Talk:Tesla Model S/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Deaths per million miles in autopilot
- Tesla also stated that this was Tesla’s first known autopilot death in some 130 million miles (208 million km) driven by its customers. According to Tesla there is a fatality every 94 million miles (150 million km) among all type of vehicles in the U.S.
This stat could be disingenuous since it probably includes miles driven in non-autopilot mode. -- GreenC 21:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent point. I think it is important to dig/search a bit more to clarify this issue, beginning with finding the original Tesla statement. --Mariordo (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Tesla's press release clearly states those are Autopilot miles, check here: https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/tragic-loss The Guardian omitted that key detail. I will fix it soon adding this source. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent point. I think it is important to dig/search a bit more to clarify this issue, beginning with finding the original Tesla statement. --Mariordo (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- And by the way, in searching for the sources I used to expand the fatal accident, there is plenty about criticism and the limitations of Autopilot. These sources can be used to expand the section about "Autonomy limitations" near the end of the article. Help is required to achieved NPOV here.--Mariordo (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Voltage of the batteries?
Does anyone know the voltage of the battery packs? John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Voltage of the batteries?
Does anyone know the voltage of the battery packs? John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Joshua David Brown
I request this discussion after reversing Callinus edit that included the driver's name in the summary of the fatal accident. Please comment below if under Wikipedia policies there is merit to include the name of Joshua David Brown or not.--Mariordo (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The fact that Joshua David Brown was a technologist who ran an automation company is treated as significant by the news media
It is widely noted in the news media that there is a significant irony in Joshua Brown's youtube channel having a video called "Autopilot Saves Model S" - which shows the Tesla Model S swerving to avoid a white truck
News reports in April 2016 featured Joshua Brown's video, which was tweeted out by Elon Musk (link).
The details of the driver, and the driver's trust in the technology are likely to be included in any government report. -- Callinus (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Against. This type of incident, like the plug-in car fires in the past, call for a lot of attention and speculation. Therefore, it is important for editors to keep in mind that Wikipedia is NOT a media outlet, we do not report the news (see Wikipedia:NOTNEWS), so as per WP policies the content has to be encyclopedic (see WP:NOT). IMO, the notable facts to report in this section (Wikipedia:Notability) are just two: the fact that this is the first known accident with a fatal victim while the car was driven by a self-driving system, and second, it puts into question the reliability of Tesla's Autopilot technology (the objective of the NHTSA formal investigation). And for purposes of WP:NPOV, the official statement made by Tesla is required. Considering the key facts, the driver's name does not seems to be notable to be mentioned, nor anecdotal content about him (I previously removed some of it). Yes he was a Tesla enthusiast, and for obvious reasons he is mentioned in the all the news about the accident, but remember that per Wiki policies, notability is NOT temporary (WP:NOTTEMPORARY). I think that the only case when there is justification to mention victims in accidents is when this person meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people). To illustrate better, i.e. if the CEO of the company died testing its new technology, then I think he/she should be mentioned by name, but only if the company or the new technology are remarkable or significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded (notability!). Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- To support my argument, the article Joshua Brown (motorist) was created and a discussion was opened for deletion for lack of notability, see the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Brown (motorist) here. Feel free to participate in that discussion.--Mariordo (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Against. This type of incident, like the plug-in car fires in the past, call for a lot of attention and speculation. Therefore, it is important for editors to keep in mind that Wikipedia is NOT a media outlet, we do not report the news (see Wikipedia:NOTNEWS), so as per WP policies the content has to be encyclopedic (see WP:NOT). IMO, the notable facts to report in this section (Wikipedia:Notability) are just two: the fact that this is the first known accident with a fatal victim while the car was driven by a self-driving system, and second, it puts into question the reliability of Tesla's Autopilot technology (the objective of the NHTSA formal investigation). And for purposes of WP:NPOV, the official statement made by Tesla is required. Considering the key facts, the driver's name does not seems to be notable to be mentioned, nor anecdotal content about him (I previously removed some of it). Yes he was a Tesla enthusiast, and for obvious reasons he is mentioned in the all the news about the accident, but remember that per Wiki policies, notability is NOT temporary (WP:NOTTEMPORARY). I think that the only case when there is justification to mention victims in accidents is when this person meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people). To illustrate better, i.e. if the CEO of the company died testing its new technology, then I think he/she should be mentioned by name, but only if the company or the new technology are remarkable or significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded (notability!). Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- For. Joshua Brown was not very notable while he was alive (true for most of us) but he is an important fact in the accident. I am against having an article about him and am against making his life story the centre of this section the but I feel his name should be mentioned at least once. It will make it much easier for people to research the accident in the future if the reference links break. Stepho talk 08:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- For. I think that Stepho-wrs's argument above is sensible. Sb2s3 (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Joshua David Brown
I request this discussion after reversing Callinus edit that included the driver's name in the summary of the fatal accident. Please comment below if under Wikipedia policies there is merit to include the name of Joshua David Brown or not.--Mariordo (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The fact that Joshua David Brown was a technologist who ran an automation company is treated as significant by the news media
It is widely noted in the news media that there is a significant irony in Joshua Brown's youtube channel having a video called "Autopilot Saves Model S" - which shows the Tesla Model S swerving to avoid a white truck
News reports in April 2016 featured Joshua Brown's video, which was tweeted out by Elon Musk (link).
The details of the driver, and the driver's trust in the technology are likely to be included in any government report. -- Callinus (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Against. This type of incident, like the plug-in car fires in the past, call for a lot of attention and speculation. Therefore, it is important for editors to keep in mind that Wikipedia is NOT a media outlet, we do not report the news (see Wikipedia:NOTNEWS), so as per WP policies the content has to be encyclopedic (see WP:NOT). IMO, the notable facts to report in this section (Wikipedia:Notability) are just two: the fact that this is the first known accident with a fatal victim while the car was driven by a self-driving system, and second, it puts into question the reliability of Tesla's Autopilot technology (the objective of the NHTSA formal investigation). And for purposes of WP:NPOV, the official statement made by Tesla is required. Considering the key facts, the driver's name does not seems to be notable to be mentioned, nor anecdotal content about him (I previously removed some of it). Yes he was a Tesla enthusiast, and for obvious reasons he is mentioned in the all the news about the accident, but remember that per Wiki policies, notability is NOT temporary (WP:NOTTEMPORARY). I think that the only case when there is justification to mention victims in accidents is when this person meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people). To illustrate better, i.e. if the CEO of the company died testing its new technology, then I think he/she should be mentioned by name, but only if the company or the new technology are remarkable or significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded (notability!). Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- To support my argument, the article Joshua Brown (motorist) was created and a discussion was opened for deletion for lack of notability, see the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Brown (motorist) here. Feel free to participate in that discussion.--Mariordo (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Against. This type of incident, like the plug-in car fires in the past, call for a lot of attention and speculation. Therefore, it is important for editors to keep in mind that Wikipedia is NOT a media outlet, we do not report the news (see Wikipedia:NOTNEWS), so as per WP policies the content has to be encyclopedic (see WP:NOT). IMO, the notable facts to report in this section (Wikipedia:Notability) are just two: the fact that this is the first known accident with a fatal victim while the car was driven by a self-driving system, and second, it puts into question the reliability of Tesla's Autopilot technology (the objective of the NHTSA formal investigation). And for purposes of WP:NPOV, the official statement made by Tesla is required. Considering the key facts, the driver's name does not seems to be notable to be mentioned, nor anecdotal content about him (I previously removed some of it). Yes he was a Tesla enthusiast, and for obvious reasons he is mentioned in the all the news about the accident, but remember that per Wiki policies, notability is NOT temporary (WP:NOTTEMPORARY). I think that the only case when there is justification to mention victims in accidents is when this person meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people). To illustrate better, i.e. if the CEO of the company died testing its new technology, then I think he/she should be mentioned by name, but only if the company or the new technology are remarkable or significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded (notability!). Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- For. Joshua Brown was not very notable while he was alive (true for most of us) but he is an important fact in the accident. I am against having an article about him and am against making his life story the centre of this section the but I feel his name should be mentioned at least once. It will make it much easier for people to research the accident in the future if the reference links break. Stepho talk 08:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- For. I think that Stepho-wrs's argument above is sensible. Sb2s3 (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Autopilot saves a life
We all know that complete reliance on Autopilot cost a driver his life in May 2016. Here's an incident of Autopilot saving a life in July 2016. http://electrek.co/2016/07/21/tesla-autopilot-saved-life-prevented-serious-injury-pedestrian-dc/ Stepho talk 03:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Autopilot saves a life
We all know that complete reliance on Autopilot cost a driver his life in May 2016. Here's an incident of Autopilot saving a life in July 2016. http://electrek.co/2016/07/21/tesla-autopilot-saved-life-prevented-serious-injury-pedestrian-dc/ Stepho talk 03:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Sales and Markets update (2015/2016)
New figures for year 2015 for Austria: 500 sold precisely. Cumulative: 684
Source link is pdf dated 13.01.2016, scroll to end of table for Tesla entry. Above figure based on cumulative figure minus 136 from 2014 and minus 48 from 2013.
Can someone update the whole table? Thank you. PS: any numbers for Japan and Australia yet? Lexxus2010 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Tesla S outsold Merc S in Western Europe, and Merc shareholders criticize lack of progress. German automakers who once laughed off Elon Musk are now starting to worry, Los Angeles Times, Notable? TGCP (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
How do you feel about moving a lot from the large "Sales and markets" section to a new article called "Tesla Model S sales and markets" ? Suggestions for other things to spawn? No-one seems willing to trim the clutter in this article. Btw, the Sales graph lacks ref and production numbers from Main. TGCP (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- This graph has the same information with all the sources, but take a look at the discussion above that recommended using the bar graph. Anyway, the same sources are presented in a dispersed way throughout the sales section. About the other issue I don't think there is not enough notability to justified a stand alone article, but I suggest you open here a formal discussion to seek consensus for a new article. Take into account that is very difficult to improve an article when there is a lot of editor's traffic and fanboys. I desisted a long time ago to try to improve the article for a Good Article nomination. Cheers. --Mariordo (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- The spawn is mainly to reduce this article. I am no deletist, so I wanted to save the content by moving it elsewhere. Similar spawns boldly went well in Main. Yes, this article is nowhere near as Good as perhaps Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf, although they are heavy too and seem to have the "benefit" of dealership professionals. My main gripe with the Sales graph is that it doesn't show how many cars Tesla has made purchase agreements for, just how many has been delivered. Thus the graph is somewhat misleading, or at least only showing part of bigger picture. TGCP (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Sales and Markets update (2015/2016)
New figures for year 2015 for Austria: 500 sold precisely. Cumulative: 684
Source link is pdf dated 13.01.2016, scroll to end of table for Tesla entry. Above figure based on cumulative figure minus 136 from 2014 and minus 48 from 2013.
Can someone update the whole table? Thank you. PS: any numbers for Japan and Australia yet? Lexxus2010 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Tesla S outsold Merc S in Western Europe, and Merc shareholders criticize lack of progress. German automakers who once laughed off Elon Musk are now starting to worry, Los Angeles Times, Notable? TGCP (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
How do you feel about moving a lot from the large "Sales and markets" section to a new article called "Tesla Model S sales and markets" ? Suggestions for other things to spawn? No-one seems willing to trim the clutter in this article. Btw, the Sales graph lacks ref and production numbers from Main. TGCP (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- This graph has the same information with all the sources, but take a look at the discussion above that recommended using the bar graph. Anyway, the same sources are presented in a dispersed way throughout the sales section. About the other issue I don't think there is not enough notability to justified a stand alone article, but I suggest you open here a formal discussion to seek consensus for a new article. Take into account that is very difficult to improve an article when there is a lot of editor's traffic and fanboys. I desisted a long time ago to try to improve the article for a Good Article nomination. Cheers. --Mariordo (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- The spawn is mainly to reduce this article. I am no deletist, so I wanted to save the content by moving it elsewhere. Similar spawns boldly went well in Main. Yes, this article is nowhere near as Good as perhaps Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf, although they are heavy too and seem to have the "benefit" of dealership professionals. My main gripe with the Sales graph is that it doesn't show how many cars Tesla has made purchase agreements for, just how many has been delivered. Thus the graph is somewhat misleading, or at least only showing part of bigger picture. TGCP (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Possible Mentions
There are several points in the safety cases that could possibly be included:
The man who died in the fatal collision with the trailer had his life previous saved by Tesla's auto pilot feature. He has a youtube channel with videos praising his car. Further investigations show that a movie was playing in his car when the accident happened, suggesting that he may have been watching a movie as his auto pilot feature failed him. These may not justify anything regarding the safety of the feature but I think they are worth nothing.
Also, another case where users claim to have their lives saved by the auto pilot feature: a Missouri man claims to have been driven to the hospital when he was incapacitated by the auto-pilot feature (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/self-driving-tesla-saves-mans-life-by-steering-him-to-hospital/). An interesting case.
Another addition could be Tesla’s ongoing legal battle regarding its dealership application denial in Michigan: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1102138_tesla-vs-michigan-heats-up-dealership-application-conservative-coalition-even-a-ballot-push
Chungsam95 (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- You can review Tesla Autopilot and Tesla US dealership disputes to see if your sources apply. TGCP (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Other possible mentions: convertible, stretched limousine, and hearse. TGCP (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Possible Mentions
There are several points in the safety cases that could possibly be included:
The man who died in the fatal collision with the trailer had his life previous saved by Tesla's auto pilot feature. He has a youtube channel with videos praising his car. Further investigations show that a movie was playing in his car when the accident happened, suggesting that he may have been watching a movie as his auto pilot feature failed him. These may not justify anything regarding the safety of the feature but I think they are worth nothing.
Also, another case where users claim to have their lives saved by the auto pilot feature: a Missouri man claims to have been driven to the hospital when he was incapacitated by the auto-pilot feature (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/self-driving-tesla-saves-mans-life-by-steering-him-to-hospital/). An interesting case.
Another addition could be Tesla’s ongoing legal battle regarding its dealership application denial in Michigan: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1102138_tesla-vs-michigan-heats-up-dealership-application-conservative-coalition-even-a-ballot-push
Chungsam95 (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- You can review Tesla Autopilot and Tesla US dealership disputes to see if your sources apply. TGCP (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Other possible mentions: convertible, stretched limousine, and hearse. TGCP (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
60 and 75 kWh models confusion
The Model S 60 kWh model was discontinued and then re-introduced; however, the old 60 is not same car as the new. The table headed "Specifications" in the article seems to mix the two cars. The numbers are for the new car; however, the note that there is an extra charge for Supercharging is for the old version. Since the table is labeled as including old and current cars, it would seem best to have two columns, one for the old and one or the new.
The Model 75 is an identical car to the 60 with the only difference being a software limit on charging the battery, yet the Specifications table shows the 75 having a top speed of 140 MPH, 10 more than the 60. This Bloomberg article says the the 75 has a top speed of 130, like the 60. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
60 and 75 kWh models confusion
The Model S 60 kWh model was discontinued and then re-introduced; however, the old 60 is not same car as the new. The table headed "Specifications" in the article seems to mix the two cars. The numbers are for the new car; however, the note that there is an extra charge for Supercharging is for the old version. Since the table is labeled as including old and current cars, it would seem best to have two columns, one for the old and one or the new.
The Model 75 is an identical car to the 60 with the only difference being a software limit on charging the battery, yet the Specifications table shows the 75 having a top speed of 140 MPH, 10 more than the 60. This Bloomberg article says the the 75 has a top speed of 130, like the 60. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Old versions in separate section or article?
With the new 60, there are a bewildering array of Model S versions. How about keeping the main table for current versions only, and making a separate table or article for older versions? Any other sections we could split from this rather large article? TGCP (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support the split. At over 240,000 characters, this article is over 2x where spliting usually is looked at. Definitely justified. So splitting former Model S models, and probably hiving off some other content, would be quite useful to making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. N2e (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support but I suggest creating a "List of ..." Many articles use such a lists/tables like an appendix (some examples follow). Keep here just the models currently available in the market.--Mariordo (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support splitting off older models. As the article stands today, it has errors because of mixing old and new 60 kWh models. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Old versions in separate section or article?
With the new 60, there are a bewildering array of Model S versions. How about keeping the main table for current versions only, and making a separate table or article for older versions? Any other sections we could split from this rather large article? TGCP (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support the split. At over 240,000 characters, this article is over 2x where spliting usually is looked at. Definitely justified. So splitting former Model S models, and probably hiving off some other content, would be quite useful to making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. N2e (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support but I suggest creating a "List of ..." Many articles use such a lists/tables like an appendix (some examples follow). Keep here just the models currently available in the market.--Mariordo (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support splitting off older models. As the article stands today, it has errors because of mixing old and new 60 kWh models. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Environmental impact section has unfounded pro-Tesla propaganda in it.
> Based on the assessment of life-cycle environmental footprint, the study concluded that the increased environmental impacts of manufacturing the vehicle are more than offset with increased environmental performance during operation. <
In this scope, does "impacts of manufacturing the vehicle" include mining of minerals for the production of battery chemistry? Reportedly such mining activity is turning large areas of mainland China into "moonscape", a problem which american and european consumers serenely ignore. This is a serious issue for the locals however, as each Tesla uses over 7000 oversized AA cells, fuelling the battery vendor Panasonic's ever-growing hunger for obtaining poisonous minerals.
In contrast, fuel-cell electric vehicles only need three 1oz coin's worth of platinum and palladium, which, while monetarily expensive, commands a much lower price from the natural environment, because of less raw materials needed. The bulk of the fuel-cell's heart is constructed from stainless steel sheets, a long established industrial metal with moderate and well-understood environmental impacts. The fuel cell essentially lasts forever and can be recycled, unlike a battery, where the chemistry gets tired after several years and eventually becomes toxic waste.
Therefore the article should speak of the Tesla enviro-impact in a much more balanced manner, because the poor rural chinese people, who can't even afford a small ICE car, are paying a heavy pollution price for the 1st world rich guys' Tesla sedans! Asia itself is firmly committed to fuel-cell cars, due to the toxic battery minerals problem. 87.97.100.153 (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- We don't infer or speculate, we report what the sources say. The article does however fail to clarify the confusion above. TGCP (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- The anon-IP has raised a valid concern, electric vehicles do affect the environment through by being manufactured from toxic materials instead of through direct emissions like CO2 and NOx. However, there are some important points to consider.
- The given reference http://insideevs.com/nissan-leaf-has-smallest-lifecycle-footprint-of-any-2014-automobile-sold-today-in-north-america/ (which itself refers back to http://www.automotivescience.com/pages/environmental-performance) talks about total environment impact and already factors in the extraction of battery materials. Unfortunately it doesn't mention that the lessor total amount is now concentrated in a few places such as wherever the battery material comes from, which sucks for the people living there but is still a win for the planet overall.
- European governments are aggressively pushing towards 100% totally recyclable vehicles - which includes the batteries. This will mitigate the toxic mining problem a bit.
- China is itself aggressively pushing electric vehicles. My own trips to China over the last 20 years have shown the disappearance of the once ubiquitous 2 stroke motorbikes and its replacement with electric scooters. I have also personally worked with professors at the Chinese Institute of Atomic Energy who know very well that oil and coal based vehicles and energy are choking China.
- This conversation doesn't belong on the page of a single vehicle but is more appropriate on the Electric vehicles page because toxic materials affects all electric vehicles, not just this one in particular. Stepho talk 23:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- The anon-IP has raised a valid concern, electric vehicles do affect the environment through by being manufactured from toxic materials instead of through direct emissions like CO2 and NOx. However, there are some important points to consider.
- The subject is not specific to the Model S as mentioned by Stepho, and already covered here: Greenhouse gas emissions in plug-in electric vehicles (entire lifecycle, including production of plug-in electric vehicles in general) and here: Environmental impact of manufacturing (of electric cars). A "See also" link should be enough to attend these concerns.--Mariordo (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- The Model S does not use permanent magnets in its motors and so doesn't require extraction of rare earth metals, concern over which appears in Environmental impact of manufacturing (of electric cars). BTW, It takes 580,000 tons of ore to produce one ton of platinum, and other environmental impacts
Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Environmental impact section has unfounded pro-Tesla propaganda in it.
> Based on the assessment of life-cycle environmental footprint, the study concluded that the increased environmental impacts of manufacturing the vehicle are more than offset with increased environmental performance during operation. <
In this scope, does "impacts of manufacturing the vehicle" include mining of minerals for the production of battery chemistry? Reportedly such mining activity is turning large areas of mainland China into "moonscape", a problem which american and european consumers serenely ignore. This is a serious issue for the locals however, as each Tesla uses over 7000 oversized AA cells, fuelling the battery vendor Panasonic's ever-growing hunger for obtaining poisonous minerals.
In contrast, fuel-cell electric vehicles only need three 1oz coin's worth of platinum and palladium, which, while monetarily expensive, commands a much lower price from the natural environment, because of less raw materials needed. The bulk of the fuel-cell's heart is constructed from stainless steel sheets, a long established industrial metal with moderate and well-understood environmental impacts. The fuel cell essentially lasts forever and can be recycled, unlike a battery, where the chemistry gets tired after several years and eventually becomes toxic waste.
Therefore the article should speak of the Tesla enviro-impact in a much more balanced manner, because the poor rural chinese people, who can't even afford a small ICE car, are paying a heavy pollution price for the 1st world rich guys' Tesla sedans! Asia itself is firmly committed to fuel-cell cars, due to the toxic battery minerals problem. 87.97.100.153 (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- We don't infer or speculate, we report what the sources say. The article does however fail to clarify the confusion above. TGCP (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- The anon-IP has raised a valid concern, electric vehicles do affect the environment through by being manufactured from toxic materials instead of through direct emissions like CO2 and NOx. However, there are some important points to consider.
- The given reference http://insideevs.com/nissan-leaf-has-smallest-lifecycle-footprint-of-any-2014-automobile-sold-today-in-north-america/ (which itself refers back to http://www.automotivescience.com/pages/environmental-performance) talks about total environment impact and already factors in the extraction of battery materials. Unfortunately it doesn't mention that the lessor total amount is now concentrated in a few places such as wherever the battery material comes from, which sucks for the people living there but is still a win for the planet overall.
- European governments are aggressively pushing towards 100% totally recyclable vehicles - which includes the batteries. This will mitigate the toxic mining problem a bit.
- China is itself aggressively pushing electric vehicles. My own trips to China over the last 20 years have shown the disappearance of the once ubiquitous 2 stroke motorbikes and its replacement with electric scooters. I have also personally worked with professors at the Chinese Institute of Atomic Energy who know very well that oil and coal based vehicles and energy are choking China.
- This conversation doesn't belong on the page of a single vehicle but is more appropriate on the Electric vehicles page because toxic materials affects all electric vehicles, not just this one in particular. Stepho talk 23:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- The anon-IP has raised a valid concern, electric vehicles do affect the environment through by being manufactured from toxic materials instead of through direct emissions like CO2 and NOx. However, there are some important points to consider.
- The subject is not specific to the Model S as mentioned by Stepho, and already covered here: Greenhouse gas emissions in plug-in electric vehicles (entire lifecycle, including production of plug-in electric vehicles in general) and here: Environmental impact of manufacturing (of electric cars). A "See also" link should be enough to attend these concerns.--Mariordo (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- The Model S does not use permanent magnets in its motors and so doesn't require extraction of rare earth metals, concern over which appears in Environmental impact of manufacturing (of electric cars). BTW, It takes 580,000 tons of ore to produce one ton of platinum, and other environmental impacts
Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Weights are wrong.
These weights listed in the sidebar are completely wrong. Someone just added 50kg to each car, maybe as a placeholder.
2,200 kg (4,850 lb) (90D) 2,250 kg (4,960 lb) (P90D) 2,300 kg (5,070 lb) (100D) 2,350 kg (5,180 lb) (P100D)
P100D weighs 4960lbs according to this Youtube video "Hacked-Up Tesla P100D + BBS Wheels!", he has a a slip of the car's weight and clearly states plenty of other peoples' P100D cars weigh exactly 4960lbs. I'm changing the weight for P100D to 4960lbs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.161.122.179 (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Weights are wrong.
These weights listed in the sidebar are completely wrong. Someone just added 50kg to each car, maybe as a placeholder.
2,200 kg (4,850 lb) (90D) 2,250 kg (4,960 lb) (P90D) 2,300 kg (5,070 lb) (100D) 2,350 kg (5,180 lb) (P100D)
P100D weighs 4960lbs according to this Youtube video "Hacked-Up Tesla P100D + BBS Wheels!", he has a a slip of the car's weight and clearly states plenty of other peoples' P100D cars weigh exactly 4960lbs. I'm changing the weight for P100D to 4960lbs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.161.122.179 (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
RE: phrasing of 'ranked as the world's/US's best-selling plug-in electric car'
RE: [1]. Stepho-wrs said "Is the US not included in 'worldwide' ?"
It's confusing, but I was working to shorten this:
The Tesla Model S has ranked as the world's best-selling plug-in electric car for two years in a row, 2015 and 2016. The Model S also ranked as the top selling plug-in electric car in the U.S. for two years running, 2015 and 2016. As of December 2016[update], the Model S is the world's second best selling plug-in electric car in history after the Nissan Leaf.
It was top selling overall in the world, and also in the US it was the top selling plug-in in those years. Being #1 in the world doesn't automatically mean it's #1 in any given country. The phrasing I picked might have been too terse to convey that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that you are trying to say it was top worldwide and also top in the US. I'm reacting more to why the US is pointed out as being special among equals. If we point out the special case for the US then we should also point out other countries where it is also top (probably Norway among others). Which of course is the slippery slope argument for needing a list of all countries where it is/was top. Stepho talk 23:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
RE: phrasing of 'ranked as the world's/US's best-selling plug-in electric car'
RE: [2]. Stepho-wrs said "Is the US not included in 'worldwide' ?"
It's confusing, but I was working to shorten this:
The Tesla Model S has ranked as the world's best-selling plug-in electric car for two years in a row, 2015 and 2016. The Model S also ranked as the top selling plug-in electric car in the U.S. for two years running, 2015 and 2016. As of December 2016[update], the Model S is the world's second best selling plug-in electric car in history after the Nissan Leaf.
It was top selling overall in the world, and also in the US it was the top selling plug-in in those years. Being #1 in the world doesn't automatically mean it's #1 in any given country. The phrasing I picked might have been too terse to convey that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that you are trying to say it was top worldwide and also top in the US. I'm reacting more to why the US is pointed out as being special among equals. If we point out the special case for the US then we should also point out other countries where it is also top (probably Norway among others). Which of course is the slippery slope argument for needing a list of all countries where it is/was top. Stepho talk 23:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Very long article
This article has bloated to enormous size. It's obvious where many cuts can be made: Main article: Tesla Factory#Tesla Model S manufacturing process, Main article: Tesla Autopilot, Main article: Tesla Supercharger, Main article: Tesla US dealership disputes, etc etc etc. Since there are main articles for so many of this article's sections, Tesla Model S only needs to have a brief summary, and the rest can be spun off to the other artilce. Also, there is a very large amount of trivial detail that can simply be deleted:
- "In February 2016, the 85 kWh battery option was discontinued in countries including the US, Australia and Canada.[119]"
- "In March 2016, media reported that a firmware version distributed for the Tesla Model S had support for a P100D variant that was yet to come.[120] This battery is more complicated to make than the 90 version.[121] The P100D was released in August 2016.[17]" At most, this only needs to say "The P100D battery was released 2016."
- "The Model S is notable for being designed solely with an electric powertrain in mind" -> "The Model S was designed solely for an electric powertrain." The word "notable" appears a half dozen times. You don't need to say it's notable for it. The fact that you mention it at all in the article is inherent evidence that the fact is notable. If it's not notable, then delete it.
These article are often constructed piece by piece. First a sentence is added mentioning an idea or future plan. Then another sentence is added for media speculation or rumors. Then another sentence added for spy photos or leaks. Then another sentence added for a trade show announcement. Then another sentence added for when the thing is released. A very good cleanup would be to delete all the boring pre-release hype and rumors, and just say, "Foo was released in 2016." Once Foo has been released, nobody cars any more about the rumors. There are exceptions, but not many.
This is just the low hanging fruit. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agree that the article is bloated. The spawns from Main were (crudely) made for the same reason. A spawn from S could be History, Timeline or Versions to include the many discontinued editions, reducing Specifications. I don't see how the current History and Production sections can be reduced much - Production was moved to Factory long ago. TGCP (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agree it's bloated, disagree with point 1 being trivial. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Section "Sales" is long, and includes both years and countries. It could be spawned to a separate article, with summary here. TGCP (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Very long article
This article has bloated to enormous size. It's obvious where many cuts can be made: Main article: Tesla Factory#Tesla Model S manufacturing process, Main article: Tesla Autopilot, Main article: Tesla Supercharger, Main article: Tesla US dealership disputes, etc etc etc. Since there are main articles for so many of this article's sections, Tesla Model S only needs to have a brief summary, and the rest can be spun off to the other artilce. Also, there is a very large amount of trivial detail that can simply be deleted:
- "In February 2016, the 85 kWh battery option was discontinued in countries including the US, Australia and Canada.[119]"
- "In March 2016, media reported that a firmware version distributed for the Tesla Model S had support for a P100D variant that was yet to come.[120] This battery is more complicated to make than the 90 version.[121] The P100D was released in August 2016.[17]" At most, this only needs to say "The P100D battery was released 2016."
- "The Model S is notable for being designed solely with an electric powertrain in mind" -> "The Model S was designed solely for an electric powertrain." The word "notable" appears a half dozen times. You don't need to say it's notable for it. The fact that you mention it at all in the article is inherent evidence that the fact is notable. If it's not notable, then delete it.
These article are often constructed piece by piece. First a sentence is added mentioning an idea or future plan. Then another sentence is added for media speculation or rumors. Then another sentence added for spy photos or leaks. Then another sentence added for a trade show announcement. Then another sentence added for when the thing is released. A very good cleanup would be to delete all the boring pre-release hype and rumors, and just say, "Foo was released in 2016." Once Foo has been released, nobody cars any more about the rumors. There are exceptions, but not many.
This is just the low hanging fruit. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agree that the article is bloated. The spawns from Main were (crudely) made for the same reason. A spawn from S could be History, Timeline or Versions to include the many discontinued editions, reducing Specifications. I don't see how the current History and Production sections can be reduced much - Production was moved to Factory long ago. TGCP (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agree it's bloated, disagree with point 1 being trivial. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Section "Sales" is long, and includes both years and countries. It could be spawned to a separate article, with summary here. TGCP (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)