Re:That Tesla Data: What It Says and What It Doesn’t
by vellum on Thursday February 14, 2013 @07:46PM
(#5223729)
To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke: For many people, past a certain level of understanding, technology = magic.
Re:That Tesla Data: What It Says and What It Doesn’t
by csallen on Thursday February 14, 2013 @07:44PM
(#5223720)
To be fair, battery "conservation" is different than a battery "recharge".
Re:That Tesla Data: What It Says and What It Doesn’t
by tomkarlo on Thursday February 14, 2013 @07:54PM
(#5223766)
Given that "conservation" in this case is driven by the rate of usage, minus the rate of recovery - the recharge - from the regen brakes, is it really materially different?
Re:That Tesla Data: What It Says and What It Doesn’t
by danielweber on Thursday February 14, 2013 @09:26PM
(#5224058)
Re:That Tesla Data: What It Says and What It Doesn’t
by tomkarlo on Friday February 15, 2013 @12:22PM
(#5227199)
Perhaps, but there's a pretty huge difference between "burn and coast" and "burn and brake". Plus that's for ICE vehicles, not all-electric. ICE uses gas to keep idling even when your foot is off the gas, so that strategy might work, but electric doesn't "idle".
This is one of the more bizarre statements in this whole discussion. Why would anyone with the slightest understanding of electric cars or physics believe that to be true - and I mean the reporter, as well? By extension, you could recharge your electric car by alternately gunning the engine, then slamming on the brakes. Perpetual motion!