Export thread

Quote from the New York Times review:

As I crossed into New Jersey some 15 miles later, I noticed that the estimated range was falling faster than miles were accumulating. At 68 miles since recharging, the range had dropped by 85 miles, and a little mental math told me that reaching Milford would be a stretch.

Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html?_r=1&

Tesla CEO, pissed off about it:



http://www.treehugger.com/cars/new-...ew-fake-says-tesla-ceo-elon-musk-twitter.html

Good on him. If he's legit about it's cold weather performance, I want one.[DOUBLEPOST=1360642109][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh, NYT has responded.

Basically saying, 'Nuh UH!"

http://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-super-pissed-about-new-york-times-tesla-range-128299695

Ouch! I'll be interested to read the official Tesla response, but honestly in those temperatures with the car heater sucking 1,000 watts to keep the cabin warm, I'm not surprised he had trouble making it those distances.

Is anyone surprised about the New York Times making shit up anymore? Back when I lived in New York, their fuck-ups seemed frequent. Haven't lived there for several years. I just assumed things hadn't changed.

What was the "top gear BS" he references? Did Top Gear test one and talk smack about it?

GasBandit said:

What was the "top gear BS" he references? Did Top Gear test one and talk smack about it?

Click to expand...

In 2008, Top Gear claimed that the Tesla only got 55 miles on a charge instead of the 200 that Tesla claimed. Tesla filed a libel suit in England (where libel is a pretty serious offense), which was tossed out for being too vague. Basically, the CEO is complaining that Top Gear was never punished for it's libel.

Thing is, I'd basically assume that mileage would vary due to conditions and weather, regardless of what kind of engine/power source you had on a vehicle.

The biggest problem with these types of cars is that they require a special kind of fuel station, so that to buy a car means you need to be able to fill 'er up...but can't. It's a vicious circle. You need to have stations or nobody will buy them. But nobody will put up fueling stations until the demand is there first.

I wouldn't mind having an electric car as opposed to a gas or hybrid vehicle, but they are expensive and not quite there yet in terms of consumer friendliness.

You do get a package that allows you to use a regular 110-volt plug to charge your car, but it takes longer. There is, theoretically, a way of getting cross-country with you car, but it does require you to seek out alternative sources of power supply - namely, RV campgrounds and such - that would make a trip somewhat prohibitive.

Not to mention that I don't want to have to wait almost an hour to fill my car up.

That's why you put a backup gasoline engine in there! just like Chevy did

I remember another country, possibly India, putting an electric car infrastructure in that allowed you to swap battery packs at stations. Something like that would make for instant refills at stations. They had to rent their battery packs, but I'm sure it would still be competitive with gas.

Electric cars are great in warmer climates for short hauls.

They are damn near useless in cold climates in cities where there is great geographical distance needing to be travelled. This isn't likely to change anytime soon unless we hit some pretty major breakthroughs in battery technology.

http://www.slashgear.com/tesla-tears-down-nyt-model-s-review-with-cars-own-logs-14269310/

the highlights:

[...]the onboard logs showing what charge the Model S had at points of the journey, and when Broder decided to recharge, indicate he took the car off the power connection earlier than stated in the original review. “The final leg of his trip was 61 miles and yet he disconnected the charge cable when the range display stated 32 miles” Musk argues. “He did so expressly against the advice of Tesla personnel and in obvious violation of common sense.”

Click to expand...

Meanwhile, some of Broder’s claims about how he tried to minimize power consumption are also challenged. Musk points to the typical speeds driven at – 65 to 85 mph – and the average cabin temperature of 72F for the duration of the test, and the fact that the reviewer also actively turned the heating up when charge was getting low.

Click to expand...

Broder is even accused of trying to artificially run down the Model S’ battery by more than it would typically, driving “in circles for over half a mile in a tiny, 100-space parking lot” in front of one of Tesla’s Supercharger power stations, in what Musk suggests is an attempt to fully drain the car.

Click to expand...

Hmm... wonder who payed him off and for how much...

Musk's own blog has more details.

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive

Check the balance on his BP gas cards.

Yeah, the dude was caught totally and with his pants around his ankles. It's not even funny how much Musk beat down that lying sack of crap!

You wonder what the NYT writer would have done if he would have known the car was being "monitored".

jwhouk said:

You wonder what the NYT writer would have done if he would have known the car was being "monitored".

Click to expand...

It was in the contract he signed before he took the car out. It's his fault for not doing the due diligence.

CNN just made the same trip. They took a camera crew with them and kept in contact with Tesla folks. Guess what? They made it just fine with lots of juice left. Suck it, NYT!

Azurephoenix said:

Electric cars are great in warmer climates for short hauls.

They are damn near useless in cold climates in cities where there is great geographical distance needing to be travelled. This isn't likely to change anytime soon unless we hit some pretty major breakthroughs in battery technology.

Click to expand...

Tesla apparently sells a large portion of their cars in sub-arctic Scandinavia. They apparently do pretty well in cold. Now, do they do well in Alberta prairie cold? That's a question.

I thought that the CNN story would cause Tesla's stock to go back up. Seems that was a bit optimistic. Opened at $38.49 and I finally bailed at (I think) $37.77. Yay me!

Dave said:

I thought that the CNN story would cause Tesla's stock to go back up. Seems that was a bit optimistic. Opened at $38.49 and I finally bailed at (I think) $37.77. Yay me!

Click to expand...

From the look of things, it's a hard day for most - all my "good performers" are having a hard time today. Yesterday Nvidia released record profit results, and their stock STILL went down.

I hope the original reporter gets fired. I'm 100% for freedom of speech of things you believe, even if you have absolutely no basis for it (we're all from Mars? Go on, say it if you believe it and somebody will publish it). I'm 100% against lying your ass off for any reason whatsoever. Keep your mouth shut if you don't like it, but don't start faking results.

I support Tesla having this data collection, and that for reporters they keep them on, and written permission for the consumers to have it on at all. I'm a big fan of consumers having control over their own property.

Personally, I'd want consumer-only access to this data for my own interest in my vehicle (were I to have one of these). I'd want to restrict access to it, in that "please give me the password so I can change the password" would be my question to the company, but still, I think it'd be really useful.

I hadn't heard about the Top Gear issue, I'm really dissapointed in it. Then again Jeremy Clarkson is a pretty huge tosser.

Top gear is entertainment, not journalism. If it were an EU electric sportscar you know they would have given it much better treatment.

I'd like to think the NYT was journalism, but there are certainly times they've left me wondering.

stienman said:

If it were an EU electric sportscar you know they would have given it much better treatment.

Click to expand...

have you seen their coverage of European electric cars? Heck no it wouldn't be much better.

Top Gear (the TV show - not their consumer magazine and website) is purely entertainment and they've said so often and clearly. They fake a lot, if not most, of their "crashes" and technical problems during races to keep things close. The TV "consumer advice" is a showcase. However, they've also publicly stated that they would NEVER accept money to give anyone a better score. In that sense, you can be pretty sure they won't give a good review to a crappy car. The other way around they've done plenty of times, for various reasons.

That said, for example their "cross-city" challenge of car vs bike vs boat vs PT in London was rigged in half-a-dozen ways to make sure the Stig didn't arrive first -and he still did. So....

Wait, didn't the Stig come last in that? Or did they just film scenes showing him "losing" for extra humour value?