaaaa ...... I want it to behave like my ICE. Change is Baaaaad"

You must drive an automatic. Manual cars slow down when you lift off due to engine braking.

All electric vehicles use regenerative braking when you lift off the accelerator. The original Leaf has a mode that increases the regen braking when you lift off.

The Bolt and Leaf have a single pedal mode which actually applies the brakes when you lift off the accelerator.

Re:Hybrid brakes

[mlyle]

I got a clarity-- it has "paddle shifters" to select how aggressive the regen is. At the most aggressive setting it feels pretty close to being in too high of a gear/getting a lot of engine braking. Really nice to be able to click the paddles three times when I see traffic stopped ahead to get maximum regen.

Re:Hybrid brakes

[mlyle]

Honda Clarity has "paddle shifters" to pick the amount of regen.

Re:Hybrid brakes

[BostonPilot]

Yeah, there's at least one more - maybe the Bolt - that uses paddles to increase the regen - I've never driven one of those so I don't know how good that is...

Re:Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[avandesande]

i would but it looks like a goddam toy... looks like a baby aztec

$75k Model 3

[110010001000]

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.

Re:$75k Model 3

[vtcodger]

Plus which, both Ford and Toyota make plug-in hybrids with msrp around $32,000 that look to be far more practical vehicles for folks that want an EV for local driving, but would like to take the occasional long trip without spending hours hanging out in parking areas in the middle of nowhere recharging their batteries.

Re:$75k Model 3

[jeremyp]

Your pricing isn't reality. It's 35k for the base + 9k for the extended battery + 5k for the premium interior (all of these are required options right now). So $49k min price right now.

It seems to me you have just explained why the OP is correct. It's not a $35k car, it's at least $49k.

If you order the $49k minimum price version right now, when are you going to get it? If I order one, when am I (in the UK) going to get it? I see from their own web site that international deliveries will not start until next year.

My suspicion is that there will never be a $35k version of the Model 3. I don't think that Tesla can make a margin selling it in that price range. And Elon Musk banging on about more expensive high performance versions at a time when they are having trouble fulfilling their existing orders suggests that he believes the same thing.

Re:$75k Model 3

[Rei]

1) No, you don't have to plug your car in every night unless you're driving hundreds of miles per day. Most people *choose to*, but that's an entirely different story.

2) (10 hours/yr * 60 minutes/hour) / 365,24 days/year = 1,6 minutes to plug in and unplug? Way too long. Try 10 seconds to plug in and 10 seconds to unplug. 2 hours per year.

3) The average American drives ~13476 miles per year and the average US passenger vehicle is 24,7mpg; that's 546 gallons per year. Let's guess an average tank size of 18 gallon, with the average person filling up at a third of a tank, or 12 gallons per fillup. That's 45 1/2 fillups on average per year. I've timed a "rush" fillup, from "when you leave the road" to "when you get back on it": the shortest possible detour to the station, not out of way on my trip, small tank car, driving fast, stopping fast, zero line, paying at the same time I remove the gas cap, etc. From "off the road" to "back on it" it was 3 minutes. The average fill is probably at least 5 minutes. 4 hours per year.

4) An EV is charged in the comfort of your garage. The gasoline car requires randomly diverting from your daily routine and standing outside in whatever weather on a dirty concrete platform to pump carcinogens.

5)You have to really struggle to strand yourself with a Tesla in a country which has a supercharger network. Your gasoline car doesn't try to keep you from doing something that will get you stranded. It has precisely one safety: the gas light. Which is entirely context insensitive to your location. Teslas know all charger locations in their network, calculate which ones you can reach, calculate if you need to stop at one and warn you, start repeatedly cutting your power to extend your range as you get near the bottom, etc. A gasoline car does none of this. Is it even worth mentioning that you can literally charge at any plug, no matter how remote? Or that you start every day with a full (as full as you choose) charge, so it's essentially impossible to run out in your normal daily life?

We've done polls on the Tesla forums, asking people whether they've ever run out of charge (and if so how often), and comparing that to how much distance they drive - and then comparing that to statistics of how often people run out of gas. The latter is much more common.

6) I have no clue what you mean by your "wait 15 minutes" comment. If you're talking about overnight charging, it's a lot more than 15 minutes to fill up, but it's entirely irrelevant because it's while you're sleeping. If you're talking about superchargers, if you're not stopping for 15 minutes at regular intervals on long trips, please burn your license right now for the safety of everyone around you.

7) You do not "pay a premium for all this". Model 3 - without subsidy - beats its class competitors (BMW 3-series, Audi A4, Mercedes C350, etc) in almost all stats. Ignoring the energy cost savings, which for US drivers averages about $1k per year, European drivers about $2k a year, and where I am, about $3k per year.

8) You can't figure out why people would want low operating costs, a full "tank" every day, no standing around at gas stations, superb performance, silence, clean operation, the ability to preheat / precool the vehicle on grid power, etc, etc? Try harder.

Re:$75k Model 3

[Rei]

Musk confirmed just the other night that Model 3 SR will be released 3-6 months after they hit 5k/wk. Which they're just about to do. Giga is reportedly over 5k/wk already. Fremont, just over 4k. Fremont is going down at the end of the month for upgrades to bring them over 5k (with the target of 6k).

They actually moved up the SR delivery timeline recently.

Tesla will make a margin on SR, but it'll - like all cars - be much less than on well optioned out cars. Right now, they need all the money they can get. No duh they're going to deliver the higher-optioned cars first. Furthermore, until recently it was the battery pack supply that was holding them back. Disrupting the already limited line, to add capacity for a lower margin pack, would have been stupid.

All of this storm-in-a-teacup doesn't affect most people anyway. For the vast majority of reservation holders, all major options will be out by the time their number comes up.

Re:$75k Model 3

[Barsteward]

This is what I don't understand. Tesla ranges are almost hundreds of miles less than other cars at the base level.

Irrelevant, if you have home charging, you plug in every night (if you want) and there is no need to queue at a gas station on your way to your destination.

Nobody talks about how you must plug in your Tesla every single night, ideally, for optimal use locally. That adds up to 10+ HOURS of plugging and unplugging in your car every year.

Yo don't have to plug in every night (depends on you daily mileage) and its smart enough to turn off the charger when full. And if you only do short journeys, it'll be a short time charging

And for long trips, which--while aren't common--happen, and the car actively works against you there.

1. You have psychological range anxiety with a range of 200-260 miles on any significant long trip.

Thats your personal irrational fear, you'll get over it

2. You must wait 15+ minutes for a significant charge. So all the speed advantage of your car pretty much is wasted.

If you do long journeys, you have to stop for a piss/meal/coffee (in any order)

3. You pay a premium for all this. I would expect to pay less than your average car for this privilege.

Its NEW tech, i remember the prices of CD players when they first came out

A Hybrid is vastly more attractive to me. A used Prius is 30% of the cost of a Tesla and it'll last easily 5-10 years before needing a new battery, which would still only cost you another $4-6K, giving you decade(s) more use out of it. And 400+ miles of range.

Good, thats a solution for you but you are way off on the price of a new hybrid battery.

I just can't figure it out other than people love new things?

You should be thanking these people because if they didn't buy the "new" things and push the boundaries and build the market for you, you'll still be walking or riding a horse everywhere as ICE would be a pipe dream.

Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[Fly Swatter]

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?

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[vtcodger]

"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."

Amen, Brother! The electronics on the recent vehicles I've come into contact with are ghastly beyond belief. They are a large part of why I've opted to install a GPS, backup camera and modern radio in our 2005 Sentra instead of buying a new car.

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a car designed by Californians. Techy Californians at that. Of course it will all be through apps and touch screens. They don't know what winter gloves are either.

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[b0s0z0ku]

Yes, because waiting for the car to preheat isn't always an option.

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[b0s0z0ku]

Because the rest of the junk increases complexity, decreases reliability (touch screen is easily broken if you ever carry things in the passenger seat), and reduces repairability. Instead of a broken button or knob, you'll be out a touch-screen module. Also, the connected crap reduces privacy. Give me a childishly simple car with the same drivetrain,

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[kzwork]

Also if the brakes are simply under sized, how is that fixed with a firmware update?

With little bit help of electro motor for example. Engaging the motor in braking can actually allow to reduce size of brakes even further.

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Yes, you can do it in Model 3.

Press the scroll ball in the right spoke of the steering and say what you want, the speech command will it all for you. Reduce temp, increase fan speed, call home. call bozo the clown, drive home, drive to 1234, main street, sometown, New Jersey, drive to Walmart... The music control, volume control, turn indicators, wiper, windshield washer, shifter are all traditional.

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[ljw1004]

Also if the brakes are simply under sized, how is that fixed with a firmware update?

I agree that couldn't be addressed with a firmware update. But I didn't see any indication that "undersized brakes" was the cause of the problem. My default assumption is that the Tesla's firmware has to decide how much breaking to do via regenerative braking and how much to do via friction braking, and that it currently optimizes for regenerative (hence range) at the expense of short stopping distance. This kind of thing could certainly be fixed by a firmware update.

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[lazarus]

Dude, I think that is called a Leaf. Or Prius. If you want an electric econobox just go and buy one. You don't need to spend a premium on a Tesla if that is what you are after. The Tesla has the advantage of both a trunk and a frunk and rear seats that fold flat. I cannot imagine a situation where you would need to put shit in the passenger seat in such a way that it would potentially impact the display, but who knows?

The reason Tesla (and, you know, every other major auto manufacturer) is putting more and more controls onto touchscreens is because upgrading them doesn't require hardware hacking. Ford has Sync 3, GM has their own. Even Porsche which is 70 years of visceral buttons, gages, shifters, screaming engines and a boatload of marketing around "the feeling" are moving more and more controls to electronic ones (just check out the new Panamera). Or look at the dash in a new Audi TT. Or the HVAC controls on a modern VW.

I think the car you want already exists, but you should buy one soon before they disappear. Buttons in cars are like keyboards on phones. I love my Nokia E90, but it is getting harder and harder to buy a phone like that. Consumers are demanding smarter appliances (cars) and manufacturers are going to respond with appliances that have UIs that are more sophisticated than static buttons.

Finally, although I sympathize about your point about repairability, I'm not sure that buttons are more reliable. I had a headlight switch in a 1994 VW that I think I replaced 5 times over 12 years. I had an HVAC control in a Saturn jam up and stop working. I had one car that, over time, had all of the switches on the front seats fail (that was fun when it first happened while driving). I'm sure there are more. Frankly, I don't like switches in cars all that much. They aren't reliable. I think touchscreen impact-resistant glass will prove to be much more reliable in the long run. I guess we'll see.

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[b0s0z0ku]

(1) The average auto buyer in the US is a borderline mechanical idiot who values gimcrack geegaws over functionality.
(2) It's a car, not a phone. It does the same thing, taking me from point A to B. Why the fuck would I care about changing the user interface.
(3) The 2019 Jetta/Golf still have real HVAC controls, not a touch-screen designed for dumb millennials.
(4) Changing the light switch in your VW likely took about 30 seconds. Pull out, unplug, plug new one in, push in.

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[b0s0z0ku]

(5) Panamera isn't a real Porsche. It's a front-engined piece of shit for rich housewives with a midlife crisis and more money than brains.

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[swillden]

Yes, because waiting for the car to preheat isn't always an option.

How long do you think it will take to heat? Remember, this isn't an ICEV. Those are warmed with waste heat from the engine and give you nothing until you've burned enough fuel to heat that large hunk of metal. EVs don't have significant waste heat, which means their heaters use heating elements or heat pumps -- which means they start blowing hot air within seconds, and the cabin temperature rises to very comfortable levels long before an ICEV's heater would start blowing noticeably-warm air.

My Nissan LEAF goes from sub-zero to reasonably-comfortable in two or three minutes. That plus the heated steering wheel means that the first thing I do when I get into the car on a cold winter day is take my gloves off, even without pre-heating. I know I won't need them.

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[thegarbz]

Also if the brakes are simply under sized

There's basically no cars on the market with undersized breaks. The stopping distance is related to weight, its distribution, suspension, tires, and then software ... like ABS and regenerative breaking systems.

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

No knob to you. go drive a smelly finicky gas car.'

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[jeremyp]

So do you get lower range in the winter?

Do you get lower range in the summer when you have to run the air conditioning?

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[swillden]

So do you get lower range in the winter?

Yes. Heating the cabin uses battery power, which reduces range. In the worst case by as much as 10%, though more often it's around 5%. The exact number depends on the details of course -- the amount of energy used to heat the cabin depends on the outside temperature, the thermostat setting and the amount of time you're driving, which depends on the speed. Normally BEVs have better range in slower traffic, but slower means longer.

It's usually a good idea to turn on the seat warmers and heated steering wheel and then set the cabin temperature a little lower than you normally would, allowing the direct-conduction heat to keep you warm because it's more efficient than heating the cabin air.

Do you get lower range in the summer when you have to run the air conditioning?

No. Well, I suppose a little, but it's so little that you really don't notice it. It turns out that the amount of electricity needed to keep the cabin cool is fairly small, even on very hot days. This seems odd, because running the AC in an ICEV does affect fuel consumption noticeably. I have two theories about why we see this difference. The first is that it's related to ICE inefficiency, that to generate X Joules of energy to run the AC compressor, you must burn 3X Joules worth of additional fuel, so the energy/fuel impact of the same amount of cooling in a BEV is 1/3rd. The second is that ICEV AC units must work harder because in addition to having to remove heat that comes in from the exterior, they also have to remove heat that comes from the engine. I suspect it's mostly the first, with a little help from the second.

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[Cederic]

Voice controls are gimmicky trash. Is Tesla voice control the same as literally every other system: reliant on cloud services?

My Mercedes has voice control for various functions. It has no network connection.

Using voice commands to set the satnav is bloody excellent, means I can do it while driving without looking away from the road.

Give us a fukken knob. It's cheaper, more reliable, simpler, and more intuitive.

I have that option too.

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[Whorhay]

I wonder if there is any money to be made in creating a tactile control board for cars like this. Build a board with all the standard controls you'd expect, give it a mounting system of some sort, and a usb cable or something so it can plug into the car.

Re: Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[Rei]

You're still heating a big block of metal.

Re: Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[Rei]

Or are you talking about electric heat assist rather than block heaters?

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[BostonPilot]

Yes, you get significantly lower range in the winter. Both my FitEV and Volt take about a 50% hit in cold weather.

The air conditioning certainly affects range, but not anything like the heater in the winter. It's small enough I don't worry about it...

The other thing from above is that the Tesla doesn't have a heated steering wheel. I had that in my Ford Focus RS. It was really nice. I went back to a Subaru STi that doesn't have heated steering wheel and I really miss it. I can take pretty cold cabin temps if my hands are warm.

As for the lack of dedicated knobs on the Model 3, I'll still buy one, but I feel it's a major drawback to this vehicle.

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[Rei]

I assume you saw the followup, but in case you didn't: it turned out to be ABS calibration. They'll be rolling out a fix in a couple days.

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[BostonPilot]

^^^^ What b0s0z0ku said !!!

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[BostonPilot]

When a tester is testing maximum BRAKING, there isn't going to be any regen vs friction brake decision... At those pedal forces the friction brakes will be working at 100%...

Of course ABS is a different story. If the system is not taking the tires to the limits of adhesion, you'll get longer stop distances.

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[b0s0z0ku]

All hail Ned Ludd!

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[b0s0z0ku]

Yep, cheapened design, marketed to techbros who'll eat it up like ice cream because shiny! touch screen! modern!

Re:Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels.

[King_TJ]

I didn't care for practically *everything* being on the touchscreen on a bare dashboard either. Even if the touchscreen was the most usable, more ergonomic design ever created for a car, I didn't like that look in the Model 3 a bit.

That said? The touchscreen is pretty darn nice in my Tesla S. IMO, that was an example of doing it properly. You still have all your normal features available on the 3 stalks and steering wheel controls, but the touchscreen gives an alternate method to control much of it along with many of the things you wouldn't find on most vehicles. To be fair, they could possibly have added a COUPLE of extra hard buttons or switches. (Unless I'm mistaken, the fog lights are still a feature you have to configure from the touchscreen to have them come on with the headlights, or not come on with them. I prefer the little ring on the stalk that controls the normal headlights to toggle them on/off at will. And I don't think the panoramic sunroof can be controlled except from the touchscreen.) But it works well overall, and it's nice having things like the owners' manual accessible on the screen. (Look how often one is missing on a used car because somebody took it out of the glovebox and never put it back!)

Re:Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[Rei]

Also charges at about a third the speed from an inferior, fragmented network. Worse performance (not bad, just worse), worse handling (again, not bad, just worse), econobox interior, much less interesting options, etc. Heck, even getting the aforementioned charging speed is an option. With a $2k higher MSRP.

Also, the GP is wrong; Model 3 comes with cruise control. TACC is part of AP, but normal cruise control is standard. Collision warning / autobraking / etc (all safety components of AP) are also standard.

Tesla's also have very low depreciation rates. Their competitors? Not so much.

Hydrogen?

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re: Hydrogen?

[c6gunner]

Doesn't seem very efficient. You create hydrogen to then run a fuel cell which then charges a battery to finally power the truck. That's a lot of energy loss in that system.

Re:Hydrogen?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You mean "works pretty well in advertisement materials"...

Re: Hydrogen?

[jeremyp]

Surely you'd driver the motor directly off the fuel cell? The battery is only necessary for regenerative braking.

Re: Hydrogen?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The battery might make sense in restricting the required size of the expensive fuel cell. If you need, say, 150 kW of maximum power (but only briefly), you'd need a 150 kW fuel cell, but maybe only a, say, 40 kW one would do if you could "borrow" 110 kW from the battery for a brief period of time. You're *not* going to need 150 kW of continuous power, obviously. The fuel cell size may only need to match the DC component of power.

Re:Hydrogen?

[dgood]

I don't know about Nikola Motors but it works quite well in the Honda Clarity I drive every day.

Re:Hydrogen?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Is that the car you can't even buy, and when you lease it, you have a contractual limitation on mileage?

Re: Hydrogen?

[whoever57]

With Lithium Ion, the bigger the battery, the faster you can put energy into the battery, which means more regenerative braking with a bigger battery.

You may have to use another technology if you want a good amount of regenerative braking without having a very large battery.

Re:Hydrogen?

[dgood]

Yes, but I consider the lease as a feature rather than a limitation. If somebody comes up with a way to charge EV batteries in less than 10 minutes in the next 3 years fuel cell vehicles will be toast. By leasing the Clarity I won't be stuck with a white elephant if that happens.

The mileage limit on the lease is more generous than most leases, too -- 20k/year. More than enough for my purposes.

Add to that a fairly low lease payment (considering all the bells and whistles included in the car), free fuel up to $15,000 again, plenty for my purposes. There's also a $5,000 rebate from the state. Put those all together and it becomes very attractive.

It helps that I live in an area with several refueling stations, with more planned.

I consider it a good choice to ride out the next 3 years and see how the EV and fuel cell technologies shake out. Then I can make a more long-term decision.

Re:Hydrogen?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The mileage limit on the lease is more generous than most leases, too -- 20k/year. More than enough for my purposes.

You said you preferred a hydrogen car because you could refill it in five minutes. But a Model 3 will do 90k miles in a year just with nightly charging. So you prefer to quickly refill your car so that you can drive distances you actually don't?

Re:Hydrogen?

[dgood]

I occasionally have to drive longer distances to visit clients, sometimes unexpectedly, possibly more than 200 miles round trip. I don't want to ever be stuck waiting for my car to charge in those instances.

Plus, my wife has our garage all full of junk so charging overnight wouldn't be that easy.

That said, if hydrogen doesn't work out, I'll probably end up with a Model 3 (or something similar) for my next car. For now, the incentives made getting the Clarity easier and I get to try out something new and unusual. Plus, I've been wanting to drive a hydrogen-powered car since I saw a video about hydrogen in my high school chemistry class 40 years ago. I don't expect everyone would make the same decision I did, but everything just kinda lined up to make it very attractive to me.

Re:teslas numbers also bad.

[Rei]

I stand corrected - I was looking at the comparison table, while they clarified in the more detailed analysis. Regardless, they declared that the Model 3 "ekes out a win in this category" vs. the BMW.

I gave up on Consumer Reports long ago

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I gave up on Consumer Reports long ago

[guyniraxn]

Really? Higher priced vehicles with more engineering behind them are recommended more often? Whodathunkit? Care to provide any examples of the cars you were interested in for comparison? Note that not all their recommendations are luxury brands, Honda and Mazda frequently get high marks.

Re:I gave up on Consumer Reports long ago

[war4peace]

Really? Higher priced vehicles with more engineering behind them are recommended more often? Whodathunkit?

That's actually a problem. it means there's no budged weighting factor behind the decision.
Hell, let's all just buy the most expensive variant of the car type we want and be done with it, no need for Consumer Reviews or anything. Right?

Re:I gave up on Consumer Reports long ago

[guyniraxn]

As I already mentioned, there are non-luxury brands that receive high marks from Consumer Reports regularly. They also have a number of categories, including budget, which has recommended models.

Re:I gave up on Consumer Reports long ago

[gordguide]

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.

There is no such thing as an "unbiased opinion". The sooner you rid yourself of that fallacy, the sooner you will find reviews from all sources ... yes even CR ... more valuable.

Re:teslas numbers also bad.

[farble1670]

Motor Trend measured an average of 119ft.

133 ft is not an absolute number, it's relative to all the other cars they tested under the same conditions.

While it's possible for CR to make a mistake, they are pretty good at this stuff.

Attempt #2 [Re: Won't matter]

[Tablizer]

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."

Re:teslas numbers also bad.

[gravewax]

different testing conditions and motor trend was a best not an average.

Re:Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[LynnwoodRooster]

However, you can at least buy a Bolt today. Want to go out and get a Model 3? You have to wait 6 to 12 months...

Re:teslas numbers also bad.

[Bing Tsher E]

Did Motor Trend have to cut the blue ribbon wrapped around the car they received from Tesla to evaluate? Or did Tesla provide an attendant to do that for them?

Re:Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[Bing Tsher E]

I saw an Aztec the other day in a parking lot. They sort of blend in with all the other cars, now. The shock value has worn off. It's a shame that car fashionistas were allowed to destroy the Aztec before all the rest of the car designs could catch up to it.

Brakes on touch screen?

[aberglas]

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.

Re:Brakes on touch screen?

[djinn6]

The next model should be gaze controlled. You want to turn left, just look that way. That would be very cool indeed.

In other news: a sharp spike in vehicular accidents involving beautiful women.

Re: Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[Rei]

To turn what on and off? Be specific. Give an example.

Re:Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[Bing Tsher E]

Rei doesn't worry about things like that. He launched his old roadster into space, you know!

Whats a flawsâ"big flawsâ"

[goombah99]

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

Consumer Reports? LOL!

[mschuyler]

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.

Re:Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[avandesande]

Or for 10,000 you can buy a good used car and have 30,000 in the bank for gas and repairs. The only reason right now to buy an EV is for cool factor... and there is nothing cool about bolt.

Re:Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[LynnwoodRooster]

I fully agree! Of course, I spent my $10K on a motorcycle, get 60 MPG on my bi-weekly rides to San Francisco, and never get stuck in traffic (thanks to lane sharing being legal in California)...:)

Re:Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[Rei]

Gasoline cars aren't the only ones available used.

CR gave my SUV a Do Not Buy rating

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:CR gave my SUV a Do Not Buy rating

[farble1670]

Did you also drive all of the other cars reviewed against it for 167,000 miles in the same conditions?

Re:Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[avandesande]

true ive look into used leaf with new battery about 10k... point stands though :)

Re:Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[djinn6]

Oh? Can you link me to a used Tesla ad for $10k? Because none of the other EVs are anywhere close to being comparable to gas cars in terms of utility.

Re:Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[Rei]

They serve the utility they're designed for: non-road-trip transportation.

When used, they do so very cheaply.

Re: Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[Rei]

No specification of what was meant by "turn things on/off", despite a very specific request to drop the vaguery. Fail.

Name an operation, or you're just concern trolling.

Re:Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[Rei]

Claims, meet facts.

Re:It's far below $75k, and...

[Barsteward]

lets wait until charging stations have been around as long as gas stations for a true comparison to see just how many there will be on a journey

Consumer Reports car testing has been a joke ....

[King_TJ]

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?)

Is that actually factored in?

[King_TJ]

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.

Re:Is that actually factored in?

[AmiMoJo]

I would have thought that if you emergency brake it just applies as much braking force as possible, using whatever means are available.

Re:Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[djinn6]

They serve the utility they're designed for: non-road-trip transportation.

Oh really? There's a huge shopping mall that's 1 hour away by car from my house. If the car only has a range of 100 miles, I'll be stuck there. Even if it's a new one with slightly better range, I'm still in trouble if I try to pick up grocery or lunch before heading there.

88 ft/sec – 152 ft braking distance = deadST

[ElitistWhiner]

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.

Attempt #3 [Re: Won't matter]

[Tablizer]

I own a Tesla and I didn't buy it to be cool or to try to be cool. I bought it because the car is cool.

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."

Re:Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[Rei]

I'd call an hour drive a short road trip. Certainly not an everyday drive.

Re:Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[LinuxIsGarbage]

It's fucking sad. 10-15 years ago the Aztec was so ugly compared to everything else that you'd spot them and laugh at them from 2 blocks away. Now we've got Smart Cars and fucking Nissan Cubes rolling around and Aztecs barely even mentally register anymore.

Nissan Cube? That thing is attractive next to the Nissan Juke.

Re:Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[djinn6]

So in your world, renting a gasoline car once a month to make up for the crippled EV you bought is totally reasonable.

Re:Buy Chevy Bolt instead

[ahodgson]

Plenty of people have hour-long daily commutes.