Not really a surprise - I don't think there was really any doubt about the performance of the Tesla in normal weather. The NYC area right now is well above freezing, approaching +10C in the daytime, nowhere near the deep freeze that occurred during the NYT drive.
This still doesn't put to rest the expected (but somehow controversial) concerns about lithium battery performance in cold weather. This concern IMO needs to be put to rest if electrics want to break into the mainstream market. Early adopters may be willing to plan judiciously around range and expected weather, but I doubt mainstream consumers will be so forgiving.
Having a car of (somewhat) limited range lose a large chunk of its battery just sitting overnight in a parking lot, in weather that is cold but hardly unusual for the region, is a problem. That both on-board software and human advisers seem poorly prepared to compensate for this is hardly a nail in Tesla's coffin, but does need to be sorted out.
That whole debate is becoming utterly ridiculous. Either it works as Tesla Motors says, or it doesn't.
If it's so hard to get cold temperatures in the States, just send one unit up here a few miles North to Canada, we'll be back in the -20C during the week.
I thought one of the benefits of electric cars was that since you had them plugged in overnight you could program them to automatically heat the car to a pleasant temperature for when you went outside to drive, taking energy for this directly from the charger, rather than the battery. And that if your schedule was a bit more unpredictable you could activate this via a smartphone app as well.
Diesel also needs special considerations in colder weather (the fuel becomes too viscous at lower temperatures). Just a different set of problems to petrol, not a dealbreaker imo.
I kinda sit in the middle. We need this technology, and people like Musk pushing and investing in it. But equally, his attitude to criticism borders childish and is very off putting.
What I don't get about any of this, from both sides, is that this is the early days of the technology and its clearly work in progress. As usual, early adopters pretty much know what they are investing in and expect and accept that there are going to be problems and that the systems are far from perfect. I mean, imagine a review of the first petrol engined cars, a few years after initial conception. Musk should be constantly reminding people that problems will happen, and this is the beginning of decades of development and evolution, while motoring petrol head journalists need to stop trying to pretend Musk is selling a perfect petrol car replacement, and that it is indeed work in progress at a relatively early stage.
To me it is clear that the Tesla car is still problematic, but it is also clear that its improving at a decent rate. In a decade, I imagine the whole system will work flawlessly, ish.
Sadly all I see are two camps, Musk supporters and petrol heads almost raging at each other like political parties, while Musk stirs it, resulting in non partisan parties look on aghast, keeping wallets well closed.
As for the idea that this CNN review, just after a controversial one, would be anything other than perfect is a delusion. Even if we bin foil hat theories that CNN were soft on Tesla for what ever reason, Tesla would have done everything to ensure this test went perfectly and contradicted the previous one. What ever we are up to, if a test goes wrong, we would all make sure the next test was an improvement. If not, then we have no business in any form of development.
The experience with Top Gear has probably influenced the reaction here. I don't find it childish to strongly defend your product if you believe a journalist has written a hack job on it.
Regardless of how much warmer the weather is than when Broder drove the car. If Broder had charged the car completely instead of partially regardless of the obvious drop in capacity in colder weather he still would have made it. CNN have just proven the car is capable, cold weather aside nothing would be much different here.
Are we forgetting the data from the NYT review clearly showed Broder driving around in circles in a car park? The CNN reporter even said he got lost and yet still made it with miles to spare in the batteries. When you consider the amount of on-board power drawing computing functionality, sensors and logging equipment on the Tesla 200+ miles is impressive.
If you're buying an electric car for driving 200+ miles in one go, an electric car is certainly not for you. Tesla fills a niche of drivers who commute to and from work, occasionally to meetings and maybe the airport but don't expect luxury taxi service companies to start buying and driving Tesla electric cars any time soon...
Quite personally I am sick of hearing about this whole situation. It's like watching a primary school fight, lots of name calling and accusation slinging, but no violence.
It's worth pointing out that they're staying at the Milford SuperCharger quite a lot longer than Elon's data showed NY times did. They're charging it a lot more - and would even if it was too chilly out for the batteries to operate at optimal discharge rate, they'd still be in the clear as a result.
This is more of a PR move - of course if you calculate it out it's possible - the NY Times driver wasn't staying at SuperChargers long at all and missed mark by 30mi.
Every time someone reads this, a kitten gets run over:
"Instead, I found myself maneuvering around slower cars. Now, I normally spend most of my time on the New Jersey Turnpike out in the left lane going at least 10 or 15 miles an hour faster than I was in the Model S. But sitting in the middle lane, I was keeping up with traffic. I certainly didn't feel out of place -- except for the fact that I wasn't burning any gasoline."
It's supposed to be a performance car. A proper review should imply hoonage and speeds likely to raise the author's insurance premiums. It shouldn't take the Consumer Reports first impression of the Nissan Leaf as it's model. The Tesla S is not a fucking Prius.
The only thing more dull than hypermiling stories are hypermiling videos, and the only saving grace of this story is that we are spared those.
How Musk can act incredulous over assertions that the Model S is impractical for US intercity travel while acknowleding one hour fuelings every three hours is beyond me.
>How Musk can act incredulous over assertions that the Model S is impractical for US intercity travel while acknowleding one hour fuelings every three hours is beyond me.
He was already going 60-65. He just admitted to going 70-80 on the freeway; and, given the other cars, the speed limit is probably 60.
I love speed as much as the next guy; but this was a review that, as far as I could gather, was CNN's version of peer reviewing the Time's article... and finding it wanting. A normal person isn't taking their car to the track. TopGear already did that test on an even more suited car. If you were testing the range of a Bugatti Veyron to see if it was useful as a commuter car, would you go flat out the whole way? Or, more realistically, if you were testing a Subaru WRX STi, or an Evo X, for its "normal driving conditions" range, would you be keeping your revs at 4-5k the whole way?
It's been significantly warmer the last few days than it supposedly was when the first trip was done. Given that temperature has a big effect on the car's energy, both the battery capacity and use of the heater, I'd say CNN's results don't disprove the NYT article.
Yeah, they totally missed the circling in a parking part. And they did not call any towing service as well, whose people were experts in high end cars. :)
"I was given battery-conservation advice at that time (turn off the cruise control; alternately slow down and speed up to take advantage of regenerative braking) that was later contradicted by other Tesla personnel."
The emphasized part makes no sense (vs. driving at constant speed), regen braking is not perpetual motion machine. Technology reporter should know that. Still amazing how such a foolish advice was given him by Tesla personnel.
And I would say the secondary failure is in the advice given to Broder over the phone.
Had the people on the phone just told him to charge longer, anything Broder said about the extra time charging would have come across as a simple, forgettable nitpick. It's extraordinary events like getting stranded that readers remember.
"a route 30 miles longer that avoided New York City, and it's battery draining traffic congestion, altogether."
I would have thought that slow, stop-start traffic is the ideal conditions for an electric car, both in terms of driving pleasure and energy use compared with traditional cars.
He's talking about taking the Tappen Zee Bridge vs the George Washington Bridge. I actually used to live in Groton CT (the terminus of both trips) after graduating from the University of Delaware (the origin of both trips). I would never ever use the GWB. The extra 30 miles is always worth it. You can sit on the GWB and associated roads for 3-4 hours on a Friday night to go 10 miles. Not a good situation no matter what kind of car you have (and ironically, there aren't a lot of gas stations in that area, definitely not well marked).
If I were Tesla PR, I'd jump on this. Drop everything else about the article; just throw a big party in DC in the morning, and ferry people to Boston for a big party the same evening (with refreshments and entertainment available in Newark and Milford, naturally). Get owners' clubs involved, make it an annual pilgrimage.
If I were Tesla PR, I already orchestrated the entire thing, including instructing the CNN crew to fully recharge at every station and not stop overnight.
I doubt they orchestrated the original article. Their choice is pick a fight or let the article stand. Picking a fight looks like the better choice to me, though personally I have no interest in reading someone else's bunfight.
That mere 70 miles of buffer made me a little nervous, especially after I missed an exit and added a few miles to the trip. I followed Tesla's recommendations and kept the cruise control pegged to between 60 and 65 much of the way and kept the climate control at 72 degrees. And I minimized stops. But I made it
What's the point of having a car that costs north of $50K and as much as $90K if you have to worry about missing an exit? This whole thing is bad press for Tesla, they thought they had the "gotcha" moment ("he went in circles in the parking lot" for a whopping.......0.6 miles while trying to find the charging station) but it just showed a prospective buyer how fragile this very expensive car.
Let me repeat it: this car is very expensive and cannot be relied to go for a few hundred miles because it has so many variables. This is a niche car at best, a rich person maybe can brag about it while having other normal cars.
I see you have never missed an exit on the NJ turnpike. Even with a ICE you can easily run out of gas due to the large distance between exits and Service plazas. Thats one _more_ point towards the car, Even during a normal disturbance it can still work just fine if you you know actually charge it.
I'd like a Model S (although, ideally, something more BMW 3-series sized, same performance, and slightly cheaper, and AWD), with the 300 mile range, specifically for daily use in the Bay Area. It is unlikely I would need to worry about range, and just plug in every night (although plugging in at the office would make sense, too)
Being able to periodically ferry it between locations using the supercharger would just be a bonus; I'd be fine with a car which could never leave a 75 mile radius of Palo Alto, provided I also either had a second car (ideally diesel, 45+mpg or a diesel truck), or could rent one whenever I left.
I suspect most people who can afford $100k cars can afford multiple cars, or don't do 400 mile road trips on a regular basis.
[+] [-] potatolicious|13 years ago|reply
This still doesn't put to rest the expected (but somehow controversial) concerns about lithium battery performance in cold weather. This concern IMO needs to be put to rest if electrics want to break into the mainstream market. Early adopters may be willing to plan judiciously around range and expected weather, but I doubt mainstream consumers will be so forgiving.
Having a car of (somewhat) limited range lose a large chunk of its battery just sitting overnight in a parking lot, in weather that is cold but hardly unusual for the region, is a problem. That both on-board software and human advisers seem poorly prepared to compensate for this is hardly a nail in Tesla's coffin, but does need to be sorted out.
[+] [-] millerc|13 years ago|reply
If it's so hard to get cold temperatures in the States, just send one unit up here a few miles North to Canada, we'll be back in the -20C during the week.
[+] [-] willvarfar|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|13 years ago|reply
Does the Tesla not do that (yet)?
[+] [-] ck2|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] analog|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alan_cx|13 years ago|reply
What I don't get about any of this, from both sides, is that this is the early days of the technology and its clearly work in progress. As usual, early adopters pretty much know what they are investing in and expect and accept that there are going to be problems and that the systems are far from perfect. I mean, imagine a review of the first petrol engined cars, a few years after initial conception. Musk should be constantly reminding people that problems will happen, and this is the beginning of decades of development and evolution, while motoring petrol head journalists need to stop trying to pretend Musk is selling a perfect petrol car replacement, and that it is indeed work in progress at a relatively early stage.
To me it is clear that the Tesla car is still problematic, but it is also clear that its improving at a decent rate. In a decade, I imagine the whole system will work flawlessly, ish.
Sadly all I see are two camps, Musk supporters and petrol heads almost raging at each other like political parties, while Musk stirs it, resulting in non partisan parties look on aghast, keeping wallets well closed.
As for the idea that this CNN review, just after a controversial one, would be anything other than perfect is a delusion. Even if we bin foil hat theories that CNN were soft on Tesla for what ever reason, Tesla would have done everything to ensure this test went perfectly and contradicted the previous one. What ever we are up to, if a test goes wrong, we would all make sure the next test was an improvement. If not, then we have no business in any form of development.
[+] [-] analog|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DigitalSea|13 years ago|reply
Are we forgetting the data from the NYT review clearly showed Broder driving around in circles in a car park? The CNN reporter even said he got lost and yet still made it with miles to spare in the batteries. When you consider the amount of on-board power drawing computing functionality, sensors and logging equipment on the Tesla 200+ miles is impressive.
If you're buying an electric car for driving 200+ miles in one go, an electric car is certainly not for you. Tesla fills a niche of drivers who commute to and from work, occasionally to meetings and maybe the airport but don't expect luxury taxi service companies to start buying and driving Tesla electric cars any time soon...
Quite personally I am sick of hearing about this whole situation. It's like watching a primary school fight, lots of name calling and accusation slinging, but no violence.
[+] [-] TwiztidK|13 years ago|reply
It didn't. It showed him driving .6mi after exiting the highway but there is no proof that he was driving around in circles in a parking lot.
[+] [-] lloeki|13 years ago|reply
The niche is in the price, not the use case, because you're describing what about 80% of the population does with their cars 95% of the time.
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|13 years ago|reply
Yeah, if you need long range, don't play with electricity.
[+] [-] Shank|13 years ago|reply
This is more of a PR move - of course if you calculate it out it's possible - the NY Times driver wasn't staying at SuperChargers long at all and missed mark by 30mi.
[+] [-] brudgers|13 years ago|reply
"Instead, I found myself maneuvering around slower cars. Now, I normally spend most of my time on the New Jersey Turnpike out in the left lane going at least 10 or 15 miles an hour faster than I was in the Model S. But sitting in the middle lane, I was keeping up with traffic. I certainly didn't feel out of place -- except for the fact that I wasn't burning any gasoline."
It's supposed to be a performance car. A proper review should imply hoonage and speeds likely to raise the author's insurance premiums. It shouldn't take the Consumer Reports first impression of the Nissan Leaf as it's model. The Tesla S is not a fucking Prius.
The only thing more dull than hypermiling stories are hypermiling videos, and the only saving grace of this story is that we are spared those.
How Musk can act incredulous over assertions that the Model S is impractical for US intercity travel while acknowleding one hour fuelings every three hours is beyond me.
[+] [-] AlexeiSadeski|13 years ago|reply
Bingo.
[+] [-] sukuriant|13 years ago|reply
I love speed as much as the next guy; but this was a review that, as far as I could gather, was CNN's version of peer reviewing the Time's article... and finding it wanting. A normal person isn't taking their car to the track. TopGear already did that test on an even more suited car. If you were testing the range of a Bugatti Veyron to see if it was useful as a commuter car, would you go flat out the whole way? Or, more realistically, if you were testing a Subaru WRX STi, or an Evo X, for its "normal driving conditions" range, would you be keeping your revs at 4-5k the whole way?
[+] [-] kylec|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spullara|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ishansharma|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doktrin|13 years ago|reply
I have to honestly say the Model S is very, very low on my list of cars-I-wish-I-had. It screams conspicuous and vapid consumption to the nth degree.
[+] [-] bruceboughton|13 years ago|reply
Unlike, say, gas-guzzling SUVs.
[+] [-] Yaggo|13 years ago|reply
The emphasized part makes no sense (vs. driving at constant speed), regen braking is not perpetual motion machine. Technology reporter should know that. Still amazing how such a foolish advice was given him by Tesla personnel.
[+] [-] abat|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stcredzero|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] niggler|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slantyyz|13 years ago|reply
And I would say the secondary failure is in the advice given to Broder over the phone.
Had the people on the phone just told him to charge longer, anything Broder said about the extra time charging would have come across as a simple, forgettable nitpick. It's extraordinary events like getting stranded that readers remember.
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|13 years ago|reply
I would have thought that slow, stop-start traffic is the ideal conditions for an electric car, both in terms of driving pleasure and energy use compared with traditional cars.
[+] [-] krschultz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mninja|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|13 years ago|reply
Let's see Teslas commuting to work in arctic midnight.
[+] [-] Cushman|13 years ago|reply
Of course there may be a reason I'm not in PR.
[+] [-] DannoHung|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshfraser|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] analog|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|13 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/PeterDrives
https://twitter.com/AbigailBassett
[+] [-] BryantD|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tjoff|13 years ago|reply
Will anyone be able to do this drive, under any conditions, in a Model S with batteries that are 2, 5 or 10 years old?
[+] [-] xwowsersx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OGinparadise|13 years ago|reply
What's the point of having a car that costs north of $50K and as much as $90K if you have to worry about missing an exit? This whole thing is bad press for Tesla, they thought they had the "gotcha" moment ("he went in circles in the parking lot" for a whopping.......0.6 miles while trying to find the charging station) but it just showed a prospective buyer how fragile this very expensive car.
Let me repeat it: this car is very expensive and cannot be relied to go for a few hundred miles because it has so many variables. This is a niche car at best, a rich person maybe can brag about it while having other normal cars.
Hybrids would probably be best for me.
[+] [-] dkhenry|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdl|13 years ago|reply
Being able to periodically ferry it between locations using the supercharger would just be a bonus; I'd be fine with a car which could never leave a 75 mile radius of Palo Alto, provided I also either had a second car (ideally diesel, 45+mpg or a diesel truck), or could rent one whenever I left.
I suspect most people who can afford $100k cars can afford multiple cars, or don't do 400 mile road trips on a regular basis.