Thứ Hai, 30 tháng 1, 2017

Motor Trend: Las Vegas Model S road trip. part 1

  • Sep 6, 2012
    NotTarts
    MotorTrend did another test, this time from Las Vegas, and managed to get a range of 285 miles!

    http://www.motortrend.com/features/travel/1209_tesla_model_s_las_vegas/

    This was with the A/C on for some of the trip (set to 72F [22C] on a 102F [38C] day!) and the windows down for the rest. I think they could've easily kept the A/C on the entire time if they had set the temperature to something more reasonable like 77-79F (~25-26C).
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    mnx
    The MT link doesn't work... I don't see it anywhere on the Model S section of their website either...

    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    Robert.Boston
    Link works for me. Try searching MT for "Visiting Las Vegas"
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    mnx
    wonder why it's not working here... The link is on their main page, as well as easily found via google. The url is the same, but it still won't work.

    Comes up with the MT navigation plus "This page is currently unavailable." in the centre frame...
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    clea
    I just tried it and it worked for me (from Canada using chrome and IE).
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    mnx
    I tried a different computer and it worked fine, so then I tried IE instead of Chrome on my computer, that worked fine as well... Just not sure why Chrome wouldn't load the page. very strange.

    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    VolkerP
    I am disappointed to learn that the estimated remaining range jumps wildly depending on terrain:

    When following a route via navigation system, the car should take changes in altitude and speed limits into account to refine its range prediction.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    ElSupreme

    I think he stole my line.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    CapitalistOppressor
    If I was still writing code I think that statement would have made my head explode.. :)
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    doug703
    Motor Trend: Visiting Las Vegas in the Tesla Model S

    Take away: We also know that this Model S�s performance is consistent in our admittedly small data set. Kim and Benson�s 233.7 mile journey to San Diego left roughly 4 miles of range available and consumed 78.2 kWhrs of electricity. That�s the energy equivalent of 2.32 gallons of gas or 100.7 mpg-e. Frank and Jessi traveled 211 miles to Las Vegas and had 74 miles of range leftover. They consumed 60.6 kWhr of energy, the equivalent of 1.8 gallons of gas, for an average of 118 mpg-e. My 285-mile journey left 3 miles unused and consumed 78.0 kWhrs or the equivalent of 2.31 gallons of gas. That�s an mpg-e of 123.4.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    contaygious
  • Sep 6, 2012
    RobotGrease
  • Sep 6, 2012
    Arnold Panz
    This is a cool review, and a good video attached. Amazingly, with all of their focus on maximizing range for this trip (no A/C, no daytime running lights etc.), they never thought to take off the camera mounted above the front windshield?! At the least, I was surprised they didn't mention this in either of the write-ups as a possible reduction in aerodynamics such that it decreased their range by possibly a few miles over the course of each trip.

    I'm sure someone here can say how much impact this might have had, but it has to be something more than negligible, I'm guessing?
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    Todd Burch
    I'm sure the camera was mounted for just a brief time.

    Point is, they can do even better:

    -55mph with windows rolled down may not be as good as 55mph with windows up and AC on.
    -They had sticky performance 21" tires on...all-season 19s would give better range.
    -Looks like they stopped at several places along the way to take pictures, which would hurt range.
    -They drove 65mph for much of the drive.

    I'd say these numbers are expected and make me feel pretty confident about the range estimates.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    brianman
  • Sep 6, 2012
    thelastdeadmouse
    Its been said that even aerodynamic external rear view mirrors attribute something like 5-10% of aerodynamic drag. The camera would be smaller but also less aerodynamic. I can't say for sure but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that over a full charge if it would reduce range by anywhere from 5-20 miles depending on speed and distance traveled.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    TEG
  • Sep 6, 2012
    SCW-Greg
    Nice... but I wish they would show some trips now without (extreme) sacrifice, or hyper-miling.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    jcstp
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    Lyon
    Isn't there already a Roadster (V.1) HPC on the route to Vegas? Wouldn't it make more sense to use the AC, drive normally and simply stop there and charge for a little while? I really do get the point of the experiment, but I don't like the implication that driving an EV will necessitate being uncomfortable. Also, in the video, they mention that, eventually, one will be able to recharge along the route. It seems to me that is inaccurate; one can already do so.

    In any event, I really do like the article. I like that it shows what really is possible on these long trips. I really like that I'll be able to floor it all the way to Portland with the AC on full and the radio blasting (100ish miles). ;)

    Update: I checked and there's a 70 amp charger at Barstow Station
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    Eberhard
    This trip was not real a challenge. I did more then 260miles with my Roadster from Monaco Monte Carlo to Bellinzona Switzerland. I would be a little disappointed if Model S cannot do the range as my Roadster.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    brianman
    I thought mpg-e calculations had to include "from wall" charger inefficiencies. Seems like they're mixing up terminology. Or did I misunderstand where the EPA mpg-e rating for Model S 85 came from?
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    Discoducky
    You'd be right!

    Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Depending on the purpose, total energy consumption for the vehicle may also need to include the energy used in the production of whatever energy carrier (fuel) is used for the vehicle and the energy used in filling the "tank". For example, with electrically powered vehicles, a full accounting of total energy consumption would include the efficiency factor for conversion of primary fuels into electricity (the energy of the fuel used to generate and transmit electricity) and the efficiency factor of charging the battery from the electrical plug.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    mcornwell
    274 Wh/mile is pretty good. I typically do about 225-245 Wh/mile in my wife's Volt when I'm trying to drive conservatively (about 42-45 miles per charge, the car is rated at 35 by the EPA). The Model S weighs about 25% more than the Volt, so only using about 10% more juice shows me the aerodynamic and other efficiencies the Model S has...
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    SCW-Greg
    Exactly, nobody wants to see the Model S in the slow lane, driving 52 mph, receiving the finger, and getting passed by big rigs!
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    contaygious
    Yeah I'm not a fan of these range tests. Would rather see actual real world driving range. Better publicity to show how cool the car is then to say hey you can drive to Vegas in 104 degrees cabin heat at 52 on the freeway.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    Arnold Panz
    I'll cut Motor Trend some slack. For them (and others in the auto news business), testing the range of the Model S is really important, especially to differentiate it from the Leaf, iMEV etc. The only parties that have been able to test the full range of the Model S to date are Tesla and the EPA. For them, independent confirmation of good range with a good story (LA to Vegas!) is necessary for them to do.

    I forwarded this story to a friend with an S reservation and he said "I guess Orlando is out of the question for us" and I reminded him that if there are superchargers we won't need to drive slow and can leave the A/C on and make it with ease with a 30 minute charge-up halfway through the trip. So I get the concern that it misrepresents what it's like to drive the car for real with the ability to charge periodically during long trips, but it is overall a benefit to get auto journalists to confirm great range in the S.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    scole04


    Yah or do your road trip at night. I know i do.

    Less traffic and screw the need for AC.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    Todd Burch
    There are so many ways to look at it. There really could be several MPGe ratings:

    -Total energy required, or "well to wheel" efficiency (includes refining/shipping on the gasoline side, and the electrical analog: mining/generation/transmission & charging losses). This number alone can vary drastically...are you using solar power generated atop your roof, or a dirty coal plant?

    -Cost-based: Cost for x miles of electricity vs. cost for x miles of gasoline.

    -Vehicular efficiency (thermodynamics-based): This is the miles per kWh of electricity consumed from the battery vs. miles per kWh of gasoline energy equivalent.

    There are many others...they can all convert into "MPG-like" values but they all tell a story of a particular aspect of the thermodynamics that compare the efficiency of one vehicle vs. another. The EPA uses wall-to-wheel (pump-to-tank) based MPGe. But if someone asks how efficient the Model S's drivetrain is, I'll tell them that the entire 300 mile battery pack has the equivalent of 2.5 gallons of gasoline energy equivalent.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    rolosrevenge
    To be fair, they were originally going to do a slightly shorter Vegas to LA at 65 with the AC on, to show how the trip could be made comfortably, then they decided to push it even further. I think this was a great review.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    gjunky
    The overnight lows are still to high to be comfortable. I wonder if driving with the windows down offset the use of driving with the AC on. I know he rolled them up for periods of time but opening them all up can't be good for the aerodynamics.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    WhiteKnight
    If the battery is 85 kWh and they take 78.2 kWhrs to drive 233.7 miles (around 3 miles per kWh), why does the remaining 6.8 kWh only yield an estimated 4 miles? Are there really about 20 miles left in the "tank?"
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    Todd Burch
    It could be based on the fact that the "range remaining" estimate is based on the last x miles or x minutes (not sure which)...in other words, it's a moving average. So I don't think that 4 mile estimate can be taken at face value.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    jerry33
    It's pretty easy to tell when the boundary layer delaminates because the inside of the car sounds like a helicopter as the flow gets interrupted. Opening the windows on one side of the car about 25 to 50 mm allows a fair volume of air in to cool the occupants without interrupting the air flow around the car by very much. Note that different body styles have different qualities so some cars can use this technique better than others.

    I don't know if anyone has tried this with their Model S yet.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    WhiteKnight
    Having the windows down is worse than having the A/C on.

    Will rolling down windows save fuel or not?
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    Todd Burch
    While I've loved Motor Trend's coverage of the Model S so far...and this was an entertaining piece...I don't think the video of the Model S cruising the highways at minimum legal speed, getting passed like crazy, is going to sell this car.

    I would've rather they had used the A/C, driven at 70, and stopped for a 20-30 minute charge at a level 2 charger instead. What they did was a bit silly of course...but it will leave the uninitiated with the impression that such sacrifices are necessary for even moderate road trips.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    vfx
    I drove our Roadster to Vegas earlier this year. From the edge of Ventura. I did a lot of drafting.

    I give MT a break too. I would now like Jim Motaveli (sp) to do it at 70 with the AC on. A 45 minute stop at the Tesla HPC in Barstow next to the Starbucks would be all the car and driver needs to make the trip.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    TEG
  • Sep 6, 2012
    Kevin Harney
    Why is Vegas to LA shorter the LA to Vegas ? Asks an ignorant east coaster ....
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    Fr23shjive
    Can anybody confirm this? The only time I would do long distance driving would be on a trip to Vegas. That would be awesome if there was already a HPC installed along the route.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    jerry33
    They had originally planned to end the Vegas to LA trip at a different location, which would have been shorter. At least that's what I got out of the review.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    TEG
    Browsing the web, and reading the news while driving? Egads...

    And texting, too!

    ?
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    Todd Burch
    I couldn't tell if that (the comment by the article's author--not you, TEG) was a sarcastic joke or not.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    vfx
    In Barstow
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    Kipernicus
    They were using the cup holders!
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    spatterso911
    A HA!

    Makes so much sense now...

    So, my Model S sighting on the westbound 210 Freeway was Ed Loh returning from Vegas. In Elon's car. Now I know what the funny object stuck to the windshield was, and why I blew past him going about 70 like he was standing still. Explains why I couldn't get a picture...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Anybody else notice the alcantara accents on Elon's dash? Could this be one of the Signature Model surprises??

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AO9Rku_ZNeM#t=76s
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    Norbert
    It's the one and only (known) custom feature of Elon's car. As far as I know.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    TEG
    Yeah, I rode in it at GetAmped. Was told that was a custom touch he requested. It may not be generally available.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    brianman
    The P85 on the rear is another (that Elon's and Jurv's share) custom touch. Right?
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    TEG
    Unclear... I think E's #2 was delivered without it, then it was added later. Not sure who gets the option to have that badge.
    I suppose other performance customers could try their luck and ask the factory if they will add it...
    �
  • Sep 6, 2012
    CapitalistOppressor
    Lucky :)

    The only Tesla sighting I've been graced with recently was a Roadster on the 91W on the way to Anaheim a few weeks ago.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Anyways, having watched the video earlier, I must say it was pretty hideous. They looked like fools driving the way they did and arriving with 70+ miles of charge left. Nothing about that video was helpful from an enthusiast standpoint and it painted an inaccurate picture of the car's capabilities and recommended use.
    �
  • Sep 7, 2012
    jerry33
    I put that down to pacifying their sponsors. Doesn't make it right though.
    �
  • Sep 7, 2012
    dsm363
    Why don't they take a Roadster driver or Tesla employee with them to drive and see what's possible?
    �
  • Sep 7, 2012
    Zythryn
    I think the goal is to see if the Model S is 'just like any other car'.
    The masses don't WANT a car that has to be driven differently. Many people don't want to have to think about it. Having an 'expert' driving the car defeats that purpose.

    It was/is the same thing for plug in hybrids and hybrids. As soon as people start actually using them, they start modifying their driving habits and find out it isn't that big of a deal.
    Heck, IMO the biggest advance in fuel efficiency was simply putting the data in front of the driver. Many people actually get competitive to get the most efficiency they can.

    Now that the Model S is being sold as a great car that happens to be electric, it will be shown by the media in that light.

    Frankly, I think 3 years ago they would have driven it hard, AC on full blast, and made the headline 'Tesla strands test drivers 30 miles short of finish line'.
    �
  • Sep 7, 2012
    ElSupreme
    I dread when I have to scroll past current/average MPG in my car. It says 25-32 on the window sticker and I regularly get about 24! :scared:

    I think it is my high interstate speeds and my roof rack!
    �
  • Sep 7, 2012
    spatterso911
    That is still remarkably better than 13.7 MPG :scared:

    That's my world...
    �
  • Sep 7, 2012
    contaygious
    And better than my 12 when I'm rated 20.
    �
  • Sep 7, 2012
    brianman
    If that was to any degree the goal, then the MT folks should seriously consider doing exactly the same thing at normal speeds and with normal cabin temperature control. Many of us would like to see what that number looks like. If they want to do some hypermile pedal gymnastics, with or without drafting, that's fine -- but normal speeds and normal climate control.
    �
  • Sep 7, 2012
    ljbad4life
    Can we throw in that they test the 19 inch wheels to see the difference in range? I really wish the aerodynamic wheels would have made it to production... I would really love to see real world number of all three...
    �
  • Sep 7, 2012
    brianman
    I'm fairly confident Elon would protest them changing the wheels on his wheels.
    �
  • Sep 7, 2012
    NigelM
    I can't imagine there would be any noticeable range difference between the 19" and 21" wheels.
    �
  • Sep 7, 2012
    JakeP
    I had a Tesla rep tell me today that the 21" wheels, mostly due to the performance tires, could yield up to a 5% range loss. This was the first quantification of this I had heard from Tesla, despite having asked before.
    �
  • Sep 7, 2012
    stopcrazypp
    On the return trip the guy who drove turned the air con off and kept the windows open at 55mph. Wouldn't it be more efficient to use the fans or turn the air con to a higher temp (not the 72F they like to turn it to, but something closer to 77F/25C)?
    �
  • Sep 7, 2012
    CapitalistOppressor
    Goodness knows I'd like to see real world data on that. Speculation has been that rolling down the windows is worse than just turning the A/C on to to something reasonable.
    �
  • Sep 7, 2012
    rlawson4
    I did not like this test and think it makes the car look bad. Driving while the cabin temperature reaches 104 degrees is ridiculous. I would have appreciated a test at 65 MPH with normal A/C. Let me know how the car would actual do as I would drive it.
    �
  • Sep 7, 2012
    setritt
    It does seem completely ridiculous. Most people want A/C and also, if the supercharger network comes around I find it highly doubtful that they will space them 260-300 miles apart - thus completely eliminating their usefulness
    �
  • Sep 7, 2012
    drees
    Makes sense. I had a Tesla engineer tell me that aerodynamically, the 19/21" wheels were basically the same. I know from experience that tires even in the same size and similar type can result in a substantial hit to efficiency.
    �
  • Sep 7, 2012
    ljbad4life
    I have heard anywhere from a 5-10% efficiency difference between 19-21" tires. That it has more to do with low profile tires than the actual size of the rim, but the rim size still matters. I just want real world confirmation of whether there is a difference.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2012
    Brian H
    More grab = more drag = lowered range.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2012
    jerry33
    It's there but you'd need really accurate instruments (laboratory grade) to measure the reduction in range the 21" wheels would account for. And this would almost all show up in city driving where range isn't as important. What the 21" wheels have, compared to the 19" wheels, is more mass further away from the centre of rotation so the amount of power to get them up to speed is slightly more. (Inertia equals mass times radius squared if I recall correctly).

    However, compared to the differences that tires can have, the wheel difference is hardly worth mentioning. Okay, some back of the napkin numbers:

    For ease of calculation, mass of the 19" rim component of the wheel = 1.

    19" wheel 9.5[SUP]2[/SUP] = 90

    21" wheel 1.1 * 10.5[SUP]2[/SUP] = 110 (We'll WAG the rim component of the 21" wheel to be 10% heavier because there is both more circumference and more width. Anyone who wishes can cut off the spokes of one of their 19" and 21" wheels to get an accurate weight difference.)

    Tire 13.5[SUP]2[/SUP] = 180 (both tires have the same radius)

    So the tire has between 160% for the 21" wheel to 200% for the 19" wheel of the inertia of the wheel. This assumes the tread portion of both tires weigh the same, which is unlikely. And it doesn't take into account the stickier tread compound typically found on lower profile tires. The stickiness of the tread compound plus the additional flexing of the wider tread width on the 21" tire impact highway driving more than the inertia of the wheels do.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2012
    rlawson4
    Okay Jerry, you have really passed my pay grade on this one! Needless to say you really know your stuff. Let me ask you another question. I ordered the performance but choose the 19" tires based on other conversations we had. Do you think I will suffer a significant decrease in 0-60 times on the rare occasion I floor it?
    I assumed I would lose some because of less grip but I hope it's not all lost. Thanks as always. Your knowledge on this stuff is impressive.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2012
    jerry33
    On track day? You betcha.

    In normal street use? That's kind of a how long is a piece of string question because there are so many factors including what you think is significant. There's really only one way to answer that question and that is to do a test drive. Barring that, I'd say that if those rare times when you floor it are to blow away the XXX in the next lane then maybe. If you're just trying to impress the people sitting in the car with you, there will be plenty of Telsa grins unless maybe your passenger is someone like Gilles Villeneuve.

    Another way to look at it is: The non-performance 85 kWh is 5.6 seconds. The Performance with 21" is 4.4. There's no way the different tires are going to bring the Performance down to the non-performance times because there is a big difference in motor-power between the two. Splitting the difference is 5.0 but my guess would be it will do better than that given a good road surface.

    And when the OE tires wear out, you can always buy some sticky 19" tires. I'm guessing that it won't be all that long before Yokohama or Toyo comes out with some A048s or Proxes in the 19" size for the Model S even though they don't show that size on their websites. In fact, you might give their technical departments a ring.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2012
    drees
    Continental has the OEM 21" tire (Continental ExtremeContact DW) in the 19" size. Toss those on and I'd bet you couldn't tell the difference between the two tire/wheel setups in a blind test. If anyone you might find that the 19" setup accelerates slightly better since they will have less rotational inertia.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2012
    rlawson4
    I will send you an email before I buy my first replacement tires. Thanks as always.
    �
  • Sep 11, 2012
    Blurry_Eyed
  • Sep 16, 2012
    ChrisHenryOC
    <rant>
    21st century infomercial product. With all of the time that Nissan, GM, Tesla, Toyota, Honda, professional auto racing teams, and others have put into wind tunnel testing, how is it that a product like this isn't standard on every vehicle out there? Heck, betcha Elon would have allowed the XM-Radio Shark Fin antenna if it had reduced drag, as it's similarly shaped to these magic, placebo-like bumps.

    I don't doubt they have data to back up their claims. When I switched out the tires on my 2008 Prius with Goodyear's fuel-efficient tires a couple of years ago, my mileage went up by about 10%. Of course, I was also paying A LOT more attention to my mileage and to driving more efficiently. I think I read somewhere in these forums that the most effective thing that has improved fuel efficiency in cars in recent years has been charting fuel efficiency in cars and the natural human tendency to want to compete with yourself and others.

    But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
    </rant>
    �
  • Sep 16, 2012
    jerry33
    I certainly compete with myself, and so far I've won :)

    2004 Prius MPG from the logbook. (Complete years only):
    2003-2004 -- 50.8 mpg 17,628 miles
    2005 -- 52.6 mpg 14,688 miles
    2006 -- 56.3 mpg 16,174 miles
    2007 -- 57.3 mpg 18,384 miles
    2008 -- 59.9 mpg 21,755 miles
    2009 -- 61.4 mpg 16,177 miles
    2010 -- 65.2 mpg 12,134 miles
    2011 -- 66.9 mpg 11,272 miles
    �
  • Sep 16, 2012
    ChrisHenryOC
    Wow. Those are great scores. I'll consider my ass officially kicked. I'm usually in the low-mid 40's.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2012
    gg_got_a_tesla
    I don't want to be stuck behind you in the left-most lane on a freeway, Jerry :tongue:

    Seriously, well done!
    �
  • Sep 16, 2012
    jerry33
    Not to worry. I'm not a "left lane driver" except before a left hand turn. Though on my trips to Nebraska I do get up to 80 mph and I still get 55 to 60 mpg during them. It's just knowing when to do so that's the trick. I can't wait to figure out how the Model S works.

    Thanks.
    �
  • Feb 26, 2013
    jcstp
    �
  • Feb 26, 2013
    AMPd
    Good video
    luckily they charged up instead of pulling a broder

    With all these reviews/videos in noticing most of them are reviewing the car by taking it on long trips
    All try to see how far they can get, I've never seen an ice car filled up and taken on a long trip to see how far it'll go before it hits empty
    �
  • Feb 26, 2013
    jcstp
  • Feb 26, 2013
    ElSupreme
    The long trips are because it is about the only thing that ICEs do well, and EVs do terribly. It is a HUGE win that the Tesla can even be in the conversation as far as road trips go.

    Name something else that an ICE does better than an EV?
    �
  • Feb 26, 2013
    stephenpace
    Carbon monoxide generation
    �
  • Feb 26, 2013
    brianman
    Partially drown out motorcycle audio.
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)