Inundated with complaints, Tesla created “Diversion Team” to cancel appointments.
Trash company, trash cars, trash CEO
From the driving I’ve seen where I live, trash drivers/owners.
The waves of Tesla buyers can approximately be summarized as
- Environmentalists
- Tech nerds
- People wanting to show they have Tesla money
- Fans of Elon Musk’s conservative political stances
Each step has seen the brand increasingly more associated with jerkasses to the point that at this point I’m less likely to assume a BMW driver is a jerkass than a Tesla driver
What makes BMW drivers ass, actually? I’m in Japan, and I don’t see that pattern.
A common joke over here is that BMWs don’t come with the turn signal installed because their drivers are stereotyped as bad drivers who don’t signal.
I run into plenty of them anecdotally, and I can’t say if I see them any more often than not
From my time in Japan, the driving manners there are a world away from other western countries, but I think the difference is marketing and customers.
For decades BMW has been marketed in the angloshpere (US,UK,AUS,NZ,CAN) as The Ultimate Driving Machine and this has attracted the type of customer who see themselves as would be race drivers. Every car trip is a race and every other car is a competitor who must be passed.
I know one guy who considers it the safest driving machine and regards all other cars as deathtraps.
He should really be driving something like a brown Volvo 240 wagon (brown is the safest color) and be factually right
This explains a lot
This is really the EPAs fault for real world numbers.
Real world driving conditions especially on highways where people want to get the stated range have higher speeds than what the test tests.
If you want the EPA number to match real world speeds make the test run at real world speeds.
If you want the population to know EVs run worse in the cold, have a cold weather test be part of the test and require reporting the number. It’d showcase how good the cars heating system is and help people make a decision.
The EPA probably wanted auto manufacturers to be able to report higher numbers and incorrectly chose a lower speed. WLPT numbers are even worse for being wrong (but if I recall, the wrong is more consistent)
“Tesla years ago began exaggerating its vehicles’ potential driving distance—by rigging their range-estimating software,” The company decided about a decade ago, for marketing purposes, to write algorithms for its range meter that would show drivers ‘rosy’ projections for the distance it could travel on a full battery, according to a person familiar with an early design of the software for its in-dash readouts."
Once the battery fell below 50 percent, “the algorithm would show drivers more realistic projections for their remaining driving range.”
This has nothing to do with the EPA, and everything to do with the car’s battery management software.
Indeed. Good cars use a heuristics-based range estimation, using some form of the previous energy mileage with the vehicle to estimate the range on the remainder of the battery (or for hybrids and combination vehicles the tank).
That’s seriously sucky. Also I swear I’ve had two or three cars whose gas gauges behaved similarly–Slow decrease until half then rocketing down to E from there.
There is a reason for that I’ve heard before. The fuel tank isn’t uniformly built, the top half of it is physically wider (therefore bigger) than the bottom half. Not sure why manufacturers couldn’t build this into the gauge though.
From my experience, my car doesn’t do that, but what it does do is the needle stays at full for 20-30 miles and only then starts moving.
That’s only what part of the article is about.
My comment was very specific
Despite the fact the EPA is mentioned in the article; stating their actions into testing EVs and enforcing mileage estimates, the article is about Tesla inflating their battery estimates in the car’s battery management software and providing misleading numbers to their customers in real time.
Just because it provides some insight into the inner workings of EPA testing of EV’s, the EPA didn’t decide to SETUP an algorithm and give false information to Tesla drivers. Tesla did, and it looks like it’s possible by direct involvement of Elon Musk.
Okay so my comment was about the EPA stuff and SK stuff NOT tesla fudging the numbers.
Is that hard to understand?
The article also talks about that.
My initial hopes of Tesla being an ecologically sound advancement in transportation has been stomped into the ground by their poor craftsmanship, unprecedented vendor lock-in, intolerable privacy invasion, irresponsible treatment of employees, brazen dishonesty, and overall, seemingly endless scumbaggery.
So much for optimism. I want nothing to do with them or their product.
every day I hear more bad things about that company
it’s because it’s a fun punching bag and Elon Musk is a terrible CEO.
I thoroughly enjoy my Tesla but I wish he would get ejected from the company.
Yet people still defend the cars and the company
“I sold you an apple that was actually an orange, but it tasted good didn’t it?”
Isn’t the epa responsible for publishing and testing the numbers?
In the article they talk about range estimates done by car itself. So you are driving and thinking you have 50 miles, while actually only 30 miles left.
Not a Tesla fanboy but just noting EV range in general can be quite hard to predict - there’s a huge drop off in efficiency at higher speeds, so driving through town I may get 350 mi range on my 300 mi rated EV6, but on the freeway at 75+ mph, I probably get less than 250.
Not surprised Tesla exaggerates their range though. YMMV.
I’ve never seen a more appropriate use of ymmv
Psst what’s ymmv?
Ooooooooh. Thanks!
Hard to predict means that half of the time you would under estimate the mileage, if done correctly. This is not what is going on here.
Some people would probably complain if they had a 100mile trip up a mountain pass and it took more than 100 miles of energy.
At least when you plan a route the % indicator takes that into account vs a plain estimation.
My best trip once going up a pass was around 70km of the reading staying within 1 or 2km the entire time when going down it.
But ya there’s so many variables. But if they were fudging calculations that’d be bad.
“automotive testers and regulators continue to flag the company for exaggerating the distance its vehicles can travel before their batteries run out.” - from the article.
EPA required Tesla to reduce advertised range by 3%, when in reality the number is often 25% lower, or according the S.Korean regulator, 50% lower in cold temps.
~$2.2m fine in S.Korea and no fine from what I could see in the US.
Shitty company breaks law to boost profit because the benefits way outweigh any risk. Truly a story we’ve never heard before.
It isn’t much better if they are doing it though… CNBC’s YouTube did a video on why EV range is flawed. Video
TL, DW: Most EV estimates from the EPA window stickers are lower than stated by an average of 12.5%.
The epa tests have never been really accurate.
I thought MPG/range estimates were based off of the car manufactures testing and were then self reported. The EPA probably just sets up some guidelines or maybe they used to test in the past but just like every other agency they’ve been gutted
I’ve had a Hyundai EV for the past year or so. The range it tells me is the range it gets unless I’m driving a route with major elevation changes, and I rely on that fact constantly to plan my trip and my charge stops. As far as I’m concerned, accurate range estimation is core EV functionality. Genuinely disgusting anti-consumer behavior out of Tesla.
You have to plan your trips like that?
The tesla navigation systems just plans it for you and takes that all into account. Unless you’re excessively speeding it’s almost always within 1% or 2% (over or under), and that takes elevation, speed limits above optimal efficiency, heating, cooling, I believe even ambient temperature into account.
I’ve never ever had to think about it.
Now, if I didn’t use the trip planner and relied solely on the displayed KM I’d never trust it, because there are so many variables to take into account. The car can legitimately get the EPA rated range in the EPA test conditions, but those conditions aren’t every day driving conditions. I would never trust if it says 400km that I’d be able to do 390km trip. There’s too many things to consider and the software does it all automatically.
The whole making more exaggerated numbers at full vs 50% is sketchy if true, but people really should be using % vs km. Km are always going to have problems. And people should be using the trip planner for any lengthy trip.
