Top Gear - Tesla: lots more to come

[billarnett]

Re: "Speeding wastes gas". Not really. It "uses" gas. The extra gas goes to reducing your travel time, a significant benefit. Is it worth it? That's a value judgement which each person will make differently.

Obviously, the same holds for an EV. EVs are more efficient but the laws of physics still apply :-(

 

[TEG]

If you need to maximize your range for a long trip with no place to recharge, it is useful to know that slowing down helps. Optimal speed seems to be around 45MPH... (But most long distance trips force you to drive faster to keep pace with traffic).

 

[shark2k]

Re: "Speeding wastes gas". Not really. It "uses" gas. The extra gas goes to reducing your travel time, a significant benefit. Is it worth it? That's a value judgement which each person will make differently.

Obviously, the same holds for an EV. EVs are more efficient but the laws of physics still apply :-(

I would think they mean "wastes gas" because you use more gas than you would for going say 65 MPH therefore reducing your MPG. Also, when you speed, it really doesn't reduce your travel time all that much. It normally tends to be like a minute or so, nothing signifcant. There's also the factor that when you speed, since most people are not trained to handle cars at faster speeds that might actually significantly reduce your travel time, chances of an accident increase greatly. So, speeding really is a waste of gas since there really is no benefit (just fulfilling your need for speed) .

-Shark2k

 

[shark2k]

If you need to maximize your range for a long trip with no place to recharge, it is useful to know that slowing down helps. Optimal speed seems to be around 45MPH... (But most long distance trips force you to drive faster to keep pace with traffic).

I don't think it would be possible to do this (as I'm sure it's more of how the electric motor works at the different speeds) but it would be awesome if, at 65 MPH, the MPG (for lack of a better term) was closes to the efficiency of 45 MPH. But I don't think that would be possible.

-Shark2k

 

[TEG]

Yeah, well you need to make that mental calculation factoring in efficiency, travel time, safety, fun-factor, etc. In a car like the Roadster the fun-factor tends to win out over the others much of the time.

 

[TEG]

I don't think it would be possible to do this (as I'm sure it's more of how the electric motor works at the different speeds) but it would be awesome if, at 65 MPH, the MPG (for lack of a better term) was closes to the efficiency of 45 MPH. But I don't think that would be possible.
-Shark2k

Well it is mostly about wind resistance... If you draft behind a truck you could get your efficiency back up there (but the safety factor goes down).

 

[shark2k]

Oh yeah, forgot about the wind factor. I remember on Mythbusters they had one episode where they drafted behind an 18 wheeler. The results were that the closer you got (until you got like 5 feet away or something ridiculously close) the better your fuel economy. When you got to the ~5 feet away, fuel economy dropped a little for some reason. Of course the other thing they said is that by the time you start drafting the truck you would be tailgating the truck because you are supposed to be further behind 18 wheelers than normally cars.

-Shark2k

 

[Tdave]

The Mythbusters testing proved that useful savings was gotten even at a 100 foot following distance. While that following distance is less safe, I've done it before and don't even consider 50 feet out of the question. I'd bet i could quite easily get the efficiency of 45 mph while doing 65 mph while drafting.

The display stats on the Tesla screen should give instant feedback on the efficiency improvements, right? That will be cool.

 

[Tdave]

Here's a screenshot from the Mythbusters episode showing the savings:

 

[dpeilow]

Now if we can only get them to film it for television...

This is a big part of the problem: Jeremy Clarkson Infiniti FX50S review | Driving - Times Online

“Yes, I’m sure it’s all very sad, the destruction of the motor industry, but we’ve promised the electorate a cut of 80% in carbon emissions so your death is probably for the best.”

It makes my hair itch with rage. Because how can a Rotarian from the Midlands possibly develop an all-new means of propulsion to stave off a disaster that most right-thinking people accept isn’t happening while the products he is making now pile up unsold on every disused airfield in the land?

We know Clarkson likes to have a bit of fun green-baiting, but that one to me is an outright global warming denial. It's like last week's muscle car review was sticking their heads in the sand and hoping Detroit would be ok when this is all over...


By the way, the description of next week's (30th's) show is now online and still no mention of the Roadster. Only 3 shows left after this one...

 

[vfx]

Regaurding the Fx review Last year They drove a Nissan Murano and lamented that it a stylish good ride for an SUV bu that it would not be brought from America forthemto enjoy. Now while they look similar the FX and Murano are totlly different under the skin.

When I shopped for SUVs I drove the all the sporty versions (except the land Rover which I did not even consider sporty) My FX drives amazing for a big lunky equiptment carrier.

First time I had ever driven the same car as JC. So wrong.
I bet if he had all the SUVs to drive the USA has, he would change his flag waving tune.

Tesla is still a question. It's a Lotus but it's Californian. It's amazingly fast but it's Green. Still though, I figure that the Stig will do quite well in it (top 5?) and it would be even better to let a less experienced driver take it round to show shifting does not matter.

 

[Swede]

CO2 emissions continued

I'd like to see the math behind the 40g/km CO2 emissions when powered from "gas-fired power stations." I assume that means natural gas? If so, my figures say it's more like 120g/km.

I'm assuming 32.5 kwh per 100 miles (EPA sticker from F016) and 0.596 kg/kwh for natural gas generation (from an EPA study).

I found this:

Carbon dioxide

A Scottish gas-fired plant with 51% efficiency emitts 385g/kwh. That would yield close to 80g/km. I guess he must have been calculating with 100% efficiency by mistake. It was actually a bit surprising to me that the gas and especially the coal-fired plants were so inefficient.

 

[tomsax]

CO2 Emissions

A Scottish gas-fired plant with 51% efficiency emits 385g/kwh.

It's interesting their number is quite a bit lower than the EPA number for the US. The study I referred to is available in PDF.

 

[TEG]

Why 8 hours? If we can do 3.5 hours here why not there?

Do we know if Tesla is offering the 70amp home charging station in Europe?