This does not seem like a good fix. If the brake pads are worn out after one hard stop then Tesla needs to use better brake pads. And they should apply that retroactively to all Model 3s on the road through a TSB.
-
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.
This does not seem like a good fix. If the brake pads are worn out after one hard stop then Tesla needs to use better brake pads. And they should apply that retroactively to all Model 3s on the road through a TSB.
You nailed it! I'm 71, old-school, and was taught to keep my eyes on the road and keep one car's length of distance between me and the car in front of me per 10 mph of speed. I'll probably continue this strategy until I have full-blown Alzheimer's and need the car to autonomously delivery me to my head shrink!
That said, Tesla bashing, crappy testing techniques and sensational claims will continue. Meanwhile, people line up to buy Teslas and will wait years to get one!
Agreed!
I would like to see why the first test gets 130 ft or so, and the subsequent tests are worse.
Electricfan
Active Member
Sorry, 20 ft has been the difference between an accident and no accident at least 10 times in my last 40 yrs of driving. I disagree with it being anything like trivial. I would say crucial is a more appropriate word to describe 20 ft of braking distance.
Agreed!
IMO, the Consumer Reports tester had short legs and was unable to fully depress the brake pedal.......
Hi Sharkbait. You should check on those following distance requirements! Three seconds is the recommended following distance by global best practices. Depending on which state you live in, over 55's can get a 15% (mandated) insurance discount if they take a driver improvement course. It takes a few hours to complete, but does bring you up to date on current requirements.
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
Even ignoring reaction time, shaving 4+mph or so off of your speed should be enough to offset a 20' increase in 60-0 braking if you're concerned about it.
Electricfan
Active Member
I'm not concerned about it. I was simply stating 20 ft is significant. Not trivial. Do you think 20 ft is trivial?
Nevertheless, those 20 ft misses were more likely down to your reaction time than the actual braking distance, if the speed was less than 60 mph. At 60 mph a 1/3 of a second extra time to react would have used up nearly 30 ft. Whats more, this issue is of increasing importance as braking distances reduce with technical improvements, and human reaction time does not. If that 20 ft is of that much importance, then buy the vehicle with the shortest 60-0 braking distance.
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
It's trivial with adjustments to behavior, which in this case could be reaction time and/or cruising speed.
Course, without adjusting behavior, it goes from trivial to "Oh s***!", but that's the price to be paid for a need, a need for speed.
Electricfan
Active Member
It's trivial with adjustments to behavior, which in this case could be reaction time and/or cruising speed.
Course, without adjusting behavior, it goes from trivial to "Oh s***!", but that's the price to be paid for a need, a need for speed.
Well I respectfully disagree. This is black and white. 20 ft is not trivial when talking about braking distance.
EV-lutioin
Active Member
I agree, CR used to be fairly reputable, but lately they seem to have fallen victim to universal desire for clicks. Every few months they post some extremely negative or positive statement about Tesla, because.... Tesla news gets lots of clicks (Think: every accident, fire, etc.) I don't think their report is false, but I do think it's sensationalized to to maximize attention (clicks). Since their results are so different from the manufacturer's results, it would have been a good idea to compare several cars or wheel/tire combinations to see if their results were repeatable, rather than pumping social media.
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
It isn't trivial when someone refuses to change their behavior. It becomes trivial after they do. Which, to be fair, applies to plenty of things besides 60-0 braking distances.
claudelaval
Member
Elon's responses are the appropriate ones. He takes responsibility for the car to be the best it can be (as designed). Add it to the list of the reasons that I like him & support what he's doing.
claudelaval
Member
Specifically here is what Elon said
Replying to @ElectrekCo and @FredericLambert
Very strange. Model 3 is designed to have super good stopping distance & others reviewers have confirmed this. If there is vehicle variability, we will figure it out & address. May just be a question of firmware tuning, in which case can be solved by an OTA software update.
Replying to @elonmusk @ElectrekCo and @FredericLambert
Even if a physical upgrade is needed to existing fleet, we will make sure all Model 3’s having amazing braking ability at no expense to customers
9:33 PM · May 21, 2018
Rule of thumb with many, many variables. Important for me and others is to watch the road in front of the person you're behind. Once in my 50+ years of driving, I watched a guy in front me plow right into the car in front of him. I saw it coming, he didn't react and I did. Insurance? I'm not doing too badly, at least for California @ $1600/year. I expect the 100D will make it a bit more expensive. If every car in California maintained 300' of distance between cars, we would need to get rid of quite a few million vehicles.
Similar threads
