Feb 27

Times standing by Broder; Musk’s statement it ‘reversed its opinion’ not correct

 

A week ago, based on a pretty straightforward blog post by Elon Musk, I reported Tesla had been vindicated and The New York Times had retracted its position from vouching for the accuracy of John Broder’s report of an unsuccessful East Coast trip in a Tesla Model S.

The interpretation of The Times having “reversed” its position was proliferated by a blog post bylined by Musk essentially stating as much, but I was contacted Monday by the Deputy Editor for The Times Automobiles section, Norman Mayersohn, to point out discrepancies.

I explained why I had reported what The Times says was an overstatement of the case, and he conceded my source.

 

So, I followed up yesterday with The Times’ Eileen Murphy, VP corporate communications, asking about the notion that The Times had “backed down” and indeed it was simply not so, she confirmed.

As you’ll recall, Broder’s Feb. 8 story that started the Tesla/Times row was portrayed as a test of two Supercharger fast charging stations in a drive from Washington to Connecticut. It made headlines after he told a harrowing tale of emergency energy saving procedures required, freezing as he drove in the cold trying to preserve power, and ultimately running out of power just the same. It featured a photo of the $101,000 electric car being towed with Broder standing by.

Of this story, Musk tweeted not long after that it was “a fake” and has since provided data log evidence intended to prove his case, but his presentation has not induced The Times to retract its backing of its reporter, said Murphy.

A statement from one voice at The Times is what triggered Musk’s exuberant blog post along the way of a drama that is still unfolding. After speaking with Musk and others, in a blog post The Times titles the “Public Editor’s Journal,” Margaret Sullivan, the public editor, wrote of misgivings she had for Broder’s report.

In response, on Feb. 19, Musk’s blog post to his thousands of fans began as follows:

Yesterday, The New York Times reversed its opinion on the review of our Model S and no longer believes that it was an accurate account of what happened. After investigating the facts surrounding the test drive, the Public Editor agreed that John Broder had “problems with precision and judgment,” “took casual and imprecise notes” and made “few conclusions that are unassailable.

We would like to thank Margaret Sullivan and The New York Times for looking into this matter and thoughtfully considering the public evidence, as well as additional evidence provided on background …

As Mayersohn pointed out yesterday in an e-mail, our cuing off of Musk’s statement that The Times had “backed down” from its opinion was an overstating of the case.

The Times official statement issued prior to Sullivan’s post remains therefore its actual take on the Broder report:

The Times’s Feb. 10 article recounting a reporter’s test drive in a Tesla Model S was completely factual, describing the trip in detail exactly as it occurred. Any suggestion that the account was “fake” is, of course, flatly untrue. Our reporter followed the instructions he was given in multiple conversations with Tesla personnel. He described the entire drive in the story; there was no unreported detour. And he was never told to plug the car in overnight in cold weather, despite repeated contact with Tesla.

Mayersohn explained despite Sullivan’s vote of no confidence, others at the paper’s leadership levels have stated nothing of the sort.

Yesterday in our follow up with Murphy, we asked her to again verify whether the paper is maintaining its stance, or whether it has it “reversed” its position as Musk wrote.

“Our position on this matter has not changed and our previous statement stands,” wrote Murphy on behalf of The Times yesterday. “Margaret Sullivan, The Times’s public editor, does not speak for The Times. As she noted, she is an independent voice in our newsroom and her opinions are her own. It’s worth noting that Mr. Musk’s blog post also selectively pulls quotes from her column that don’t necessarily reflect the totality of her conclusions but you can be the judge of that. I hope this clarifies.”

As noted above, Sullivan did briefly offer a clarification in a more recent Public Editor’s Journal post.

“One addendum, for the sake of clarity: As public editor, I speak only for myself. My opinions about what happened during and after the Tesla Model S road test, expressed in my Monday blog post, are not those of The Times,” wrote Sullivan Feb. 21.


 

In related news, Bloomberg reported Feb. 25 that Elon Musk said that The Times report has cost Tesla as much as $100 million in market capitalization, and at least several hundred Model S orders were canceled as a result of the report he told Bloomberg Broder “fudged.”

Whether this is true or provable is part of the latest speculative pieces, such as by Forbes, and doubtless, myriad opinions abound on what continues to simmer in a high-profile disagreement replete with insinuation by both parties, and various people taking the side of the Times or Tesla.

Queries and request for commentary to Tesla by phone and e-mail yesterday were not immediately answered.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 27th, 2013 at 1:29 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

COMMENTS: 101


  1. 1
    Thomas J. Thias

    +7

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Thomas J. Thias
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (3:04 am)

    Hmmmm…Corporate Legal, like a swarm of mosquitoes on a hot August night have decended.

    Best-

    Thomas J. Thias


  2. 2
    Dave G

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (5:16 am)

    This is playing out about as I expected. The finger pointing clouds the real issues.

    Maybe if we run some numbers, things will be clearer. Tesla’s says: “A fifty-percent charge in thirty minutes can be achieved with a Tesla Supercharger.”
    http://www.teslamotors.com/models/features#/battery

    So if I spend $72,400 on a Model S with 300 miles of range, I’ll have to wait a half hour charging for every 150 miles of driving. I typically drive around 75 MPH, so it takes 2 hours to drive 150 miles. In other words, I’ll have to wait a half hour for every 2 hours of driving. That’s 20% of my road trip time hanging around at charging stations.

    I think it’s much more likely that most pure BEV owners will use ICE cars for longer trips.


  3. 3
    Dave G

    -1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (5:25 am)

    A lot of people believe future technology will solve the charging issue, allowing pure BEVs to compete with regular cars on long road trips. OK, let’s look at that. Let’s say some future technology makes batteries really small and cheap. How would that play out? Let’s run the numbers.

    The Volt takes around 10kWh to go 38 miles. A large SUV or pickup would take about twice that, or 20kWh to go 38 miles. Multiplying by 8, that would be around 160kWh for a large SUV or pickup to go 300 miles. We’re saying future batteries are really small and cheap, so that’s OK.

    To be competitive with existing liquid fuel filling stations, you would need to charge that large BEV-300 SUV or pickup in 10 minutes. That’s 1/6 of an hour. 160kWh divided by 1/6 of an hour puts us right around a megawatt.

    So we’re talking about average consumers plugging megawatt cables into vehicles covered with ice and snow. The cable system tests for shorts initially, but once 1,000,000 watts starts flowing, if ice melts and causes a short – kaboom! A megawatt can vaporize things. Things like fingers and hands.

    Note that this same future battery technology would also enable a large EREV-100 SUV or pickup. EREVs with 100 miles of range would replace around 90% of our current gasoline consumption.

    Cellulosic ethanol can replace up to 35% of current gasoline consumption without any affect on food supply. Cellulosic ethanol is made from things we currently throw away (forest mill waste, corn stalks and leaves, municipal waste, etc). Cellulosic ethanol also comes from energy crops which will grow on land unsuitable for farming. These non-food sources can replace 35% of gasoline consumption. In other words, cellulosic ethanol only affects food supply when you try to scale it beyond 35%.

    Now let’s combine EREV-100s and cellulosic ethanol. 90% + 35% = 125%. That’s more than enough to completely replace gasoline. This is a 100% carbon neutral solution, with no additional farm land, using our current infrastructure of home electricity and liquid fuel filling stations.

    When you run the numbers, extreme fast charging is both unnecessary and dangerous.


  4. 4
    Dave G

    +13

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (5:47 am)

    Perhaps Chelsea Sexton says it best here:
    http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/02/tesla-vs-new-york-times-when-range-anxiety-leads-to-road-trip-rage/
    “More importantly, long-distance road trips are not a useful measurement of an electric vehicle’s value, and for the EV industry to pretend otherwise only perpetuates the perverse double-standard: that unlike gas cars, EVs must be able to do it all in order to be useful at all.

    Tesla positions the Model S as the first “no compromise EV” able (with the Supercharger network) to take the proverbial “Vegas on a moment’s notice” road trip. Yet after pitching the trip idea to Broder in the first place, Tesla’s own staff needed to issue carefully detailed instructions and make follow-up contact along the way to ensure he got to his destination. In doing so, they busted their own road trip myth before Broder ever left the driveway.

    If an average driver needs such hand-holding from an automaker to make the trip, it’s the wrong car for the trip.”


  5. 5
    xiaowei1

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    xiaowei1
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (5:51 am)

    Dave G,

    I imagine if you are plugging in a megawatt connector (coupler), you would plug in and then turn it on (it would not be on as you plug in). The on switch may be automatic or on a panel not next to the car, and would be monitored for power surges.

    the only problem I can really see is if you run out of electricity when there is no station near by, an ICE just needs a fuel can, what will a battery require? this may be a moot point if the batteries re so small and light and easy to carry battery would be used.


  6. 6
    GSP

    +31

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    GSP
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (6:58 am)

    I am very disappointed by the New York Times. This is yet another datapoint that you can’t believe what you read, at all.

    This trip can easily be done with the Model S and Superchargers. It has been done sucessfully by CNN, other news outlets, and several Model S owners. Unfortunately, that is not as newsworthy as Broder’s failed “attempt.” I doubt he wanted to get to his destination. Like Top Gear, he wanted a story instead.

    GSP

    http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/13905-Recreating-the-NY-Times-Road-Trip-Feb-15-17-2013


  7. 7
    nasaman

    +8

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    nasaman
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (7:30 am)

    Dave G: Perhaps Chelsea Sexton says it best here:
    http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/02/tesla-vs-new-york-times-when-range-anxiety-leads-to-road-trip-rage/

    Well said, Dave —Chelsea sums this whole brouhaha up succinctly and accurately in your above reference by saying: “…If an average driver needs such hand-holding from an automaker to make the trip, it’s the wrong car for the trip.” …I couldn’t agree more!!!


  8. 8
    James McQuaid

    +6

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    James McQuaid
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (7:46 am)

  9. 9
    nasaman

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    nasaman
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (7:55 am)

    Dave G: Cellulosic ethanol can replace up to 35% of current gasoline consumption without any affect on food supply. Cellulosic ethanol is made from things we currently throw away (forest mill waste, corn stalks and leaves, municipal waste, etc). Cellulosic ethanol also comes from energy crops which will grow on land unsuitable for farming. These non-food sources can replace 35% of gasoline consumption. In other words, cellulosic ethanol only affects food supply when you try to scale it beyond 35%.

    Now let’s combine EREV-100s and cellulosic ethanol. 90% + 35% = 125%. That’s more than enough to completely replace gasoline. This is a 100% carbon neutral solution, with no additional farm land, using our current infrastructure of home electricity and liquid fuel filling stations.

    When you run the numbers, extreme fast charging is both unnecessary and dangerous.

    Once again, I fully agree with you, Dave. What you’ve again said here should be the primary “take-away” from this entire discussion!!! I’ll only add that GM and other major companies & investors are quietly investing heavily in cellulosic ethanol for numerous fundamental reasons such as: It is TOTALLY renewable/sustainable; it burns while producing very minimal air pollution; it may ultimately prove to be THE MOST VIABLE FUEL FOR USE IN FUEL CELLS!


  10. 10
    George S. Bower

    +13

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    George S. Bower
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (8:53 am)

    nasaman: Chelsea sums this whole brouhaha up succinctly and accurately in your above reference by saying: “…If an average driver needs such hand-holding from an automaker to make the trip, it’s the wrong car for the trip.” …I couldn’t agree more!!!

    Yeh or it’s the wrong DRIVER for the car.


  11. 11
    Roy_H

    +22

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Roy_H
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (8:58 am)

    NYT editor Mayersohn asserts that Broder reported the factual truth. I agree. But Broder clearly by his actions was deliberately trying to make the Tesla fail. In that sense, the test was a fake.


  12. 12
    George S. Bower

    +5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    George S. Bower
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (9:03 am)

    I’m still reading the NYT……still have not switched back to WSJ.

    Despite what the NYT is saying I don’t think we will see more anti EV articles like this going forward. I think the NYT realizes that they totally contradicted their whole GREEN stance with this idiot Broder.


  13. 13
    James

    +15

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    James
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (9:12 am)

    I usually concur with Chelsea Sexton, she’s great — BUT… I feel she is missing the point…Since
    Broder wrote an article on the SAME PAGE as his Model S fiasco – STATING A STRONG OPINION
    ELECTRIC CARS ARE NOT THE FUTURE, I think it’s fair to believe Broder had an agenda.

    It’s also fair to assume Broder acted the fool – we cannot assume on purpose, or not.
    “Mr. Broder – Tesla advises you plug the car in at night!”….Errrr…..HELLO?????

    I agree with Roy H – All in all, it’s not a stretch, nor overblown to call the “test” a fake.

    My last and VERY LAST comment on this issue is —

    ENOUGH ALREADY – SHEESH! ,

    Time to move on NYT.

    RECHARGE! ,

    James


  14. 14
    Nelson

    +10

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Nelson
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (9:13 am)

    I think it’s time for a court to decide. Letting news agencies slander and misrepresent companies and their products, without accountability, has gone too far.

    NPNS!
    Volt#671


  15. 15
    Raymondjram

    +9

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Raymondjram
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (9:21 am)

    Until some “Doc Brown” develops a portable gigawatt power source, or Mr. Fusion arrives, we still depend on the high energy content of liquid fuels. But if there are unfounded fears of megawatt electrical connections (I am an EE and have worked with real megawatt electrical systems), then they are ignoring the toxic and life-threatening risks of liquid fuels. I have not read any news about any EV owner who have suffered harm while charging their vehicle, but everyday I can find and read news about simple ICE owners who have sickened by inhaled fumes or suffered fueling fires at gas stations or even with their ICE-power home equipment.

    Electrical equipment is safe if the equipment manufacturer follow the NEC recommendations and UL regulations. And the users are safe as long as they follow the correct instructions. All modern BEV and EREV equipment follow those rules, so if we have a BEV that can carry more than a MWH of energy in its battery, I know that it will operate and run correctly.

    BTW, pure clean water doesn’t conduct electricity well (try it). Water need a conductor dissolved in it, so rain and snow will not cause a short. Charge your EVs with confidence during rain or snow.

    Raymond


  16. 16
    James

    +13

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    James
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (9:23 am)

    On the bright side, the more the NYT grinds on with this drivel – and just does
    not let it die – the more the new slang term “TO BRODER” becomes solidified
    in our vernacular.

    From the Urban Dictionary – http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=broder

    Broder

    to waste time and/or energy in an attempt to fail at some task

    1. I didn’t want to go to the meeting so I Brodered back and forth between my office and the lunch room for 15 minutes until it started. Then I didn’t go because it would have been rude to show up late.
    2. I didn’t want to have hamburgers again today, so last night I Brodered all the propane away by leaving the barbeque running after I was done cooking.


  17. 17
    James

    +10

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    James
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (9:27 am)

    I think “TO BRODER” could be expanded to a more accurate meaning
    such as -

    ” I totally BRODERED last night and forgot to set my alarm clock! ”

    ” Somehow I BRODERED my cellphone thinking it would have enough charge
    even though I didn’t plug it in”.

    RECHARGE! ,

    James


  18. 18
    Markw

    +11

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Markw
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (9:43 am)

    This is playing out as expected. Remember the reason for the focus on the Tesla to begin with, its Sales of the new EV technology vehicles are accelerating as consumers climb a wall of worry to discover that they are a robust seamless replacement to gas only models.

    The average new car consumer is just beginning to struggle up the learning curve around understanding and trusting plug-in vehicles. So we should expect Intense lobbying efforts by a vast array of vested interests, as this is the time they will have the greatest impact on dampening the quick adoption of the new technology.

    It will not change the end result, just slow it down so those with money in the game can maximize their value. It is important that early adopters ( maintain a calm and paced approach to explaining our experiences and the technology in our everyday lives).

    Tesla is rightly defending itself against a reporter who has chosen sensationalism over fact as a way to make a name for himself and to attract readers to his paper.


  19. 19
    Charlie H

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Charlie H
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (9:46 am)

    Jeff,

    DonC wins a free “I Told You So.” Check out his comment, #43, in your “vindication” post of the 20th.


  20. 20
    George S. Bower

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    George S. Bower
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (9:48 am)

    Go James!


  21. 21
    Charlie H

    -4

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Charlie H
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (9:48 am)

    James,

    When did Broder write such an article?


  22. 22
    George S. Bower

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    George S. Bower
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (9:55 am)

    James:
    I think “TO BRODER” could be expanded to a more accurate meaning
    such as -

    ” I totally BRODERED last night and forgot to set my alarm clock! ”

    ” Somehow I BRODERED my cellphone thinking it would have enough charge
    even though I didn’t plug it in”.

    RECHARGE! ,

    James

    That’s about right. Here’s a simple man’s definition of “to Boroder”:

    To “Broder” is to “f*ck up”


  23. 23
    Richrd

    +12

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Richrd
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (9:57 am)

    It seems to me that the key issue in the Broder test drive is why the model S lost about 40 miles of range while parked at the hotel overnight not plugged in. You can see this in one of the data logs posted by Musk in his original response to the article. For the 85 kWh battery that translates to 11 kWh or 1500 W continuous for 8 hours. How can this happen? It seems either Broder left the car powered on overnight or there is some design issue with the car that people need to plainly understand. I don’t think Tesla has officially responded to this. I own Volt and have never had any noticeable range loss with my Volt powered off and not plugged in, even overnight in the cold.


  24. 24
    James

    +5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    James
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (10:28 am)

    Charlie H:
    James,

    When did Broder write such an article?

    Are you oblivious to the whole NYT/Broder Model S “test drive” article?

    If so, I’m not gonna tell you the whole story.

    Musk’s take on telemetry gleaned from Broder’s drive ( all media cars have it
    switched on ) showed Broder driving a half mile around in the parking lot
    where the Supercharger was placed to drain the battery – yet he still could not.
    So Broder stopped overnight at his hotel and just ….forgot? ….to plug in
    the car overnight…. Thus the now infamous writer’s name is a slang word.

    RECHARGE! ,

    James

    Saw shots of the parking lot – you’d have to be blind not to spot the brightly
    lit Supercharger…Broder says he merely couldn’t find it so he drove
    ’round and ’round…and round. To me, the most telling fact is that he
    didn’t recharge the car overnight….Do we need a Tesla tech to tell us to do so?
    I think not – esp. when his story was to be a test of the range of the car,
    and effectiveness of the Superchargers, even in winter cold.


  25. 25
    George S. Bower

    +10

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    George S. Bower
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (10:33 am)

    Richrd:
    I own Volt and have never had any noticeable range loss with my Volt powered off and not plugged in, even overnight in the cold.

    That is the basic difference between the Volt and Tesla. Tesla will warm the battery even if it is NOT plugged in. The Volt will not take any action if NOT plugged in.

    Why?

    Because the Volt has a range extender.

    So here we have another reason why EREV is so brilliant.

    add this issue to another basic design philosophy of EREV.

    What is the most expensive component in an EV: the batteries.

    Therefore make the battery as small as possible based on statistics of peoples driving habits. If most people drive less than 40 miles/day then that is the size of the pack…..and no bigger because of the cost issue.

    Volt is probably the first car that was designed with statistics.


  26. 26
    James

    +12

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    James
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (10:37 am)

    The fact that the NYT is contacting Jeff, and trying to pour water on
    smoldering stories – even on a small site like GM-Volt….says a lot.
    I think both Musk and NYT are using this story as some form of PR.
    Musk is speaking to Bloomberg and anyone else in front of Q1 reports
    to blame the story for unreached goals…and the NYT’s is dragging this
    on because it is an arrogant and biased rag incapable of humility, even
    though one editor valiantly tried to allow them to bow out of the
    debacle of a story only slightly scathed.

    It’s certainly not the first time the NYT has lacked credibility and it won’t
    be the last. I think the glaring wart here is that it tarnishes the fabled
    elitist-liberal newpaper’s “green” leanings.

    If you are the NYT – what do you do with Elon Musk? On one hand he
    exemplifies the rich American entrepenuer that we are supposed to tax
    to death to build a middle class….On the other hand, he’s developing
    clean, sustainable tech and employing well over a thousand Americans.
    They seem a two-headed dragon without a clue as to how to deal with
    him – after all, he took government loans!

    Do they demonize him, or laud him? To date, the NYT has no clue.

    I think they should just lay off and find another story to make up.

    RECHARGE! ,

    James


  27. 27
    Bonaire

    +6

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bonaire
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (10:41 am)

    What was Broder’s goal? We know that EVs are not really meant for long trips and Tesla is rolling out a new and really very freshman system of superchargers.

    I still believe their goal was to discredit EVs and Tesla, perhaps specifically. They wanted the trip to end in a way similar to the scene from “Dumb and Dumber” with the two guys riding into Aspen on a moped with icicles dripping from their noses. That gets eyeballs. If he had succeeded without any problems at all – no drama. No flatbed. No hysteria. No eyeballs.

    I cannot believe that anyone believes otherwise. By now, after two years, any auto-journalist knows that batteries in cold weather lose AER. I would call Broder’s bluff and say that he knew what would happen by not plugging in at night during the hotel stay. Acting dumb and playing by “the rules” of what Tesla said doesn’t mean he knew it wasn’t going to strand him. I would like to see his phone records of calls to the NYT during the trip and to others who he may have conferred with. He cannot be that ignorant.


  28. 28
    Bonaire

    +5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bonaire
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (10:43 am)

    To add – with over a year of news about Volts and Leafs losing range in the winter, he picked a very good day (10*F) to do the overnight not plugged in. Convenient? Planned?


  29. 29
    Jeff Cobb

    +6

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jeff Cobb
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (10:46 am)

    James: The fact that the NYT is contacting Jeff, and trying to pour water on
    smoldering stories – even on a small site like GM-Volt….says a lot.
    I think both Musk and NYT are using this story as some form of PR.

    Let me pour water on your speculation right off the bat. I was contacted by Mayersohn on background, in a personal correspondence, not in an official capacity.

    I was contacted as the editor of HybridCars.com, not GM-Volt.com.

    The way you are painting it is not how it played out. I state that in the piece in that I followed up with The Times’ actual spokesperson. Please e-mail me personally and ask my views before you go out on a limb with a new theory.

    Actually, the metaphor “water” was the exact opposite for which concern was expressed. It was said he did not want to add anything that would heat up the matter, like fuel to a fire, not water.

    Thanks.


  30. 30
    Mark Z

    +10

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Mark Z
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (10:54 am)

    The media can manufacture any story they want. The facts are clear. The Tesla Model S is a wickedly fast electric car that can drain a battery rapidly if driven wildly. Model S requires 240 volt high amperage charging or 2 days at 120 volts! This is a high performance vehicle that requires discipline to operate. Driving Tesla’s Model S is like flying an aircraft, it takes education to arrive at your destination successfully. Sure an untrained person can be guided by the tower to land an aircraft in an emergency, but the probability of success is based on having fuel in the tank.

    Start your training today. Please read pages 16-17 and page 25 in the Owner’s Guide.

    https://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/ms_owners_guide.pdf


  31. 31
    Dave G

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (11:12 am)

    xiaowei1: I imagine if you are plugging in a megawatt connector (coupler), you would plug in and then turn it on (it would not be on as you plug in). The on switch may be automatic or on a panel not next to the car, and would be monitored for power surges.

    A lot of people at gas stations rest their hand on top of the nozzle while fueling. This is a very natural thing to do. Placing a power switch away from the car won’t prevent it.

    As for monitoring power surges, once 1,000,000 watts starts flowing, by the time it detects the short, the damage is already done.


  32. 32
    Charlie H

    -2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Charlie H
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (11:15 am)

    James,

    First, he was probably looking towards the gas pumps and then got confused. To allege that someone is attempting to deliberately kill the car by driving around a parking lot… when he racks up the miles for a single circuit of it before plugging in is ludicrous. If he was trying to brick the car… and didn’t know he was being monitored… he’d have driven around for as long as it took.

    Second, I’m familiar with the whole NYT/Tesla thing. I’ve read much of Broder’s work. None of it qualifies as “STATING A STRONG OPINION ELECTRIC CARS ARE NOT THE FUTURE.” If you have an example of such, you can point it out. Otherwise, I consider your allegation to be baseless.

    Here’s what Wemple at the WaPo had to say:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/02/14/tesla-v-new-york-times-did-reporter-have-disdain-toward-electric-cars/


  33. 33
    DonC

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (11:17 am)

    Agree with Mark Z. But I still think the big problem for Tesla is the over hyped range claims. If you tell people your car will go 300 miles you run the risk of them actually believing you.

    The group drive of the Tesla owners also proves the point that Tesla has a long way to go with its technology. The group drive was supposed to prove that Broder purposefully put the car on the flatbed, but what it proved is that the Model S and the Supercharger network is not ready for prime time. When one car was plugged into a supercharger it didn’t charge. When plugged into the second supercharger it didn’t charge. Then the Tesla drivers discovered that both superchargers were no longer operational — the car had disabled them! Eventually they got it sorted by contacting Tesla in CA, having a software update downloaded to the car, and then having CA reboot the superchargers. No real harm but not exactly a smooth trouble free trip.

    I think Jeff is still getting it wrong on what the public editor concluded. She found the article was not fake, regardless of what Musk might claim. Yes she did find Broder was sloppy but she also found Musk was not being truthful. You can decide which is worse.

    Jeff is also getting another important point wrong: Despite some obfuscation, Musk HAS NOT released any data that supports his claim. Taylor Owen from the Tow Center at Columbia University has made the point that Musk has refused to release the data log, choosing only to release his interpretation of that data in graphical form.

    “Musk clearly overplayed his rhetorical hand by arguing that the review was faked, but he also overstated both the case he could make with the data, as well as the level of transparency that he was actually providing. Tesla didn’t release the data from the review. Telsa released their interpretation of the data from the review. This interpretation took the form of the graphical representation they chose to give it.”

    You have to ask why Tesla won’t release the actual data. We can deduce why but I’ll leave that up to you.

    For a very interesting take on the feedback from NY Times readers you can read this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/automobiles/after-a-charging-system-test-a-debate-erupts-online.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    As for the story cutting $100M off Tesla’s market cap, if you’re bullish on Tesla this creates a great buying opportunity. You should be thankful not bitter. (Personally I don’t see the story having any significant effect one way or the other on Tesla’s success in the longer term).


  34. 34
    kdawg

    +5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (11:19 am)

    “Margaret Sullivan, The Times’s public editor, does not speak for The Times. As she noted, she is an independent voice in our newsroom and her opinions are her own.”
    ——-

    Where does her paycheck come from?


  35. 35
    DonC

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (11:25 am)

    Bonaire: I cannot believe that anyone believes otherwise.

    Acutally I completely reject your view. Completely. He went to bed with 90 miles of range and needing to go 45 miles. When he woke up he had 25 miles of range. I don’t think ANYONE could have expected this.

    Leaving the J1722 charging station without sufficient charge was not smart but it was EXACTLY what Crisina Ra from Tesla told him to do. She is BTW not longer at Tesla. I can’t believe that anyone would think that doing EXACTLY what Tesla told him to do demonstrates that he intended to put the car on the flatbed. And oh, the tow truck driver says Broder seemed very unhappy about the whole matter. Apparently he didn’t like freezing his butt off by the side of the road.

    Bonaire: To add – with over a year of news about Volts and Leafs losing range in the winter, he picked a very good day (10*F) to do the overnight not plugged in. Convenient? Planned?

    The date was picked by Tesla long in advance. No one had any idea how cold it would be, other than it was obviously winter. But I can tell you that living in CA you can forget about winter. That might have had something to do with not worrying about the weather overly much.


  36. 36
    DonC

    -1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (11:26 am)

    kdawg: Where does her paycheck come from?

    She’s paid by the Times but is completely independent. It’s the ombudsman concept.


  37. 37
    kdawg

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (11:27 am)

    This whole thing is a big “he said”, “she said”.

    I’m into EV’s and I’ve already become disinterested in this story, so I’m guessing the rest of the country has as well. (in the future i’m sure someone will dig it up for some political stance)

    IMO, Broder was trying to create news. So I think another definition of “Brodering” should be making up stuff just to sound interesting. Think of the definition of a “Topper”.
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=topper

    My Broder memes from last week.

    SCUMBAG BRODER
    scumbagsteve01_zps3fb43457.jpg

    CONFESSION BEAR BRODER
    ConfessionBear01_zpsdd793b49.jpg


  38. 38
    kdawg

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (11:29 am)

    DonC: She’s paid by the Times but is completely independent. It’s the ombudsman concept.

    So how do you get fired from this position? From agreeing *too* much w/the Times?
    Could she give a scathing opinion of the CEO and not worry about her job?


  39. 39
    Bill Cosworth

    +4

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bill Cosworth
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (11:30 am)

    I Disagree with Dave G completely.

    If we though like him we never develop Nuclear or Solar power or send a man to the moon.

    The simple assumptions he makes are totally flawed and produced by the OIL thinking.

    I think some of the folks here don’t fully understand electricity or charging systems.

    First of all when you expose a Flame to Gas you get a explosion that kills you. If you expose water to a charging system you will not get a explosion because there is a safety it will not allow voltage to flow unless you have it plugged in with a plastic plug. So it will not vaporize your hand. Does a Gas car have a safety feature from you not smoking when you fill up?

    Also the fact a SUV will use double electricity of a Volt is Flawed too as electric motors get more efficient and also power electrons with less power on state losses.

    You can use ramp up charging too and typically the volt does this now it starts off monitors the charging and ramps up the amps after it determines its safe to do so.

    Also don’t forget inductive charging along the road to charge as you drive. Try this with a gas car. Simply give the ID of your car to the system and it hand shakes your electricity as you drive like IP. So you can pay as you drive to charge along the roadway. Tesla would be a strong advocate of this technology.

    Does a Gas car do this no. So I see no reason why a Electric car can easily in the future surpass a gas one.


  40. 40
    Jackson

    +5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (11:37 am)

    Battery-only EVs are not the near future; they are likely the eventual future; barring the emergence of some unexpected technology.

    EREV and plug-ins are the near future. This is the solution for long-distance travel; today one can only take the BEV as a niche car, or a rich man’s toy.

    Just my $.02 worth.


  41. 41
    Bill Cosworth

    +5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bill Cosworth
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (11:39 am)

    Bill Cosworth,

    Oh I forgot to say the Volt already surpasses the gas car.

    It will run on electricity all the time unless on a long trip. The one reason to buy one.


  42. 42
    Jeff Cobb

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jeff Cobb
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (11:42 am)

    DonC: I think Jeff is still getting it wrong on what the public editor concluded. She found the article was not fake, regardless of what Musk might claim. Yes she did find Broder was sloppy but she also found Musk was not being truthful. You can decide which is worse.

    Jeff is also getting another important point wrong: Despite some obfuscation, Musk HAS NOT released any data that supports his claim.

    Don, I’ll agree with Charlie H you deserve an I told you so last week. But please, let’s stay on point here: Elon Musk’s bylined story was the basis for the original “vindicated” article posted here last week.

    At this juncture, I am not comprehensively framing what the public editor said. I am clarifying where the last story overstepped the bounds of accuracy, and why that happened.

    I said only she expressed misgivings. I am not summarizing her every statement. She also said in that post Elon Musk’s presentation was “sometimes quite misleading.” And much more was said by her, but I am not addressing it.

    Today’s story is just an update on my last story, not a correction per se, and you are correct the public editor had pro and con to say about the Broder story and Musk’s assessment of it.

    As for Musk “releasing” data, that too is understood. Musk summarized his data.

    The intent here, again, is not to settle a matter. It is to clarify the New York Times’ actual position, and to write an accurate story about the Times/Tesla standoff – that it remains – and really, very little else.

    Despite any reports that the NYT “reversed its opinion,” this is not correct.

    That is all this actually asserts.

    Regards,

    Jeff


  43. 43
    kdawg

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (11:48 am)

    Chelsea Sexton Quote:

    Dave G: If an average driver needs such hand-holding from an automaker to make the trip, it’s the wrong car for the trip.

    *I didn’t know there was a different car required for every type of trip I take? What is the 2000/200/20/2 mile cars I should own? I’d better work on building a 4 car garage.*

    This is not the correct way to look at it. I agree w/a lot of what Chelsea says, but not w/the quote above. We know the trip is *possible* in a Model S, so you can’t say it’s the wrong car. I would just say the same thing as many others have, when driving a BEV, you have put more time into planning long range trips. This technology is in its infancy (of being mass produced and own-able). Let’s give it some time before we start using the word “wrong”. If it works for you, it’s not wrong, its your choice.


  44. 44
    Jim I

    +6

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jim I
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (11:54 am)

    The saddest part is that once the attorneys get involved, it won’t matter what the truth is.

    If Musk isn’t careful, he could really screw up the acceptance of BEV’s by the general buying public…….

    At this time, BEV’s are commuter vehicles. Why is that so hard to deal with? They can still sell millions of cars under those set of specs.

    Produce a reasonably priced (under $35K) BEV with a REAL mileage of 100 miles, and I will be at the front of the line to buy one. I would prefer a small SUV/CUV. We then have the BEV for the wife, and the Volt for everything else. Pretty simple, IMHO.

    C-5277


  45. 45
    Jackson

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (12:00 pm)

    Bill Cosworth:

    Does a Gas car have a safety feature from you not smoking when you fill up?

    Such a system could be developed, but it would cost money to replace for an existing infrastructure with the inertia of history behind it.

    Also the fact a SUV will use double electricity of a Volt is Flawed too as electric motors get more efficient and also power electrons with less power on state losses.

    It would undoubtedly need more than the Volt; greater mass means higher power to reach speed in a reasonable time, require larger energy supplies to run. These items will result in higher mass requiring more power, etc).

    Also, a larger vehicle will have a greater coefficient of drag to overcome. When the MPV5 concept was announced, the AER was given as 30 miles using the identical power train as the Volt (at the time, given as 40). The reason was likely aerodynamics.

    You can use ramp up charging too and typically the volt does this now it starts off monitors the charging and ramps up the amps after it determines its safe to do so.

    Agreed.

    Also don’t forget inductive charging along the road to charge as you drive.Try this with a gas car.Simply give the ID of your car to the system and it hand shakes your electricity as you drive like IP.So you can pay as you drive to charge along the roadway.Tesla would be a strong advocate of this technology.

    I agree (and advocated this system) in principle, but I’m certainly not holding my breath. Consider the cost of implementing induction power only on the Interstates (never mind the US and State routes). This is one of the reasons I consider BEVs the remote future of personal transportation.

    Does a Gas car do this no.

    Actually, I’m not so sure of this. I’ve suggested the following system here before:

    Given an inductive highway, a retrofit kit might be offered which contains only an induction coil and a small to moderate size electric motor. You’d install it on your gas car, come up to speed on the induction road, and let your foot off the gas. The engine would stop and propulsion would come from the motor. A second small motor and pulley clutch could allow the road power to turn the accessories. When I first suggested this, Cap’n Jack called it “a poor man’s EREV.” Something like this built into Semi tractors might go a long way towards solving the ‘oil-for-freight’ problem. This might help mitigate the ‘chicken and egg’ problem such a highway system would face, as more people would be able to use it quickly.


  46. 46
    Bob in Seattle

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bob in Seattle
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (12:13 pm)

    George S. Bower,

    Agreed. It’s become clear from the maker’s suggestion to the driver’s ignorance that Broder was simply not interested. The average EV driver is likely to be interested in their vehicle and to follow at least some of the manufacturer’s instructions, just as the average ICE driver is engaged enough to safely operate a gas pump.


  47. 47
    steve

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    steve
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (12:22 pm)

    Don’t care anymore. I already know enough about electric cars, charging, and performance that reading an article from a journalist with inferior understanding isn’t of any use to me. It might be if I was involved marketing or selling the car. Then it would help me understand better what I was up against.


  48. 48
    Jackson

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (12:22 pm)

    Dave G: Cellulosic ethanol can replace up to 35% of current gasoline consumption without any affect on food supply. Cellulosic ethanol is made from things we currently throw away (forest mill waste, corn stalks and leaves, municipal waste, etc). Cellulosic ethanol also comes from energy crops which will grow on land unsuitable for farming. These non-food sources can replace 35% of gasoline consumption. In other words, cellulosic ethanol only affects food supply when you try to scale it beyond 35%.

    Okay, now it’s your turn, Dave G:

    I fully understand that, for you, the future is ethanol flavored. I disagree. It takes a lot of energy to create alcohol, and this needs to be addressed if it is to become a major fuel. Ethanol works well in a tropical country (Brazil), but I have my doubts about it’s use in colder weather. There are other misgivings I have that you’ve heard before.

    I think biodiesel from algae has greater potential once it’s problems are sorted out.

    But whatever it turns out to be, I agree that liquid fuel will hold the advantage for a long, long time.

    That’s another $.02 (I take VISA).

    … and why is there no way to use the cents symbol on a computer???


  49. 49
    kdawg

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (12:23 pm)

    DonC: He went to bed with 90 miles of range and needing to go 45 miles. When he woke up he had 25 miles of range. I don’t think ANYONE could have expected this.

    I might have, but that’s from experience.
    If you look at the charts, overnight the SOC only dropped about 7%, but the range (estimate) dropped by 65 miles. I believe the estimator used the temp to determine the amount of power available, which, after it became very cold, was much less, even though the SOC was almost the same. And it was predicting what kind of power would be used to move the car through cold air and most likely with the heat on.

    I think I would have kept charging at Norwich no matter what someone from Tesla told me. Wonder if that conversation was recorded. Would be interesting to hear it.

    Are the LiPO batteries more susceptible to temp change?
    Does Tesla not insulate/heat their batteries?
    Are they using too big of window?
    Are the LiPO batteries more difficult to measure SOC?
    Is the range predicting algorithm faulted?


  50. 50
    Dave G

    -2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (12:27 pm)

    Raymondjram: I have not read any news about any EV owner who have suffered harm while charging their vehicle,

    First off, the max charge rate in use today isn’t that high. The Tesla Supercharger charges the Model S at 90kW, and that takes well over an hour to fully charge the battery. To compete with liquid fuels, you would need to charge at much higher power, which is where things become really dangerous. Note that typical home chargers are way less. For example, the Volt 220v charger is only 3.3kW.

    Second, how many people plug-in their cars? How many people use gas stations? That should offer a big clue as to why you haven’t heard any safety issues with charging yet.

    Again, imagine that in the future, batteries become much smaller and less expensive, to the point where a BEV with 300 miles of range costs the same as a regular gas engine car. That same type of battery would also make an EREV-100 cost the same as a regular car. It would also mean that a BEV-100 would be less expensive than a regular car.

    So in the future, I believe there will be 3 types of options:
    1) Very capable EREVs, with electric range up to 100 miles, and a biofuel range extender.
    2) Pure BEV commuter cars, with a second car or rental for longer trips, powered by biofuels.
    3) Long range BEVs, with a new infrastructure of extreme fast chargers.

    All 3 options will be sustainable, carbon neutral, and fossil fuel free.

    I believe options 1) and 2) will be much more attractive, and so will dominate the market in the future. For option 3) to compete with liquid fuels, the required power levels become dangerous, so charging will always take longer than liquid refueling.


  51. 51
    Charlie H

    -1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Charlie H
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (12:35 pm)

    kdawg,

    It’s also possible to bike from DC to Boston. Few people want to do that and fewer actually make the trip.

    If the BEV is to be widely accepted, it needs to offer clear advantages over an ICE vehicle, especially at current prices. Right now, it doesn’t. Sure, you don’t have to pay for gas or stand at a gas station but the number of F-150s sold last month should tell you something about how distasteful people find those things to be.

    There has been talk about a comparison between introduction of the BEV vs the ICE and the introduction of the car (BEV and ICE) vs the horse, inferring that those of us who don’t see the BEV as practical intercity transportation are Luddites. Let’s not romaticize this. The ICE won out over the BEV at that time for good reason (range and rapid refuelling) and, even in primitive form, they both beat the horse for even better reasons. A colleague has horses that he rarely uses but they still require far more maintenance than a car.


  52. 52
    Bonaire

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bonaire
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (12:36 pm)

    I know DonC doesn’t agree with my view of “The Broder Incident”. However, I also agree with DonC and others that Tesla isn’t the car to drive long distances either. The SuperChargers, to me, are for people living within locality range who might want to do a fast-charge and they don’t have the equipment at home to do it. Say, one of the bankers in Wilmington DE driving over on I-95 after work to get 200 miles added on in an hour for free rather than pumping the amps at home. If I had to go to Boston from DC, I would jump on an Amtrak or get a plane flight. I drove my Volt home from Florida to PA in a day – but it’s a Volt, not a BEV.

    SuperChargers are a convenience – they haven’t proven to be a reliable “tether” (and by tether I mean similar to the tether used in spacewalks by astronauts) that you rely on to get you there 100% of the time. They’re too young. They’re a solution looking for a problem. They define the problem as “Tesla owners need a way to drive long distances”. Do they? How many people bought Tesla Model-S so they can drive far? Probably 3% of them. The NYT story was trying to write up about the outlier conditions of owning a Tesla as your only car driving long distances. That is the rarity.

    If Tesla picked the dates and gave advice through a spokeswoman rather than an engineer – shame on them for not reading the weather or using someone who knows the technology deeper.

    There are some mis-understandings within the story. But I wonder if the story would even be printed it went picture-perfect? Papers need degrees of anxiety-driving drama. A story of “Car drives to Boston” hardly is interesting. I haven’t read any stories lately about “Family drives minivan to DisneyWorld”.


  53. 53
    kdawg

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (12:37 pm)

    Dave G: To be competitive with existing liquid fuel filling stations, you would need to charge that large BEV-300 SUV or pickup in 10 minutes. That’s 1/6 of an hour. 160kWh divided by 1/6 of an hour puts us right around a megawatt.
    So we’re talking about average consumers plugging megawatt cables into vehicles covered with ice and snow. The cable system tests for shorts initially, but once 1,000,000 watts starts flowing, if ice melts and causes a short – kaboom! A megawatt can vaporize things. Things like fingers and hands.

    Megawatts is overblown, it’s more like 300kW. 150kW chargers exist now.
    Why does it have to be one cable? Split the load up.
    Why can’t it be inductive? Small areas achieve 3.3kW already. Imagine large areas.
    Most electrical panels I design are rated for 65kA arc flash. No reason this can’t be designed safely for 300kA.

    Give it time.
    Use EREV while progress is made.
    I look forward to the technology race between range-extenders & battery-charging.
    (my money is on chargers vs cheap fuel cells, but I welcome both)


  54. 54
    kdawg

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (12:42 pm)

    Charlie H: If the BEV is to be widely accepted, it needs to offer clear advantages over an ICE vehicle, especially at current prices. Right now, it doesn’t.

    You don’t see any advantages?
    Haha.. you are on the wrong website!


  55. 55
    Charlie H

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Charlie H
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (12:48 pm)

    kdawg,

    Maybe the SOC dropped by 7% (looked like more to me) but the charge available and useful range fell off by 70% or so. That’s a shocking difference. This is much like turning into your driveway with a quarter tank of gas left (“yep, plenty for tomorrow”) and next morning finding that you can’t even reach a gas station.

    EV sophisticates might be aware of the potential for this (although nobody seems to say their Volt range drops off like that) but someone who does not use EV and is merely borrowing the car for a quick overnight trip is not likely to figure that out in advance.

    Musk does not seem much inclined to discuss this aspect of the trip.


  56. 56
    kdawg

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (12:55 pm)

    Bonaire: SuperChargers are a convenience – they haven’t proven to be a reliable “tether” (and by tether I mean similar to the tether used in spacewalks by astronauts) that you rely on to get you there 100% of the time. They’re too young. They’re a solution looking for a problem. They define the problem as “Tesla owners need a way to drive long distances”. Do they? How many people bought Tesla Model-S so they can drive far? Probably 3% of them.

    I kinda think differently about this. Let’s go hypothetical and assume there are as many Superchargers as their are gas stations. (yes this won’t happen due to people mainly charging at home, but anyway…). If this were the case, the only problem with driving a BEV long distances is charging time. So the batteries need to get bigger/cheaper for those that want to drive 400 miles at a time and don’t have $100,000 sitting around, and charging times need to get faster.

    Personally, if I buy a car, it is my only car. It needs to be able to take me to work and maybe to Florida. So yes, if I bought a Tesla, it would have to be able to do this. If I want an EV to just play around with, I’ll buy a Twizzy. I could rent a car for long trips, but this isn’t always convenient/desired.

    I agree w/your term “young”, like when the first gas stations started appearing. And now we have a CNG superhighway forming, followed by an EV superhighway.


  57. 57
    Charlie H

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Charlie H
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (12:56 pm)

    kdawg,

    As a consumer, no, I don’t see any advantages. As a citizen concerned about emissions and strategic energy vulnerability, I most certainly am.

    Unfortunately, 99% of the people who go to buy a car are going as consumers and not as concerned citizens. Look at sales of the F-150. We fought two wars for oil in the last 22 years and F-150 sales are still going strong. The number 1 selling vehicle for each of GM, Ford and Chrysler is their fullsize pickup.


  58. 58
    Jackson

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (12:57 pm)

    kdawg: Why does it have to be one cable? Split the load up.
    Why can’t it be inductive? Small areas achieve 3.3kW already. Imagine large areas.
    Most electrical panels I design are rated for 65kA arc flash. No reason this can’t be designed safely for 300kA.

    Why not make the connection under the car (some kind of arm comes up for each leg of the circuit, preferably at different locations). No handling giant wires (and all untouched by human hands). Maybe you’d put the charger system in a tunnel like a car wash uses. The tire rail would assure precise positioning, and the connection would be made out of the rain. Somehow the connections would need to follow the car(s) down the tunnel. Passage would be timed to charge duration. An indoor waiting area could have wifi and refreshments. Who knows, if it proves safe, it might wash your car too. Splitting the load seems like a good idea.

    Could an inductive connection be made at 300KA levels?

    …there’s another $.02. This is getting expensive …


  59. 59
    Charlie H

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Charlie H
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (12:58 pm)

    “As a consumer, no, I don’t see any advantages. As a citizen concerned about emissions and strategic energy vulnerability, I most certainly am.”

    Should read: “As a consumer, no, I don’t see any advantages. As a citizen concerned about emissions and strategic energy vulnerability, I most certainly do see advantages.”

    The edit link doesn’t work or I’d use it.


  60. 60
    Bonaire

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bonaire
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (12:58 pm)

    The issue of not plugging in at night on a cold night is the 800-lb gorilla in the story. Drive from say 30*F to 10*F and then get a cold-soak. That is not good for any Li-Ion product (laptop, phone, BEV, etc.) It was the delta from “operating warm” to “cold-soak overnight” that was the primary final straw in the equasion.

    If this trip took place in May – it would be fine. But journalists need to talk about the science objectively – loss of range in the cold is part of the equasion. Plug in at night if you’re at a hotel or make accommodation to do it the next morning.

    Without the cold-soak issue – EVs are fine. With cold in the picture, make one or two extra plans when doing a trip. And cold below 35*F tends to affect EVs the most.

    A123′s EXT chemistry (not yet out) was actually showing some signs of being less lossy during cold-soak in the labs. I wonder what the 2015+ Spark EV or other cars using those cells will do in the cold?


  61. 61
    Noel Park

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Noel Park
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (1:05 pm)

    Dave G: When you run the numbers, extreme fast charging is both unnecessary and dangerous.

    #3

    Makes sense to me. +1


  62. 62
    Noel Park

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Noel Park
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (1:13 pm)

    Charlie H: Second, I’m familiar with the whole NYT/Tesla thing. I’ve read much of Broder’s work. None of it qualifies as “STATING A STRONG OPINION ELECTRIC CARS ARE NOT THE FUTURE.”

    #32

    Well I’ll be damned, I’m agreeing with you once again, LOL. +1


  63. 63
    Noel Park

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Noel Park
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (1:20 pm)

    Jackson: Just my $.02 worth.

    #40

    I’ll put another $.02 in the pot, LOL. I agree. +1


  64. 64
    DonC

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (1:23 pm)

    kdawg: I might have, but that’s from experience.
    If you look at the charts, overnight the SOC only dropped about 7%, but the range (estimate) dropped by 65 miles.

    OK. Maybe no one without a lot of EV experience! LOL But actually I have EV experience and I would not have expected this. A few miles yes but not 65 miles. That’s excessive. I’ve never seen anything like this in either the Volt or the Leaf, nor do I know anyone who has reported anything like this with those cars.

    AFAIK Telsa has said it has a battery heater. If it does then the range shouldn’t be that affected by current battery temps since the heater should be able to use a small amount of energy to heat the battery up. Also, 7% may not seem like a big percentage but in raw kWh it’s half what the Volt uses as a charge.

    The range estimate is also wonky. A temperature drop of the magnitude we’re talking about should not have had such a big effect on the estimated range. Seems like we’re talking about a range estimator worse than what you find in the Leaf, and what you find in the Leaf is worthless.

    Bonaire: However, I also agree with DonC and others that Tesla isn’t the car to drive long distances either. The SuperChargers, to me, are for people living within locality range who might want to do a fast-charge and they don’t have the equipment at home to do it.

    I completely agree. DC chargers will be great in a pinch. If they were located where I’d want them to be they’d be wonderful. (The trick in the “where I want them to be” part). However, even a little range extender with a couple of gallons of gas, like on the i3, gets you the same advantages without having to build out a charging infrastructure and then having to deal with all the resulting maintenance costs and problems.


  65. 65
    Charlie H

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Charlie H
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (1:30 pm)

    Bonaire,

    What gorilla?

    Well, seriously, Musk has made no mention of the need to plug in overnight or requiring Broder to plug in overnight or anything like “a common sense precaution would be to plug in overnight.”


  66. 66
    DonC

    -1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (1:31 pm)

    Bonaire: A123′s EXT chemistry (not yet out) was actually showing some signs of being less lossy during cold-soak in the labs. I wonder what the 2015+ Spark EV or other cars using those cells will do in the cold?

    Keep in mind that the Tesla uses laptop batteries. That may be part of the problem. Generally laptops and consumer items live indoors, not in garages or parking lots.

    However, if the heating system were properly done it shouldn’t be an issue. Unless it’s crazy cold, far colder than what Broder experienced, a properly designed and implemented battery heater should be able to warm up the battery without much of a problem. For example, for the 2013 MY, the Leaf has a battery heater that would use very little energy getting the cell temperature up so the battery worked more or less optimally. (Not so BTW in the 2011 and 2012 MY copies). I suspect the battery heater on the Model S is either defective in design or implementation. Whatever the case, it doesn’t seem that it was up to the job. Wouldn’t matter to me BTW. Not an issue when the average high in January is 62F. LOL


  67. 67
    Noel Park

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Noel Park
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (1:31 pm)

    As to Mr. Musk, my mother was fond of saying “Methinks he doth protest too much”.

    I have been watching our big Volt billboard creep up on 140 MILLION electric miles but I guess I went to sleep the last couple of days. This morning it was showing 142 MILLION plus. Awesome!

    And we don’t even have to sweat how far it is to the next “Supercharger”, hahahahaha!


  68. 68
    CaptJackSparrow

    +4

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CaptJackSparrow
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (2:25 pm)

    “He said” “He did…”…..blah blah blah…..

    IMHO, If I knew I was taking a long trip. I wouldn’t leave without a full……ANYTHING! (except my bladder) Whether it be Gas or Electrons.

    How many of you only put enough gas to “Get you there”?!?!?!?!?!?
    If you don’t and just fill up, why would one do the opposite with an EV?!?!?!?

    /makes no damn sense if you ask me.
    //that’s just my 1¢ because I can’t afford 2¢.


  69. 69
    Rashiid Amul

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Rashiid Amul
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (2:29 pm)

    Jackson:

    That’s another $.02 (I take VISA).

    … and why is there no way to use the cents symbol on a computer???

    Sure there is, Jackson.
    Hold the ALT key down.
    While holding it down, type 0162 on the number pad and let go of the ALT key.
    Do it in that order, and it will work.
    This has been my 2¢. ;)


  70. 70
    Mike

    +7

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Mike
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (2:37 pm)

    DonC However, even a little range extender with a couple of gallons of gas, like on the i3, gets you the same advantages without having to build out a charging infrastructure and then having to deal with all the resulting maintenance costs and problems.

    However, even a little range extender with a couple gallons of gas brings nearly ALL the baggage of an ICE car along for the ride. Where do I start? You have to put it somewhere – goodbye huge “frunk” and probably the storage bin in the back (unless you want the gas tank in the frunk too!). You have to cool it and route the exhaust out – goodbye aero advantages. Warranty it. You have to go through full EPA emissions certification. You have to drag it around all the time – goodbye to some range. Add it to your price. Owners have to maintain it – welcome back oil changes. They have to run it and put gas in it once in a while – welcome back gas stations! All that for a couple gallons of gas worth of extra range? No thanks.

    Buy a Tesla and you trade off some inconvenience on very long drives (that most people never make according to the DOT) in return for the *convenience* of easy home “refueling” we are already familiar with thanks to our Volts coupled with all the nice packaging advantages of a designed-from-the-ground-up BEV. As much as I like my Volt, it is a whole pile of packaging compromises that don’t exist in a Model S.

    I think the EREV approach has legs but the Model S architecture is the future. There’s this big argument about the extra hour or two it takes a Model S to drive from DC to Boston (I would fly…) while missing the big picture. 3 months ago that drive was impossible in any practical sense in an EV. Real progress has been made here and this is just the beginning.


  71. 71
    CaptJackSparrow

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CaptJackSparrow
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (2:39 pm)

    Mike: a little range extender with a couple gallons of gas brings nearly ALL the baggage of an ICE car along for the ride.

    And then you’ll have to SMOG check the damn thing too!!!


  72. 72
    CaptJackSparrow

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CaptJackSparrow
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (2:40 pm)

    Rashiid Amul: This has been my 2¢

    Dang, yall rich!!!!


  73. 73
    Jackson

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (3:06 pm)

    Rashiid Amul: While holding it down, type 0162 on the number pad and let go of the ALT key.
    Do it in that order, and it will work.

    ¢
    Well I’ll be darned. And, when he says “0162 on the number pad” he really means it (doesn’t work using number keys at the top of the keyboard).

    We have a smart peanut gallery here. Glad to ‘see’ you again, Rashiid.


  74. 74
    Noel Park

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Noel Park
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (3:40 pm)

    Rashiid Amul: This has been my 2¢.

    #69

    Hey brother, nice to see your name here. It’s been too long. Don’t be a stranger. +1


  75. 75
    kdawg

    +5

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (3:45 pm)

    Charlie H: As a consumer, no, I don’t see any advantages. As a citizen concerned about emissions and strategic energy vulnerability, I most certainly am.

    Advantages:

    * 100% instant torque at 0rpm
    * silence
    * smooth
    * no engine maintenance
    * no messing w/gas
    * less/no brake wear
    * no smog tests
    * HOV access
    * cheap fuel
    * stable fuel prices
    * fueling at home

    I’m sure there’s more I missed, and these are besides “doing it for ‘merica”.

    The only BEV hold-backs at this point, and this is only for long range BEVs, not commuters, are:

    * price (which is coming down)
    * charging speeds (which are getting faster)


  76. 76
    Rashiid Amul

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Rashiid Amul
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (4:06 pm)

    Hi Noel and Jackson.
    I hope you guys are doing well.
    Alas, I still don’t have a Volt.
    This economy killed me and I am still trying to recover.
    At this rate, I will be looking at the used car market for one.


  77. 77
    Jackson

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (4:14 pm)

    Rashiid Amul:
    Hi Noel and Jackson.
    I hope you guys are doing well.
    Alas, I still don’t have a Volt.
    This economy killed me and I am still trying to recover.
    At this rate, I will be looking at the used car market for one.

    Alas, I can relate all too well. :-(


  78. 78
    Cindy Carvell

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Cindy Carvell
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (4:20 pm)

    I have to disagree with Dave G as well as many here. The super capacitor already being made I can look up automotive grade at Mouser Electronics. These almost instantly charge because no chemical reaction needs to take place.

    For regen its important for auto company to use a super capacitor so less loss when doing the regen cycle and then you have a normal chemical battery for longer trips. In town this hybrid CAP/Battery arrangement would save tremendous battery life as the capacitor acts like a buffer for quick starts and much less loss. In REGEN the battery only recovers at most 1/4

    With new batteries IBM 500 project lil air batteries you will cut charge times way down so. I think it will be very possible to make a battery car that charges very quickly.


  79. 79
    Charlie H

    -1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Charlie H
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (4:36 pm)

    kdawg,

    OK. I admit some of those are advantages but are they noticeable enought to matter?

    Cars today are very quiet and they generally have pretty good torque (unless we’re talking about econo-cars and that customer base is nowhere near EVs, yet). On the highway, do you even notice the engine in a modern car? It’s mostly road and wind noise, which an EV will share.

    HOV access… yes, that’s what’s fuelling a lot of EV acceptance – and resentment – in CA. In other locales, not so much.

    Maintenance costs (incl brakes) are lower, but the car will not be maintenance free. And who looks at maintenace costs before they by a car?

    Fuel costs aren’t deterring people, either. If fuel costs were a problem, who’d buy half of the models that are on the market today? If people really cared, Toyota wouldn’t be able to keep Priuses in stock.

    At the moment, those plusses aren’t enough to overcome the price hurdle or, to put it as gently as I can, the “that’s different” factor. It IS different and that’s something of a turnoff for many people.

    Your features list is mostly valid but I think you assign them too much weight.

    Hmph. I don’t know why you’re showing a negative vote… it wasn’t from me.


  80. 80
    kdawg

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (4:49 pm)

    Jeff – you should ask Verticalscope to send you to the UK for this one :)

    http://www.ev-battery-technology-2013.com/

    EV Battery Tech UK
    24th – 25th April, 2013 London, UK

    Key questions being addressed include:

    * What are the latest technological breakthroughs impacting energy density, range and life, and how can we capitalize on these advancements at a reasonable cost?

    *What are the real requirements of EV customers, and how can cost reduction strategies be employed in light of these customer usage profiles?

    *What are the supplier road maps, and how can these optimize OEM production strategies?

    *What is the potential for investment return from secondary use ?

    *What is the latest progress with battery standardization and when can OEMs expect to benefit from progress in this area?


  81. 81
    kdawg

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (5:02 pm)

    Charlie H: Cars today are very quiet and they generally have pretty good torque

    I used to think that too. Now it’s painful to drive an ICE car. I don’t even like it when my range extender kicks on.

    Charlie H: Maintenance costs (incl brakes) are lower, but the car will not be maintenance free. And who looks at maintenace costs before they by a car?

    I think most people do. Everyone reads about company X had Y recalls, etc. Or water cooler conversations about someone’s expensive BMW or sports car needing a $2000 repair. An EV is so much simpler (KISS) there’s so much less to go wrong. And i’m sure everyone is familiar with oil changes. For me it’s not even the money of an oil change, it’s the inconvenience. Brake jobs… its about the money and the inconvenience. Also having to deal w/bad brakes for a bit until you get new rotors/whatev.

    Charlie H: Fuel costs aren’t deterring people, either. If fuel costs were a problem, who’d buy half of the models that are on the market today? If people really cared, Toyota wouldn’t be able to keep Priuses in stock.

    I believe it was 2012, that was the first year the fuel economy was the #1 criteria shoppers looked at when buying a new car. It was the first time in history it was #1. It still is in 2013, and as gas prices continue to rise it carry even more weight as you say.

    Charlie H: the “that’s different” factor.

    Yes, i forgot to mention the “different” factor. For some this is a turn-on, but most people are not going to be the first on their block to buy an EV. Only cure for this is time & exposure. In Elon’s interview w/Bloomberg he said that they notice 2-3 new sales in areas where they have delivered a Tesla. I’m personally saw this with my Volt, as it spread to 2 other people I know. Just have to let the snowball keep rolling.


  82. 82
    Kent

    +3

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Kent
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (5:27 pm)

    Charlie, I have to agree with KDAWG here. Maintenance costs are a big factor for me in purchasing a car. As a previous BMW car owner, and current BMW motorcycle owner, I am all too familiar with maintenance costs and which is why I will never buy European again. Also, as for fuel costs, this is also a big consideration for me which is why I gave up my beloved Hummer for a second Volt.

    I won’t even consider another ICE-only car. I will only buy cars that are at least partially electric. The only thing holding me back from a Tesla is the price, not the range or charging issues. Actually, their annual maintenance fee may also hold me back as well.

    I gave up my dream of owning a new Corvette now that I can finally afford one. Hope Chevy comes up with an erev ‘vette.


  83. 83
    Charlie H

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Charlie H
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (5:36 pm)

    kdawg,

    I don’t believe they think about maintenance, per se. I believe they think about reliability, which is a different animal. Reliability is the thing that determines whether or not you’re going to be inconvenienced. I expect to take the car in a couple of times a year and I have no problem with that and it’s not much money ($64/year until we hit serious mileage) and everybody else is, I think, entirely comfortable with that. If it breaks down on vacation, that bites. Even so, there’s a spectrum of interest in cars with respect to reliability and maintenance costs and plenty of people will cheerfully buy high-maintenance unreliable cars, which is why Mercedes and BMW haven’t gone out of business.

    As to fuel costs, well, there’s what they say is important and then there’s what they buy. Fuel economy being #1 priority apparently means that Fords with EcoBoost that get 18mpg instead of 17mpg are a hot item… Well, what does that mean in the grand scheme of things? Buyers are happy with gas guzzlers, they just want one that guzzles slightly less than the neighbor’s gas guzzler.

    The other thing that discounts the improved operating cost characteristics of the EV vs the ICE is liquidity preference or the time value of money. Money up front is worth a lot more to people than money down the road. If a Volt is $11K more expensive than a Prius but saves $11K in gas somewhere down the road… well, who prefers money down the road to money up front? Will they even have the car 5 years down the road? Buy-and-hold-forever new car buyers are, so far as I know, not all that common (there’s me and then there’s a guy I know up the road and that’s about it).

    You will indirectly get your money back with a car that has low operating cost, because the resale value should be better than a car with high operating cost but that’s also very uncertain territory and its value gets discounted.


  84. 84
    kdawg

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (5:49 pm)

    Charlie H: plenty of people will cheerfully buy high-maintenance unreliable cars, which is why Mercedes and BMW haven’t gone out of business.

    Not mainstream. Most people buy cars that are considered reliable. I don’t think there’s any debate here.

    Charlie H: As to fuel costs, well, there’s what they say is important and then there’s what they buy.

    It’s the trend that matters. And yes I’ve seen at least a dozen stories now of people in a showroom with their new sedan saying that gas prices were too high to buy the SUV/truck they were originally planning to buy. Don’t forget a lot of the trucks are needed, not just to hang rubber nuts from.

    Charlie H: The other thing that discounts the improved operating cost characteristics of the EV vs the ICE is liquidity preference or the time value of money. Money up front is worth a lot more to people than money down the road. If a Volt is $11K more expensive than a Prius but saves $11K in gas somewhere down the road… well, who prefers money down the road to money up front?

    Not sure why you are arguing price here. That was already one of my hurdles for EV’s. (along with charging time). Note today, you can get an BEV commuter for less money than the average price of a new ICE car. The main price issue is the long range EV’s.


  85. 85
    Jackson

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jackson
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (6:12 pm)

    Cindy Carvell:
    I have to disagree with Dave G as well as many here.The super capacitor already being made I can look up automotive grade at Mouser Electronics.These almost instantly charge because no chemical reaction needs to take place.

    For regen its important for auto company to use a super capacitor so less loss when doing the regen cycle and then you have a normal chemical battery for longer trips. In town this hybrid CAP/Battery arrangement would save tremendous battery life as the capacitor acts like a buffer for quick starts and much less loss.In REGEN the battery only recovers at most 1/4

    Preach on, sister! You’re singing my song.

    With new batteries IBM 500 project lil air batteries you will cut charge times way down so.I think it will be very possible to make a battery car that charges very quickly.

    There have been very few ladies on this board. Welcome.

    There are a few things to keep in mind about supercapacitors:

    1) They operate at thousands of volts rather than a battery pack’s hundreds. There would have to be voltage transformation during both charge and discharge, since it’s doubtful that the motors and controllers could operate at these voltages. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but I wonder how inexpensively.
    2) At the moment, supercapacitors tend to have lower specific energy than most Li-ion (kind of bulky for the energy stored),
    3) … and they ain’t cheap.

    I’ve often thought that separating an EV’s electricity storage into two types might get around some of the problems EREV (and BEV) have: A high-performance battery with many charge/discharge cycles (and correspondingly more expensive) could act as the buffer you describe; the larger, purely storage pack could use less expensive cells since they would only be charged and discharged once per cycle with no buffering or regen during the drive. (When the buffer pack saturates from a lot of regen, power could be fed back to the storage pack, but at a more ideal rate).

    A buffer, or surge bank would make possible a much stronger EREV serial mode than can happen today by taking buffering charge/discharges burden off the main pack. That could mean a smaller, more efficient engine optimized to run over a very narrow range of speeds.

    If the problems I cited above can be solved economically, a supercapacitor would make an almost ideal buffer, since it would theoretically never wear out. A split-pack arrangement would also allow supercaps to start small, and work their way up in scale; much as Lithium Ion batteries did.


  86. 86
    Foo

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Foo
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (6:24 pm)

    Cellulosic Ethanol is at present a pipe dream. Put aside the fact that it is not clear whether producing Cellulosic Ethanol costs more energy than exists in the endproduct. There are NO PRODUCERS of consequence of Cellulosic Ethanol.

    An Appeals court has recently blocked the EPA’s Cellulosic Ethanol target, and rightly so. EPA was requiring fuel producers to include a certain amount of cellulosic ethanol in their blends or face a fine: this despite that it was physically impossible to do so because none of the fuel vendors could actually obtain the stuff.


  87. 87
    DonC

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (6:48 pm)

    Mike: However, even a little range extender with a couple gallons of gas brings nearly ALL the baggage of an ICE car along for the ride. Where do I start? You have to put it somewhere – goodbye huge “frunk” and probably the storage bin in the back (unless you want the gas tank in the frunk too!). You have to cool it and route the exhaust out – goodbye aero advantages. Warranty it. You have to go through full EPA emissions certification. You have to drag it around all the time – goodbye to some range.

    Yes, it’s much better to drag around 800 pounds and $35,000 of batteries! LOL And you still have range issues.

    As for the “frunk”, what’s the huge advantage of all that cargo area when you can’t take it anywhere?

    Cindy Carvell: In REGEN the battery only recovers at most 1/4

    More like 80% and a lot of that is conversion losses.


  88. 88
    Raymondjram

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Raymondjram
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (6:52 pm)

    Dave G: A lot of people at gas stations rest their hand on top of the nozzle while fueling.This is a very natural thing to do.Placing a power switch away from the car won’t prevent it.

    As for monitoring power surges, once 1,000,000 watts starts flowing, by the time it detects the short, the damage is already done.

    The SAE J1772 standard will prevent it. There is a “conversation” between the vehicle and the charger, so if it detects any possible short when plugged in, it can shut down the charging. And there is a simple way to prevent a dumb charger from being alive before plugging in the vehicle: a NO (normally open) push button switch at the receptacle that controls the power relays, so the current will not flow until the plug is well pushed all the way, insulating the contacts. This the same as the door switch on the microwave oven: it will not allow any power to the magnetron if the door is even ajar (not closed completely).

    As I posted before, EEs like me know common sense and prevention when designing high power and high voltage circuits. GM’s engineers are that good or better! I cannot say the same for the imports EV designs.

    Raymond


  89. 89
    Raymondjram

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Raymondjram
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (6:55 pm)

    Jackson:
    Battery-only EVs are not the near future; they are likely the eventual future; barring the emergence of some unexpected technology.

    EREV and plug-ins are the near future.This is the solution for long-distance travel; today one can only take the BEV as a niche car, or a rich man’s toy.


    Just my $.02 worth.

    That post is worth $2,000,000!

    Raymond


  90. 90
    Dave G

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (7:36 pm)

    Jackson: Battery-only EVs are not the near future; they are likely the eventual future; barring the emergence of some unexpected technology.
    EREV and plug-ins are the near future.

    I see it just the opposite. Pure BEVs are easier to build, and are emotionally appealing initially, so they will be more popluar near term. Long term, new range extender technology will make BEVs less popular than EREVs.


  91. 91
    Dave G

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (7:43 pm)

    Raymondjram: As I posted before, EEs like me know common sense and prevention when designing high power and high voltage circuits.

    I’m an EE as well, and you’ll never convince me that regular consumers plugging in megawatt cables is safe. 90kW, OK. Maybe a little more.


  92. 92
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (7:47 pm)

    Raymondjram: There is a “conversation” between the vehicle and the charger, so if it detects any possible short when plugged in, it can shut down the charging.

    Right. If the charger detects a short initially, then it won’t charge.

    But if the changer doesn’t detect a short initially, and starts charging at 1,000,000 watts, then if some ice melts and causes a short, kaboom…


  93. 93
    Dave G

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (7:50 pm)

    Foo: Cellulosic Ethanol is at present a pipe dream. Put aside the fact that it is not clear whether producing Cellulosic Ethanol costs more energy than exists in the endproduct. There are NO PRODUCERS of consequence of Cellulosic Ethanol.

    Bloomberg: Cellulosic Biofuel to Surge in 2013 as First Plants Open
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-11/cellulosic-biofuel-to-surge-in-2013-as-first-plants-open.html
    “fuel made from crop waste, wood chips, household trash and other non-food organic sources will reach 9.6 million gallons (36 million liters) in 2013, up from less than 500,000 gallons this year, according to data compiled by the U.S. Energy Information”

    DuPont Builds Giant Cellulosic Ethanol Biorefinery in Iowa
    http://ens-newswire.com/2012/12/12/dupont-builds-giant-cellulosic-ethanol-biorefinery-in-iowa/
    “Once fully operational, the facility will produce 30 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol a year from corn stover residues, a feedstock composed of corn stalks and leaves. The stover will be collected from farms in a 30 mile radius around the new facility.”

    Biofuels Digest
    http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/
    “The world’s most widely read biofules daily”

    Cellulosic Ethanol Headquarters
    http://www.investincellulosicethanol.com/


  94. 94
    Charlie H

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Charlie H
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (7:51 pm)

    kdawg: Not sure why you are arguing price here. That was already one of my hurdles for EV’s. (along with charging time). Note today, you can get an BEV commuter for less money than the average price of a new ICE car. The main price issue is the long range EV’s.

    I wasn’t exactly arguing price. I was pointing out why lower maintenance and fuel costs don’t overcome a higher price.

    You can get a BEV commuter for less money than the average new car but the iMiev’s range is dicey, especially in the cold, and there’s a decent selection of sub $15K cars that are probably nicer cars.

    I’ve thought about an iMiev, myself, but those two factors deter me. I have very modest daily transportation requirements but I live where it gets very cold and all I need is a dinky-mobile to get back and forth. I could do better with a used Smart and it’s easier to park. It’s not like the EV miles would even mean anything in the grander scheme of things, anyway, I’d be doing 50 miles per week. Maybe.


  95. 95
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (7:55 pm)

    Cindy Carvell: I have to disagree with Dave G as well as many here. The super capacitor already being made I can look up automotive grade at Mouser Electronics. These almost instantly charge because no chemical reaction needs to take place.

    If you look at my analysis, I’ve already assumed that in the future, all issues with the battery have been solved.

    It’s not the battery, it’s the charger. In order to compete with liquid fuels, you would have to charge around 1,000,000 watts. With ice and snow dripping all over the car, I believe that’s inherently dangerous.


  96. 96
    Charlie H

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Charlie H
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (7:56 pm)

    Dave G,

    DuPont is not likely to screw around but are they doing this mostly because they see an opportunity for a low-risk harvest of some grant money?

    Natural gas is real cheap and that makes everything else real expensive in comparison. I hope DuPont is getting their process heat from the Sun. But I’ll bet they use natural gas. Reading article now… no, probably not solar. I’ll bet the co-product isn’t enough and there’s still natural gas involved.


  97. 97
    kdawg

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kdawg
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (9:15 pm)

    Dave G: With ice and snow dripping all over the car, I believe that’s inherently dangerous.

    A range of 300 miles at 3 miles per kWh = 100kWh
    to charge that in 15 minutes = 400kW
    at 600Vdc that’s 666A

    Here’s a 500A connector. (notice the phases are split into 3 plugs)

    Cable500A_zps0a49447f.jpg

    Here’s a connector from Amphenol (I deal w/them a lot) that’s rated for 400A @ 1000VDC. Using two of these, for two separate battery banks, would be 800A total. It’s rated IP67 (aka its definitely sealed from water/snow). Also, who says the plug has to be on the outside of the car. Maybe you open your door up and plug it inside the car? Or in the back hatch area somewhere?

    industrial_ePower1.jpg

    Connectors Ideal For Hybrid Electric Vehicles

    Amphenol Industrial is offering a connector series designed to eliminate bulky and space-consuming cable glands on motors, AC/DC inverters and converters and other high-amperage equipment. The IP67-rated E-Power 400A connectors are rated to 1,000VDC and feature integrated EMI shielding. The E-Power family of connectors is specifically designed to meet the needs of modern electrification programmes in high-voltage and high-amperage applications, such as power converters, hybrid electric vehicles, heavy equipment electrification, two- and three-phase motors and starter generators in the military, aerospace and industrial markets.

    Here’s the definition of IP67. A lot of on-machine electronic devices I use have to be rated IP67.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code

    IP: Ingress Protection Rating

    #6 Dust tight No ingress of dust; complete protection against contact

    #7 Immersion up to 1 m Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 m of submersion). Test duration: 30 minutes. Immersion at depth of at least 1 m measured at bottom of device, and at least 15 cm measured at top of device. (so its sitting under 3ft of water)

    Also, if you are still worried, I would put a 2-hand control module on the charger away from the plug to start it, and a safety mat around the car to prevent people from entering the charging area.


  98. 98
    haroldC

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    haroldC
     Says

     

    Feb 27th, 2013 (11:44 pm)

    Jackson,

    ¢¢¢…..alt155…..¢¢¢
    haroldC


  99. 99
    Koz

    +2

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Koz
     Says

     

    Feb 28th, 2013 (4:40 am)

    I drove more than 200 miles in a day once last year. I am not nearly alone with this driving pattern. There is not one size ICE that fits all. Why do people insist that one size BEV must fit all or one configuration EREV? We need variety to meet more needs and plenty of people don’t need to fill their battery more than once per day often enough for it to be an issue for them. Quit putting ICE ‘s in their just as the doubters should quit taking batteries out of EREV followers mouths.


  100. 100
    Mike

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Mike
     Says

     

    Feb 28th, 2013 (10:41 am)

    DonC: Yes, it’s much better to drag around 800 pounds and $35,000 of batteries! LOL And you still have range issues.

    Please decide what argument you’re making. You specifically said “a little range extender with a couple of gallons of gas”. You still need all those batteries if you actually plan on getting anywhere. “LOL”. And yes, I much prefer that approach for all the reasons I stated and because batteries will continue to get smaller/lighter/cheaper.

    I get it – you apparently drive >200 miles daily. I don’t. Most people don’t.


  101. 101
    Logical_Thinker

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Logical_Thinker
     Says

     

    Feb 28th, 2013 (12:41 pm)

    Ultra high energy density, ultra low cost Supercapacitators are the future. I hope Tesla gets the tech and patents it. I’d love to see all other car companies kneeling at Tesla’s doorstep to license it from Tesla.