Yea, not too much of a good race. I would imagine they make a couple of takes and chose the best one, guess not. No trap speeds either, lame.

My opinion is now that Chris Harris is a fraud. Top Gear is also a fraud. Tesla is most certainly IMO a fraud. I came to your site just to ensure you caught this nonsense too. Unreal they get away this this garbage over and over.

Is he really buying one (mentioned in the article), or was he given the car to write/promote this garbage article? Who knows, as I am sure he had to sign an NDA just to review it.

I seriously do not understand how not a single person has been able to produce a *real test* of this car, and show that it it utter marketing rubbish.

The cars didn't even leave the line. I am not going to bite this line. Let's just start with a review where we can see the car go 130 MPH for 30 minutes straight with some braking and cornering - and watch the 4 gallons of equivalent gasoline burn up on the battery charge indicator before our eyes.

Is this show even relevant anymore LOL? Get Amazon Prime...

Then you haven't looked very hard.

1) there has been a professional test done with randy probst driving where it convincingly beat a bmw m3 comp around willow springs.

I can't find a single test where the m3 has beaten the model 3p in either a straight line or a circuit.

Imo for real world testing a 1/4 mile race is still the best indicator of street performance. First 1/8 mile for traction and power down and 2nd 1/8th for top end. If you can't run someone down in a 1/4mile straight its pretty irrelevant on the streets above that.

There has also been plenty of 40 to 50mph rolling races where the tesla jumps to a 3+ car lead and the petrolncars eventually reel it in above 130. Relevant for highway runs only, irrelevant on the street and on most circuits.

Also there is several videos on yt where a model 3 does 40+ mins at 200kph on the autobahn. Yes it uses the battery fast, but about the same as any other 500 to 700hp sedan at those speeds.

The model 3p is not all things to all people but you have to give credit where credit is due.

The cars performance is real, and while ev's have a while to go for complete market penetration, you cannot objectively say they are a fraud.

They are fast off the line but 100-200 in 11.57 is pretty disappointing, even a 340i is quicker.

Only with jb4: https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1462204

I can see where the tesla is a big plus for the daily commute and general running around, but seriously this thing cant be beat for the price as a traffic light warrior which will suit around 95% of us whilst keeping our big dirty cities air cleaner.

I'm actually all for it

I'll never get rid of my petrol car and there are other options for renewable fuel, now will this be the next performance fuel ?

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...utral-science/

Originally Posted by Madchemist

Only with jb4: https://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1462204

You Dont need the jb4 for that mppsk only should get you into low 11’s

Originally Posted by martymil

I can see where the tesla is a big plus for the daily commute and general running around, but seriously this thing cant be beat for the price as a traffic light warrior which will suit around 95% of us whilst keeping our big dirty cities air cleaner.

I'm actually all for it

I'll never get rid of my petrol car and there are other options for renewable fuel, now will this be the next performance fuel ?

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...utral-science/

Its been a year since that article came out, anything new on it?

Why not support our home grown USA corn based ethanol?

More and more tuners are using it for its advantageous combustion properties already. Why not force automakers to make the stock oem tune be able to use it?

Cleaner burning for greenies
more power for tuners
supports USA farmers

win win win

put a damn e85 pump at every station in the USA!

Originally Posted by martymil

I can see where the tesla is a big plus for the daily commute and general running around, but seriously this thing cant be beat for the price as a traffic light warrior which will suit around 95% of us whilst keeping our big dirty cities air cleaner.

I'm actually all for it

I'll never get rid of my petrol car and there are other options for renewable fuel, now will this be the next performance fuel ?

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...utral-science/

I'm actually waiting for better solution, i.e., hydrogen powered cars. Making a Tesla that could drive 250 miles range is 68% more polluted than making a gas powered car.

That's not even taking into consideration where your power used to charge the car is generated from.....

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas...t-green-think/

I have a number of solar panels and my energy bill is almost zero as I almost make more than I use, getting a Tesla and a few more extra panels = cheap green running and here in oz we have an abundance of green solar energy

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

My opinion is now that Chris Harris is a fraud.

He certainly sold out.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

Top Gear is also a fraud.

100%. They would rather generate clicks than educate and show the real performance. Pisses me off.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

I came to your site just to ensure you caught this nonsense too. Unreal they get away this this garbage over and over.

Did anyone else point it out?

Originally Posted by Eleventeen

Is this show even relevant anymore LOL? Get Amazon Prime...

No but what sucks is people will watch this and then think the Tesla can match any of these cars in the 1/2 mile or beat them.

It's a joke.

Originally Posted by martymil

I can see where the tesla is a big plus for the daily commute and general running around, but seriously this thing cant be beat for the price as a traffic light warrior which will suit around 95% of us whilst keeping our big dirty cities air cleaner.

I'm actually all for it

I'll never get rid of my petrol car and there are other options for renewable fuel, now will this be the next performance fuel ?

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...utral-science/

I'm all for it in the sense you stated too but I am 100% against misleading BS like what Top Gear put out. How can they stand by this garbage?

Its all about ratings and only the general public doesn't know any better.

Take it for what it is, this new line of top gear hosts made me loose interest in the show at least with Matt LeBlanc it had half a chance

Originally Posted by Sticky

Did anyone else point it out?

Unfortunately not - I can't seem to find anyone that criticizes a Tesla (read: unbiased), publishes it and doesn’t get sued.

The fact that the car has 75 kWh of energy should be the first red flag to people, but for some reason this is overlooked. One horsepower is equivalent to ~.75 kW, so under PERFECT conditions, assuming NO losses, the car could create 101 horsepower for exactly one hour before it’s 100% depleted.

Let’s take that up a notch, and drive it how it’s “advertised” (comparing it against an M3, Porsche, E 63 AMG, any BMW, etc. is what bothers me) – and do an “average 202 horsepower Sunday drive” – which obviously is hard to think about, but at the same time, isn’t… This would be like taking an M3 to some canyon roads and going 7/10ths (and that’s giving credit) – in other words, using approximately half of the engine’s possible output while driving.
Again, this is how they are comparing the cars – so let’s be fair…

Oh, wait a minute! (or 30)

If the user of this car drives it like this, they will have 30 minutes of battery (again, assuming there are no losses and the car is perfect) before the car is “out of gas” (batteries would be 100% depleted assuming that the car is rated without exaggeration and again has zero frictional losses, etc.).

Now what?

It’s funny how this isn’t ever mentioned as a “flaw”. I think EM is actually saying “you would have to be a fool not to buy one”, and I think this is hilarious. I personally would feel like a fool buying one, because in 30 minutes (the way I would actually drive the car) – I wouldn’t even be able to make it anywhere.

Originally Posted by s13viper

Also there is several videos on yt where a model 3 does 40+ mins at 200kph on the autobahn. Yes it uses the battery fast, but about the same as any other 500 to 700hp sedan at those speeds.

The model 3p is not all things to all people but you have to give credit where credit is due.

The review I want to see is someone going absolutely nuts (treating it just like you would treat a Porsche, M3, E 63 AMG - because they are now being compared, and even "beating" these) with it on an open road without traffic, and see how it actually fares out.

I was fine with the car (sort of) until these ridiculous comparisons. Now people are going to actually think this is a comparable car to cars that are literally leap years better in every possible way, and throw their money in the garbage can (if they truly want an alternative sports car that will range out as advertised)

Gasoline has the potential to deliver 33.4 kWh of energy PER GALLON. In other words, this Model 3 carries the energy equivalent of 2.25 gallons of gas. Think about that.

The whole thing is just insane. Yes, it deserves credit - but like you said, where it is due. It is NOT DUE IMO if we are talking about it as a performance sedan. If we are talking about it as if it is being sold as a nice car that you can have fun with in the city (nothing more nothing less) and we quit throwing track comparisons in, etc. - then it deserves credit.

It's the ridiculous comparisons that I consider fraudulent. These cars should never be compared. 2.5 gallons of gasoline, it's utter rubbish (if being talked about as a sports car). Otherwise, you are right - it deserves credit. It has come a long way in 10 years, much farther than almost any manufacturer I can think of in terms of "overall improvement". If they weren't being what I consider untruthful, the cars should sell themselves - I would question why these reviews are being pushed in our faces all the time.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

Unfortunately not - I can't seem to find anyone that criticizes a Tesla (read: unbiased), publishes it and doesn’t get sued.

The fact that the car has 75 kWh of energy should be the first red flag to people, but for some reason this is overlooked. One horsepower is equivalent to ~.75 kW, so under PERFECT conditions, assuming NO losses, the car could create 101 horsepower for exactly one hour before it’s 100% depleted.

Let’s take that up a notch, and drive it how it’s “advertised” (comparing it against an M3, Porsche, E 63 AMG, any BMW, etc. is what bothers me) – and do an “average 202 horsepower Sunday drive” – which obviously is hard to think about, but at the same time, isn’t… This would be like taking an M3 to some canyon roads and going 7/10ths (and that’s giving credit) – in other words, using approximately half of the engine’s possible output while driving.
Again, this is how they are comparing the cars – so let’s be fair…

Oh, wait a minute! (or 30)

If the user of this car drives it like this, they will have 30 minutes of battery (again, assuming there are no losses and the car is perfect) before the car is “out of gas” (batteries would be 100% depleted assuming that the car is rated without exaggeration and again has zero frictional losses, etc.).

Now what?

It’s funny how this isn’t ever mentioned as a “flaw”. I think EM is actually saying “you would have to be a fool not to buy one”, and I think this is hilarious. I personally would feel like a fool buying one, because in 30 minutes (the way I would actually drive the car) – I wouldn’t even be able to make it anywhere.




The review I want to see is someone going absolutely nuts (treating it just like you would treat a Porsche, M3, E 63 AMG - because they are now being compared, and even "beating" these) with it on an open road without traffic, and see how it actually fares out.

I was fine with the car (sort of) until these ridiculous comparisons. Now people are going to actually think this is a comparable car to cars that are literally leap years better in every possible way, and throw their money in the garbage can (if they truly want an alternative sports car that will range out as advertised)

Gasoline has the potential to deliver 33.4 kWh of energy PER GALLON. In other words, this Model 3 carries the energy equivalent of 2.25 gallons of gas. Think about that.

The whole thing is just insane. Yes, it deserves credit - but like you said, where it is due. It is NOT DUE IMO if we are talking about it as a performance sedan. If we are talking about it as if it is being sold as a nice car that you can have fun with in the city (nothing more nothing less) and we quit throwing track comparisons in, etc. - then it deserves credit.

It's the ridiculous comparisons that I consider fraudulent. These cars should never be compared. 2.5 gallons of gasoline, it's utter rubbish (if being talked about as a sports car). Otherwise, you are right - it deserves credit. It has come a long way in 10 years, much farther than almost any manufacturer I can think of in terms of "overall improvement". If they weren't being what I consider untruthful, the cars should sell themselves - I would question why these reviews are being pushed in our faces all the time.

Cheers.

jesus christ

look im no expert but you clearly have no clue what you are talking about

Cheers?....im really hoping you were tipsy or better yet drunk when writing that.

Is this normal behavior of EV haters? to not understand the technology AT ALL.

Originally Posted by martymil

I have a number of solar panels and my energy bill is almost zero as I almost make more than I use, getting a Tesla and a few more extra panels = cheap green running and here in oz we have an abundance of green solar energy

Since you brought up solar.... ;-)

Its got me stumped why tesla has not made the roof, bonnet and boot from solar panel technology to extend their range and top up their batteries whilst in traffic or generally standing still or parked.

I'm all for electric cars as living in a major city like Sydney I see the pollution and the effects it has on some people that live with chronic asthma like one of my best friends.

But i still love my car and I wish they made better fuel like the new fuel converted from c02 which looks very promising and the mini refinement stations can be placed anywhere in the world and even in the most remote areas.

Fuel can be cheaper, much higher octane rating that is available today and no more or minimal petrol/gas tankers on the road.

There are so many different ways we can still enjoy our gas guzzlers whilst doing better by our kids and environment.

I'm NO tree loving hugger but I'm not blind what's happening to the earth and I'll try to do my bit.

Originally Posted by Bowser330

jesus christ

look im no expert but you clearly have no clue what you are talking about

Cheers?....im really hoping you were tipsy or better yet drunk when writing that.

Is this normal behavior of EV haters? to not understand the technology AT ALL.

You say I have no clue what I am talking about, but then you point out no specific thing that is incorrect. Is this typical of EV lovers, just to dismiss anything they read unless it "sounds good"?

Just start with the energy density - and let's say that it can regenerate (braking) 50% of it's losses through acceleration. This effectively doubles the energy capacity of the Tesla. Wow, now it has the gasoline equivalent of nearly 5 gallons!

I don't get the cheers thing, so okay - sure, but I was and am sober.

If you don't think I understand technology, you are mistaken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoli...lon_equivalent