NYT article: Stalled on the EV Highway

[Norbert]

Indeed

But I think he had every right to expect a 90 mile round trip from the supercharger to the hotel, with 50% range margin, to be easy.

The problem Tesla has is their USP is they *are* the long range EV company. The customer base expects that. I'd argue that calling out the supercharger marketing is a little premature at this stage of that network's development, even if there are still wrinkles showing up in the California deployment too.

The round trip to the hotel would have been 158 miles, and he supercharged to only 185 miles rated range.

EDIT: Though apparently a bit more complicated. There seems to be an inconsistency (when looking at the graphic only). It says from the Supercharger in Milford to the hotel in Groton would be 79 miles, and twice that is 158 miles. But it says for the way back the next day from Norwich to Milford would be 68 miles, even though Norwich appears further away ("in the opposite direction').

 

[Doug_G]

Nevertheless, if the overnight loss reported is true, I am genuinely surprised by the degree of loss here and would not have expected it myself.

I suspect a few things are conflated there.

The car underestimates the battery capacity when the pack is very cold. So it sits there and cold soaks and the estimated range drops quickly. But only a small portion of that is "vampire load"; the rest is the progressive underestimation of what is actually there.

The other thing that plays into this is the pack heater. When you first start up with the pack cold soaked, the pack heater consumes extra power. So that gives you a hit on range even as it's coming up with a more accurate measurement.

Plugging into 110V overnight would pretty much solve all of the above. Charging is very unlikely to complete during the night, so the pack is being constantly heated. The range estimate will be accurate. The pack will be reasonably warm so you won't get a big hit when you start driving. Plus you'll get a little bit more charge instead of a little bit of vampire load.

 

[Seegem]

When is tesla going to post it's blog response?!

 

[dpeilow]

The round trip to the hotel would have been 158 miles, and he supercharged to only 185 miles rated range.

EDIT: Though apparently a bit more complicated. There seems to be an inconsistency (when looking at the graphic only). It says from the Supercharger in Milford to the hotel in Groton would be 79 miles, and twice that is 158 miles. But it says for the way back the next day from Norwich to Milford would be 68 miles, even though Norwich appears further away ("in the opposite direction').

He says he goes from Milford to Stonington to Groton - then presumably intended to go back to Milford. Google Maps says it should have been 141 miles. So ok, it's a 44 mile margin he had to start with.

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

The round trip to the hotel would have been 158 miles, and he supercharged to only 185 miles rated range.

That may have looked fine to a novice... indeed he says "drove, slowly, to Stonington, Conn., for dinner and spent the night in Groton, a total distance of 79 miles" and then makes a perfectly reasonable statement IMO "When I parked the car, its computer said I had 90 miles of range, twice the 46 miles back to Milford".

None of this would have been an issue if he'd plugged in overnight, "It was a different story at 8:30 the next morning. The thermometer read 10 degrees and the display showed 25 miles of remaining range". However, this is something that he did not know (or ignored) and resulted in the flat bed. IMO the overnight range degradation reported by the car is excessive (even if it's not 'real') and I don't think we can expect a novice to understand this.

 

[chimpanzee]

All in all I don't mind that the writer is defending himself somewhat and it looks like a more robust supercharger network will result from this experience.

I will make one small comment on something he wrote. Perhaps it's my legal training but he analogizes plugging in at night while it's bitterly cold (while one is sleeping) to being an OCD EV acolyte "who will plug is at every Walmart stop." The two are not analogous. While I am critical of Tesla for not telling him to find a 110 to plug into for the night, it's not the issue he's making it out to be. I've been plugging in every night for the last month and it's quite a bit less annoying that plugging in every time I stop at a store. Aside from that one line, I felt the rest of the article was a fair defense. I may feel entirely different when Elon publishes the car's logs. Oh, and someone should have told him to do a Range charge!

I hope this leads to Tesla appointing someone to act as an information source EVERY TIME they provide a car to a journalist. Take the tester through an hour-long delivery-style session. It really seems to me that most of the issues (if not all) this writer encountered could have been avoided had he possessed a little more knowledge. I would not have expected anyone here to have had the same issues he did.

When I tell people my car is electric they will, invariably, tell me about some charging station around town. I have made it a point to tell them, while I am able to use most of those, I don't because I simply don't need to. I charge at night and then don't worry about it during the day.

I view the whole thing as a "collision of 2 universes":

1) Technical (STEM, Science Technology Engineering Mathematics)
"hard"

2) non-Technical (the masses, incl Media)
"soft"

There is an Information gap, which could be corrected with Communication (Instruction & Education). I can still remember my EE prof at U. of Illinois (M. Eberhard & I were office-mates in grad school in Summer '81)

"it's just as much of an exercise in Communication, as it is a Technical exercise"

I think the journalist had some misunderstanding of the Technology (some Tesla communication failure here as well), which exacerbated the the problem. EDE (Extreme Duty Environment) of the cold-weather.

"Most people think the Gulf War was won with high-tech weapons (aircraft, tanks, etc). In fact, it was the AWACS reconaissance aircraft (Communication, Command, Control), which coordinated the various military forces (Marines, USAF, Navy), which was the winning factor"
-- xxx, US Army War College, History Channel documentary

I.e., Tesla should have had a support person assigned to the tester (acting as an AWACS), in a C-cubed (Communication/Command/Control) model.

There is already a lot of evidence of less-than-optimal Tesla Communication to Tesla Model S owners (order & delivery). It sounds like a staffing issue, Tesla seems to be overwhelmed.


The above reminds me of another demographic (Radio Control aircraft, where electric power has taken over from fuel, aka "slimers"..yucky gas).

[ note that Alan Cocconi (involved in development of General Motors EV1 prototype at Aerovironment, along with Wally Rippel, latter was at Tesla Motors who was canned during the late 2007 "bloodbath") flies electric R/C, I met him at the Rose Bowl flying park. M. Eberhard saved his ACP (AC Propulsion) company, during his search for an electric sports-car..which led to the founding of Tesla Motors ]

Some vendor showed up (R/C enthusiast), selling kits WITHOUT instructions!! (incl location of CoG/Center of Gravity). It created a firestorm of protests over the RCSE email list (multiple times). Below are some relevant comments (Tesla Motors needs to listen to this):

MANUFACTURERS and VENDORS

1) Give decent instructions that will allow average Jack/Jill to safely
assemble/fly your creations.

2) Qualify your customer. If you are not money-greedy and/or lazy, this
should always be a pre-requisite and will allow you to gauge their level
of skill/seriousness/ability/etc. If someone indicates they know what
they are doing, and you have warned them of the advanced
nature/difficulty in assembly/instability/etc, you have covered your ass
at all levels.​

It looks as if Tesla didn't "qualify their customer" (Tech ignorant journalist), & failed to supply proper support. Bad press, Internet fight..all could have been avoided

8)Above ALL else, LISTEN to your customer ESPECIALLY when they complain.

Who knows, they could be full of kaka, or giving you the absolutely most
value feedback you could ever ask for (nformationa about your product,
you, your operation, etc). Anything and everything that will allow you
to keep up with the changes/demands, product inprovement will lower
overhead, increase profit margins, and most importantly KEEP YOU
SMELLING LIKE ROSES! BTW...you will be a happier human being as well. Until you
have actually tried this concept, you will never know the joy.

Finally (possibly most important), if you are snitty, sniping,
short-fused, angry, un-appreciative S.O.B. who hates dealing with the
public (us - your potential customers), then do us (and yourself) a
favor and have someone ELSE talk about/market/sell your products. Some
people are meant to be in sales and others are not. Repeat...do NOT insult your
customer OR his inteligence...ever...even if he/she deserves it...in
your opinion.

There is no magic here. These bare minimum points I assure you will
gaurantee as long as there is a market for your wares, you will be
respected, looked favorably upon by your peers, and maybe even make a
little more money than you first thought as a result of your
good/great/fantastic/superior/without equal product (customers get to
choose level of course). I am sure that those manufactuers/vendors who
are following this patently simple process are sitting back right now
and smiling...

I think Tesla Motors is under-staffed, this whole situation didn't have to let Elon Musk/CEO having to go public with some harsh comments ("fake report"). The public only sees this (w/o Bigger Picture) & could come away with negative impression of TM.

I'm not particularly worked up about NSP [ bad vendor] and
lying, per se.
But I have enough experience in business, enough
experience as a customer, and enough experience as
an NSP customer to know that their website and​

their business in general exhibits low information
quality. Good information quality takes time,
effort, a whole lot of giving a damn, and the
right kind of people to execute it at every level,
and enough leadership skill to ensure that this
kind of quality endures as the business develops
and grows. I honestly don't think that NSP has all​

those things. Few businesses do. NSP is full of
good intentions inconsistently applied, full of
good informational concepts that have to some
extent decayed or gone unsupported. Its
information shows sloppiness and hurriedness at
every turn, full of writing errors and spelling
mistakes, etc. etc. And I think that they seem to
have fallen into the habit of taking advantage of
their own information deficiencies with a bias
towards sales. Not exactly lying, but not the most
pleasant business practice (realistically more of
an unconscious cultural habit, probably, than an
actual 'practice') to be at the recieving end of.​

Is it surprising? Well, not really. Small
businesses run by hook or by crook are all over
the place. Small businesses run like really tight
ships with expertise in their field AND great
information quality and management at every level?
amazingly rare.

"poor information quality"

I think there was some evidence of this during this whole debacle.

I haven't studied Tesla Motors website, is there any sign of "poor information quality"? I know the original TM blog was praised for transparency & information, & that the current blog/forum isn't up to that level.

I do believe that buyers of some of the pricy flying goods currently on
the market have a right to expect a little better treatment and
professionalism on the part of both the manufactures and the resellers.

----------------------

I had a problem with some equipment and sent an e-mail to the retailer,
Amateur Electronic Supply.† They responded immediately.† When I called
to make final arrangements I complemented them on their fast response.†
I will always remember what they said and will continue to do business
with them.† ​

The response was "All we have to offer you is service".
That's all I ask for.
---------------------
Best I have heard so far. I hope the Vendors listen and this will be and

end of it.

More at

Cosmic Variance: RCSE thread on "Customer Service" (lack of)

========

I look at the NY Times article & his reponse, & I don't see any maliciousness. I think the whole thing can be traced to a "misunderstanding" (collision between Technical Universe & non-Technical Universe, EV mfr & journalist), & could have been avoided with a C-cubed model (Communication/Command/Control). The latter which could help the OTHER problem that's cropped up: dis-satisfied Model S buyers (lack of communication).

 

[Norbert]

The round trip to the hotel would have been 158 miles, and he supercharged to only 185 miles rated range.

EDIT: Though apparently a bit more complicated. There seems to be an inconsistency (when looking at the graphic only). It says from the Supercharger in Milford to the hotel in Groton would be 79 miles, and twice that is 158 miles. But it says for the way back the next day from Norwich to Milford would be 68 miles, even though Norwich appears further away ("in the opposite direction').

EDIT 2: The text mentions a detour which is not on the graphic, going towards the hotel, through Stonington. The way back from Groton, per google, would be about 57 - 60 miles. Not 46 as the text claims, maybe that is a typo, as the email, from the author to dsm, speaks of 64 miles.

That would be a total of 143 miles, if the author's email is correct.

- - - Updated - - -

He says he goes from Milford to Stonington to Groton - then presumably intended to go back to Milford. Google Maps says it should have been 141 miles. So ok, it's a 44 mile margin he had to start with.

Right, that is close to the distance of 143 miles based on the authors info, including the email. If we use that, then a 185 miles charge gave him a margin of less than 23% compared to the rated range, which, given what he should at least have learned from his previous experiences, was not enough.

(And certainly not what Elon says Tesla asked him to do, a full charge which would have been a 265 maximum charge, or at least a 242 miles standard charge, if allowing that he missed changing the setting to "Max Range".)

- - - Updated - - -

That may have looked fine to a novice... indeed he says "drove, slowly, to Stonington, Conn., for dinner and spent the night in Groton, a total distance of 79 miles" and then makes a perfectly reasonable statement IMO "When I parked the car, its computer said I had 90 miles of range, twice the 46 miles back to Milford".

None of this would have been an issue if he'd plugged in overnight, "It was a different story at 8:30 the next morning. The thermometer read 10 degrees and the display showed 25 miles of remaining range". However, this is something that he did not know (or ignored) and resulted in the flat bed. IMO the overnight range degradation reported by the car is excessive (even if it's not 'real') and I don't think we can expect a novice to understand this.

Wait a moment, he also didn't know, when he was at the Supercharger stopping it at 185 miles range, that later-on at the hotel it would display a lucky 90 miles (assuming all these numbers are correct, which Tesla's log will show).

Being a novice, he should have left an extra margin, not cut it close. And the next morning he still had a chance to make up for it, but charged only to 32 miles (discussed above). (Nothing against charging at hotels, though, definitely in favor of hotels providing 240V 30 amp service, or more.)

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

Right, that is close to the distance of 143 miles based on the authors info, including the email. If we use that, then a 185 miles charge gave him a margin of less than 23% compared to the rated range, which, given what he should at least have learned from his previous experiences, was not enough.

I would not have been surprised if the driver regarded a margin of 42 miles as ok when he went to sleep... indeed I often drive with much lower margins than that.

 

[dpeilow]

But he himself says it was 79 miles to Groton and then 46 to Milford for a total of 125. So that is a ~50% margin by those figures.

I'd like to get to the bottom of this because it's where the problems start. We have a 16 mile discrepancy here with Google Maps. That's 8 each way. A bit far from Stonington. Having said that, how close is the supercharger to Milford centre?

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

Wait a moment, he also didn't know, when he was at the Supercharger stopping it at 185 miles range, that later-on at the hotel it would display a lucky 90 miles (assuming all these numbers are correct, which Tesla's log will show).

why 'lucky'? He says he "drove, slowly, to Stonington" which is perfectly sensible if he was trying to conserve range for the return trip.

 

[Norbert]

But he himself says it was 79 miles to Groton and then 46 to Milford for a total of 125. So that is a ~50% margin by those figures.

No, in an email to dsm363 (mentioned earlier in this thread), he wrote 64 miles to Milford, so I'm assuming 46 was a typo. (Backed up by that 46 would disagree so much with google.)

EDIT: Or that was a mistake he made, that he used 46 for calculating the range he would need, and later realized that before writing the email.

- - - Updated - - -

why 'lucky'? He says he "drove, slowly, to Stonington" which is perfectly sensible if he was trying to conserve range for the return trip.

That's great, but as a novice, he can't rely on that working exactly as planned, and nothing else coming in the way. Obviously you have to know that you won't be able to use ubiquitous gas stations (who made me say that? ).

 

[efusco]

The Charges Are Flying Over a Test of Teslas Charging Network - NYTimes.com

His response it up.

Pretty reasonable response, I think.

 

[vfx]

Is there enough data to calculate his speeds?

 

[dsm363]

Pretty reasonable response, I think.

I still can't understand taking off with less range than you need to make your trip though 32 miles of range for a 65 mile trip).

 

[Norbert]

Is there enough data to calculate his speeds?

The graphic gives a single time for each waypoint, but not arrival/departure (though in some cases charging time).

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

Wow. 45 pages to this thread already.

Bottom line, he never, ever, ever fully charged the car. He repeatedly forced himself into uncomfortable situations as a result. Leaving the last charger with just 32 rated miles in an attempt to drive much further than that was either stupid or malicious.

The only real issue he encountered is a well known issue amongst owners with overnight cold weather losses, part of which is illusory, but also including real losses that we'd prefer not happen. A knowledgeable owner might well have started driving immediately and made it back to the SuperCharger.

However, that problem had nothing to do with his ending up on a flatbed. He made a foolish decision to leave a working charger with a rated range far less than what he needed.

The common thread in all of it being impatience. A few more minutes at the first SuperCharger makes for a more normal trip to Connecticut. A few more minutes at the second Supercharger means the cold losses are meaningless, and would have shown that part of that would have been recovered by simply driving the car. An hour or two extra at the final charger saves the time and expense of a tow, and there was no rational reason at that point to make an attempt that was obviously doomed.

 

[vfx]

I still can't understand taking off with less range than you need to make your trip though 32 miles of range for a 65 mile trip).

Faith

 

[brianman]

I guess we live in a world where anyone off the street feels free to malign a company and product with misinformation due to their own ineptitude.

People sue for coffee being hot these days. Take from that what you will.

- - - Updated - - -

Taken from John Broder's response to the debacle:
"She said to shut off the cruise control to take advantage of battery regeneration from occasional braking and slowing down. Based on that advice, I was under the impression that stop-and-go driving at low speeds in the city would help, not hurt, my mileage."
Uh-huh. You really deduced that because someone advises you to turn off cruise control to extend range, that you will get better range by diverting to stop-and-go city driving as opposed to expressway? This is the case for Mr. Broder being a moron.

Indeed. Much like the Top Gear folks, I wouldn't let him near my car. He'll find a way to brick it.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know where you get the idea that you can just hop into an EV without familiarizing yourself with basic features of the car.

Or any vehicle for that matter. Perhaps this is yet another case where the general populace assumes nothing comes with responsibility.

- - - Updated - - -

Tesla's Big PR Fail http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?play=1&video=3000147286

Funny, the content the guest offered basically ignored the title and presented a fair case that the car and company are solid. Unless I misheard it...

The hosts didn't really offer any value for me. Even the comic relief didn't do much for me. Sorry, blondie.

 

[evchels]

With all due respect, I disagree. I know you are not in favour of EV road trips, but they have their place.

I'm not anti-EV road trip as a personal endeavor; I like road trips myself and would do one in an EV for the fun of it. But you're right that I don't agree with EV proponents using them to "prove" something about how EVs can do whatever gas cars can do today. I get that the "average consumer" focuses on road trips- but they tend to think (at least in the US) of them as hundreds or thousands of miles with 5-min refueling time. When the infrastructure and/or battery range is sufficient to meet that expected experience in an EV, great. In the mean time, it's not our best selling point, imo- even on DC charging, a 300+ mile "refuel" generally takes hours, not minutes. And regardless of what Broder did after the fact, I don't think it was smart for Tesla to agree to this story with two chargers in place and needing to issue all sorts of special instructions. And if in fact they pitched it, as Broder claims? Even worse. Tesla's USP today is gorgeous, sexy, spectacularly fun EVs- that yes, have the longest range on the market. But it is not - at least for now - an EV that offers the same road trip experience as a gas car.

To use a different example, mobile phones have never provided the same experience as their land-line incumbents. They have never had the "range" (talk time), and have always required more frequent "fueling". It doesn't matter, because the overall experience they provide is so much better that people got over it -but you don't see iPhone ads featuring a guy on a marathon conference call because that's not the experience people like about them.

 

[brianman]

I'm not anti-EV road trip as a personal endeavor; I like road trips myself and would do one in an EV for the fun of it. But you're right that I don't agree with EV proponents using them to "prove" something about how EVs can do whatever gas cars can do today. I get that the "average consumer" focuses on road trips- but they tend to think (at least in the US) of them as hundreds or thousands of miles with 5-min refueling time.

I wouldn't have bought my Model S if it wasn't a reasonably capable road trip car. Yes it's currently more handholding to get that range than I would like, but it's part of what sells the vehicle. Take from this what you will about general EV adoption for the masses.

Sometimes you have to embrace and address your weakest point to advance.