Talk:Tesla Model S

New photo?

Check it out! New photo? [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.180.82 (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

thats just a mockup, heres the most revealing REAL picture [2]TrevorLSciAct (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Model history

There should be a reference that the Tesla S is based on the upcoming Lotus Eterne. Here is an article:

http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/paris/2010/1009_2015_lotus_eterne/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.173.60 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Legal issues

Shouldn't the legal issues only be discussed in the Tesla Motors article. It seems more relevant to Tesla on the whole than to just the Model S. swaq 15:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Seating

I've heard that this sedan seats 7, but I haven't been able to find details. I think information about the unusual seating arrangements would improve the article, particularly any pictures showing the third row seat. Kufat (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the Tesla website, there are two rear-facing children seats in the trunk. They unfold from the floor of the trunk as shown in this video: Babyzine. Of course, you either have the two additional seats or a trunk. --149.217.1.11 (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Base Price

Hi, an anon adjusted the base price of this from $49,900 to $57,400. I'm thinking this is accurate as that is actually the base price - the advertised price is $49,900 minus a tax incentive of $7,500. Just leaving a note explaining what I believe to be his/her rationale.

References:

http://www.teslamotors.com/models/

"*Purchase price of $101,500 for Roadster and $49,900 for Model S includes $7,500 US federal tax credit."

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 02:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

UK Version and Right Hand Drive

How are Tesla selling this car in the UK without manufacturing a right hand drive model? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.48.36 (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

They're not. The right hand drive version is scheduled to be released in 2014 in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong.--Gg53000 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"a new lower-priced model"?

The article linked as source for the statement that the Nummi plant will "produce a new lower-priced model along with the Model S at the former NUMMI assembly plant" does not in fact say this. It says only:

Discussions are still at an early stage of exactly what the plant will produce, but Musk did imply that at least part of the NUMMI plant will be used to produce their new Model S, a fully electric four-door sedan that was developed with help from loans from the Department of Energy. "We're expecting production of model s to start in 2012," said Musk.

Is there a better source for the "lower-priced model" claim, or should the article be changed?

Distingué Traces (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Battery weight

Says weight of the extended pack is 1200lbs. What is the weight of the standard pack?--MartinezMD (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

--Some articles on the web state that the curb weight is 4900 pounds. This is probably with the 85KWH hour battery pack. So about 1,000 pounds more to go from a 40KWH pack to 85KWH pack, so the total battery weight is ~2,000 pounds for the 85KWH pack. This is PURE speculation. Some people need to weigh this vehicle and state what battery pack they have. - Danwat1234 March 13th 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.47.120 (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

MPGe

The following was added by user:Kabalah70 but makes more sense here...  Stepho  (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's own entry for MPGe as well as other sites 33.7kWh/100miles equates to 100MPGe since 33.7kWh = 1 gallon of gasoline. Therefore, the either the power usage for the three batteries is 31.8kWh/100miles, 33.7kWh/100miles, and 33.7kWh/100miles or the MPGe is 140MPGe, 130MPGe, 130MPGe. It is likely that the power usage is supposedly correct since there is a direct relation to the power usage and range based on a factor of approximately 92% of battery capacity. These performances seem unrealistic considering that the Chevy Volt has a drag coefficient of 0.29 and weighs 210 pounds lighter and only gets 36kWh/100miles. Using this consumption number one may more realistically expect ranges of 107, 166, and 217 miles per charge.

The above does not make sense. They are completely separate vehicles, and the Model S drivetrain is probably much more efficient than the Volt. Ng.j (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Body Material

It seems that the Model S body will be made of aluminum, as opposed to composite carbon fiber for the Roadster. I think this would be good to include in the article. --Westwind273 (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have a good reference to this, then feel free to update the article (including the the reference).  Stepho  talk  23:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Charge Time

The reference in the first paragraph of charge time of "three or more hours" from 120 VAC is exceedingly misleading. The maximum available power from 120 VAC line is 1.5 Kw, so to fully charge the big ModelS 85 kwh battery would take 56 hours!24.61.212.124 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Don Fulton

The source says 3 to 5 hours. I changed it to that.MartinezMD (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

1.5 kW only available if current is 12A and voltage is 120V. And this could never be maximum - this is enough to power up average vacuum cleaner or microwave oven. Standard 42 kW·h battery charges within 5 hours (8.4 kW x h) with 120V x 70A. In Europe with 240V you need only 35A current which is pretty normal for house (surely, not for flat). 80.219.246.182 (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Base Model Innaccuracy

In light of Tesla's release of pricing and options the base model's specs listed in the opening paragraph need to be changed. It might be a good idea to add a section for options as a whole and generally update the article as launch approaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.230.60 (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Acceleration

I just change the acceleration of the base model from 5.6s to 6.5s. The author is talking about the base modell, which costs 57,400$. This model's acceleration is 6.5 seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalectro (talk • contribs) 15:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Pricing Info

While I understand Biker's reasoning in deleting the price information, I think that the pricing information in this case is justified under Wikipedia rules. WP:NOPRICES states, "Product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention." We can certainly source the pricing info from an RS, and EV pricing is a major news item, both because some media sources like to say that they are way too high for "normal" people to afford and because others point out that prices are coming down dramatically, and that this reduction will result in much higher sales. If we can find good RS references to support my contention that pricing results in much media coverage and market growth, could we put the pricing information back in? Thanks for your consideration. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

When EV's were new and radical it might have been reasonable to give pricing information. However they are so run-of-the-mill these days that I think pricing is unnecessary. Obviously I'm very happy to go with whatever consensus is reached. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I would support the idea that EV standard prices are relevant to the WP article, for exactly the reasons that are given by Ebikeguy. EC performance, by itself, without a relevant cost one would have to part with to obtain it, seems more like a sort of fairy tale reporting. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Curb Weight?

What is the curb weight for the 40KWH, 60KWH and 85KWH versions of the Model S? This information should be included in the right hand pane on the top of the article imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.47.120 (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Tesla has only published the curb weight for the models in production (85kWh), check here. The other models with smaller packs should wait significantly less. If you find them elsewhere, please go ahead and add them in the infobox yourself.--Mariordo (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The link you provide as reference gives the weight for the 40 kwh model, therefore, the wikipedia page is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.179.30.133 (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No word on visible legal and moral issues?

I think both Maserati (front) and Jaguar (rear) are going to sue, because Tesla stole their expensive car body designs in a shameless way that even transcends the cheekiness of chinese cloner car factories. Some auto journalists in Europe will refuse to test the Tesla S, as the car body design is not licenced from Maserati, but bootlegged (conscience-based stand-ups have happened previously with regards to NSX vs Ferrari 360 design and new-gen Suzuki Swift vs Mini Morris car body). Why does USA follow the japanese and the chinese in the nasty habit of stealing the work of famous european industrial design bureaus? That is so petty from a great nation that once walked on the Moon! 82.131.210.163 (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, when the newspapers and magazines start talking about this obvious cloning and the resultant lawsuits, then you'll have something to add to the article.  Stepho  talk  12:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Motor Trend Car Of The Year 2013

Does anybody understand why we have a reference from the Jan 2013 issue of Motor Trend? The linked article does indeed say Jan 2013 but that's still 7 weeks away.  Stepho  talk  05:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That's how many magazines date their publications - often ahead of the actual calendar date. It's the January 2013 issue, not date.MartinezMD (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh, with model years a year ahead and magazines 2-3 months ahead, I'm surprised anybody in N.America knows what the current date is :) I'm glad our Aussie mags don't do that.  Stepho  talk  08:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You should be pleased then because Tesla officially has no concept of model year. They have production years, listed as "model years" on registrations to meet government requirements, but a Model S is a Model S, not a 2014 Model S. It didn't change on 12/31 or on 1/2. They do introduce subtle design differences from time to time but don't designate new model years because of it. For example the bezel changed recently. They also introduce new features, but software gets updated automatically. It makes sense to quote "model year(s)" when referencing external sources, but the places in the article that talk about the car itself should really say "production year." Since 2012 produced vehicles met the government's requirements for being called 2013, they were designated as such as I understand things. Tesla told me that after that, they will officially go by calendar year, despite there being no change in the model itself. Hagrinas (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Warranty requires dealer inspection?

From the article: "The warranty is also unique in that it will be forfeited if annual (or 12,500 mi (20,100 km)) inspections are not performed by a Tesla certified technician or if the vehicle is taken to an independent shop for service or repairs." This seems unlikely, the source given: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/transforming-automotive-service does not appear to support this statement. Most of all, such a policy is illegal in the U.S. (see: http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0138-auto-warranties-routine-maintenance). Someone should either come up with a better source for this information or remove it as suspect. Crazycasta (talk • contribs) 03:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know US law, so I can't comment on the legality of the warranty conditions. Also, it is not WP's mandate to decide if the conditions are legal or not. But it is WP's mandate to report on what Tesla claims the conditions are. From the delete reference, http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/transforming-automotive-service (about halfway down), GeorgeB is claiming to speak for Tesla and says (my underlining):

@DR CHILL: “What will happen to Tesla owners that do not pay for these annual inspections from Tesla? Can they take their car to an independent shop without affecting warranty coverage?” You will forfeit your warranty if you do not do Annual or 12,500 mile Inspections, when due. You will forfeit your warranty if you take your Model S to an independent shop for vehicle service and/or repairs. Your car needs to be serviced by a current, Tesla Certified mechanic to make sure it is working properly and to maintain the warranty on your car.

People outside of WP can take action on the legality of these conditions and then WP can report on whatever court case, newspaper articles or press releases result from these actions but WP itself can only report on what is, not on what should be.  Stepho  talk  10:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't Tesla contractually obligate their buyers in this way? What law makes this specifically illegal? I can imagine someone wanting to take their car to another mechanic, but I can't imagine that required inspections would be illegal for the warranty to apply. We have some non-automotive appliances that we need to get inspected yearly in order for our warranty/coverage to apply. Centerone (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, there is a reference to it. I was only displaying skepticism that they had indeed made such a statement given that I could not find one in the article (clearly it did exist in the comments). Clearly it is there, and had I seen what you found I would certainly have left it alone. I apologize for the mix-up.

@Centerone, Tesla can, through contract, obligate that you drive in the nude if they see fit. The question is whether it is enforceable or not, and the federal government can, through legislation, nullify any contract or part thereof that they see fit to, so long as the contract has some impact (even indirect) on interstate commerce. As such, they have given many of these powers to the FTC, and (see the link I provided above) the FTC has decided that warranty provisions interfering with the owner's ability to service their car where they please are null and void. Crazycasta (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This thread is pretty old, but seems to have reached no conclusion, with no mention of voided warranty in the article. My copy of a (2013) Model S Owners Manual has a section Service Intervals starting with:

"Regular maintenance is the key to ensuring the continued reliability and efficiency of your Model S.

Take Model S to Tesla at the regularly scheduled maintenance of every 12 months, or every 20,000 kms, whichever comes first.

Model S must be serviced by Tesla-certified technicians. Damages or failures caused by maintenance or repairs performed by non-Tesla certified technicians are not covered by the warranty".

A bit further down, under Fluid Replacement it says: "Any damage from opening the Battery coolant reservoir is excluded from the warranty".

While this does in fact suggest (using "take" in the imperative) that the Model S "requires dealer inspection", it is quite limited in expressly voiding the warranty offered by Tesla.

Although the Model S Owners Manual is a primary, self-published source, I believe it could be acceptable in this case, i.e. "Regarding the warranty, Tesla says ...". Any opinions? Lklundin (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Since it is an official document published by the carmaker I do not see any problem, but please provide a link to the specific content (pp number?), just mentioning the manual is not good enough. I am the main editor of several PEV model articles rated GA, and during the GA review the owner's manual was accepted as a reliable source3 in this context. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. A slightly updated version of the manual is available from Tesla here, with page 108 relevant to this discussion. However on reflection, I find that Tesla's text regarding warranty is un-notable. Also other car manufacturers (e.g. Audi) state that the warranty on the vehicle requires adherence to the regular service intervals at an authorized facility. So in the absence of another source with notable warranty information, I think the current article is OK with regard to warranty. Lklundin (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

updates

needs updating throughout the article

- 40kw-h battery gone - supercharger capability installed in all model S now

http://ir.teslamotors.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=752533 --74.202.39.3 (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, on Wikipedia, anyone can edit. If you have some changes that need to be made, and they are consistent with WP:V and WP:RS, then have at it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

kW / HP conversion

The kW to HP conversion in the infobox is slightly incorrect. Instead of properly converting 310 kW to 416 HP, it converts it to 420 HP. This is apparently because Wikipedia "convert" tool uses a slightly incorrect conversion factor. If someone can get that tool fixed, that will fix the number here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.166.167.129 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's ecuase of rounding. The convert template tries to make the output match the same number of zeroes as the input - it saw 310 as being rounded to tens, so it calculated 416 hp and rounded that to tens. We can force it to round to single units (ie 0 digits after the decimal point). Eg

{{convert|310|kW|abbr=on}} gives 310 kW (420 hp)

{{convert|310|kW|abbr=on|0}} gives 310 kW (416 hp)  Stepho  talk  13:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspension details

Article on technical details of suspension, and drive review. Curb weight seems to be 4,647 pounds with 85kWh battery; 4,770 with moonroof. TGCP (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

CEE Red Plug

There is probably a mistake made in "European charging" section. CEE Red Plug is a 3-phase 400V plug capable of 11kW at 16A (bigger "red plug" is rated 32A thus 22kW). As those data are sourced by Tesla with a mistake - Should we correct it or not?

BTW - "Standard" plug in most of Europe is rated 16A making a 3kW charging feasible. Mibars (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Motor

How many motors does the Model S have? From the photo it looks like a single unit but the large bracket might be hiding a gap between two motors. Or possibly it has two separate rotating assemblies (one for left, one for right) inside a common case. Having two motors (or two separate rotating assemblies) has the obvious advantage of not requiring a differential.  Stepho  talk  22:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was one originally. Then I read a single review that said it had two, and the picture looked like it was symmetrical, which if you think about it, would definitely imply it had two. But on closer inspection the chassis is not actually symmetrical, and I was unable to find any authoritative source that said it had two.GliderMaven (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Spent some of my lunchtime trawling the web and found [3]. Search for "differential" and you will find where he says it has an ordinary open diff, driven by a single motor just behind, which is coaxially aligned with a 3 phase electric inverter (which looks similar to an electrical motor). Also found this picture [4], which is also ambiguous but might help visualize things.  Stepho  talk  05:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that Tesla actually lists combined motor power, not just individual : horsepower, US kW, AUS not sure how to incorporate into article ? TGCP (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Supercharger corridors for Europe

There are proposed supercharger corridors for Europe.

• Phase 1
  • Oslo – Gothenburg – Stockholm – Sundsvall (Norway / Sweden)

• Phase 2
  • Rotterdam – Tilburg – Eindhoven – Maastricht – Liege (Netherlands / Belgium)
  • Amsterdam – Arnhem – Dusseldorf – Frankfurt – Stuttgart – Munich (Netherlands / Germany)
  • Sundsvall – Umea – Lulea – Kiruna (Sweden)
  • Linkoping – Malmo (Sweden)
  • Oslo – Trondheim (Norway)

• Phase 3
  • Cologne – Aachen – Liege – Brussels (Germany / Belgium)
  • Liege – St. Quentin – Paris (Belgium / France)
  • Dusseldorf – Hannover – Berlin (Germany)

• Phase 4
  • Paris – Rennes – Brest (France)
  • Karlsruhe – Strasbourg – Lyon – Marseille – Nice (Germany / France)
  • Dresden – Berlin – Hamburg – Rostock (Germany)
  • Munich – Vienna (Germany / Austria)

180.199.56.84 (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info. Can you provide a reliable source so we can added it to the article? I googled but couldn't find one. Cheers. --Mariordo (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Supercharger corridor for Asia

Russia

• Vladivostok – Ussuriysk – Khabarovsk – Birobizhan – Belogorsk – Chita – Ulan-Ude – Irkutsk – Angarsk – Tulun – Kansk – Krasnoyarsk – Achinsk – Kemerovo – Novosibirsk – Barabinsk – Omsk – Petropavlovsk – Kurgan – Chelyabinsk – Ufa – Oktyabrsky – Samara – Tolyatti – Syzran – Penza – Ryazan – Moscow
• Ufa – Kazan – Nizhniy Novgolod – Vladimir – Moscow – Tver – St. Petersberg – Vyborg – Finnish border
• Moscow – Vyazma – Smolensk – Orsha – Minsk – Baranavichy – Kobryn
• Minsk – Vilnius – Kaunas – Klaipeda
• Moscow – Rzhev – Velikiye Luki – Rezekne
• Helsinki – Lahti / Porvoo
• Petropavlovsk – Astana – Karagandy – Balgash – Almaty – Taraz – Shymkent – Tashkent – Samarkand – Turkmenabat – Ashgabat

Japan

• Tokyo – Maebashi – Numata – Uonuma – Nagaoka – Joetsu – Toyama – Kanazawa – Fukui – Tsuruga – Kyoto – Osaka – Himeji – Okayama – Hiroshima – Shunan – Fukuoka – Kumamoto

Australia

• Sydney – Adelaide – Kalgoorlie
• Sydney – Canberra

180.199.49.125 (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. Can you tell us where you got the list from. Otherwise we can't tell the difference between an official list and fiction. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  22:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert of "Environmental criticism"

I added a section summarizing a feature article, in fact the cover article of the July issue of IEEE Spectrum, about the environmental impact of electric cars. This is the magazine that all members of the society receive to keep up to date with general developments in electrical engineering. It seems to me to be one of the best sources for articles about electrical engineering applications, which this article is. This was such an inappropriate revert that it forces me to suspect the motives of the editor who made the revert. It might have been made in simple ignorance and carelessness, but since this article and the article I cited have important economic consequences, the revert may have been made for economic or political reasons. I ask the community to watch for similarly suspicious actions by the same editor. David R. Ingham (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

After searching for his contribution, I see no other indication that GliderMaven is associated with the electric car industry or is otherwise suspicious, so I apologize and retract my request that he be watched. David R. Ingham (talk) 06:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you David. That is a good thing to do, and good on you for making it an explicit retraction. Although it would have been best not to have said it, we've all made mistakes like that. Best to you for more good editing and mutual improvement of the encyclopedia. N2e (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted the most recent addition of this material—temporarily—so it can be discussed here on this Talk page under WP:BRD.

On background, it appears that the addition of the environmental criticism has been reverted by two different editors, using two different rationales, and my revert makes three different editors involved.

• One editor seemed to argue that this particular environmental criticism was not about the Tesla Model S per se, but rather about the EV car industry as a whole, and thus belongs (mostly or all) in another Wikipedia article.
• Another editor is arguing that there is only "passing mention" of the Model S in the article. Conversely, of course, the editor who first added the material has noted that the Model S photograph is on the cover.
• I am reverting as a matter of good wiki-process, in order to stop any slow move toward a revert war, and to get it discussed on the Talk page first. As of this moment, I am agnostic as to whether that particular article justifies a mention on the Model S wikipedia page. I will add more of my view below, as I hope other involved editors will do, so they can articulate their position and rationale in their own words, rather than my poor summaries above.

So let's get the discussion going, and see what sort of consensus we can achieve. N2e (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I read that article, in hard copy, when it came out. I'm an EE and so get that magazine, IEEE Spectrum. I do not have that particular issue any longer. I do recall that that article was quite controversial and resulted in an invited response by several additional "experts" in the next month's issue of IEEE Spectrum, and also included a follow-up defense the next month by the original author. So to start with, it might be the case that a little more research is required on our part before we use just the single article to reflect criticism of the Model S.

My recollection is that the IEEE article made a critical argument against EVs and the political economic move to EVs generally (with the current subsidies, U.S. electrical power generation sources and patterns, etc.), and that it was not specifically pointed at the Tesla Model S. If the editor who wants the criticism here would locate a URL for us, we could all take a look and evaluate that claim. N2e (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The source is scholarly, prominent and relevant. Others should add to my contribution by discussing the controversy, not delete my entry. David R. Ingham (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

In spite of your claims that I'm an electric car industry stooge(!) in fact don't have any problem with the material you've added per se, I only have a problem with it being in the wrong article. In fact I found that that ieee article you cited is already referenced from electric car, and that's perfectly fine with me, and you don't need my permission, but by all means edit that material in the main electric car article.GliderMaven (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Note to GliderMaven about the comment you made, immediately above, concerning earlier statements by User:David R. Ingham. David withdrew that comment, and apologized for having made it, at 06:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)—some 14 hours before GliderMaven's comment about it. I will assume you did not see it. But as a matter of editor behavior, I think we can let that one go now, and all of recognize that it should not have been said. Now, back to our regular programming: improving article content. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The disputed content has already being moved and merged with existing material in a new section: Electric car#Environmental impact of manufacturing. I think this solve the core of the issue. As for the cover, clearly that material is not encyclopedic nor notable, it is just an illustration of an article that deals with the environmental impact of EVs in general. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm changing my mind on this, I did briefly skim that article quite a few months ago, but I'd forgotten about the details. I don't have the article to hand right now, but I did some web searches and found that the author had done a very pessimistic calculation that showed the Tesla Model S used a very large amount of energy. Mostly, about 55%, due to 'vampire losses'. It turns out that the author had made several mistakes, for example he'd used an unreasonably low average mileage, and although the vampire losses were very real, and very substantial (draining the battery by 5000 miles per year); they were actually due to a known software bug/feature that kept the main computer on all the time using 140 watts or more continuously. There's been an update that was rolled out last month, that used 'sleep' mode and cuts the losses by 50-75%. This seems to be a minor design fault in the Model S, but it was exacerbated in percentage terms by the authors low average mileage estimate, but it's clearly now been mitigated. The actually underlying energy loss of the battery itself is about 1% per day, which is not nothing but not very significant.GliderMaven (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I am thinking more about general principles and fossil and green sources of energy. These vehicles may be in service at a time when electric vehicles will be run on renewable energy. But, at least now, large amounts of electric energy come from coal, fuel oil and natural gas. Another important point in the article is that if something is environmentally threatening, it would be better to tax the more threatening types than to subsidize the less harmful types. I also read an editorial in the New Yorker that supported that. I don't think "threatening" is too strong a word here. I think we must reduce energy consumption and that the only cars that accomplish that are small. David R. Ingham (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Musk taking road trip across the U.S. in a Tesla Model S

This article says Musk is preparing to "take on a cross-country road trip in a Tesla Model S" from Los Angeles, California to New York. (Fox News Business, 12 Sep 2013). Seems to be a demo of the Supercharger network, but also a marketing tour through middle-America. Not clear when the date for that is, but perhaps notable when we get more/better source. N2e (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Future assemble plants

Tesla's future assemble plants:

• Fremont, California
• Toronto, Ontario, Canada
• Tilburg, Netherlands
• Munich, Germany
• Kaliningrad, Russia
• Kurgan, Russia
• Khabarovsk, Russia

Shipping routes:

• Halifax (Canada) - Rotterdam (Netherlands)
• Halifax (Canada) - Kaliningrad (Russia)
• Vancouver (Canada) - Vladivostok (Russia)

180.199.46.64 (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This needs to have a reliable reference before we can use it.  Stepho  talk  09:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

First delivery to other than North America (delivery sort)

First delivery to other than North America (delivery sort)

Completed deliveries to service centers:

• August 7, 2013: Oslo, Norway
• August 14, 2013: Zurich, Switzerland
• August 22, 2013: Tilburg, Netherlands
• August 29, 2013: Munich, Germany

Completed deliveries to stores:

• August 7, 2013: Oslo, Norway (from Oslo service, Norway)
• August 16, 2013: Zurich, Switzerand (from Zurich service, Switzerland)
• August 24, 2013: Eindhoven, Netherlands (from European Distribution Center, Tilburg, Netherlands)
• August 31, 2013: Munich, Germany (from Munich service, Germany)
• September 9, 2013: Frankfurt, Germany (from Munich service, Germany)
• September 9, 2013: Hamburg, Germany (from European Distribution Center, Tilburg, Netherlands)
• September 16, 2013: Vienna, Austria (from Munich service, Germany)
• September 16, 2013: Dusseldorf, Germany (from European Distribution Center, Tilburg, Netherlands)
• September 23, 2013: Amsterdam, Netherlands (from European Distribution Center, Tilburg, Netherlands)
• September 23, 2013: Stockholm, Sweden (from Oslo service, Norway)

Future deliveries:

• October 2013: Paris (France), Milan (Italy)
• Late 2013: Russia, China, ex-Soviet countries
• 2014: UK, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia

180.199.46.64 (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This needs to have a reliable reference before we can use it.  Stepho  talk  09:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Is "Power dissipation when not in use" a controversy?

In the article subsection entitled "Power dissipation when not in use", the current text states: "Using system software v5.8, the Tesla S battery loses 2-4 kWh overnight. Using system software v5.0, the batteries lost 4.5 kWh overnight." Okay. Where's the controversy?

As the article is currently organized, the section "Power dissipation when not in use" is a subsection of the "Controversies" section. Doesn't seem like it should be in the Controversies section unless some statement or claim is actually made about it being, you know, a controversy. Is it? Do we have sources that it is a controversy?

If not, then that data about power use might more properly just fit in reviews or journalism about the car. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The reference is an article entitled "Life With Tesla Model S: Even After Update, Vampire Draw Remains" (my emphasis). The author seems pretty much happy with the rest of the car but devotes almost the entire two page article to this drain - seems like he thinks it is excessive. He also compares it to other electric vehicles and reports that they don't have this problem. It's clear that he thinks it is a unforgivable sin not shared by other electric vehicles.  Stepho  talk  08:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Take your Tesla to the airport. Leave it parked while away for a few weeks. Return to a vehicle that won't work. If that doesn't happen to other e-vehicles, he has a strong point. I'd want to see if there are any other reliable sources also reporting this problem.MartinezMD (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been busy on other things, so I haven't put much effort into finding further references but this stumbled across this reference today. Apparently the "vampire" drain was caused by a faulty 12V battery http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1088929_life-with-tesla-model-s-electric-draw-vampire-slain-at-last that wanted to be topped up constantly from the high voltage battery. I'm not sure if this means it was a storm in a teacup (ie we should delete it from the article) or if we should leave it in as a warning for preventative maintenance.  Stepho  talk  05:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That's good information. As to whether it should be in the article at all, it should depend on whether there is sufficient reliable source news accounts that it was a signnificant controversy. In my view, that one person's first-hand report about their car does not a controversy make. N2e (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, even after the fixes, it's a thousand miles a year wear on the battery and the extra kilowatt-hour/day energy usage. That's enough for a hot shower, every day. It's not nothing. But it was a bit more than that.

Before the software patch the IEEE Spectrum magazine had a sceptical piece that used the Tesla model S as an example; and scaled these 'vampire' numbers up to the whole electric car fleet, as if the Nissan Leafs also had similar ~5kWh/day vampire losses (they don't). It's also significant in that the car wouldn't have made it a couple of weeks at an airport; it could potentially have bricked the car, Li-ion batteries really, really hate being fully discharged.GliderMaven (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ironically above you wrote "I do recall that that article was quite controversial" ;) GliderMaven (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it was about general EV controversy, and whether the author reported it correctly, or was biased, etc. That article was not about "power dissipation when the car was not in use", so should have nothing to do with the topic of THIS section. But, yes, ironic; just not relevant to THIS dialogue. N2e (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Supercharger networks other than North America

Supercharger networks other than North America:

• Germany, the Netherlands: complete, mid-2014
• Switzerland, Belgium Luxembourg, Austria, Denmark: complete, late of 2014
• France, England, Wales, Sweden: 90% of the population, late of 2014
• Russia, Belarus, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, China, Hong Kong: 50% of the population, late of 2014

Tesla Model S/Model X/BlueStar future market (other than USA/Canada):

• All available: France, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Australia
• Model X not available, the others available: Great Britain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Hong Kong
• Model S and Model X available, BlueStar not available: China, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, Belarus, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Finland, Latvia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Saudi Arabia
• Model S not available, the others available: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Israel
• Model S only available: Argentina, Chile
• Model X only available: Afghanistan, Turkey
• BlueStar only available: Spain, New Zealand

180.199.56.180 (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting information. Do you have a source for this? Some of these models are a long way from production (Blue Star and Model X aren't yet in production; so it seems a bit premature to be declaring their sales territories one to three years before their speculative distribution dates.) But when we have a source, we'll be able to evaluate it. N2e (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop reverting!!

I know, the Model S is the new Crown Vic. Google "Tesla Model S", you'll find the result containing a Ford logo. 166.137.191.15 (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have proof then provide a URL. Otherwise we will assume you are an internet troll.  Stepho  talk  05:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Stepho, here. 119.252.27.68 (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

From the source: And if anything bad happens on duty, the Model S got some of the best safety ratings of any large vehicle tested (meaning no exploding gas tanks, like those suffered by Ford Crown Victoria cruisers) 119.252.27.68 (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That does not make the Crown Vic a predecessor to the Tesla Model S. Bahooka (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Ford Crown is the predecessor only in the context of police cars used by certain police departments in the US (ie a specific customer) but not in the context of the manufacture. The predecessor field in the infobox is in the context of the manufacturer. The Tesla Model S was not designed or manufactured by Ford and, to my knowledge, Tesla did not design it with the prime purpose of being a police car. By your line of reasoning, if I replaced my personal Toyota Prius with a Tesla Model S then the Model S is the successor to the Prius.  Stepho  talk  23:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with others here. Under no circumstances should we be listing the Ford Crown Victoria, or Prius or any other car as predecessors in the infobox. Why? Because no reliable source shows they were predecessors. Just delete future additions of such misinformation and refer those editors to the Talk page. (although this section could use a more informative section title.) N2e (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Gear ratios of an electric car

Every electric car equipped with a 1-speed automatic transmission has a first gear ratio of 1.00:1, e.g. a Tesla Model S with a 9.73:1 final driver ratio would have a top speed of 135.41 mph, not just 130. 166.137.191.45 (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

A diff has only one speed but is rarely 1:1. Similarly, a one speed transmission can have any ratio by the use of reduction gears.  Stepho  talk  05:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Better title picture

I believe we need a better-quality title picture. The title photo features way too much people in the foreground and background. The photo should not be taken from an exhibition unless absolutely necessary. In this case, it is not necessary. Can anyone please scramble through the Wikimedia Commons and find some candidates, please? Thank you.--Gg53000 (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree that a better picture is required for the infobox, and preferably according to WP:AUTOMOBILE guidelines. I restored the image after the previous one was removed from the Commons with one of the best pics. I am restoring that one and we can continue the discussion here to select which one will be used in the infobox. IMHO the Commons does not have a quality pic according to the wikiproject guidelines, so we will need to go for the second best.--Mariordo (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone please bring any candidates to the table? Since the commons does not have an adequate picture, I suggest that users please submit their own suggestions under the guidelines here for review. Thanks.--Gg53000 (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Option 1

I like this version. It looks completely normal. It's not an exhibiton. There's no background noise. It has a good angle. Does anybody have any opinions about this picture? Please reply.--Gg53000 (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Gg53000: I like this picture, though I think I might be able take a pretty good picture of a Tesla Model S that my family owns. Not sure if I'll have the time to take pictures of that car, though. Epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Option 1 is a good second best until a three-quarter good quality picture is added to the commons. Nevertheless, Option 1 was taken with a wide angle setting (less than 50mm) which creates a distortion in the proportions of the cars. I proposed as candidates the following two pictures. Option 2 has the right angle and no distortions, but it would have to be trimmed to focus the image in the car (I vote for this one). Option 3 is a good picture but it was taken at the recommended angle according to WP:AUTOS; option 4 is in the right angle, but it seems it was retouch leaving a gosthly image (too much Photoshop?).--Mariordo (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• 
  Option 2
• 
  Option 3
• 
  Option 4
• 
  Option 5

PS: You can see more pics with the right license on Flickrs here. If you don't know how to transfer images to the Commons, let me know and I will be glad to uploaded for you.--Mariordo (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Option 1 reminds me of a dog about to stick its nose in my crotch. But I do like Option 3 as dynamic photo (rare on WP).  Stepho  talk  23:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you show us a demonstration of the trimmed version of option 2? I'd like to see how it looks before we apply it.--Gg53000 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Done! I am fine with options 2 or 3! --Mariordo (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If I can't get any pictures of the Tesla Model S's that are prevalent around my area (there's two on my block alone), sure, I'll go with options 2, 3, or 4. Epicgenius (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless anyone can bring a better picture to the table, I say we pick Option 2. It's not ghostly and it isn't blurry. Does anybody agree with this?--Gg53000 (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that while we wait for Epicgenius new pictures, and since there seems to be consensus around options 2 and 3, please go ahead and change the infobox temporarily for Option 2 since this is a production model, Option 3 is not (though a better quality image).--Mariordo (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I may not be able to get a very good-quality picture, so let's use Option 2 for now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I have pictures of a whole set of Tesla Model S cars together (six of them, lined up in a parking lot, from the front and back), but not one of them separately, or at the angle recommended by WP:AUTOS. Option 2 may seem like the best choice for now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Option 2 is unfortunately flawed by the reflections in the paint. I think 4 is superior in that aspect. Ideally get a view like 2, but without the lane reflections and not a dirty car.MartinezMD (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I've found a possible sixth option for the picture. The angle is good, it looks normal, and there is no reflections. Mariordo, can you please trim it so that the dumpster in the background looks less subtle? Here:

• 
  Option 6

Thanks!--Gg53000 (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I am on vacation, I will b back by the end of next week.--Mariordo (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It's okay, Mariordo. We'll pick up on this when you return from vacation.--Gg53000 (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Gg53000, unfortunately it cannot be fixed just by trimming, the two images are to embedded into each other. It would require to erase the dumpster and substitute with background texture, which would take a lot of time, and I am not that good with Photoshop. Sorry. I will keep looking Flickr to see if a good image is posted. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Page Image

The image shown to represent the page is of the PROTOTYPE model s. Image of a current production model needs to be shown.Among Men (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

i did not see the above section until now.Among Men (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Better Third-row-seating picture

I believe we need a better picture of the third row seating of the Tesla Model S. We need a photo that strictly shows the seating itself, not the seats and a child with a censored face. Can anyone please appropriately send in some possible new candidates? Thanks!--Gg53000 (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

December 2013

• December 2013 for German market:
  • [5]
• December 2013 for Canadian market:
  • [6]

180.199.60.251 (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Even though EV Sales is a reliable source for this kind of figures, in both cases the author clearly stated that Model S sales are his estimates. Please wait until a reliable source is available for each country.--Mariordo (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

EPA rating seems incorrect

Article currently states 237.5 Wh/km. For 426km of S85 rating that would give it 101.175 kWh battery.

I think it is actually rated at 300-308 Wh/mi. My own S85 has the "Rated" line on the energy bar at either 186 or 187 Wh/km (perhaps 186.5?), which corresponds to 299-301 Wh/mi and about 79.5 kWh, which sounds about right (not all 85 kWh can be used).

Also note that 38 kWh / 100 mi noted at for an S85 and range of 265 miles:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32557

... does not seem to make sense: 38 kWh / 100 mi * 265 mi / 100 mi = 38 kWh * 2.65 = 100.7 kWh ... more than the battery. Something is off.

That said, I was successful in driving at or *under* the 186 Wh/km with ease - cruise control on at speed limit, mostly highway driving (100km/h) but includes streets as well.

• UPDATE* ... maybe they meant 30.8 kWh / 100 mi instead of of 38? Or, even closer, 30.08 kWh / 100 mi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.73.140 (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

In-car ethernet network, and Ubuntu operating system

It has just been disclosed that the Tesla Model S has rather standard on-board ethernet network, but uses proprietary physical plugs etc. so that it is not as straightforwrd for just anyone to hook it up and probe the network. Here's the link: at Jalopnik. Also has revealed information about the Ubuntu operating system in use in the car as well as details on which of the standard (numbered) ethernet ports are being used. Seems that this info may be useful to add to the technical specs/information to improve the article now that it has been published in a automotive media source. N2e (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed the related edit because it was speculative ("it seems") and the source was a blog entry (original research?). If you think that Japonik entry can be considered a reliable source (it is indeed just repeating what the blog entry says, so I am not sure it can be considered a RS for this content) please restore the edit but following MoS.--Mariordo (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not put anything in the article about this. I just noted it on the Talk page. I'm agnostic on whether Jalopnik is a reliable source, and I don't have time to research it just now. I was just making a note of it here, for other editors to consider whether and what should be used to improve the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It is probably worth noting, however, that Wikipedia standards for reliable sources do not have any criteria by which editors can take a look at the "sources" used by that published source, and discount some while retaining others. In other words, if Jalopnik or Slashdot (or whomever picks up this story next) are considered "reliable sources" for WP, then that's that. End of story, and I think the info can be used per policy to improve the article. N2e (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

All that can be said is that the centre display unit has ethernet and uses Ubuntu. The rest of the car probably uses an entirely different network that is designed for automobiles (CAN bus being a likely contender) and probably a completely different operating system for the engine and security controllers.  Stepho  talk  07:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that blog has one more thing, with far reaching ramifications. After exploring the cars network the intrepid and curious Tesla owner got a call from the service center informing him that: "Tesla USA engineers seen a tentative of hacking on my car...". In other words, the Tesla Model S can and will (without the owners knowledge/consent) send data back to Tesla Motors. The car is the embodyment of personal freedom, but what good is that in the absence of privacy? (If this communication is deemed to be for the good of the car owner, then the communication should happen with the owner's consent and control). A section on what information Tesla Motors collect from the cars it has sold seems in order. Lklundin (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Please create

Please create the page of Tesla Model S sales in 2014 by country. 180.199.32.65 (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? We can just create a table on this article. Ditto for 2013. We can do Tesla Model S sales by country, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sales in Canada

Sales in Canada March 2014: EV Sales: Canada March 2014 180.199.34.115 (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your edit about sales in March from EV Sales because the source clearly states these are estimates (see note e), and Mr. Pontes in the case of the Model S is assuming (educated guess) 20 per month, 20x3=60! If you look at the source provided for sales through February, Mr. Klippestein estimates are based on Polk estimates based on actual registrations, so it can be considered a reliable source. Also note sales for January = 20, February =19 , not 20 each month as Mr. Pontes assumed, and there is no reason to assume March was 20 also, it could be 10 or 30, who knows. Please be patient and wait until the same source or any other source publishes a reliable number, not a guess. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, actual March sales were 119 units, see here.--Mariordo (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

First fatal accident

Apparently the first person to die in a traffic incident while having ridden in a Tesla Model S into the incident has occurred. [7][8] Car thief who stole the car from the dealership was driving at around 100MPH, crashed into several cars and poles, split the car into two, and was ejected and died of his injuries. ; should this go into the safety record (as a "first") ? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Crashing into poles and cars at 100 mph (160 km/h) is almost guaranteed to give you serious or fatal injuries. I see nothing remarkable about it being a Model S.  Stepho  talk  08:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It is the first in a Tesla S, thus part of this product's history (a macabre milestone). -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Still unremarkable. That is the expected outcome under the circumstance. No other car pages I'm aware of note who was the first to die. MartinezMD (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say note who died. I'd note that someone had died, and when. As for other cars, other cars do not appear in the news when someone is the first to die, while this incident clearly is in the news, specifically noting that it is the first fatality; so clearly the press does not treat this car the same as other cars. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the comments by Stepho-wrs and MartinezMD. Someone crashed a Model S and died; there are thousands of road fatalities every year, and this one is no more encyclopedic than any other. The fact that the press reported this does not lend it any more encyclopedic value. Mindmatrix 13:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone died because they were speeding at over 100 mph. I am hard-pressed to find any car whose driver will survive after crashing at such a speed. Besides, this is not news. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Btw, it was three days after the accident that the driver died of his injuries - with a violent crash at that speed the most remarkable thing is that he was not killed instantly. Lklundin (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Autopilot and Model D

Is the Model D separate from the Model S or is it a subvariant of the Model S (eg like having a GT version compared to the base model)? It is being called the Model D in press releases but also noted as being based on the Model S. http://www.teslamotors.com/models/design does list it as an option on the Model S (for sales starting in Feb 2015).  Stepho  talk  23:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I also retract my early edit summary about which cars the autopilot is in - http://www.teslamotors.com/models/design says autopilot is on the current Model S.  Stepho  talk  23:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no "Model D." There's a D option on the Model S regardless of which other options are chosen. The autopilot hardware is in all vehicles manufactured after 9/19/14. However it won't be enabled unless an owner purchases or upgrades to the new technology package. That's the one listed in the article. The old technology package was $500 cheaper, and anybody with the new hardware and old tech package would need to pay $500 for the upgrade. However, the upgrade also includes fog lamps and parking sensors, so customers with the hardware would receive refunds of $500 for each, if they had paid for them. Since almost all models were already sold with the tech package, it's more realistic that this will leave the cost the same or lower it for many owners. I don't have a secondary source for much of this right now, but it's either on the web page or what owners have been told by Tesla. Hagrinas (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead picture

I changed the picture in the infobox for another of better quality, taken at 3/4 angle without lens distortion. But since this has been an issue, I leave other options (they might need some cropping) just in case any of the regular editors want to open another round of discussion about the lead image. I am OK with the current image and Option 3.--Mariordo (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• 
  Current image
• 
  Previous
• 
  Option 3
• 
  Option 4

I think it's a much better photograph. Thank you uploading it.MartinezMD (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with Mario's change.  Stepho  talk  23:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

What images are needed that could be taken at a Tesla store?

Hi All

I've just added some images from the Tesla store in Austin, Texas taken on my phone, I'm likely to go back and take some photos on my DSLR, what images could improve the article that could be taken at the store?

Thanks

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure which images we need but I can tell you what to avoid. Avoid backgrounds with bright colours, backgrounds with high contrast and free standing objects in the foreground (eg signs, pedestals, people, water coolers). This is hard to do in a showroom becuase all these things are what the company wants to surround you with. The car itself must stand out from the background and foreground - it must not have to compete with them.  Stepho  talk  01:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Specification

The section says ″Car and Driver [...] measured the Mercedes CLA at Cd=0.30, putting Mercedes' claim into question″. But Car and Driver tested the CLA 250 for witch Mercedes only claims a drag coefficient of 0.28, where according to this article the difference can be explained by different options in European vs. US models. The relevant drag coefficient of 0.22 (relevant because it would be better than the Model S' value of 0.24) is only claimed for the CLA 180 Blue Efficiency Edition. Ndygl (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Use as a Taxi ?

The Danish version of the article (rated as a good article over there), has a subsection with the use of Model S as a taxi in various countries (including Russia where currently no sale and no superchargers exist). The subsection is part of a section 'Reception' along with subsections on 'Reviews' and 'Notable owners'. I think the Model S use as a Taxi is interesting, because it shows the attempt to use the vehicle for a special and in some sense demanding purpose. If there are no objections I would like to add this information to the English version. I guess one could consider the use of the Model S as a taxi as a kind of recognition, which means the section could go in the 'Recognition' section. Alternatively if this seems like shoehorning, we could rename 'Recognition' to 'Reception' to mirror the Danish page structure, but the current section names 'Recognition' and 'Controversies' fit well together, so that seems less than ideal. Any ideas would be welcome. Lklundin (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The Danish article needs to be updated - there is no reference for current use as a taxi. AFAIK, taxi use was stopped due to insufficient range - any vehicle (diesel, electric or otherwise) in Denmark needs to be operated nearly 24/7 in order to make a profit. Drivr site only says Merc, not Tesla. TGCP (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You appear to refer to the Danish article's subsection on Denmark. And what you write is quite likely true. I however, refer to the Danish article's entire list of countries with Tesla Taxicabs, for which the need to update the info on a single country is less relevant. Lklundin (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. But the situation is more complex than it seems. Those refs mostly show plans or initial conditions, but not much about sustained use. We must give due weight to both sides of a development - the failure of an effort is as notable as the success of an effort.

The most notable seems to be the 63 used by BIOS at Schiphol, where the airport could dictate conditions such as taxi company, eco-friendliness and license fee of 3,600euro/month. However, the airport license was overruled, and other taxis are now allowed.

Google search page (but not results) says BBF is closed - is BBF currently operating? From Schiphol? With Teslas? What about Willemsen De Koning ? Is the court ruling and airport rule mostly about electric taxis, or about certain taxi companies?

The current number seems to be 96, unclear about the other 71. The big fleet causes congestion at the community SuC, as the airport only has 4 fast chargers.

This article is now 176kB, well over the 100kB sugggested as article size. Time to spawn out sections into separate articles? TGCP (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that failed or failing attempts (of which there seems to be several) to introduce Tesla are as relevant as successful attempts. I looked for sources to update the Taxi-in-Denmark subsection on the Danish page but found nothing, really. One solution could be to just wait a while, until there is more material to quote. I think others will have a more informed opinion regarding what to do about the large size of the article. Thanks for your feed-back. Lklundin (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to build a Tesla Taxi article (now in Australia), but I am unsure if the result is notably worth the work. The failures could be used to educate others on how NOT to start an electric taxi service, but is that Wiki material ? TGCP (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe an article just on the Model S as a taxi is a very narrow subject, but itself not necessarily notable enough to merit a full article on the subject. May I suggest an article about all-electric cars as taxis, or even more general, plug-in electric cars operating as taxis. In this case, there is more material as other models (the Leaf and BYD e6 at least) are being used as taxis, and more cities could be included. As a reference, see the article hybrid taxi, which is organized by city and open to all models. In the same line there are articles about Hybrid electric bus, Hybrid electric truck, Hybrid train, etc. A similar approach might result in more notable branching articles for all-electric or plug-in electric cars.--Mariordo (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Slightly related; LAPD loans a Tesla and i3, but I couldn't find a place for that in this article. Perhaps a section of notable uses, like in Dubai Police? Admittedly, I could not find police use in those car articles. TGCP (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Outstanding protecting against rollover ?

@TGCP:, @Amagi82: Each of you have modified the phrase 'outstanding protecting against rollover', lastly for the benefit of 'good protection against rollover'. The source citation includes the quote:

NHTSA's normal tests couldn't induce the car to flip, so the agency had to resort to "special means". Tesla credits the sedan's battery pack for that, which gives the Model S a very low center of gravity.

It appears that you do not agree that when the NHTSA had to resort to "special means" in order to induce the rollover at all, then that is something exceptional, something that makes the car stand out, i.e. outstanding. However, merely having 'good' protection against rollover does not seem to do justice to the description in the source.

So I solicit (from anyone) a formulation that explains that the rollover protection is so good, that the normal NHTSA tests could not actually make the car rollover. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Partially agree, the problem is that the source doesn't independantly say so (the "twice as good" claim is by Tesla), and we must not do original research by assuming "special" is unique. We don't know if other cars needed similar special means for testing. I searched other low sports cars on NHTSA but found few rollover tests. Not even Corvette had results. We also don't know if other cars have similar good protection against rollover, untested. What we CAN do, which I suggested over at Rollover article talk, is to gather data and make a list and graph.

In short, there is no reference for using the word "outstanding". TGCP (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lklundin: My complaint was more with the term "outstanding", which comes off as hyperbole, and doesn't sound professional in an encyclopedic article- this is Wikipedia, not a sales brochure. I haven't seen any quantifiable measurements we can quote concerning rollover, and I'd rather keep the hype to a minimum. The whole article is already crossing the border of neutrality. So if you can find some good science on the subject of rollovers, I'd very much like to see "the percentage of vehicle rollovers from the Model S is X% of the national average", or something like that. Amagi82 (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your feed-back, with fair points. Perhaps we can simply quote the source more closely, i.e. something about the fact that the car could not actually be made to roll over during the normal tests. And although the NHTSA's web-page on rollover clearly shows cars that roll over, we don't know how often they don't under their testing. I saw also the 5.7% rollover risk for the Model S. It is a good point that NHTSA does not subject that many cars to that test, especially among the more expensive. Perhaps a comparison of that risk among other 5-star cars could be informative. I will update the list at the above rollover talk page, if I find any more models. Perhaps something quantifiable can be made of that. Lklundin (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Accolade from competitors?

Is that notable? Porsche: “We have great respect for Tesla,” Mr. Müller said. “They are the only one who have brought an electric vehicle on the market that you have to take seriously.” It shows that Tesla is respected in the industry, to such degree that high-price competitors also choose the all-electric concept. TGCP (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Mercedes is also building a long-range EV archive translation TGCP (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Chinese copy - a kind of competitor? TGCP (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sales graph

Hi,

Just noticed a minor issue with "Global Sales" chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_sales_Tesla_Model_S_by_quarter.png there is a duplicated label Q2 2015 instead of Q3. Can you please suggest how to update it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.88.33 (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Good catch! I will fix it, but since Tesla is about to publish the 3Q financial report with the accurate sales figure, I will wait until next week to fix the typo and update the sales figure. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

How about using Module:Chart

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

3Q 2012

4Q 2012

1Q 2013

2Q 2013

3Q 2013

4Q 2013

1Q 2014

2Q 2014

3Q 2014

4Q 2014

1Q 2015

2Q 2015

3Q 2015

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

3Q 2012

2013

2014

2015

Much easier to make changes each quarter. Might need to experiment a bit.  Stepho  talk  05:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Or more variations using Template:Bar chart and Template:Vertical bar chart.  Stepho  talk  07:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Global sales per quarter

Quarter	Global sales
3Q 2012	250
4Q 2012	2,400
1Q 2013	4,900
2Q 2013	5,150
3Q 2013	5,500
4Q 2013	6,892
1Q 2014	6,457
2Q 2014	7,579
3Q 2014	7,785
4Q 2014	9,834
1Q 2015	10,045
2Q 2015	11,532
3Q 2015	11,574

Global sales by quarter

Good sugestion. I used it. While the data set is small this is the easiest way to update the graph. Later we may change it for anual sales. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad to be of service.  Stepho  talk  03:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Although I did remove my signature from the article. I think you must have copied my signature when you copied the talk page example.  Stepho  talk  03:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Indeed I did, sorry for the mistake, cheers. --Mariordo (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I see this has already paid for itself for the Q4 update :)  Stepho  talk  03:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Model S per capita

Hi, I added the Model S density in the sales table. However I couldn't get the table sortable. Would anyone be so kind to do this for me? ~ Aufbakanleitung (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aufbakanleitung, very nice info, but Wikipedia does not allow original research. This indicator must come from a reliable source, if you can produced one, please restore your edit with the corresponding the source. Check WP:OR and WP:RS. Cheers, --Mariordo (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Model S burns to the ground at charging station in Norway

This looks like something to be kept track of. English link, here.

Post-edit: Incident was apparently video recorded. Sb2s3 (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I will add it to the article.  Stepho  talk  01:42, 2 January 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.

http://www.statistik.at/wcm/idc/idcplg?IdcService=GET_PDF_FILE&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&dDocName=062059

Can someone update the whole table? Thank you. Lexxus2010 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)