Did anyone else hear the Tesla Model S review on NPR today? A few inaccuracies I think but a very positive review. I think it was a teaser for a bigger review.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
Haven't started the drive back out west 
Online link coming up in 30 min: Tech Look Ahead: Tesla Motor's 'Model S' : NPR
Online link coming up in 30 min: Tech Look Ahead: Tesla Motor's 'Model S' : NPR
strider
Active Member
sp4rk
Banned
I did catch the review and as the OP said, there are a couple of inaccuracies. I like the fact that the car is getting so much good press and great reviews thus far. Tesla still has the big dogs (i.e. Motor Trend, Car and Driver, Top Gear, etc.) to contend with.
On the other hand, I am just really looking forward to reviewing it myself.
On the other hand, I am just really looking forward to reviewing it myself.
Motor Trend just did a very positive long term on the Volt. So, we know that they are open to being positive on EVs. Or perhaps GM just did a large ad purchase
2011 Chevrolet Volt Verdict - Motor Trend
NuclearPowered
Member
Motor Trend just did a very positive long term on the Volt. So, we know that they are open to being positive on EVs. Or perhaps GM just did a large ad purchase
2011 Chevrolet Volt Verdict - Motor Trend
Or maybe its just people coming around and realizing there is better tech out there. Isn't this what we have been telling the average driver all along? We shouldn't be surprised to see these cars get great reviews, as long as the reviewer is honest.
SCW-Greg
Active Member
I do worry about some loose nut from motor city or the refinery who's just jonesin to give a black eye to EVs / TS. But I think the way Elon is rolling this out, slowly building on and proving the tech, licensing the technology to Toyota and Benz, timing the media, building public anticipation, and now adding the nationwide store fronts... will make for some very powerful/positive momentum. :smile:
SCW-Greg
Active Member
Well she had it right, the Dude didn't. Almost wonder if they pulled his sound bite from another test drive of a Roadster, and inserted it here.
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
Was this the real deal or a teaser for a full feature later in the week? I suspect it could be the latter. On today's show, they did a full feature on a smart robot in Menlo Park:
You Know You Want One: Personal Robots Are Coming, But Not Ready For You Yet : All Tech Considered : NPR
You Know You Want One: Personal Robots Are Coming, But Not Ready For You Yet : All Tech Considered : NPR
CapitalistOppressor
Active Member
Actually I am waiting for a major reviewer to give an independent check on the 0-60 time for the performance model. It's not unusual at all for a manufacturer to manage expectations so that a reviewer is pleasantly surprised when they get the car. GM has done that for years with the Corvette, listing a slower time and letting Motor Trend rave about actual times when they get the car.
As far as I can tell, Tesla has been slippery about the weight of the vehicle or it's drive train. But we know that a similar, first generation, drive train in in the Lotus Elise and managed to achieve significantly better acceleration then the ICE version of the car.
For the Model S, Tesla has at times listed weights for the car that put it solidly in the same class as a BMW 5 series at ~2 tons. But unlike the Roadster, the Model S was purpose built as an electric. It is lightweight aluminum construction. It has an advertised drag coefficient of 0.22 (BMW 5 Series is 0.26) which is a world beater that is possible mainly because of the flat underbody caused by its battery. Every point of reduction of drag coefficient is worth ~100kg in weight reduction once you get up past 30-50mph. Weight, plus engine power, plus drag coefficient = acceleration and we don't know any of them except for what Tesla tells us.
All we know is that Tesla is advertising 4.4 0-60 and the only incentive that they have to be accurate is to not have an actual number HIGHER than that. They have every incentive to beat the number. And they have the technology to do it. Joe Blow on NPR claimed 4.1 after riding in it. Either he misquoted the spec or he used a stop watch.
The other shoe waiting to drop when a major reviewer gets the car is that it has a ridiculously low center of gravity. Like, top of the line sports car low. The car is also extremely wide for its size and has an amazing weight distribution. In theory it should be able to trounce it's competition in all facets of performance. And again, with a solid backlog of reservations there is little need for Tesla to be specific, and it has every incentive to over deliver expectations. So what did NPR guy say specifically? "It's a Roadster." "It accelerates 0-60 in like 4.1 seconds." Since it's a sedan, it obviously isn't a roadster (small R). He is likely comparing it, very directly, to the TESLA Roadster, as opposed to say it's ostensible BMW 5 series competition that it seems capable of beating in every performance category.
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
Pretty sure he got a ride in a Roadster and mistakenly thought it was the Model S. Despite the brief nature of the report, it was pretty erroneous, which seems atypical for most NPR stories.
IIRC, Top Gear defended itself after blatantly lying about the Roadster by saying that it is a comedy show, not a car review show.
The guy is clearly talking about the Roadster. Some editor mistakenly stuck in the wrong clip. That's easier for me to believe, than a car reporter not knowing that a roadster is a small two-seat sports car, not a big sedan. My customer advocate told me my non-sport Roadster would do 4.1 if charged in Standard mode.
Pretty worthless little clip. I quit listening to ATC a long time ago.
Welcome to the forum!
FYI: this was revised to "approximately 0.24":
Model S Efficiency and Range | Blog | Tesla Motors
CapitalistOppressor
Active Member
I'm not sure "revised" is the proper description. The article you cited is an excellent read about the physics of electric range. But it is not referring to a particular model or trim level. By saying "approximately" Elon can describe all Model S models while giving what might be a top line, lowest common denominator type of number.
The (optional) spoiler on the performance model (as an example) would likely change the Cd either up or down. We have no clue what the magnitude or direction of that change is but I've heard that an otherwise cosmetic spoiler can add or subtract Cd on the scale of 0.01.
My basic point stands. We don't have real data and Tesla has an incentive to under promise and over deliver on all of their claims. Likely they will only succeed in matching most of their claims, but it would not surprise me in the least if the Model S Performance turns out to accelerate faster than 4.4 0-60.
Similar threads
