I think the early production comment was related to the change in suspension softness and build related wind noise issues.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Braking distance concern by Consumer Reports
- Thread starter SoCalDude
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3 Tesla Inc.
I think the early production comment was related to the change in suspension softness and build related wind noise issues.
Xenoilphobe
Well-Known Member
Then they should do what Audi/VW does and create a test protocol that cheats the system and performs better than it does in actual use. 
Diesel emissions scandal - Wikipedia
Diesel emissions scandal - Wikipedia
Last edited:
People design to the typical use case. It may be that the repetitive lockups in a short span of time cause the SW to reduce braking force. That is the behavior you would want in a bad weather/ slick road condition (better to not lock that to lock/ release lock/release). Perhaps they did not give enough attention to the braking input pressure level (i.e. set a threshold that expects lock up).
Driver Dave
Member
The problem is CR is trying to rate Tesla cars in the same category as gas cars.
It is like comparing flip phones and iPhones as equals.
Gas cars just plain suck, all around. Gas engines are a pain to maintain, fuel costs are high, people killing smoke fills your garage, dealers skimming money off of every deal, horrible performance... on and on.
So if gas car's rating goes from 0-100, start Tesla's and other electric cars at say 500, and then go from there.
It is like comparing flip phones and iPhones as equals.
Gas cars just plain suck, all around. Gas engines are a pain to maintain, fuel costs are high, people killing smoke fills your garage, dealers skimming money off of every deal, horrible performance... on and on.
So if gas car's rating goes from 0-100, start Tesla's and other electric cars at say 500, and then go from there.
GuyDude
Member
Will the dual motor model 3 have the same e brakes? I’m surprised he didn’t just outsource to brembo.
Also someone asked me to post a pic of my Model 3 with two thumbs down lol. I’m assuming this is to prove I have a model 3. Will do when I head to work this morning
Also someone asked me to post a pic of my Model 3 with two thumbs down lol. I’m assuming this is to prove I have a model 3. Will do when I head to work this morning
IMHO this is really damning. If they let a software bug that seriously affects the braking performance of the car get released, what other bugs are in there? Treating cars like Windows desktops where bugs can just be ignored for a few months till the next update cycle is a pretty poor corporate philosophy.
GuyDude
Member
So Elon confirmed that braking issue is software? I find it really hard to believe. I had an emergency situation and was really pushing on my brakes this weekend and the darn thing simply wouldn’t stop in time to avoid an object. Had to swerve around it
When I test drove the i3, it felt like a typical BMW. Meaning that when you touch the brake pedal, your eye balls pop out of their sockets. My MS brakes feel nowhere near as good as my 550i brakes.
Is this correct? 1.5 seconds is an eternity and I can't see even an elderly person having that slow of a reaction time.
Krugerrand
Meow
They did test it before public relaease and stated what the braking distance was. Read everything not just what you want to fit your narrative.
I know it can be hard to let go of the righteous indignation but do try otherwise you just come across as a sour, grumpy old man who’s not getting enough.
So IMO the question boils down to did the 2nd pass with the extended stopping distance clamp down hard enough that ABS had to prevent the front wheels from skidding. If so, firmware update seems like a likely fix. If it did not clamp hard enough to trigger ABS then it seems pads would be the next logical step.
Aussie Bob
Member
My son sent me this article about The negative Consumer report on the Model 3.
The Tesla Model 3 is not good enough to earn a recommendation from Consumer Reports, the magazine said. While the car is exciting to drive, difficult controls and weak brakes prevented it from getting the publication's much-sought-after approval.
Consumer Reports has said the larger and more expensive Tesla Model S was among the best cars it had ever tested.
Not so with the Tesla Model 3. The magazine praised the car's acceleration, handling and driving range. Those things, Consumer Reports said, could have made it a strong competitor against similarly priced cars like the Audi A4 and BMW 3-series.
In Consumer Reports tests, the Model 3 went from zero to 60 miles an hour in just 5.3 seconds, and testers found the sedan's handling reminiscent of a Porsche Boxster two-seat sports car.
Consumer Reports magazine faulted the Model 3 for its weak, inconsistent brakes and hard-to-use controls.
But, in emergency braking tests, the car took 152 feet, on average, to come to a stop from 60 miles an hour. That was seven feet more than a Ford F-150 full-size truck needed, according to the magazine. It's about 20 feet longer than the average for other cars similar to the Model 3.
The car's braking performance was also extremely inconsistent, the magazine said.
Related: Tesla tows a jetliner
Tesla's own tests have shown much shorter stopping distances, a spokeswoman for the automaker said.
The publication also took issue with the Model 3's controls, almost all of which rely on a large centrally-located touch screen.
"This layout forces drivers to take multiple steps to accomplish simple tasks," Consumer Reports reported in an online post.
Even adjusting the side mirrors or changing the direction of the air flow from the dashboard vents requires interacting with the touch screen. That means extended periods of time in which the driver's eyes are off the road ahead, Consumer Reports said.
Related: Elon Musk's LA tunnel is nearly done
Consumer Reports also faulted the Model 3 for its firm ride, uncomfortable rear seats and wind noise at highway speeds.
It was the weak and inconsistent braking performance that really kept the Model 3 from earning a recommendation, though, said Jake Fisher, head of auto testing for Consumer Reports. That leaves open the possibility that, if Tesla were to improve the car's braking performance through a software update, for instance, the car could then earn the approval, Fisher said, despite other issues.
This not the first time Consumer Reports has knocked a Tesla. The Tesla Model X crossover SUV also did not earn its recommendation.
In the auto industry, the non-profit Consumer Reports, which does not publish any advertising and which purchases all the products it tests, is widely considered the most influential publication among car shoppers.
The Tesla Model 3 is not good enough to earn a recommendation from Consumer Reports, the magazine said. While the car is exciting to drive, difficult controls and weak brakes prevented it from getting the publication's much-sought-after approval.
Consumer Reports has said the larger and more expensive Tesla Model S was among the best cars it had ever tested.
Not so with the Tesla Model 3. The magazine praised the car's acceleration, handling and driving range. Those things, Consumer Reports said, could have made it a strong competitor against similarly priced cars like the Audi A4 and BMW 3-series.
In Consumer Reports tests, the Model 3 went from zero to 60 miles an hour in just 5.3 seconds, and testers found the sedan's handling reminiscent of a Porsche Boxster two-seat sports car.
Consumer Reports magazine faulted the Model 3 for its weak, inconsistent brakes and hard-to-use controls.
But, in emergency braking tests, the car took 152 feet, on average, to come to a stop from 60 miles an hour. That was seven feet more than a Ford F-150 full-size truck needed, according to the magazine. It's about 20 feet longer than the average for other cars similar to the Model 3.
The car's braking performance was also extremely inconsistent, the magazine said.
Related: Tesla tows a jetliner
Tesla's own tests have shown much shorter stopping distances, a spokeswoman for the automaker said.
The publication also took issue with the Model 3's controls, almost all of which rely on a large centrally-located touch screen.
"This layout forces drivers to take multiple steps to accomplish simple tasks," Consumer Reports reported in an online post.
Even adjusting the side mirrors or changing the direction of the air flow from the dashboard vents requires interacting with the touch screen. That means extended periods of time in which the driver's eyes are off the road ahead, Consumer Reports said.
Related: Elon Musk's LA tunnel is nearly done
Consumer Reports also faulted the Model 3 for its firm ride, uncomfortable rear seats and wind noise at highway speeds.
It was the weak and inconsistent braking performance that really kept the Model 3 from earning a recommendation, though, said Jake Fisher, head of auto testing for Consumer Reports. That leaves open the possibility that, if Tesla were to improve the car's braking performance through a software update, for instance, the car could then earn the approval, Fisher said, despite other issues.
This not the first time Consumer Reports has knocked a Tesla. The Tesla Model X crossover SUV also did not earn its recommendation.
In the auto industry, the non-profit Consumer Reports, which does not publish any advertising and which purchases all the products it tests, is widely considered the most influential publication among car shoppers.
Well, at least it seems Elon is acknowledging this and now working to correct it:
Musk Says Model 3 Brakes Need Work, Firmware Update Coming in a ‘Few Days’
Musk Says Model 3 Brakes Need Work, Firmware Update Coming in a ‘Few Days’
Think about what ABS does. It releases the brake long enough for the wheel/tire to reaccelerate to rolling at vehicle speed ( re-obtain static coefficient of friction). The forces reaccelerating the wheel are also frictional forces that are calculated using the downward force and some estimated coefficient of friction. If the front brakes stay off too long, ( maybe because they do not account for the extra normal force helping reaccelerate the tire), the car will take longer to stop.
It is fairly safe to say that the "off" time on the front brakes is too long (or the "on" times are too short), as "on" times being too long on any wheel would create commentary about skidding sounds and ABS not working, rather than unexplained long stopping distances.
[I don't know how the calibration is getting confused, or how front/rear brake fluid pressure is proportioned in today's cars. Since the front tires carry most of the load, I can only think that either rear wheel data, or pre-weight shifted skidding or re-acceleration time values from the front wheels are being used on the front brakes after they have been loaded and support higher braking loads and can reaccelerate much faster. It could be the "on" time is too short or the "off" time is too long as the extra downward pressure on the front tire is not being accounted for.]
It is fairly safe to say that the "off" time on the front brakes is too long (or the "on" times are too short), as "on" times being too long on any wheel would create commentary about skidding sounds and ABS not working, rather than unexplained long stopping distances.
[I don't know how the calibration is getting confused, or how front/rear brake fluid pressure is proportioned in today's cars. Since the front tires carry most of the load, I can only think that either rear wheel data, or pre-weight shifted skidding or re-acceleration time values from the front wheels are being used on the front brakes after they have been loaded and support higher braking loads and can reaccelerate much faster. It could be the "on" time is too short or the "off" time is too long as the extra downward pressure on the front tire is not being accounted for.]
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrong forum. This forum is for Canadian Supercharger locations.
This belongs here: Braking distance concern by Consumer Reports
This belongs here: Braking distance concern by Consumer Reports
Similar threads
