Why not drive a Tesla?

Thanks for all the replies. I just was floored by the acceleration. Kind of funny that there was two settings for driving modes: Sport or Ludicrous.

There's no dealership here, so our golf course was hosting the event (they had a nice lunch with waygu burgers). Our GM mentioned the crowd seemed to have a lot of "eco-greenies" (especially those who elected the veggie burger). Don't they know fossil fuel is burned in generating their charging electricity? I said, not if you've got excess solar, although that doesn't help if you're night charging?

The auto drive feature seems kind of useless now, as they told me you had to stay behind the wheel(with hands on wheel?). But eventually, it would be nice to get in, say "take me home", and the thing would do it.

I'm having a sales guy get me pricing info. Not sure what I'll do. Maybe sell more stock, hold enough in cash to cover a lease.

Did I mention the acceleration?
 
Last edited:
Texas Proud said:
My bold.....


The one problem they might have it that they have low numbers... as an example, the Concord was the safest passenger plane in history right before the one crashed.... and then it was the worst passenger plane in history... there were too few and not that many passenger miles on them... so one crash was all it took....



Edit to add.... seems Tesla did not make the list of cars that did not have a fatality the past 4 years...

These are the safest cars on the road - May. 25, 2017


The 11 that had none...

Audi Q7 SUV
Volkswagen (VLKAF) Tiguan two-wheel-drive SUV
Toyota Tacoma Double Cab long bed four-wheel-drive pickup
Mazda CX-9 two-wheel-drive SUV
Audi A6 all-wheel-drive
Jeep Cherokee all-wheel-drive SUV
BMW 535 i and is
BMW 535xi
Lexus RX 350 two-wheel-drive SUV
Lexus CT 200h
Mercedes-Benz M-class SUV (called GLE-class in its current version)
Click to expand...

Sure... Numbers are low, but not that low... They do have hundreds of thousands of cars out there. But the design lends itself to be inherently safer because of the extremely-low center of gravity (better handling, lower change of rollovers), relatively greater vehicle weight (will unfortunately perform better if colliding with lower-weight vehicles), longer front crumple zone (potentially better front crash performance), super-rigid battery structure (better occupant intrusion protection especially from side impacts). These passive safety qualities are inherent or easily enabled because the car is battery-powered all-electric. These benefits are apparent in the crash test videos and, for the most part, the crash ratings reflect this. The active safety features (not exclusive to Tesla, obviously) just adds an extra layer of safety on top of this and they provide that free on all vehicles. That's a nice move.

Even though I truly believe they are the overall safest cars on the road, I will never claim that they definitively are. That's just impossible to prove in all circumstances.

And let's not try to go to the furthest reaches of the Internet to try to find one specific example to try to disprove one general statement of mine. I'm starting to feel like I need to triple-check every word I type to ensure I don't accidentally say something that would invalidate everything else I said previously. I guess I have no choice but to pick through the details and find things to show just how ridiculous this is.

As an example: that article and list is the most ridiculous thing ever. Over the years, I've seen some weird stuff from the IIHS. Remember, the IIHS is not a public agency. They are funded by the auto insurers. I'm not saying that's a bad thing -- Just that they might have some motives that we may not understand. I wonder if you could find the actual report to see how they come up with this -- Might help to understand what it means. Because a list like this with no other information is useless.

Look at how they include "Toyota Tacoma Double Cab long bed four-wheel-drive pickup". What does that mean? Are they implying that the standard cab be less safe? Or the Mazda CX-9 two-wheel-drive SUV? Is the 4WD version less safe? Or what about the BMW 535xi? I believe the 535xi was only sold for one model year (2008). That was nearly a decade ago. And this list is supposedly saying that this really specific model had no fatalities over some four year period? I guess so. I guess you can say the same thing about the Ford Model T or a red rear-wheel-drive 40 kWh Tesla Model S with sunroof and tan leather interior.

And besides, the article states that the data they are using is from 2012-2015. At that time, the Tesla Model S has not been sold for four years yet, so it's impossible for it to appear on that list.

But on the flip side, the Tesla Roadster was first sold in 2008. I know for a fact that up to at least 2013/2014 that there were no fatalities in any Tesla (Roadster included). That means, that the Tesla Roadster should definitely be included in that list. But it's not.
 
Chuckanut said:
Most likely. I imagine that would be one of the many engineering compromises they make to get an overall design that meets the needs of driving public. At 50 mpg for a Prius and 38 mpg for a Camry, they seem to have found a good compromise, IMHO.

I can't help but think that high mpg hybrids are one of the biggest hurdles that 100% electric cars will have to overcome in the future.
Click to expand...

This. If someone wants a Tesla they should get it, but running the numbers for cost of ownership and use seems like the hybrids would win out.
 
gcgang said:
So, if cost were not an issue, why wouldn't you drive a Tesla?
Click to expand...

Sure, I would drive a Tesla if it were less expensive. But then, there are many things I would not mind having if costs were not an issue, like a 3rd and 4th home, NetJet membership, etc...

The range issue might not be a problem with me, as I would still have an ICE car. Oh wait, I drive a motorhome for long road trips anyway. Can a Tesla be flat-towed as a toad?

Well, I have been thinking about a used LEAF to tool around to make errands or go get groceries. I don't care about no stinkin' "ludicrous acceleration", being the cranky geezer that I am. A used LEAF would work for me just fine. But if I can get a Tesla for the same price, then why not?

What I am trying to say is that I do not care that much about cars to pay a large premium for fancy features.
 
Last edited:
A person looking at a Model S or X is comparing it to a high end MB, BMW, Lexus, Audi, etc.

A person looking at a Model 3 is comparing it to an entry/mid-level luxury car (BMW 3, Mercedes C-Class).

A person who just wants low cost of fuel would not likely buy a Tesla. There are clearly more cost effective alternatives.
 
Faraday said:
Two guys waiting in line at Costco gas station.., Tesla rolls by, they both look at each other and one says "oh, I'd never own one of those, you have to wait while it charges.
Click to expand...

:LOL::facepalm:
 
Ready said:
A person looking at a Model S or X is comparing it to a high end MB, BMW, Lexus, Audi, etc.

A person looking at a Model 3 is comparing it to an entry/mid-level luxury car (BMW 3, Mercedes C-Class).

A person who just wants low cost of fuel would not likely buy a Tesla. There are clearly more cost effective alternatives.
Click to expand...

Right, but we got a quite detailed post comparing an ICE Honda Pilot vs a Tesla, and the poster seemed to be justifying/defending the Tesla by using cost of long-term ownership in his analysis and not the luxury components. In that case, why not compare it to a hybrid? I do think someone who wants a Tesla should get a Tesla, as I said.
 
If you go to the Costco in Fountain Valley, they have 8 Tesla charging stations. Every time I go I see everyone in use and several Tesla drivers waiting around for a station to open up. So I guess the lines for the Tesla cars are even longer than the lines for Costco gas. So you can pick your poison, but either way you're going to wait around.

At least with the Tesla you can just choose to charge at home and skip the lines.
 
Ready said:
If you go to the Costco in Fountain Valley, they have 8 Tesla charging stations. Every time I go I see everyone in use and several Tesla drivers waiting around for a station to open up. So I guess the lines for the Tesla cars are even longer than the lines for Costco gas. So you can pick your poison, but either way you're going to wait around.

At least with the Tesla you can just choose to charge at home and skip the lines.
Click to expand...

You can also choose to get gas elsewhere at a slightly higher cost, right? Though maybe pumps are full everywhere in CA, I don't know. As I said earlier, California is a lot more suited for a Tesla than just about everywhere else.
 
Sunset said:
I like the idea of having one, went to the showroom to see them.

I notice they do this included feature, but not activated for a number of features including larger battery capacity.

Namely you drive around with a big battery , but are limited to a percentage of it, unless you pay some thousands more $$$$.

Quite a marketing scheme. Means you cart around the heavier than needed battery unless you pay up.

Also means a software glitch or hack and you could find yourself without many of the features you paid for when purchasing the vehicle.
Click to expand...

Not a new scheme IBM and CDC back in the day had machines where you paid a lot to get a hidden switch flipped to improve performance.
 
ken830 said:
Sure... Numbers are low, but not that low... They do have hundreds of thousands of cars out there. But the design lends itself to be inherently safer because of the extremely-low center of gravity (better handling, lower change of rollovers), relatively greater vehicle weight (will unfortunately perform better if colliding with lower-weight vehicles), longer front crumple zone (potentially better front crash performance), super-rigid battery structure (better occupant intrusion protection especially from side impacts). These passive safety qualities are inherent or easily enabled because the car is battery-powered all-electric. These benefits are apparent in the crash test videos and, for the most part, the crash ratings reflect this. The active safety features (not exclusive to Tesla, obviously) just adds an extra layer of safety on top of this and they provide that free on all vehicles. That's a nice move.

Even though I truly believe they are the overall safest cars on the road, I will never claim that they definitively are. That's just impossible to prove in all circumstances.

And let's not try to go to the furthest reaches of the Internet to try to find one specific example to try to disprove one general statement of mine. I'm starting to feel like I need to triple-check every word I type to ensure I don't accidentally say something that would invalidate everything else I said previously. I guess I have no choice but to pick through the details and find things to show just how ridiculous this is.

As an example: that article and list is the most ridiculous thing ever. Over the years, I've seen some weird stuff from the IIHS. Remember, the IIHS is not a public agency. They are funded by the auto insurers. I'm not saying that's a bad thing -- Just that they might have some motives that we may not understand. I wonder if you could find the actual report to see how they come up with this -- Might help to understand what it means. Because a list like this with no other information is useless.

Look at how they include "Toyota Tacoma Double Cab long bed four-wheel-drive pickup". What does that mean? Are they implying that the standard cab be less safe? Or the Mazda CX-9 two-wheel-drive SUV? Is the 4WD version less safe? Or what about the BMW 535xi? I believe the 535xi was only sold for one model year (2008). That was nearly a decade ago. And this list is supposedly saying that this really specific model had no fatalities over some four year period? I guess so. I guess you can say the same thing about the Ford Model T or a red rear-wheel-drive 40 kWh Tesla Model S with sunroof and tan leather interior.

And besides, the article states that the data they are using is from 2012-2015. At that time, the Tesla Model S has not been sold for four years yet, so it's impossible for it to appear on that list.

But on the flip side, the Tesla Roadster was first sold in 2008. I know for a fact that up to at least 2013/2014 that there were no fatalities in any Tesla (Roadster included). That means, that the Tesla Roadster should definitely be included in that list. But it's not.
Click to expand...


Not trying to make you feel like what you say has to be screened three times before you say it... and I would believe they are trying to make it a safer car... you just said it and it got me thinking... what do the stats say...

The problem with the list provided is most of these are low volume cars (like the Tesla) and a low volume car can look very 'safe' until one or a few people are killed... then they look bad... kinda like I mentioned the Concord...

The true numbers though would be the crash testing... it is an independent org that just does measurements... under that basis it is the best...

"Of all vehicles tested, including every major make and model approved for sale in the United States, the Model S set a new record for the lowest likelihood of injury to occupants," Tesla said in its statement.
​

Another article said this...
As crash-test boasts go, Tesla is claiming a good one: The roof of its Model S electric sedan is apparently so strong that it broke a testing machine during its independent validation of its government crash-test scores.
​
 
One of the things that I would love about an electric (do not know if a hybrid can do this) is to turn on the AC prior to me getting to the car....


It is HOT here most of the year... there are a good number of trips that I take that the AC is just starting to cool the car when the trip is ending... and the car gets so hot so fast that cool air is long gone before I come back...


I wonder how much energy is used to keep one cool...
 
Can't you do this with a remote starter in any car?
 
RunningBum said:
Can't you do this with a remote starter in any car?
Click to expand...

Remote start is far more complicated with a manual transmission, as you have to defeat the clutch pedal interlock and have it determine the car is in neutral.
 
Gumby said:
Remote start is far more complicated with a manual transmission, as you have to defeat the clutch pedal interlock and have it determine the car is in neutral.
Click to expand...

I thought Texas Proud has a Pilot (at least that's what was being compared earlier), which is automatic only, as are the vast majority of cars sold in this country.
 
My new Accord came equipped with remote start (and a lot of self-driving features) and runs the climate controls the way they were running when the car was turned off. Easy peazy. It uses regular gas though, so not as sexy as a hybrid or an electric :LOL:
 
Last edited:
RunningBum said:
I thought Texas Proud has a Pilot (at least that's what was being compared earlier), which is automatic only, as are the vast majority of cars sold in this country.
Click to expand...

Then he won't have that problem.

With the sole exception of my current Honda Civic Hybrid, which was only available with a constant variable transmission, I have never owned anything but a manual transmission. That colors my views on most motor vehicle questions. I do expect that after I retire and get rid of the hybrid in two years, I'll go back to another manual. Right now, I'm thinking of a restored 1975 Toyota FJ40.
 
Last edited:
Yea you can turn it on with your cell phone. It also will not let a dog be overheated. The air comes on if it gets overly hot.

Since there is no gas motor. The air being on takes incredibly low power. About a mile of range per hour. ( not exactly sure of the exact number).

For this reason some tesla motors camp in their cars. There is a camper mode Seats fold down
 
tim59 said:
... Since there is no gas motor. The air being on takes incredibly low power. ...
Click to expand...

EDIT: Ahhh, I think you were talking about having the AC on while you were away from the car - OK, that makes sense, the engine isn't idling just to power the A/C. But the rest holds trues, so I'll leave it...(/edit]

I don't understand how that could be. The A/C compressor requires the same amount of power to drive it, regardless the source of that power (ICE, electric motor, hamsters, small nuclear reactor). The %-wise hit on efficiency would be about the same, no?

Or maybe worse for a Tesla? The average range in an EV is improved by the fact that the electric drive motor is just OFF when you are stopped, while most gas engines keep idling. So if I have the A/C on when stopped in an ICE, it's pulling a small incremental % of extra draw on my gas engine. But for an EV, it's actually a very high % of extra, as the drive motor is fully OFF. Yes, that's wasted power in the ICE, but it factors into the averages.

And the opposite for driving in a cold climate. The ICE gets plenty of heat that would be wasted through the radiator. The heat is essentially 'free', just a little power for the blower motor. But an EV needs to run resistance heaters - that sucks a lot of power.

-ERD50
 
Last edited:
The tesla uses a lot of range for heat Very very little for air. It has s very small air conditioner with very small motor. I guess like a window air conditioner

When u stop an electric. Absolutely no electric is used. Unless the heat air or lights are on.

Just simple physics

Being an engineering manager, if yi asked my engineers if you started with a blank sheet of paper, what makes more sense

Option 1
Internal combustion engine car

You take some highly explicable fluid, inject it in s small chamber and put s spark in it to create an explosion

Then that drives a shaft around but you need to exhaust the highly poisonous gas through an exhaust, so you add a muffler for noise and a catalitic converter for pollution

You need an electric motor to get this large gas motor running

You need a battery to run the electric motor and a alternator to charge the battery

You need a complex transmission system because this internal combustion engine only has power in a very narrow rpm range. This needs fluid a a torque converter.

The gas motor gets so hot due to its inefficiencies that it needs antifreeze s radiator and pump to cool it down.

Not to mention energy wasting friction brakes. That heat up excessively. N

I can go on but I'm exhausted just thinking about it

Option 2
A electric motor being driven by s large battery. The regenetive brakes recharge the motor when slowing down

No transmission

No engine oil

Not much of anything.

You have a front truck since there is no big gas motor. Only a small electric one

Which makes more sense
 
An EV typically uses 300Wh per mile.

So, if an EV AC uses one mile of range for one hour of running the AC, then it means the compressor is using 300W.

The above is awfully low, as the smallest window AC typically takes 800W. And a car AC is usually equivalent to a 2-ton home AC, which sucks up 3KW.

Something is missing. Perhaps the low energy usage applies to some place with a mild temperature like California, not a place like Phoenix. That allows the compressor to cycle on/off, with off being more frequently than on. In Phoenix, that compressor would have to run nearly non-stop.
 
Last edited:
Texas Proud said:
Except that the time needed to charge is pretty long... you are only getting 110 V charging...

Plus, returning the tank gets you nothing back...
Click to expand...

It depends on the generator, some provide 240 volts as well. Or you could use a gasoline powered generator, and just get some gas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Midpack
Input From Tesla Owners?
11 12 13
Replies
320
Views
22K
joesxm3
J
H
Accident because the throttle stuck!
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
Just_Steve
Just_Steve
R
My almost weekend in the poconos
Replies
19
Views
2K
splitwdw
S
O
Wet carpet issue '06 Highlander - has anyone had this?
2
Replies
35
Views
15K
Mr._Graybeard
Mr._Graybeard
G
Buckle Up and Enjoy the FIRE Journey
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
gl.hf
G

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom