Tesla Model 3 Falls Short of Consumer Reports Recommendation (cnbc.com) 297
Consumer Reports published their review of the Tesla Model 3 today. The product review site liked the vehicle's range of the battery and agile handling, but had issues with braking, controls, and ride quality. Overall, it failed to get a recommendation. CNBC highlights the key shortfalls: "Our testers also found flaws -- big flaws -- such as long stopping distances in our emergency braking test and difficult-to-use controls," said a review in the publication. In particular, the car's stopping distance of 152 feet from a speed of 60 miles per hour was slower than any of its contemporaries, including the Ford F-150, a full-size pickup. The location of almost all of Tesla's controls on a touchscreen and the vehicle's ride quality were also factors in the group's decision. Tesla issued a statement in response to Consumer Reports' stopping distance claim: "Tesla's own testing has found braking distances with an average of 133 feet when conducting the 60-0 mph stops using the 18-inch Michelin all season tire and as low as 126 feet with all tires currently available. Stopping distance results are affected by variables such as road surface, weather conditions, tire temperature, brake conditioning, outside temperature, and past driving behavior that may have affected the brake system. Unlike other vehicles, Tesla is uniquely positioned to address more corner cases over time through over-the-air software updates, and it continually does so to improve factors such as stopping distance."
Won't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people buy Tesla's to be cool, not to be practical.
Whats a flawsâ"big flawsâ" (Score:2)
Is that like Upgraadde with a Double D for the Double Dose of Pimping. This one has a double Acent Grave for the Double Dose of Awesome
Re: (Score:2)
You prefer coal batteries?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know much about Tesla (the man) do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla was a talented engineer and scientist in his younger years and up into middle age. But he faced attacks and opposition from people like Edison and degenerated into a weird crank in his later years. He ended his life with the same reputation as Aleister Crowley or Madam Blavatsky, and the coffee-table books about Tesla on the remainder table at big-box bookstores have the same occult aura about them.
Hydrogen? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hydrogen? Really? You know, we've been there, done that. We had hydrogen powered cars driving around in the late '70's and '80's - gov research programs after that little oil embargo dust up. We even had cryogenic liquid fuel tanks that could keep most of the fuel from evaporating away for weeks at a time, and when a little did evaporate away it went through a nickel catalyst and was converted to harmless water.
Don't even think about compressed gas storage or porous adsorption techniques. The volumetri
Re: Hydrogen? (Score:2)
Doesn't seem very efficient. You create hydrogen to then run a fuel cell which then charges a battery to finally power the truck. That's a lot of energy loss in that system.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hydrogen"??? People still cling to that debunked nonsense?
Re: Won't matter (Score:2)
Hydrogen had incredibly low energy density. If you don't know that you probably shouldn't be commenting on these topics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since when are Tesla cars cool?
Since they have a coolant loop in the battery?
Attempt #2 [Re: Won't matter] (Score:2)
Since the original went over like a lead mod point, let me rephrase it: "Most people buy Tesla's to try to be cool, not to be practical."
Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In that case how did they get a car? At this point it's invitation only. I haven't noticed an issue with stopping power—it seems quite good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What? At the performance end, cars ARE stopping a _little_ shorter. Brembo 6 pistons, factory big brakes etc. but 99% tires being better.
Average cars are still average cars. 1 piston calipers, average low cost discs etc. Very little new under the sun. Even active, individual wheel ABS was available 15 years ago. It still isn't on econo cars. The cheap end of ABS is still very cheap. 10 or 15 years ago ABS was already required and standard.
There is a little improvement in tires. But 15 year old cars are
Re: (Score:2)
2018 camry 122 ft
Re: (Score:2)
One example proves nothing.
You cherry picked the year and model, right after rollover protection added weight to all cars.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
ABS came standard on Camry's even in 1998
Re: (Score:3)
ABS doesn't shorten stopping distance.
Re: (Score:3)
Report in 2011 with several cars made before 2003 22 cars that stop better than 100 feet from 60 [motortrend.com]
That is at least 33 feet better than the Tesla, more like over 50 feet. And in a car that out accelerates half of them????
Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla (Score:5, Informative)
(For anyone who cares) - Just minutes ago Musk responded [twitter.com] to this:
Oh, now another [twitter.com]:
Lots of people responding that they think that the CR report is BS because their cars stop better than any other car they've ever had, yadda yadda... but I'm glad Musk isn't being dismissive.
Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla (Score:4, Interesting)
Another [twitter.com]:
Also responded to a person who wrote "Elon any chance of adding air compressors at Superchargers to fill up our tires ??" with "Good point. Yeah, we will do that for the bigger locations."
Re: (Score:3)
More updates after I went to bed:
Re: (Score:2)
It's a little bit scary that an OTA firmware update can alter braking ability. Normally such firmware gets extensive testing...
Re: (Score:2)
How does it make a difference whether the update comes in over the air or whether you have to drive your car in to a dealership?
Re: (Score:3)
You wake up one day, start driving to work and surprise your brakes are less effective today!
Japanese Teslas don't get updates these days because the regulator isn't happy about this potential.
Re: (Score:2)
There was more information after I went to bed (see above). It's #1 - an ABS calibration issue on the vehicles CR had (which appear to be early model vehicles - which also explains the wind noise and stiff suspension, which were fixed in later build vehicles). Tesla already has a fix ready, and plans to start rolling it out in a few days.
Re: Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla (Score:2)
Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla (Score:4, Interesting)
In that case how did they get a car? At this point it's invitation only.
How'd you get yours? Maybe they got an invitation?
I haven't noticed an issue with stopping power—it seems quite good.
I'm going to go with decades of experience testing cars over random guy on the internet.
Re:Braking distance suggests QA problem at Tesla (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't it amazing how CR idea of testing makes more sense to me than the government testing.
Even for all these emissions scandals that we've been hit with. Wouldn't it make more sense to just take a random car and drive it around the city with some stops and then on a clear highway.
You'd get a pretty good sampling of the needed data. It might not be exact enough to distinguish a car with 7.0 L/100 KM versus 7.2 L/100 KM. But who really cares about that 0.2 as a consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the variability of everyday driving is far more than 0.2 l/100 km. I've seen as much as 2 l/100 km variation on the same stretch of road due to weather (temp, wind) and traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
If Tesla is getting 133 ft stopping distances in their internal testing, while CR got a 152 ft stopping distance, that would suggest a QA problem at Tesla
Or more likely it would represent variances in testing. Where's your control group?
Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlike other vehicles, Tesla is uniquely positioned to address more corner cases over time through over-the-air software updates, and it continually does so to improve factors such as stopping distance."
Eyeroll. I'm sure you'll be able to make major changes to stopping distance via a software update.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
regenerative braking
Re: (Score:2)
regenerative braking
In an emergency braking scenario, the ability of the regen system to absorb energy should never be the limiting factor. Teslas do regen, but they also have brake pads. Sure, you put as much energy as possible back into the battery, but the brake pads should also be engaged so that the limiting factor is the static friction between the tire and the road.
The only software that should matter is the firmware in the ABS. I doubt if that can be modified OTA.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Prepare to be terrified
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also model 3 is RWD only. So regen only happens on the rear wheels. Most consider 2/3 of braking force of a hard stop to be from the front wheels.
It is a (relatively) heavy car, granted the F150 is a couple hundred pounds more, but trucks get some big brakes because they often have to stop some big loads and trailers. The Tesla will need similar to compete. But likely do not have as much room behind the front wheels to put them, or the cooling flow.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt if that can be modified OTA.
Go ask Michael Hastings
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, Tesla is trying to optimize for two things (energy recovery and stopping). Most other car companies are only optimizing one (stopping).
Your life v. 0.0134% improved range.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be more realistic and talk about 15% improved range. And that toddler that's 130 feet ahead.
So you think this is the difference between using regen brakes, or not? There's nothing in between, like say using them slightly, slightly less. Or not using them in high-stress braking situations?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, Tesla is trying to optimize for two things (energy recovery and stopping). Most other car companies are only optimizing one (stopping).
Or you know, they can hire engineers with common sense and optimize for stopping distance when you stomp on the brake, and energy recovery when it's gently pressed.
Not to mention other car manufacturers aren't necessarily optimizing for stopping distance, limiting brake wear and minimizing the jolt to passengers are also considerations.
Re: (Score:2)
They should, but apparently haven't. A Tesla S has brakes the same size as a Camaro. A car that weighs 1000 lbs less.
Re: (Score:2)
Eyeroll. I'm sure you'll be able to make major changes to stopping distance via a software update.
Are you ignorant of just how much software and fine tuning is involved in the ABS systems that you rely on to bring your car to a stop in these incredibly short distances?
Unleash the Lawyers! (Score:5, Funny)
Better Check (Score:2)
Were they using Chrome on the car, with custom settings?
Oh Noes ! (Score:2)
Oh Noes !
Some not-very-cheap car that you can only buy next year (if you're lucky) has the same stopping distance as a Ferd F-teenthousand.
But when will we see Slashdot articles about the New Dacia Sandero ? (read last part in James May's voice)
Re: (Score:2)
the expensive version isn't exactly a bowl of peaches either, having much higher insurance claims, severity, and totals http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/st... [iihs.org]
Meanwhile: (Score:5, Interesting)
From MotorTrend's testing [motortrend.com]:
They measured an average braking distance of 119ft, vs. 123 ft for the BMW 330i.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against CR. But their testing mechanisms often seem really poorly controlled. Which can go either way - they found a 350 mile range for the Model 3 LR with 18" wheels, which is well further than normal. Their range measurement isn't a drive cycle, it's just a guy driving, which is obviously going to introduce a lot of randomness. One likes to hope that their braking tests are better controlled, but somehow I doubt that. They got hugely divergent braking distance results on the Model 3, with their first measure being around 130 feet, but others much higher dragging the average up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There could be some randomness with the braking distance, and if so, that should be remedied. But Car and Driver did six stops and ended up with an average of 119 feet. It's the difference between the averages of Car and Driver and CR that's strange. Car and Driver found it averaging better than a BMW. CR found it averaging worse than a Ford Pickup. Even if individual braking events are variable, the averages should be much closer than that.
Re: (Score:2)
ED: Wait, you were linking Motor Trend, not Car and Driver.
Re: (Score:2)
ED: Other way around. Argh, I give up. Wish you could edit posts here :P
â"big flawsâ" (Score:5, Insightful)
I see another flaw right there, but this one is not Tesla's fault.
Hybrid brakes (Score:5, Insightful)
Teslas probably use some combination of regenerative braking and traditional friction brakes with brake pads. This smells like the automated system isn't aggressive enough in engaging the friction brakes when the pedal is hit hard -- they probably prioritize using the brakes to recharge the batteries and not wearing out the brake pads. Maybe the software needs to be rewritten to prioritize friction braking when the pedal is pressed "suddenly."
As far as the giant LCD, it's abominable. It intrudes into the passenger and driver seat spaces and is likely easily broken due to its design. I've often put furniture or even lumber into a car's front passenger seat -- in the Tesla, this would virtually guarantee damage to the screen. It's also not tactile and hard to use with gloves on in winter.
The 2018 Leaf has a much more practical interior, even if it's not artsy-fartsy minimalist.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that Tesla brakes work like that. You lift off the accelerator and you get full regenerative braking. Then you push on the brake pedal and you get brake application. Tesla doesn't modulate the brake pedal for regenerative braking.
Other possibilities: firmware update overnight or bad test methodology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know that some manufacturers did this decades ago? Citroen and Rolls Royce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"... or bad test methodology."
CR is holding it wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Stock model S has similar issues with stopping distance, you need much bigger brakes to stop a heavier car. Most S packages have a seriously up-sized brake package that gets the stopping numbers in the ballpark. Batteries are heavy, tires for heavy cars with low rolling resistance (ie more range) are also not the best at stopping.
Also keep in mind, Model 3 is rear wheel drive only, so regen only happens on the rear wheels. 2/3 of hard braking is generally considered to be front wheels only, so the Tesla
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they tested with a full battery. When the battery is fully charged regen is disabled or reduced. Same on the Leaf. I think it also reduces when the battery is very cold or hot.
$75k Model 3 (Score:2, Troll)
Tesla is a terrible investment. They are stopping their Model 3 production line again. Executives and engineers are leaving. They j
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus which, both Ford and Toyota make plug-in hybrids with msrp around $32,000 that look to be far more practical vehicles for folks that want an EV for local driving, but would like to take the occasional long trip without spending hours hanging out in parking areas in the middle of nowhere recharging their batteries.
Re: (Score:3)
1) No, you don't have to plug your car in every night unless you're driving hundreds of miles per day. Most people *choose to*, but that's an entirely different story.
2) (10 hours/yr * 60 minutes/hour) / 365,24 days/year = 1,6 minutes to plug in and unplug? Way too long. Try 10 seconds to plug in and 10 seconds to unplug. 2 hours per year.
3) The average American drives ~13476 miles per year and the average US passenger vehicle is 24,7mpg; that's 546 gallons per year. Let's guess an average tank size of 1
Stop trying to make a smart phone with wheels. (Score:5, Insightful)
The location of almost all of Tesla's controls on a touchscreen
I want controls you can adjust without looking, and with gloves in the winter. Why is every car getting away from usability? It is a horrible trend.
Also if the brakes are simply under sized, how is that fixed with a firmware update?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"I want controls you can adjust without looking, and with gloves in the winter. Why is every car getting away from usability? It is a horrible trend."
Amen, Brother! The electronics on the recent vehicles I've come into contact with are ghastly beyond belief. They are a large part of why I've opted to install a GPS, backup camera and modern radio in our 2005 Sentra instead of buying a new car.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a car designed by Californians. Techy Californians at that. Of course it will all be through apps and touch screens. They don't know what winter gloves are either.
Re: (Score:2)
Press the scroll ball in the right spoke of the steering and say what you want, the speech command will it all for you. Reduce temp, increase fan speed, call home. call bozo the clown, drive home, drive to 1234, main street, sometown, New Jersey, drive to Walmart... The music control, volume control, turn indicators, wiper, windshield washer, shifter are all traditional.
Re: (Score:2)
Also if the brakes are simply under sized, how is that fixed with a firmware update?
I agree that couldn't be addressed with a firmware update. But I didn't see any indication that "undersized brakes" was the cause of the problem. My default assumption is that the Tesla's firmware has to decide how much breaking to do via regenerative braking and how much to do via friction braking, and that it currently optimizes for regenerative (hence range) at the expense of short stopping distance. This kind of thing could certainly be fixed by a firmware update.
Re: (Score:2)
Also if the brakes are simply under sized
There's basically no cars on the market with undersized breaks. The stopping distance is related to weight, its distribution, suspension, tires, and then software ... like ABS and regenerative breaking systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Brakes on touch screen? (Score:2)
Maybe the brakes have been move to the touch screen as well, and the test driver had gloves on?
The next model should be gaze controlled. You want to turn left, just look that way. That would be very cool indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
The next model should be gaze controlled. You want to turn left, just look that way. That would be very cool indeed.
In other news: a sharp spike in vehicular accidents involving beautiful women.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because waiting for the car to preheat isn't always an option.
How long do you think it will take to heat? Remember, this isn't an ICEV. Those are warmed with waste heat from the engine and give you nothing until you've burned enough fuel to heat that large hunk of metal. EVs don't have significant waste heat, which means their heaters use heating elements or heat pumps -- which means they start blowing hot air within seconds, and the cabin temperature rises to very comfortable levels long before an ICEV's heater would start blowing noticeably-warm air.
My Nissan LE
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, I think that is called a Leaf. Or Prius. If you want an electric econobox just go and buy one. You don't need to spend a premium on a Tesla if that is what you are after. The Tesla has the advantage of both a trunk and a frunk and rear seats that fold flat. I cannot imagine a situation where you would need to put shit in the passenger seat in such a way that it would potentially impact the display, but who knows?
The reason Tesla (and, you know, every other major auto manufacturer) is putting more
Re: (Score:2)
(1) The average auto buyer in the US is a borderline mechanical idiot who values gimcrack geegaws over functionality.
(2) It's a car, not a phone. It does the same thing, taking me from point A to B. Why the fuck would I care about changing the user interface.
(3) The 2019 Jetta/Golf still have real HVAC controls, not a touch-screen designed for dumb millennials.
(4) Changing the light switch in your VW likely took about 30 seconds. Pull out, unplug, plug new one in, push in.
Re: (Score:2)
Consumer Reports? LOL! (Score:3)
A long time ago I saw a joke in either Car & Driver or maybe it was Road & Track. In the background were several bespectacled men in white lab coats with clipboards making notes as cars were being driven off a cliff. In the foreground are two guys. One says to the other, "Oh, that's just Consumer Reports testing cars again"
And as for their "statistical analyses" they are a joke. They only survey CR subscribers. They won't disclose their numbers. They won't disclose their methodology. They seem to feel it is all proprietary. And it goes without saying they have no numbers at all on the Model 3. It's too bad people take these jokers seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Motor Trend measured an average of 119ft.
Re: (Score:2)
Motor Trend measured an average of 119ft.
133 ft is not an absolute number, it's relative to all the other cars they tested under the same conditions.
While it's possible for CR to make a mistake, they are pretty good at this stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected - I was looking at the comparison table, while they clarified in the more detailed analysis. Regardless, they declared that the Model 3 "ekes out a win in this category" vs. the BMW.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also charges at about a third the speed from an inferior, fragmented network. Worse performance (not bad, just worse), worse handling (again, not bad, just worse), econobox interior, much less interesting options, etc. Heck, even getting the aforementioned charging speed is an option. With a $2k higher MSRP.
Also, the GP is wrong; Model 3 comes with cruise control. TACC is part of AP, but normal cruise control is standard. Collision warning / autobraking / etc (all safety components of AP) are also stan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gasoline cars aren't the only ones available used.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To turn what on and off? Be specific. Give an example.
Re: (Score:3)
Claims, meet facts. [electrek.co]