Cheraw Chronicle

Complete News World

Tesla must give Norwegian customers 13,000 euros after an update that reduces range – image and sound – news

I agree with @Darkened Agree that people suddenly have less access. The battery has not been changed, but the vehicle simply gives a more realistic picture of the expected range based on experience figures.
… it can only lose 20% of its power after 200,000 km.

It is important to display the actual expected range correctly. First of all, this is probably easy to manage: if you have enough data, you can calculate the actual consumption. The range of course depends on many factors, such as weather conditions, flights (lots of highways or city traffic), and driving behavior. But if the on-board computer always sets a range of 500 km, while in the best cases it reaches 420 km, then there is no need for you to be a rocket scientist to understand that this is not true.

What’s so important about it: We have to get rid of the range as shown in the NEDC / WLTP measurements and move to a practical method that measures actual consumption.
Another step forward: With the correct measurement method, you can also do the same with the harmful substances released.
Because what has already happened many times and will continue to happen: The government sets policy based on incorrect data. Later the correction was applied and now those who took advantage of the policy are being deceived.
Example: Diesel engines saved for years: low emissions and very financially beneficial. Sales rose sharply. A few years later: Oh, the diesel isn’t okay. Financial gains disappear and buyers see preserved shelf evaporation as consumption increases.
Hybrid SUV: The same trick: financially beneficial first, no longer later.

Without judging it directly, but looking at the impact on the environment: This incorrect information leads to more bad net emissions, because it turns out that not everything was so good.
It benefits only a small number of consumers / citizens.
This is what I see in part with electric cars: The actual impact on the environment compared to ICEs is not entirely clear. Electric cars are expected to be better, and I expect so too. Whether that is enough for the environment to have a sufficient impact (maybe we should do more for the environment, like using an electric bike) is unknown and I doubt it.
It’s nice that we’re making the transition to electric cars, but if in thirty years it turns out that an electric car has turned into a drop in the ocean, I think: missed an opportunity we didn’t focus on before and did more.
I prefer using an electric car so that I am not dependent on fossil fuels and therefore on companies (not) politically, as is the case with fossil fuels now. In my opinion, this is a much more tangible argument that we are “saving” the environment with electric cars. We simply don’t know.

The portion on power loss of 20% after 200,000 km is incorrect (with some exceptions). Cars in the last 15 to 20 years or younger lose a bit of power over time. It is often a small percentage. And if there is a power reduction of more than 10%, it is most often due to how the motor was used or technical faults (hose leaks).

See also  More than 13% do not appear in the booster shot

[Reactie gewijzigd door Nas T op 25 mei 2021 17:01]