
Tesla Completes L.A.-to-New York Electric Model S Drive Chargers - gus_massa
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-26/tesla-completes-l-a-to-new-york-electric-model-s-drive-chargers.html
======
TallGuyShort
>> 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.

~~~
atourgates
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
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.

~~~
Shivetya
People seem to be missing your point, time is money. To those with lots of
money time necessarily isn't as much money. Hence, the Tesla buyers have the
luxury of time.

Going on a vacation for us means, the less time we spend getting there the
more time we have on vacation since we have to work it in between what work
allows.

Still I cannot believe even on this site all the people justifying stopping
every couple of hours for thirty minutes. Even traveling with dogs that isn't
necessary. Top it off, all those stops extend the trip which means yet another
hotel.

Plus my number one issue, the supercharge network governs how you do your
trip, which routes you take. That can simply put some locations out of
practicality.

------
danhak
A father/daughter team was first to make the cross-country trip:

[https://twitter.com/plugshare/status/427260624230309889/phot...](https://twitter.com/plugshare/status/427260624230309889/photo/1)

[http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/heading-cross-
countr...](http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/heading-cross-country)

------
mdturnerphys
Not the most direct route between the two cities [1]. It looks like there are
at least two parts of the route that don't follow interstates. The excursion
up to South Dakota to go past Mt. Rushmore makes sense, but I can't figure out
the jog into New Mexico. Unless someone's really interested in a couple of
National Monuments in that corner of NM, it looks like the only reason for
that jog is to go to the Four Corners Monument with the minimum travel
distance through an Indian reservation.

[1]
[http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger](http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger)

~~~
SomeCallMeTim
If you look north of Flagstaff in Arizona, there aren't many places to stop.
They need infrastructure to place one of these stations, and they're promising
that each stop will have restaurants (and hotels?) nearby.

My first thought was local politics (offers of free land in places trying to
attract tourists come to mind), but I'm now leaning toward the fact that they
just routed around completely barren areas where they couldn't get the station
spacing correct.

~~~
mdturnerphys
Hmm, maybe this explains why they didn't go up I-15 to I-70 in Utah, even
though that route gives you access to Zion NP. That first part of I-70 is
pretty empty.

~~~
andykellr
They're going that way. Check out the 2014 map. Bryce might be tricky, but
Zion should be easily reachable.

------
codex
The most serious issue with electric cars isn't road trips, it's the fact that
if you don't own your own home, or live in a dense city with no off street
parking, you likely don't have reliable access to a daily recharge overnight.
That's probably half the driving population of America. 30 minutes of quick
charging is fine every so often, but not every day or even every week.

This is why fuel cells continue to be pushed as a viable alternative--quick,
carbonless refueling. The closest equivalent that the EV world can offer is a
battery swap station, but that has a host of issues.

~~~
abalone
It's interesting now that Tesla has answered the folks saying "the most
serious issue with electric cars is road trips," now we get this.

I'm a little skeptical of the "half of the driving population won't be able to
charge" claim. For example, you don't necessarily need to own your off-street
parking spot for the owner to upgrade it to increase its value. And I doubt
on-street overnight parkers constitute anywhere close to half of the
population (I'd be interested in data that shows otherwise).

Anyway, it will be many, many years before even half the driving population
switches to electric. That's a lot of time to figure out charging
infrastructure in cities for the rest of us.

~~~
codex
It's Tesla that has defined the problem with electric cars as road trip
refueling. Most EV dealers offer free loaners for road trips, or you can rent
a car. Even vampire loads at airport parking in low temperatures is of higher
priority for most drivers. They're misdirecting from the main issue to one
that they can solve cheaply.

I'm saying this as someone who owns _two_ electric cars. The infrastructure
can be solved eventually, and some cities are looking into it, but even in the
suburbs there are problems [2], which is why hydrogen is still out there as an
alternative (albeit an immature and inefficient one), but for now, a large
portion of the U.S. population cannot buy an EV.

[1] [http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/Demand-EVSE-Access-
Gara...](http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/Demand-EVSE-Access-Garage-
Orphans-Survey2012.pdf)

[2] [http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24947237/charge-
rage-...](http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24947237/charge-rage-too-
many-electric-cars-not-enough-workplace-chargers)

~~~
abalone
Valid points esp. about the vampire loads in cold weather. If you remember
that NYT reviewer who stalled out, if you look at the details, maybe the
biggest factor was parking overnight in the deep cold at a hotel without
plugging in. I found it very distasteful how Musk attacked the reporter's
integrity in response.

I am just saying "a large portion of the population can't buy an EV" is like
saying "a large portion of the population can't buy a Macintosh" in 1984. If
the biggest problem you see is that people don't park their cars near chargers
_right now_ , that seems like a tractable problem. (And I would think much
moreso than making hydrogen mainstream.)

------
offmango
I find it fascinating how Tesla is approaching this from both ends, supplying
both the vehicles and the power. If the electric vehicle trend goes their way,
they'll have an enormous advantage in the market. But if Tesla goes belly-up
for whatever reason and the charging stations had to close, Tesla owners could
lose their primary fuel source.

~~~
dangrossman
Superchargers aren't anyone's primary fuel source. Most everyone lives 50+
miles from the nearest one -- they're located along interstates, between
cities rather than within cities, which avoids people using all the bays to
charge up as part of their daily commute. Supercharging too often also reduces
the lifespan of the battery moreso than a regular charge-up.

~~~
nandhp
I believe you, but note that the Tesla website only says this:

> How often can I Supercharge, is it bad for my battery? > > Supercharging
> does not alter the new vehicle warranty. > Customers are free to use the
> network as much as they like.

[http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger](http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger)

~~~
veemjeem
They do this to increase adoption, but it would probably still reduce the life
of the battery. I doubt people would use their supercharger every day unless
they happened to live next door to one. Their purpose of the supercharger
network is to reduce the whole "distance-fear" that EVs have.

------
gregpilling
According to this [http://www.thetruckersreport.com/infographics/cost-of-
trucki...](http://www.thetruckersreport.com/infographics/cost-of-trucking/)
the average semi truck driver spends $70,000 a year on fuel. I have to wonder
how this could change with a big rig sized version of the Supercharger
stations. Nationwide trucking with (basically) free fuel.

The trucks could hold a lot more batteries.

------
rdl
I'm curious if I'd want a Model S (top model) or a BMW 535d or other mid-
luxury diesel sedan in Germany in a couple years.

Around the city, sure, big advantage to the Tesla. For Autobahn trips at
150-250 km/h, stopping every 1-2h would get old fast, even if every service
stop had a supercharger.

~~~
NickM
If you're going that fast, you'll have to stop every 1-2h to refuel in just
about any car, ICE or EV. On the one hand, yeah you might have to stop for a
little longer in a Tesla, but on the other hand you're going to save shitloads
of money: driving that fast is massively inefficient, so you're going to spend
a lot of cash on fuel in an ICE, whereas the superchargers are free.

~~~
masklinn
Heh. The BMW 535d mentioned has a 70L tank, and even on worst-case drives
(sporty behaviour, not highway), it's quoted (by users) around 15L/100\. On
standard highway (not unlimited-speed autobahn, euro highway 120~130km/h) it's
quoted (again by users) around 7~8L/100.

edit: and do note: your 5~10mn refuelling break on a normal car brings you
back to full range, on a Model S it's 170 miles not the original 260-ish.

[0] [http://www.bmwblog.com/2011/03/16/the-diesel-driver-
reviews-...](http://www.bmwblog.com/2011/03/16/the-diesel-driver-reviews-the-
bmw-535d-sedan/)

~~~
NickM
Sporty behavior not on a highway is still going to get better consumption than
extremely high speed driving, because wind resistance rises as the square of
the velocity. If you double your velocity, then air drag increases by 4x, so
if users are quoting 8L/100 on 120-130km/h then you can expect to get about
32L/100 going 250km/h.

With a 70L tank at 250km/h you may well exhaust the tank in under an hour.
These are worst case numbers though, so if you drive a bit slower, then 1-2
hours between refueling seems like a reasonable estimate.

~~~
rdl
Actually it doesn't look that bad.

[http://www.automobile-
catalog.com/economy/2014/1900655/bmw_5...](http://www.automobile-
catalog.com/economy/2014/1900655/bmw_535d.html)

Fuel consumption:

in liter / 100 km

Estimated fuel consumption by constant speeds on top gear, steady ride without
acceleration or braking, flat concrete or tarmac surface, no wind

by 50 km/h (31 mph): 8 l/100 km

by 60 km/h (37 mph): 6.8 l/100 km

by 70 km/h (44 mph): 6.5 l/100 km

by 80 km/h (50 mph): 4.9 l/100 km

by 90 km/h (56 mph): 4.9 l/100 km

by 100 km/h (62 mph): 4.9 l/100 km

by 120 km/h (75 mph): 5.2 l/100 km

by 140 km/h (87 mph): 5.6 l/100 km

by 160 km/h (100 mph):6 l/100 km

by 180 km/h (112 mph):6.5 l/100 km

by 200 km/h (124 mph):7 l/100 km

by 220 km/h (137 mph):7.6 l/100 km

by 240 km/h (149 mph):8.4 l/100 km

by 260 km/h (161 mph):9.3 l/100 km

Clearly around 200 km/h is where the wind resistance (and gearing) is starting
to become a factor, but I think you could probably hit 280 or so without being
over 12 l/100km.

The other factor is that when I've driven >250 km/h I've gotten tired much
faster, as you need to be hyperaware. (I did almost 200mph in a "very nice"
Corvette Dubai-Abu Dhabi for about 20 seconds, and could see the fuel dial
dropping)

200-250 seems like a reasonable high cruise speed for parts of the Autobahn,
though.

The smarter option is probably Berlin to Munich/Frankfurt/Prague/etc. by
train, of course, but I like having a car.

~~~
NickM
Your link says that those are "estimated fuel consumptions", but I'm somewhat
inclined to doubt the veracity of these estimates: between 120 km/h and 240
km/h wind drag is going to quadruple, and ICEs get lower efficiency at higher
RPM. So if the efficiency falls by less than 50% when you double the speed,
then that implies that tire drag and internal friction represent the majority
of the force you're overcoming at highway speeds, which is definitely
incorrect. Something doesn't add up.

~~~
rdl
Cars have geared transmissions. Cars designed for the Autobahn (most high end
German cars) have gearing optimized for decent cruise range at 120-180 km/h.

The engine is sized for peak acceleration (and marketing). It has a turbo (in
the 535d; the 550d has 3....), which helps somewhat without adding more fuel
consumption, but still, a 300hp engine is pretty big.

Basically, to cruise along at 120kph in a reasonable car with reasonable Cd
probably is about 20-30hp (yay for mixing metric and imperial units...). Wind
is probably 20hp of that. The engine is less efficient at low output (specific
output), so you won't get fuel consumption at 10% power which is only 10% of
peak fuel consumption.

Wind resistance does go up, but your engine also gets to operate more within
its power band. With the right gearing, you can stay within the optimal RPMs
_and_ be close to the design power level of the engine at a reasonable cruise
speed.

Empirically, I've driven big heavy cars fast for long distances, and gotten
reasonable fuel economy; especially big German cars with big diesel engines.
What kills them is stop and go, or when you have a smaller car with, say, 5
gears, and you are running it at redline to keep your desired speed.

What is awesome about electric cars is you could get much more efficiency in
the motor across a range of power levels, plus regen. What is not at all
awesome is the power density of lithium ion batteries.

------
cjensen
Great progress on the supercharger buildout [1]! That said, traveling from LA
to NY via New Mexico and _South Dakota_ is a pretty funny route.

[1]
[http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger](http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger)

~~~
mdturnerphys
Looks like we were writing at the same time. See my other comment for some
ideas about the route.

------
baddox
Does anyone have any idea what the current bandwidth of the LA-NY route is? In
other words, given how many chargers exist along the route, how many Tesla
cars can make the trip per unit time?

Obviously, if you assume the optimal arrangement—each car being separated from
the next by exactly 30 minutes—each charge plug can support 48 cars per day.

That's also assuming that the chargers are arranged such that each leg between
chargers is less than 170 miles. The article doesn't indicate whether this is
the case.

~~~
pedalpete
I think you also need to take into account how many Model S cars are making a
cross-country journey at one time. I'd suspect it is less than 10 (how many
people drive from LA-NYC or vice-versa?).

Strangely, this is a great example of not over-engineering and pre-selling the
capabilities of your product. Tesla knows that the number of people who will
make this cross-country journey is small. They are fairly certain that the
stations can therefore handle the load. They are proving it is possible, and
likely don't have to worry about people actually doing it.

~~~
secabeen
This is true. Last week, the total number of Tesla vehicles using the
superchargers was 450. Now, certainly the weather was a factor in that, and
usage is much higher over holiday weekends, but it can be quite low.

------
fit2rule
I hope actually that Americans learn to drive _less_ , not more, as a result
of these sorts of changes in the market.

It always amuses me that a majority of American life is lived on the road. For
all the pleasures of the free and the brave, they love their little cages..

~~~
base698
After moving to California 3 years ago I've seen stretches of Utah, Arizona,
Nevada, Idaho, and of course California I'd never have seen without a car.
Gotten to go to places impractical with any other transportation. I can't
really imagine not having a car for my weekend trips.

I get not wanting to stay in a car for 40 minutes each way on a weekly
commute, but being trapped in a city like LA or San Francisco with no access
to the boundless natural beauty and adventure would cause me to go nuts.
Hipster coffee shops and artisanal food only do so much for my sanity.

~~~
fit2rule
I'm not saying you shouldn't drive your car everywhere.

I am saying, you shouldn't be doing it every day. That, right there, is one of
the unhealthiest lifestyles, for everyone.

The average American spends an hour a day in their car. This number changes
over the years, of course, but generally Americans spend a large portion of
their lives, consuming gas. Its just built into the nations life-lines at this
point.

Weekend trips with the car would be great! Alas, thats not how America uses
its cars ..

~~~
josefresco
Can you share the source for the data on how much time the average American
spends in a car?

~~~
ricardobeat
A quick google search points to an even higher average (101 minutes), _in
2006_ :
[https://web.archive.org/web/20100526113417/http://www.revolu...](https://web.archive.org/web/20100526113417/http://www.revolutionhealth.com/blogs/drscherger/men-
moderate-exercis-3815)

------
babuskov
A perfect solution would be to switch your empty battery with a full one and
just go. Let the charging station fill it up.

Are there any drawbacks to this?

~~~
dangero
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5V0vL3nnHY](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5V0vL3nnHY)

Tesla already demoed this.

~~~
aryastark
This is pretty cool. But the problems I see are infrastructural scaling
issues. To get a 2min throughput, you'd need at least 15 batteries stored
below. That may sound reasonable, but then you realize it's only Tesla. And
probably only compatible with one _model_ of Tesla. Not very future-proof. I
don't have audio at the moment, so maybe he discussed that.

Charger stations seem the better option. But I still think there could be
bottleneck issues if electric cars really took off. You could reach some
midpoint somewhere, say, Primm, NV, and be stuck there circling lots for hours
waiting for a charger station to free up (assuming one could circle a lot for
extend periods of time on a dead battery). The gas station there is pretty
much hell on earth already.

~~~
marvin
Tesla have already announced that they will build multiple vehicles with the
same battery form-factor as the Model S.

(I mean, you wouldn't even need a press release to know this - it's blatantly
obvious that Tesla will do their best to capitalize on the massive investment
that the Supercharger network represents).

------
digikata
It's too bad you couldn't just hitch a secondary external battery pack to a
mini-trailer hitched to the car for long distances. Roll into a station,
unhitch the pack, swap for charged one, go on your way maybe 15 min later.

I know there are proposals for swappable internal packs, with automatic swap
machinery at the station, but a trailer hitch and external plug requires a
lower capital investment, and is much less intrusive to the vehicle design.

~~~
omegant
Or for reaching the distant city a gasoline generator in the small trailer.
Making it a plugable hybrid.

~~~
superJoy
Or build said generator into the car and sell the whole thing for half the
price of a Tesla :)

[x] [http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-
car.html](http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car.html)

------
umsm
Is it reasonable to buy a Model S now hoping that within 6-7 years you can
swap out the "old" tech batteries for newer / better / faster / higher
capacity battery packs which will be introduced in 5-7 years?

If so, it wouldn't be a bad long-term car for those of us who like to keep
cars more than 5 years.

~~~
DEinspanjer
Yes. The cars were designed with that sort of future compatibility in mind.
That is how they were able to implement and demonstrate the battery pack
swapping station. While I personally don't believe there will ever be as many
battery swap stations as there are super chargers, it is quite believable that
in 5 to 10 years I'd be able to drive somewhere and swap out my aging battery
pack for a new one that will have a higher capacity than what my original pack
had when new.

------
ajcarpy2005
These superchargers are great but I think in many cases it would be more
practical to fully charge overnight at a hotel. (not sure how likely a hotel
would be to accomodate this) Hopefully hotels begin to build-out electric
outlet access for some of their parking spaces. The beauty of charging
overnight is you don't need to buy a special charger so the infrastructure
would be relatively inexpensive.

Imagine if you could simply rent a fuel-cell (hydrogen?) for long trips and
connect it in the trunk... Or even just renting extra batteries. (although
quite heavy and inconvenient to carry)

I'm fully convinced electric cars are a big component in tje future of
transportation but there are many challenges to solve. Also ET3/hyperloop
seems promising.

------
dm2
Unrelated: That pond / front water thing on
[http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger](http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger)
seems like it would be unnecessarily easy to drive or walk into.

------
coreymgilmore
Good to see the network growing. I may still be sorta impractical, but at
least Tesla is putting a foot forward and expanding their charging network. In
the end, this alone could push their sales higher since no other vehicles
(brands) can charge on the supercharger network.

So in, lets say, 5 years...would you rather buy an electric car with an
established and easy to use charging network. Or a different brand electric
car that is just launching their charger network? Tesla for the long term

------
QuantumGood
If I _needed_ to make a long road trip, I'd lease a car that is good for long
road trips and rent my Tesla to someone (or not).

If I _wanted_ to make a long road trip, I might not mind more frequent stops.

------
ryanobjc
This is what the future looks like people!

------
chiph
McDonalds or Cracker Barrel ought to get in on this at a corporate level.

