DSeid, that you. That’s interesting. I don’t recall any of that in the owners’ manual. I’ll go back and look.
Oh please, he drove the car like a normal person would have driven it and not as Tesla dictated it needed to be driven. Who the hell drives 55 on a highway and tries to conserve heat? The test was suppose to highlight the supercharger facilities. THEY came to the Times with this “story” which was nothing but free advertising for them.
That’s like saying they drove a hybrid like a regular car and then complaining that the milage figures were bogus. But numerous people have made that point here and elsewhere and yet you keep beating that horse.
I suspect it feels like it has a lot more hp than it does. The only hybrid I’ve driven so far is a Ford Escape and technically it’s a little faster than the V6 version off the line but it doesn’t really feel like it in normal driving. Could be the CVT transmission tuning. I didn’t stomp on the accelerator because it was a friend’s car and that seemed rude.
I’m curious what the long term maintenance cost differences will be between the Toyota/GM style transmissions and the Honda/Ford style transmissions.
Hey I’m just going by what his editor says. It is acknowledged that he did things other than what he said he did and that he did not use the car in a manner that most owners who know their cars and how to use them would have given going between superchargers 200 miles apart on (according to the editor) “one of the coldest days of the year.” Her version, her best defense of him, is that he was merely stupid and sloppy, not intentionally lying.
Do you believe she is mistaken?
Is that the level of reporting you expect from NYT?
It’s not “like” saying it. The car WAS driven like a normal car and Tesla objected to this. If it’s a dead horse it’s TESLA’s dead horse and complaining about it just makes them look foolish. They’re selling a luxury car that best fits local travel and they wanted free advertising on it’s potential range because of the supercharger stations they’re building.
You’re hanging your hat on the temperature control and no, I don’t think it was sloppy reporting. If you look at the chart Tesla provided the author clearly turned the climate control WAY down after it was turned up at the mileage point given my Tesla. BFD that he logged the wrong mileage point. You can see by the chart it was raised and lowered all through the day. LIKE A NORMAL PERSON WOULD DO.
Well…
Seriously, my take is that he wasn’t keeping a detailed log of his activity because that wasn’t supposed to be the central part of the story. It became the story after he had such a terrible experience. So, he thought back through the trip and filled in the details, but got some of the timing wrong.
Frankly, if you’re hanging your hat on which mile marker he was at when changing the temperature, or whether the cruise control was at 55mph or 60mph, you’re missing the forest for the trees.
He recharged the car to Full (but not, apparently, SuperFull, like he was supposed to), was advised he had 240 miles of range, got 20% fewer miles, and a white knuckle ending to that leg of the trip. Then he went to bed with 90 miles and woke up with 25. These are issues that make it very difficult to plan your itinerary, and you need to plan when you use an EV.
Tesla wants you to believe that a network of charging stations is the future of EVs, but even when chargers are in range, you have to baby the car, and any change in your plan becomes a big mess.
He thought back and made shit up is what it seems like. I have no problem with a story that went like this:
"I took the Tesla S out for a long drive on one of the coldest days of the year, drove it like I normally drive, keeping it toasty like I like, didn’t plug it in overnight, did not charge it for distance driving, and it did not make it from SuperCharger to SuperCharger. The current SuperCharger network is not enough for what I consider normal driving of this car. At least in winter. Tesla is overpromising. "
That more accurate version just would not have made a great story. But the lack of a great story is not a good reason for a reporter to make shit up.
The graph that Tesla produced mirrors what the author said. I don’t know where you get off saying he made up shit.
If Tesla wants free advertisement then they got what they payed for. If they were smart they’d build a Starbucks at every charging station so the public can pay to oggle their cars and give the owners a chance to soak up all the love.
The test was not to drive LIKE A NORMAL PERSON WOULD DO.
Do you understand that point?
You are continually harping on that fact BUT WE ALL REALIZE that fact already. You seem to be actively attempting to keep that fact out of your consciousness, as if it were a virus. For 3 pages you keep returning to it, but nowhere did anyone at Tesla, NYT or in this thread ever say it. Not only that, but the instant we see a 55mph restriction, it’s pretty obvious that it’s not a"normal driving conditions" test.
Why are you so focused on a point that has nothing to do with anything in this thread?
Either he’s so tremendously stupid that he doesn’t get it (which I seriously doubt) or he is deliberately refusing to accept it because he wants to keep bashing the car.
No, I don’t. Tesla went to the newspaper and asked that their supercharger system be reviewed. They don’t get to dictate squat for the review. What you’re asking is unreasonable.
Sure they do, both parties define and agree on what is being tested. And the reviewers actions must fall within the boundaries of that test otherwise it’s not really testing what is supposed to be tested.
What do you think it means to “test the supercharger network”? (there are 2 stations now with more planned).
It means giving one’s opinion based on normal use. what good is a review of the product if the manufacturer dictates terms drivers would not live by? Tesla provided a high performance luxury car and expected it to be driven like a 63 VW Beetle with a plug wire missing. The reporter drove it on the highway at highway speeds. He didn’t race it and he didn’t dog it He turned the heat on to a comfortable level. This is the minimum that readers would expect from a car.
Why Tesla would want to highlight a half hour of charging between short legs is beyond reason. The cars excel at being a fun commuter car. They look sad as touring cars. They’re going out of their way to make their own cars look bad. Tesla then tries to claim the author of the article lied about the heater when their own charts show the journalist did indeed turn the heat way down as he said he did. It’s right there in black and white. Do they think people who spend $100K on a car are stupid?
Normal use of the supercharger network? Meaning what exactly? Please be specific about what you think was being tested.
Are you saying the test was “can the car get to the next supercharger station while driving under normal conditions”?
Or do you think the test was “confirm the Tesla can be driven while disregarding range information”?
Yes he did drive it normally. Sounds like that works great.
What exactly do you think the car failed to do in this test?
You noticed that the author was inaccurate about the speed, right?
It wasn’t a test of anything beyond the experience of using the station. It was suppose to be a free plug for the company’s supercharger station which would take about 1 sentence to print.
Tesla’s the one bitching not me. Ask them. I think they’re fuck stupid for complaining. I seriously doubt anybody is going to spend $100k on a car with the expectations of waiting 30 minutes for a charge every couple hundred miles. It’s not a particularly good selling point for a luxury car.
I noticed the author drove it normally which is how he should have driven it. If you think the car works great then why do you think Tesla is whining about the article? They make fun cars and give away the fuel. what’s not to like?
“The experience of using the station”? Now, just where in the world are you getting this from? This is the fucking stupidest concept I have ever heard of. Plugging in a Tesla is no different than plugging in a lamp. Why in the world would a journalist borrow a $100g car to “test” how well a plug goes into a socket? This is nearly utterly moronic as the journalist who failed to plug in the car overnight.
This is a completely new different technology. It has been adequately priced at $60g-$100g to appeal to wealthy, educated individuals who have a basic understanding of science, and are motivated to vote with their wallet to foster the growth of an industry that will radically improve our lives by cutting pollution, reducing our impact on global warming and stimulating our economy by radically reducing the cost of energy to conduct business.
If you had bothered to read and comprehend my previous post about the details of the energy quantities contained in a regular ICE car tank, versus the energy storage of a Tesla, then there would be no misunderstanding as to the completely moronic behavior by Mr. Broder. The traditional mode of transportation is incredibly wasteful of resources and energy, while the new mode introduced by Tesla is incredibly lean and efficient. But because very little energy is being wasted, it does require careful thinking of how exactly one is using it.
And by the way, in all the whining about the car’s range not meeting expectations, I have to mention the following: traditional ICE cars are very sensitive to the highway/street ratio as far as fuel economy goes, while electric powered vehicles are not. ICE cars are not particularly sensitive to temperature and altitude (although this is actually fixed by the oil industry providing different mixes for summer/winter and high/low altitude conditions), but electric batteries are a bit more affected by it. Switching from one technology to another is never an improvement on every single metric possible. There will be some things that regress. However in the grand scheme of things, this new technology offers many more benefits than problems.
From the article cited in the first sentence of the thread: “The drive was intended as a way to evaluate Tesla’s newly installed Supercharger stations, which allow Model S owners to top off their batteries for free at solar-powered charging stations lining major thoroughfares along the east and west coasts.”
Actually its very old technology. Electric cars go back to the turn of the last century complete with charging stations in strategic locations around cities. In 1899 they representedhttp://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/04/in-1899-ninety-percent-of-new-york-citys-taxi-cabs-were-electric-vehicles/"] 90 percent of the taxis in service.
Yah, that’s why people buy them. :dubious: It has nothing to do with the fact that they look nice and are fun to drive.
This Reuters story says that the Times article resulted in about $100 million in lost sales and cancelled ordered.