Tesla’s secret team to suppress thousands of driving range complaints
reuters.com
From the article: "About a decade ago, Tesla rigged the dashboard readouts in its electric cars to provide “rosy” projections of how far owners can drive before needing to recharge, a source told Reuters. The automaker last year became so inundated with driving-range complaints that it created a special team to cancel owners’ service appointments."
And no one was ever surprised, except for people stupid enough to buy anything from Muskmelon in the first place.
Musk is a great salesman and a terrible engineer.
That's honestly an insult to terrible engineers.
Musk is barely on par with a 9-year-old with crayons and construction paper.
I can't be the only one who read this and wondered what problems Teslas were causing to golf courses.
why? I don't get it.
In golf you start a long way from the hole, so when you first start a hole you're probably not trying to make it exactly, you're just trying to get the ball to go a long way to get near the hole. That's known as a drive. A driving range is a place to practice doing that.
Yep
LOL Not me
Third Year Letterman was right. These things are just imported golf carts.
My Tesla never ever got close to the advertised range. Usually 200 miles a charge. I went back to an ICE.
If you have no life a PHEV is the best of both worlds. I went all of COVID without ever getting gas because I was able to just use the battery. And PHEVs have been increasing in range too. I got mine in 2019 and it only has 26 miles range, but the RAV4 prime gets 42 now. Maybe there is even something better, haven't really been paying attention cause I don't need a new car.
Nah. The world’s burning; going back to build more fires ain’t the way.
(Edited as I no can grammar)
Unfortunately EVs aren’t in a place where they can be used by everyone. I owned a Model 3 LR and never got anywhere near the range it claimed. It was constantly recalculating my next stop to charge.
On long drives the range is a real problem. A 9 hour drive turned into 12 because I had to stop every 2 hours to charge for 20 minutes. I actually had to turn around go backwards an hour because it decided I couldn’t make it to the next charger. This wasn’t during extreme cold or heat.. it was beautiful outside I was doing the speed limit without the AC on.
The range issues plus the dozens of phantom braking incidents on that trip caused me to trade it in for an ICE car as soon as I got back home. EVs are great for around town daily driving, but if you ever take long trips they are not ready yet. I want to own an EV and will certainly have one as my next car, but today is not that day.
I would agree that it's infrastructure that is not in a place where EVs make sense for everyone. The US is firmly behind in the race on this point, likely hampered by a battle of plug formats between CCS and Tesla. I've a 58kWh (useable) VW ID.3 hatchback - perfect for Europe or just 2 people, which we are. Had it for 2.5 years now, and the difference in charging infrastructure has changed radically. In March of 2021, driving from Amsterdam to Frankfurt or Paris, I did have to plan charge stops - but now, I don't even think about it. Everything's CCS, available nearly everywhere on the highway or in smaller towns (at least 50kW charging).
Just did a trip to the midlands to see my brother a few weeks ago (another ID.3 owner) and he's got a bank of CCS Tesla chargers next to his Pizza Hut and an Ionity not far from there. On the trip I had choices between FastNed, Ionity and Tesla...never thought if I'd make it, only if I could possibly go farther before charging.
Yeah, that's a Tesla complaint I hear a lot. Don't have that particular issue in the ID, although if the mapping database isn't updated the car can slow down where it expects to have a exit lane or roadworks, but the swarm filtering that VW employs usually filters those exits out after a few weeks. Complete braking though? That's scary.
In the US, people tend to drive a lot further than in Europe.
Every year, I make a few trips of hundreds of miles. My sister lives ~200 miles away (~320km) with an average highway speed of 70mph (112kph), and probably drive ~80mph most of the way (~125kph). In a gas/hybrid, I get there without having to stop and it takes 2.5-3hr. My parents live ~850 miles (~1350km) away, and my brother lives ~650 miles (~840km) away, and I try to visit one of them every year. We could fly, but I have three kids so we'd need to rent on the other side, which would be annoying and expensive.
Most of the time we drive <100 miles (160km) in a given day. Work is ~25 miles (40km) each way, and all of our shopping is within 5 miles from our house.
The problem is charging. My company doesn't have charging, so an older Leaf won't work for a commuter (there are stations nearby, but I'm not making a 20-30 min stop on my way home). I don't want to spend a ton on a commuter, so that's out (EVs with enough range are $20k+). Most of the space between my house and the rest of my family is empty, so even gas stations are few and far between (often 30-50 miles [50-80km] between stations, and those are towns with <1k people), and the charging stations that exist are often broken or slow charging only. So we can't use an EV for a family car.
If my company gets EV charging (they're talking about it), I can replace my commuter (hybrid getting >45mpg [~5.2 Liters/100km]). But for a family car, it's going to run on gas until I can get >400 miles (640km) range, which would mean I could visit my parents or brother with 1-2 recharges, and my sister without a recharge. The current 200-250 miles (320-510km) range just isn't going to work because I'd probably need to recharge even for a simple trip to my sister's house.
I want an EV, but in the US, it only seems to work if you don't need to do big road trips. Our rail infrastructure sucks (in the West where I live), flying is a huge violation of privacy (and super inconvenient), local transit (buses, subways) sucks in most areas, and cycling infrastructure doesn't exist in most metros. If I lived slightly closer to work, a <100 mile (160km) range would work, but I'm worried about commuting in the winter (consistently <0C weather, so apparently range gets halved). Once I can get an EV to replace my commuter for <$10k, I'll do it.
As an American, I understand and appreciate this - which is why I pointed out the difference between the previous comment's generalisation of EV inefficiencies and made the point about infrastructure being the key issue.
What holds for the US is not universally applicable. This is the world wide web, after all. ;)
Back 5-7 years ago, the company FastNed got the Dutch government to allow for charging stations every 50km along our highways (no tolls, btw - we pay enough in taxes). They had to go to court and break the stranglehold of oil companies to allow for FastNet charging at the same rest stop...and it worked. FastNed is everywhere, making EV ownership easier, and expanding into in Belgium, France, Germany and the UK. They also work with the Elli charging service as a partner, and that lets you charge nearly everywhere in the Continent. Equal access is the name of the game - share the wealth. Even Tesla had to make sure all connectors in Europe had the same plug and that (along with access to government subsidies) helped open up their networks here.
Smaller networks that corral charging points for themselves don't survive as well. It's possible that in Europe the networks are naturally smaller and so becoming something of a co-operative in a larger network makes sense. Networking together in the US could help resolve that, but now with NACS the equation has been reset again.
Your argument on range only shows further that infrastructure is the key. You need electricity run pump gas; there should be fast chargers everywhere there are gas stations. Then you wouldn't need to go 600km (I know I can't go farther than 2-3 hours without needing a break, and that's about the range (~400km) of my 58kWh ID.3).
Filling up gas takes ~5 min, recharging an EV takes 20-30, if you have a proper fast charger. So even if every gas station had a fast charger, it would still be inconvenient.
When I drive long distances, I usually only stop for gas. So if an EV required more frequent stops, it's going to add a lot of time to the trip. My gas cars get about 400 miles per tank, so that's what I expect from an EV for highway range.
Current EVs have too much range for a commuter (i.e. cost too much), and not enough range for road trips, so they're not there yet for me. Give me something like a Bolt for <$20k with ~150 miles of range and I'll probably buy it. I don't need self-driving features, fast acceleration, or a fancy infotainment system, as long as it has a heater (not heated seats), A/C, and a way to play my audiobooks (headphone jack works), it'll meet my needs. I got my current commuter (used Prius) for ~$10k w/ <60k miles, so that's what it's competing with.
We'll get there eventually, and until then, I'll be driving my hybrid.
Unless you have it plugged in at home or work, then every time you get into the car it's got full range. If you're saying you want to drive 400+ miles without a break, then I wonder about how safely you drive. Certainly you're not suggesting driving MORE than 400 miles, tank after tank, without a break...that's just silly and dangerous. My range estimates of 2.5-3 hours is about how long I can drive safely without needing a break, not the machine. Otherwise it's just comparing useless numbers (but that's how we were programmed for decades to buy cars anyway, right?) But also you're ignoring any environmental impact of driving on gas and comparing new EVs with a $10k used Prius. So what are we even talking about?
Yes, about 1-2x/year, I'll drive 600-900 miles in a day. Usually I'll stop only for gas and to pick up some fast food, and keep going and do it all in one day.
I've done this almost every year for almost 20 years now and have never had an issue. I've never had an accident, and I was only pulled over once for expired tags (got a warning). Sometimes we'll switch off driving (usually I'll just drive the whole way though), but we don't stop for more than 10-15 min at a time.
Here's a trip I did last year:
As a kid, we used to drive between my parents' current house and where I now live (to grandparents house), and I drove most of the way as soon as I could drive because I got car sick otherwise.
We also occasionally drive to visit in-laws, which is about 600-700 miles, and again, we do that with only stopping for gas (we usually bring lunch).
Usually I'll drive about 3-4 hours at a time, sometimes a little longer. I just throw on an audiobook and go for it, or sometimes my spouse and I just talk.
It's more complicated than just my own emissions. Here are some of the variables at play:
According to this article the breakeven point where an EV would start being more eco-friendly than an ICE car is 13.5-78.5k miles, so for my area it's probably ~50k miles. My Prius gets 45-50mpg, so I guess that number would be a bit higher (maybe 75k miles?).
And then beyond just emissions, there's also the issue that EVs use a lot of conflict materials. My Prius also has a battery, so it's a little more complex, but it's a much smaller battery than in an EV.
So it's a complex set of issues that it's hard for me to say definitively that upgrading my older cars (each with well over 100k miles) is the better option. What I can say is that upgrading our family car (minivan that gets crappy mpg) to an EV would require a significant change in lifestyle. We like to go on road trips to areas with poor EV charging, so we'd have to compromise on that or rent when we go. I could upgrade my commuter, but that would be quite costly and it's probably not that much better than my current car since I already get great fuel economy, so I'd rather wait and see.
So my plan is:
If I bought two EVs (and yes, we need two cars), we'd need to rent an ICE for those road trips, and that sucks. If there was a decent selection of high range EVs, or the charging network were significantly better, maybe an EV would make sense. But it currently doesn't.
Correct, and with better batteries or cheaper electricity, we can move forward. The current state of EVs is not useful for all people. Personally, I'm 5 years away from never needing a car again. In the meantime, I must commute.
Again, nothing is useful to ALL people. The EV is far less polluting than the car, easier to drive, easier and cheaper to live with over time...but it doesn't mean you go back to burning dinosaur juice (and all the pollution you need to create and ship it locally) as a solution for everyone.
Yup.
I need a cheap EV (<$10k) with >100 miles (160km) range to handle a 25mi (40km) commute year round (we're consistently below freezing in the winter), and a long range family vehicle (minivan or SUV) that can go >400mi (640km) in the summer (100F, or ~38C, outside temp).
Current offerings either have too little range (e.g. older Leafs), cost too much and have excessive range (Bolt, Model 3, etc), or can't fit my family (3 kids; carseat + booster) and don't quite have enough range (need a replacement for our minivan).
The proper solution is a mix of better mass transit (so I wouldn't need a commuter at all) and better battery tech. Even if charging stations were plentiful (they're not), I don't want to charge 3-4 times on one trip (e.g. visiting my parents is 850 miles, my brother is 650 miles, and we do one of those almost every year; both have crazy steep mountain passes at highway speeds).
In 5-10 years, I won't need a commuter. In 101-15, I won't need the family car. But for now, EVs are either too expensive or too inconvenient, or both.
Lithium mining is very bad for the planet. ICEs are bad, but battery EVs are also horrible.
The solution is trains
For most people, including most city dwellers, trains are indeed the correct solution.
US rural settlements were built on train lines before cars destroyed that.
For most long range travel, trains are the solution.
And bikes or PEVs for short range travel.
PEVs are kind of a trap though.
ICE cars are not just problematic because of their emissions, they do much worse things with their infrastructure requirements. Roads and parking that can support everyone driving their car alone everywhere results in sprawl. That makes everyone not in a car have to get in a car as well, and also increases infrastructure costs for other services, since they have to service a much larger area.
Cars have their place, but in an ideal world, a regular family regardless of where they live shouldn't need one. It's not a personal mobility solution. Taxies and stuff make sense, everyone sitting in their own car doesn't.
And this is not even counting that car accidents are a leading cause of fatalities because we give a licence to everyone with a pulse.
PEVs (personal electric vehicles) aren't cars. They're ebikes and escooters and EUCs and things like that. Things you can carry up a flight of stairs or onto a train. They are most at home in bicycle infrastructure.
I stand corrected.
While I was living in a city with an expansive but terrible quality public transit system, I owned a foldable electric bike. I used it to commute, I kept it under my office desk and charged it off the office mains while working. It had like 30 kilometres of range, which I used like 12 of, so I even had some distance to play with and visit a friend after work.
If it was raining, I could get on the bus with it. It was cool as hell.
I moved since, now I commute by tram.
Exactly.
I have two sets of tracks in my city, one that's used as a commuter rail, and the other which is currently unused but connects to a light rail network (about 10 miles away). That unused rail connects about 500k people, and eventually connects to a commuter rail in two places (one about 15 miles south w/ a university, another about 20 miles north w/ a hospital), and goes through a blue collar job areas, residential areas, and white collar job areas, with downtown areas for shopping shopping along the way. The existing rail goes by a major league stadium, shopping district, and later a hospital, with connections to other lines.
The commuter rail takes ~2 hours to get to my office because of awkward transfers. If they moved a bus line to that station, my commute would drop to ~1hr. Or if they extended the light rail on existing tracks, my commute would be ~1hr and I would use it for shopping and recreation as well.
But because they don't do either, I drive ~30 min to get to work. I would take the train if it was only 1hr.
Instead of building out along this existing rail, they built a new light rail line that only connects one hipster community (maybe 100k people) that cost the same more or as extending the light rail to my area. I just don't understand the priorities I guess.
What happens to lithium after it's mined? What happens to oil after it's mined?
There's no comparing how much worse ICEs are compared to EVs.
The problem is no what happens to lithium afterwards. The problem is what the environmental cost of getting the lithium out of the earth.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/14/electric-cost-lithium-mining-decarbonasation-salt-flats-chile
But once it's out, it's out. It can then be recycled and reused "forever".
You extract oil once and burn it once; then that carbon is stuck in the atmosphere "forever". Now you have to extract more oil and do it all over again.
That's the big difference, EVs don't consume lithium; they borrow it.
That's not how recycling works.
Most recycling today is PR anyway. Recycled stuff gets dumped into some poor third world country.
lithium and cobalt are highly recyclable. The problem is not recycling them the problem is getting all the recyclable batteries into the circular manufacturing process.
There's at least one company recycling EV batteries already, and that's even with the small amount of end-of-life batteries out there (most are still on the road): https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/03/heres-what-redwood-learned-in-its-first-year-of-ev-battery-recycling/
That's definitely the case for low/zero value materials like plastics. But the materials in EV batteries are way too valuable to just throw away.
Good for you. EVs have a place in most households for quick trips and short errands. But that’s it. They have a huge set of issues that the anti ICE car brigade don’t wish to discuss. Face it, batteries are not a viable way to power the vehicles we all rely on and enjoy driving. Maybe as a second vehicle, yes but forget some big takeover. It’s so stupid.
Elon pulling numbers (which happen to be what the markets want) out of thin site is nothing new. Delivery time of cyber truck? Price points?
He, like jobs before him, has morphed from a brilliant engineer to ruthless marketer. And like jobs before him justifies it versus his internal stunted moral compass
Appreciate him for fostering the electric car economy, admire his work ethic (space x), but hate the guy
Except he never was a brilliant engineer, he was fired for engineering incompetence at one point, and he's been lying about having an engineering degree.
Yup. He knows enough for an interview with someone who knows even less, but that's about it. Like Steve Jobs, he's a salesman.
Both electric cars and spacex are government subsidized industries. He's not competing on the free market. Elon excels at getting the government to make his business for him.
Those subsidies are exclusively available only to Elon's companies?
Come on, he's a massive douche; but Tesla/SpaceX are in the same market as all their competitors. They're not special, they just chose to do things others weren't. Why didn't GM build BEVs sooner to suck up all those subsidies? Why didn't ULA land their boosters to reduce launch costs and secure more launch contacts and grants?
All I am saying is that he built Tesla and SpaceX with government (taxpayer) money.
And that's a bad thing? Isn't the entire purpose of that government money to spur development? Seems like it is working as intended then?
There's no shortage of reasons to hate Elon, but using government subsidies for their intended purpose seems like a strange one.
Yes it's bad. Competing for market share should be balanced and free of government intervention. How does a company (small or large) hope to compete against a company that is being subsidised.
Tesla can then undercut their competitors as they don't need to make a profit. They're subsidiesed.
Then the government has also imposed regulations for car manufacturers, that if they don't sell enough EVs in the year, they have to pay a penalty by buying carbon credits.
Well Tesla sells those carbon credits. So they can undercut their competition, entice consumers with lower prices and recoup the losses through subsidies and selling these credits. All thanks to government intervention.
Basically screwing competition and screwing you. As these have knock on effects.
Those other companies can qualify for the same subsidies. Sometimes it's a first mover advantage (subsidies change over time), and sometimes it's not. But AFAIK, Tesla and SpaceX don't get any subsidies that other companies couldn't qualify for. Maybe there are some that foreign companies can't get, but that's not unique to the US (see AirBus vs Boeing).
That said, I'm generally against subsidies. For example, I think the EV subsidies have essentially just changed into additional profit margin. Look at what happened to Tesla Model Y prices when subsidies changed, it basically dropped by the amount of the subsidy reduction. If we removed EV rebates today, I think car companies would drop prices by about that much, which means those rebates are essentially pure profit. I don't think that's the case for SpaceX though, but I don't know enough about that industry to know for sure.
Thanks for saying what I was trying to say.
I would probably say that was their purpose from the beginning. Companies aren't going to do something unless there is profit to be made. The subsidies exist to create that profit.
Now you could say that manufacturers are charging more and the customers are paying more because they know part of the cost will be reimbursed with the subsidies. But that doesn't seem sustainable for long, because all it take is one manufacturer to start dropping prices to attract customers. Then everyone would drop prices to match. We weren't really seeing that previously because everything was supply constrained. But now we seem to be seeing that happen with Tesla at least, they've been dropping prices in the USA recently.
Why would they? The only reason Tesla dropped prices is because the government capped the subsidy based on sale price, so Tesla dropped just enough to qualify for the subsidy.
We shouldn't be subsidizing these at all for precisely the reason you stated: we're largely supply constrained. The EVs that don't sell well are super unattractive (e.g. Chevy EVs are priced right but have had a ton of recalls, Nissan Leafs didn't have nearly enough range, etc).
What we should be doing instead is jacking up the cost of fossil fuels based on CO2 load, and do that for imported goods as well (estimate a CO2 load for all products and tax accordingly). It would have a similar effect of making EVs more attractive, but it would hit consumers directly instead of indirectly through an unrelated tax burden. I propose that these tax revenues be paid back to the population in the form of a "stimulus" check with no restrictions as a form of reparation for producing CO2 (or maybe we use it to fix Social Security in the short term). As people move to greener products, the "stimulus" would naturally go down.
But no, we did it in the least productive way possible. Instead of discouraging use of fossil fuels, we're rewarding companies for increasing profit margins.
Totally agree but they would have been subsidized for anyone. It was Elon who did it
Reminder: I really hate him
But people saying that anyone could have done what he did IF they were born with money or IF government subsidies could somehow apply to them too. Plenty of born rich people out there who didn’t.
He’s a smart guy. Emotionally a child, sociopath and narcissist. But he actually deserves some credit.
Yup, he's a smart salesperson and businessman, and he knows how to find good engineers. And that has worked out well for him. He had the means and was in the right place at the right time with the right ideas.