Talk:Tesla Model S/Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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
180.199.60.251 (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * December 2013 for German market:
 * 
 * December 2013 for Canadian market:
 * 


 * 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)

December 2013
180.199.60.251 (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * December 2013 for German market:
 * 
 * December 2013 for Canadian market:
 * 


 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

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. 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)

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)

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)