11 ms·

>> provide 170 miles of range in a 30-minute charge That would have still sounded impractical to me when I was still able to just drive through the night to ge

>> provide 170 miles of range in a 30-minute charge That would have still sounded impractical to me when I was still able to just drive through the night to get where I needed to be. Now that I travel with a young baby and a dog, that's about how often and for how long I have to stop for breaks anyway. This is impressive progress anyway, but I'm especially impressed now that it really wouldn't alter my own schedule much.

sliverstorm 13y ago
If that fits your pace, that's great, but that would have driven me nuts last time I was driving cross-country.
- Pxtl 13y ago
  A 30-minute break every 3 hours seems just a little bit high - if 30 minutes got you closer to the full charge, it would be fine for road trips. 4 or 5 hours seems the upper limit for reasonable "driving without a half-hour break" and taking only 1/10th of your time instead of 1/7th recharging would be more palatable. But either way, driving screws up our concepts of convenience and efficiency. Drivers aren't rational actors, so even if you were only spending 10% of your time recharging it would make you crazy just like any other delay makes us go a bit nuts when we're behind the wheel.
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    Drivers aren't rational actors That's at the heart of most of these discussions. So many of the decisions people make about driving aren't rational decisions, they're rationalized decisions. Just to be clear, I'm guilty of this as well. I bought a large luxury station wagon (mostly) because it had rear-facing rumbleseats that I've used exactly once.
    - agumonkey 13y ago
      I can't stand sitting rear-facing without feeling nauseous, I'm surprised it's even a selling point.
      - MartinCron 13y ago
        When you're a kid, the novelty of sitting rear facing in "the way way back" is enough to stop the nausea, at least for short trips. And if you're not a kid, there's no way in hell you're going to fit in the rear-facing seats, I'm pretty short and I still can't fit back there.
        agumonkey 13y ago
        haha I guess you're right, I remember some rides in the trunk long ago and not feeling sick.
        tobtoh 13y ago
        Exactly this - I remember my parents had a Volvo with similar seats and my brothers and I loved sitting back there. We always imagined we were in the gun turrets of the Millennium Falcon shooting down cars.
        stcredzero 13y ago
        Grew up in a 240 wagon myself. Sometimes I would pretend a bug-spot on the windshield was a gunsight and pretend to shoot other cars, thinking of Star Wars the whole time.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    If the speed limit is 70mph or 75mph, it is less than every three hours.
    - thrownaway2424 13y ago
      Isn't it counterproductive to drive a model s at high speeds cross-country? You get an extra ~40 miles of range by going 65 instead of 75.
      - protomyth 13y ago
        Going 65 on a 75 highway is going to be a problem since your speed difference with most cars is what causes the problems in highway driving. Breaking flow of traffic is not a good idea. I can assure you that doing 65mph on I-90 through South Dakota is a really, really bad idea. Its listed as 75mph and that would be the low-end for what people do. Nevermind the wind that is probably going to kill your range.
        encoderer 13y ago
        Aside from perhaps Montana/etc I've never seen a highway with a single 75MPH speed limit. There is always a lower limit for big trucks, usually 55 or 65mph. You in a Tesla driving 65 in the right lane is not going to affect traffic much. In the wide open spaces, there's enough room it doesn't matter. In cities, there's enough traffic to push realized speeds below posted limits anyway.
        protomyth 13y ago
        "Aside from perhaps Montana/etc I've never seen a highway with a single 75MPH speed limit" Well, South Dakota I-90 where Tesla put their chargers is a single 75mph on a very busy two lane interstate with a lot of truck traffic. Minnesota is a single 70mph on I-90. Thinking about it, I haven't seen a split speed limit in the upper plains. "You in a Tesla driving 65 in the right lane is not going to affect traffic much." "In the wide open spaces, there's enough room it doesn't matter." You are going to be a nice blocker in traffic that generally flows along at 75 - 85 mph. It is a very busy truck corridor and you going 65mph is going to be a problem.
- melling 13y ago
  Yeah, but it's still cool that someone can drive across the country in a Tesla. Shouldn't we get something like a 50% improvement in battery technology within 5 years? That should push it over the limit for most people.
  - sp332 13y ago
    Batteries have been improving at what, 6% per year? If that keeps up it will take 7 years to get 50% better.
- ics 13y ago
  Same, but it's only going to get better from here. Plus, if I owned a Tesla I don't think I'd be making that sort of cross-country trip again, at least not in that way.
- grecy 13y ago
  People said exactly the same thing when the automobile was introduced and it was horribly less convenient than a horse and cart. Of course a new tech is slightly less convenient out the outset, and of course it will only appeal to a certain percentage of the population, and of course it will get better over time. Which side of history are those people on? Which side of history will you be on?
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    The side of history that can't afford a Tesla S anyway. Small-minded of me, I know.
    - grecy 13y ago
      > The side of history that can't afford a Tesla S Yet. There were millions that couldn't afford an automobile when they came out too you know..... Give it time, stop thinking a new product has to be everything to everyone so early on.
      - r00fus 13y ago
        Range is a significant factor of the Tesla's cost, and it'd require a order of magnitude of efficiency increase to both support a cheaper model while also keeping the same charging range and keeping Tesla's profit margins in place.
        grecy 13y ago
        uh-huh, and you can say exactly the same thing about the first cars, computers, commercial (or private) planes, and about 10 million other things. Why do you think complaining about the Tesla is somehow different from complaining about all those other things when they were in their infancy?
        toomuchtodo 13y ago
        The more you make of something, the cheaper it gets to make each one. The price will come down.
lxmorj 13y ago
Keep in mind, that's not the only size jump you can do. You'd probably start with a full charge, and so could drive a solid 3.5 hours before your first break. You're only limited to 170 miles if you stay just 30 minutes. Personally after 3.5 hours on the road I', looking for a food and bathroom break, which may take 45+ minutes, giving you a longer range for the next jump as well. Of course, you're more limited by where the chargers are right now, since it's not like there is one every ten miles!
- potatolicious 13y ago
  Many of these chargers are also conveniently located at hotels, so when you take your inevitable sleep break you can start the day off with a full charge.
  - fancyketchup 13y ago
    Except that really don't need these chargers if you're charging overnight. The Model S can fully recharge 240+ miles in about 9 hours using just an electric clothes dryer outlet or a "J1772" plug. Those are dirt cheap to install (labor to pull the wires through new conduit to the parking space is usually as much or more than the box that goes on the wall). Personally, I'd rather see hotels spend a few thousand bucks to install a bunch of NEMA 14-50's outlets or EVSEs with J1772 plugs. The cost of the electricity is pretty minimal, and it's certainly no worse than the upkeep on amenities like the gym or swimming pool (which nobody ever seems to use). If it really became an issue, the hotel could always charge a $5 fee for parking in the charging spot overnight.
- Saus 13y ago
  Problem is that some of the Tesla chargers in the Netherlands have a maximum parking time of 30 minutes max (Picture source: http://baminfratechniek.nl/sites/default/files/domain-116/styles/slideshow_big/public/slideshow/140113_tesla_opening-116-1389707247312466291.jpg?itok=_27r9Q7u http://baminfratechniek.nl/sites/default/files/domain-116/st... ). As the maximum charging time is 20 minutes, it was sufficient [claimed by the journalist]). Ofcourse I don't know if you can just move your car or reconnect to the supercharger. But 'officially' it's not allowed to charge more than 20 minutes.
atourgates 13y ago
Just doing some quick numbers (not related to current specific locations of quick chargers and gas stations), stopping 30 minutes every 170 miles would add a bit over 6 and a half hours of stopping to a LY->NYC trip. LA -> NYC is about 2,800 miles. If you had to stop for 30 minutes every 170 miles, that'd be 16.5 stops, for a total of about 8.25 hours of charging stops. If you assume 25mpg in a car with a 12 gallon tank, and 10-minutes per gas station stop, the same 2,800 mile trip would require about 9.5 gas stops, or about 1.5 hours worth of total gas stops. In the real world for drivers not going straight through, you're going to be spending at least a couple nights in a hotel when you could (assumedly) plug your car in overnight, as well as starting out with a full charge and more like 240 miles of range in the mornings. So I expect the real world difference would be about 4-5 hours of additional time waiting around for your car to charge in a Tesla vs. a traditional gas car. Not a huge difference on a 46 hour drive. However, the mental difference of being forced to stop 30 minutes every 170 or so miles might make it feel like much longer than an additional 4-5 hours. You'd also save about $365 in fuel costs in a Tesla vs. a gas car, but that's probably not a huge concern when you've already purchased a $75K+ car to begin with.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  I just drove from Chicago to Tampa, stayed for two weeks in FL, and then drove back over the last two weeks. I did both sprints straight through in a 2008 Infiniti G37, which has a six-speed auto, V6 engine, and 20 gallon tank. At an average speed of 85 mph, the car averaged about 24mpg, giving me a range of around 420 miles per gallon (with ~60 mile reserve). This is an edge case of course. I'm 31, and drove the entire ~15 hour drive at once with breaks only for fuel/bathroom at the same time. If I owned a Model S, I'd just fly.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - abalone 13y ago
    It's not an edge case, but neither is it really a sensible comparison. You have to look at the model s like the first macintosh. It does some revolutionary things very well and it's an astounding achievement. It will however take a few years to overtake the mainstream. It would be a little short-sighted to go on about how the Apple II is so much more practical, even though it was at first.
mcphilip 13y ago
Sadly it still sounds unreasonable for the 196 mile (frequently business related) trip between Austin and Dallas. There will probably always be some commonly non-stop traveled distance just outside their range, but I presume it'll be marginal.

sliverstorm 13y ago

If that fits your pace, that's great, but that would have driven me nuts last time I was driving cross-country.

Pxtl 13y ago
A 30-minute break every 3 hours seems just a little bit high - if 30 minutes got you closer to the full charge, it would be fine for road trips. 4 or 5 hours seems the upper limit for reasonable "driving without a half-hour break" and taking only 1/10th of your time instead of 1/7th recharging would be more palatable. But either way, driving screws up our concepts of convenience and efficiency. Drivers aren't rational actors, so even if you were only spending 10% of your time recharging it would make you crazy just like any other delay makes us go a bit nuts when we're behind the wheel.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  Drivers aren't rational actors That's at the heart of most of these discussions. So many of the decisions people make about driving aren't rational decisions, they're rationalized decisions. Just to be clear, I'm guilty of this as well. I bought a large luxury station wagon (mostly) because it had rear-facing rumbleseats that I've used exactly once.
  - agumonkey 13y ago
    I can't stand sitting rear-facing without feeling nauseous, I'm surprised it's even a selling point.
    - MartinCron 13y ago
      When you're a kid, the novelty of sitting rear facing in "the way way back" is enough to stop the nausea, at least for short trips. And if you're not a kid, there's no way in hell you're going to fit in the rear-facing seats, I'm pretty short and I still can't fit back there.
      - agumonkey 13y ago
        haha I guess you're right, I remember some rides in the trunk long ago and not feeling sick.
      - tobtoh 13y ago
        Exactly this - I remember my parents had a Volvo with similar seats and my brothers and I loved sitting back there. We always imagined we were in the gun turrets of the Millennium Falcon shooting down cars.
        stcredzero 13y ago
        Grew up in a 240 wagon myself. Sometimes I would pretend a bug-spot on the windshield was a gunsight and pretend to shoot other cars, thinking of Star Wars the whole time.
- protomyth 13y ago
  If the speed limit is 70mph or 75mph, it is less than every three hours.
  - thrownaway2424 13y ago
    Isn't it counterproductive to drive a model s at high speeds cross-country? You get an extra ~40 miles of range by going 65 instead of 75.
    - protomyth 13y ago
      Going 65 on a 75 highway is going to be a problem since your speed difference with most cars is what causes the problems in highway driving. Breaking flow of traffic is not a good idea. I can assure you that doing 65mph on I-90 through South Dakota is a really, really bad idea. Its listed as 75mph and that would be the low-end for what people do. Nevermind the wind that is probably going to kill your range.
      - encoderer 13y ago
        Aside from perhaps Montana/etc I've never seen a highway with a single 75MPH speed limit. There is always a lower limit for big trucks, usually 55 or 65mph. You in a Tesla driving 65 in the right lane is not going to affect traffic much. In the wide open spaces, there's enough room it doesn't matter. In cities, there's enough traffic to push realized speeds below posted limits anyway.
        protomyth 13y ago
        "Aside from perhaps Montana/etc I've never seen a highway with a single 75MPH speed limit" Well, South Dakota I-90 where Tesla put their chargers is a single 75mph on a very busy two lane interstate with a lot of truck traffic. Minnesota is a single 70mph on I-90. Thinking about it, I haven't seen a split speed limit in the upper plains. "You in a Tesla driving 65 in the right lane is not going to affect traffic much." "In the wide open spaces, there's enough room it doesn't matter." You are going to be a nice blocker in traffic that generally flows along at 75 - 85 mph. It is a very busy truck corridor and you going 65mph is going to be a problem.
melling 13y ago
Yeah, but it's still cool that someone can drive across the country in a Tesla. Shouldn't we get something like a 50% improvement in battery technology within 5 years? That should push it over the limit for most people.
- sp332 13y ago
  Batteries have been improving at what, 6% per year? If that keeps up it will take 7 years to get 50% better.
ics 13y ago
Same, but it's only going to get better from here. Plus, if I owned a Tesla I don't think I'd be making that sort of cross-country trip again, at least not in that way.
grecy 13y ago
People said exactly the same thing when the automobile was introduced and it was horribly less convenient than a horse and cart. Of course a new tech is slightly less convenient out the outset, and of course it will only appeal to a certain percentage of the population, and of course it will get better over time. Which side of history are those people on? Which side of history will you be on?
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  The side of history that can't afford a Tesla S anyway. Small-minded of me, I know.
  - grecy 13y ago
    > The side of history that can't afford a Tesla S Yet. There were millions that couldn't afford an automobile when they came out too you know..... Give it time, stop thinking a new product has to be everything to everyone so early on.
    - r00fus 13y ago
      Range is a significant factor of the Tesla's cost, and it'd require a order of magnitude of efficiency increase to both support a cheaper model while also keeping the same charging range and keeping Tesla's profit margins in place.
      - grecy 13y ago
        uh-huh, and you can say exactly the same thing about the first cars, computers, commercial (or private) planes, and about 10 million other things. Why do you think complaining about the Tesla is somehow different from complaining about all those other things when they were in their infancy?
      - toomuchtodo 13y ago
        The more you make of something, the cheaper it gets to make each one. The price will come down.

lxmorj 13y ago

Keep in mind, that's not the only size jump you can do. You'd probably start with a full charge, and so could drive a solid 3.5 hours before your first break. You're only limited to 170 miles if you stay just 30 minutes. Personally after 3.5 hours on the road I', looking for a food and bathroom break, which may take 45+ minutes, giving you a longer range for the next jump as well. Of course, you're more limited by where the chargers are right now, since it's not like there is one every ten miles!

potatolicious 13y ago
Many of these chargers are also conveniently located at hotels, so when you take your inevitable sleep break you can start the day off with a full charge.
- fancyketchup 13y ago
  Except that really don't need these chargers if you're charging overnight. The Model S can fully recharge 240+ miles in about 9 hours using just an electric clothes dryer outlet or a "J1772" plug. Those are dirt cheap to install (labor to pull the wires through new conduit to the parking space is usually as much or more than the box that goes on the wall). Personally, I'd rather see hotels spend a few thousand bucks to install a bunch of NEMA 14-50's outlets or EVSEs with J1772 plugs. The cost of the electricity is pretty minimal, and it's certainly no worse than the upkeep on amenities like the gym or swimming pool (which nobody ever seems to use). If it really became an issue, the hotel could always charge a $5 fee for parking in the charging spot overnight.
Saus 13y ago
Problem is that some of the Tesla chargers in the Netherlands have a maximum parking time of 30 minutes max (Picture source: http://baminfratechniek.nl/sites/default/files/domain-116/styles/slideshow_big/public/slideshow/140113_tesla_opening-116-1389707247312466291.jpg?itok=_27r9Q7u http://baminfratechniek.nl/sites/default/files/domain-116/st... ). As the maximum charging time is 20 minutes, it was sufficient [claimed by the journalist]). Ofcourse I don't know if you can just move your car or reconnect to the supercharger. But 'officially' it's not allowed to charge more than 20 minutes.

atourgates 13y ago

Just doing some quick numbers (not related to current specific locations of quick chargers and gas stations), stopping 30 minutes every 170 miles would add a bit over 6 and a half hours of stopping to a LY->NYC trip. LA -> NYC is about 2,800 miles. If you had to stop for 30 minutes every 170 miles, that'd be 16.5 stops, for a total of about 8.25 hours of charging stops. If you assume 25mpg in a car with a 12 gallon tank, and 10-minutes per gas station stop, the same 2,800 mile trip would require about 9.5 gas stops, or about 1.5 hours worth of total gas stops. In the real world for drivers not going straight through, you're going to be spending at least a couple nights in a hotel when you could (assumedly) plug your car in overnight, as well as starting out with a full charge and more like 240 miles of range in the mornings. So I expect the real world difference would be about 4-5 hours of additional time waiting around for your car to charge in a Tesla vs. a traditional gas car. Not a huge difference on a 46 hour drive. However, the mental difference of being forced to stop 30 minutes every 170 or so miles might make it feel like much longer than an additional 4-5 hours. You'd also save about $365 in fuel costs in a Tesla vs. a gas car, but that's probably not a huge concern when you've already purchased a $75K+ car to begin with.

toomuchtodo 13y ago
I just drove from Chicago to Tampa, stayed for two weeks in FL, and then drove back over the last two weeks. I did both sprints straight through in a 2008 Infiniti G37, which has a six-speed auto, V6 engine, and 20 gallon tank. At an average speed of 85 mph, the car averaged about 24mpg, giving me a range of around 420 miles per gallon (with ~60 mile reserve). This is an edge case of course. I'm 31, and drove the entire ~15 hour drive at once with breaks only for fuel/bathroom at the same time. If I owned a Model S, I'd just fly.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- abalone 13y ago
  It's not an edge case, but neither is it really a sensible comparison. You have to look at the model s like the first macintosh. It does some revolutionary things very well and it's an astounding achievement. It will however take a few years to overtake the mainstream. It would be a little short-sighted to go on about how the Apple II is so much more practical, even though it was at first.

mcphilip 13y ago

Sadly it still sounds unreasonable for the 196 mile (frequently business related) trip between Austin and Dallas. There will probably always be some commonly non-stop traveled distance just outside their range, but I presume it'll be marginal.