Talk:Tesla Model S/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

In-car ethernet network, and Ubuntu operating system

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

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

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

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

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

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

In-car ethernet network, and Ubuntu operating system

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

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

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

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

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

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

First fatal accident

Apparently the first person to die in a traffic incident while having ridden in a Tesla Model S into the incident has occurred. [1][2] Car thief who stole the car from the dealership was driving at around 100MPH, crashed into several cars and poles, split the car into two, and was ejected and died of his injuries. ; should this go into the safety record (as a "first") ? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to survive a crash at 100 mph you have to sit in a race car like the ones in formula one, in the indy series, etc.

First fatal accident

Apparently the first person to die in a traffic incident while having ridden in a Tesla Model S into the incident has occurred. [3][4] Car thief who stole the car from the dealership was driving at around 100MPH, crashed into several cars and poles, split the car into two, and was ejected and died of his injuries. ; should this go into the safety record (as a "first") ? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to survive a crash at 100 mph you have to sit in a race car like the ones in formula one, in the indy series, etc.

Autopilot and Model D

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

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

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

Autopilot and Model D

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

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

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

Lead picture

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

• 
  Current image
• 
  Previous
• 
  Option 3
• 
  Option 4

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

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

Lead picture

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

• 
  Current image
• 
  Previous
• 
  Option 3
• 
  Option 4

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

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

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

Hi All

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

Thanks

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

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

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

Hi All

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

Thanks

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

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

Specification

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

Specification

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

Warranty requires dealer inspection?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warranty requires dealer inspection?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use as a Taxi ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use as a Taxi ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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