The look on the judge’s face said everything, along with the long WTF pause. OMG do stupid things, win stupid prizes.

The look of absolute bemusement on the judge’s face coupled with the slowly dawning look of understanding on the dumbass’s face, together, are simply...

blame it on the al-al-al-alcohol. That’s gotten me out of soooo many mistakes with my job.

I’ve never had a negative one yet. The responsiveness and gobs of torque in an EV are addicting. At the same time, I love a performance internal combustion motor too. It’s good to have both available in the market. 

cmon man it’s the day after a holiday weekend. let me live lower your standards

The study has some bullshit data. I have an early model 3 and to suggest that it came with 70% of EPA range when new is simply ridiculous. Were they testing range by driving on a track at 100mph?

EPA Range?!?!?!?!

Do you think Joe Biden invented the electric car?

The Jalopnik clickbait headline doesn’t reflect the emphasis of the actual study at all. The headline makes it sound like EV batteries are on their way out after 3 years and Tesla is shirking warranties. The article is actually about how robust EV batteries have proven generally.

The link in the article has the graphs. Model Y starts out with 70% EPA range brand new and falls to 64% after 3 years and then it’s stable for year 4, remaining at 64%. Model 3 is the same but it starts out at 72% EPA range and stabilizes around 64%.

What a bad conclusion. Your self confidence makes it worse. Making the analysis linear is the point. Say you are replacing ONE car with a new model. Current car gets 20 mpg. New car choice A gets 30 mpg, while new car choice B gets 25 mpg. “Hmmm,” says customer Joe. “Car A will save me twice as much on gas as Car B.”…

The two measures are absolutely not the same thing if you’re averaging values for fuel economy standards

Please. Toyota is hoping Trump wins so they can keep pumping out Sequioas, 4Runners and Grand Highlanders.  Toyota doesn’t care about the environment one lick.

New Bolt is coming next year.

As usual, the Europeans do this better than us using L/100KM. MPG is awful, minimizing differences in economy that actually matter while overemphasizing ones that don’t. 2mpg when you are talking about 20mph is a whole different ball of wax than 2mpg at 50mpg.

Tanks come in many different sizes so that number would do nothing but inspire manufacturers to make tanks bigger.

It sounds like you didn’t read the article. Because it tells you exactly why it makes a difference.

Why would you ask for two figures that have zero to do with vehicle efficiency under an article about how replacing the most visible figure used to signify vehicle efficiency with another one would improve informed purchasing and policy decision making?