The iPhone just has a battery bar (and more recently a percentage of power) but doesn't estimate battery or talk time. That's the problem with listing a range is that people who don't think about it expect that to be the range regardless of driving and weather conditions. They don't do that for gas powered cars since they can fill up easier.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
The iPhone just has a battery bar (and more recently a percentage of power) but doesn't estimate battery or talk time. That's the problem with listing a range is that people who don't think about it expect that to be the range regardless of driving and weather conditions. They don't do that for gas powered cars since they can fill up easier.
Exactly... Not to mention that a lot of gas cars don't show range at all. Mine does, but I never use it. If Tesla can integrate things like topography and weather forecasts into their nav system, I think it'll help tremendously. And the more EV infrastructure we get, the less of an issue any of this becomes.
Smogasbord, I think you're missing the point.
Tesla doesn't have to convince the masses that an EV is a practical everyday car. Not until Gen-3. They only have to convince a reasonable number of potential Model S customers that the Model S will work for them.
And if the major doubt about the Model S is whether you can use it for long-distance roadtrips, the Model S will be a hit. There are *plenty* of people who can afford two BMW-5/Mercedes-E-class equivalent cars who will happily buy one Model S for regular daily driving and daytrips and use their second car for long-distance road-tripping.
Yes, I think Elon's response could have been less aggressive. It's really hard to prove intent whereas with the logs it's pretty easy to prove that Broder never set the cruise control to 54, never turned the heat down, hit 80 mph when he said he had cruise set, etc.
But I think Tesla came out way ahead. Regardless of who convinced whom about the NYT review, the scuffle got CNBC and CNN to jump in and review the car. That was free highly credible favorable publicity. Others have weighed in on the issue and most of that coverage has been neutral-to-favorable as well.
I think the combination of reviews makes it pretty clear that doing 150+ miles in a Model S is a piece of cake. No other EV can come close to that.
And the car doing it has the looks of a Jaguar, the acceleration of a Ferrari, the comfort of a Mercedes, the handling of a BMW and the people/stuff hauling of an SUV. At the price-point of a BMW 5-series.
That is a game-changer. You literally cannot get that package in any other car. And most people familiar with high-end cars will understand that once they get a decent test drive. In other words, if Tesla can get a potential buyer to drive the car, chances are they win.
You think all this coverage is going to get more potential buyers to test drive an S or less? I think the answer is "more".
Tesla doesn't have to convince the masses that an EV is a practical everyday car. Not until Gen-3. They only have to convince a reasonable number of potential Model S customers that the Model S will work for them.
And if the major doubt about the Model S is whether you can use it for long-distance roadtrips, the Model S will be a hit. There are *plenty* of people who can afford two BMW-5/Mercedes-E-class equivalent cars who will happily buy one Model S for regular daily driving and daytrips and use their second car for long-distance road-tripping.
Yes, I think Elon's response could have been less aggressive. It's really hard to prove intent whereas with the logs it's pretty easy to prove that Broder never set the cruise control to 54, never turned the heat down, hit 80 mph when he said he had cruise set, etc.
But I think Tesla came out way ahead. Regardless of who convinced whom about the NYT review, the scuffle got CNBC and CNN to jump in and review the car. That was free highly credible favorable publicity. Others have weighed in on the issue and most of that coverage has been neutral-to-favorable as well.
I think the combination of reviews makes it pretty clear that doing 150+ miles in a Model S is a piece of cake. No other EV can come close to that.
And the car doing it has the looks of a Jaguar, the acceleration of a Ferrari, the comfort of a Mercedes, the handling of a BMW and the people/stuff hauling of an SUV. At the price-point of a BMW 5-series.
That is a game-changer. You literally cannot get that package in any other car. And most people familiar with high-end cars will understand that once they get a decent test drive. In other words, if Tesla can get a potential buyer to drive the car, chances are they win.
You think all this coverage is going to get more potential buyers to test drive an S or less? I think the answer is "more".
smorgasbord
Active Member
I completely agree. And that doesn't require a Game Change. So, if you want to say that Elon's tweeting and subsequent articles from second-tier sources convinced around 1% of the aware population that Model S is a car they should seriously consider, OK. And, agreed, that that's enough for Tesla right now.
But, that's not what I call a Game Changer. And, it doesn't mean that an order of magnitude MORE people didn't immediately dismiss Model S from their consideration.
Tesla claims twice as much range. You don't think that hurts credibility?
Clearly, your Kool-Aid tastes better.
- - - Updated - - -
Again, thanks for making my point. If you think I was misled, imagine what someone without any EV experience or TMC reading is thinking!
Unless we see EVs through the eyes of the non-converted, we cannot win the conversion battle.
The issue isn't that the trip can be done. The issue is what people have to learn, remember, and actually do to complete that trip.
Then that's what Elon should have Tweeted and been done with it. Instead, he claims a fake story and goes on and on about all the little things Broder did wrong. So, thanks again for proving my point that Tesla's handling of this could have been much better.
As for using Max Range, are you saying people need to do that all the time? No, so when do they need it and when don't they?
They can't trust the Range Estimate the car is giving them, right?
They have to know how many miles they're going to lose overnight. Does the Touchscreen tell them?
They need to ignore the "you're going to hurt your battery" message in the manual (Does Model S give you such a warning, as Roadster does?)
It's getting complicated/inconvenient for people who don't want to pay attention to such things.
Unless we see EVs through the eyes of the non-converted, we cannot win the conversion battle.
Norbert
TSLA will win
First, I'd recommend reading the 32 page Owner's Guide, and everything in the "Go Electric" section of Tesla's website, specifically the *range calculator*. Checkpoint: understanding how "regen" (regenerative braking) works.
Also interesting: Model S Efficiency and Range | Blog | Tesla Motors
In the absence of experience and/or knowledge, I'd start slowly with round-trips from home, of increasing distance. Always starting at least with a full standard charge. And then work upwards as I become comfortable with knowing the range under specific conditions from experience, using trip meter, energy graph, and "projected miles" in the energy graph, in addition to the "rated" miles display. Once I'm familiar with the use of those devices, I'd advance to the next level. In so far as possible, I'd try everything I want to do on a road trip, first near home base.
If longer trips are necessary in the beginning (for example for Factory pick-up), I'd use "Max Range" for anything potentially above 120 miles (or simply always). And otherwise, to play it save, start only if I have a range 2x of the distance. Until I know better from experience (*and* knowledge).
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
Smorg, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. We definitely have to see things the way the masses do to convert them; I've been pushing that angle for a few years now. I agree the range meter is typically optimistic (sometimes very optimistic) and that's a lot of the problem - most of it, even. And the Model S losing range overnight is a another huge problem that Tesla absolutely has to address; in fact I think it's pretty sad that they haven't given us any hints about how big the problem is, or how to avoid it, or when they'll have more information, or anything. That just ensures that more owners are going to have problems.
But I have found Tesla's calculator to be very accurate. I do think that is what I'd get in those conditions. The "178 mile" number was meant to be a "worst-typical-case" number for people that don't want to do range math: either 80mph in good weather, or at 60mph with the heater on full blast the whole way (the presumption being if the weather is that bad you'll want to go slower; although I guess I can imagine dry but extremely cold conditions where you may not want to slow down. Any "minimum" number will always have cases it won't meet unless it is too low to be meaningful; that's a lot of why automakers don't want to try to address it. A range meter that takes all the factors in to account is a better solution than a single number).
I also would offer a different take on the idea that anybody "has" to go slow or turn down the heater. As long as your next charger is in easy range, you don't have to do either of those - I never do. But that's intertwined with the range meter thing - I agree that the optimistic range meter leads people to THINK the next charger is in range, and then they do have to slow down or turn down the heater to really make it. That's why I've been pushing for Tesla to just display %SOC or kWh remaining rather than a range meter that will almost never be the real range. In any event, my point here is that the range meter is the root cause of most of the problems. If the range meter was always right, you could go any speed and use all the heat you want. Or if you have enough knowledge to know your real range (which is why I posted THIS) then you can be your own range meter and drive any way you want.
I agree most new drivers aren't going to learn all that stuff, so automakers need to either put in much more realistic range meters, or just stop showing range if it's not correct.
Last edited:
Norbert
TSLA will win
ChadS, that post is one of the most important I've read. It really helped me understand the real world use of our Model S. Of course, most of the same factors affect ICE vehicles as well, but since the fuel gauge in an ice doesn't show your efficiency or expected range, we don't think about it, we just look for a gas station when we get close to 'E' or the light comes on. We tech heads / new adopters love all of the information the Model S gives, but it does require an understanding that rated is rated, and your mileage will vary. Broder refused to even write about the 30/15/5 mile predicted ranges which clearly would have told him he needed more charge.
Tesla would do well to educate the public with ChadS post. I told a friend who was considering ordering a Model S to read your post and it helped give him the confidence to finalize his order.
I guess the other way would be to 'dumb it down' and only show the green bar without numbers, thus functioning just like an ICE. Then, just like with an ICE, you can guess at your remaining range and take your risks. People run out of gas daily and have since the beginning of cars.
I'm in favor of more information is better. However, stupidity at times will always prevail, and Broder will not be the last to drive his Model S out of juice.
strider
Active Member
But your statements are true. If you leave WiFi on, push e-mail, weak coverage so the phone is bouncing between 2G and 3G all the time will suck the battery down extremely fast. Likewise if you're playing games or surfing the net the battery goes down faster (equivalent to driving faster). There is no free lunch be it ICE, EV, or whatever else.
This is exactly the point. People learned that the '10 hours' of battery time Apple advertises really isn't 10 hours with heavy use. People over time will learn that an EV doesn't always get the EPA rated mileage (just as gas cars don't) too.
You are correct. The difference is that my iPhone doesn't tell me on the screen that I have 5 hours of charge remaining when in reality I have significantly less. The Tesla does. Vague information (i.e. the battery charge bar on an iPhone) is better than incorrect information. Owners know and understand how their actions affect range but the masses and some reporters do not. And to them the information provided is misleading.
Smorg is right on perceptions but not realistic on saying the non-converted need to not change.
There simply not as many places to charge an EV as there are to put gasoline in an ICE. They have to change they way they think about filling (at home) It's more complicated to operate an EV but at the same time it's less complicated in the things they are currently doing to drive and maintain their ICE.
PS
Chad's thread should be a TMC Blog.
There simply not as many places to charge an EV as there are to put gasoline in an ICE. They have to change they way they think about filling (at home) It's more complicated to operate an EV but at the same time it's less complicated in the things they are currently doing to drive and maintain their ICE.
PS
Chad's thread should be a TMC Blog.
Similar threads
