Don't forget that they now offer a plain 70 in rear wheel drive configuration, which knocks off another $5,000.
Teslas aren't cheap by any means, but there are a lot of people who could afford something in the 70-85D range but not a P85D.
On the other hand, the only real difference between a P85D and an 85D is acceleration, so I don't think there's much need to do a separate review just for the lower-end cars.
Tesla's previous car getting 99/100 (which never happened before) wasn't enough, so now they push 103/100?
I understand that its a great car, but if the consumer report scale is out of 100, then it should stay out of 100. Pushing their scale beyond the boundary causes a "Spinal tap" situation and I fail to take the review seriously anymore.
It goes up to 11 belongs in comedy movies, not serious reviews.
"They have an interesting rating system. It ends up representing the fact that all this performance and fuel efficiency comes out of a car that can seat 7 people. The variant that does 0-60 quicker and gives you AWD gives you better energy consumption. Things like these are what blew up their scale."
Exactly my thought when reading the article. They even state that it can't go past it "by definition". Well, apparently it did. I can only imagine marketing and sales departments being involved as I cannot imagine a person who did the math part agreeing his scale could be extended to 103.
This is a big red flag for me to not take this review, and the other reviews of tesla mobiles seriously. Some happy greenwheels is upping the ratings I guess. It is like browsing imdb for movies which score 8/10 or up and finding a movie which scores 10/10 with 5 reviews...
Blame TechCrunch for the blogspammy headline. The original Consumer Reports review states clearly that it scored a 103 based on their existing framework, which they adjusted in lieu of that fact.
| In rating it, however, we faced a quandary: The Tesla initially scored 103 in the Consumer Reports' Ratings system, which by definition doesn’t go past 100. The car set a new benchmark, so we had to make changes to our scoring to account for it. Those changes didn’t affect the scores of other cars.
The consumer reports article is more direct and practical. I can understand the car breaking new barriers and that they had to tweak their rating system.
They might think about future-proofing their rating system while they're tweaking it. By scoring it 100 they have calibrated the P85D as the new "perfect", even while admitting "it has imperfections." What will its score be when future, better cars come along and they have to recalibrate those to 100?
In highschool, grade 11 computer science I got 101% end of year grade; the average of the class was 100%: the person who got 99% was barely in class however completed their assignments, and I got 101% because I would quickly finish my assignments and then was happy and excited to help others if they were running into trouble. I quite wish my other classes were scored that way as well... TL;DR There's nothing wrong giving credit where credit is due.
I always wished I could take my extra credit out of one class and apply it to another. I didn't know the term in the modern gamer sense at the time, but I would have minmaxed the heck out of my school years.
I think he was just saying that it seems hard to justify anything with a 200 mile range and no access to traditional fueling stations going "over and above" 100%.
""They have an interesting rating system. It ends up representing the fact that all this performance and fuel efficiency comes out of a car that can seat 7 people. The variant that does 0-60 quicker and gives you AWD gives you better energy consumption. Things like these are what blew up their scale.""
A few weeks ago (a month ago ?) BMW released the spec sheet / announcement for the new 7 series. And it's just sad.
I'm not even sure who it is for ... people who don't use the Internet ? People who don't read news ? You've got a car that is substantially better in almost every conceivable category (it generates all wheel drive with two different motors, for instance) ... and the press release for the 7 series is going on and on about how advanced their new engine is and bragging about their (laughable, in light of the model S) 0-60 time.
Basically it's 20 pages of "blah blah not electric blah blah". It's painful to look at.
OBLIGATORY: Not a huge Model S fan, at least in terms of size (not really a full sized four door) and interior appointment (which is amazingly sparse and devoid of options compared to 7/A8/S) ... and further, would much prefer a 7 series or Panamera on a fully-electric platform. But we don't have that, so I guess we have to settle for "the best car we've ever tested".[1]
Keep in mind that when you have 7 people in it, at least two must be relatively small (77lbs or under) children. So the added weight isn't quite as much as it sounds.
The P85D weighs just under 5,000lbs empty. Say your 7 passengers add 1,000lbs of weight, that's a 20% penalty on acceleration. Might be noticeable, but performance will still be extremely good.
As for range, aerodynamic drag dominates at highway speeds, which is where you'll be spending most of your time on a trip. The efficiency hit from extra passengers will be down in the noise. You could probably recoup it by driving 2MPH slower.
I haven't done a long trip with 7, but I did do a reasonably long road trip with 6 in my Model S, and the extra weight was not noticeable. You don't want to be flooring it in a powerful car with small kids most of the time anyway, and the energy use predictions were still spot on.
Having driven both a 7 Series and a Model S, I'll take the BMW any day. More comfortable, better handling, looks better, doesn't have a huge iPad in the dashboard, and allows road trips with far less planning needed. It's nice that the tesla has insane acceleration, but in practice that's not super useful. And gas is a small enough part of my budget that it's not material so that isn't really a factor.
I think people who haven't actually driven one (or haven't driven one beyond a test drive, anyway) think that it's too distracting, too hard to control things while driving, or something along those lines.
I had the same concerns initially, but they disappeared after trying it out. It's really well done and not a problem in practice.
If I want to press the fourth button from the left while driving - with a tactile button I can reach, count over the three buttons as my finger slides across them, and press the fourth button. Without removing my eyes from the road.
With touch buttons I need to look at the screen which takes my eyes off the road. Even if it's for 1/2 a second.
1/2 a second is the cause of many accidents. I'd prefer having physical buttons. Ironically, you lose your sense of touch on a touch screen.
I understand the objections. I just don't find them to actually apply in the real world.
First, what functions do you actually need to manipulate while driving? Most of that can be done from the steering wheel.
Second, when positions on a touchscreen are consistent you can learn to touch them without staring at them. I often adjust the interior temperature on the touchscreen even though it can be done on the steering wheel, just because I find it to be easier. It can be done out of the corner of my eye with practice.
Counting buttons is no less distracting than a quick glance away from the road. If you don't have time to glance at a screen, you shouldn't be messing with physical buttons either.
The trouble starts when the UI is designed poorly enough to require more than just a glance.
There is many reasons, but major for me is that you need to look at the screen when switching AC, performing simple tasks. With regular buttons you can memorize where is what and not look at them when switching options which increases the safety.
Also large screen is distracting, BMW 7 focuses on driving and comfort removing from in front of your eyes anything that could tire your eyes.
I've never been inside a Tesla, but I've driven a few thousand miles in a (rented) BMW, and I would really be very surprised if Tesla could beat BMW in the "pure, crystallized-shit of UX" department. iDrive is an abomination.
A year ago I was testing out a bunch of different cars for longer periods of time, and I found that the BMW was the least bad infotainment system. It's ok. Everyone else is just worse.
Cadillac Cue is rage-inducingly bad, I would love to see your reactions to that if you think IDrive is an abomination. :-)
I'm also not a big fan of the giant touchscreen in a dashboard. I like tactile controls (even better if there's haptic feedback) since once I remember a motion, it can become second nature without constantly looking at a touchscreen to see if I touched something correctly. Call me old fashioned, but there's something very satisfying about turning a well made physical dial with a certain amount of resistance and weight.
Physical buttons are far, far better than touch buttons when you're driving. Keep your eyes on the road, use tactile sense to figure out the button to press, once you've learned where it is.
You can adjust heat from the steering wheel. You can adjust radio a little bit, but not nearly as much as you should be able to. Not sure what "etc." refers to, but most of what you need while driving is on the steering wheel.
You can also preheat the car before you go, which helps a lot in the winter. And if you're in Canada you should definitely get the cold weather package, which includes a heated steering wheel, so gloves aren't as necessary.
Disclaimer: I've lived in cold climates (Wisconsin gets pretty brutal) but haven't had my Model S in a bad winter.
You can do that from the steering wheel, but, if you do want to use the touch screen with gloves on, they've been making gloves with special tips for years now. Lots of places sell them, including Tesla's accessories shop. It's the same stuff you need to work your phone with gloves on.
Responding to the several comments about how there aren't tactical buttons and that you have to look at the large center console: that isn't accurate.
There are four buttons and two "scroll wheel buttons" on the steering wheel that control music, the sunroof, climate, etc. The feedback for those buttons is provided on the second digital screen that is behind the steer column, so your eyes just move up/down not towards the center console.
Just saying :)
Source: Just completed my second Portland <-> Yosemite trip in my "legacy" P85 that is 2+ years old now. I love it, but I'm jealous of the goodies in the new cars!
I did not know this, thanks for sharing. I found a video on YouTube where someone went over the buttons and how to use them. My biggest complaint with them would be that in order to adjust the climate you have to press the right scroll wheel, scroll to the setting you want to adjust (temperature, fan speed, roof, etc), press the button again, then use the scroll wheel again to adjust the setting, all while looking at the display in the instrument cluster. Better than the touchscreen, but still less convenient that I'd prefer.
Note that it remembers which setting you used last, so in the common case where you're always adjusting e.g. temperature, you just scroll the wheel up or down.
I won't argue that the setup is less convenient than it could be. On the other hand, I always found reaching over to some center console to fiddle with buttons and knobs to be extremely cumbersome even if I learned to find them all by feel.
> There are four buttons and two "scroll wheel buttons" on the steering wheel that control music, the sunroof, climate, etc.
Yes, but you have to program them to what you want in that moment or have to click a dozen times to reach what you are looking for. You don't have the ONE button at the roof that opens the sunroof every time you press it.
When it comes to in-car controls, you want to be able to use them without taking your eyes off the road. To this end, knobs that you can grasp for and feel the current setting are great. Knobs without a tactile indication of the current setting are OK, as you can find them without looking and only glance down to see that you are selecting the appropriate setting. Buttons are worse because you have to glance down to find them, but once you do you should be able to use them and know that the input was registered through the tactile feedback.
Touchscreens, on the other hand, are just bad for this. You have to look at them the entire time you're operating them, or else your hand might change position and not press what you intended to press. You also need to look at the screen to see that your press registered what you wanted to do. All of this looking at the screen means your eyes aren't on the road where they belong.
We have a car made in 2000, it has knobs and dials for everything, you can configure the AC/heat completely without looking at it after some familiarity with the controls. The radio you can configure the station and volume without looking.
We also own a Prius made in 2014. They've either turned everything into a flat button, or worse it requires the touch screen to configure. And while the Prius does many more things than the 2000 car, the 2000 remains more configurable while driving by a mile.
The Prius largely tries to not have you configure the AC/heat at all while driving by having an automatic mode and you can set the target temp', but this completely ignores other scenarios where people want to be hit with hot/cold and don't care what the actual temp is, or that the temp doesn't measure the sun hitting you on your bare arm constantly making you feel hotter than you actually are.
Ultimately cars were better ergonomically designed pre-touchscreen, when they did less. Maybe in a few years I'll be able to voice control the AC/heat, but until then it is a step backwards.
I definitely prefer knob and large button like those from a 2007, 2008 base model family sedan without a screen. But some times you need touch screen for this or that kind of extra feature. So my personal favorite system so far are iDrive and the new mazda system which let you control functions on a screen with a button/knob and preserve temp and volume control as separate knobs. BTW the worst system I've used are the ones which don't have usable physical button and doesn't let you complete your task fast in the touch screen. Yes I'm talking about you, Ford and Cadillac. And Mercedes, it's 2015 and you still have a dial pad in the center console, what's going on?
"this completely ignores other scenarios where people want to be hit with hot/cold and don't care what the actual temp is, or that the temp doesn't measure the sun hitting you on your bare arm constantly making you feel hotter than you actually are."
Exactly! I hate the ubiquity of automatic climate control systems these days. Everyone that has a car equipped with one just uses the "set point" knob like regular manual controls. It's full cold, full hot, or off with "in-between" settings managed via fan speed. They don't work for the reason you've stated even when used "properly".
I've also noticed that most systems refuse to switch off the A/C compressor unless you choose a set point several degrees above ambient. It's a waste of gas, especially when it's 68-70F with low humidity outside.
This is where I always thought HUDs would come into play. And yet, apparently, mostly, no...
One could probably have integrated this into Glass as well, but given the snail's pace of Android Auto (and the raging quality issues of Android in general), no yet again.
I would have loved a HUD manipulated through steering wheel controls. From what I've heard, this was too overwhelming for the previous generation of American drivers. I wonder if the next generation would fare better.
> All of this looking at the screen means your eyes aren't on the road where they belong.
... which is why the HUD (for velocity, navigation) in my 6 years old BMW is my favourite feature. I don't understand why so few manufacturers offer one.
When I test-drove a Tesla, I was actually surprised that the touch-screen controls weren't as bad as I expected, compared to physical buttons.
They're worse, for sure, but they've actually tried to minimize the problems, contrast ratio is high, buttons are clear, and feedback is as good as it gets without being tactile. Some buttons are also located on the edges, which allows you to feel out their position.
I find basically all glowing screens incredibly obnoxious in a car in the dark... Even little things, like my highbeam indicator which cannot be dimmed with the dash dimmer.
A physical knob, too, can be sufficiently illuminated with just a tiny sliver of light on the knob to indicate its position.
But you're comparing this to BMW, which in place of that iPad has iDrive, which is perhaps the single largest UX abomination on the planet.
And personally, I've never been on the highway, with a semi-truck barrelling down on me from behind, needing to get over to make an exit, and thought to myself, "gee, I really wish I had less acceleration right now".
Which model year BMW did you drive? The early iDrive systems were quite crappy and the controllers were prone to breaking, but the current generation ones are actually pretty good.
Acceleration is great, but I don't think in your scenario it matters whether you have a 3 second 0-60 car or a 5 second one. Both of them are probably going to out-accelerate whatever truck that is coming down (unless the truck is trying to rear-end you).
I believe it was a 2014. It was last year, in Germany and Austria. For a rental, it didn't have that many miles on it, which is why I'm assuming it couldn't have been very old.
the funniest thing about tesla is it turned a bunch of non-car people into car people - they're arguing over cars on the internet now, completely unconsciously. let me say that again - arguing over cars on the internet like a bunch of car guys. isn't that hilarious? i think it is.
there isn't much difference between a tesla fanboy/fangirl and ... say, for example, a GT-R fanboy/girl.
"Having driven both a 7 Series and a Model S, I'll take the BMW any day. More comfortable, better handling, looks better, doesn't have a huge iPad in the dashboard, and allows road trips with far less planning needed. It's nice that the tesla has insane acceleration, but in practice that's not super useful. And gas is a small enough part of my budget that it's not material so that isn't really a factor."
I (the parent) agree with all of this ... that is, except for preferring the 7 series.
I think the 17" screen is a real abomination - it's a stylistic void, in fact - there's a big black hole in the middle of the dash that has no styling since it's just a screen.
I also really don't like the Tesla interior - specifically the surprisingly lack of seat adjustments.
I'm a fan of "fastest Laguna Seca Lap". But I know a bunch of "American Muscle" guys who only care about 0-60. But I prefer statistics that include a combination of good turns, tight handling, AND strong acceleration.
Tesla performs horribly on Laguna Lap, but so do all the American Muscle cars. You basically need a low-weight car with high acceleration to do well.
Other raceway times are also interesting. But that's what I look for in high-performance cars.
The problem with lap times is that they're really an OEM tire shootout and not a car comparison. Plus, most factory touring cars are aligned for even tire wear and understeer. With most cars you could probably manipulate lap times by several percent just by adding front camber.
I think it's funny that list has 2 different Porsche 911's (2001 & 2004) a few spots under a 2013 Ford Fiesta ST, and above that a Focus ST just above another 911 S.
The Ford Focus ST and Ford Fiesta ST are actually fun cars to drive. But its more for the "small and nimble" sort of thing as opposed to "American Muscle".
They take very tight corners. I'd imagine that the turn-intensive tracks would be where these smaller cars would do better. Their acceleration leaves a bit to be desired (but what do you expect for $25k?). 0-60 in 6.3 seconds is still reasonably sporty.
Fiesta is too small for my tastes, but I did go with a Focus (non-ST... just normal stock Focus) for my vehicle. For a manual vehicle, its perfectly fine.
From 4000 through 6500 RPM, you can definitely feel the little engine work. Turbo must kick in or something.
---------
In any case, its amusing to see "just" the ST models do decently on these tracks. After all, people who actually want performance go for the RS model.
The P85D is, no question, stupendously fast 0-60. But is that really all you care about when driving a car? I recently was shopping for a performance car and the Tesla was never even a consideration because of all the other limitations (range, charging availability, etc). As something to show off with, the Tesla wows and amazes people. As a car to drive on a daily basis, I think it is too compromised.
Do you drive more than 250 miles in a day on a regular basis? When you do drive that far, do you do it on routes that aren't covered by Tesla's Supercharger network?
As a daily driver, the Tesla is easier to deal with than a normal car. With a normal car, you have to worry about how much gas you have, when and where you'll stop to fill up, etc. My Model S is full in the morning every time.
For trips that exceed the range available on a single charge you do have to think a little bit more. But for the vast majority of destinations, it's not hard. If you're going to be regularly driving to a place without adequate charging infrastructure then yes, the Tesla is not for you, but that's a relatively small number of people.
When you say, "range, charging availability, etc." what does the "etc." refer to? I would not even put charging availability on that list. Range is a limitation for sure, although not a terribly bad one, but I can't think of anything else.
I live in Massachusetts, and I regularly visit my parents in Maine, which is about 270 miles away. There are no Superchargers along the route, at my parents' house, nor indeed anywhere in Maine. I also live in an apartment, and there is no electric car charging here, so I'd probably have to frequent the local Supercharger to keep it topped off.
The "etc" covers things like not having physical controls for adjusting the climate and sound systems, as well as a generally substandard interior for a $100K car. Not dealbreakers per se, but factors that leaned me away from considering the car.
I don't know if I'm in the minority here, maybe I am. Maybe most people own a house with a garage and never take road trips further than 250 miles (or own a second car with which to do so), but I'm not one of those people. I suspect, though, that there's more of us than you might think.
If you can charge at your parents' place (a dryer outlet would do fine) then you should be good to go in that respect. Maybe wait until the Seabrook, NH supercharger is done so you can top up on the way, since 270 miles one way is pushing it. Or buy the CHAdeMO adapter and patronize one of the stations in Portland. CHAdeMO isn't as fast as a Supercharger, but it's fast enough to be a practical bridge for road trips.
Lack of charging at home is a big problem for sure. I would not buy a Model S if I couldn't charge it where I lived. Many apartment building owners are amenable to installing chargers, but many aren't.
Note that you don't necessarily need a garage, just dedicated parking somewhere reasonably close to electrical infrastructure. Houses with at least carports or driveways are pretty common places to live.
"Never take road trips further than 250 miles" needs a strong amendment. "Never take road trips further than 250 miles where charging can't be done at the destination and you're outside the supercharger network and away from CHAdeMO stations." Sure, it happens, but it's pretty rare. If you're staying within the Supercharger network, or you stay within one-way range and can plug in at your destination, then trips over 250 miles are no problem.
I don't know if I'd amend that statement that far. Even if there's a supercharger on the route, we haven't yet talked about the time required to let the car charge back up for the remainder of the journey.
If you're on a 400 mile road trip, you can drive the first 250 or so on a fully charged Tesla, but then you'll need to stop for a half hour at a Supercharger and let your car charge up to get the remaining 150 miles. If there's no Supercharger around and you need to stop at a conventional EV charger, be prepared to wait an hour or more.
Because of the non-trivial time increase once you go beyond the initial range of the car, I know I'd be less likely to want to take trips beyond it, even if they were technically doable.
OK, then add "and take reasonable breaks" to the amendment.
Stopping for 20-30 minutes every 150 miles or so isn't a burden for most people. Some people really like to push. But you really should be stopping that long, that often, regardless of what you're driving. People don't always do it, but they should.
As I mentioned in a comment elsewhere, the impact of charging time really depends on what you do in that time. If you can time your charging to coincide with a meal, for example, then the actual penalty from charging is zero. If you're doing a 400 mile road trip and you can make your supercharging stop your lunch stop, then you'll lose less time to charging than you'd lose to filling the tank of a gas car. Obviously that's a big if and it's not at all guaranteed, but the point is that this isn't an absolute, and "30 minutes to charge" shouldn't be thought of as being the equivalent of "30 minutes to fill the gas tank."
Personally I love long trips in the Model S. Part of that is just because the car is extremely comfortable and easy to drive, which makes long trips much less tiring. I'm sure that would come with other cars in that price range too, so not something that's exclusive to Tesla. The extra charging time has not so far been at all an issue. I've made three trips beyond the range of the car in the six months I've had it, and my total time spent waiting for the car to charge is zero. I'm sure that will start to become non-zero when I want to do, say, 500 miles in a day, but I still look forward to longer trips in it more than I did in my previous cars.
People with situations like yours (bad parking situation, like to drive long trips along unpopular routes) sure like to complain about it on HN. Not sure if it adds anything to the discussion about the customers Tesla needs to convince to make them successful in the next year or two.
BTW, different people have different likes and dislikes about car interiors.
Of course. I fully recognize that the Tesla is a great car for a lot of people. I take issue, though, when those people start saying that it's so much better than other cars, pointing out the ways in which the Tesla is better but ignoring the ways in which the Tesla is worse.
And do you find that such postings lead to productive discussions? Because it causes the same discussion every time. And every car has both pluses and minuses.
Interior is debatable and subjective. The only concrete thing where it's worse is range. And everybody acknowledges that as far as I can see.
The problem is that a lot of people don't understand how the stuff works, and imagine that the ways in which the Tesla is worse are much worse than they really are.
Edit: range and price, actually. But everybody mentions the price too. Don't mistake "nobody mentions the flaws" with "everybody mentions what flaws there are, there just aren't that many flaws."
Here are the downsides that I see. Maybe not all of these are downsides for you, but they are things that might prevent people from buying one as their only car:
- price
- range
- needing to have a charging port at your residence
- charging time
- charger availability
Some of these are related. If refuel time and fuel availability were improved to be comparable to gas cars, range wouldn't be a big issue, and people wouldn't need to have a charger at their residence. If range improved to, say, 500 miles, then charging time and charger availability would become less critical.
That's reasonable. Just a matter of what you consider to be the root cause, I suppose.
I will note that general availability is extremely good, but it's availability of fast charging that is currently somewhat problematic. If you're patient, you can charge just about anywhere. If you count 120V exterior outlets (and why not, they do work, just slowly) then there are a lot more places to charge an EV than fill a gas car in the US. If your average daily driving is under 50 miles then you can get by on that, although I wouldn't recommend it if there are alternatives.
>"With a normal car, you have to worry about how much gas you have, when and where you'll stop to fill up"
Okay, people might exaggerate "range anxiety" on the Teslas. But you're definitely reaching here: when and where to fill up a gasoline car? How about 24 hours a day on almost any street corner in the country. Running out of fuel isn't even on the radar.
I drove gas cars for about two decades, and owned them for about one decade. I've only been doing the EV thing for about half a year. So it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about here.
No, it's not a particularly big deal, but it's a constant low-level refrain. If I'm leaving in the morning for something time-sensitive, do I have to build an extra ten minutes into my schedule for a gas stop? What if I haven't been paying attention and discover fuel is running low when I'm on the highway and the next exit is in 20 miles? What if I pick the wrong street corner and get gouged? (The closest gas station to my house charges $2.49/gallon right now. While driving this morning I passed a station not too far away that charges $3.49/gallon.)
Filling up your gas car from time to time is not difficult. But it is something you have to think about from time to time. If you don't think about it, you'll occasionally find yourself having to make an unscheduled stop somewhere. It's small but non-zero. An EV is easier.
I don't think it's a particularly big deal. It's a nice convenience to have, but it wouldn't make or break the decision for buying a car. But I think it's a useful counterpoint to people who talk about how difficult or inconvenient charging is. 99% of the time it is easier than gas.
What if you haven't been paying attention and discover your batteries are running low when you're on the highway and the next exit is in 20 miles? What are the chances you'll be able to find somewhere to charge before your car stops?
Also, just like how you charge your Tesla every night, I think most gas-powered car owners keep an eye on their fuel and will fill up the night before if they don't have time to stop in the morning. That's really a non-issue as well.
Yes, owners of gas-powered cars will need to make impromptu, unscheduled stops to fill up, but EV owners have to constantly be planning in advance to know that they'll be able to hit the next charging point, because if they don't make it their car is going to be making the rest of the journey on the back of a flatbed truck.
A Tesla requires more forethought and effort for long trips. I won't dispute that.
But my point is that for a gas car, getting gas and not running out of a gas is a constant thing even when you're not on a long trip.
When I had a gas car, every so often I would get in the car ready to drive 60 miles out to the countryside or something and realize, nuts, I need to get gas on the way.
I never let this happen to myself, but I see friends suddenly realize they need to stop and get gas while on a local drive of maybe 40 miles round trip.
And even if you're on top of things and never let it happen, you're still spending a few minutes every week filling up the car.
With an EV, for any trip that's within the range of the car, it's zero effort and zero thought. EV owners definitely don't have to "constantly be planning in advance." For 99% of drives you don't have to even think about it. Just unplug and go. For the 1% of the time you're making trips, then you have to think about it.
My point is simply that the EV isn't worse in this way, it's just different. It's a tradeoff. If, like most people, you mostly do local driving with very occasional road trips, the EV will be less effort overall, not more.
Does "not paying attention" include ignoring the Tesla warnings that you're low on charge, based on your battery level and the distance to nearby charging stations? It's connected to the nav system and knows your route, too. Pretty spiffy.
I don't know, I was using mikeash's phrasing to create a comparable situation. In reality, most cars, including the Tesla, alert you well in advance of running out of fuel so neither case is likely to happen.
A typical car will alert you when you have about 40 miles left. It's not too hard to find yourself in a situation where it's more than 40 miles to a gas station, although it is unlikely.
A Model S will alert you when you're about to drive out of range of known charging stations. If it's 100 miles to the next charging station, it'll start to bug you when you have something over 100 miles left. Not quite the same.
But my point here is, of course, more about the fact that you have to make ~50 (depending on how much you drive and what you drive, obviously) trips to the gas station every year even when you're just local, and thus gas-based range anxiety, while small, is ever-present. In an EV, it's not present at all when local.
Driving at 1 AM from Plattsburgh, NY to Albany, NY, I did worry about whether I would run out of fuel. Including seeing an exit sign for a gas station, and driving a mile out the exit only to find it was closed, only to turn around and get back on the highway with fuel running low.
Driving from Youngstown, Ohio to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania at 1 AM, I also worried about running out of fuel.
People I know who travel across Wyoming, Nevada, South Dakota etc. say it is worse out there.
Fuel is not available 24/7 on every street corner of the country. On Route 95 from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida it is to some extent. But go a little off the beaten track and it is not.
True, even gas stations don't have 100% coverage, but it's much, much better than EV charger coverage. Imagine you had a Tesla that was running out of power in those situations you mentioned: do you think it would have been easier to find a charging station that it was to find a gas station?
Nearly all drivers go less than 50 miles in any given day. Trips longer than 70 miles (still well within the range of a Tesla) make up one percent of trips.
A premium electric car like the Tesla is perfectly capable of being a daily driver for essentially anyone.
Maybe what's different in my case is that I was looking to only own one car. While the Tesla might be sufficient for what I need 90% of the time, I still need it to be able to go on long trips, because I do take them occasionally.
You're gonna buy a $100k+ car that doesn't satisfy all of your needs, and requires you to grab a _rental_ to fill in the gaps?
EDIT: BTW, I think that electric cars are cool, and even got a garage in my house so that I can go electric some time in the future. But I can imagine that for some people, the lifestyle won't work for them. So for those people... its probably best to admit that Electric isn't for them.
Even if it is capable of being a daily driver, I recently saw numbers here in Norway* showing that more than 75% of Tesla owners also own and regularly drive one or more gas (or diesel) cars. I believe the inability to tow stuff, and the limited luggage space (which won't improve too much with the Model X either), are both important reasons why people keep their Volvo V70's etc. around.
* (second only to the US in total Tesla sales, highest per-capita sales in the world)
If all you care about is 0-60, the Dodge Charger SRT Hellcat does it in a nearly as stupendous 3.4s and beats the Tesla by 0.4 seconds on the quarter mile for half the price...
Amusingly, the description in that link is now inaccurate: "Newly available is the Hellcat, which makes an amazing 707 hp from its supercharged 6.2-liter V-8, making it the most powerful production sedan on earth." (Thanks to the P85D with Ludicrous mode, at 762 hp.)
If you care about 0-60 time, you're probably getting a Corvette ZR1 or a Hellcat. If you want something with more than a Cobalt interior, a BMW or Lexus. If you want top of the line with bleeding edge tech, you get a Tesla.
Regulate it more, please. HN is for comments that are civil and substantive. You've made both uncivil and unsubstantive comments in this thread. We need you not to do that.
"Just an aside that raw 0-60 time is probably not the kind of driving performance you're buying a BMW for."
Agreed - and that wasn't my point.
My point is, BMW is highlighting a performance stat that it's (relatively) terrible at. I don't know why they mention it at all.
Also it's worth noting that given the very much lower center of gravity that the Tesla has that it is also better at all the other things BMW is good at.
Maybe, people buying a Series 7 are wealthy people that want a family car. And for the raw performance, they need enough to boast, but what they really need is a luxurious interior. Wealthy people looking for performance look at sports car.
Anyway, they will change their car in 4 years. There is no reason for them to suffer through the early adopter problems (not good enough charging network, only in the silicon valley you don't look stupid if you tell your friend you can go in the south of France buying wine this we because there is not charging station on the way), they will simply buy when the future is there.
The driving dynamics of both cars are "sufficient", so those factors won't come into play at all for many buyers; the interior fit and finish (i.e. the factors that actually effect your life every day) of the Tesla leave a lot to be desired compared to the 7 series. Is it so unbelievable that other people may value different factors from you?
This is a strange comment. On the one hand you're chiding the parent for not considering other viewpoints, but on the other you're making assertions about driving dynamics and 'the factors that actually effect [sic] your life every day' that imply they value the wrong things.
Are you counting the sum of all of the time you spend waiting for the car to recharge/refill? If so, and if you're a typical driver, then the Tesla wins. In an average month, you might spend a total of 15 minutes gassing up your car, and zero minutes charging your Tesla (because it's charging while you sleep).
On road trips, it will depend on how well charging stops coincide with bathroom/meal/coffee stops. A supercharger stop is both longer and more frequent than a gas stop, no dispute there, but if you time it to coincide with a break that outlasts the charging stop (easy to do) then the time penalty is zero. It's not practical to overlap gas filling with other stuff, so you can even lose out there.
Now, if you're the sort who drives five hours at a time without stopping then the gas car can win big on charging time. But even if you do that, unless you take those trips pretty frequently, the Tesla can still win on total time spent filling up.
I understand that argument and the stats suggest most people don't need to charge on the road aside from road trips. By the time the Model S would need charged I'd be ready for a 30 minute break anyway. I still have range anxiety when my commute (before going remote) was a minimum of 120 miles per day. I'm not sure how accurate the 200 mile number is to know if it would be enough.
Real-world range can vary based on temperature, elevation, speed, etc. Without knowing the details of that 120 miles, it's hard to say. But you can calculate what you'll actually use with the car's navigation system or a third-party site like EVTripPlanner, and that's pretty accurate. I'd probably be comfortable with a 10% buffer for getting home. Your 120 miles might take 150 "miles" of range, which would still leave you with plenty of margin. Note that the lowest-range model they sell currently is the 70 at 230 miles official range. The maximum is the 90D with about 290 miles official range.
Exterior 120V outlets are pretty common, so another option would be to plug into one of those while at work. That makes for slow charging, but you could add another 40 miles or so of range while you're there. (Understanding this is a hypothetical for you at this point.)
If your commute is 120 miles, you don't need a Tesla, you need a new place. Whatever the value of quick refueling, surely your sanity is more important.
True, and in the abundance of "charging" stations.
But it is the _only_ advantage left (see disclaimer at the end).
- Reliability should be much higher with Tesla, as the engine is much simpler.
- Ride quality. The 7 is a boat, does not have the agility of smaller, sportier BMW models.
- Looks. Obviously subjective, but 7's styling is very conservative and has not changed much.
Disclaimer: These two cars are targeted at two quite different (though equally affluent) types of buyers. Some people prefer conservative, some sporty.
I'd also say BMW wins in the interior also. At the price point I would still opt for a Tesla but I was commuting 120 miles round trip which gives me slight range anxiety. The P85 is my favorite of all cars I've driven so far.
People are always touting the "reliability" of electric cars, but that argument mostly falls flat if you're comparing it to any car built in the last 20 years. Internal combustion engines are incredibly reliable. They require basically no maintenance other than oil changes every 5K to 7K miles, and they'll run for 500K miles with no problems.
If you're having any sort of engine failure in an internal combustion car built this century, someone is being malicious and trying to break your car.
Tesla, on the other hand, has had to recall a percentage of their electric motors because they were ripping themselves apart after 10K miles.
All the other parts of the car - the parts that actually still fail on modern vehicles - suspension, electronics, climate control, brakes, drive train, etc. are more complicated in a Tesla than in a regular car. The tesla has an electronically adjustable suspension, remotely upgradable electronics, climate control that doesn't get to run off of excess engine heat and belt driven compressors, two drivetrains (two transmissions and differentials), and regenerative braking. These systems are more complex than normal and only time will tell if they're more reliable than their legacy auto industry equivalents, but my feeling is they won't be.
Good points, though BMW, specifically, hasn't had the greatest reliability record. Which is pretty appalling for an upscale brand (I am giving the Tesla a pass for now, since its tech is new and different).
That's why Lexus (reliability + interiors) is the bees knees. :-)
Michael Karesh sort of calls out Tesla for producing such a problematic vehicle in today's TrueDelta email update. After the 2015 Lincoln MKC, it's the worst new car on the survey out of dozens of models.
Repair rates are hovering at 90 repairs per 100 cars for all Model Ss, 2013 - today. 2014's is, ironically, 102 repairs per 100 cars. Compare that to repair rates of 30/100 being average (Minis) for new cars and 1-3/100 being good (Toyotas and their ilk).
I've yet to see most ICE's get 500K miles w/out
- O2 sensors failing
- Expensive oil leaks
- Lots of belts need replacing
- Head gasket need replacing (pretty expensive)
Sure a 1980s Merc Diesel might make 500K and the ICE itself might last that long but the surrounding components are not cheap to maintain ....
As a tesla driver and former ICE driver and I disagree about charge time. I used to get gas at least once a week (10-15 minutes each visit). With the home charger I only needed to stop at a changer once, since December. That was for a total of 20 minutes (The car only needed 10 minutes, but I stayed a little longer). Driving an EV car is very different than a gas car, but you get used to it quickly. Just the other day I was driving my ICE car and the gas light turned on. The first thing that popped into my head was "No problem, I'll be home soon". It's funny how quickly you get used to things.
All I see is that early adopters who made a purchase are happy with it. That out of the way, if anything a 100k car with 250 odd mile range if you drive nicely simply proves the technology is not ready for the everyday driver.
Get to the point you can deliver 300 to 500 miles per charge at the same price point the average car purchase is at and call me. Its a rich man toy that you have to adapt to live with and don't even get me started on trip planning. I am not routing around my car's limitations.
Consumer Reports scoring system is always weird, and tailored to the preferences of whomever creates it.
Declaring a car perfect that has some pretty severe limitations in terms of range, etc is pretty ridiculous, but that's pretty standard fare for them. Or touting 85 equivalent MPG when you can purchase a similar gasoline vehicle at a significant discount vs. Tesla that performs as good or better.
In ye olden times with CR, you essentially lost 10 points for not being Honda.
I'm a Tesla owner (a 3 month old P85D) and it really isn't the best car for everyone. We still have a gasoline car (a Chevy Volt) because every now and then you need to take a long trip.
It also has a wonky UI. The touch screen isn't perfect and a few dedicated knobs and buttons on the dash service would go a long way.
And it's way too expensive to be the "perfect" car. It's an interesting gadget for geeks (like me!) with enough income to buy one without thinking about it. The fit and finish of other $100,000 cars exceeds that of the Tesla.
(We also have solar on the house so we're not burning coal in some poor person's neighborhood to run it.)
The feature is a novelty but it makes for great social media bait. I never share links about cars with family/friends but I felt compelled to this time. It's entertaining because the car is completely silent while it pins them back in the seat - and people are having very honest reactions to the experience.
i punch it at full throttle to 65mph every time i use an on-ramp. i bought a performance car to use it as advertised.
perfectly legal, and appropriate, when traffic permits.
in fact, if you don't, you're probably a shitty driver and need to learn how to merge. when you're merging into a river of steel doing 80mph and you're doing 45 because you're watching the consumption meter on your hybrid, you're an asshole.
Yeah SoCal has some really short on-ramps. I'm in Santa Barbara, and regularly see people hit the end of some of the sorter ones at about 35 when the freeway is going 70.
yes, one thing you've got right - a lot of assholes on the road thinking that it is the other people around them who are shitty drivers. These assholes look the same today when i drive a hybrid as they looked before when i drove a sporty V8.
I used to think the same thing until my friend got a ticket for "exhibition of speed."[1] Essentially yes, you can get a ticket for accelerating too quickly even you're just accelerating to the speed limit.
> i punch it at full throttle to 65mph every time i use an
> on-ramp. i bought a performance car to use it as advertised.
>
> perfectly legal, and appropriate, when traffic permits.
It's not perfectly legal. Look up reckless driving or exhibition of speed laws. If you have a modern performance car and you do this in front of a cop, you're very likely to get a ticket. (An older car's full throttle might be too slow to concern a police officer and the laws are vague to allow the police officer's discretion.)
One can't legally use a performance car as advertised on public roads.
> in fact, if you don't, you're probably a shitty driver
I think you just mean you have to be at appropriate speed for a safe merge, but is full throttle really required? Unlikely.
The DOT shortens on-ramps about every decade or so to save space. Unfortunately this means that only sports cars running wide open throttle are the only ones able to safely use them. GP is simply a safe driver.
Little irks me more than the occasional driver who comes to an unnecessary stop to merge onto a highway (I rear-ended one of these geniuses once, neither car was scratched fortunately). Or the guys who slow down to 20 mph when one is supposed to merge at full speed. Sigh...
That said, punching it is indeed an example of exhibition of speed and these videos clearly fit within its definition:
I've had people actually stop in front of me on the onramp a few times. Talk about dangerous. Now I and everyone else behind me has to get up to highway speed from 0 in about 50 feet.
In addition to adverts, remember to read the highway code. Typically there’re these niggling rules about appropriate speed, not being disruptive in traffic, and such.
No different from guns. It's about how and who is using them, not the guns.
I've owned one or another fire-breathing twin-turbocharged performance cars most of my life. I have never caused an accident. In fact, to echo what someone else said, some of the most dangerous situations I find myself in with alarming frequency is getting on the 5 fwy right behind someone who merges onto the freeway at 45 mph with semi-trucks buzzing by and refuses to push down on the accelerator. I couldn't even count the number of times I've seen, played out right in front of me, all the makings of a horrific accident because of a slow driver. Good fast drivers are more aware (they have to be) and just get out of the way. Slow drivers are dangerous.
That said, if these people were doing this on surface streets they are dangerous morons. It's no different from someone shooting a gun up in the air.
I would agree that while driving faster is inherently more dangerous by it's nature, the small increase in danger in that case is vastly less dangerous than driving without awareness of your surroundings, or driving without awareness of consequences even if you are aware of your surroundings (I'm talking about you, puddle-jumpers and people that switch lanes with less than a few feet between their bumpers and the people around them).
Dunno about the US, but here in the UK, if someone were to die in a car equipped with a button labeled "insane", for our tabloid press, that button would be the main focus and the car manufacturer would be hauled over the coals based on that alone. It would be sold to readers that having such a button encouraged insanity on the roads, and the manufacturer would be claimed to be irresponsible for having such a button. Oh, that would be true, even if the manufacturer could prove that the button was never used.
> ...[F]or our tabloid press, that button would be the main focus and the car manufacturer would be hauled over the coals based on that alone.
When did tabloids change from the place where you went to get the latest scoop on The Amazing Bat Boy to publications that folks actually paid attention to?
Similarly, should manufacturers design their products to be inoffensive to every bloviating, prevaricating alarmist with a blog? I don't think so. That's an unreasonable tax on both innovation and sound design. :)
It is identically positioned on both him and the teenage girl sitting next to him. Which should hint that it is correctly positioned.
But to get specific, a seatbelt is incorrectly positioned when the lap strap goes across a child's belly OR the shoulder strap doesn't cross their collar bone. Like this:
http://i.imgur.com/Zu9pmBv.jpg
In this video the boy (or girl) didn't violate either of those guidelines, therefore he does not require a booster seat.
I wouldn't go much smaller than he is without one however.
At risk of being a downer in response to a light hearted video and comment, I've read that smartphones can become dangerous projectiles during car accidents.
Imagine the speed they could travel at a very sudden stop. Posing a pretty big risk to people in front of them, not to mention themselves. In this video the phone nearly smacked the girl in the face.
After reading that I always make sure to check my phone on my lap while in a vehicle and not up towards my face where it could go flying at a sudden stop.
I don't believe they found that something the size and weight of a phone could be fatal, given the fire extinguisher that weighed 1kg didn't do much damage.
How can you exceed your max value? This has always bothered me, its pretty much admitting "We kinda pull numbers out of our butts." When I see this in other media, like movies or games, it seems to be a direct response to hype or personal politics. Maybe CR is overly green and wants to promote EV's? Reminds me of when Obama got a Nobel Peace prize for things he will do in the future.
Also, the Simpsons did it first:
Tralawney: Listen, we've been meaning to have a talk with you about
your reviews. Everything's a rave! Nine thumbs up, what
the hell is that?
Homer: I've given out my share of bad reviews
Beaumont: Oh, the only bad review you gave was to a slice of pizza you
found under the couch.
Homer: It lost some points because it had a Hot Wheel on it.
I think people are making too big of a deal about scoring greater than the "maximum."
It's pretty clear that they came up with some arbitrary scoring system where each aspect of the car gets some number of points. There's nothing wrong with that, any rating is going to be arbitrary to some degree. They then arranged the scales such that whatever they saw as a good car would come close to 100, because 100 seems like a nice number.
Then they test a car with a combination of attributes they never expected, and it exceeds 100. 100 isn't the actual maximum, it's just what they thought would be the top score from their system. Turns out that if you throw a car at their system that is extremely efficient and powerful and seats lots of people, the numbers go higher.
Similar issue with the "Coefficient of Performance" in heating and cooling[1], which is the ratio of "energy extracted" to "energy consumed". Since you're just moving energy around, this value can easily be greater than 100% -- no violation of the laws of thermodynamics! 100% is just as arbitrary a value on this scale. .
However, there's still always a relevant maximum that you should measure relative to, and refrigerators have a theoretical maximum. The maximum ("Carnot") efficiency is the ratio of the higher (absolute) temperature to the temperature difference. For room temperature to freezing, that would be ~300/27 = 11.1 = 1100%.
Hmmm... Other measurable things like temperature, voltage, loudness, etc. don't get to 100 and suddenly stop, even if that's the biggest number on the meter.
Just my 2 cents: I've driven both a P85D and a 2014 Porsche 911 4S cabriolet fairly extensively. Guess which one I decided to buy?
The Porsche. These might not be two cars that are commonly cross-shopped, and the Tesla does beat the Porsche to 60 mph. Still, the Porsche was clearly the winner in just about every other way in my estimation. Anyone else have a similar experience?
Not sure how the Porsche was the winner in every way? Going from point A->B (work commute), is your foot hard on the pedal every day? Can you even have your foot all the way down (traffic)? Tesla wins by far in terms of energy-efficiency, luxury, capacity, and just overall being more useful than the Porsche (and still being fun to drive). The only minus is the price tag. But Porsches aren't cheap either. But yeah I understand, any true racing enthusiast would probably choose a Porsche over a Tesla.
Since the interiors of the two cars are done in completely different styles, I can easily believe that buyers disagree about which one is better. I can assure you, however, that whenever I'm at a stop sign or light next to a Porsche Panamara, my foot is hard on the pedal if it looks safe to do so.
How ridiculous would it be for a car company to give you a lifetime unlimited supply of gasoline along with the purchase of your car? Absolutely ridiculous. Guess what? That's exactly what Tesla does. http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger
Unlike gas cars, you start off with 200 miles of range EVERY MORNING since you charge overnight. Most Americans also only drive an average of 40 miles a day. And for those long trips, you have Superchargers.
How ridiculous would it be for a car company to give you a lifetime unlimited supply of gasoline - but you have to wait in line 30 minutes for it every time. And oh by the way, it's an hour from your house, and you'll use a third of a tank getting there and back. And there's only like 200 stations total worldwide. So... awesome, right? Oh, and we built the cost of those stations into the car, so it's not REALLY free.
I can't comment on some things (like the line ups at super charger stations) but other things I can. You say "it's an hour from your house", if you are at your house, why wouldn't you just charge at your house?
200 supercharger stations worldwide, but that's not counting electric vehicle charging stations, plus the station in your driveway. All gas stations are further away than the tesla station in the garage.
Yes, the cost of the vehicle includes the cost of building supercharger stations, but then again, the cost of gas includes the cost of building stations too, so maybe a bad comparison.
I see where you are going with your arguments, however they don't all apply. I think the most valid thing you said is perhaps the line ups, but again I can't comment on that, not to mention gas stations have line ups... so there's that.
There's some confusion, let me address a few points:
1) Superchargers aren't geographically positioned for daily routines, but rather strategically located between major cities across the country for long range trips.
2) There's a lot more places to charge than Tesla's 200 Superchargers. U.S. Department of Energy currently states that there are ~10k public charging stations ( http://www.afdc.energy.gov/locator/stations/?fuel=ELEC ). This also doesn't even count the many private chargers on commercial property provided by employers to their employees. (ChargePoint's commercial network has 20k stations as well.)
3) Most people will charge at home and start with 200 miles of range each day vs. filling up a 350 mile range gas tank once a week.
4) The cost to install a charger isn't excessive: my parents spent about $600 to get an 80 amp breaker outfitted into their 25 year old home. The work was complete in a half day. (When they visit my home, they were able to plug directly into my 240V dryer outlet to recharge.) Even with the cost of install + cost of electric factored in, it's still 3-4x cheaper to travel the same number of miles on gas each year.
>What should I do if all Supercharger stalls are occupied when I arrive?
Check to see if current users have left contact information on their dashboard and give them a call. Most customers charge for 20 to 40 minutes.
It is not the case that you have to "wait in line 30 minutes for it every time". I've waited in line for 5 minutes, twice, out of the couple of dozen times I've supercharged. The other times there was a free charger when I arrived.
If you waited 5 minutes, you were at 3/4 of a charge. Physics dictate how fast you can charge a battery, and it isn't faster than 30 minutes if you're at 1/4 or less.
I can only ask: why would you bother recharging at 3/4 of a charge? I've literally never in my life stopped to top off my tank at 3/4 of a tank of gasoline.
Filling up my gas tank takes roughly 90 seconds. The only equivalent is "waiting in line". There wouldn't ever be a circumstance in which it would take 30 minutes to fill my tank.
The words "wait in line" mean something particular, and it isn't how you're using them. I agree that people charging Teslas at SuperChargers often spend 30 minutes charging. They do not "wait in line" to do so, unless all the chargers are full when they arrive.
Considering the warning letters they sent to frequent supercharger users, what Tesla gives is not a lifetime supply of Gasoline. What they provide are charging way points for long distance travellers. You're still supposed to charge at home.
Yeah, but do they do the home charger installation free? (I'm seriously asking; I don't know.)
As someone who doesn't have power to his 1927 garage, this would represent a pretty huge cost for me and was a major reason for my choosing the hybrid Fusion over the Energi plug-in.
I mean you just plop out "you charge overnight" as if it happens by magic. Someone has to come and install that appliance. And it's gonna cost money, perhaps a significant amount of it.
What I'd really like to see, and Tesla is already beginning to do it, is modular, upgrade-able cars.
Like, a new engine, better in-car entertainment, better sound system, seat-heating, cruise control, distance control, semi/full automatic driving... if I could e.g. buy a stripped down Tesla as a student which I can then (given, of course, I don't crash it) upgrade over its lifetime as I put some money aside, instead of having to buy an entirely new car when the old one is still perfectly functioning.
This is actually a clever marketing trick by Elon Musk. You cannot upgrade a Roadster, and you cannot upgrade the P70 models either.
Tesla has been pretty unclear about their modularity and upgrades. Be careful when reading marketing material: these marketing slides open your imagination but aren't necessarily filled with the truth. They've kept things vague to help stir our imaginations... but don't go dropping $70,000 on vague promises.
When Tesla starts actually making modular cars, we'll know the details. Until then, treat these promises as marketing and/or vaporware. I'm sure Elon Musk is going to push his company to actually deliver on his promises, but sometimes engineers can only do so much.
I agree with your comment that it's easy to fantasize about upgrades that will never happen. Early Model S cars lack the hardware for driving assistance, and my friends who think they know about such things predict that additional computer power will be needed to achieve all that Elon is predicting for self-driving.
A better battery pack for all Model S cars, on the other hand, is likely to eventually show up. All existing cars can be upgraded to the 90 KWh battery, but Tesla is suggesting that everyone is better off waiting for a more significant upgrade later in your battery's life.
When specifics come out, I think its sane to trust them. The political fall out if Roadsters upgrades aren't delivered is too great.
> Early Model S cars lack the hardware for driving assistance, and my friends who think they know about such things predict that additional computer power will be needed to achieve all that Elon is predicting for self-driving.
Yeah, this is the danger I'm trying to warn against. It isn't necessarily that Elon Musk or Tesla is "lying" to people, they're just vague about upgrade packages. So dreamers begin to dream and some misunderstandings may occur.
Its best to wait for specifics, like that Roadster info you've linked.
227 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 259 ms ] threadWhy?
Teslas aren't cheap by any means, but there are a lot of people who could afford something in the 70-85D range but not a P85D.
On the other hand, the only real difference between a P85D and an 85D is acceleration, so I don't think there's much need to do a separate review just for the lower-end cars.
Tesla's previous car getting 99/100 (which never happened before) wasn't enough, so now they push 103/100?
I understand that its a great car, but if the consumer report scale is out of 100, then it should stay out of 100. Pushing their scale beyond the boundary causes a "Spinal tap" situation and I fail to take the review seriously anymore.
It goes up to 11 belongs in comedy movies, not serious reviews.
https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/3il269/tesla_m...
"They discus the report in this video. It's sort of like a podcast in format, for those to whom it may matter"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxUQhcvXh8g
This is a big red flag for me to not take this review, and the other reviews of tesla mobiles seriously. Some happy greenwheels is upping the ratings I guess. It is like browsing imdb for movies which score 8/10 or up and finding a movie which scores 10/10 with 5 reviews...
Oh, and 1 for your spinal tap reference.
| In rating it, however, we faced a quandary: The Tesla initially scored 103 in the Consumer Reports' Ratings system, which by definition doesn’t go past 100. The car set a new benchmark, so we had to make changes to our scoring to account for it. Those changes didn’t affect the scores of other cars.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/tesla-model-s-p85d-b...
The consumer reports article is more direct and practical. I can understand the car breaking new barriers and that they had to tweak their rating system.
http://imgur.com/nHTBRJf
103/100 ? 200 mile range?
A few weeks ago (a month ago ?) BMW released the spec sheet / announcement for the new 7 series. And it's just sad.
I'm not even sure who it is for ... people who don't use the Internet ? People who don't read news ? You've got a car that is substantially better in almost every conceivable category (it generates all wheel drive with two different motors, for instance) ... and the press release for the 7 series is going on and on about how advanced their new engine is and bragging about their (laughable, in light of the model S) 0-60 time.
Basically it's 20 pages of "blah blah not electric blah blah". It's painful to look at.
OBLIGATORY: Not a huge Model S fan, at least in terms of size (not really a full sized four door) and interior appointment (which is amazingly sparse and devoid of options compared to 7/A8/S) ... and further, would much prefer a 7 series or Panamera on a fully-electric platform. But we don't have that, so I guess we have to settle for "the best car we've ever tested".[1]
[1] http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/27/teslas-p85d-is-the-best-car-c...
Keep in mind that when you have 7 people in it, at least two must be relatively small (77lbs or under) children. So the added weight isn't quite as much as it sounds.
The P85D weighs just under 5,000lbs empty. Say your 7 passengers add 1,000lbs of weight, that's a 20% penalty on acceleration. Might be noticeable, but performance will still be extremely good.
As for range, aerodynamic drag dominates at highway speeds, which is where you'll be spending most of your time on a trip. The efficiency hit from extra passengers will be down in the noise. You could probably recoup it by driving 2MPH slower.
I haven't done a long trip with 7, but I did do a reasonably long road trip with 6 in my Model S, and the extra weight was not noticeable. You don't want to be flooring it in a powerful car with small kids most of the time anyway, and the energy use predictions were still spot on.
Why is this a bad thing?
I had the same concerns initially, but they disappeared after trying it out. It's really well done and not a problem in practice.
With touch buttons I need to look at the screen which takes my eyes off the road. Even if it's for 1/2 a second.
1/2 a second is the cause of many accidents. I'd prefer having physical buttons. Ironically, you lose your sense of touch on a touch screen.
First, what functions do you actually need to manipulate while driving? Most of that can be done from the steering wheel.
Second, when positions on a touchscreen are consistent you can learn to touch them without staring at them. I often adjust the interior temperature on the touchscreen even though it can be done on the steering wheel, just because I find it to be easier. It can be done out of the corner of my eye with practice.
The trouble starts when the UI is designed poorly enough to require more than just a glance.
Cadillac Cue is rage-inducingly bad, I would love to see your reactions to that if you think IDrive is an abomination. :-)
You can also preheat the car before you go, which helps a lot in the winter. And if you're in Canada you should definitely get the cold weather package, which includes a heated steering wheel, so gloves aren't as necessary.
Disclaimer: I've lived in cold climates (Wisconsin gets pretty brutal) but haven't had my Model S in a bad winter.
There are four buttons and two "scroll wheel buttons" on the steering wheel that control music, the sunroof, climate, etc. The feedback for those buttons is provided on the second digital screen that is behind the steer column, so your eyes just move up/down not towards the center console.
Just saying :)
Source: Just completed my second Portland <-> Yosemite trip in my "legacy" P85 that is 2+ years old now. I love it, but I'm jealous of the goodies in the new cars!
I won't argue that the setup is less convenient than it could be. On the other hand, I always found reaching over to some center console to fiddle with buttons and knobs to be extremely cumbersome even if I learned to find them all by feel.
Yes, but you have to program them to what you want in that moment or have to click a dozen times to reach what you are looking for. You don't have the ONE button at the roof that opens the sunroof every time you press it.
Touchscreens, on the other hand, are just bad for this. You have to look at them the entire time you're operating them, or else your hand might change position and not press what you intended to press. You also need to look at the screen to see that your press registered what you wanted to do. All of this looking at the screen means your eyes aren't on the road where they belong.
We have a car made in 2000, it has knobs and dials for everything, you can configure the AC/heat completely without looking at it after some familiarity with the controls. The radio you can configure the station and volume without looking.
We also own a Prius made in 2014. They've either turned everything into a flat button, or worse it requires the touch screen to configure. And while the Prius does many more things than the 2000 car, the 2000 remains more configurable while driving by a mile.
The Prius largely tries to not have you configure the AC/heat at all while driving by having an automatic mode and you can set the target temp', but this completely ignores other scenarios where people want to be hit with hot/cold and don't care what the actual temp is, or that the temp doesn't measure the sun hitting you on your bare arm constantly making you feel hotter than you actually are.
Ultimately cars were better ergonomically designed pre-touchscreen, when they did less. Maybe in a few years I'll be able to voice control the AC/heat, but until then it is a step backwards.
Exactly! I hate the ubiquity of automatic climate control systems these days. Everyone that has a car equipped with one just uses the "set point" knob like regular manual controls. It's full cold, full hot, or off with "in-between" settings managed via fan speed. They don't work for the reason you've stated even when used "properly".
I've also noticed that most systems refuse to switch off the A/C compressor unless you choose a set point several degrees above ambient. It's a waste of gas, especially when it's 68-70F with low humidity outside.
One could probably have integrated this into Glass as well, but given the snail's pace of Android Auto (and the raging quality issues of Android in general), no yet again.
I would have loved a HUD manipulated through steering wheel controls. From what I've heard, this was too overwhelming for the previous generation of American drivers. I wonder if the next generation would fare better.
... which is why the HUD (for velocity, navigation) in my 6 years old BMW is my favourite feature. I don't understand why so few manufacturers offer one.
I can see that a HUD for showing animals detected by infrared is something you can't show on a dashboard.
They're worse, for sure, but they've actually tried to minimize the problems, contrast ratio is high, buttons are clear, and feedback is as good as it gets without being tactile. Some buttons are also located on the edges, which allows you to feel out their position.
A physical knob, too, can be sufficiently illuminated with just a tiny sliver of light on the knob to indicate its position.
And personally, I've never been on the highway, with a semi-truck barrelling down on me from behind, needing to get over to make an exit, and thought to myself, "gee, I really wish I had less acceleration right now".
Acceleration is great, but I don't think in your scenario it matters whether you have a 3 second 0-60 car or a 5 second one. Both of them are probably going to out-accelerate whatever truck that is coming down (unless the truck is trying to rear-end you).
there isn't much difference between a tesla fanboy/fangirl and ... say, for example, a GT-R fanboy/girl.
I (the parent) agree with all of this ... that is, except for preferring the 7 series.
I think the 17" screen is a real abomination - it's a stylistic void, in fact - there's a big black hole in the middle of the dash that has no styling since it's just a screen.
I also really don't like the Tesla interior - specifically the surprisingly lack of seat adjustments.
The point is there are other metrics than 0-60, and in fact 0-60 is --- at least within a given bracket of cars --- a pretty cheap metric to optimize.
Tesla performs horribly on Laguna Lap, but so do all the American Muscle cars. You basically need a low-weight car with high acceleration to do well.
Other raceway times are also interesting. But that's what I look for in high-performance cars.
That website also has links by car (to see how a particular car does across different racetracks). The Tesla P85D page is here:
http://fastestlaps.com/cars/tesla_model_s_p85d.html
Not very many runs yet, but we can get a glimpse of how it is doing from the four tracks listed.
They take very tight corners. I'd imagine that the turn-intensive tracks would be where these smaller cars would do better. Their acceleration leaves a bit to be desired (but what do you expect for $25k?). 0-60 in 6.3 seconds is still reasonably sporty.
Fiesta is too small for my tastes, but I did go with a Focus (non-ST... just normal stock Focus) for my vehicle. For a manual vehicle, its perfectly fine.
From 4000 through 6500 RPM, you can definitely feel the little engine work. Turbo must kick in or something.
---------
In any case, its amusing to see "just" the ST models do decently on these tracks. After all, people who actually want performance go for the RS model.
As a daily driver, the Tesla is easier to deal with than a normal car. With a normal car, you have to worry about how much gas you have, when and where you'll stop to fill up, etc. My Model S is full in the morning every time.
For trips that exceed the range available on a single charge you do have to think a little bit more. But for the vast majority of destinations, it's not hard. If you're going to be regularly driving to a place without adequate charging infrastructure then yes, the Tesla is not for you, but that's a relatively small number of people.
When you say, "range, charging availability, etc." what does the "etc." refer to? I would not even put charging availability on that list. Range is a limitation for sure, although not a terribly bad one, but I can't think of anything else.
The "etc" covers things like not having physical controls for adjusting the climate and sound systems, as well as a generally substandard interior for a $100K car. Not dealbreakers per se, but factors that leaned me away from considering the car.
I don't know if I'm in the minority here, maybe I am. Maybe most people own a house with a garage and never take road trips further than 250 miles (or own a second car with which to do so), but I'm not one of those people. I suspect, though, that there's more of us than you might think.
Lack of charging at home is a big problem for sure. I would not buy a Model S if I couldn't charge it where I lived. Many apartment building owners are amenable to installing chargers, but many aren't.
Note that you don't necessarily need a garage, just dedicated parking somewhere reasonably close to electrical infrastructure. Houses with at least carports or driveways are pretty common places to live.
"Never take road trips further than 250 miles" needs a strong amendment. "Never take road trips further than 250 miles where charging can't be done at the destination and you're outside the supercharger network and away from CHAdeMO stations." Sure, it happens, but it's pretty rare. If you're staying within the Supercharger network, or you stay within one-way range and can plug in at your destination, then trips over 250 miles are no problem.
If you're on a 400 mile road trip, you can drive the first 250 or so on a fully charged Tesla, but then you'll need to stop for a half hour at a Supercharger and let your car charge up to get the remaining 150 miles. If there's no Supercharger around and you need to stop at a conventional EV charger, be prepared to wait an hour or more.
Because of the non-trivial time increase once you go beyond the initial range of the car, I know I'd be less likely to want to take trips beyond it, even if they were technically doable.
Stopping for 20-30 minutes every 150 miles or so isn't a burden for most people. Some people really like to push. But you really should be stopping that long, that often, regardless of what you're driving. People don't always do it, but they should.
As I mentioned in a comment elsewhere, the impact of charging time really depends on what you do in that time. If you can time your charging to coincide with a meal, for example, then the actual penalty from charging is zero. If you're doing a 400 mile road trip and you can make your supercharging stop your lunch stop, then you'll lose less time to charging than you'd lose to filling the tank of a gas car. Obviously that's a big if and it's not at all guaranteed, but the point is that this isn't an absolute, and "30 minutes to charge" shouldn't be thought of as being the equivalent of "30 minutes to fill the gas tank."
Personally I love long trips in the Model S. Part of that is just because the car is extremely comfortable and easy to drive, which makes long trips much less tiring. I'm sure that would come with other cars in that price range too, so not something that's exclusive to Tesla. The extra charging time has not so far been at all an issue. I've made three trips beyond the range of the car in the six months I've had it, and my total time spent waiting for the car to charge is zero. I'm sure that will start to become non-zero when I want to do, say, 500 miles in a day, but I still look forward to longer trips in it more than I did in my previous cars.
BTW, different people have different likes and dislikes about car interiors.
Sounds like you should buy a car you like.
Interior is debatable and subjective. The only concrete thing where it's worse is range. And everybody acknowledges that as far as I can see.
The problem is that a lot of people don't understand how the stuff works, and imagine that the ways in which the Tesla is worse are much worse than they really are.
Edit: range and price, actually. But everybody mentions the price too. Don't mistake "nobody mentions the flaws" with "everybody mentions what flaws there are, there just aren't that many flaws."
I will note that general availability is extremely good, but it's availability of fast charging that is currently somewhat problematic. If you're patient, you can charge just about anywhere. If you count 120V exterior outlets (and why not, they do work, just slowly) then there are a lot more places to charge an EV than fill a gas car in the US. If your average daily driving is under 50 miles then you can get by on that, although I wouldn't recommend it if there are alternatives.
Okay, people might exaggerate "range anxiety" on the Teslas. But you're definitely reaching here: when and where to fill up a gasoline car? How about 24 hours a day on almost any street corner in the country. Running out of fuel isn't even on the radar.
No, it's not a particularly big deal, but it's a constant low-level refrain. If I'm leaving in the morning for something time-sensitive, do I have to build an extra ten minutes into my schedule for a gas stop? What if I haven't been paying attention and discover fuel is running low when I'm on the highway and the next exit is in 20 miles? What if I pick the wrong street corner and get gouged? (The closest gas station to my house charges $2.49/gallon right now. While driving this morning I passed a station not too far away that charges $3.49/gallon.)
Filling up your gas car from time to time is not difficult. But it is something you have to think about from time to time. If you don't think about it, you'll occasionally find yourself having to make an unscheduled stop somewhere. It's small but non-zero. An EV is easier.
I don't think it's a particularly big deal. It's a nice convenience to have, but it wouldn't make or break the decision for buying a car. But I think it's a useful counterpoint to people who talk about how difficult or inconvenient charging is. 99% of the time it is easier than gas.
Also, just like how you charge your Tesla every night, I think most gas-powered car owners keep an eye on their fuel and will fill up the night before if they don't have time to stop in the morning. That's really a non-issue as well.
Yes, owners of gas-powered cars will need to make impromptu, unscheduled stops to fill up, but EV owners have to constantly be planning in advance to know that they'll be able to hit the next charging point, because if they don't make it their car is going to be making the rest of the journey on the back of a flatbed truck.
But my point is that for a gas car, getting gas and not running out of a gas is a constant thing even when you're not on a long trip.
When I had a gas car, every so often I would get in the car ready to drive 60 miles out to the countryside or something and realize, nuts, I need to get gas on the way.
I never let this happen to myself, but I see friends suddenly realize they need to stop and get gas while on a local drive of maybe 40 miles round trip.
And even if you're on top of things and never let it happen, you're still spending a few minutes every week filling up the car.
With an EV, for any trip that's within the range of the car, it's zero effort and zero thought. EV owners definitely don't have to "constantly be planning in advance." For 99% of drives you don't have to even think about it. Just unplug and go. For the 1% of the time you're making trips, then you have to think about it.
My point is simply that the EV isn't worse in this way, it's just different. It's a tradeoff. If, like most people, you mostly do local driving with very occasional road trips, the EV will be less effort overall, not more.
A Model S will alert you when you're about to drive out of range of known charging stations. If it's 100 miles to the next charging station, it'll start to bug you when you have something over 100 miles left. Not quite the same.
But my point here is, of course, more about the fact that you have to make ~50 (depending on how much you drive and what you drive, obviously) trips to the gas station every year even when you're just local, and thus gas-based range anxiety, while small, is ever-present. In an EV, it's not present at all when local.
Driving from Youngstown, Ohio to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania at 1 AM, I also worried about running out of fuel.
People I know who travel across Wyoming, Nevada, South Dakota etc. say it is worse out there.
Fuel is not available 24/7 on every street corner of the country. On Route 95 from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida it is to some extent. But go a little off the beaten track and it is not.
(full disclosure I own an 85D and don't find anything you listed very limiting).
A premium electric car like the Tesla is perfectly capable of being a daily driver for essentially anyone.
EDIT: BTW, I think that electric cars are cool, and even got a garage in my house so that I can go electric some time in the future. But I can imagine that for some people, the lifestyle won't work for them. So for those people... its probably best to admit that Electric isn't for them.
* (second only to the US in total Tesla sales, highest per-capita sales in the world)
http://www.caranddriver.com/dodge/charger-srt-srt-hellcat
I personally don't like either of them, but just saying...
http://www.hennesseyperformance.com/2015-dodge-srt-charger-h...
Disclaimer: Tesla investor.
At this point a Porsche is a glorified garage queen.
EDIT: A Porsche 918 MSRP is almost $845K and it's only 0.6 seconds faster than the Model S (P85D). They've made less than 1000 units.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_918
"not in the car scene"
How annoyingly, needlessly pretentious is that?
The fact you say "car scene" on the internet makes you 200x more oblivious then what you're accusing him of being.
Fucking car scene? Fucking weirdos, man!
Agreed - and that wasn't my point.
My point is, BMW is highlighting a performance stat that it's (relatively) terrible at. I don't know why they mention it at all.
Also it's worth noting that given the very much lower center of gravity that the Tesla has that it is also better at all the other things BMW is good at.
Anyway, they will change their car in 4 years. There is no reason for them to suffer through the early adopter problems (not good enough charging network, only in the silicon valley you don't look stupid if you tell your friend you can go in the south of France buying wine this we because there is not charging station on the way), they will simply buy when the future is there.
Are you counting the sum of all of the time you spend waiting for the car to recharge/refill? If so, and if you're a typical driver, then the Tesla wins. In an average month, you might spend a total of 15 minutes gassing up your car, and zero minutes charging your Tesla (because it's charging while you sleep).
On road trips, it will depend on how well charging stops coincide with bathroom/meal/coffee stops. A supercharger stop is both longer and more frequent than a gas stop, no dispute there, but if you time it to coincide with a break that outlasts the charging stop (easy to do) then the time penalty is zero. It's not practical to overlap gas filling with other stuff, so you can even lose out there.
Now, if you're the sort who drives five hours at a time without stopping then the gas car can win big on charging time. But even if you do that, unless you take those trips pretty frequently, the Tesla can still win on total time spent filling up.
Exterior 120V outlets are pretty common, so another option would be to plug into one of those while at work. That makes for slow charging, but you could add another 40 miles or so of range while you're there. (Understanding this is a hypothetical for you at this point.)
But it is the _only_ advantage left (see disclaimer at the end).
- Reliability should be much higher with Tesla, as the engine is much simpler.
- Ride quality. The 7 is a boat, does not have the agility of smaller, sportier BMW models.
- Looks. Obviously subjective, but 7's styling is very conservative and has not changed much.
Disclaimer: These two cars are targeted at two quite different (though equally affluent) types of buyers. Some people prefer conservative, some sporty.
If you're having any sort of engine failure in an internal combustion car built this century, someone is being malicious and trying to break your car.
Tesla, on the other hand, has had to recall a percentage of their electric motors because they were ripping themselves apart after 10K miles.
All the other parts of the car - the parts that actually still fail on modern vehicles - suspension, electronics, climate control, brakes, drive train, etc. are more complicated in a Tesla than in a regular car. The tesla has an electronically adjustable suspension, remotely upgradable electronics, climate control that doesn't get to run off of excess engine heat and belt driven compressors, two drivetrains (two transmissions and differentials), and regenerative braking. These systems are more complex than normal and only time will tell if they're more reliable than their legacy auto industry equivalents, but my feeling is they won't be.
That's why Lexus (reliability + interiors) is the bees knees. :-)
Repair rates are hovering at 90 repairs per 100 cars for all Model Ss, 2013 - today. 2014's is, ironically, 102 repairs per 100 cars. Compare that to repair rates of 30/100 being average (Minis) for new cars and 1-3/100 being good (Toyotas and their ilk).
http://www.truedelta.com/Tesla-Model-S/reliability-1095
Sure a 1980s Merc Diesel might make 500K and the ICE itself might last that long but the surrounding components are not cheap to maintain ....
Get to the point you can deliver 300 to 500 miles per charge at the same price point the average car purchase is at and call me. Its a rich man toy that you have to adapt to live with and don't even get me started on trip planning. I am not routing around my car's limitations.
Declaring a car perfect that has some pretty severe limitations in terms of range, etc is pretty ridiculous, but that's pretty standard fare for them. Or touting 85 equivalent MPG when you can purchase a similar gasoline vehicle at a significant discount vs. Tesla that performs as good or better.
In ye olden times with CR, you essentially lost 10 points for not being Honda.
It also has a wonky UI. The touch screen isn't perfect and a few dedicated knobs and buttons on the dash service would go a long way.
And it's way too expensive to be the "perfect" car. It's an interesting gadget for geeks (like me!) with enough income to buy one without thinking about it. The fit and finish of other $100,000 cars exceeds that of the Tesla.
(We also have solar on the house so we're not burning coal in some poor person's neighborhood to run it.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpaLgF1uLB8
The feature is a novelty but it makes for great social media bait. I never share links about cars with family/friends but I felt compelled to this time. It's entertaining because the car is completely silent while it pins them back in the seat - and people are having very honest reactions to the experience.
Yeah, until someone dies from this sort of reckless driving.
perfectly legal, and appropriate, when traffic permits.
in fact, if you don't, you're probably a shitty driver and need to learn how to merge. when you're merging into a river of steel doing 80mph and you're doing 45 because you're watching the consumption meter on your hybrid, you're an asshole.
1 - http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal...
It's not perfectly legal. Look up reckless driving or exhibition of speed laws. If you have a modern performance car and you do this in front of a cop, you're very likely to get a ticket. (An older car's full throttle might be too slow to concern a police officer and the laws are vague to allow the police officer's discretion.)
One can't legally use a performance car as advertised on public roads.
> in fact, if you don't, you're probably a shitty driver
I think you just mean you have to be at appropriate speed for a safe merge, but is full throttle really required? Unlikely.
That said, punching it is indeed an example of exhibition of speed and these videos clearly fit within its definition:
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal...
Is someone going to arrest these people or what? J/K...
I've owned one or another fire-breathing twin-turbocharged performance cars most of my life. I have never caused an accident. In fact, to echo what someone else said, some of the most dangerous situations I find myself in with alarming frequency is getting on the 5 fwy right behind someone who merges onto the freeway at 45 mph with semi-trucks buzzing by and refuses to push down on the accelerator. I couldn't even count the number of times I've seen, played out right in front of me, all the makings of a horrific accident because of a slow driver. Good fast drivers are more aware (they have to be) and just get out of the way. Slow drivers are dangerous.
That said, if these people were doing this on surface streets they are dangerous morons. It's no different from someone shooting a gun up in the air.
When did tabloids change from the place where you went to get the latest scoop on The Amazing Bat Boy to publications that folks actually paid attention to?
Similarly, should manufacturers design their products to be inoffensive to every bloviating, prevaricating alarmist with a blog? I don't think so. That's an unreasonable tax on both innovation and sound design. :)
Hmmm aside from the Sunday Sport the UK hasn't really ever had that sort of relationship with tabloids. Celebrity news though? Yeah.
If you're on a 55 mph road, is it reckless to accelerate quickly to 55 mph?
I could be considered reckless in the right circumstances. There are other people to consider.
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQl9OjPFDdc
It is identically positioned on both him and the teenage girl sitting next to him. Which should hint that it is correctly positioned.
But to get specific, a seatbelt is incorrectly positioned when the lap strap goes across a child's belly OR the shoulder strap doesn't cross their collar bone. Like this: http://i.imgur.com/Zu9pmBv.jpg
In this video the boy (or girl) didn't violate either of those guidelines, therefore he does not require a booster seat.
I wouldn't go much smaller than he is without one however.
Imagine the speed they could travel at a very sudden stop. Posing a pretty big risk to people in front of them, not to mention themselves. In this video the phone nearly smacked the girl in the face.
After reading that I always make sure to check my phone on my lap while in a vehicle and not up towards my face where it could go flying at a sudden stop.
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/08/mythbusters_killer_tissue...
I don't believe they found that something the size and weight of a phone could be fatal, given the fire extinguisher that weighed 1kg didn't do much damage.
Also, the Simpsons did it first:
Tralawney: Listen, we've been meaning to have a talk with you about your reviews. Everything's a rave! Nine thumbs up, what the hell is that?
Homer: I've given out my share of bad reviews
Beaumont: Oh, the only bad review you gave was to a slice of pizza you found under the couch.
Homer: It lost some points because it had a Hot Wheel on it.
It's pretty clear that they came up with some arbitrary scoring system where each aspect of the car gets some number of points. There's nothing wrong with that, any rating is going to be arbitrary to some degree. They then arranged the scales such that whatever they saw as a good car would come close to 100, because 100 seems like a nice number.
Then they test a car with a combination of attributes they never expected, and it exceeds 100. 100 isn't the actual maximum, it's just what they thought would be the top score from their system. Turns out that if you throw a car at their system that is extremely efficient and powerful and seats lots of people, the numbers go higher.
However, there's still always a relevant maximum that you should measure relative to, and refrigerators have a theoretical maximum. The maximum ("Carnot") efficiency is the ratio of the higher (absolute) temperature to the temperature difference. For room temperature to freezing, that would be ~300/27 = 11.1 = 1100%.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance
The Porsche. These might not be two cars that are commonly cross-shopped, and the Tesla does beat the Porsche to 60 mph. Still, the Porsche was clearly the winner in just about every other way in my estimation. Anyone else have a similar experience?
I might not be able to buy a Porsche any time soon, but which ways are you suggesting?
I wonder if it would do it 60 times in a row. http://www.thesmokingtire.com/2014/see-how-good-porsche-laun...
Except it doesn't. One of the biggest complaints about the Model S is that its interior belongs in a specced-up Accord, not an S-class competitor.
The next car might be a Tesla though.
Unlike gas cars, you start off with 200 miles of range EVERY MORNING since you charge overnight. Most Americans also only drive an average of 40 miles a day. And for those long trips, you have Superchargers.
yawn
200 supercharger stations worldwide, but that's not counting electric vehicle charging stations, plus the station in your driveway. All gas stations are further away than the tesla station in the garage.
Yes, the cost of the vehicle includes the cost of building supercharger stations, but then again, the cost of gas includes the cost of building stations too, so maybe a bad comparison.
I see where you are going with your arguments, however they don't all apply. I think the most valid thing you said is perhaps the line ups, but again I can't comment on that, not to mention gas stations have line ups... so there's that.
1) Superchargers aren't geographically positioned for daily routines, but rather strategically located between major cities across the country for long range trips.
2) There's a lot more places to charge than Tesla's 200 Superchargers. U.S. Department of Energy currently states that there are ~10k public charging stations ( http://www.afdc.energy.gov/locator/stations/?fuel=ELEC ). This also doesn't even count the many private chargers on commercial property provided by employers to their employees. (ChargePoint's commercial network has 20k stations as well.)
3) Most people will charge at home and start with 200 miles of range each day vs. filling up a 350 mile range gas tank once a week.
4) The cost to install a charger isn't excessive: my parents spent about $600 to get an 80 amp breaker outfitted into their 25 year old home. The work was complete in a half day. (When they visit my home, they were able to plug directly into my 240V dryer outlet to recharge.) Even with the cost of install + cost of electric factored in, it's still 3-4x cheaper to travel the same number of miles on gas each year.
>What should I do if all Supercharger stalls are occupied when I arrive? Check to see if current users have left contact information on their dashboard and give them a call. Most customers charge for 20 to 40 minutes.
http://www.teslamotors.com/support/supercharging
I can only ask: why would you bother recharging at 3/4 of a charge? I've literally never in my life stopped to top off my tank at 3/4 of a tank of gasoline.
As someone who doesn't have power to his 1927 garage, this would represent a pretty huge cost for me and was a major reason for my choosing the hybrid Fusion over the Energi plug-in.
I mean you just plop out "you charge overnight" as if it happens by magic. Someone has to come and install that appliance. And it's gonna cost money, perhaps a significant amount of it.
Like, a new engine, better in-car entertainment, better sound system, seat-heating, cruise control, distance control, semi/full automatic driving... if I could e.g. buy a stripped down Tesla as a student which I can then (given, of course, I don't crash it) upgrade over its lifetime as I put some money aside, instead of having to buy an entirely new car when the old one is still perfectly functioning.
Tesla has been pretty unclear about their modularity and upgrades. Be careful when reading marketing material: these marketing slides open your imagination but aren't necessarily filled with the truth. They've kept things vague to help stir our imaginations... but don't go dropping $70,000 on vague promises.
When Tesla starts actually making modular cars, we'll know the details. Until then, treat these promises as marketing and/or vaporware. I'm sure Elon Musk is going to push his company to actually deliver on his promises, but sometimes engineers can only do so much.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/roadster-30
http://gas2.org/2015/05/05/340-mile-tesla-roadster-upgrade-d...
I agree with your comment that it's easy to fantasize about upgrades that will never happen. Early Model S cars lack the hardware for driving assistance, and my friends who think they know about such things predict that additional computer power will be needed to achieve all that Elon is predicting for self-driving.
A better battery pack for all Model S cars, on the other hand, is likely to eventually show up. All existing cars can be upgraded to the 90 KWh battery, but Tesla is suggesting that everyone is better off waiting for a more significant upgrade later in your battery's life.
When specifics come out, I think its sane to trust them. The political fall out if Roadsters upgrades aren't delivered is too great.
> Early Model S cars lack the hardware for driving assistance, and my friends who think they know about such things predict that additional computer power will be needed to achieve all that Elon is predicting for self-driving.
Yeah, this is the danger I'm trying to warn against. It isn't necessarily that Elon Musk or Tesla is "lying" to people, they're just vague about upgrade packages. So dreamers begin to dream and some misunderstandings may occur.
Its best to wait for specifics, like that Roadster info you've linked.
http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/consumerreports.org.html