Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

MAR2023: My Experience Driving 1,367mi Down Into California and Back

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Just drove down into CA and back home on a road trip with my family of five.
- Drove 1,367mi total.
- Used TESLA Superchargers mostly.
- Average TESLA Supercharger price: $0.40/kWh (MIN: $0.34/kWh | MAX: $0.48/kWh)
NOTE: I pay an average of $0.08353/kWh to charge at home, so paying $0.48/kWh is an abomination!!!
- Longest TESLA Supercharger Charge Time*: 50min (Est.) @ 250kW
- Longest non-Supercharger Charge Time*: 2.5hrs @ 8kW (32A)
- Spent $176.96 total on charging**.
- Total trip cost ICE equivalent (24mpg): $209.15 (Est. @ $3.67/gal)

* Charging sessions where we actively sat and waited, not counting charging passively at the hotel, etc.
** Charged FREE overnight at one hotel and paid a flat $10.00 twice to slow charge at an RV park in BFE.

Takeaways...

We have driven this trip and this specific route many times over the years, and it normally takes about 10.5hrs (in our ICE vehicle @ 24mpg) including stops for fuel and restroom breaks; plus, we lose 1hr going to CA and gain 1hr coming home (due to the time change). Heading to CA in our TESLA Model Y took us 15.5hrs, including time spent charging and restroom breaks, etc. There was substantial range anxiety on the way to CA, especially, because the normal route we would take was beyond the actual range of our TESLA (but not beyond the rated range). Our Model Y is rated at 321mi of range, but our first TESLA Supercharger was 254mi from our home (we left our home with 100% SOC). After much stress, we found an RV park in BFE (about 45min from the first TESLA Supercharger along our route) that allowed us to charge using my NIMA 14-50 TESLA Mobile Connector @ 8kW (32A) for a flat $10.00. Our SOC was very low, so we charged up there to about 15% SOC before heading on to the TESLA Supercharger, but by the time we arrived at that first TESLA Supercharger 45min away, we had -4% SOC. (Not kidding! NEGATIVE 4% SOC!!!) Not only did this stress us out immensely (we thought we weren't going to make it), but I feared that going below 0% may have damaged our battery pack. (It still may have damaged it and we don't even know it!) While at that first TESLA Supercharger along our route, we charged 81kWh in about 35-45min. My Model Y supposedly only has a battery pack that is 78.3kWh, so explain that one to me!

Why didn't you just enter your destination and follow the on-screen GPS and charge accordingly, you ask???? Well, because we always go that route, for one thing. Plus, the route that the car wanted us to follow was going to take us 2hrs in the wrong direction, which made no sense to me. I track my normal TESLA driving efficiency using the TezLab app, so I figured that I should be able to travel the 254mi from a 100% SOC if I go slower (I normally speed, going 10-15mi over the speed limit). I then drove 55mph and 60mph the whole way until our first charge, which seemed to help little or not at all. Tractor trailers were getting mad at me, passing me ASAP along the two lane highway.

Once we were near civilization and were able to use ALL TESLA Superchargers, it was a breeze and wasn't stressful at all, although it definitely added time to our drives. We knew we could charge for $10 at that RV park along our normal route on the way back, so that is what we did. Unfortunately, I did not know that you cannot install a software update while charging (or while driving) the TESLA, so shortly after I began charging @ 8kW (32A) at the RV park, I started the software installation, which promptly cut off my charging session, which fact I did not realize until about 25min into the install, which installation took about 35min total. We made sure to charge up to 100% SOC at that last TESLA Supercharger before heading to that RV park toward home. (This was the first TESLA Supercharger on our way to CA.) We had a 78% SOC when we arrived at the RV park, and we charged up to 95% SOC before heading on for home. We had 3% SOC when we arrived home. It was MUCH less stressful driving and charging on the way home than it was on the way to CA, but it still was not stress-free.

We learned the hard way on the drive home (after seeing the "red steering wheel of death" about 3x) that if you manually exceed the MAX speed TESLA allows for auto-steer (85mph), then that feature will be disabled for the rest of the drive. So, we kept having to pull over while driving on a two-lane highway; put the TESLA in PARK; open the driver door briefly; and then pull back out onto the highway to regain the use of this feature. Maybe I'm spoiled, but driving for hours and hours on a two-lane highway WITHOUT auto-steer sucks! (NOTE: Our HONDA Odyssey has lane keeping, which works well on a road trip, although it is not as good as TESLA's Autopilot.) We also experienced several instances of phantom braking that was most unpleasant. Our HONDA Odyssey has never once done this, and it has adaptive cruise control. It seems like Autopilot gets scared as the TESLA approaches the top of a ridge in the road.

Also, while we love how much storage our Model Y has, it really makes things fairly tight, as some of the rear storage space is deceptive and cannot fully be utilized while allowing the rear lift gate to latch shut. You must leave about a 6-8in gap between where the rear lift gate appears to close and your luggage or cooler, or else the rear lift gate will not close. I also did everything I could to avoid placing stored items on top of the rear shelf, but it could not be avoided on the way home, as we purchased some bags of merchandise. The frunk was fully utilized and so was the lower storage area below the rear cargo space (as well as the rear cargo space).

One other strange thing that occurred is that twice while I was charging at a 250kW TESLA Supercharger, steam or smoke started to rise from the passenger side, seemingly from underneath the hood of the car (under the frunk). This only lasted about 30sec or less, and both times it happened while it was colder and raining outside (maybe 47°F). Because it was wet out, it could have been steam from the thermal realities of Supercharging, or it could have been smoke. There were also a lot of clicks and a few thud noises that occurred while I was Supercharging.

I have estimated (pretty accurately, I might add) that we saved about $32 driving the Model Y on our road trip, as opposed to our ICE minivan that gets 24mpg and is much larger and more comfortable for the passengers. Was it worth it? I am unconvinced, even though I love driving my Model Y. However, my family all said that they wished we had taken the minivan.

I think the main takeaway is that until charging can be done even more quickly than it is today and until fast-charging locations are more prevalent than gas stations are today, then road trips in an EV for periods longer than 4-6hrs are not worth it, IMO. We would normally drive this route with a full tank of gas when leaving home and would have to stop once to fill up along the way, which is also our main potty break and food stop. This would add about 30min to our drive. Until EV's can do likewise, I am not sure that it makes sense to drive an EV on such a long road trip instead of an ICE vehicle. We hope to get a CyberTruck soon, but no one really knows how large and comfortable (or not) that EV will be. TESLA doesn't really make any large/r sized vehicles. The Model X is smaller than our HONDA Odyssey, which minivan is reasonably comfortable on a long road trip. (We drove it about 5,000mi on a 2.5wk road trip last summer and we were decently comfortable.) I could not imagine driving our Model Y on the same 5,000mi road trip. Also, I am utterly disappointed with the lack of savings from charging while driving our TESLA Model Y on road trips. My home electricity price per kWh is amazing, but I think it's ridiculous that I should have to pay 5x that price OR MORE to charge up on a road trip. That's the whole point of owning an EV! I've already paid damn near double to purchase this vehicle, so I should be getting more savings over ICE than a mere 15% at the Superchargers! (NOTE: My state also charges an additional $154 per year for my TESLA auto registration because it's an EV and I don't pay the fuel tax.)


Tesla_Model_Y_Dual_Motor_Solid_Black_(1).jpg

"Tesla Model Y Dual Motor Solid Black (1)" by Damian B Oh is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Admin note: Image added for Blog Feed thumbnail
 
WOW, you only have to pay 8 cents for power at home??!? I actually live in California (Oxnard) and the CHEAPEST plan gets me 24 cents (because I am on TOU-4-9 plan...
Also, that high price you are paying in CA for the Superchargers? Well, that's normal here... Funny that on a trip to Vegas, I charged up there and it was only 22 cents! Cheaper than home!! (wonder if there's a long enough extension.... nah... what am I saying!!)
Anyway, the price you put in for gas seems a bit low... Today's average for the state of CA is $4.848 and it's come DOWN from a month ago... So, you actually saved a lot more... Should have cost you $276.09 for gas (at 1367/24=59.95 gallons x $4.848 makes it $276.09)... SO, you ACTUALLY should have saved an extra $66.94...
But yeah, you are not going to get 300 miles on a fully loaded car... I don't know how much weight you put in, but it would cut you WAY down I am sure...

That app showing you '0' at one of the stops was crazy... Unless it's telling you 0 for something else (like wait time?) OR it was saying that if you stopped at the last place on the map before getting to that one, you wouldn't need to stop there at all... Of course if it's the 'last stop' before home, then you SHOULD stop and 'top off'...
But if you think YOU had it bad... Be glad you didn't buy a certain F150-Lightning... check out this video where he basically only gets HALF (or LESS) just hauling an EMPTY aluminum trailer... Oh, and like him, you probably have to deal with the 'cold' as well and that can affect mileage too...

LOL—you had me in stitches reading your comment. You’re a total numbers nerd just like me! LOL
The fact that you noticed my math was off on gasoline prices…LMAO
You’re spot on! I errantly (or lazily) used my not-so-slightly lower fuel prices where I live in Idaho, and I realized that fact after the fact and never bothered to update my fuel savings estimate. Nevertheless, it is still a ridiculously paltry sum—inflated markets notwithstanding.
Yes, while my very accurately calculated average rate per kWh at home is $0.08353 (based on year-round averages), let us not forget that businesses pay lower rates than residential customers. For this reason, I am appalled that anyone should have to pay $0.48/kWh (@ SC location)—even in CA!
BTW: I am not on a TOU plan, as it would cost me more than my current rate plan.

Nerd on! LOL
🫡
 
  • Like
Reactions: TacoGuy
It is perplexing the ignorance of the commentators regarding EV range never ends.

Here is a simple math example:
A truck:
1) 25% efficiency - 25% of fuel is used for motion, range = 300 miles without load.
2) Now, let's add some load that requires DOUBLE the power to move the truck.
3) The truck needs 25% more fuel, or its range is cut by 25% to 240 miles.

A hypotethical EV truck:
1) 90% efficiency - 90% of fuel is used for motion, range = 300 miles without load.
2) Now, let's add some load that requires DOUBLE the power to move the truck.
3) The truck needs 90% more fuel, or its range is cut by 90% to 158 miles !!!

The perceived better performance of gasoline trucks is in fact the results of their poor performance.
I move to call EVs the hostages of efficiency.
Here is a simple math example:
A truck:
1) 25% efficiency - 25% of fuel is used for motion, range = 300 miles without load.
2) Now, let's add some load that requires DOUBLE the power to move the truck.
3) The truck needs 25% more fuel, or its range is cut by 25% to 240 miles.

A hypotethical EV truck:
1) 90% efficiency - 90% of fuel is used for motion, range = 300 miles without load.
2) Now, let's add some load that requires DOUBLE the power to move the truck.
3) The truck needs 90% more fuel, or its range is cut by 90% to 158 miles !!!
Your math isn't necessarily true. First, if you Double the power, you use 100% more energy and then account for 90% efficiency. Second, while EVS are kings of efficiency, that does not apply to highway driving and towing. In both cases your efficiency will not be close to 90%...hence the massive range loss.
The perceived better performance of gasoline trucks is in fact the results of their poor performance.
I move to call EVs the hostages of efficiency.
If you define performance by efficiency of the drive train, then you're right. But if by performance you mean the actual usability of the pickup to tow, then I'd argue the 240 miles is actually superior to the 158 miles.

The perceived better performance of gasoline and diesel trucks is due to (at present) actually BEING superior for towing long distances.
In your example, a gasoline pickup can tow the load 500 miles and still get 240 miles of range. You have to refuel the gas tank 2-3 times which takes 5-10 minutes.

The EV towing example, you will have to charge 4 times at best. The Massive 150kw battery will take forever to charge. We don't normally charge EVS to 100%, so if you charge to 80% in order to take the advantage of the charging curve, and you arrive at SC with 5-10% battery, your range is now 70%-75% of the 158~ so 114 miles of actual range... That means you have to charge that same massive 150 kWh battery even more.
I'm going to speculate here how long it would take to charges 150 kw battery to 80% with a 250kw charger. Most of the charging is at a lower rate due to the actual charging curve. If we just double the time of a MY charging 10-80% (about 30 minutes), you're easily looking at 60 minutes (I'm being nice here). We don't actually have a Tesla pickup so With Ford technology, it's probably even lot longer.
Now multiply that 1hr of charging by 4... That's just the charging time in addition to 7-8 hours of driving. Oh wait you may also have to come back home...

The same 500 mile trip that many people do with their gas/diesel trucks all the time now becomes a nightmarish long (at best) or impossible with an EV.

So at present time with current technology, gasoline pickup trucks are far superior for towing in most scenarios. This could improve in the future as we get higher energy density batteries with much faster charging.
 
It is perplexing the ignorance of the commentators regarding EV range never ends.

Here is a simple math example:
A truck:
1) 25% efficiency - 25% of fuel is used for motion, range = 300 miles without load.
2) Now, let's add some load that requires DOUBLE the power to move the truck.
3) The truck needs 25% more fuel, or its range is cut by 25% to 240 miles.

A hypotethical EV truck:
1) 90% efficiency - 90% of fuel is used for motion, range = 300 miles without load.
2) Now, let's add some load that requires DOUBLE the power to move the truck.
3) The truck needs 90% more fuel, or its range is cut by 90% to 158 miles !!!

The perceived better performance of gasoline trucks is in fact the results of their poor performance.
I move to call EVs the hostages of efficiency.
I don’t think that’s right. ICE vehicles also lose about half their range when towing, same as EVs. It’s just that vehicles that tow (large SUVs and trucks) have much bigger gas tanks and thus range. And you really don’t notice range loss in an ICE because you can fill up anywhere (Although you’ll notice it in gasoline costs!).

It doesn’t matter how efficient a vehicle's energy consumption is, double the load, and you double the useful energy used which is proportional to the total energy used. Or put another way, it always takes double the amount of total energy used when you double the useful work required no matter how efficient your energy usage is, assuming both motor/engine types have more or less constant efficiency relative to load (which they are in this case).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JB47394 and T061
Huh. I just found this thread and hadn't anticipated it would also be about that terrible route from Boise to Winnemucca, so of course I had to weigh in. I've had a Tesla in Boise for over 9 years now, and I've done that route about 3 times. It is terribly challenging. I had done it with a slow charging stop once at the Say When casino, and I've used my CHAdeMO adapter a couple of other times.

I will say that it was taking a risk to not even know what kinds of plugs those were at the fast charging station there or if there was an adapter you could use for it. Before this new upcoming Supercharger we just found out about, I had decided that my route down toward Reno or the Bay Area would involve going West first to Burns and then South through Alturas, CA. It's not as out of the way as going East over to Twin Falls.
 
It doesn’t matter how efficient a vehicle's energy consumption is, double the load, and you double the useful energy used which is proportional to the total energy used. Or put another way, it always takes double the amount of total energy used when you double the useful work required no matter how efficient your energy usage is, assuming both motor/engine types have more or less constant efficiency relative to load (which they are in this case).
mmm, what? no.
Burning 1 gallon of gasoline = 132 MJ of energy. If 25% of this energy makes the car move and the rest (75%) goes to thermal waste, it is 132*0.25 = 33 MJ of energy spent on moving the car. If the force resisting the car motion is doubled (load, wind, etc.), then you need 33*2 = 66 MJ of energy to move the car. If your waste over the same time remains the same as before, it is 132*0.75 = 99 MJ. In total you need 99+66 = 165 MJ instead of 132 MJ, which is a 25% increase in consumption, not 100% increase in consumption.

A 90% EV, needs 33/0.9 = 37 MJ to make the same work instead of 132 MJ for a car. If the useful work is doubled, it will be 66/0.9 = 73 MJ + 4 MJ of waste =77 MJ needed for an EV. 77 over 37 is about double the total energy.
 
mmm, what? no.
Burning 1 gallon of gasoline = 132 MJ of energy. If 25% of this energy makes the car move and the rest (75%) goes to thermal waste, it is 132*0.25 = 33 MJ of energy spent on moving the car. If the force resisting the car motion is doubled (load, wind, etc.), then you need 33*2 = 66 MJ of energy to move the car. If your waste over the same time remains the same as before, it is 132*0.75 = 99 MJ. In total you need 99+66 = 165 MJ instead of 132 MJ, which is a 25% increase in consumption, not 100% increase in consumption.

A 90% EV, needs 33/0.9 = 37 MJ to make the same work instead of 132 MJ for a car. If the useful work is doubled, it will be 66/0.9 = 73 MJ + 4 MJ of waste =77 MJ needed for an EV. 77 over 37 is about double the total energy.
So you say you would need 165 MJ of total energy to move the car the same distance in the 2x load in the ICE example. If you had 165 MJ of total energy, only 25% of it would be useable = 41.25 MJ, which isn’t enough.

Your calcs say your useful energy doubles, but your wasted energy remains constant between the light and heavy load scenarios, which doesn’t make sense? Wasted energy is always going to be 75% of total energy, or 3x of useful energy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocky_H and JB47394
Agree with the OP. Tesla's are NOT good road trip vehicles no matter what the fan boys tell you. Much more hassle, worry, and wasted time.

I did a 3500 mile trip from Chicago to KeyWest and back in my ( almost new ) 2023 M3P. Just the two of us - wife and I, in a sense to experience the EV while visiting our daughter.
It was crazy - left Chicago Wednesday night, came back to chicago Monday evening.
No stops along the way other than charging.

I am absolutely blown away with the amount of comfort and lack of exhaustion. Pure speculation - but it has to be the more frequent stops, and the FSD.
Other than the first leg to the first supercharger ( i did not really know what to expect ) - absolutely no range anxiety.

Made that trip several times in my RV, which has luxurious driver seat, all accommodations (including cold beer in the fridge for the time I wanted to stop and nap of course) , full size bed for when you need one, and wife bringing you coffee while your driving.
I was exhausted half way each time we did it.
Not the case in the M3P
 
I did a 3500 mile trip from Chicago to KeyWest and back in my ( almost new ) 2023 M3P. Just the two of us - wife and I, in a sense to experience the EV while visiting our daughter.
It was crazy - left Chicago Wednesday night, came back to chicago Monday evening.
No stops along the way other than charging.

I am absolutely blown away with the amount of comfort and lack of exhaustion. Pure speculation - but it has to be the more frequent stops, and the FSD.
Other than the first leg to the first supercharger ( i did not really know what to expect ) - absolutely no range anxiety.

Made that trip several times in my RV, which has luxurious driver seat, all accommodations (including cold beer in the fridge for the time I wanted to stop and nap of course) , full size bed for when you need one, and wife bringing you coffee while your driving.
I was exhausted half way each time we did it.
Not the case in the M3P
It was the FSD. It’s a game changer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Konicom04
Yes, but that's almost entirely just lane keeping assist and adaptive cruise control. I consider it a game changer (my neck and shoulders are very thankful), but it's something that we should expect from most cars in the very near future.
I haven’t seen anything else that would work as well on a 3500 mile trip. All others have various limitations. Speed limit (I like to drive 82 mph on CA freeways when I can), or geofencing, or not robust enough (some can’t handle sharper freeway turns). Anyways, probably not the right place for a debate on FSD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB47394
I think this story exemplifies a major general confusion with EV technology. The range of gasoline vehicles depends on driving conditions (highway/city, wind/calm, etc.) too, but (1) general users often don't care about it because of the abundance of gas stations and (2) the range change is smaller than in EVs because of the much higher EV efficiency (remember, some 70% of your gasoline is waster no matter what you do with your gasoline car and only up to 30% goes into driving).

We do need more chargers on highways.
We need better general public education about the use of EVs.

By the way, a new Supercharger is scheduled to get online in McDermitt this quarter that will solve the SSW travel direction issue for Boise people. Rejoice the people of Idaho.
"We need better general public education about the use of EVs."

The EPA is the place to start. Their apparently unrealistic estimates generated under ideal conditions is the first source of the "general public's" misinformation.

I bought my MYLR last month with the understanding that the actual range was somewhere close to EPA's tested range of 330 miles. I knew EPA testing procedures were likely optimal so I was guessing 290-300 was the actual summertime number on a flat road not driving into a bloc headwind. From this thread it looks like the real world number is closer to 225 miles.

Under the conditions I just described, what are people's experience when starting a trip with a full charge?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: alexgr
"We need better general public education about the use of EVs."

The EPA is the place to start. Their apparently unrealistic estimates generated under ideal conditions is the first source of the "general public's" misinformation.

I bought my MYLR last month with the understanding that the actual range was somewhere close to EPA's tested range of 330 miles. I knew EPA testing procedures were likely optimal so I was guessing 290-300 was the actual summertime number on a flat road not driving into a bloc headwind. From this thread it looks like the real world number is closer to 225 miles.

Under the conditions I just described, what are people's experience when starting a trip with a full charge?
I took delivery of my Model Y (LR/AWD) NOV2022. I live in Boise (to give you an idea on weather conditions and temperatures), so I have not yet experienced range in warm/hot weather (other than the warmer Bay Area weather). Just took my first actual road trip, so all my other driving to-date has been in town. Having taken the road trip (week before last) down to the SF Bay Area and barely made it to Winnemucca with -4% SOC (after charging up 12% at an RV park along US-95) from my home starting with 100% SOC, I can confidently tell you that my actual range was 219mi (68.87% efficiency) under those conditions. (For reference, it is 254mi from my home to the SC in Winnemucca, NV.) I calculated how many kW I charged and used my current mi/kWh at that time to determine my accurate range in those conditions. I’m hoping to see a substantial range improvement this spring/summer. We shall see!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ATG1
mmm, what? no.
Burning 1 gallon of gasoline = 132 MJ of energy. If 25% of this energy makes the car move and the rest (75%) goes to thermal waste, it is 132*0.25 = 33 MJ of energy spent on moving the car. If the force resisting the car motion is doubled (load, wind, etc.), then you need 33*2 = 66 MJ of energy to move the car. If your waste over the same time remains the same as before, it is 132*0.75 = 99 MJ. In total you need 99+66 = 165 MJ instead of 132 MJ, which is a 25% increase in consumption, not 100% increase in consumption.

A 90% EV, needs 33/0.9 = 37 MJ to make the same work instead of 132 MJ for a car. If the useful work is doubled, it will be 66/0.9 = 73 MJ + 4 MJ of waste =77 MJ needed for an EV. 77 over 37 is about double the total energy.
You guys are too “Doc Brown” for me. Sorry…
 
Your calcs say your useful energy doubles, but your wasted energy remains constant between the light and heavy load scenarios, which doesn’t make sense? Wasted energy is always going to be 75% of total energy, or 3x of useful energy.
This is not correct. Yes, the wasted energy will depend on the power load, I agree. However, it is not a linear function with slope of 1.

Edit: A LOT of combustion engine losses are largely independent of the load at all such as some pumping and internal friction loses.
 
Last edited:
I can confidently tell you that my actual range was 219mi (68.87% efficiency) under those conditions.
It is not called "efficiency".
The conditions for nominal range (326 mi?) must be met to test the range. I don't think those conditions involve driving at highway speeds at temperature lowed than 68F.
Yesterday, I was driving my M3 for 85 miles at the average 244 Wh/mi which is less than 250 Wh/mi nominal. At one leg of my drive of about 20 miles I had 209 Wh/mi. Was my car 120% efficient?
 
I bought my MYLR last month with the understanding that the actual range was somewhere close to EPA's tested range of 330 miles. I knew EPA testing procedures were likely optimal so I was guessing 290-300 was the actual summertime number on a flat road not driving into a bloc headwind. From this thread it looks like the real world number is closer to 225 miles.
This is where misunderstanding starts.
1) I was guessing
2) My guess was wrong
3) It's all Elon Musk's fault
 
This is not correct. Yes, the wasted energy will depend on the power load, I agree. However, it is not a linear function with slope of 1.

Edit: A LOT of combustion engine losses are largely independent of the load at all such as some pumping and internal friction loses.
Well, what is the factor then? Your previous equations and calcs had no such factor, other than saying there was zero incremental energy loss when doubling the load, which would be amazing if true.

Incidentally, are you using ChatGPT to write your responses, cause I’m kinda getting that vibe.
 
This is where misunderstanding starts.
1) I was guessing
2) My guess was wrong
3) It's all Elon Musk's fault
Give me an effin break pal. Who are you to say these things to me. Boy, I thought this was a nice group. If you disagree, just say so there's no need to try to insult me. Plus, did I bring up Musk? No, you did! Musk has nothing to do with this. He doesn't run the EPA or dictate their testing methods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tman317