特斯拉“生化武器防御模式”就跟2010年的马自达一样?

去年的5月份特斯拉宣布了它的“生化武器防御模式”,很多人为特斯拉的新型高调噱头激动不已。特斯拉说的比较动人

 

“生化武器防御模式是实实在在的,可不是市场噱头。坐在你的车里你真的可以逃过军事级别的生化攻击。”

 

tesla

 

伊隆说的是真话,但也不是全部的真话。我做的测试显示,大多数车都已经有了“生化武器防御模式”:就是车上的空气过滤网。

 

所以我给特斯拉发了封邮件,说可以给他们我的数据。我就是这样的书呆子。

 

 

意料之中他们没回。不过能解构一下他们的新闻稿我还是觉得如释重负。

 

特斯拉的生化武器防御模式 vs. Ohad的2010年马自达

 

特斯拉公布了一个测试证明系统可以迅速减少细微颗粒。他们甚至把车子放进一个巨大的塑料泡里做试验。

 

 

实验结果比较震撼。颗粒物在5分钟之内戏剧性的减少。

 

 

但我一看到这个数据图,就想起来之前我和Smart Air的以色列小伙伴Ohad一起做的试验。我们很好奇车里的空气会不会比外面好,所以Ohad用Dylos镭射空气测试仪做测试,看看他打开他的2010年马自达的空调,车里的颗粒物会怎么变化。

 

 

Ohad没对他的马自达做任何诡异的事情,没在车里放过特别的过滤装置。过滤网就是车子里面的滤网,他没有为了测试换滤网。可是测试发现,Ohad的马自达很快就减少车里的污染。

特斯拉的图表马上让我联想到马自达的测量数据,所以我把两个测试的颗粒变化数据合并在了一起。红线是特斯拉的数据,蓝线是Ohad马自达的数据。

 

 

Ohad的马自达基本上跟特斯拉一样厉害,只不过比特斯拉的过滤速度滞后30秒。如果你想看更多的测试来看看汽车空气系统有多么棒,我们做的全部的测试

 

有了这里的数据,大概所有汽车生产商都应该开始宣扬他们的车有生化武器防御功能了吧。

 

难不成是马自达有什么特别的?

 

我在上海和新德里叫了一堆Uber,带着颗粒测量仪进行测试,结果都差不多(来看看我的测试吧)。车子都有过滤网,并不是马自达专有的。汽车上的过滤网不是HEPA网,但是测试数据显示它们对减少颗粒物也是效果非凡。开车时,只要注意:

 

1.    关紧窗户

2.    将空气系统设置成内循环模式

3.    按时更换滤网

4.    不要浪费钱给你的车配备什么特别的颗粒净化仪(除非你的车本身没有过滤网)

 

 

行吧行吧,就是说特斯拉没什么特别的咯?

 

我应该对特斯拉公平点。他们的系统里还有一个活性炭过滤网,这是一般的车没有的。

 

 

我们车上的滤网可以过滤颗粒物,不过碳可以减少某些气体,比如臭氧。我觉得这才是特斯拉系统中特别的部分(要是我,就会建议他们用这个来宣传),然而他们却挑了一般车子都已经做得很好的部分来打广告。也许什么时候我的邮件就被扩散了,特斯拉也会开始发布气体污染物的测试结果,但目前看来,我还是想先用我的市场才能给Ohad的2010款马自达打Call吧:

 

“【Ohad的马自达】是实实在在的,可不是市场噱头。坐在【Ohad的2010马自达3】里你真的可以逃过军事级别的生化攻击。”

 

Smart Air的PS巫师咏馨还把特斯拉CEO伊隆和Ohad的马自达拼在一起:

 

芝加哥大学行为科学系的助理教授; Smart Air创始书呆子。

在 “特斯拉“生化武器防御模式”就跟2010年的马自达一样?” 上有 3 条评论

  1. Thomas, this is of course very interesting, and the advice to run the AC system on recirculate is always key. However, I think we might be slightly glossing over one key point with regard to usage patterns or benefits to the Tesla HEPA system. Car cabins can become like quasi gas chambers, and though the recirculate function allows the AC system – I believe in most cars, though my anecdotal testing experience is small – with a standard car AC filter, to dramatically cut the down particulate levels in a reasonably short period, the flip side is that CO2 rises fast and remains trapped. Not with the HEPA system. For a single occupant, with closed windows, CO2 rises over 1000ppm in a handful of minutes, and proceeds 2000, 3000 in relatively short order. At those levels, drowsiness/alertness, particularly on longer drives, can be an issue. If coupled with the notion that we should keep windows up and sealed for protection from the air, this can certainly exacerbate the problem. The Tesla system, which I do believe should become more of a standard (but that would incriminate auto manufacturers, basically stating their non-EV product is inherently toxic), allows us to keep CO2 vs oxygen levels within a very healthy/fresh spectrum. Was Tesla misleading? I don’t know. Most likely not. Car cabins are notoriously bad (witness a string of articles in the Guardian and on the BBC), when not running the AC fan hard on recirculate. Certainly the carbon element, coping with other gasses, has not been given enough play.

  2. Re: CO2 level build-up claimed above.
    I have no conflicts or agenda other than I want us all to have clean air to breathe, but I have to question that CO2 level rises to dangerous levels with air on recirculate. I, and I imagine many others have drive hundreds of miles with the AC on high, recirculating, in my car, alone (2004 Honda Civic). If your statement is reflective of reality then why have I not passed out? Further, why are there not thousands of deaths annually from CO2 drowsiness caused crashes. Is it possible that all cars are pulling in some fresh air even on recirculate? Doesn’t Tesla’s own data suggest that there is in fact some pulling in of outside air?

    1. Great thoughts Matthew, you’re right to point out that in conventional cars when switched to ‘recirculate’ mode for a long period of time, we are still able to survive! The answer may well be that like you said, all cars do still bring in at least some levels of outside air to negate any CO2 level build up. This is another great study; it will be good to see how recirculate mode affects CO2 levels and PM2.5 levels, and to find out if there is a balance of the two for a conventional car.

      Aside: Some people often think being trapped in a car may starve us of oxygen, but as is correctly pointed out here and above, it’s CO2 that is the big danger. We published an article on CO2 vs oxygen levels in our knowledge base, explaining this in more detail.

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注