Test Drove a Tesla Today

Other car makers provide an "emergency braking feature" straight from the showroom.

You seem to have access to data that I cannot find. How do you support your statement "that they have thoroughly tested first, to make sure it's safe and effective"?

Interesting article in Car and Driver about a 36,000-mile test of a 2015 Tesla Model S P85D

Yes, very thorough and informative. I'm not shocked to read that the Tesla was not perfect, yet 0-60 in 3.3 seconds and 247 miles of range ain't half bad.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Yes, very thorough and informative.  I'm not shocked to read that the Tesla was not perfect, yet 0-60 in 3.3 seconds and 247 miles of range ain't half bad.

247 miles under ideal conditions. Much less when it's cold or uphill.
Did you note that the 3.3 seconds was temporary. Then the software reduced the power output to protect the mechanics of the car.
I found it bothersome that Tesla lied about the car's power in their advertising. Why did they feel that was necessary?

Anyone buying an electric car should know that cold weather and steep hills will affect performance.

The 0-60 time was electronically reduced to 3.7 seconds.  That's still damn quick.  If it's a software limitation, there's probably a hack to remove it -- in case you want to take your $120,000 luxury car to the drag strip and break it (voiding all warranties).

Horsepower figures in electrics are notoriously slippery, they're affected by cold, by rotational speed at the time of measuring, and -- as noted in the article -- by batteries.  The figure initially given -- 693 or so -- was under ideal laboratory test conditions.  Nobody disputes that figure can be achieved by Tesla.  But on the road, as with gasoline engines, ideal conditions do not exist and even your Camano or Charger will not measure the same HP in real life.

Was it "lying"?  Or was it marketing hyperbole?  Or a little of both?

Is there a real difference between marketing hyperbole and lying.

The motors on the car are capable of producing near 700 hp, but the batteries cannot supply enough current for it to reach that figure. So the car is not capable of producing 700 hp; to state that it can is lying. A very large displacement gasoline engine is capable of producing thousands of horsepower if properly configured. But to use a huge number like that in advertising in analogous to what Tesla did.

The Tesla was a really nice car, and they continue to fuck it up with software. In their current configuration, I would not buy one at any price.

I'll tell Elon, I'm sure he will be crushed.

I'm not buying one either, for various reasons: price, styling, charging limitations, and the fact that I need a working vehicle not a show vehicle.

Yesterday I found myself on a freeway onramp behind a brand new silver-gray Tesla Model X. Beautiful car.

When it came time to merge into traffic, I decided to show Mr Tesla what a Subaru could do. I punched the throttle and scooted ahead of him in traffic.

I could hear him laughing as he pulled around me and LITERALLY SHOT OUT OF SIGHT in a fraction of a second. Yeah right. Ludicrous mode.

You have to give kudos to Elon for naming his racing mode for a "Space Balls" technology.

Tesla wrote:

We just released the latest version of Autopilot. You can now experience Enhanced Autopilot features including Traffic-Aware Cruise Control, Autosteer, Auto Lane Change, Parallel + Perpendicular Autopark, and Summon. Automatic Emergency Braking, Forward + Side Collision Warning, and more advanced safety features are also active and standard.

All Tesla vehicles have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.

Joshua Brown notwithstanding.

Tesla wrote:

All Tesla vehicles have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.

Bullshit.

Joshua Brown's ignorance doesn't excuse the car for driving into the side of a large truck.

And this is just a reminder that so-called self-driving cars do not belong on roadways that are not designed specifically for them.

Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

IOW don't blame the technology for human error.

Guns don't kill people; people with guns kill people.

I'm not blaming the technology for human error. I am blaming the technology for its own errors.

The Model 35 is about ready to roll off the line. Will it be a game changer? Has Trump killed the need for it? Will all 373,000 reservations be picked up? Will quality control suffer if they make 20,000 units a month as predicted? Will they do something about the ugly front end?

Today is the day the first Model 35s are released to the public, I believe. I mentioned this to a friend during lunch, then idly wondered if the 35 would be available some day as a convertible.

"Sure," he replied, "just pull a tractor trailer out in front of one."

Tesla Humor. Finally!

Robert Samuelson is a man who is often best ignored, but he wrote an article about computer-operated vehicles that makes a few salient points.

Robert Samuelson wrote:

We are weaponizing our cars and trucks for use against us. It’s madness.

No, but hysterical reactions are madness.

Samuelson can be a little hyperbolic, but do you believe that millions of computer-controlled cars on the road will not be used by ransomware-type thieves? I'm confident that some people started working on getting into the cars' brains as soon as the first one hit the road. Where there's money to be made, there will be someone to make the attempt.

Hence, all technology is doomed? Be reasonable.

You're the only one saying all technology is doomed.
Computer-operated automobiles are completely unnecessary and of very limited benefit.
Why offer up such a ripe target for nothing?

Quote :

In 2015, 35,092 people died in road accidents nationwide, says the Transportation Department.

Wikipedia wrote:

In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens),[2][3] and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens).[4] These deaths consisted of 11,208 homicides,[5] 21,175 suicides,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent".

Why are firearms deaths something we need to do something about, but traffic deaths aren't?

You are making an assumption that computer-operated vehicles will reduce auto deaths.
I am not ready to make that assumption.
And that is not the subject of the post I made.