MT attempts no-recharge LA-to-Las Vegas drive in Tesla Model S

It would have been more informative if they would have just drove like normal, and then spend just the 10 minutes they would have needed on the Tesla supercharger to very comfortably arrive at their destination with plenty of charge to spare. They didn't even need to completely recharge the battery, they could have just blasted a few more miles worth of charge into it and been on their way. Sadly, the thought process for a "big story" on an EV always goes down the same boring pattern of storyboards: 1) Get a hold of an EV and find out the EPA range rating. 2) Choose a distance to travel that is that long or longer. 3) Refuse to take ANY of the multiple options for recharging along the route. 4) Build a fake drama around the last few miles of range, either to make the trip or not. Gee, isn't everybody filled with all the manufactured suspense of an American Idol final round? That plot line is already old and trite, and EV's are still barely breaking onto the market! Why do they all follow that same formula? Because actually using an EV like the Model S on a daily basis is actually quite boring. You unplug every day with plenty of range to handle the day's driving. Then at the end of the day you plug back in without any drama. Repeat. I know a couple of folks who have owned the old RAV4 EV. When you ask them exactly how far they can drive before they run out of electricity, they all answer with some variation on "I don't know, why would I drive it until it runs out of electricity? I've never done that." It would be nice to see a big story about how someone just used their EV for normal everyday use, just like they used to drive their gasser -- and shockingly nothing exciting or suspenseful happens! It just does what it is supposed to do, day after day with no drama.

The gopro camera attached to the roof didn't help aerodynamics. They should have gone the same speed as the semi trucks. The aerodynamic savings of following one of those trucks at a safe distance would have given them enough juice to go use the air conditioning the whole way.

There is one thing that really bothered me about this review that needs to be addressed. The Motor Trend reviewers mention several times that they need to keep the speed down while going over the pass in order to keep their energy usage in check; ie, they think going fast up the hill will have a disproportionately larger effect on energy consumption than going fast on flat ground. They therefore go up the pass at a painfully slow speed. An increase in speed causes an increase in energy usage mainly because of an increase in wind resistance, and a gain in elevation requires energy expenditure to raise the weight of the car and occupants X number of feet. BUT, the energy the reviewers save by driving the car ridiculously slow uphill is only because the wind resistance is less for that part of the drive, not because going uphill slowly magically saves energy. If the reviewers simply would have kept the cruise control on the whole time at an average speed that was just a bit slower than what they were doing on the flats, they would have used about the same energy. Additionally, at highway speeds, the climate control isn't going to cut the range by that much - maybe 10%. Considering how much range they had left at the end, the drive could have been accomplished in much greater comfort and without putting along in the truck lane going up the passes. I was curious what the total energy expenditure for the elevation change would be on this drive, so I did a rough estimate, assuming they are leaving from San Bernadino, CA (the total distance here is about 235 mi, so this is a bit further than they actually drove). Google Earth says the total elevation gain here is about 10200ft and the loss is about 9000ft. This means the car has to be raised 1200 ft. Additionally, the car does lose some energy because of regen inefficiencies. Assuming the total efficiency of the motor is 90%, the total efficiency of the regenerated energy from the elevation loss is about 60%, and the total weight of the car + occupants + other junk is about 5200lbs, the total energy expenditure for the elevation portion of the equation is about 10kWh - not insignificant, but you can see how cutting down on vehicle weight would save a lot of energy here.

"The editor kept the A/C off for most of the ride, cruised at speeds as low as 52 miles per hour on freeways" So, basically, MT proved that even a top-end EV is no match for a used $10k compact car which would go farther, faster, and in greater comfort. If I'm driving to Vegas, I expect AC to be on the entire way, at a comfortable 72 degrees vs 96+ outside. I expect to run 75+ mph when traffic permits. And I don't expect to be arriving on fumes & vapors, literally sweating my next refuel. Really, if they're going to take an extra hour or two on the road, just ride the bus with the blue hair crowd.

The real question unanswered here, is if you actually want Jessi Lang to be cool or all hot and sweaty, once you get to Vegas.

How did they recharged the car in vegas and for how long. With 110 volts it would have taken 24 hours to recharge so they probably use 220-240 volts level 2 charging for 6 hours approx. Please do complete article with all the informations needed. Im shopping here since a lot of years and we need all the informations necessary to make a good concious choice for a car or a truck or shoes.