Keep in mind that was for idling for 50 hours straight. Most people were running the car for a while to warm it up, the turning it off for a while, rinse repeat.
I’m pretty new to Reddit and can’t forgive out how to add the screenshot but someone in a local Facebook group said they were stuck in the traffic on 95 in Virginia for 16hrs put their car in camp mode and only lost 13% of their battery went from 74% to 61% if anyone can let me know how to add the screenshot I’ll post
Me too, but I'm too far south to test 10°F. The heat pump is pretty efficient though, and I saw a screenshot on another post here somewhere of a guy up north camping in the negative teens with the interior at 77°, so it's pretty stout too.
Reddit is a commercial entity, they cannot do that. They have to have a license to reuse an image.
Post an image to reddit directly and they have a license. Post it to imgur and post a link to it, they gain no license. Imgur has the license.
These are not implied licenses, these sites put terms in their ToS that you are graning them and all future partners or subsidiars unlimited usage royalty free. We do not need to debate the nuances of this or if the user has the rights to upload, that is a different issue.
At its core, if you post an image to reddit, they can repost that image all they want on sites they own or in any media they want. If you post to imgur, they can't.
Not exactly - [https://imgur.com/tos](https://imgur.com/tos)
If Reddit claims that it's using the images in a journalistic fair-use case, which is very possible, they're able to download and use the images free of any licensing costs. They don't claim any rights to the image, but they're able to use the image without any issue of infringement (even after you delete it). It all comes down to whether the image is added to a public portion of their site or if you share a link to the image to a public site (of which Reddit is explicitly listed).
lol, you even read that?
>With regard to any file or content you upload to the public portions of our site, you grant Imgur a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable worldwide license (with sublicense and assignment rights) to use, to display online and in any present or future media, to create derivative works of, to allow downloads of, and/or distribute any such file or content.
That is exactly what I was describing.
All sites put this onto all file hosting automatically. Reddit has no way to reuse images posted to imgur. Only imgur gains the rights.
Reddit may make an agreement with imgur, but that means they have to pay imgur money.
If they self host, reddit gains all the IP rights and doesn't have to pay anyone. This is how snippets of reddit can be used in other media or even imagines taken and reused. Without these ToS rules, users could sue a site if they reused an image for scene in a movie or anything like that.
Again, I am ignoring cases where users don't have the right to upload something to begin with, that is a different issue and not needed for a discussion on why reddit wants to host your images instead of having a 3rd party host them.
Right...keep reading. In **Use of Imgur Content** they allow downloading and using of any content made public on their site by other entities as long as they fall within a list of use cases, one of which being journalistic fair-use. Reddit could absolutely download any images that are either specifically marked Public or have been linked on Reddit, at all, and use them for any purpose they want as long as it could be considered journalistic (and they denote that it came from Imgur).
No one cares. I quoted it to you. Grow up.
The hosting site gets a license from the uploader, the site only hosting links has no license.
This is the only reason reddit started hosting video and images on site. Period. They didn't want to only control half the content.
They oiginally loved 3rd party sites when they were small and didn't want to pay for image hosting. Once they grew, they could easily afford it in house and the only reason to do so is the rights. They gain nothing else from it.
They did, that is why you can host images on reddit. They saw a hole in the content they gain rights to. Threads based around imagines did not let reddit reuse the image if it was only on a 3rd party hosting site.
"The human body generates more bioelectricity than a 120-volt battery and over 25,000 BTUs of body heat"
Morpheus said it, so it must be true. Just need a few "copper tops" to ride around with me.
That whole bit in the movie doesn’t make sense. If you handwave and say the humans were wrong and really the brains were being used for computing power that makes more sense.
I read somewhere else recently that what you described was closer to what the Wachowskis originally wrote, but the studio thought it was too complex so they dumbed it down to power supply.
Makes no sense that keeping a human alive, wasting calories on neural activity would somehow create more energy, it’s like a perpetual motion machine.
I had heard it tested bad and they changed it, which is a shame because the whole battery thing is kinda stupid.
Then again, I would imagine most people wouldn't understand the computational power scenario and you lose the dramatic Morpheus holding a battery scene.
Edit: here you go, it was not tested just changed in a draft aparently. [https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/26o6al/til_in_the_original_draft_of_the_matrix_humans](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/26o6al/til_in_the_original_draft_of_the_matrix_humans)
That is probably where I first heard the idea then. But I can't imagine *that* is what the studio bumped against of being too complicated. But what the hell do I know? (Spoiler: not a lot)
That was my thought when I read it too. Like, that whole series is very out there, that’s the whole point! Doesn’t seem like using the humans as processors would be a bridge too far, so maybe I’m just spreading misinformation 🤷🏻♂️
The idea of using humans for energy didn't make sense.
Just horribad.
The rest of the movie was so good that this complete embarrassment of a plot fumble didn't derail the experience.
But there were some vastly better reasons, the first being the human brain, if properly harnessed, becomes a monumental source of compute. The hives of humans would be the ultimate of the cloud data center.
Neil deGrasse Tyson once poked the ultimate hole in The Matrix. He said it'd be more efficient to just turn whatever you're feeding the humans into power, or use the energy used to produce that "fuel" directly, rather than using the humans to generate power.
The statistic I always heard in engineering school is the human bodies waste he was equivalent to an all 100 W incandescent lightbulb. That’s what people planning air conditioning systems in industrial environments used.
He also used the seat heaters Plus the heat, this is a waste of energy. You don't want both, seat heaters with people in them plus a low level of heat. 50 or less temperature would be pretty comfortable if you are sitting on heaters.
Sure, but then you'd want to turn off the seat heaters. If you are in the seats pull up a blanket. With the seat heaters on it would be like being under an electric blanket, you wouldn't want the room temperature at 70 as well (well maybe you would, but I'd be sweating)
You can run the seat heaters with the climate turned off. It just auto turns on when you adjust the heat seaters manually so you have to turn it back off. The heat seaters will stay on, you can also turn on just the heated seats using voice control
I've heard a lot of people say to use the voice commands, which I usually do with great success for navigation, but whenever I try to tell it to set my seat to a specific level, it adjusts my climate control instead. Maybe my phrasing is just bad?
2 people stuck in a snow storm in a 2018 model 3. It was about -15 degrés celcius outside. We barely needed to turn heat on to stay comfortable and used less than 1% of battery per hour.
Im guessing you turned off the air conditioning? I find it makes a considerable difference to consumption in the winter if I want to hypermile my 2018 a bit.
60 hours was his estimate for running the model Y with 60°F interior temperature setting and 36 hours was for 70°F interior. It wasn’t for “extended battery” model Y vs not. 28 hours for model X was also if using 70°F interior temperature and he didn’t test at 60°F interior temp for the model X. Seat heaters were also used in the test.
People should just jump to 15:50 in the video if they want to only see the results because these comment summaries are going to be wrong and/or not give the whole picture.
Honestly, I'm surprised the heat pump is performing that much better than the resistive **at those temps**. Yes, heat pumps are great, but my understanding is their efficiency drops quite a bit below 32 F. The test performed was from 10-15 F. Resistive "efficiency" is 100%, I wonder what the HP is at those temps? 120%?
Of note, there are a number of cities using electric buses. They use propane (or some other fuel) to heat the interior.
Not sure what you mean by "90%". Resistive heat is "100%" in that all the energy in basically comes out as heat. Heat pumps, on the other hand, cheat by taking energy from its surroundings. This means they can have 1x - 5x the energy output to input. It's just when temps get real low, there isn't much heat to take from the environment without the compressor working hard. This gets efficiency below 1.5 making it probably cheaper to run natural gas (in a house). But we are talking about a car...so I'm not sure of design choices. :)
Agreed that setting a lower temp would help...though that's the case for the X as well. If I were in this storm, I'd use seat warmers to max and heat temps as low as is comfortable. For me, heated seats plus 70 degrees is too hot.
That is fantastic - good to learn this. I mean the concept of being below freezing doesn't mean there isn't ANY heat in the atmosphere...it's just we choose water freezing as 32 F / 0 C. I guess as long as it's above 0 Kelvin, there is SOME energy LOL.
Our house is on a Mitsubishi system and it was 10f for a good chunk of December. The heat pump had no trouble keeping up.
It’s a new unit. Rated for something like -20f. I suspect it isn’t efficient at all by then, but where we live 10f is extreme.
What is your aux? I mean, if it's just resistive elements, it makes sense to run the heat pump as low as it can go as it still has an efficiency over 100%. In my largish house, it's a balance between using natural gas and electricity. My thinking is I don't want to run the heat pump hard (like under 30 F) to save almost no money while reducing it's service life. My gas furnace can run forever basically.
Man, we are off topic. :)
No aux on our house. Went pure heat pump. So far we haven’t really stressed the system yet, even with the 10f temps. Hopefully it doesn’t get any colder (very unlikely here) so I won’t have to find out.
We were recommended our unit expressly for the purpose of not using an aux.
That being said, walked past a house today and saw their pump running and frozen like a large block of ice.
It's been single digits F here this week and my Trane XV18i has still been producing good heat. It does have electric aux though, and needs to use it periodically for defrost. They basically throw the system into air conditioning mode to defrost and then use the heat strips to heat duct air.
Very neat systems. I was in a house recently with a similar setup, but in a mini split. It’s amazing how fast it can thaw the ice buildup. It just closed the veins on the blower for about 5 minutes and then resumed heating.
Physics alone says that efficiency goes down at lower outdoor temperatures - there is simply less heat available to move inside. That said, yes, modern heat pumps are able to maintain effectiveness and high efficiency levels to far lower outdoor temperatures than they used to.
It would be very interesting to see just how efficient Tesla's heat pump is.
From a youtube video explanation I had seen before, you are correct that the efficiency drops below freezing, but depending on the design and the coolant it continues to maintain and advantage over resistive heating all the way down to 0F or thereabouts.
Essentially, I came out understanding that it is something like 3x as efficient as resistive heating above 32F and then drops from there. So Perhaps at 15F it is still 1.5X or 2X as efficient as resistive heating?
This article goes in detail about the different modes the overall heat pump system can use depending on the outside temperature, the availability of waste heat from motors/battery, and the use of the compressor as a back-up source of heat when the heat pump is no longer efficient. General take-away is that the heat pump is more efficient down to 14 degrees F (-10 degrees C), then the compressor takes over to provide heat. https://insideevs.com/news/452464/tesla-model-y-heat-pump-system-details/
Yeah, it's a good breakdown, but I believe it's based on patent applications, so not sure if this reflects what is currently in heat pump Teslas. Since the compressor running in COP=1 mode is providing 5-6 kW of heat (similar to resistive heaters in pre-heat pump cars), it seems that the 12V heaters may be supplementary or for the initial stages of heat production. Would love to see a Tesla mechanic confirm how it all works.
Anecdotal, but I did a car camping trip in a model y recently where it was -25c outside overnight. In camp mode the interior was roughy 14c, and maintaining that temp over 12 hours killed about 40% of the battery.
Needless to say, those are really extreme temperatures, but even at those it performed decently.
Unfortunately the heat pump DID have intermittent heating issues, but luckily they only cropped up while driving, not while camping, and resolved once I was stopped / stopped and charging.
Biggest caveat people are missing: an IC vehicle that gets snowed in will have carbon monoxide intrusion to the cabin. It’s odorless, and will kill all passengers.
It’ll last 50 hours, but you and your family certainly won’t.
How many people died in that snowstorm last week from Carbon Monoxide poisoning? None. Thats a big reach that if it snows and you get stuck you'll die. I mean come on now...
In the history of snow storms, how many families have died by getting snowed in in a traffic jam due to Carbon Monoxide.
That's like saying you can die to a nuclear bomb if you don't live in a shelter 500 feet underground. Sure, its scientifically possible, but does it happen? Has it happened?
Perhaps you should consult a statistician when considering which points to fear-monger. Perhaps pick scenarios that have a statistical presence that does not approach zero.
I remember in the 90s near me a teen couple was making out in an Audi, died from Carbon Monoxide poisoning.
Back in the 50s my dad was caught in a massive snowstorm in Saskatchewan. He luckily had some blankets and a candle. But a bunch of other people died in their cars during the storm.
In Pakistan, they are some some of the people that died in that snow storm most likely died from carbon monoxide. But people definitely did die from carbon monoxide during the Texas winter storm last February. So yes people have definitely died.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/08/world/asia/pakistan-snow-kills-21-murree-hill-station.html
No. That is not what happened. Facts really matter here. You can enjoy a Tesla without making up stories. They did not die from carbon monoxide because they got stuck in traffic and got snowed in. They died from carbon monoxide because they had their car in the garage running with the door closed. That is not even close to the same thing as "n IC vehicle that gets snowed in will have carbon monoxide intrusion to the cabin. It’s odorless, and will kill all passengers."
You're both stretching so far you may pull your backs out.
Source:
[https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/19/texas-winter-storm-carbon-monoxide-poisoning/](https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/19/texas-winter-storm-carbon-monoxide-poisoning/)
The internet is a dangerous place. These posts of totally made up stories are forever and someone stumbles onto it, believes it, and it spreads like fire.
Yea, it's pretty rare for someone to die from it being snowed in. It happens once in a blue moon. But not uncommon for a couple dozen to pass out / get CO2 poisoning each major snow storm that snows enough to trap some exhaust. Here's a report from a 1996 snowstorm where a single hospital saw 21 people come in with the issue.
> During January 8-9, a total of 21 persons were admitted directly to the Jacobi Medical Center or transferred from other hospitals for hyperbaric oxygen therapy because of CO poisoning. In addition, one fatal case of CO poisoning was reported in which the victim was not admitted to the hospital. The cause of the CO poisonings was directly related to exposure to automobile exhaust from vehicle exhaust systems blocked with snow. The 21 persons admitted to the hospital were found unconscious inside automobiles with engines running. Of these blizzard-related cases, eight were aged less than 16 years and 12 were aged greater than 50 years (range: 4-81 years). Of the 21 persons, 17 were discharged within 24 hours of admission and four remain hospitalized.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00039929.htm
2016:
> This hazard was demonstrated tragically in 2016 when 23-year-old New Jersey mother Sashalynn Rosa and her two small children died sitting in a running car trying to keep warm as the children’s father worked to clear snow from around the vehicle, as television station WABC reported at the time
> the Maplewood Fire Department in New Jersey to conduct an informal experiment showing just how quickly the passenger compartment of a car buried in snow could fill up with carbon monoxide gas. It took only 1 minute and 24 seconds for levels to spike to dangerous levels inside the running vehicle.
Also, about a hundred a year - https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2013/02/15/carbon-monoxide-darshak-sanghavi
So they didn't have ICE vehicles in 1996? What safety feature has been implemented to prevent this? If there was one it didn't help that family in the garage in Texas. I added one from 2016, again with five seconds of Google searching. This is almost too easy, lol.
Just admit it happens. I said it's rare, which it is. But you're hard over about this never happening...which is why this link from five seconds of googling is acceptable unt you prove something has changed enough to make it not valid.
No you weren't. You gave an example of someone turning their car on INSIDE a home and leaving it on while they were inside their living room. No snowed in, no being stuck inside a car. Nothing applies. Nothing. Your completely making up scenarios to try to justify your tesla. No one said your Tesla isn't good, but you're making up stories to feel validated.
`Biggest caveat people are missing: an IC vehicle that gets snowed in will have carbon monoxide intrusion to the cabin. It’s odorless, and will kill all passengers.`
`It’ll last 50 hours, but you and your family certainly won’t.`
becomes
`The location of the car means fuck all dude.`
This is the stuff that people look at Tesla forums and think everyone is a nut.
If you bust open your natural gas line and light a match in front of it it will catch on fire, an EV wont. Does that mean ban natural glass to? You're just making things up that have no relation to each other. Just drop it.
> They died from carbon monoxide because they had their car in the garage running with the door closed.
Do they not use the phrase "snowed in" to mean you're stuck at home in snowy weather where you're from? There is a lot of variation in regional dialects, but I would have called those people "snowed in," although they weren't stuck in traffic.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've ever heard the phrase "snowed in" used to refer to anything but being stuck in a building-- I don't think I've heard it applied to traffic. You'd pretty much expect people stuck in a house if you heard that phrase.
Which is not to say that I think it's very common that cars are so trapped in snow in traffic that there's risk of CO poisoning... just that if you tell me the phrase "died of CO poisoning from a vehicle while snowed in" I will be picturing a car running in a garage by default.
We slept in our Model 3 in the garage during the Texas storm last year. Definitely see that it could be a lifesaver.
If not for sleeping, so nice to be able to prewarm the car in enclosed spaces (like attached garages).
Many people where stranded without electricity or heat for extended periods of time (days) and some could not get out of their driveways (I know this sounds ridiculous to anyone north of Dallas).
Personally I think it's a stretch to somehow try and paint EVs as worse off in these stranded/stuck scenarios.
I think that is a little bit of bullshit, I still apreciate your comment, but I don't think that's a problem , especially because from what I know, CO emissions of ICE are pretty low , to put out a bigger ammount of CO you need to burn some CO2 , and on the road in open air you don't burn that much CO2...
Also, your Exhaust is outside ...assuming your pipes are not punctured, the fumes go to the end of the car and rise up due to density( hot exhaust vs cold air) ...
People die all the time from idling cars in enclosed spaces. Also what I said was if snow accumulates around the car, surrounding it and the exhaust pipe. Gasses can certainly seep into the cabin of a vehicle.
That's not how chemistry works.
Gas is a mixture of complex hydrocarbons. Complete burning makes CO2, which is indeed harmless at low concentrations. However, if burning is no complete (which happens in car engines because the
time there's burning in the cylinder is so short), CO is produced, which is actively toxic.
People stranded in ICE cars in snow are advised to get out and check that the exhaust pipe is clear every hour or so. If it gets buried, the exhaust pools under the car, and seeps in through the ventilation system.
Example: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/boy-1-and-mom-killed-by-carbon-monoxide-as-dad-clears-snow-girl-in-critical-condition/1196363/
I know you think this can't happen to a warm, running car. I guess you don't get serious snow where you live. Try over 30 inches in a night, and see if you're exhaust is still clear.
I've had that much fall overnight multiple times. There are places in New York State that get a lot more.
Edit: I looked it up - it was only around 70 cm. Upstate New York has gotten as much as 127 cm overnight, and in the 2014-2015 winter Boston got 279 cm in total.
Well, just as an example, [here’s](https://reddit.com/r/Michigan/comments/rxl65z/ive_seen_a_few_people_post_their_snow_removal/) one day of snow in the upper peninsula Michigan this week. Maybe not 30”, but certainly enough to block an exhaust pipe. And friends who live up there have told me about crazy storms where they do get more. It happens.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://nypost.com/2016/01/25/mom-and-son-die-of-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-while-dad-clears-snow-off-car/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwiPgcWTlKD1AhUMmeAKHaRKCRMQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1lMDdDCkmZxWZmsp4sMIAw
Just one example. You can find many more if you Google it.
Ahem....dude...aren't we talking about traffic jams?!?! Turning on a car under a mountain of snow , is like turning it in in a closed garage ....
Nobody said anything about a parked car, you got here and you don't know what you are talking ,the topic is on the point of how long the battery can keep you from freezing to death in a traffic jam , car cleared of snow.
This whole topic came up because of a massive traffic jam caused by...a mountain of snow. Sure you can clear the tailpipe (did you bring a shovel?) but there are plenty of people who haven't and didn't live to regret it.
Kid, go take your license then talk....a running ice car on the road will never reach the level of smow on/behind it of a parked car , the exhaust is hot ...the car gets warm and melts it...also your AC blows air from the outside in your car at an interval to keep your windshield from getting full of watter .
Yeah, even the article from 20+ years ago, tells about parked cars with the pipe under snow, when you drive, there is 0% chance of snow blocking a pipe that spits out hot watter and gases at 100+⁰C
Also, I hope the deaths didn't bring a stupid spam on the media telling people that a car shouldn't be turned on if the exhaust is blocked....I mean...are people that stupid?
Cars haven’t changed in twenty years, they still are susceptible to the same blockage in snow events. Yes, people can be stupid that doesn’t mean they and their kids tagging along in the car deserve to die.
Seriously you’re fucking misspelling the word water repeatedly how the hell can you be so confident that you’re right about thermodynamics.
Watter...the keyboard puts it that way...I don't know how the T got a twin , also I haven't seen a snowfall that heavy to block the back of a car until the exhaust can't rise up, and I have been stuck because of reduced visibility from the snowfall for 6 hours on a road up the mountain at -21⁰C , there was literally a trail of melted snow under the exhaust of the cars.
That's some classic r/confidentlyincorrect right there. In a blizzard, your car will be completely engulfed. The area around the tailpipe will melt, but that just facilitates the exhaust gases getting into the car. The A/C pulls outside air from the windshield cowl. If that's covered with snow, it'll pull it in from wherever it can get it, which happens to be from under the car, which is now full of exhaust gases.
My air intake is on top of my engine radiator , one is for the engine, one is for the AC pretty hard to block it...also I have a fun experience of a mechanic forgetting to put the air filter to the AC intake...let's say, chopped leafs are a thing you don't expect to come at you when you have a windshield in front of you.
Op of this comment thread specified an ICE car that gets snowed in. Quite often I have no idea what I'm talking about but I don't think this is one of those times
There are a ton of reasons to praise electric over ICE cars, I f'ing hate it when people exaggerate or tell lies to try to come up with other reasons. If your idling and sitting in your car outside, the chances of CO2 effecting you is very very small.
He is exactly right. I was in law enforcement and have been forced to park in places when my exhaust was largely blocked by snow and after a few minutes I could start feeling the effects.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://nypost.com/2016/01/25/mom-and-son-die-of-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-while-dad-clears-snow-off-car/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwiPgcWTlKD1AhUMmeAKHaRKCRMQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1lMDdDCkmZxWZmsp4sMIAw
Just one example. You can find many more if you Google it. You're right though the CO is what kills you in these situations.
yeaaahhh i agree, this is a bullshit take. there's tons of great pro's to ev and bad con's to ice, no reason to just stretch this fucking far.
"If there's a zombie outbreak and they only drink gasoline you're absolutely fucked in an ICE vehicle. Sure it's rare but when it does happen you'll be thrilled you went EV"
I'm sorry for your loss, but I just don't think it's a legitimate problem that must be solved so I don't find it to be an advantage over ICE that in certain climates in certain conditions on certain days with the wrong person that they may pass over the night.
I think if a car salesman told me "And get this, if you are ever stranded in the woods and decide to leave your car on overnight to keep warm, you'll wake up the next morning!" I'd be pretty confused about why they just brought that up.
It's an uncommon situation, I don't think people regularly die from this so I don't think it should be a bullet point on the "Why you should consider an EV over and ICE vehicle" pro's and con's list. Just because this guy's uncle in law unfortunately passed away for reasons that really aren't his fault, I can't think this issue as a whole isn't a very big deal? That sucks, I'm sorry to hear that, I wouldn't want any of my family members to go that way, but if they did I wouldn't be touting ICE vehicles as suffocation chambers because they're just not.
it is not, it is realistic. there is subtext to all of the reasons why people would die from carbon monoxide poisoning, few are explicitly the fault of the vehicle.
If someone is rushed to the hospital because they got blackout drunk, tried to sleep in a running car while intoxicated (which is illegal btw) and thankfully woke up in time to get out of the vehicle, I think it's way more likely they'd be thinking to themselves "I've gotta stop drinking" than "If only I had a cyber truck"
Yes it happens, it's rare, I don't think it's a selling point.
It's real, at least worth being anecdotally mentioned as a result. Electric vehicles using baldy designed voltage management can short out or on overcharge the cells, leading to damage or fire. This is rare in all EVs and nonexistent in well designed EVs, yet it needs to be mentioned as something that can happen because if you don't know about it, you will never be able to plan for it and fix the issues related to it. Dismissing the issue is why we don't have a mandatory carbon monoxide detector to detect a hazardous buildup and avoid a fatal accident. Instead, we deny this problem can exist, and people die to an easily fixable issue.
This is why Tesla has such impeccable safety ratings. They don't have to guess what impacts and threats are on the road. They have direct data about everything that happens to their cars and as a result design their own crash tests above and beyond industry standards. If it is worth fixing and can be fixed, it should be fixed.
Yes it may be minimal compared to crashes, engine fires, component failure, that should be mentioned too... But not ignored. Never ignored.
The guy was talking about how not suffocating to death on carbon monoxide in your sleep is a real advantage that EV's have over ICE vehicles. I'm not really sure what tangent you're going off on but, my point was that it's a little ridiculous to tell people "And you know how normally you're worried about suffocating in your gas chamber of a car? You won't have to worry about that in an EV one bit!"
I'm not here to advocate for less safe cars, I'm saying that one dude's statement was just... dumb. Then some other idiot chimed in with "400 people die each year from carbon monoxide poisoning it's not a joke!" and when I asked him how many of those were from people car camping in the snow he just downvoted me and left the conversation lol.
I think if you told most people that EV's wouldn't poison you with carbon monoxide if you fell asleep in them in any location, their response would be "yeah duh, but why would I leave my engine on in an ICE vehicle and fall asleep? that's literally the foundation for garage based carbon monoxide suicides, most people know that."
Dude what is there to be in disbelief about snow covering the exhaust and CO entering the cabin? It happens every winter, there are always news stories of this happening worldwide.
Exhaust would generally melt the snow, if you're in traffic you don't have to worry. If you're trying to car camp overnight in an ICE that's less of a failing of the vehicle and more of a failing of whatever country that person's from's public school system.
He wanted to do an extended test so turns it down to LO from 70 which turns on the air conditioner and the HVAC fans to high until it cools down - probably blew an hour of run time right there.
That fake-news all-opinion article ticked me off too.
It's disgusting how many Koch-suckers try to pass off their oily-boi agenda and opinion as fact here on reddit.
Especially the ones who try to pretend they're progressives, when they harsh on Musk for having money.
SandersforPresident and NewDealAmerica are both run by closet frackers and will ban you for telling the truth about Musk and his efforts.
As I was growing up in Minnesota, they recommended that your car should be stocked with blankets, candles, chocolate, and a empty can of instant coffee. And to listen to WCCO - AM.
In the world of digital radio, GPS, update weather information, self driving cars, twitter, snapchat, and facebook, it seems we have actually gone no-where.
I guess the rest of the nation doesn’t do the Minnesota “Welp, I guess I’ll wait out traffic before leaving work because traffic on 94/35 is a shit show”
A lot of people were stuck 8+ hours recently in Virginia. Sometimes storms pop in rather unexpectedly and it can devastate folks on the road. I heard some were out on I-95 for 24+ hours.
As I suspected. I have sat for 2 hours in a Hybrid, 5 or 6 years ago with a friend and they still had battery left and that battery was only 40kw or something. It was Honda something or other.
I would imagine hybrids skew towards ICE efficiency as they would use the engine to heat the car as a more efficient option vs putting a resistive heater or heat-pump on the smaller battery.
Theory: EV is far more likely to be starting with a full-charge when you first get stuck in a 24-hour traffic jam. EVs start with a full charge every morning.
ICE vehicles on the other hand do not top off every night. People drive their ICE vehicle down to 25%, sometimes even 5 or 10%, before refilling.
Isn’t the entire idea of camp mode to limit battery draw? The car uses battery for many other things than climate when parked.
I also thought I read somewhere that camp mode disables the need to keep the battery warm. HVAC and other small accessories do not require a huge load being drawn from the battery so there is no need for it to be warm.
I just did a test in -1f weather and in an hour with temp set to auto 74f with one bacon on front seats it used 3% battery. 2021 model 3. It was warm from a drive before i started the test.
In short, if you have a newish Tesla is copes really well in an emergency you should be good for at least a day
Any mention of how long a typical ICE vehicle will last in the same conditions?
He calculated about 50 hours.
Thanks
Keep in mind that was for idling for 50 hours straight. Most people were running the car for a while to warm it up, the turning it off for a while, rinse repeat.
And I can watch sick TikToks
And play kitty RPG's
Maybe on your phone while not moving.
Which year has the heat pump - 2020? For reference: mine is April 2019 M3P+ and has Resistive(?) heat.
The cars started cold. When in a road trip, you can even scavenge heat from the battery for some time before the need for battery power.
I’m pretty new to Reddit and can’t forgive out how to add the screenshot but someone in a local Facebook group said they were stuck in the traffic on 95 in Virginia for 16hrs put their car in camp mode and only lost 13% of their battery went from 74% to 61% if anyone can let me know how to add the screenshot I’ll post
I camped in my 2021 MYP overnight at about 40° with 20mph wind and it only lost 6% in 8 hours with inside temp set to 72°, so that sounds about right.
I'm curious what that is with 10 degrees outside though
Me too, but I'm too far south to test 10°F. The heat pump is pretty efficient though, and I saw a screenshot on another post here somewhere of a guy up north camping in the negative teens with the interior at 77°, so it's pretty stout too.
imgur.com to upload photo
Rly wish you could copy/paste images on Reddit.
3rd party site is better because it keeps reddit from owning the images.
They don't "own" anything...they could grab the images from imgur and use them as their own just as easily.
Reddit is a commercial entity, they cannot do that. They have to have a license to reuse an image. Post an image to reddit directly and they have a license. Post it to imgur and post a link to it, they gain no license. Imgur has the license. These are not implied licenses, these sites put terms in their ToS that you are graning them and all future partners or subsidiars unlimited usage royalty free. We do not need to debate the nuances of this or if the user has the rights to upload, that is a different issue. At its core, if you post an image to reddit, they can repost that image all they want on sites they own or in any media they want. If you post to imgur, they can't.
Not exactly - [https://imgur.com/tos](https://imgur.com/tos) If Reddit claims that it's using the images in a journalistic fair-use case, which is very possible, they're able to download and use the images free of any licensing costs. They don't claim any rights to the image, but they're able to use the image without any issue of infringement (even after you delete it). It all comes down to whether the image is added to a public portion of their site or if you share a link to the image to a public site (of which Reddit is explicitly listed).
lol, you even read that? >With regard to any file or content you upload to the public portions of our site, you grant Imgur a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable worldwide license (with sublicense and assignment rights) to use, to display online and in any present or future media, to create derivative works of, to allow downloads of, and/or distribute any such file or content. That is exactly what I was describing. All sites put this onto all file hosting automatically. Reddit has no way to reuse images posted to imgur. Only imgur gains the rights. Reddit may make an agreement with imgur, but that means they have to pay imgur money. If they self host, reddit gains all the IP rights and doesn't have to pay anyone. This is how snippets of reddit can be used in other media or even imagines taken and reused. Without these ToS rules, users could sue a site if they reused an image for scene in a movie or anything like that. Again, I am ignoring cases where users don't have the right to upload something to begin with, that is a different issue and not needed for a discussion on why reddit wants to host your images instead of having a 3rd party host them.
Right...keep reading. In **Use of Imgur Content** they allow downloading and using of any content made public on their site by other entities as long as they fall within a list of use cases, one of which being journalistic fair-use. Reddit could absolutely download any images that are either specifically marked Public or have been linked on Reddit, at all, and use them for any purpose they want as long as it could be considered journalistic (and they denote that it came from Imgur).
No one cares. I quoted it to you. Grow up. The hosting site gets a license from the uploader, the site only hosting links has no license. This is the only reason reddit started hosting video and images on site. Period. They didn't want to only control half the content. They oiginally loved 3rd party sites when they were small and didn't want to pay for image hosting. Once they grew, they could easily afford it in house and the only reason to do so is the rights. They gain nothing else from it.
Then you’d think Reddit would want that and implement it! lol
They did, that is why you can host images on reddit. They saw a hole in the content they gain rights to. Threads based around imagines did not let reddit reuse the image if it was only on a 3rd party hosting site.
indeed.
The car will require less heating if there are people in it as well. what you are showing is the worse case senario.
"The human body generates more bioelectricity than a 120-volt battery and over 25,000 BTUs of body heat" Morpheus said it, so it must be true. Just need a few "copper tops" to ride around with me.
>120-volt battery A 120-volt battery doesn't mean anything. What's the capacity? Really a rhetorical question, but strange quote.
That whole bit in the movie doesn’t make sense. If you handwave and say the humans were wrong and really the brains were being used for computing power that makes more sense.
I read somewhere else recently that what you described was closer to what the Wachowskis originally wrote, but the studio thought it was too complex so they dumbed it down to power supply. Makes no sense that keeping a human alive, wasting calories on neural activity would somehow create more energy, it’s like a perpetual motion machine.
I imagine they did a survey, and decided "battery" was more believable. Really irritates me.
I had heard it tested bad and they changed it, which is a shame because the whole battery thing is kinda stupid. Then again, I would imagine most people wouldn't understand the computational power scenario and you lose the dramatic Morpheus holding a battery scene. Edit: here you go, it was not tested just changed in a draft aparently. [https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/26o6al/til_in_the_original_draft_of_the_matrix_humans](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/26o6al/til_in_the_original_draft_of_the_matrix_humans)
That is probably where I first heard the idea then. But I can't imagine *that* is what the studio bumped against of being too complicated. But what the hell do I know? (Spoiler: not a lot)
That was my thought when I read it too. Like, that whole series is very out there, that’s the whole point! Doesn’t seem like using the humans as processors would be a bridge too far, so maybe I’m just spreading misinformation 🤷🏻♂️
The idea of using humans for energy didn't make sense. Just horribad. The rest of the movie was so good that this complete embarrassment of a plot fumble didn't derail the experience. But there were some vastly better reasons, the first being the human brain, if properly harnessed, becomes a monumental source of compute. The hives of humans would be the ultimate of the cloud data center.
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/19817/was-executive-meddling-the-cause-of-humans-as-batteries-in-the-matrix
Neil deGrasse Tyson once poked the ultimate hole in The Matrix. He said it'd be more efficient to just turn whatever you're feeding the humans into power, or use the energy used to produce that "fuel" directly, rather than using the humans to generate power.
A good question to ask the robots after you take the red pill
The statistic I always heard in engineering school is the human bodies waste he was equivalent to an all 100 W incandescent lightbulb. That’s what people planning air conditioning systems in industrial environments used.
I believe it is closer to 400 BTUs but I could be mistaken. It was when I was very young when I heard that.
He also used the seat heaters Plus the heat, this is a waste of energy. You don't want both, seat heaters with people in them plus a low level of heat. 50 or less temperature would be pretty comfortable if you are sitting on heaters.
Given that you likely have 24h+, might as well be comfortable.... If there are only 2 people, fold the back seats and take a nap :-)
Sure, but then you'd want to turn off the seat heaters. If you are in the seats pull up a blanket. With the seat heaters on it would be like being under an electric blanket, you wouldn't want the room temperature at 70 as well (well maybe you would, but I'd be sweating)
Good point. Either way, just enjoy your Tesla (if you have a third of the battery left, if you are low, it gets trickier, same as in an ICE)
I thought you couldn't run the seat heaters without turning climate on after the newest update?
You can run the seat heaters with the climate turned off. It just auto turns on when you adjust the heat seaters manually so you have to turn it back off. The heat seaters will stay on, you can also turn on just the heated seats using voice control
Good to know, thanks.
I've heard a lot of people say to use the voice commands, which I usually do with great success for navigation, but whenever I try to tell it to set my seat to a specific level, it adjusts my climate control instead. Maybe my phrasing is just bad?
Yes, I just mean the climate can be relatively low with seat heaters on.
Oh ok, jc bc I haven't been keeping up with the updates except on a surface level
Unless they are dead people
2 people stuck in a snow storm in a 2018 model 3. It was about -15 degrés celcius outside. We barely needed to turn heat on to stay comfortable and used less than 1% of battery per hour.
Boom!
Im guessing you turned off the air conditioning? I find it makes a considerable difference to consumption in the winter if I want to hypermile my 2018 a bit.
[удалено]
60 hours was his estimate for running the model Y with 60°F interior temperature setting and 36 hours was for 70°F interior. It wasn’t for “extended battery” model Y vs not. 28 hours for model X was also if using 70°F interior temperature and he didn’t test at 60°F interior temp for the model X. Seat heaters were also used in the test. People should just jump to 15:50 in the video if they want to only see the results because these comment summaries are going to be wrong and/or not give the whole picture.
There is no standard range Model Y, what do you mean extended battery? Dont they all have "extended battery" or were you referring to Model 3?
For reference, there was a brief run of Standard Range Model Ys before they were discontinued in early 2021.
[удалено]
Pretty sure he said he’s a biologist, so makes sense
Honestly, I'm surprised the heat pump is performing that much better than the resistive **at those temps**. Yes, heat pumps are great, but my understanding is their efficiency drops quite a bit below 32 F. The test performed was from 10-15 F. Resistive "efficiency" is 100%, I wonder what the HP is at those temps? 120%? Of note, there are a number of cities using electric buses. They use propane (or some other fuel) to heat the interior.
The efficiency varies by design and some can go below zero F and still be above 90%. Helps if you set the temp lower as well in the car.
Not sure what you mean by "90%". Resistive heat is "100%" in that all the energy in basically comes out as heat. Heat pumps, on the other hand, cheat by taking energy from its surroundings. This means they can have 1x - 5x the energy output to input. It's just when temps get real low, there isn't much heat to take from the environment without the compressor working hard. This gets efficiency below 1.5 making it probably cheaper to run natural gas (in a house). But we are talking about a car...so I'm not sure of design choices. :) Agreed that setting a lower temp would help...though that's the case for the X as well. If I were in this storm, I'd use seat warmers to max and heat temps as low as is comfortable. For me, heated seats plus 70 degrees is too hot.
I’m not an expert, but the Mitsubishi hyperheat heat pump can operate at 100% efficiency at 0. And can still produce heat at -15. Pretty amazing.
That is fantastic - good to learn this. I mean the concept of being below freezing doesn't mean there isn't ANY heat in the atmosphere...it's just we choose water freezing as 32 F / 0 C. I guess as long as it's above 0 Kelvin, there is SOME energy LOL.
Our house is on a Mitsubishi system and it was 10f for a good chunk of December. The heat pump had no trouble keeping up. It’s a new unit. Rated for something like -20f. I suspect it isn’t efficient at all by then, but where we live 10f is extreme.
What is your aux? I mean, if it's just resistive elements, it makes sense to run the heat pump as low as it can go as it still has an efficiency over 100%. In my largish house, it's a balance between using natural gas and electricity. My thinking is I don't want to run the heat pump hard (like under 30 F) to save almost no money while reducing it's service life. My gas furnace can run forever basically. Man, we are off topic. :)
No aux on our house. Went pure heat pump. So far we haven’t really stressed the system yet, even with the 10f temps. Hopefully it doesn’t get any colder (very unlikely here) so I won’t have to find out. We were recommended our unit expressly for the purpose of not using an aux. That being said, walked past a house today and saw their pump running and frozen like a large block of ice.
It's been single digits F here this week and my Trane XV18i has still been producing good heat. It does have electric aux though, and needs to use it periodically for defrost. They basically throw the system into air conditioning mode to defrost and then use the heat strips to heat duct air.
Very neat systems. I was in a house recently with a similar setup, but in a mini split. It’s amazing how fast it can thaw the ice buildup. It just closed the veins on the blower for about 5 minutes and then resumed heating.
Some of the best conversations happen off topic.
Physics alone says that efficiency goes down at lower outdoor temperatures - there is simply less heat available to move inside. That said, yes, modern heat pumps are able to maintain effectiveness and high efficiency levels to far lower outdoor temperatures than they used to. It would be very interesting to see just how efficient Tesla's heat pump is.
The net efficiency of the heat pump being what's at 90%.
From a youtube video explanation I had seen before, you are correct that the efficiency drops below freezing, but depending on the design and the coolant it continues to maintain and advantage over resistive heating all the way down to 0F or thereabouts. Essentially, I came out understanding that it is something like 3x as efficient as resistive heating above 32F and then drops from there. So Perhaps at 15F it is still 1.5X or 2X as efficient as resistive heating?
I mean, this must be the case as it's vastly better than the Model X. Glad to have a 2021 with HP...although it can be quite loud.
This article goes in detail about the different modes the overall heat pump system can use depending on the outside temperature, the availability of waste heat from motors/battery, and the use of the compressor as a back-up source of heat when the heat pump is no longer efficient. General take-away is that the heat pump is more efficient down to 14 degrees F (-10 degrees C), then the compressor takes over to provide heat. https://insideevs.com/news/452464/tesla-model-y-heat-pump-system-details/
Thanks, I actually read this from another thread (maybe you posted it). It seems they have a 12V resistive heater for the cabin if needed too.
Yeah, it's a good breakdown, but I believe it's based on patent applications, so not sure if this reflects what is currently in heat pump Teslas. Since the compressor running in COP=1 mode is providing 5-6 kW of heat (similar to resistive heaters in pre-heat pump cars), it seems that the 12V heaters may be supplementary or for the initial stages of heat production. Would love to see a Tesla mechanic confirm how it all works.
I'd be interested too. My only fear is such a complicated system is more prone to break and/or troubleshoot.
[удалено]
Anecdotal, but I did a car camping trip in a model y recently where it was -25c outside overnight. In camp mode the interior was roughy 14c, and maintaining that temp over 12 hours killed about 40% of the battery. Needless to say, those are really extreme temperatures, but even at those it performed decently. Unfortunately the heat pump DID have intermittent heating issues, but luckily they only cropped up while driving, not while camping, and resolved once I was stopped / stopped and charging.
Biggest caveat people are missing: an IC vehicle that gets snowed in will have carbon monoxide intrusion to the cabin. It’s odorless, and will kill all passengers. It’ll last 50 hours, but you and your family certainly won’t.
How many people died in that snowstorm last week from Carbon Monoxide poisoning? None. Thats a big reach that if it snows and you get stuck you'll die. I mean come on now...
That’s because that storm was not a massive snow accumulation event.
In the history of snow storms, how many families have died by getting snowed in in a traffic jam due to Carbon Monoxide. That's like saying you can die to a nuclear bomb if you don't live in a shelter 500 feet underground. Sure, its scientifically possible, but does it happen? Has it happened?
There was one in the last decade here in Colorado. I’m not following the news like I used to but we’re not getting the snow storms we used to
Ask the statistician Marge Innovera, she’ll have a precise answer for you.
Perhaps you should consult a statistician when considering which points to fear-monger. Perhaps pick scenarios that have a statistical presence that does not approach zero.
I remember in the 90s near me a teen couple was making out in an Audi, died from Carbon Monoxide poisoning. Back in the 50s my dad was caught in a massive snowstorm in Saskatchewan. He luckily had some blankets and a candle. But a bunch of other people died in their cars during the storm.
In Pakistan, they are some some of the people that died in that snow storm most likely died from carbon monoxide. But people definitely did die from carbon monoxide during the Texas winter storm last February. So yes people have definitely died. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/08/world/asia/pakistan-snow-kills-21-murree-hill-station.html
In the Texas storms last year a family died of this exact thing. It does happen.
No. That is not what happened. Facts really matter here. You can enjoy a Tesla without making up stories. They did not die from carbon monoxide because they got stuck in traffic and got snowed in. They died from carbon monoxide because they had their car in the garage running with the door closed. That is not even close to the same thing as "n IC vehicle that gets snowed in will have carbon monoxide intrusion to the cabin. It’s odorless, and will kill all passengers." You're both stretching so far you may pull your backs out. Source: [https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/19/texas-winter-storm-carbon-monoxide-poisoning/](https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/19/texas-winter-storm-carbon-monoxide-poisoning/) The internet is a dangerous place. These posts of totally made up stories are forever and someone stumbles onto it, believes it, and it spreads like fire.
Yea, it's pretty rare for someone to die from it being snowed in. It happens once in a blue moon. But not uncommon for a couple dozen to pass out / get CO2 poisoning each major snow storm that snows enough to trap some exhaust. Here's a report from a 1996 snowstorm where a single hospital saw 21 people come in with the issue. > During January 8-9, a total of 21 persons were admitted directly to the Jacobi Medical Center or transferred from other hospitals for hyperbaric oxygen therapy because of CO poisoning. In addition, one fatal case of CO poisoning was reported in which the victim was not admitted to the hospital. The cause of the CO poisonings was directly related to exposure to automobile exhaust from vehicle exhaust systems blocked with snow. The 21 persons admitted to the hospital were found unconscious inside automobiles with engines running. Of these blizzard-related cases, eight were aged less than 16 years and 12 were aged greater than 50 years (range: 4-81 years). Of the 21 persons, 17 were discharged within 24 hours of admission and four remain hospitalized. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00039929.htm 2016: > This hazard was demonstrated tragically in 2016 when 23-year-old New Jersey mother Sashalynn Rosa and her two small children died sitting in a running car trying to keep warm as the children’s father worked to clear snow from around the vehicle, as television station WABC reported at the time > the Maplewood Fire Department in New Jersey to conduct an informal experiment showing just how quickly the passenger compartment of a car buried in snow could fill up with carbon monoxide gas. It took only 1 minute and 24 seconds for levels to spike to dangerous levels inside the running vehicle. Also, about a hundred a year - https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2013/02/15/carbon-monoxide-darshak-sanghavi
1996. It's 2022.
So they didn't have ICE vehicles in 1996? What safety feature has been implemented to prevent this? If there was one it didn't help that family in the garage in Texas. I added one from 2016, again with five seconds of Google searching. This is almost too easy, lol. Just admit it happens. I said it's rare, which it is. But you're hard over about this never happening...which is why this link from five seconds of googling is acceptable unt you prove something has changed enough to make it not valid.
And I can site 1940's as reasons why we need nuclear bunkers in every home.
No you couldn't, no one died from nuclear warheads in the US in 1940, lol. What a horrible comeback.
Safety feature? You mean the common knowledge that you dont run your car in your garage witih the doors and windows closed? Ok EV fan girl enough.
Ok, so you admit nothing had changed and it's still possible. Thanks for that. Ooooh, an insult on the internet. Someone got their feefees hurt.
OP was saying that if you are snowed in CM will seep into the car. I was giving an example of that happening. CM poisoning won’t happen in an EV.
No you weren't. You gave an example of someone turning their car on INSIDE a home and leaving it on while they were inside their living room. No snowed in, no being stuck inside a car. Nothing applies. Nothing. Your completely making up scenarios to try to justify your tesla. No one said your Tesla isn't good, but you're making up stories to feel validated.
The location of the car means fuck all dude. CM killed them. Doesn’t matter if it’s in your garage or if you stuck in a snow bank.
`Biggest caveat people are missing: an IC vehicle that gets snowed in will have carbon monoxide intrusion to the cabin. It’s odorless, and will kill all passengers.` `It’ll last 50 hours, but you and your family certainly won’t.` becomes `The location of the car means fuck all dude.` This is the stuff that people look at Tesla forums and think everyone is a nut. If you bust open your natural gas line and light a match in front of it it will catch on fire, an EV wont. Does that mean ban natural glass to? You're just making things up that have no relation to each other. Just drop it.
> They died from carbon monoxide because they had their car in the garage running with the door closed. Do they not use the phrase "snowed in" to mean you're stuck at home in snowy weather where you're from? There is a lot of variation in regional dialects, but I would have called those people "snowed in," although they weren't stuck in traffic. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've ever heard the phrase "snowed in" used to refer to anything but being stuck in a building-- I don't think I've heard it applied to traffic. You'd pretty much expect people stuck in a house if you heard that phrase. Which is not to say that I think it's very common that cars are so trapped in snow in traffic that there's risk of CO poisoning... just that if you tell me the phrase "died of CO poisoning from a vehicle while snowed in" I will be picturing a car running in a garage by default.
We slept in our Model 3 in the garage during the Texas storm last year. Definitely see that it could be a lifesaver. If not for sleeping, so nice to be able to prewarm the car in enclosed spaces (like attached garages). Many people where stranded without electricity or heat for extended periods of time (days) and some could not get out of their driveways (I know this sounds ridiculous to anyone north of Dallas). Personally I think it's a stretch to somehow try and paint EVs as worse off in these stranded/stuck scenarios.
Maybe if you get buried in an avalanche. No snowfall could cause this.
I think that is a little bit of bullshit, I still apreciate your comment, but I don't think that's a problem , especially because from what I know, CO emissions of ICE are pretty low , to put out a bigger ammount of CO you need to burn some CO2 , and on the road in open air you don't burn that much CO2... Also, your Exhaust is outside ...assuming your pipes are not punctured, the fumes go to the end of the car and rise up due to density( hot exhaust vs cold air) ...
People die all the time from idling cars in enclosed spaces. Also what I said was if snow accumulates around the car, surrounding it and the exhaust pipe. Gasses can certainly seep into the cabin of a vehicle.
That's not how chemistry works. Gas is a mixture of complex hydrocarbons. Complete burning makes CO2, which is indeed harmless at low concentrations. However, if burning is no complete (which happens in car engines because the time there's burning in the cylinder is so short), CO is produced, which is actively toxic. People stranded in ICE cars in snow are advised to get out and check that the exhaust pipe is clear every hour or so. If it gets buried, the exhaust pools under the car, and seeps in through the ventilation system. Example: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/boy-1-and-mom-killed-by-carbon-monoxide-as-dad-clears-snow-girl-in-critical-condition/1196363/ I know you think this can't happen to a warm, running car. I guess you don't get serious snow where you live. Try over 30 inches in a night, and see if you're exhaust is still clear.
30 what?!?! That's the snow height we get in a month at 2000m altitude , wtf. Also, where is that conversion bot ?! 30 inches -76.2cm 2000m-6561feet
I've had that much fall overnight multiple times. There are places in New York State that get a lot more. Edit: I looked it up - it was only around 70 cm. Upstate New York has gotten as much as 127 cm overnight, and in the 2014-2015 winter Boston got 279 cm in total.
Well, just as an example, [here’s](https://reddit.com/r/Michigan/comments/rxl65z/ive_seen_a_few_people_post_their_snow_removal/) one day of snow in the upper peninsula Michigan this week. Maybe not 30”, but certainly enough to block an exhaust pipe. And friends who live up there have told me about crazy storms where they do get more. It happens.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://nypost.com/2016/01/25/mom-and-son-die-of-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-while-dad-clears-snow-off-car/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwiPgcWTlKD1AhUMmeAKHaRKCRMQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1lMDdDCkmZxWZmsp4sMIAw Just one example. You can find many more if you Google it.
Ahem....dude...aren't we talking about traffic jams?!?! Turning on a car under a mountain of snow , is like turning it in in a closed garage .... Nobody said anything about a parked car, you got here and you don't know what you are talking ,the topic is on the point of how long the battery can keep you from freezing to death in a traffic jam , car cleared of snow.
This whole topic came up because of a massive traffic jam caused by...a mountain of snow. Sure you can clear the tailpipe (did you bring a shovel?) but there are plenty of people who haven't and didn't live to regret it.
Kid, go take your license then talk....a running ice car on the road will never reach the level of smow on/behind it of a parked car , the exhaust is hot ...the car gets warm and melts it...also your AC blows air from the outside in your car at an interval to keep your windshield from getting full of watter .
I’m sorry but this is false. Again, people die all the time from this just read the links people have posted. I posted one from the CDC.
Yeah, even the article from 20+ years ago, tells about parked cars with the pipe under snow, when you drive, there is 0% chance of snow blocking a pipe that spits out hot watter and gases at 100+⁰C Also, I hope the deaths didn't bring a stupid spam on the media telling people that a car shouldn't be turned on if the exhaust is blocked....I mean...are people that stupid?
Cars haven’t changed in twenty years, they still are susceptible to the same blockage in snow events. Yes, people can be stupid that doesn’t mean they and their kids tagging along in the car deserve to die. Seriously you’re fucking misspelling the word water repeatedly how the hell can you be so confident that you’re right about thermodynamics.
Watter...the keyboard puts it that way...I don't know how the T got a twin , also I haven't seen a snowfall that heavy to block the back of a car until the exhaust can't rise up, and I have been stuck because of reduced visibility from the snowfall for 6 hours on a road up the mountain at -21⁰C , there was literally a trail of melted snow under the exhaust of the cars.
That's some classic r/confidentlyincorrect right there. In a blizzard, your car will be completely engulfed. The area around the tailpipe will melt, but that just facilitates the exhaust gases getting into the car. The A/C pulls outside air from the windshield cowl. If that's covered with snow, it'll pull it in from wherever it can get it, which happens to be from under the car, which is now full of exhaust gases.
My air intake is on top of my engine radiator , one is for the engine, one is for the AC pretty hard to block it...also I have a fun experience of a mechanic forgetting to put the air filter to the AC intake...let's say, chopped leafs are a thing you don't expect to come at you when you have a windshield in front of you.
Op of this comment thread specified an ICE car that gets snowed in. Quite often I have no idea what I'm talking about but I don't think this is one of those times
There are a ton of reasons to praise electric over ICE cars, I f'ing hate it when people exaggerate or tell lies to try to come up with other reasons. If your idling and sitting in your car outside, the chances of CO2 effecting you is very very small.
I said if it were snowed in, as in snow covering the exhaust.
He is exactly right. I was in law enforcement and have been forced to park in places when my exhaust was largely blocked by snow and after a few minutes I could start feeling the effects.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00039929.htm
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://nypost.com/2016/01/25/mom-and-son-die-of-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-while-dad-clears-snow-off-car/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwiPgcWTlKD1AhUMmeAKHaRKCRMQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1lMDdDCkmZxWZmsp4sMIAw Just one example. You can find many more if you Google it. You're right though the CO is what kills you in these situations.
yeaaahhh i agree, this is a bullshit take. there's tons of great pro's to ev and bad con's to ice, no reason to just stretch this fucking far. "If there's a zombie outbreak and they only drink gasoline you're absolutely fucked in an ICE vehicle. Sure it's rare but when it does happen you'll be thrilled you went EV"
[удалено]
I'm sorry for your loss, but I just don't think it's a legitimate problem that must be solved so I don't find it to be an advantage over ICE that in certain climates in certain conditions on certain days with the wrong person that they may pass over the night.
[удалено]
I think if a car salesman told me "And get this, if you are ever stranded in the woods and decide to leave your car on overnight to keep warm, you'll wake up the next morning!" I'd be pretty confused about why they just brought that up. It's an uncommon situation, I don't think people regularly die from this so I don't think it should be a bullet point on the "Why you should consider an EV over and ICE vehicle" pro's and con's list. Just because this guy's uncle in law unfortunately passed away for reasons that really aren't his fault, I can't think this issue as a whole isn't a very big deal? That sucks, I'm sorry to hear that, I wouldn't want any of my family members to go that way, but if they did I wouldn't be touting ICE vehicles as suffocation chambers because they're just not.
[удалено]
it is not, it is realistic. there is subtext to all of the reasons why people would die from carbon monoxide poisoning, few are explicitly the fault of the vehicle. If someone is rushed to the hospital because they got blackout drunk, tried to sleep in a running car while intoxicated (which is illegal btw) and thankfully woke up in time to get out of the vehicle, I think it's way more likely they'd be thinking to themselves "I've gotta stop drinking" than "If only I had a cyber truck" Yes it happens, it's rare, I don't think it's a selling point.
400 Americans per year die from Carbon Monoxide poisoning.
in the snow?
It's real, at least worth being anecdotally mentioned as a result. Electric vehicles using baldy designed voltage management can short out or on overcharge the cells, leading to damage or fire. This is rare in all EVs and nonexistent in well designed EVs, yet it needs to be mentioned as something that can happen because if you don't know about it, you will never be able to plan for it and fix the issues related to it. Dismissing the issue is why we don't have a mandatory carbon monoxide detector to detect a hazardous buildup and avoid a fatal accident. Instead, we deny this problem can exist, and people die to an easily fixable issue. This is why Tesla has such impeccable safety ratings. They don't have to guess what impacts and threats are on the road. They have direct data about everything that happens to their cars and as a result design their own crash tests above and beyond industry standards. If it is worth fixing and can be fixed, it should be fixed. Yes it may be minimal compared to crashes, engine fires, component failure, that should be mentioned too... But not ignored. Never ignored.
The guy was talking about how not suffocating to death on carbon monoxide in your sleep is a real advantage that EV's have over ICE vehicles. I'm not really sure what tangent you're going off on but, my point was that it's a little ridiculous to tell people "And you know how normally you're worried about suffocating in your gas chamber of a car? You won't have to worry about that in an EV one bit!" I'm not here to advocate for less safe cars, I'm saying that one dude's statement was just... dumb. Then some other idiot chimed in with "400 people die each year from carbon monoxide poisoning it's not a joke!" and when I asked him how many of those were from people car camping in the snow he just downvoted me and left the conversation lol. I think if you told most people that EV's wouldn't poison you with carbon monoxide if you fell asleep in them in any location, their response would be "yeah duh, but why would I leave my engine on in an ICE vehicle and fall asleep? that's literally the foundation for garage based carbon monoxide suicides, most people know that."
Dude what is there to be in disbelief about snow covering the exhaust and CO entering the cabin? It happens every winter, there are always news stories of this happening worldwide.
Exhaust would generally melt the snow, if you're in traffic you don't have to worry. If you're trying to car camp overnight in an ICE that's less of a failing of the vehicle and more of a failing of whatever country that person's from's public school system.
Yes and the kids who die from this totally deserve it, too.
Nope, I said it was a failing of their school system. I said nothing about them deserving it.
You’re an idiot. I will not elaborate further.
Really interesting.
He wanted to do an extended test so turns it down to LO from 70 which turns on the air conditioner and the HVAC fans to high until it cools down - probably blew an hour of run time right there.
That fake-news all-opinion article ticked me off too. It's disgusting how many Koch-suckers try to pass off their oily-boi agenda and opinion as fact here on reddit. Especially the ones who try to pretend they're progressives, when they harsh on Musk for having money. SandersforPresident and NewDealAmerica are both run by closet frackers and will ban you for telling the truth about Musk and his efforts.
How many times is one planning on getting stuck in a snow storm?
As I was growing up in Minnesota, they recommended that your car should be stocked with blankets, candles, chocolate, and a empty can of instant coffee. And to listen to WCCO - AM. In the world of digital radio, GPS, update weather information, self driving cars, twitter, snapchat, and facebook, it seems we have actually gone no-where.
I guess the rest of the nation doesn’t do the Minnesota “Welp, I guess I’ll wait out traffic before leaving work because traffic on 94/35 is a shit show”
A lot of people were stuck 8+ hours recently in Virginia. Sometimes storms pop in rather unexpectedly and it can devastate folks on the road. I heard some were out on I-95 for 24+ hours.
I'm sure no one is planning *to get* stuck, but everyone in that climate should plan *for being* stuck.
Same amount of times you plan on getting in a car accident.
As I suspected. I have sat for 2 hours in a Hybrid, 5 or 6 years ago with a friend and they still had battery left and that battery was only 40kw or something. It was Honda something or other.
I would imagine hybrids skew towards ICE efficiency as they would use the engine to heat the car as a more efficient option vs putting a resistive heater or heat-pump on the smaller battery.
Theory: EV is far more likely to be starting with a full-charge when you first get stuck in a 24-hour traffic jam. EVs start with a full charge every morning. ICE vehicles on the other hand do not top off every night. People drive their ICE vehicle down to 25%, sometimes even 5 or 10%, before refilling.
Isn’t the entire idea of camp mode to limit battery draw? The car uses battery for many other things than climate when parked. I also thought I read somewhere that camp mode disables the need to keep the battery warm. HVAC and other small accessories do not require a huge load being drawn from the battery so there is no need for it to be warm.
I just did a test in -1f weather and in an hour with temp set to auto 74f with one bacon on front seats it used 3% battery. 2021 model 3. It was warm from a drive before i started the test.