The Tesla Thread

[Amp34]

The mileage is massively different and not in a similar league, you need to be blind not to see this. It makes a collasal difference. How can you say it doesn't. 220miles bring significant range and flexibility, and you can easily drive for over two hours and choose recharge locations that ft the trip. The same can not be said for 125 miles.
As well as the range for weekend trips it also means you don't have to use near 100% of the battery regularly, which prolongs the life.same can not be said for a 125mile range for a bigger group of people.

Well yes. It's fairly obvious one number is bigger than the other. That's not the point at all. The point is how much benefit does someone get out of that increased range.

I'm arguing that 220 miles is just not enough to make a significant difference to the 125 mile range of the Golf, whereas the 310 mile range of the extended range version, being much closer to the range of the average hydrocarbon car, would make a difference.

You claimed I couldn't read earlier, yet you've ignored the actual argument I was making for headline figures.

As I have said already, in my case especially the 220 mile range wouldn't give me any benefit over the 125 mile range, whereas the 310 mile range would. I'd wager a lot of others will think/realise the same.

While looking into this in more detail, and especially with differences in weather and how they affect range it becomes even more of an issue.

Temperature and weather do affect the range quite significantly.

https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/what-difference-does-cold-weather-make-battery-range

Now granted the guy in the link on that forum may have had a lead foot but it gives a reasonable indication of the issues you can face in cold and wet weather. There are plenty of other examples out there too giving broadly similar indications (if not numbers).

It's actually quite interesting reading about cold weather preparation for the Teslas. A heated garage seems to be quite important for winter to get anything like a decent range, especially when you include the fact the batteries won't charge when they are below freezing. Make sure you charge up as soon as you get somewhere if you're staying overnight in winter and the car is outside, otherwise you may have charging issues. Not the biggest problems but something to consider anyway.

They are totally different class which ever aspect you look at it, you might as well compare it to a lead as that's similar range to the golf.

So the debatable range issue? What else.

It's also not just supercharging and the massive difference in range, Al though those two on there own mean it's a far more capable car. You still missing the point even if you don't pay for Ap/SD the hardware is still on all Teslas and you can buy software unlock in the future. This is another huge selling point, the same can't be said for any other car out there.

So the argument there is that it has AP, or more precisely the AP tech if you decide to unlock it in future. So it's back to the AP argument again, which is what I've been saying all along.

 

[Glaucus]

Your mileage argument is so utterly flawed.
I claimed you couldn't read because you literally quoted me and then said the opposite despite you actually quoting it, if that's not lacking the ability to read I don't know what is.
I have addressed 125m, it is not good for long range where 220 miles is, you totally ignore this. it is also pushing it for those day use when you do more than commuting, something else you ignore.

And no it's about everything, you are the one consistently trying to narrow it down to a single Hung, it's not. Its everything. Mileage, superchargers, ap/SD, price per mile range etc it's the complete package. That makes your suggestion that it's the same as a gold utterly laughable. Just the mileage on its own blows it out the water.

 

[Jonnycoupe]

I don't know why you are arguing so profusely about a car we won't see for 18months. Leaf will do the cheap car end well and then I-Pace will push premium along with the Merc EQ. The tesla 3 in U.K. is going to need to be really keenly priced.

 

[Dav4]

Does Glaucus work for Tesla or something? He seems to have a massive hard on for them and won't have a bad word spoken about anything to do with them.

 

[Glaucus]

Does Glaucus work for Tesla or something? He seems to have a massive hard on for them and won't have a bad word spoken about anything to do with them.

Lol, after calling their service plan an utter rip off.
It's only because you and others ignore what I actually say like amp did, and make it up in your mind.
But I do think they are a fantastic company and showing the future. Its just a shame other car companies are dragging their heels and if they drag to much longer they could be surpassed like Nokia was.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Does Glaucus work for Tesla or something? He seems to have a massive hard on for them and won't have a bad word spoken about anything to do with them.

No it's just a lot of posts in this thread are ill informed, just post utter rubbish or take all of their motoring opinion from Clarkson.

Anyone that can't see that a 120 Mile range Golf that can only re-charge at 40KW isn't any better than a 220 mile Tesla that can recharge at 100KW but 300 miles is suddenly better needs to think about what they are posting.

Even so the car is over 18 months away in reality everything we are talking about is irreverent for now. What Nissan have round the corner is far more relevant.

 

[chroniclard]

Thought the Model S was pretty nice inside. Its not the classic chintz and tedious wood style luxury of large barges though.

 

[McPhee]

No it's just a lot of posts in this thread are ill informed, just post utter rubbish or take all of their motoring opinion from Clarkson.

Anyone that can't see that a 120 Mile range Golf that can only re-charge at 40KW isn't any better than a 220 mile Tesla that can recharge at 100KW but 300 miles is suddenly better needs to think about what they are posting.

Even so the car is over 18 months away in reality everything we are talking about is irreverent for now. What Nissan have round the corner is far more relevant.

To put some numbers to this, on a 500 mile journey, the Model 3 would have to charge twice. Once for 30 minutes. Once for 10 minutes. The total travel time (assuming 70MPH average speed) would be 7 hours, 43 minutes.

The eGolf would have to stop three times. Each time it would be stopped for 45 minutes. The total journey time would be 10 hours 15 minutes.

Of course, the delay for charging is longer than just the time the car is plugged in. You could add another 10 minutes to each charge, easily. And neither car is likely to hit its EPA range at 70 MPH, so the Tesla might need to stop for 20-30 minutes on its second charge, while the eGolf would have to stop a fourth time. TBH the two an a half hour gap above is being rather kind to the eGolf. It's probably more like three and a half hours slower. Oh, and I'm assuming SEL Premium spec, as the SE only has 7.2kW charging.

As an EV owner, I'd be quite content with 150+ reliable miles of range and 100kW+ charging. Anything less is somewhat hamstrung. Not that I'm likely to buy the Tesla. I'm hoping the new Leaf comes close enough.

 

[Amp34]

No it's just a lot of posts in this thread are ill informed, just post utter rubbish or take all of their motoring opinion from Clarkson.

Anyone that can't see that a 120 Mile range Golf that can only re-charge at 40KW isn't any better than a 220 mile Tesla that can recharge at 100KW but 300 miles is suddenly better needs to think about what they are posting.

Even so the car is over 18 months away in reality everything we are talking about is irreverent for now. What Nissan have round the corner is far more relevant.

Again, that's not the argument. I'm arguing that for my use (and a guess of a lot of others) the differential is not enough to make a difference, especially when there is an 18 month- two year wait for one and much less for the other (that's where the debate started remember - that there are broadly equivalent options available now/near future for those that aren't buying into the extended range and AP options).

A 300 mile range would mean I wouldn't need to charge away from home when doing the majority of the longer trips I do/ or give me lots of leeway for trips on cold days where I can charge at the destination. The 220 mile version and the 125 mile version would both require charging on those trips.

As a UK example weekend trip from London to somewhere like the Peak District - you're going to be cutting it very fine with the 220 mile version and may very well have to refuel once on each leg (especially when it's cold and wet). Same with the Golf. The extended version you won't have to. Yes the gold will need more of a charge when you do stop, but you still need to stop.

Both are great for commuting but neither have the range for most of those non commuting trips IMO. The 310 mile version is infinitely more practical as when you need to charge you'll need a break anyway. Hence why I think the 310 mile version is such a step change over the other two.

Glaucus for some reason is arguing that a car broadly the same is somehow a magical bullet even with the major extras removed.

I'm happy to be persuaded. You never know I may even put the Tesla back on the potential purchase list (which the Golf wouldn't be), by so far all he's done is go "lol, 220 miles is more than 125 miles", which is not the point at all. I'd love a Tesla, but I want it because of the 300 mile range and AP, not (just) because it's a Tesla.

And agreed, what Nissan are doing is also important, although I'm sure Glaucus would disagree with that too.

 

[Amp34]

To put some numbers to this, on a 500 mile journey, the Model 3 would have to charge twice. Once for 30 minutes. Once for 10 minutes. The total travel time (assuming 70MPH average speed) would be 7 hours, 43 minutes.

The eGolf would have to stop three times. Each time it would be stopped for 45 minutes. The total journey time would be 10 hours 15 minutes.

Of course, the delay for charging is longer than just the time the car is plugged in. You could add another 10 minutes to each charge, easily. And neither car is likely to hit its EPA range at 70 MPH, so the Tesla might need to stop for 20-30 minutes on its second charge, while the eGolf would have to stop a fourth time. TBH the two an a half hour gap above is being rather kind to the eGolf. It's probably more like three and a half hours slower. Oh, and I'm assuming SEL Premium spec, as the SE only has 7.2kW charging.

As an EV owner, I'd be quite content with 150+ reliable miles of range and 100kW+ charging. Anything less is somewhat hamstrung. Not that I'm likely to buy the Tesla. I'm hoping the new Leaf comes close enough.

And the 310 mile version you'd need to charge once, for about 30 minutes, after a 4 hour stint at the wheel, just as you need a break. And for the 200-250 mile journey in the cold and wet you wouldn't need to charge once, whereas with the 220 mile version you'd need to stop once, and probably require about 15-30 minutes depending on the weather.

It's the inconvenience factor that's the biggest issue, not the time. Stopping for 20-30 minutes after 2-3 hours of driving would be annoying. Stopping for 20-30 minutes every 4-5 hours is far more reasonable.

Edit: I think this is what Glaucus is having problems with, I'm not arguing about the technical merits of 125 miles vs 220 miles vs 310 miles. It's the convenience factor. We can argue figures all day but in the real world I'd rather have a vehicle I need to recharge when I feel like stopping (which is usually around every 4 hours), rather than one I have to stop for half an hour to recharge randomly when I wouldn't usually stop. The fact you have to stop twice rather than just once on a on a 3-5 hour journey is irrelevant, it's the fact you have to stop at all.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Not only these cars needs a quick recharge, i'd say 20mins tops from say 10% to 80%, we also need charging spots practically everywhere. From hotel car parking spaces, air port parking spaces. Basically anywhere you may leave your car overnight away from home.

Whilst it's all good and well to use it for daily commute, which is perfect, since all you need to do is charge it at home overnight so you have a full charge every morning. There is nothing worse than having a 3 hour, 120 miles drive to the airport in busy traffic with the low battery warning light coming on, with a flight getting closer and do you risk going to charge it for 30mins or risk going there, leaving the car parked not knowing if there is a charging bay at the car park and leaving the car for 2 weeks. When you get back, say even if there is enough juice to get to the nearest parking spot, let's say you land at a reasonable hour at 9am. Knowing 80& of juice won't get you home and you HAVE to have 100% to be absolutely certain, so now your trip home has all of the sudden broken into 3 legs with long breaks in between.

If there are charing spot everywhere, or if it can charge inside 5mins like a petrol car then it won't be much of a problem.

 

[jamoor]

Thought the Model S was pretty nice inside. Its not the classic chintz and tedious wood style luxury of large barges though.

Not only that but it's fantastic for a first attempt by a carmaker.

 

[Diagro]

And the 310 mile version you'd need to charge once, for about 30 minutes, after a 4 hour stint at the wheel, just as you need a break. And for the 200-250 mile journey in the cold and wet you wouldn't need to charge once, whereas with the 220 mile version you'd need to stop once, and probably require about 15-30 minutes depending on the weather.

It's the inconvenience factor that's the biggest issue, not the time. Stopping for 20-30 minutes after 2-3 hours of driving would be annoying. Stopping for 20-30 minutes every 4-5 hours is far more reasonable.

Edit: I think this is what Glaucus is having problems with, I'm not arguing about the technical merits of 125 miles vs 220 miles vs 310 miles. It's the convenience factor. We can argue figures all day but in the real world I'd rather have a vehicle I need to recharge when I feel like stopping (which is usually around every 4 hours), rather than one I have to stop for half an hour to recharge randomly when I wouldn't usually stop. The fact you have to stop twice rather than just once on a on a 3-5 hour journey is irrelevant, it's the fact you have to stop at all.

Really? It's annoying?

I try and stop every hour whilst driving long distance. And I have a petrol car.

I get extremely tired very quickly whilst driving. The reason I don't know.

 

[McPhee]

And the 310 mile version you'd need to charge once, for about 30 minutes, after a 4 hour stint at the wheel, just as you need a break. And for the 200-250 mile journey in the cold and wet you wouldn't need to charge once, whereas with the 220 mile version you'd need to stop once, and probably require about 15-30 minutes depending on the weather.

It's the inconvenience factor that's the biggest issue, not the time. Stopping for 20-30 minutes after 2-3 hours of driving would be annoying. Stopping for 20-30 minutes every 4-5 hours is far more reasonable.

Edit: I think this is what Glaucus is having problems with, I'm not arguing about the technical merits of 125 miles vs 220 miles vs 310 miles. It's the convenience factor. We can argue figures all day but in the real world I'd rather have a vehicle I need to recharge when I feel like stopping (which is usually around every 4 hours), rather than one I have to stop for half an hour to recharge randomly when I wouldn't usually stop. The fact you have to stop twice rather than just once on a on a 3-5 hour journey is irrelevant, it's the fact you have to stop at all.

So where's the merit in the eGolf then? It's the same price, yet vastly more inconvenient for you.

It's really bizarre that it's taken pages to basically say "The Model 3 LR is the only EV below £50k that I could own as the rest don't have enough range". The fact that the LR isn't £35k also seems an odd complaint when the only EVs with more range are the S and X in 100D or P100D spec, both of which costs tens of thousands of pounds more.

Give it a few years. Then an EV that actually meets your requirements, at a price point you're happy with, might actually exist.

 

[Joe T]

The Tesla Model 3 (even without extended range) has a longer range than most bladders. Fact.

 

[Nasher]

Not only these cars needs a quick recharge, i'd say 20mins tops from say 10% to 80%, we also need charging spots practically everywhere. From hotel car parking spaces, air port parking spaces. Basically anywhere you may leave your car overnight away from home.

Whilst it's all good and well to use it for daily commute, which is perfect, since all you need to do is charge it at home overnight so you have a full charge every morning. There is nothing worse than having a 3 hour, 120 miles drive to the airport in busy traffic with the low battery warning light coming on, with a flight getting closer and do you risk going to charge it for 30mins or risk going there, leaving the car parked not knowing if there is a charging bay at the car park and leaving the car for 2 weeks. When you get back, say even if there is enough juice to get to the nearest parking spot, let's say you land at a reasonable hour at 9am. Knowing 80& of juice won't get you home and you HAVE to have 100% to be absolutely certain, so now your trip home has all of the sudden broken into 3 legs with long breaks in between.

If there are charing spot everywhere, or if it can charge inside 5mins like a petrol car then it won't be much of a problem.

That and they will just flatten themselves if left standing for a long period, especially in winter. So either way your probably going to have to stop and recharge it on the way back. Assuming it will turn on and isn't completely dead

 

[Joe T]

Not only these cars needs a quick recharge, i'd say 20mins tops from say 10% to 80%, we also need charging spots practically everywhere. From hotel car parking spaces, air port parking spaces. Basically anywhere you may leave your car overnight away from home.

Whilst it's all good and well to use it for daily commute, which is perfect, since all you need to do is charge it at home overnight so you have a full charge every morning. There is nothing worse than having a 3 hour, 120 miles drive to the airport in busy traffic with the low battery warning light coming on, with a flight getting closer and do you risk going to charge it for 30mins or risk going there, leaving the car parked not knowing if there is a charging bay at the car park and leaving the car for 2 weeks. When you get back, say even if there is enough juice to get to the nearest parking spot, let's say you land at a reasonable hour at 9am. Knowing 80& of juice won't get you home and you HAVE to have 100% to be absolutely certain, so now your trip home has all of the sudden broken into 3 legs with long breaks in between.

If there are charing spot everywhere, or if it can charge inside 5mins like a petrol car then it won't be much of a problem.

One of the many charging solutions should include cheap and basic chargers at airport car parks and the like. These could even be of similar spec to a three-pin household plug. It doesnt matter the rate of charge given the long periods involved. There's probably a few other applications for these sort of chargers as well. As they're pretty basic they should be cheap and easy to install.

 

[McPhee]

That and they will just flatten themselves if left standing for a long period, especially in winter. So either way your probably going to have to stop and recharge it on the way back. Assuming it will turn on and isn't completely dead

You're not going to lose a noticeable amount of charge over a 7-14 day holiday...

 

[McPhee]

One of the many charging solutions should include cheap and basic chargers at airport car parks and the like. These could even be of similar spec to a three-pin household plug. It doesnt matter the rate of charge given the long periods involved. There's probably a few other applications for these sort of chargers as well. As they're pretty basic they should be cheap and easy to install.

Definitely.

It's kinda annoying having to recharge on the way home when the car's been sat in a car park for a week. TBH I think it should be added to Meet & Greet; it wouldn't require many chargers then. I'd happily pay a few quid extra.

I've read that Stansted M&G will charge EVs on request. EMA wouldn't, despite having a charger on site. "Staff Only", apparently.

 

[Orionaut]

a 120 Mile range Golf that can only re-charge at 40KW isn't any better than a 220 mile Tesla that can recharge at 100KW

I love the way that all one has to do to make General public and politicians alike lose their minds is add a couple of extra zeros to the sum.

(Not getting at b0rn2sk8 here, just people generally )

100Kw! Really! That is a ******* electric arc furnace!

Unless I have got my sums badly wrong somewhere, 100Kw is enough power to melt (MELT) 1Kg of Aluminum every 4 seconds or so

100Kw, Rolls off the tongue nicely. I dare say there will be plenty of people who will be perfectly happy to hook their nice green EV up to the supply line and spend 10 minutes or so pumping this amount of energy into a small metal box full of volatile and toxic alkali metals and whatever while they go off and have a cup of coffee, perhaps they will leave their kids in the back to play with ******* and facepalm while they do it too.

Me, I think I would prefer to be in a concrete bunker, perhaps 400 yards away!