|
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 07:26 PM EST |
Musk's blog post, based on log data in the car, seems pretty damning, but this
article in The Atlantic analyzes the data (showing the graphs and charts) and
comes up with different, even more convincing, conclusions:
Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back
Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 11:30 PM EST |
Surely a high tech company like Tesla would have done sufficient
low temperature testing? But when their CTO fudges with
"cold weather inflicts about a 10 percent range penalty"
does that mean he doesn't know how much it drops? 5%? 20%?
I remember back in the 1950s being bemused hearing ads on
the radio, I was in the warm South Pacific, the ads came from Colorado,
for anti-freeze for adding to car batteries. In 1970 in Antarctica
I had the dubious pleasure of demonstrating that field radio
batteries good for operating to -10ºC and storage to -40ºC
had a steep voltage knee starting at -12º.
My money says Tesla have some more cool room testing to do.
Oh, and while they're in there they should check their data
sensors' low temperature performance too.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: albert on Friday, February 15 2013 @ 05:34 PM EST |
'To be perfectly honest with you', I thought the Tesla would be a playtoy for
the rich. I admire Elons chutzpah. While 'we' have made much progress in
electrifying automobiles, the engineering problems are complex, but not
unsolvable. Progress needs to be made beyond trading auto emissions for power
plant emissions.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|