Search results

SOMEBODY at AAA involved in the testing or publishing or whatever should have thought : "Hmm, this seems REALLY high. 33% road load increase from a 20% increase in weight despite no increase in aero drag?!" They should have done even a quick "real-world" test to see if it made any sense. 20...

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. For instance, if "neutral" still has a tiny bit of regen, or something like that. Although, that wouldn't explain why the unladed and laden tests are so far apart.

You're right. It absolutely does.

I think the Rivian lost more range than the Lightning in their testing, and they attributed that to the water tank sticking up substantially more above the Rivian's cabin, but barely above the Lightning's cabin. Same point you were making, I think, but just a swap of which truck mostly blocked...

Good info on you towing (which of course would have a HUGE aero component). I thought about potential aero effect of the weight on the "attack angle" of the truck. But two things made me think it wasn't a major factor: 1. Out of Spec's test showed 25% loss is crazy high even though they had...

Yeah, I mean, the problem with AAA's testing could be that the tests just aren't very good. I'm confident if they did a real-world test that the range loss would be far smaller than 25%.

Yep, another good data point, and the 4-wheeler might have a notable aerodynamic effect that the sandbags that AAA used wouldn't have. 25% loss is way out there. They messed something up, IMO, either their unladen range was too high or their laden range was too low, but 25% range drop from a...

That's a variable, but not THAT big, especially when you've got regen working to mitigate the added weight. I could see the range loss from 20% weight increase being bigger than OOS's 5%, say, 10% or whatever, but losing 25% range from 20% increase in weight is ridiculous. Here's another...

Doesn't pass the sniff test. They added 20% more weight (7,040 -> 8,440 lb) to the truck and it resulted in a 25% decrease in range despite no meaningful aero effect and despite regen braking offsetting the "cost" of accelerating extra weight. Also, Out of Spec Motoring did a similar test and...

If I was going to have two DCFC ports, I’d rather they just be the same plug type, but in two different locations to make using pulling into charging stations easier. Plus just one adapter.

Yeah, I'm hoping there's a small extension that derates the 250kW somewhat. Even 150kW max, 100kW continuous wouldn't be far off what my truck does anyway. Maybe it's possible. We'll see!

Speaking of spin, nice try using the "average" when the only network that's above average is Tesla. You should compare Tesla to the average of CCS, not the overall average which Tesla brings way up because it's so much better. The average of the 3 CCS networks on there is only 610, meaning 39%...

Not really. Satisfaction polls show Tesla is far higher (see Zprime's post), charging difficulties WAY lower (per PlugInAmerica), people who have used both extensively generally agree Tesla is superior (see Out of Spec Motoring, for instance, who does TONS of road trips and testing), etc...

Yep, i3 is the case where I had to lift up on the charger to keep it seated or it would fail to connect and not say why. With the Lightning there have been lots of other failures (none catastrophic), though none directly attributable to the CCS port/plug. Then again, I never had a Tesla...

Yeah, it's not even really debatable that, overall, that EV drivers are happier with Tesla's network. Poll after poll agrees. Virtually everyone who has used both extensively agrees. And anecdotally, the amount of complaints about CCS dwarfs Tesla despite being far, far fewer CCS cars road-tripping.

I already clarified that I believe *Tesla* has fixed it (seemingly lower frequency of this issue in the last few years), and that it seems that seems the issue is rare enough in general that it hasn't effected the high satisfaction with Tesla charging. You're now just deliberately...

Cool story, but I literally said I did a search for this issue in my previous post. Not an exhaustive search, but I searched for it, and like your 3-year-old source, most instances were years old. Then, I narrowed my search to a Tesla forum (top Google result) that had many results (mostly old)...

I don't think this is an inherent, unsolvable issue with NACS. Your source example is 3 years old and a quick search shows most posts about this issue are multiple years old. There are also associated issues with the CCS plug being so huge and unwieldy. I've had to hold/press the plug in place...

Yes. Originally, it was $40k, but currently, it’s $60k.

The actual quote is: Frequent use of DC charging could result in reducing your battery's efficiency and lifespan. This is more pronounced on the standard range battery pack versus the extended range battery pack. It's extremely vague. If it's the same pouch cells, then the biggest potential...