3 ms·

The major WTF moment for me was this: > I was given battery-conservation advice at that time (turn off the cruise control; alternately slow down and speed up t

The major WTF moment for me was this: > I was given battery-conservation advice at that time (turn off the cruise control; alternately slow down and speed up to take advantage of regenerative braking) Someone failed at basic thermodynamics. Converting electricity to mechanical and back to electricity causes a terrible loss in power.

foobarian 14y ago
This. That a Tesla customer rep would ever say this seems beyond belief.
- dsrguru 14y ago
  That a New York Times journalist would fabricate data in an automobile review in order to wage war on the electric car industry seems beyond belief as well. We really don't have enough info to resolve these discrepancies, but Occam's Razor suggests to me that John Broder legitimately believes his claims and Elon Musk believes Broder to be a liar. One or both of them has incorrect data. It seems unlikely that either is deliberately lying.
PebblesRox 14y ago
Point 4 of this article suggests that accelerating in short bursts with long coasts in between works best for gas-powered cars. I can see how turning off cruise control could be more efficient in this case too, although I agree braking would be silly. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/07/26/hypermiling-expert-driving-to-save-25-50-on-gas/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/07/26/hypermiling-expert...
- bjourne 14y ago
  No it doesn't. What the article says is to keep your velocity constant = zero acceleration by coasting and giving gas in short spurts. But it's entirely possible that journalists don't know the difference between "giving gas" and "accelerating the car."
  - PebblesRox 14y ago
    I don't think the pulse and glide method keeps your velocity constant. The idea is that accelerating to 70mph and coasting down to 50mph repeatedly is more efficient than maintaining a constant speed of 60mph. Not always more practical, but you should try to drive that way when you get a chance. Here's another explanation: http://www.metrompg.com/posts/pulse-and-glide.htm http://www.metrompg.com/posts/pulse-and-glide.htm
  - PebblesRox 14y ago
    I don't think the pulse and glide method keeps your velocity constant. The idea is that accelerating to 70mph and coasting down to 50mph repeatedly is more efficient than maintaining a constant speed of 60mph. Not always more practical, but you should try to drive that way when you get a chance. Here's another explanation: http://www.metrompg.com/posts/pulse-and-glide.htm http://www.metrompg.com/posts/pulse-and-glide.htm

foobarian 14y ago

This. That a Tesla customer rep would ever say this seems beyond belief.

dsrguru 14y ago
That a New York Times journalist would fabricate data in an automobile review in order to wage war on the electric car industry seems beyond belief as well. We really don't have enough info to resolve these discrepancies, but Occam's Razor suggests to me that John Broder legitimately believes his claims and Elon Musk believes Broder to be a liar. One or both of them has incorrect data. It seems unlikely that either is deliberately lying.

PebblesRox 14y ago

Point 4 of this article suggests that accelerating in short bursts with long coasts in between works best for gas-powered cars. I can see how turning off cruise control could be more efficient in this case too, although I agree braking would be silly. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/07/26/hypermiling-expert-driving-to-save-25-50-on-gas/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/07/26/hypermiling-expert...

bjourne 14y ago
No it doesn't. What the article says is to keep your velocity constant = zero acceleration by coasting and giving gas in short spurts. But it's entirely possible that journalists don't know the difference between "giving gas" and "accelerating the car."
- PebblesRox 14y ago
  I don't think the pulse and glide method keeps your velocity constant. The idea is that accelerating to 70mph and coasting down to 50mph repeatedly is more efficient than maintaining a constant speed of 60mph. Not always more practical, but you should try to drive that way when you get a chance. Here's another explanation: http://www.metrompg.com/posts/pulse-and-glide.htm http://www.metrompg.com/posts/pulse-and-glide.htm
- PebblesRox 14y ago
  I don't think the pulse and glide method keeps your velocity constant. The idea is that accelerating to 70mph and coasting down to 50mph repeatedly is more efficient than maintaining a constant speed of 60mph. Not always more practical, but you should try to drive that way when you get a chance. Here's another explanation: http://www.metrompg.com/posts/pulse-and-glide.htm http://www.metrompg.com/posts/pulse-and-glide.htm