Another Reason to Leave CA: California to Ban Sale of New Gasoline Vehicles in 2035

Stalled Out on Tesla's Electric Highway

Anybody remember this stellar review of using an EV in the real world?

Stalled on the E.V. Highway - The New York Times

Stalled Out on Tesla's Electric Highway
By John M. Broder

WASHINGTON — Having established a fast-charging foothold in California for its electric cars, Tesla Motors has brought its formula east, opening two ultrafast charging stations in December that would, in theory, allow a speedy electric-car road trip between here and Boston.

But as I discovered on a recent test drive of the company’s high-performance Model S sedan, theory can be trumped by reality, especially when Northeast temperatures plunge.

Tesla, the electric-car manufacturer run by Elon Musk, the billionaire behind PayPal and SpaceX, offered a high-performance Model S sedan for a trip along the newly electrified stretch of Interstate 95. It seemed an ideal bookend to The Times’s encouraging test drive last September on the West Coast.

The new charging points, at service plazas in Newark, Del., and Milford, Conn., are some 200 miles apart. That is well within the Model S’s 265-mile estimated range, as rated by the Environmental Protection Agency, for the version with an 85 kilowatt-hour battery that I drove — and even more comfortably within Tesla’s claim of 300 miles of range under ideal conditions. Of course, mileage may vary.

The 480-volt Supercharger stations deliver enough power for 150 miles of travel in 30 minutes, and a full charge in about an hour, for the 85 kilowatt-hour Model S. (Adding the fast-charge option to cars with the midlevel 60 kilowatt-hour battery costs $2,000.) That’s quite a bit longer than it takes to pump 15 gallons of gasoline, but at Supercharger stations Tesla pays for the electricity, which seems a reasonable trade for fast, silent and emissions-free driving. Besides, what’s Sbarro for?

The car is a technological wonder, with luminous paint on aluminum bodywork, a spacious and ultrahip cabin, a 17-inch touch screen to control functions from suspension height to the Google-driven navigation system. Feeding the 416 horsepower motor of the top-of-the-line Model S Performance edition is a half-ton lithium-ion battery pack slung beneath the cockpit; that combination is capable of flinging this $101,000 luxury car through the quarter mile as quickly as vaunted sport sedans like the Cadillac CTS-V.

The Model S has won multiple car-of-the-year awards and is, many reviews would have you believe, the coolest car on the planet.

What fun, no? Well, no.

Setting out on a sunny 30-degree day two weeks ago, my trip started well enough. A Tesla agent brought the car to me in suburban Washington with a full charge, and driving at normal highway speeds I reached the Delaware charging dock with the battery still having roughly half its energy remaining. I went off for lunch at the service plaza, checking occasionally on the car’s progress. After 49 minutes, the display read “charge complete,” and the estimated available driving distance was 242 miles.

Fat city; no attendant and no cost.

As I crossed into New Jersey some 15 miles later, I noticed that the estimated range was falling faster than miles were accumulating. At 68 miles since recharging, the range had dropped by 85 miles, and a little mental math told me that reaching Milford would be a stretch.

I began following Tesla’s range-maximization guidelines, which meant dispensing with such battery-draining amenities as warming the cabin and keeping up with traffic. I turned the climate control to low — the temperature was still in the 30s — and planted myself in the far right lane with the cruise control set at 54 miles per hour (the speed limit is 65). Buicks and 18-wheelers flew past, their drivers staring at the nail-polish-red wondercar with California dealer plates.

Nearing New York, I made the first of several calls to Tesla officials about my creeping range anxiety. The woman who had delivered the car told me to turn off the cruise control; company executives later told me that advice was wrong. All the while, my feet were freezing and my knuckles were turning white.

After a short break in Manhattan, the range readout said 79 miles; the Milford charging station was 73 miles away. About 20 miles from Milford, less than 10 miles of range remained. I called Tesla again, and Ted Merendino, a product planner, told me that even when the display reached zero there would still be a few miles of cushion.

At that point, the car informed me it was shutting off the heater, and it ordered me, in vivid red letters, to “Recharge Now.”

I drove into the service plaza, hooked up the Supercharger and warmed my hands on a cup of Dunkin’ Donuts coffee.

If this is Tesla’s vision of long-distance travel in America’s future, I thought, and the solution to what the company calls the “road trip problem,” it needs some work.

The federal government has invested in the effort to find a solution. Three years ago, Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist and secretary of energy, proudly announced a $465 million loan to Tesla as part of an advanced vehicles program intended to cut fossil fuel use and address global warming.

The loan to Tesla would “begin laying the foundation for American leadership in the growing electric vehicles industry,” Dr. Chu said.

At the time, Tesla set a target of producing 20,000 Model S cars by the end of 2013. Some 13,000 eager buyers have reserved 2013 models at prices from about $61,000 to more than $100,000. To give those cars family-vacation capability, the company plans to have 90 Supercharger stations built across the country by the end of 2013.

At the Washington Auto Show last month, Dr. Chu, who has since announced his plan to leave office in the next few weeks, discussed the Energy Department’s goal of making electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids as cheap and convenient as comparable gasoline-powered cars.

He continued: “We can’t say this everywhere in America yet, but driving by a gasoline station and smiling is something everyone should experience.”

I drove a state-of-the-art electric vehicle past a lot of gas stations. I wasn’t smiling.

Instead, I spent nearly an hour at the Milford service plaza as the Tesla sucked electrons from the hitching post. When I continued my drive, the display read 185 miles, well beyond the distance I intended to cover before returning to the station the next morning for a recharge and returning to Manhattan.

I drove, slowly, to Stonington, Conn., for dinner and spent the night in Groton, a total distance of 79 miles. When I parked the car, its computer said I had 90 miles of range, twice the 46 miles back to Milford. It was a different story at 8:30 the next morning. The thermometer read 10 degrees and the display showed 25 miles of remaining range — the electrical equivalent of someone having siphoned off more than two-thirds of the fuel that was in the tank when I parked.

I called Tesla in California, and the official I woke up said I needed to “condition” the battery pack to restore the lost energy. That meant sitting in the car for half an hour with the heat on a low setting. (There is now a mobile application for warming the battery remotely; it was not available at the time of my test drive.)

After completing the battery conditioning process, the estimated range reading was 19 miles; no way would I make it back to Milford.

The Tesla people found an E.V. charging facility that Norwich Public Utilities had recently installed. Norwich, an old mill town on the Thames River, was only 11 miles away, though in the opposite direction from Milford.

After making arrangements to recharge at the Norwich station, I located the proper adapter in the trunk, plugged in and walked to the only warm place nearby, Butch’s Luncheonette and Breakfast Club, an establishment (smoking allowed) where only members can buy a cup of coffee or a plate of eggs. But the owners let me wait there while the Model S drank its juice. Tesla’s experts said that pumping in a little energy would help restore the power lost overnight as a result of the cold weather, and after an hour they cleared me to resume the trip to Milford.

Looking back, I should have bought a membership to Butch’s and spent a few hours there while the car charged. The displayed range never reached the number of miles remaining to Milford, and as I limped along at about 45 miles per hour I saw increasingly dire dashboard warnings to recharge immediately. Mr. Merendino, the product planner, found an E.V. charging station about five miles away.

But the Model S had other ideas. “Car is shutting down,” the computer informed me. I was able to coast down an exit ramp in Branford, Conn., before the car made good on its threat.

Tesla’s New York service manager, Adam Williams, found a towing service in Milford that sent a skilled and very patient driver, Rick Ibsen, to rescue me with a flatbed truck. Not so quick: the car’s electrically actuated parking brake would not release without battery power, and hooking the car’s 12-volt charging post behind the front grille to the tow truck’s portable charger would not release the brake. So he had to drag it onto the flatbed, a painstaking process that took 45 minutes. Fortunately, the cab of the tow truck was toasty.

At 2:40 p.m., we pulled into the Milford rest stop, five hours after I had left Groton on a trip that should have taken less than an hour. Mr. Ibsen carefully maneuvered the flatbed close to the charging kiosk, and 25 minutes later, with the battery sufficiently charged to release the parking brake and drive off the truck, the car was back on the ground. A Model S owner who had taken delivery the previous day watched with interest.

Tesla’s chief technology officer, J B Straubel, acknowledged that the two East Coast charging stations were at the mileage limit of the Model S’s real-world range. Making matters worse, cold weather inflicts about a 10 percent range penalty, he said, and running the heater draws yet more energy. He added that some range-related software problems still needed to be sorted out.

“It’s disappointing to me when things don’t work smoothly,” Mr. Straubel said in a post-mortem of my test drive. “It takes more planning than a typical gasoline car, no way around it.

“Hopefully you’ll give us a little slack in that we put in the East Coast stations just a month ago,” he said. “It’s a good lesson.”

After 80 minutes of charging in Milford, the battery registered an estimated 216 miles of range. The trip to the Tesla dealership in Manhattan was an uneventful 71 miles. When I pulled in, the battery had an estimated 124 miles remaining.

I trust that the next driver savored those miles — and dressed warmly, just in case.

A version of this article appears in print on Feb. 10, 2013, Section AU, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Stalled on the E.V. Highway. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
 

Attachments

  • E3745429-0320-403D-8A2D-8BBBF1637DD1.jpg
    E3745429-0320-403D-8A2D-8BBBF1637DD1.jpg
    58.4 KB · Views: 275
Anybody remember this stellar review of using an EV in the real world?

Stalled on the E.V. Highway - The New York Times

Stalled Out on Tesla's Electric Highway
By John M. Broder

A version of this article appears in print on Feb. 10, 2013, Section AU, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Stalled on the E.V. Highway. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

This test happened 8 years ago.
No use being a Luddite.
 
This test happened 8 years ago.
No use being a Luddite.

Maybe do some research before posting.

It’s the same car with only a few minor refresh’s done. Same crap battery unless you upgrade to a bigger (heavier) one. Same ridiculous charging times.
Same battery technology ... that’s why Tesla will cease to exist at some time in the near future.
 
Care to elaborate or cite specifics?

He was a 'never-trumper' prior to the election. He espoused the same rhetoric about Trump that the MSM did, even though it was outright lies. He's all for closed borders and nationalism in Israel, but doesn't "give a damn about the browning of America" because "idealogy is all that matters". If you look at his past double-talk, it's quite obvious.
 
Last edited:
People such as Gavin use the term ‘climate change’ (man-made) as if it’s a fact. They then use it (or rather, the fear of it) as justification for all manner of legislation, executive orders, social engineering, etc. But man-made climate change isn’t provable. So then, what’s the real reason for treating it as matter-of-fact? Belief that it’s true is the key. If enough people believe they’re responsible for global warming, and they fear the threatened consequences, they can be convinced to do just about anything to mitigate it.
 
Maybe do some research before posting.

It’s the same car with only a few minor refresh’s done. Same crap battery unless you upgrade to a bigger (heavier) one. Same ridiculous charging times.
Same battery technology ... that’s why Tesla will cease to exist at some time in the near future.

I did a little research, and re-read the story.
The guy sure wasn’t a Boy Scout. Not prepared. Poor planning. Mistakes were made. More than once he mentioned being cold, he probably wasn’t even dressed properly for winter weather.

Pushing the early technology to its limits in cold weather on his first use of the car that he wasn’t familiar with.
Anybody who knows anything about batteries knows about capacity loss at cold temperatures.
Then in Norwich he didn’t even get a full charge, pushing his luck again because he was impatient.

He made his stupid ill-fated journey 8 years ago. Since then there are now are a lot more Tesla charging stations on the East Coast. Take a look at the map.

https://www.tesla.com/findus?bounds...r,destination charger&search=Milford, CT, USA

Tesla gives you all the tools you need to plan your trip properly. If you don’t plan and allow for worst cases you’re a fool.
He brought this on himself looking for a story.

Talk about propaganda.
 

Attachments

  • D462B15F-3EFC-49EB-AA7C-426206C0F02C.jpg
    D462B15F-3EFC-49EB-AA7C-426206C0F02C.jpg
    113.6 KB · Views: 292
Last edited:
I did a little research, and re-read the story.
The guy sure wasn’t a Boy Scout. Not prepared. Poor planning. Mistakes were made. More than once he mentioned being cold, he probably wasn’t even dressed properly for winter weather.

Pushing the early technology to its limits in cold weather on his first use of the car that he wasn’t familiar with.
Anybody who knows anything about batteries knows about capacity loss at cold temperatures.
Then in Norwich he didn’t even get a full charge, pushing his luck again because he was impatient.

He made his stupid ill-fated journey 8 years ago. Since then there are now are a lot more Tesla charging stations on the East Coast. Take a look at the map.

https://www.tesla.com/findus?bounds...r,destination charger&search=Milford, CT, USA

Tesla gives you all the tools you need to plan your trip properly. If you don’t plan and allow for worst cases you’re a fool.
He brought this on himself looking for a story.

Talk about propaganda.



After the fact nonsense .... nice try
 
There is a solution. Stay in CA, become politically active and change the leadership to someone more in tune with your beliefs.
 
Ban internal combustion engines? Funny because Germany is installing hydrogen stations and Toyota and Honda have hydrogen cars and I know Ford has hydrogen internal combustions engines because I knew the guys designing them. HICEV's
Im sure there are others.

I haven't ready the EO but I would assume that vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells would be allowed since they are relatively 0 emissions.
 
This thread is funny.

Californian here who drives a 4Runner both on trails and to the grocery store; thinks Gavin Newsom's tenure has been good for CA; has no problem with the recent executive order about electric vehicles; thinks both State and Federal agencies, and we as individual consumers of fossil fuels, share responsibility for the American West's wildfire crisis; thinks it's impossible to stereotype CA's nearly 40 million people or their opinions, habits or lifestyles with any accuracy whatsoever; laughs / cringes at fellow Californians sometimes anyway; and thinks CA is an incredible place to live and explore despite its challenges. AMA!
 
This thread is funny.

Californian here who drives a 4Runner both on trails and to the grocery store; thinks Gavin Newsom's tenure has been good for CA; has no problem with the recent executive order about electric vehicles; thinks both State and Federal agencies, and we as individual consumers of fossil fuels, share responsibility for the American West's wildfire crisis; thinks it's impossible to stereotype CA's nearly 40 million people or their opinions, habits or lifestyles with any accuracy whatsoever; laughs / cringes at fellow Californians sometimes anyway; and thinks CA is an incredible place to live and explore despite its challenges. AMA!

You don't think inadequate forest management is the biggest contributor?
 
You don't think inadequate forest management is the biggest contributor?

Definitely. But you can’t say that California is all to blame for not “sweeping the forest”. Remember the Smokey the Bear campaign of fire prevention and suppression? A federal program.

Here’s a paragraph from an article that explains it rather well.

“...The US Forest Service adopted a policy of fire suppression. President Teddy Roosevelt and his Forest Service chief, Gifford Pinchot, drummed up fears of timber scarcity in order to expand federal control over forests and to suppress fires...”

California Has Always Had Fires, Environmental Alarmism Makes Them Worse Than Necessary

It’s going to cost more (and maybe create more jobs), but more logging and controlled burning needs to be done every year.
 
You don't think inadequate forest management is the biggest contributor?

I agree with what ElectroBoy wrote but also -- Yes, poor forest management surely must a huge part of it, which is a shared responsibility of the state and federal governments. Certainly in the top 2 along with climate change, I'd guess?

Side note: I wish I could find the percentages somewhere, but a large part of the lands that are burning in the West are BLM / federal lands. Not that it really matters -- it's everyone's problem.

And the climate change aspect is one we as consumers contribute to (among other contributors) with tailpipe emissions from the cars we buy, but also other lifestyle choices (e.g. cattle) that result collectively in much more carbon emissions than are probably needed to sustain a high quality of life. I am 100% guilty of this.
 
Definitely. But you can’t say that California is all to blame for not “sweeping the forest”. Remember the Smokey the Bear campaign of fire prevention and suppression? A federal program.

Here’s a paragraph from an article that explains it rather well.

“...The US Forest Service adopted a policy of fire suppression. President Teddy Roosevelt and his Forest Service chief, Gifford Pinchot, drummed up fears of timber scarcity in order to expand federal control over forests and to suppress fires...”

California Has Always Had Fires, Environmental Alarmism Makes Them Worse Than Necessary



It’s going to cost more (and maybe create more jobs), but more logging and controlled burning needs to be done every year.

This is what I'm saying, The Sierra Club, among other environmental groups, have fought and won to drastically reduce timber harvesting.
And the whole "sweeping the forest floor" is a silly assertion, and the smokey the bear thing really has no bearing in regards to controlled burns. Controlled burns are used across much of the eastern US to remove dead underbrush with great success. Hell, even the NAI used controlled burns.
 
Definitely. But you can’t say that California is all to blame for not “sweeping the forest”. Remember the Smokey the Bear campaign of fire prevention and suppression? A federal program.

Here’s a paragraph from an article that explains it rather well.

“...The US Forest Service adopted a policy of fire suppression. President Teddy Roosevelt and his Forest Service chief, Gifford Pinchot, drummed up fears of timber scarcity in order to expand federal control over forests and to suppress fires...”

California Has Always Had Fires, Environmental Alarmism Makes Them Worse Than Necessary

It’s going to cost more (and maybe create more jobs), but more logging and controlled burning needs to be done every year.
Not being familiar with the state, do they have enough firebreaks? If not, maybe adding some would help slow down some of the fires. Just a thought.
 
This is what I'm saying, The Sierra Club, among other environmental groups, have fought and won to drastically reduce timber harvesting.
And the whole "sweeping the forest floor" is a silly assertion, and the smokey the bear thing really has no bearing in regards to controlled burns. Controlled burns are used across much of the eastern US to remove dead underbrush with great success. Hell, even the NAI used controlled burns.

I'm going to stay out of the Gas vs Electric debate but...

Timber harvesting has nothing to do with the current situation. The forest ecosystem in entire Western US burns. It always has, it always will. Redwoods can't procreate without fire. But while fire is natural, the intensity is getting worse.

The climate here is getting dryer and warmer and this has several knock-on effects. The tree line is creeping to higher altitudes, trees are getting more stressed during the hotter summers, less snow means dryer fuels on the forest floor earlier in the summer and less water for trees later in the year which further stresses them, and warmer winters contribute to beetle plagues that wipe out millions of acres of trees.

In Colorado you would need a WPA scale jobs program of sawyers to clear the dead standing lodgepole pine that the pine beetles killed in the mid-2000s. You can't do a simple controlled burn in these dead forests. You need to down the trees, stack them up, and burn them in giant pyres in the fall after the first snows or you bring them down to a yard and turn them in to heating pellets and sawdust. It's going to take a lot of people to remediate 3.4 million acres in just this State.

Hell, you'd need a Government program for the live trees too because Lodgepole is probably the worlds shittiest pine tree and no commercial enterprise would every try to harvest it for a profit.
 
Last edited:
Much truth there. The unburned fuel in the forest is just amazing. Makes for uncontrol able fires, even for mother nature. The Beetle kill is something interesting all by itself. There was a well done explanation in the Waldon forest service office a few years ago. i don't know if it is still there. Worth a visit.
The "blue board" makes great building material. The available fuel for uncontrolable fires is scary. Our fire insurance rates are becoming untenable.
Won't be long before you won't be able to buy fire insurance for your house at any price. We are in a zone 4 area. we have a fire hydrant across the road, and a fire station less than 1/2 mile, lake almost in the front yard, and high risk insurance. Almost lost our house to an irresponsible smoker a few years ago.
But they still hang their smokes out the car window and throw the buts out the window. It will get worse before it gets better. Guess i got off topic here, sorry.
 
Don't worry california communist voters, you deserve everything that you are experiencing. You can blame it on climate change or whatever that makes you sleep well at night, but the reality is, most of the fires out there, the rolling blackouts, the crappy roads, the high taxes, is the result of you...the communist voter, voting for insane bills and taxes all in the name of saving the environment, but which has the exact opposite effect in most cases.

It's okay the communist public servants thanks you the uninformed voter for helping them line their pockets with your money.
 
Last edited:
Much truth there. The unburned fuel in the forest is just amazing. Makes for uncontrol able fires, even for mother nature. The Beetle kill is something interesting all by itself. There was a well done explanation in the Waldon forest service office a few years ago. i don't know if it is still there. Worth a visit.
The "blue board" makes great building material. The available fuel for uncontrolable fires is scary. Our fire insurance rates are becoming untenable.
Won't be long before you won't be able to buy fire insurance for your house at any price. We are in a zone 4 area. we have a fire hydrant across the road, and a fire station less than 1/2 mile, lake almost in the front yard, and high risk insurance. Almost lost our house to an irresponsible smoker a few years ago.
But they still hang their smokes out the car window and throw the buts out the window. It will get worse before it gets better. Guess i got off topic here, sorry.


Unfortunately Blue-Stain wood is only good for finishing material. Lodge pole is not a great structural wood.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
278,315
Messages
3,554,130
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top