Print 170 comment(s) - last by BillyBatson.. on Mar 8 at 6:16 PM

Tesla Model S
Broder said he never set out to "fail" the Model S before or during the trip

Tesla Motors and The New York Times have been in a "he said, she said" war over a recent test drive for the Model S sedan, and now, the NYT staffer who took the road trip has prepared a rebuttal to the automaker's claims.

For those who aren't up to speed, here's some backstory: NYT staff writer John Broder took Tesla's Model S sedan on an east coast road trip this winter with the intention of checking out the new East Coast Superchargers, then writing an article about. The article, published February 10, described a horrible adventure where the electric vehicle's range failed on many occasions and eventually had to be towed.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk became suspicious of Broder's claims, since so many other journalists had made similar or more tasking trips in the Model S. He pulled the driving logs from Broder's Model S and discovered that the NYT article had some inaccuracies. Musk accused Broder of having a biased opinion against EVs before even receiving the Model S, and hence, set the car up for failure in many "no-win" scenarios.

Now, Broder has published yet another article in response to Musk's claims.

"Elon Musk , the chief executive of Tesla Motors, has now responded in detail to the account of my test drive of his Model S electric car, using the company’s new East Coast Superchargers, that was published in The Times on Feb. 10," said Broder. "His broadest charge is that I consciously set out to sabotage the test. That is not so. I was delighted to receive the assignment to try out the company’s new East Coast Supercharger network and as I previously noted in no way anticipated – or deliberately caused – the troubles I encountered."

Broder explained that over the course of his trip, he spoke to Tesla employees several times to confirm certain information about battery conservation, Superchargers along the way, etc. He specifically named Christina Ra, Tesla's spokeswoman, and Ted Merendino, Tesla's product planner in California, as his main two sources of advice during the trip.

Broder addressed each of Musk's concerns individually, as Musk laid out in his post on Tesla's website today.

Musk said that the car never, at any time, ran out of energy during the trip even though Broder's article said it did (and needed a flatbed truck to be towed). Broder said it did, and the car couldn't even move or have enough power to release the parking brake. The two truck driver even needed to speak with Tesla's New York service manager Andy Williams for 15-20 minutes in regards to moving the vehicle onto the tow truck.

Musk's earlier post also pointed out that Broder, on his final charge of the trip, disconnected the charge cable when the range display showed only 32 miles when the last leg of the trip was 61 miles total (however, despite not fully charging the car, it managed to travel 51 miles -- and still wasn't completely out of charge when the flatbed truck was called for a tow). Broder replied to this statement saying that he consulted Ra and Merendino at the time, who said to only leave the car connected for an hour and the previously lost range (due to not being charged overnight) would be restored enough for the last leg of the trip.

Also, during that last leg of the trip, Musk said Broder drove right past a charging station where he could have given the Model S another boost. Broder said he wasn't aware of that charging station, and the Tesla employee he was speaking to only made mention of the station in East Haven, Connecticut -- which is where he was trying to go.

Musk also said that Broder never set the cruise control to 54 MPH or drove at 45 MPH, as stated in the article. Instead, he drove at speeds of 65-81 MPH for a majority of the trip. Broder responded saying he "recalled" setting the cruise control to 54 MPH and also driving at 45 MPH in spots, but the discrepancy may lie in the car having 19-inch wheels and all-season tires instead of 21-inch wheels and summer tires (which is what was supposed to be delivered). Broder said this could have impacted the recorded range, speed, rate of battery depletion, etc. Broder added that he drove "normally," and that the spikes in speed could have happened when in cruise control because of downhill stretches. 

As for the cabin temperature, which Musk said was kept at 72 degrees at most times (and that Broder had actually increased the temperature to 74 degrees when the article stated he turned it down), Broder said he "raised and lowered the cabin heat in an effort to strike a balance between saving energy and staying somewhat comfortable." He mentioned that the driving logs showed he turned the temperature down significantly on two occasions.

Musk further noted that Broder's charge time on the second stop was 47 minutes, and not 58 minutes as stated in the article's graphic. He said that if Broder didn't turn off the Supercharger at 47 minutes and went for the full 58, it would have been "virtually impossible" for him to run out of energy so quickly. According to Broder's notes, he plugged into the Milford Supercharger at 5:45 p.m. and disconnected at 6:43 p.m. and the range said 185 miles.

Musk pointed out that Broder only recharged the car to 90 percent on his first stop, to 72 percent on the second Supercharge and to 28 percent on the last leg -- significantly cutting charging times at each stop. Broder said he only charged the vehicle enough for the number of miles he planned to travel. He also said that he only charged for an hour on the lower-power charger in Norwich per the advice of Tesla employees.

As for the "driving in circles" claim that Musk directed at Broder -- which said the NYT staffer had taken a long detour in Manhattan and proceeded to drive the car in circles in for over a half mile in a tiny parking lot upon entering Milford, Connecticut (where the range display said 0 miles) in an attempt to kill the battery -- Broder said he was at the service plaza in Milford looking for the Supercharging station because it wasn't clearly marked, and he drove in circles looking for it. He also added that the detour through Manhattan was only an additional two miles to the overall trip.

Broder ended the article saying that Musk had not only apologized to him for the poor experience, but also said that the charging stations should be placed 60 miles closer together and offered Broder a second test drive when new stations are added.

"Before I set out in the Model S, I did speak with the company’s chief technology officer, J B Straubel, about the charging network and some of the car’s features and peculiarities," said Broder. "Neither he nor the Tesla representative who delivered the car to me provided detailed instructions on maximizing the driving range, the impact of cold weather on battery strength or how to get the most out of the Superchargers or the publicly available lower-power charging ports along the route."

Updated 2/15/2013 @ 8:58am
Thanks to commenter Logical_Thinker for pointing out that CNN performed the same trip from DC to Boston and made it without running out of juice or requiring a flatbed truck. 

Source: The New York Times

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Logical_Thinker on 2/15/2013 8:48:48 AM , Rating: 5
CNN just re-tested the exact same trip, and guess what: They finished with many miles of range remaining.

NYT reporter himself admitted he didn't charge the car FULLY.

News Flash: Electric Cars must be FULLY charged for FULL range. Kind of like Gas cars must be fully filled for full range.
Funny how that works, hey?

By Brandon Hill on 2/15/2013 8:52:47 AM , Rating: 5
Haha, that's awesome.

By Brandon Hill on 2/15/2013 12:38:49 PM , Rating: 5
Da hell? I don't think I've ever NOT filled up my tank full with gas. What would be the point unless you're some poor schmuck that can't afford gas?

By Mint on 2/15/2013 1:07:53 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, that's absurd, and in this case the gas is free.

Really, Strunf? You wouldn't fill up your gas tank at a free station?

By Micronite on 2/15/2013 1:25:53 PM , Rating: 1
Because it takes several hours of precious time to fill up an electric vehicle.

By Mint on 2/15/2013 2:02:13 PM , Rating: 5
He saved maybe 10 minutes by filling it up to 185/300 instead of, say, 245/300.

90%+ of the population would wait 10 minutes for 60 miles of free gas. In fact, that works out to $40+/hr for doing nothing but killing time.

By Strunf on 2/18/2013 8:05:57 AM , Rating: 2
It took him 47min for 185miles, but now you say 10min would give some extra 60 miles, nice maths skills!

Also what if I told you batteries don't charge linearly and it actually takes more time to charge the last 10% than the first 10%?

By Mint on 2/18/2013 11:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
He wouldn't be charging the last 10% to get 60 miles. Using linear interpolation, it would be from 72% to 72+(100-72)*60/(300-185)=86.6%. Since he charged from 4% (which is below zero miles, as Broder dipped into the reserve) to 72% in 47 minutes, that would take 14.6/(72-4)*47 = 10.1 minutes. Even if these assumptions are wrong and it had to charge to 90%, then it becomes 12 minutes. BFD.

Do you feel good about yourself for being such a nitpicker?

By Strunf on 2/19/2013 10:01:32 AM , Rating: 2
You mixed the Tesla estimation with the actual car estimations.
If 72% = 185 miles then 245miles = 95%, well into the non linear area, anyways it would take him 15min more for the extra 60miles and this assuming linear charging speed.

I'm not nitpicking between 10min and 15min there's a 50% difference.

By SPOOFE on 2/15/2013 2:56:56 PM , Rating: 4
There was one point where he could have left the car to charge overnight while he was doing nothing, and he chose not to. I dunno, that just seems kinda dumb, as if the NYT guy doesn't understand electricity.

By SPOOFE on 2/16/2013 2:39:33 AM , Rating: 1
In the real world you aren't going to be able to charge your car overnight everywhere you are. Fact.

Oh yeah, for all those times I stop in the middle of the desert along the 40 just to gaze longingly up at the stars....

... But we're talking about a guy that was in the middle of civilization. The only reason he skipped charging stations was because he wanted to test the "supercharger" stations that Tesla has been planting. But the point of those stations is to "charge faster". And "faster" isn't much of a concern if you're stopped for eight hours sleeping.

And this is irrelevant because the cars range estimator said he had enough juice left to get there anyway.

My ICE car once told me I had an eighth of a tank when really it was empty. OH MY GOD INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES SUCK!!!!

By rlandess on 2/16/2013 6:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
I think in the real world you should plan to get stuck on the side of the if you only put enough fuel/charge in a vehicle to get from A to B. The range estimator i'm sure doesn't calculate based on a worst case scenario. The article doesn't make a good case about whether EVs are ready for "prime time." It really makes more of a statement about whether Evs are ready for dumb people. Sure, Evs are immature technology, they require a change in the way you use your vehicle, and they may be impractical to find a charging station in most areas, but for some who live in convenient proximity to charging stations and don't mind changing their behavior I'd bet an electric car might be an attractive option.

I imagine it isn't a problem for most people to to avoid being stuck on the side of the road with an EV. And with better battery technology in the works there really shouldn't be an excuse to get stuck unless you lack the ability to do basic math and think more than a few hours in advance.

By your logic diesel engines aren't ready for "prime time" because sometime they don't work well in cold weather and sometimes computers overheat when it's hot. People make decisions by weighing consequences and benefits. I'm sure for some people Evs are completely reasonable.

By StormyKnight on 2/15/2013 10:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
The place Broder was overnight didn't offer overnight charging for the car.

By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2013 10:40:52 PM , Rating: 1
That's no excuse!! He should have ran a 100' extension cord from his room to the car!! He's biased!!


Seriously the idea that such a Liberal rag as the NYT would deliberately set out to kneecap Tesla requires suspension of disbelief.

By SPOOFE on 2/16/2013 2:43:14 AM , Rating: 4
So, Broder DOES post to Dailytech. Your posts suddenly make so much more sense. :)

By SPOOFE on 2/16/2013 2:42:39 AM , Rating: 3
Then stop someplace where there is one. I mean, he put all this planning into this trip... but misses glaringly obvious details like this? He timed out distances between individual charging points, but didn't think it was prudent to put his car someplace where it could charge? Huh?

It's just backwards. I don't think anybody's made the claim that we have a robust, readily-available network of EV charging stations.

By BillyBatson on 2/16/2013 11:05:36 AM , Rating: 1
Um sorry to say but there are a lot of people like that including myself! I am one of those people who just hate filling up gas I hate stopping to do it and so I alwaysssss get gas when I am already below 0 (because very car can continue to drive 15-30 miles passed 0) and when I do fill up I almost never fill up to full. Sometimes it is because I'm running low in funds and need to make sure I have enough for more important things, but most of the time it is because I simply don't need to go to a full tank and I don't want to waste the extra time pumping to a full tank lol. I know a lottttt of people who do exactly the same thing. I tend to fill my tank to complete full only when I need maximum range without stopping like trips to Vegas or camping etc but other than that I usually only fill up $30 at a time, regardless of funds.

On another note I don't believe a single one of the writers claims, and th spikes in speed are while going downhill while on cruise control? Yes there is a spike in speed when this occurs but usually to the tunes of 3mph before dropping back to the set speed and not 30mph that would mean the cruise control has some serious issues. And just because he was in contact with tesla support does not mean he was providing accurate information so that tesla could offer the correct advice. He should have been fired already.

By qkool on 2/16/2013 6:48:35 PM , Rating: 5
I don't want to waste the extra time pumping to a full tank lol.

Filling up your tank is not a waste of time. Having to stop more often for gas because you don't want to fully fill up is a waste of time.

By BillyBatson on 3/8/2013 6:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
Incorrect. When I stop to get gas it is always while I am on my way somewhere and would like to get there ASAP not take my time and full up longer than what is needed. I'm never home just watching TV and just decide to go get gas because I have nothing to do. So yes filling up completely to full is a waste of time for me.

By Strunf on 2/18/2013 7:36:01 AM , Rating: 1
You're right I'm a poor schmuck by doing more refills I probably save tons of money, your logic is flawless!

By km9v on 2/19/2013 12:32:58 PM , Rating: 2
Do you mean to tell me that journalists twist facts (lie) in their reporting??? Say it isn't so!!!

By ChronoReverse on 2/15/2013 12:54:16 PM , Rating: 5
They were driving at higher than the most fuel efficient speeds. They "filled up" just like most people would do with a gas engine.

If anything, they did it like a "normal driver" would which is something you and other have been pontificating whenever it suits your agenda.

Seriously, the fact that you're unable to focus on the issue (is the NYT writer lying or not?) in favor of just saying "EV's are ready for everyone" (which is true) shows how you're not prepared to discuss the subject without bringing your own bias in.

By Mint on 2/15/2013 2:04:55 PM , Rating: 3
Only in your EV-hating world does "real world driving" involve leaving a free gas station with your tank showing itself only 62% full.

By kypd275 on 2/15/2013 3:33:13 PM , Rating: 5
I do before I leave on a long road trip

By Spuke on 2/15/2013 4:14:05 PM , Rating: 1
I do before I leave on a long road trip
I don't. At 60%, I'll fill up later. It's quicker in some instances to fill later once the typical traffic bottlenecks are passed.

By ChronoReverse on 2/15/2013 4:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
On the other hand, if I'm going down a stretch of highway where I know there's no fill ups for a long distance (there's a 100km stretch between Vancouver and Calgary for instance), I _would_ fill up.

It's a matter of basic prudence.

By SPOOFE on 2/16/2013 2:46:47 AM , Rating: 5
It just makes Reclai-- er, I mean, Broder look like an idiot: All this effort put into "planning" his trip, trying to get the exact distances between charging points, being aware of his route the entire way...

... But he can't A: anticipate charging during the BEST, MOST CONVENIENT time to charge your car, B: anticipate potentially inaccurate distance measurements (oh yeah, no ICE vehicle has ever been inaccurate with fuel estimates), or C: do the slightest bit of research about how electronics fare in cold weather.

It's a sloppy, shoddy, half-assed test, AT BEST. Reclai-- I mean, Broder, should be ashamed.

By Mint on 2/15/2013 7:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
And what if you're already at the gas station?

You would leave without filling it up?

By SPOOFE on 2/16/2013 2:48:55 AM , Rating: 3

By kypd275 on 2/16/2013 12:18:40 PM , Rating: 3
/shrug, there are plenty of gas stations on the way to the highway, it makes no sense to me to not stop there and fill up first, instead of having to look for rest stops (which usually have more expensive gas anyway) later on while I'm happily cruising down the highway.

By SPOOFE on 2/16/2013 2:51:57 AM , Rating: 1
To blast someone for "only" having 90% of a full tank when embarking on a trip, whether the tank burns fuel or we're talking battery capacity, is blatantly divisive.

Oh please stop trying to justify your driving test for your NYT employer, Mr. Broder. You did a half-decent job pretending to take into account all the variables of the trip, but the fact remains that you ignored or were painfully ignorant about several blatantly obvious facts.

Nobody argues that EVs are as convenient for ultra-long drives as an ICE. The argument is that for the vast majority of drives, ultra-long distances aren't involved. Frankly, the fact that you had to engage in such silly antics in the worst of conditions to make the car look bad just shows how far EV's have come in just ten frighteningly short years.

By Mint on 2/15/2013 7:34:18 PM , Rating: 4
Right. Cause we all rush into gas stations when our tanks hit 60%...

Hello? McFly? Anybody in there?

He LEFT the gas station with 62% range. He "rushed into the gas station" when his tank was past zero , not 60%, and left without filling up, despite the juice being free.

What part of that is normal?

By SPOOFE on 2/16/2013 2:53:42 AM , Rating: 3
in the real world

You keep bringing up this "real world". In the real world, a statistically negligible amount of commuter drives involve distances greater than some dozens of miles.

But I don't think you know what the real world is like, do you, Mr. Broder?

By rlandess on 2/18/2013 9:42:59 PM , Rating: 1
I suppose intelligent people refuel when the amount of gas left in the tank is plausibly not enough to get them to their destination.

By StormyKnight on 2/15/2013 10:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't. I keep records of my fuel fillups. I always wait until bare minimum of an 1/8th of a tank before I fill up. I don't want to skew my numbers so I can keep as accurate account of my fuel economy.

I'm sure I'm not the only one that does this, but I'm sure I'm in the minority.

Now, my wife on the other hand, she'd top off if gas was free if her car were between 7/8ths to full...

By UpSpin on 2/16/2013 11:23:04 AM , Rating: 4
Your reason to wait until it's empty doesn't make any sense. I also keep records of my fuel, but I fill it up whenever the price is very low or the tank below 1/4th. And I'm still able to calculate my average consumption rate. You just have to do some math. And if you're a statistics freak you enter it in Excel and plot a graph. There's absolutely no reason to wait till it's almost empty.

By SPOOFE on 2/15/2013 3:00:51 PM , Rating: 5
The CNN article is a "joke" for sure that if you know what problems other faced you will fully charge your battery,

It's a "joke" that he used common sense with the vehicle?

also the temperature was 10 degree warmer and that helps.

He also did it in one day instead of spreading it out. The NYT fool slept for a night and totally could've charged his car during that time, but didn't, which just makes him look stupid.

By Scannall on 2/16/2013 5:46:11 PM , Rating: 4
I fly a plane. Places to refuel them are few and far between. I always carry at least an hours worth of fuel above and beyond what I need to make it to where I am going. Anything less starts getting risky.

And the same (though without as dire of a circumstance) should be going through your head when you drive an EV. Anything less is foolish.

By bug77 on 2/15/2013 7:57:03 PM , Rating: 3
Fwiw, when charging takes more than an hour, you tend to charge just enough so you can make it to your destination. Gas has electricity at a serious disadvantage here.

By Mint on 2/15/2013 10:37:03 PM , Rating: 3

So somebody offers you a free tank of gas (250 miles in a M5 or E63 needs 14+ gallons of gas, i.e. $50) if you leave him the car for an hour, and you're free to do whatever you want in the meantime - shop, eat, talk on the phone, surf - and you turn it down?

Please. You troll DT for free, so I can only imagine how eager you'd do it for $50/hr.

By StormyKnight on 2/15/2013 11:19:29 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, I would too. Unless there is servicing that needs to be done to the car that is critical, I'm not going to wait 1 hour for fuel no matter what the price is. It is inconvenient. It is NOT feasible. I would never plan a trip no matter how trivial where I would have take 45 minutes to an hour to refuel. I'm a gadget guy from hell, but the only way I would consider purchasing an EV (big big gadget) would be if it were far cheaper than a gas car of equivalent size and capability.

By SPOOFE on 2/16/2013 2:55:20 AM , Rating: 1
It's cute that you keep pretending that Broder is someone else. :)

Tesla controversy
By nitrodawg on 2/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: Tesla controversy
By Brandon Hill on 2/15/2013 8:42:05 AM , Rating: 5
Turn off your cell phone ;)

RE: Tesla controversy
By Logical_Thinker on 2/15/2013 8:50:46 AM , Rating: 5
Tesla only turns on data logging in customer cars with their express consent. You should be aware that all cars nowadays have data loggers.

For media test drives, allowing logging is part of the legal contract they have to sign, since there is a fair amount of anti-EV sentiment around (as can be seen in these posts).

RE: Tesla controversy
By tng on 2/15/2013 10:24:23 AM , Rating: 2
there is a fair amount of anti-EV sentiment around
Can't say that I am for or against, a Tesla would work for me just fine because of range where a Leaf would not. The problem is that both are to expensive at this point.

I am still against the Fed Tax Credit, especially when it is for a car that costs $80K (midrange price). To me it just seems wrong that someone who can afford this price tag gets a tax credit.

RE: Tesla controversy
By Mint on 2/15/2013 1:54:04 PM , Rating: 3
I don't see how you can say a Leaf is expensive now that the 2013 model is here. Sure, it has range limitations and it has little application outside a household's secondary car for trips under 70 miles, but within that market you can't run any new car for less .

If you drive 1000 miles per month, lease+electricity will be about $230/mo.

There's no other similarly equipped car that can match that. Few cars get 35MPG combined, and even that will cost you $100/mo in gas at $3.50/gallon. So you're left with $130/mo for the car and additional maintenance that EVs don't have.

Even if you look at buying a gas car instead, it'll take 10 years to pay off a $13k car loan at 4% interest if you can only afford $130/month, and that's assuming no engine repairs and free oil changes. Even brakes takes far less wear on an EV due to regenerative braking.

RE: Tesla controversy
By tng on 2/15/2013 9:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how you can say a Leaf is expensive now that the 2013 model is here
So a SLIGHTLY LESS EXPENSIVE EV that still can't get me to and from work is a good pick? Don't get me wrong, it is not the EV part of this equation that I don't like it is the range. I would reject a ICE car that only had a ~70 mile range as well. I drive over 600 miles per week when I am in CA and less than 20% of that is what you would term "local".

So why would I buy a $25K (about that I guess) on a car that I could not use on a daily basis when there are so many cars out there that are cheaper and have much more range? As for payments, I would never take out a loan to buy a car, especially when there are plenty of cars that are barely a year old with very low miles at a much reduced price. Allot of people out there buy a car and find that they don't like it or have babies or any number of things that mean they have to change cars, I like to take advantage of that.

Also for most of us, where there are no charging stations, the electricity is not free, we would have to do it at home.

Also I would just like to ask... Why does a car like the leaf need to be so fugly (IMO)?

RE: Tesla controversy
By Mint on 2/15/2013 10:21:03 PM , Rating: 2
but within that market you can't run any new car for less .

You think every one drives 600 miles a week? Or every household needs every car capable of doing so?

You think everyone can buy one-year old cars with nobody buying new ones?

You think everyone can buy a car without a loan/lease?

If you were changing cars, why wouldn't you take into account residual value? I guarantee you that net cost (purchase price plus fuel minus resale value) will be lower with a Leaf than any gas car.

Also for most of us, where there are no charging stations, the electricity is not free, we would have to do it at home.
Electricity cost for home charging is included in the $230/mo figure.

Also I would just like to ask... Why does a car like the leaf need to be so fugly (IMO)?
Sadly, I agree. Nissan has some of the most hit and miss body design of any manufacturer. Plenty of beautiful designs and then you have WTF cars like the Juke, 2013 Altima, Leaf, etc.

RE: Tesla controversy
By tng on 2/15/2013 11:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
You think every one drives 600 miles a week? Or every household needs every car capable of doing so?
Wasn't talking about anyone but me, although there are plenty of people in my neighborhood like me that would love to have a EV that has good range and is reasonably priced and but that is not going to happen for quite a few years.
You think everyone can buy one-year old cars with nobody buying new ones?
Still only talking about myself, I would not dare to presume that my choices are right for everybody, that would make me just like allot of people here who think that everybody should be forced to convert to EVs based on their limited world view ( not a shot at you personally).
You think everyone can buy a car without a loan/lease?
Do I have to repeat?
I guarantee you that net cost (purchase price plus fuel minus resale value) will be lower with a Leaf than any gas car.
Electricity cost for home charging is included in the $230/mo figure.
Really? Then I spend about ~$180 on gas and roughly $30 month on maintenance, and I bet that home charging has costs up front.

I now have a car that I paid cash for 12 years ago (less than half of a leaf), it is economical and reliable. Really I expect it to last at least 350K miles.
then you have WTF cars like the Juke, 2013 Altima
Yeah, sometimes I just don't get it.

RE: Tesla controversy
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: Tesla controversy
By tng on 2/16/2013 2:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
He sees what he wants to see and hears what he wants to hear.
Yeah, I know, but I have to try. I understand that some people here didn't grow up in the same circumstances that I did and have differeing viewpoints, but sometimes it is frustrating seeing how 2D the thinking is...

RE: Tesla controversy
By Mint on 2/17/2013 11:15:53 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see how you can accuse me of 2D thinking when I specifically talked about the Leaf being economical for one type of buyer: A household's secondary car for someone looking to buy new.
37.6% of households have two cars. 19.5% have 3 or more cars. Also, over 60% of new cars do less than 15k miles/yr, which is easily doable by the Leaf, and that percentage only gets higher for older cars.

It's not for everyone, and I never said it was, but it can potentially work for over half of households. That's a huge market. When it came out, the Leaf was way overpriced, but a $6400 price cut makes all the difference.

I now have a car that I paid cash for 12 years ago (less than half of a leaf), it is economical and reliable. Really I expect it to last at least 350K miles.
Then you have no reason to buy a Civic, Fit, Versa or any other new car anyway, so why are you even going down this line of argumentation?

As I mentioned above, your case is already outside the confines of my statement, but now you're saying that your case is completely irrelevant to any type new car purchase? You can't pay for and fuel any new car for $180+30 doing 1500+ miles per month.

RE: Tesla controversy
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/13, Rating: 0
RE: Tesla controversy
By tng on 2/17/2013 2:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks Bud, but I've got this.

As I mentioned above, your case is already outside the confines of my statement, but now you're saying that your case is completely irrelevant to any type new car purchase? You can't pay for and fuel any new car for $180+30 doing 1500+ miles per month.
Well, in all fairness I did say several times I could not speak for most people and this was just my situation.

I will say that where I live, there are many people that do the same daily commute into where they work but can't afford to live and if they could get an EV that had a 300 mile range for the price of a Leaf they would go for it. Again, that is not going to happen soon.

That being said, I do have a car that I bought in 08 with 64K miles and it now has 94K miles. Mainly driven by my wife locally, this would be the perfect vehicle to replace with an EV. The problem with that is that when there is something that I can't fix on my commute car and I need to take it to the shop, I use that car for my commute. Again it all comes down to range and the fact that despite many people here who have never lived outside of a large urban environment where EVs make sense, that is not the case for most people out there.

Just for the record, I spend half of my time on the road for business and will drive leased/rental cars while I am, so the gas/insurance/maintenance is not on me.

RE: Tesla controversy
By Mint on 2/18/2013 11:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
The 2013 Leaf - the first low cost 5-seat EV - has been on the market for less than a month.

There is no data about how well it will sell. $230/mo to run a decently equipped (power windows/locks) compact is unprecedented.

If you want me to add subsidies, then I'm going to include a future battery replacement 10 years from now (at greatly reduced cost) and make it a 20-year/200,000 mile cost estimate. The EV will win.

5-10 years from now, a used Leaf will be the most inexpensive way to travel up to 50 miles a day. It'll be a big help to the lower two quintiles, not to mention the benefits on the trade deficit.

RE: Tesla controversy
By Mint on 2/18/2013 12:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
^^ I meant for this to be a reply to Reclaimer. Sorry tng.

However, do realize that while you were talking about yourself, the post of mine that you replied to explicitly stated that EVs are appropriate for a certain market, not everyone.

Again it all comes down to range and the fact that despite many people here who have never lived outside of a large urban environment where EVs make sense, that is not the case for most people out there.
The data just doesn't support this statement of yours. I gave you a link above with very detailed statistics, and over 60% of cars under 3 years old do less than 15,000 miles per year. For older cars, it's up to 80%. Less than 5% of vehicle trips are over 30 miles, so households with 2 or more cars (over half of them) could potentially work with an EV that has less than 100 miles of range, let alone 300.

I think it all comes down to price, and it just got addressed this month. If we don't see sales go up in a year, I'll say it's time to give up on pure EVs, but I suspect that they'll prove to grow much faster than I originally though a few years ago.

I always though that that bolting ~10kWh to a regular hybrid would be no more expensive than a pure EV with 2-3x the battery, and indeed aftermarket PHEV kits for hybrids only cost a few grand, but it looks like pure EVs have the ability to make a value proposition.

RE: Tesla controversy
By tng on 2/20/2013 4:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
I always though that that bolting ~10kWh to a regular hybrid would be no more expensive than a pure EV
Yeah, I know what you mean, I like the idea of a Hybrid better and this would probably be the only kind of car I would consider buying new.

I am fan of Japanese cars and work for a Japanese company so probably I would get a CRV or what ever the little Honda model is. Not a big fan of the Prius, again it is just looks and ergonomics in the latest model (drove one as a rental).

The best I could think of would be getting an original Honda Insight in good condition used. I have a neighbor that drives to SoCal every week and says that at 70mph he gets 70MPG.

RE: Tesla controversy
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: Tesla controversy
By Mint on 2/16/2013 11:13:32 AM , Rating: 3
Honda Fit > Leaf.

Its not cheaper anymore.
$169/mo, $2499 down. 31 MPG and $3.61/gallon (national avg) means $116 for 1000 miles/mo. Total is $285/mo.

2013 leaf is $199/mo, $1999 down. 115 MPGe and $0.12/kWh means $35 for 1000 miles/mo. Total is $234/mo and $500 less down.

Think buying a Fit is a better deal? Try paying off $17k-$2k = $15k for a Fit with the equivalent of $119/month. That's the Leaf's total monthly cost minus the Fit's monthly gas cost. At a low 3% interest, it'll take you 13 years to do that, and yes, interest matters. For anyone with a mortgage, HELOC, student debt, or any loan outstanding, interest matters, because buying means you pay down your debt slower. Only 24% of households have no debt.

Up front costs do not tell the whole story.

Mint even YOU said the Tesla should have been a PHEV
Yeah, and the iPhone should have had a model with a bigger display a long time ago. That didn't stop it from being the best smartphone until the last year or two.

A PHEV Tesla would have been a practical car everywhere, including 2000-mile family road trips. This article is about it being practical solely in the NY-Boston corridor. It absolutely is. However, it could have been so much more.

RE: Tesla controversy
By othercents on 2/15/2013 8:51:50 AM , Rating: 3
I don't want and will not knowingly purchase a vehicle that record my driving pattern for miles and miles.

Then you are save with the Tesla since this feature is only turned on by owner request. That's if you trust Tesla. If you don't then why would you trust the other car companies? Have you ever had any surgery? Are you sure they didn't implant anything? Don't walk outside since the satellites can see you.


RE: Tesla controversy
By darkpuppet on 2/15/2013 1:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
Our worst fears of Tesla's logging have been illustrated in web-comic form.


RE: Tesla controversy
By Milliamp on 2/15/2013 4:53:57 PM , Rating: 3
They only do this for journalists driving the car after Top Gear after aired footage of 4 guys pushing a working Tesla in their review even through it wasn't actually dead.

They realized a need to log the test drives to protect their brand which seems to have paid off.

RE: Tesla controversy
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/15/2013 4:52:15 PM , Rating: 1
I don't want and will not knowingly purchase a vehicle that record my driving pattern for miles and miles. Just a little too much "Big Brother is Watching" for me.
Prepare to be riding a bike for the rest of your life then...

RE: Tesla controversy
By Skywalker123 on 2/16/2013 5:26:29 PM , Rating: 1
or just buy an older car

Hard to believe Broder
By laviathan05 on 2/15/2013 8:53:21 AM , Rating: 5
and that the spikes in speed could have happened when in cruise control because of downhill stretches

Either the Tesla has the worst cruise control ever, or this guy is lying. Even a terrible cruise control will not slip more than 3-4 mph outside of its setting. Broder is claiming that he had it set at 54mph and it hit 81mph due to "downhill stretches"? Was the downhill stretch at a 75 degree incline? This sentence alone makes it tough for me to believe anything he says when he is arguing against recorded data from the car.

Also, the difference in wheel diameter can explain a portion of the speed difference away, but only about 5mph. If he actually set the cruise control for 54mph, the speed should not have gone above 60 even with the different tires on the car.

RE: Hard to believe Broder
By kypd275 on 2/15/2013 11:43:08 AM , Rating: 2
I know, I lol'd when I read Broder's assertion about cruise control, I doubt you can find any working cruise control unit in any car that will slip as much as he's suggesting.

On the wheel part, it also smells fishy to me. The diameter of the wheel doesn't actually matter at all, what matters is the overall diameter of the wheel AND tire. Model S is certainly not the only car that have options for multiple size wheels, and I certainly hasn't heard anything about different sized factory wheel option causing faulty speedometer reading, especially substantial one that he's alleging, for.. well, every car manufacturer on the planet.

RE: Hard to believe Broder
By Mint on 2/15/2013 7:49:39 PM , Rating: 4
And in fact, if you look at the specs, the 19" wheels come with 245/45R19 tires while the 21" come with 245/35R21 tires. If you do the math, the difference in diameter is <0.2%.

So you're right.

RE: Hard to believe Broder
By MZperX on 2/15/2013 12:16:54 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. Broader's explanation has weak souce poured all over it. He wants to make it sound like the discrepancies between the logs and his reporting were simple mistakes, or blame it on Tesla, but it doesn't pass the smell test. He pretty much lied outright about a number of things.

The NYT would do well to take action to preserve what little credibility they have left. While I'm no fan of frivolous lawsuits, I think in this case, if the NYT doesn't come clean and issue a retraction/apology, Tesla would be fully justified in sueing them.

RE: Hard to believe Broder
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: Hard to believe Broder
By lilBuckwheat on 2/15/2013 1:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
Except Broder doesn't even hint at their illegitimacy. He accepts and explains (as best he can) the anomalies. Broder could've continued this back and forth by saying the logs were forged but he corroborates them.

You're clearly here to be objective.

RE: Hard to believe Broder
By Jedi2155 on 2/15/2013 1:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
After working in data analysis for a few years now, trying to fake log data to that level of detail without having artifacts in the associate graphs is not exactly easy, especially to a trained eye.

When you have a lot of data (especially CAN data as is typically used in vehicle systems), I would be hard pressed to believe that you could not spot fake data. From what little I can tell about the detail of the graphical logs, it looks like its reading from the CAN bus and sampled at a rather high rate.

RE: Hard to believe Broder
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: Hard to believe Broder
By bsd228 on 2/15/2013 1:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't a criminal trial. The rules around the chain of evidence are not nearly so stringent. Surely you've been watching the Apple-Samsung-Google trials.

And yes, as pointed out, the reporter's ever evolving BS would be part of the evidence as well.

RE: Hard to believe Broder
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: Hard to believe Broder
By cruisin3style on 2/16/2013 4:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah the NYT guy is a complete idiot.

The difference in wheel + tire size would have to be enormous for it to read 54mph and actually be going 80+

And the wheel + tire size affecting the battery use claim is also suspect, actually screw it instead of typing more I'll just say the whole d@mn thing is, and i just want to repeat the NYT writer is a moron...anybody that knows anything about cars or batteries should be mildly insulted lol.

vastly superior
By sulu1977 on 2/15/2013 1:10:12 PM , Rating: 3
An electric motor is so vastly superior to an internal combustion engine it's almost a silly comparison. It has a thousand times less moving parts, it's a thousand times more reliable, it has full torque at zero RPM, zero pollution, and is capable of over 10 x the power density per unit of mass. Also, a superconducting electric motor can potentially give you 1000 hp in the size of a toaster.

RE: vastly superior
By Dorkyman on 2/15/2013 4:01:40 PM , Rating: 4
What's your point? You're comparing apples and oranges.

It's like saying, "My switchblade is far superior to a chain saw because it has just one moving part, a thousand times more reliable, zero pollution, and 10x the cutting ability per unit of mass."

The statement is both literally true and yet meaningless at the same time. What's lacking is context.

RE: vastly superior
By Mint on 2/15/2013 10:00:13 PM , Rating: 2
His point is that once the ball gets rolling for EV/PHEV, the future is very bright.

Going from a 400hp electric motor to a 600hp one has far lower marginal cost than with an ICE, and it's just a matter of volume to manufacture high power induction motors even more economically (no rare earths, just common materials). Have you seen how compact the power train and battery floor are?

By rubbahbandman on 2/15/2013 2:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
the only reason we're even talking about this guy is because he turned an otherwise uneventful trip into a disaster-ridden adventure. the whole point of something like this is to sell newspapers and it has worked beautifully.

it's obvious broder's article was loosely based on the facts, but i think at the end of the day it will benefit both the nyt and tesla. tons of free publicity for an otherwise run-of-the-mill roadtrip article.

even if broder's reputation gets dragged through the mud, he will probably end up taken care of by some special interests which i'm sure he was already in bed with to begin with.

By cruisin3style on 2/16/2013 4:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
is more than likely total BS.

I could see the battery remaining calculator being impacted by this, so the battery remaining was actually greater than what was displayed or something like that...

but i DEFNITELY don't buy the whole speedometer showed THAT much slower than actual speed. 45 or 54 mph vs 80mph would need a huge difference in tire+wheel size...and i doubt that was the case. the tires on the 19" wheels would have had to have been enormous, if i've got this situation visualized right in my head.

The NYT guy is just an idiot, seems to me.

By Richard875yh5 on 2/17/2013 7:59:22 AM , Rating: 2
Those reporters think they are untouchable and can write anything they want just so they can sell their products. This is done to GM all the time and they get away with it.

articles for sale
By yofa42 on 2/15/2013 10:42:46 AM , Rating: 1
broder's resume suggests someone whose words are for sale to the highest bidder, like big oil. he spent too much time in washington to have avoided corruption.

i agree with musk's suggestion that the nyt writer was out to fail this car, but i do take a little offence to the ease in privacy invasion. i hope that musk only allowed himself to do that through the agreements they made when they loaned out the car for testing.

By toyotabedzrock on 2/15/2013 9:11:46 PM , Rating: 1
I have to wonder if he only puts the bare minimum amount of gas in when filling up for a trip.

By Richard875yh5 on 2/15/13, Rating: 0
bunch of bull
By Shadowmaster625 on 2/18/13, Rating: 0
It appears to me...
By Beenthere on 2/16/13, Rating: -1
RE: It appears to me...
By SPOOFE on 2/16/2013 3:08:01 AM , Rating: 3
though they like all EV's are pretty impractical for 99.999999999999% of society.

ICE's were impractical, too...... until somebody went and put gas stations everywhere. :)

Charging Times
By StormyKnight on 2/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: Charging Times
By Krayzie1 on 2/15/2013 8:20:41 AM , Rating: 5
The car gets about 265 miles on a full charge, if driving at 60 miles an hour you will get 4 hours of driving. After driving non stop for 4 hours you can stop, plug in, then go and eat and by the time you are done eating you now have 4 more hours of charge.

How is that a bad thing? I know overseas they have drive in charges that drop the old battery and put a new one in (can't remember where saw it online) real fast.

I'm very glad that companies like Tesla are out there to further electric only vehicles which will be the standard in the future. We just need heavy money for infrastructure.

RE: Charging Times
By maugrimtr on 2/15/2013 8:39:39 AM , Rating: 2
I still don't get the fuss. Elon has been successfully trolled and is now feeding the troll. Common sense should have ensured that the driver charged the vehicle sufficiently. Instead, it was charged to 90%, then 72% and finally 28% . That's roughly a 40% loss of capacity for the trip (which would have given the driver lots of wiggle room before the battery gave out!).

It's ridiculous. If I have to travel 30 miles, do I put just enough gas to make 30 miles into the tank? No, I put in more. What if I run into traffic? What if I'm forced to take a detour? What if X, Y, and Z...

Both sides are clearly wrong. Elon should have shut up and just pointed out that the car wasn't being charged correctly (and had a talk with his overly optimistic reps). Broder should have charged the car to 100% where possible to avoid running short along the way. It would also have been worth researching where all the charging stations were since he managed to miss one (his second mistake).

Nothing to see here. Overreacting techie and braindead journalist.

RE: Charging Times
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: Charging Times
By invidious on 2/15/2013 11:50:09 AM , Rating: 2
As an electrical engineer it makes me sad but I have to agree. In my eyes the only EV that makes sense for mass adoption is one that is autoamatically powered/recharged by the road (at least on major routes) and is recharge automatically at home/work. Such an EV would not require as large of a battery bank, thus weighing far less and improving both acceration and efficiency.

Present EV's are not bad for enthusiasts or trend setters but I'd have a very hard time recommending an EV to average driver. It is not a functional replacement to a gas car, it is a different beast that has a lot of new red flags to watch out for.

RE: Charging Times
By Mint on 2/15/2013 11:53:13 AM , Rating: 2
I leave my house tons of times knowing I'll need to stop and gas up to reach my destination, or to make it back home from there. But so what? You do this too! It's a non-issue. Stopping to get gas is quick and easy, it's second nature.
You're making a false analogy. Would you ever leave the gas station with only 32 miles of range, and proceed to try going 61 miles before refilling?

Then, if your tank was empty, would you ever pull a Kramer and drive past a gas station to reach your destination? And if you did, would it be acceptable for you plead ignorance about the existence of that station and blame the car instead?

That's effectively what this journalist did.

His excuse is that the people he contacted at Tesla told him to drive 61 miles with only 32 miles of range left. That just doesn't seem plausible to me.

RE: Charging Times
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: Charging Times
By SPOOFE on 2/16/2013 3:04:26 AM , Rating: 3
Can we just get real for a minute and admit that we, as human beings, do not always look ahead and do the most prudent things?

But the whole test was presented as just that: Looking ahead, planning out the route, taking all the inherent weaknesses of EV's into account to minimize driver error as much as possible...

... And then everything that goes wrong is easily attributable to "driver error".

I'm sorry, Mr. Broder, but you screwed up your attempt to convince anyone about your objectivity. You're a shill, a hack, and most eloquently of all, a loser. Have a nice day. :)

RE: Charging Times
By melgross on 2/15/2013 10:27:51 AM , Rating: 2
That's in theory. In practice, things will be different, as always, and never as good.

I'm wondering how many guys here have driven this car, since they seem so sure that the drive was mangled. It seems that between bad advice, wrong tires, etc. it's surprising he did as well as he did.

RE: Charging Times
By Dorkyman on 2/15/2013 4:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."

One of my favorite lines.

RE: Charging Times
By StormyKnight on 2/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: Charging Times
By SeeManRun on 2/15/2013 11:37:30 AM , Rating: 2
You aren't taxed enough, that is why you have a failing infrastructure. It is also why your debt keeps going up. You could of course cut spending, but that wasn't part of your point so is irrelevant.

If you want services you have to pay for them. If the government doesn't provide then private sector will come in and provide, and there is little evidence to support the idea that it will always be cheaper than what the government provides (and will likely be more expensive as it will be a user pay system instead of distributed amongst all).

RE: Charging Times
By StormyKnight on 2/15/2013 11:28:28 PM , Rating: 1
Our debts keep going up because the government spends more than it takes in. Do you spend more than you take in? I doubt it. Spending cuts were inferred since I didn't mention it. From 2005-2007, Bush went on a spending spree. Obama picked up that ball and not only ran it into the endzone, but the endzone of several other stadiums, and shows no stopping.

RE: Charging Times
By othercents on 2/15/2013 8:23:52 AM , Rating: 2
The point is that Tesla setup Supercharge stations to make it possible for an all electric vehicle to travel further than the 300 mile range. While the charge time is not practical, it does allow someone to make longer trips. The expectation is that in the future those charge times will shorten and the drive distance will increase making a 30 minute charge for a 600 mile range.

Obviously if you have the $100k for the vehicle you probably also have another similar priced gas vehicle to take you on trips.

RE: Charging Times
By Brandon Hill on 2/15/2013 8:40:21 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I would assume that those that can actually afford a Model S probably have a Porsche 911 and a Range Rover in the garage as well. It's a plaything for the rich right now.

I'm just waiting for all of these rich people to buy up these high-priced Model S' to finance the construction of superchargers around the country.

Three things would have to happen for me to even consider an electric car:

1) The price would have to be around $35,000 (the Model S starts around $50,000 including the tax credit)
2) Range would need to at least be 200 miles
3) There would have to be a "supercharger" in Raleigh and Charlotte (highly probable)

RE: Charging Times
By melgross on 2/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: Charging Times
By kypd275 on 2/15/2013 11:29:19 AM , Rating: 2
someone apparently doesn't realize that the 54mph for maximizing mileage applies to both EV and ICE vehicles, as it's primarily a result of air resistance at higher speed.

You want to go faster? go ahead, you'll just have to deal with the shorter range, which applies to both electric and gas cars.

RE: Charging Times
By Spuke on 2/15/2013 4:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
You want to go faster? go ahead, you'll just have to deal with the shorter range, which applies to both electric and gas cars.
But I can drive OVER 350 miles at speeds greater than 54 mph TODAY in most any gasoline vehicle. Which EV has that kind of range at speeds greater than 54 mph?

RE: Charging Times
By SPOOFE on 2/16/2013 3:12:38 AM , Rating: 3
But I can drive OVER 350 miles at speeds greater than 54 mph TODAY in most any gasoline vehicle.

Not the point. The point is: How often does the average person ACTUALLY drive >300 miles in a day? Heck, how often does the average person ACTUALLY drive more than 50 miles in a day?

I love knowing I could take off on a multi-thousand mile jaunt whenever I please. However, I also know how incredibly unlikely it is that I would.

RE: Charging Times
By kypd275 on 2/16/2013 12:29:38 PM , Rating: 1
But I can drive OVER 350 miles at speeds greater than 54 mph TODAY in most any gasoline vehicle. Which EV has that kind of range at speeds greater than 54 mph?

How does that have anything to do with not understanding how fuel efficiency works? red herring much?

This is a niche car for a niche market, trying to compare it to your typical commuter car is just being disingenuous. You're about as likely to see someone take a Model S on a long distance road trip as a Nissan GTR - in other words, you probably won't, because those people would more than likely have another car or three that are better suited for that purpose, assuming they aren't simply flying there already.

RE: Charging Times
By Reclaimer77 on 2/16/2013 12:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
This is a niche car for a niche market

Not according to Musk...

RE: Charging Times
By kypd275 on 2/17/2013 2:17:44 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, any car that's close to the $100k marker is inherently niche, regardless of whatever anyone may say.

RE: Charging Times
By dj LiTh on 2/15/2013 8:34:48 AM , Rating: 2
Wait, your not complaining about the practicality of a 100,000$ car but on the time it takes to recharge it?

RE: Charging Times
By tng on 2/15/2013 10:17:47 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, that is basically what has been one of the major issues with EV's.

I would say that the NYT guy got tired of waiting for the thing to charge and said "Screw this, I have a date tonight.", pulled the plug and took off... You would think that he would have know the charging times before he left, did he do no research?

RE: Charging Times
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: Charging Times
By kypd275 on 2/15/2013 11:32:54 AM , Rating: 2
only if you cherry pick numbers.

he only charged it to 90% on the very first station, and only what, 28% on the last station?

You don't put 1 gallon of gas in your car and then complain that it wasn't able to go 100 miles, or 5 rounds in a magazine and act surprised when you run out of ammo during a 20 round course of fire.

RE: Charging Times
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: Charging Times
By Mint on 2/15/2013 12:42:16 PM , Rating: 4
Do you have major reading comprehension issues?

He didn't run out after the 90% charge. He ran out after the 28% charge, which was in fact it only 11.7% charge as far as the journalist was concerned because the gauge showed only 35 miles out of 300.

Before that, he only charged up to 185/300. That's 62%.

There are places on the interstate system where gas stations can be 150+ miles apart and there are signs indicating so. Before going on such a stretch, would you leave a gas station in a 40-MPG-hwy rated car with only 5 gallons?

Of course not. You could have lost mileage from traffic, non-ideal roads, air conditioning, underinflated tires, lead-footing, detours, etc.

Nobody with half a brain leaves a free gas station without filling their gas tank, let alone doing so without a margin of safety to reach the next pump. It's an absolutely absurd scenario.

RE: Charging Times
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: Charging Times
By Mint on 2/15/2013 10:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
10 minutes. That's all he needed. Not 5 hours, not over night charging, just 10 minutes.

And why would he be freezing his ass off? Are you so mentally incapacitated that you can't comprehend the notion of sacrificing 1% of charging power to heat the car while it charges?

Your car doesn't have the performance and luxury of an M5 or E63, which cost just as much. Where are your calls for BMW and Mercedes to shut down those failed products?

He didn't know where this "station" was
Excuse me? He didn't know where the station was that he charged from and left with 38% of his tank empty?

RE: Charging Times
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: Charging Times
By SPOOFE on 2/16/2013 3:15:42 AM , Rating: 3
Waaaaaah people didn't like my NYT article and can pick out factual errors with it waaaaaaaah!!

Get a life and go away

Physician, heal thyself. Have a nice day, Bro! :)

RE: Charging Times
By StormyKnight on 2/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: Charging Times
By SeeManRun on 2/15/2013 11:41:10 AM , Rating: 2
When gas cars came out I am sure people were complaining that they have to put in 10 gallons of gas to go 50 miles, it was ridiculous, they should get the mileage that current cars get!!!

RE: Charging Times
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: Charging Times
By GotThumbs on 2/15/2013 9:20:31 AM , Rating: 2
So don't buy one.

It appears that you do not understand the point/consumer target of this car. It is NOT supposed to be your one and only car and definitely not considered optimal for frequent long road trips IMO.

While they are working on expanding their charging stations. I simply think this car is best suited for local use and daily commuting to work. As the owner gains experience/knowledge on the range/charge capabilities, then they would feel more comfortable using on longer drives.

At the end of the day....It either fits your needs or doesn't.

Don't take it personal if it doesn't fit your needs or your not the targeted consumer.

Regarding Broder....IMO. He's a tool and got caught doing what many "Writers" do these days.....Manipulate the story to read out the way they WANT it to. I never take a single "News" story as being 100% complete for me to make an educated assessment of the situation. There is ALWAYS something that is left out or phrased in a way to manipulate the public's emotions/feelings. It's a simple fact that ALL media have some bias in a story. To think otherwise would be naive. Even a single photo can show the leanings of the writer/media outlet.

RE: Charging Times
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2013 5:31:08 PM , Rating: 1
So don't buy one.

I won't. So do me a favor, stop asking me to help buy yours!!!

RE: Charging Times
By bsd228 on 2/15/2013 2:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
> So, what I'm getting out of this is you have $85,000 - $100,000 car that takes up to an hour to refuel? Where is the practicality in this?

It comes down to how often you have to drive further than 250 miles. When the range of the electric is only 40 miles, or even 100, that's pretty limiting. I'd be pressing it just to drive to San Jose (45 miles one way) and back, which would be a common evening or weekend event. Those are commuter vehicles, and not much more. But at 250, I can go to Monterey and back. I can go to Tahoe to ski (< 200 miles), and then come back the next day. If I want to drive to LA, I need to charge mid route and take a longer break than I normally would. So figure that's a half hour penalty. But I only drive to LA once or twice a year. If I was taking a long road trip, I'd have to rent a car. But again, this is not a typical event.

Paying 100k for a 90% solution still seems steep, but early adopters always pay the freight in development. A few years ago, this money for the Roadster only got you that 100 mile range. Now its upper 200s. Or cheaper for smaller battery packs.

RE: Charging Times
By Mint on 2/15/2013 2:49:02 PM , Rating: 3
It's priced more than competitively. It's about as fast as an M5 or E63, has twice the cargo space (which can even seat a couple children), and just as luxurious if not more so.

It costs less and saves $3000/yr on gas compared to those guzzlers.

More over, 90% of the time you take 10 seconds a day to plug it in when you come home and unplug before you leave. That's less time than the 5 minutes needed every week or two with its gas competitors.

RE: Charging Times
By SPOOFE on 2/16/2013 3:18:59 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, people (and Reclaibroder) don't seem to get that this whole thing was designed as ATYPICAL usage for this car's design. I mean, one would have to OD on stupid pills to not understand this.

By BabelHuber on 2/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: ???
By Logical_Thinker on 2/15/2013 8:52:03 AM , Rating: 2
not 100 miles, but over 200 miles. Don't you take a break ever for lunch?

RE: ???
By bah12 on 2/15/2013 12:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
On road trips...uh No. Usually I'd eat fast food. And even at 200 miles that is roughly 2.66 hrs on highway speeds of 75 mph in my state. Personally I don't eat every 3 hours especially when I'm trying to get somewhere, do you?

Look it is just foolish to try to test an EV like this in a true road trip capacity, they just can't compare.

Even if we had the infrastructure to have charging ports as common as gas stations, the charge time is just too long. Until that hurdle is overcame they aren't a road trip vehicle. Now I'm not saying there isn't a use, but CLEARLY it isn't a road trip. Musk trying to defend that they are road-tripable is idiotic.

RE: ???
By WLee40 on 2/15/2013 12:26:43 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. Long road trips in this vehicle are not like using a gas engine. I still think it is a great vehicle to have for local driving. Think of it as a large, efficient sports car. Would you take your Porche or other small sports car on a long road trip? I wouldn't. I'd take my SUV or Minivan or luxury car for that. It has its place now as a fun car to drive on short to moderate distances. Eventually, driving longer distances will be more convenient.

RE: ???
By Mint on 2/15/2013 12:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
Musk trying to defend that they are road-tripable is idiotic.
I wouldn't say idiotic, because driving 4 hours then taking a food/shopping break for an hour isn't unreasonable, but it's certainly risky.

What's sad is that Musk could have made a nearly identical PHEV with as much range as any gas car and made a killing on it. The Model S has a very sizable front trunk that can easily fit a 30 hp gas generator, which is enough to exceed average power draw on the highway.

Instead, he stuck with a pure EV for ideological reasons, despite a 150-mile PHEV having 90%+ of the fuel saving benefits.

RE: ???
By bah12 on 2/15/2013 1:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
Now it is idiotic. For certain use cases sure. But on a long road trip 1 hour is too long. If you are taking a road trip for the road trip (aka the scenic route) then sure take your time, pull off at a mom and pop cafe and have hour long meals.

However if you are like me and the road trip is only there to get to the the destination, then hour long breaks, instead of a drive through, are not going to cut it. There is a use for everything, but when you have to use so many BUT/IF's to qualify your use case, the car is just too limited.

RE: ???
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2013 5:48:34 PM , Rating: 1
I love Mint how you rip on anyone who brings this up, but it's okay for YOU to say it.

Why do I get a creepy feeling that when we're talking about EV's, it's a religious debate for you and others?

RE: ???
By twhittet on 2/15/2013 6:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
Why do I get a creepy feeling that when we're talking about EV's, it's a religious debate for you and others?

Ditto for you.

RE: ???
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2013 7:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
If my position on EV's were analogous to a religious debate, I would be an agnostic or outright atheist. Which aren't religions so uhhh, your post is stupid and I label thy troll.

RE: ???
By Mint on 2/18/2013 1:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
I love Mint how you rip on anyone who brings this up
And where did I do that? I rip on people like you who laud Broder for his non-proof of Tesla's superchargers being incapable.

I'm merely pointing out that Tesla could have made a class leading high-performance sedan for ALL buyers in the market, not only those in California or near NYC. That would be a killing.

As it is, it's still Car of the Year.
Why do I get a creepy feeling that when we're talking about EV's, it's a religious debate for you and others?
Because you're desperate for a copout whenever I prove you wrong with numbers.

I never believed in pure EVs. The way I saw it, economies of scale brought down the cost of hybrids by a lot, and a PHEVs only needed a bigger battery and and a charger. The market proved me wrong, though. The Leaf has 2-3x the EV range of the C-Max Energi or Volt, but despite the bigger battery, it's much cheaper overall.

Suddenly, the Leaf became the cheapest way to drive any half decent new car out the door, not 8+ years from now. Go ahead and try to beat $2k down + $235/mo for fuel+lease (or fuel+payment).

RE: ???
By mjv.theory on 2/15/2013 10:48:42 AM , Rating: 2
use the hydrogen to power a combustion engine

Are you mad?

Of course, you may wish to use the hydrogen in a fuel cell to generate electricity for an electric motor. However, manufacturing the hydrogen and building the distribution and storage systems is far from as simple as it sounds.

Tesla has successfully demonstrated that electric vehicles are superior. Granted, batteries/capacitors/fuel-cells need a bit more work for EVs to secure more mainstream acceptance. However, expect range, charge times and price to improve significantly by the end of the decade.

RE: ???
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2013 11:20:34 AM , Rating: 2
Tesla has successfully demonstrated that electric vehicles are superior.

How so??

RE: ???
By mjv.theory on 2/15/2013 11:33:18 AM , Rating: 4
More precisely, that electric motors are superior to internal combustion: smaller, more flexible, simpler drive train, should be cheaper to manufacture, more reliable, much more energy efficient.

Liquid (petroleum) fueled vehicles benefit from the energy density of the fuel. Electric vehicles benefit from the efficiency inherent to the motor.

The downsides to both are also apparent.

RE: ???
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2013 12:12:13 PM , Rating: 1
More precisely, that electric motors are superior to internal combustion

I'm grating my teeth trying to come up with an argument to this....

Just hold on a minute, it will come to me.

RE: ???
By TSS on 2/15/2013 6:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
ya can't, he's right. Electric motors are far, far, FAR more efficient then internal combustion motors.

The problem lies with the fuel. If you could go to the gas station and tank a jerry can of electricity, ICE cars wouldn't even have existed.

Filling up an electric car means you're using electricity generated from the energy that was in coal/nuclear/solar/wind just miliseconds ago. While the oil in the ground is already millions of years old, so keeping it in a tank before you refine it won't harm it a bit.

RE: ???
By bah12 on 2/15/2013 12:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
Well technically that is correct, you cannot solely judge the motor's superiority based only on the motor. You have to judge it based on it's intended use. Saying an electric motor is superior, is technically correct, but also irrelevant if you try to put one into a car. Since the end result is clearly inferior by today's standards.

In comparison an atomic clock is clearly superior as a clock compared to say a quartz based one, however if the intended use is to strap it on your wrist it is certainly inferior as whole.

RE: ???
By mjv.theory on 2/15/2013 12:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, the electric motor is superior in a vehicle. However, as most comments correctly identify, it the shortcomings of the "energy" system (i.e. batteries) that presently limit the appeal of EVs.

You might also take issue with cost, but that is nothing to do with the electric motor, other than perhaps economies of scale.

RE: ???
By bah12 on 2/15/2013 12:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
Superiority is entirely subjective, when viewed as the entire end product. I'd agree with your original argument that an electric motor is superior, but no amount of bold in the world can translate that true comment into one suggesting that an EV is superior. Sorry but an electric motor in a vehicle is not superior, however the electric motor certainly is.

RE: ???
By BabelHuber on 2/15/2013 11:27:20 AM , Rating: 2
See here:

Unlike many other current hydrogen powered vehicles like those being produced by Honda, General Motors, and Daimler AG - which use fuel cell technology and hydrogen to produce electricity to power the vehicle - the BMW Hydrogen 7 burns the hydrogen in an internal combustion engine.

Of course hydrogen is dangerous to handle, but so is regular fuel, too.

The advantage of hydrogen is that it can be stored at filling stations and quickly put into a car's tank. IMHO this is much better than using batteries.

The only problem I see is to manufacture the hydrogen in an environment-friendly way...

RE: ???
By Mint on 2/15/2013 11:57:12 AM , Rating: 3
That's not the problem at all. The problem is that you need very expensive infrastructure to make fuel cell vehicles viable.

Not only are EV charging stations a tiny fraction of the price of a hydrogen or even gasoline station, but EVs also have the fallback of electric charging overnight at home. In effect, the infrastructure is already there.

RE: ???
By TSS on 2/15/2013 6:49:00 PM , Rating: 1
Hah, the infrastructure is nowhere near there. Do you have any idea what the load on the grid would be if everybody had their EV charging at night?

At this point upgrading the electric grid to account for the entire US vehicle fleet in electric form would cost just as much as retooling the gasoline infrastructure to carry hydrogen.

Problem of hydrogen is generation. It's not a source of energy, it's a carrier of energy, like a battery. You need elecricity to generate hydrogen and when used it generates electricity. And with efficiency losses, it's much better to just use electricity directly.

RE: ???
By mjv.theory on 2/15/2013 12:03:35 PM , Rating: 2
OK, you're only as mad as BMW. Like BMW, I'm not convinced by fuel-cells. But their combustion engine requires a fuel tank 3.6 times larger for the same range for the cryogenically cooled hydrogen. That's also at least 3.6 times as many tankers to support the distribution network along with their associated cost. The only practical way to manufacture hydrogen in sufficient quantity for this sort of scheme is with nuclear power. Then the only practical large scale deployment of nuclear power is with Molten Salt Reactors. But once you've got a large fleet of MSRs, you've got cheaper electricity which makes pursuing batteries more attractive, or, you could manufacture other liquid fuels with a carbon neutral cycle. Both of which lead away from using hydrogen which is difficult to handle and store, and very volume inefficient for use in vehicles.

With regard to batteries, I would identify charge times as more important than range. I realise the "fill-up and go" mentality is appealing, but I don't see that hydrogen is by any means an easy or optimal solution.

RE: ???
By bah12 on 2/15/2013 12:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
Even if all you said were true. The storage problem, is really quite dwarfed when compared to the production side.

There really isn't an efficient method for production. The argument is always electrolysis, but the fact is almost no hydrogen is produced that way.

95% of hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels. Turns out mother nature found a pretty efficient way to store hydrogen, pair it up with some carbon. CH4 for example (natural gas). My problem with this is it is infinitely smarter to distribute, store, and burn the CH4 than it is to convert it to hydrogen, then to electricity + H2O via a fuel cell. The whole process is just loaded with inefficiencies.

RE: ???
By mjv.theory on 2/15/2013 12:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed that methane makes more sense than hydrogen for vehicles. But one of the main attractions of using hydrogen is the lack of pollutants, where burning methane generates CO2. Which is back to my point regarding nuclear power via MSRs. By starting with a non-polluting and carbon free energy source, you could then manufacture fuels, such as CH4, by extracting CO2 from the atmosphere, which then returns to the atmosphere via combustion, but the cycle is carbon neutral.
Also, without ALOT of energy it would be difficult to manufacture either CH4 or H2 in sufficient sustainable quantity.

RE: ???
By bah12 on 2/15/2013 1:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
Correct, going nuclear is clearly the only true long term option just wish the tree huggers and tin foil hat wearers would let it progress.

Hydrogen as it stands today isn't a viable option. I forgot to mention, but the current steam reformation production methods result in CO2 at the plant so are no cleaner than burning the CH4 directly. Your suggestions are much better long term, but are being artificially held back by special interests. Coupled with the fact that petro is really pretty cheap.

RE: ???
By mjv.theory on 2/15/2013 1:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
Correct, going nuclear is clearly the only true long term option just wish the tree huggers and tin foil hat wearers would let it progress.

The joke of it is that nuclear, specifically Molten Salt Reactors (with Thorium or Uranium or both) would be far far "greener" than wind, solar, wave and tide. The vast volume of materials required for those "renewables" is mind boggling. The Sun, wind and waves may be renewable, but the endless swathes of devices that capture and convert the energy will need to be replaced on a regular basis at considerable economic and environmental cost.

RE: ???
By bah12 on 2/15/2013 2:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. I love the waste argument too. If waste is such a huge problem, why after 40+ years of production is most of it still stored on-site, and isn't even cost effective yet to refine and reuse.

I'd like to tell these people. You know when an abundance of waste is an issue? When we need large facilities to mitigate the growing piles of it, or elaborate recycling plans. Not when a special building onsite holding 40 years worth is sufficient. Shouldn't be blatantly ignored sure, but hardly a huge concern either.

RE: ???
By mjv.theory on 2/15/2013 2:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
Pressurised Water Reactors (LWRs, BWRs, Candu's) all produce a fair amount of "waste" - mainly unburned fuel, but also long-lived transuranics (mostly plutonium). However, whatever your stance on safety and "waste", from a purely technical viewpoint the biggest problem with water cooled/moderated reactors is probably that they use fuel so inefficiently that to expand the fleet by any meaningful amount would be quite difficult. Molten Salt Reactors would only require a tenth or less of the fuel of an equivalent LWR, are inherently safe, produce other useful materials along with the electricity, have a 10000 times smaller waste stream and all the transuranics can be kept in the core producing useful heat.

Using MSRs, all the world's present electricity production could be satisfied without any increase in uranium mining. Which, by the way, is less than 0.1% of world mining, and is a tiny fraction of the 5 trillion tonnes of coal mined per year globally. I shudder even to think of the wind and solar installations (and extra power transmission network) required to replace coal.

RE: ???
By Spuke on 2/15/2013 5:43:37 PM , Rating: 2
Great stuff bah and mjv!!! Thanks much.

Research Project
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: Research Project
By Brandon Hill on 2/15/2013 8:50:44 AM , Rating: 5
I think the Musk was more than a bit naive by going with the NYT. I have my doubts when the reporter has to be in constant contact with Tesla on how to figure things out.

My frame of mind would be to fully charge the thing, know where the charging stations are, hit the road, and keep an eye on the range meter. Don't think I would need any outside help to get that figured out.

WIth that being said, I see Musk as a real life Tony Stark. I think that's why a lot of tech geeks fawn over him.

RE: Research Project
By Dorkyman on 2/15/2013 4:18:16 PM , Rating: 3
Good one.

Actually, I think Musk thought it would be a slam-dunk with anyone from the NYT simply because the NYT people have all drunk the KoolAid. He assumed they would gloss over any shortcomings in order to promote the Greater Good. It's exactly the same thing the NYT people have done in the political arena for years, which explains why the paper is a shadow of its former self.

Only in this case, it didn't happen.

RE: Research Project
By Spuke on 2/15/2013 5:46:37 PM , Rating: 1
WIth that being said, I see Musk as a real life Tony Stark.

"This is from the It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki