Comment by Bob_LaBLahh | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Bob_LaBLahh | Hacker News Reader

I think this is a bit misleading. Edmunds and the EPA ran two very different tests. For instance, Edmunds drives the car until it indicates it's empty. However, in the EPA test, "the vehicle is driven over successive city cycles until the battery becomes discharged" [1]. Tesla vehicles, like many others, have a not so insignificant buffer of "extra" miles that you can still use after the vehicle indicates that its "empty".

Furthermore, Edmunds tested the Teslas at temperatures that are roughly 14F lower than the 68F used by the EPA. This can make a big difference in the range you get.

My point is that these articles are acting like they are comparing apples to apples--the EPA test vs the Edmunds test--but they're not.

I admit that I'm a Tesla fan and shareholder. But my first loyalty is to the truth. Ding Tesla and Elon when they mess up. Nobody is above reproach or constructive criticism.

So let's not pretend that Edmunds (or The Drive for that matter) are either. Edmunds ran what appears to be a not very scientific test, and came to a highly debatable conclusion that Tesla vehicles don't meet the EPA mileage guidelines. I think the tests are not comparable. Maybe that's just me.

[1] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/EPA%20test%20procedure%...

I’m not a big Tesla fan because I dislike their lack of quality control. On the other hand I do like how they single handedly proved viability of electric cars and jump started the market. I am not a shareholder.

I agree the analysis was unfair to Tesla and bad science. Tesla gets hit by both extremes, people who love to bash them and people who love to defend them. Both extremes don’t bother questioning shoddy analysis if it proves their point. Yeah this is common with basically every topic, but with Tesla it’s extra visible.

This new test seems slightly better in that they appear to have run the two non Tesla’s at the same time, but it still doesn’t sound like measuring the same thing as the epa.

There are only two temperatures it is valid to test range at: -50c, and +50c (120f). The extremes matter because the 1% of the time when you are in the extreme you need to know real numbers, not ideal ones. When the weather is potentially deadly if you run out of power you need to plan to ensure that you have enough range to safely make it to the recharge station.

Hopefully you never have to deal with the above extremes, but if you do the car better be there for you.

While this would certainly be good information I'm not sure they are the _only valid_ temps to test range at. Surely what would be most reasonable to report would be your day-to-day environment. That being said electric cars do seem to have their range affected by temp a lot more than IC cars, and as someone who lives in the Pacific Northwest I do feel like their ranges should be quoted regionally, though that does seem like a lot of work for something that was pretty easily researchable going in. That all being said, it would have been nice to know that my average in WA would be about 5% below the Southern California average.

Full disclosure - I own a model 3 and love it

That opinion is as extreme as the temperatures you post. Sure, let's ignore real-world scenarios for valid results. Only edge-cases need apply?

If the edge cases work everything else does too.

If edge cases fail that says nothing about whether the mainstream use case fare well or not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com