The article claims Tesla is incorrect when they say that "the average ICE vehicle gets around 22 MPG", and counters with EPA stats showing that the average fuel economy of all vehicles in the US is 24.9 MPG.
But these aren't the same thing.
The set "all vehicles in the US" contains both ICE vehicles _and_ hybrid/battery-powered EVs. But Tesla is explicitly only talking about ICE vehicles, and Tesla doesn't specifically indicate whether they're talking only about US ICE vehicles or all ICE vehicles worldwide.
I'm not sure what the source is for Tesla's number, and it's entirely possible it's inaccurate, but The Drive's counter-argument makes an apples vs. oranges comparison.
>but The Drive's counter-argument makes an apples vs. oranges comparison.
I will go one step further, The Drive's number is just straight dishonest. It lists that number as "the average fuel economy of all vehicles in the US hit 24.9 MPG in 2017". If you click through to the EPA report it list that 24.9 number as for "all new vehicles". It also says the number was 23.6 in 2012. The average car on the road is roughly 10 years old so that 23.6 number is still too modern to apply to "all vehicles in the US". So if you subtract non-ICE vehicles and factor in that MPG has been improving, the 22 MPG number from the original report seems perfectly reasonable.
Don't forget that a substantial amount of fuel is burned while parked. Lights and other electronic equipment consume a lot of energy.
"In one recent report about police vehicle fuel consumption, the cruiser studied was found to idle 60% of the time during normal operation and used 21% of its total fuel while parked. While the engine provided 250 horsepower (hp), together all of the accessories needed less than 2 hp. (Air conditioning consumed the most power, followed by external lighting.)"
> It's no surprise that the electric automaker is having a positive environmental impact, so why does it need to exaggerate the good and gloss over the bad?
I have a similar view of this article as this article has of Tesla: Why does it need to exaggerate the bad and gloss over the good?
The only hard number it criticizes is the number Tesla used for the average mileage of the US fleet (25.4 vs 22) - nevermind that the higher efficiency would work in their favour: it would mean that the same number of Tesla vehicles displaces a larger number of ICE-vehicles.
Oh, and the author doesn't like that the report includes both the to-date solar electricity generated by Solarcity (13.25 TWh) and the to-date electricity used to charge Tesla fleet (5.26 TWh).
There's lots to criticize about Tesla, but this article doesn't do a great job of it, in my personal opinion.
> The only hard number it criticizes is the number Tesla used for the average mileage of the US fleet (25.4 vs 22) - nevermind that the higher efficiency would work in their favour: it would mean that the same number of Tesla vehicles displaces a larger number of ICE-vehicles.
I don't think your math is right on that- higher efficiency in ICE vehicles would mean that the Tesla vehicles displaces fewer ICE vehicles, would it not? It would make their claim that Tesla is "the equivalent of saving emissions from being released into the environment from over 500K ICE vehicles" closer to 425K ICE vehicles.
I really like Telsa's mission, but stuff like this is why they get a bad rap. I don't understand why they try to oversell everything. You've got a good product and are making a positive impact, don't squander it by making claims that can't be backed up.
How many people do you really think are going to read their claims, then read that their claims are not fully backed up, and then decide to boycott the company?
Versus how many people read their claims, and have been reading their previous claims, and are already sucked into Tesla's "Saving the world" narrative.
For those people, stuff like this "Impact Report" aren't deciding factors, but are a part of a larger effort at Tesla to imbue a sense of 'higher purpose' or something along those lines.
Name a single car maker that doesn't use paid marketing, which always oversells itself.
...and which claims can't be backed up? If you look at average existing ICE vehicle mpg (not counting hybrids and electrics), Tesla used the correct numbers.
Written by Ed Niedermeyer of “Tesla Death Watch” fame. This guy has been feuding with Tesla since 2008, and you can’t miss the malice when reading TFA.
This guy can’t get over the fact that Tesla hasn’t failed. Makes me wonder how much he lost shorting the stock.
Tesla has almost highhandedly kept the public interested in electric cars. By becoming a viable car company, there's been huge amounts of money put into research from their competitors alone. I don't think it's good for them to over exaggerate their personal impact, but looking at the overall scale of what they have done.... I don't care that their marketing team went overboard on something I wouldn't have read anyway. We all know what Tesla has done laid the groundwork for some very important work that otherwise wouldn't have a footing.
“ Tesla also compares crash statistics for Autopilot which, in addition to the comparative distortions mentioned above, is only supposed to be used on divided highways that are about twice as safe as non-divided roads.”
This statement about Autopilot is flatly incorrect. AP has worked on every road and street I have driven on for at least a year without caveat. I’m not sure where he gets the “supposed to” from, but I have never seen such warning, nor does the car itself seem to have any significant problems navigating non-divided roads.
This is a terrible article that smacks of fear-lingering.
Tesla's report does not include the damage it does to the world by selling carbon credits it earns to polluters, cheaply—thereby enabling them to pollute more and defer cleaning up their own acts. I wonder if Tesla's sum contribution is net negative when viewed from this perspective.
"The Drive" website... doesn't seem to mention "Time, Inc." anywhere, and your link is to an overview of "True Multimedia Co. Ltd.", described on that page as:
`True Multimedia Company Limited provides high-speed multimedia network services in Thailand. `
rgrove|6 years ago
But these aren't the same thing.
The set "all vehicles in the US" contains both ICE vehicles _and_ hybrid/battery-powered EVs. But Tesla is explicitly only talking about ICE vehicles, and Tesla doesn't specifically indicate whether they're talking only about US ICE vehicles or all ICE vehicles worldwide.
I'm not sure what the source is for Tesla's number, and it's entirely possible it's inaccurate, but The Drive's counter-argument makes an apples vs. oranges comparison.
slg|6 years ago
I will go one step further, The Drive's number is just straight dishonest. It lists that number as "the average fuel economy of all vehicles in the US hit 24.9 MPG in 2017". If you click through to the EPA report it list that 24.9 number as for "all new vehicles". It also says the number was 23.6 in 2012. The average car on the road is roughly 10 years old so that 23.6 number is still too modern to apply to "all vehicles in the US". So if you subtract non-ICE vehicles and factor in that MPG has been improving, the 22 MPG number from the original report seems perfectly reasonable.
xfitm3|6 years ago
"In one recent report about police vehicle fuel consumption, the cruiser studied was found to idle 60% of the time during normal operation and used 21% of its total fuel while parked. While the engine provided 250 horsepower (hp), together all of the accessories needed less than 2 hp. (Air conditioning consumed the most power, followed by external lighting.)"
https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/idling_emergency...
disiplus|6 years ago
SECProto|6 years ago
> It's no surprise that the electric automaker is having a positive environmental impact, so why does it need to exaggerate the good and gloss over the bad?
I have a similar view of this article as this article has of Tesla: Why does it need to exaggerate the bad and gloss over the good?
The only hard number it criticizes is the number Tesla used for the average mileage of the US fleet (25.4 vs 22) - nevermind that the higher efficiency would work in their favour: it would mean that the same number of Tesla vehicles displaces a larger number of ICE-vehicles.
Oh, and the author doesn't like that the report includes both the to-date solar electricity generated by Solarcity (13.25 TWh) and the to-date electricity used to charge Tesla fleet (5.26 TWh).
There's lots to criticize about Tesla, but this article doesn't do a great job of it, in my personal opinion.
mr_toad|6 years ago
Car enthusiasts & journalists have a storied history of being biased against electric and/or self-driving vehicles.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/dec/24/jeremy-clarkso...
https://www.tesla.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive
tedivm|6 years ago
I don't think your math is right on that- higher efficiency in ICE vehicles would mean that the Tesla vehicles displaces fewer ICE vehicles, would it not? It would make their claim that Tesla is "the equivalent of saving emissions from being released into the environment from over 500K ICE vehicles" closer to 425K ICE vehicles.
bearcobra|6 years ago
Finch2192|6 years ago
How many people do you really think are going to read their claims, then read that their claims are not fully backed up, and then decide to boycott the company?
Versus how many people read their claims, and have been reading their previous claims, and are already sucked into Tesla's "Saving the world" narrative.
For those people, stuff like this "Impact Report" aren't deciding factors, but are a part of a larger effort at Tesla to imbue a sense of 'higher purpose' or something along those lines.
There's little downside to this kind of fluff.
robertAngst|6 years ago
They have a product their buyers like, but the car doesnt have buttons or a center console. "Good" is in the eye of the beholder.
Tesla has a weird situation that despite a product that breaks often and doesn't have niceties, their customers have a high satisfaction.
Robotbeat|6 years ago
...and which claims can't be backed up? If you look at average existing ICE vehicle mpg (not counting hybrids and electrics), Tesla used the correct numbers.
zaroth|6 years ago
This guy can’t get over the fact that Tesla hasn’t failed. Makes me wonder how much he lost shorting the stock.
derkster|6 years ago
revscat|6 years ago
This statement about Autopilot is flatly incorrect. AP has worked on every road and street I have driven on for at least a year without caveat. I’m not sure where he gets the “supposed to” from, but I have never seen such warning, nor does the car itself seem to have any significant problems navigating non-divided roads.
This is a terrible article that smacks of fear-lingering.
omgwtfbyobbq|6 years ago
He's been anti-PHE/EV for over a decade at this point.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30neidermeyer.htm...
He's been focusing on Tesla recently, but that's only because they're pushing EV production more than anyone else.
robertAngst|6 years ago
But its 2019, if you still believe Tesla doesn't have ethics problems, you haven't paid attention or don't care.
Hurpterderper|6 years ago
Get ready for the dated South Park reference. There is enough smug people who like to smell their own farts.
7e|6 years ago
williesleg|6 years ago
[deleted]
Proven|6 years ago
[deleted]
tdhz77|6 years ago
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.a...
justinclift|6 years ago
`True Multimedia Company Limited provides high-speed multimedia network services in Thailand. `
... which seems completely irrelevant.
Maybe provide better references? :)
tdhz77|6 years ago
dbasedweeb|6 years ago
xkcd-sucks|6 years ago
DeonPenny|6 years ago