backtop


Print 99 comment(s) - last by Schrag4.. on Feb 19 at 2:35 PM

The driving logs disprove many of Broder's claims

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has fulfilled his promise to provide the driving logs from the recent Model S test drive by The New York Times -- and it looks like John Broder has some explaining to do.

Broder, the NYT staff writer that took a Tesla Model S for a test trip up the east coast this winter, published a final article that details a failed trip and the many troubles the car gave him along the way.

However, Musk became suspicious of Broder's claims when so many other journalists had made similar or more tasking trips in the Model S.

"To date, hundreds of journalists have test driven the Model S in every scenario you can imagine," said Musk. "The car has been driven through Death Valley (the hottest place on Earth) in the middle of summer and on a track of pure ice in a Minnesota winter. It has traveled over 600 miles in a day from the snowcapped peaks of Tahoe to Los Angeles, which made the very first use of the Supercharger network, and moreover by no lesser person than another reporter from The New York Times. Yet, somehow John Broder 'discovered' a problem and was unavoidably left stranded on the road. Or was he?"

Musk dug up the driving logs from Broder's trip, and earlier this week, he said he would share these discoveries after claiming that Broder had "faked" his article. Now, Musk has come equipped with the goods and it's not looking good for Broder.

Musk first addressed Broder's claim that the Model S ran completely out of energy and required a flatbed truck to tow it in Connecticut. Musk said the car never, at any time, ran out of energy.

Broder's article also mentioned that the Model S fell short of its projected range "on the final leg" of the trip, which was 61 miles total. On his final charge before embarking on this last leg of 61 miles, the logs show that Broder disconnected the charge cable when the range display showed only 32 miles. However, despite not fully charging the car, it managed to travel 51 miles -- and still wasn't completely out of charge when the flatbed truck was called for a tow. Also, during that last leg of the trip, Broder drive right past another charging station where he could have given the Model S another boost. But Musk said Broder "constructed a no-win scenario for any vehicle, electric or gasoline."


Musk also said that Broder never set the cruise control to 54 MPH or drove at 45 MPH, as stated in the article. Instead, he drove at speeds of 65-81 MPH for a majority of the trip.


He also had the cabin temperature at 72 degrees, and when he mentioned turning it down in the article, he had actually turned it up to 74 degrees.


Musk further noted that Broder's charge time on the second stop was 47 minutes, and not 58 minutes as stated in the article's graphic. If Broder didn't turn off the Supercharger at 47 minutes and went for the full 58, it would have been "virtually impossible" for him to run out of energy so quickly.

Speaking of charging, the driving logs also showed that Broder recharged the car to 90 percent on his first stop, to 72 percent on the second Supercharge and to 28 percent on the last leg -- signficantly cutting charging times at each stop.


Finally, Musk's driving logs from the Model S show that Broder had taken a long detour in Manhattan, and upon reaching Milford, Connecticut (where the range display said 0 miles), he drove the car in circles in a for over a half mile in a tiny parking lot. The Model S wouldn't give in and die, so Broder finally took it to the charging station.


Musk added that Broder was biased against electric vehicles from the start, and had set out to make the Model S fail before even receiving the car.

"When the facts didn’t suit his opinion, he simply changed the facts," said Musk. "Our request of The New York Times is simple and fair: please investigate this article and determine the truth. You are a news organization where that principle is of paramount importance and what is at stake for sustainable transport is simply too important to the world to ignore."

Broder, who had his article published last week, was given a Model S sedan with an EPA rated 265-mile estimated range with an 85-kilowatt battery pack. He traveled from the Washington area in Maryland to Norwich, Connecticut, with many stops in between including Newark, Delaware; New York City; Milford, Connecticut; Branford, Connecticut and Groton, Connecticut.

During his trip, Broder mentioned many instances where the battery suddenly depleted quickly and he had to call Tesla for assistance on how to maximize range between charging stops (which were about 200 miles apart from one another or less during the trip). He said he received different advice from different Tesla employees, and even bad advice from one that said to sit in the car for half an hour with the heat on a low setting in order to warm the battery after it depleted from an overnight stay in Groton. At one point, Broder said the car even needed to be towed in Branford because the battery drained much sooner than anticipated.

Let's see what Broder has to say now.

Source: Tesla Motors



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Gotcha!
By GotThumbs on 2/14/2013 1:21:36 PM , Rating: 4
I think the REAL important thing to take from this article is.....

Don't be so quick to believe everything you read and that "Writers" do have bias and can/do influence thier wirting to convey the message THEY want to send you.

At the end of the day, I always confer with multiple sides/articles of view and do my own research. This way I'm informed and able to make up my own mind. I strongly encourage you all to do the same.

There are more and more "reporters/writers" that seem to think we WANT or CARE about, their opinions. It yanks my chain when stupid news "reporters" inject their own personal opinions into a news story. Walter Cronkite must be rolling in his grave these days.

To all you "News Reporters" remember what Detective Friday from Dragnet would say.

quote:
Just the facts Ma'am, Just the facts.




RE: Gotcha!
By theapparition on 2/14/13, Rating: -1
RE: Gotcha!
By nafhan on 2/14/2013 3:47:30 PM , Rating: 3
If the only data points were from Tesla and the one NYTimes article Musk is ripping apart, I'd probably believe the article - for exactly the reason you give.

In this case, there's a bunch of third party data/reviews/analysis that disagrees with the Times article. So, I'm going with Tesla and Musk on this one.


RE: Gotcha!
By kleinma on 2/14/2013 4:43:06 PM , Rating: 3
The journalist has most to lose here. Elon Musk could see his company go belly up and he still will live a rich and fabulous life. One article won't sink his product line anyway.

The reporter on the other hand, will likely lose their job, have no credibility, so never get another job doing the thing that is probably all they can do.

Unless this guy comes out and harshly denies the claims made by tesla, I think it is safe to say he is busted.


RE: Gotcha!
By bash555 on 2/14/2013 5:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
lawl, except for the 3,500 employee's at Tesla that just lost their jobs according to you scenario.

This 'journalist's' article borders on paid slander.

As a 'journalist', your word is your bond.

Go watch 'The Insider' with Russell Crowe and Al Pacino and get back to me.


RE: Gotcha!
By DiscoWade on 2/14/2013 2:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think the real important thing from this don't ever trust the New York Times, ever. The New York Times claimed the Chinese were hacking them, and so I made a joke: The New York Times was hacked by China who replaced their articles with communist propaganda, but none of the readers noticed.


RE: Gotcha!
By Bryansix on 2/14/2013 3:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
There is a reason its known as the Treason Times.


RE: Gotcha!
By Dorkyman on 2/14/2013 6:16:48 PM , Rating: 2
Once upon a time it was a great paper. Now, if it were a bond, it would be a junk bond. Totally in the tank for one point of view, whereas a real news organization would be fair to both sides of an issue.


RE: Gotcha!
By tng on 2/15/2013 10:07:18 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Totally in the tank for one point of view...
Well, to be fair, we are all assuming that they have a duty to report the facts and only the facts. Looking at the demographic of where the NYT is based, they have long since quit reporting facts and have started pandering to an audience.

While many daily papers have went under the NYT has found a way to survive, tell them what they want to hear.

I know many people that grew up in the NYC metro area and they tend to be very insular in their viewpoints, although many people I meet from large metro areas are the same way.


RE: Gotcha!
By rs2 on 2/14/2013 6:51:23 PM , Rating: 1
No, the real important thing is this:

quote:
Musk further noted that Broder's charge time on the second stop was 47 minutes, and not 58 minutes as stated in the article's graphic. If Broder didn't turn off the Supercharger at 47 minutes and went for the full 58, it would have been "virtually impossible" for him to run out of energy so quickly.


Requiring a full hour to refuel/recharge is unacceptable, in my opinion.

I understand that storing that much energy in a rechargeable battery in that amount of time is an impressive technological achievement, but it's still far from good enough. They need to get that time down to more like 5 minutes in order to be competitive with conventional vehicles.


RE: Gotcha!
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/13, Rating: 0
RE: Gotcha!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/14/2013 7:12:40 PM , Rating: 4
Tis the price to pay for bleeding edge stuff. I wonder what people thought of those that bought the first automobiles :)

Something like a Leaf would "theoretically" be perfect for my wife who has a 6-mile roundtrip to work and only drives maybe 40-50 miles on the weekend running errands shopping.

However, as soon as we would want to take a trip out of town, BURN!


RE: Gotcha!
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/13, Rating: 0
RE: Gotcha!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/14/2013 7:30:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You can keep bringing that analogy up, but it's not really appropriate.


Why is not appropriate? Is there not always an "adjustment period" when switching from one major form of communications/transportation/etc. that can often take years?

quote:
And if it was your price to pay, I would agree. I don't care if someone buys and EV. I don't care if it works for them or not.

I care that I'm being asked to help pay for what is, at this point in time, playtoys for playboys.


That is fair.


RE: Gotcha!
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2013 7:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why is not appropriate?


Because it's ancient? Because things are different now, people are different?

quote:
when switching from one major form of communications/transportation/etc. that can often take years?


What switch? There's nothing conceptually different between what we have now and EV's. The only difference is how they are powered. This is NOT "horse vs Model A" dude.

I don't think this switch is going to happen until EV's are on par with ICE's anyway. But we'll see. I guess with the Government pumping billions of our dollars into it, it's possible. Sad that's looked at as a good thing.


RE: Gotcha!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/14/2013 7:58:48 PM , Rating: 3
What I'm saying is that the infrastructure is not there to facilitate the widespread adoption of EVs in the United States... YET! It took years for the infrastructure to be in place to make gasoline engine vehicles practical in the United States.

Sure, you can charge your EV at home and drive around town for a bit, but there's not a charging station on every street corner like there are gas stations. You can't simply hop in your electric car without a care in the world and drive anywhere in the United States, anytime you want.

When you can pull up to a station and "quick charge" your battery in less than 10 minutes, then you'll see EVs take off.

It will take YEARS for that to happen.


RE: Gotcha!
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2013 8:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It took years for the infrastructure to be in place to make gasoline engine vehicles practical in the United States.


Key difference though, oil/gasoline created an industrial and economic boom. So people were highly incentivized to make it happen because it was extremely profitable to do so. Look at all the millionaires/billionaires this has created over our history.

Back to EV's, where's the profit motive? Where is the incentive to make this happen? Besides Government bailouts/handouts that is.

quote:
When you can pull up to a station and "quick charge" your battery in less than 10 minutes, then you'll see EVs take off.


I'm sure you mean that as the figurative "you". Because we'll be dead long before this is a reality. Certainly not before trillions of dollars we don't have is spent upgrading the grid.

I guess I'm just depressed Brandon. The country is lost, make no mistake, we're going down. It's just a little hard to daydream about this kind of pie in the sky stuff when the capitalist based economy needed to make this a reality is being destroyed.


RE: Gotcha!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/14/2013 8:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Key difference though, oil/gasoline created an industrial and economic boom. So people were highly incentivized to make it happen because it was extremely profitable to do so. Look at all the millionaires/billionaires this has created over our history.


Ahh, I see where you're going and I agree.

However, as an end game, I see electric vehicles or fuel cells/hydrogen being a more efficient and way of propulsion than fossil fuels. That's why I see it as promising technology that actually excites me.


RE: Gotcha!
By OutOfTouch on 2/14/2013 9:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
Plus some of us are tired of being pivot men to oil companies. I don't know about some of you but I am getting sore.

Gasoline engines and the infrastructure to support them didn't just spurt out of the ground along with the oil. Like Brandon said these things take time. Progress is being made everyday.

Half the problem is companies (probably high dollar political supporters) who are getting these unsupervised big contracts. The other half of the problem is the gov forcing the issue of corn ethanol (also big dollar supporters)and other similar scenarios. However, the research should still be funded as it will be crucial down the road.


RE: Gotcha!
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2013 9:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Plus some of us are tired of being pivot men to oil companies. I don't know about some of you but I am getting sore.


You can't beat the man and there is no free lunch. You'll just be a pivot man for the electric industry. What's the essential difference? You'll swap 'masters' so to speak, but nothing will change for you.

Oh and if that bountiful EV future does happen? What do you think happens once the Government realizes it's losing craptons of tax revenue? They'll start taxing the shi#t out of electricity and EV's.

You can't beat the man :(


RE: Gotcha!
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2013 8:02:48 AM , Rating: 2
I promise Bandon I'm not ignoring you. But you guys REALLY need to fix your goddamn spam filter. No matter how I edit or cut down my reply, I get "This comment is apparently spam and we do not allow spam comments."

Wtf? Fix this!


RE: Gotcha!
By topkill on 2/14/2013 11:26:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And if it was your price to pay, I would agree. I don't care if someone buys and EV. I don't care if it works for them or not.


Reclaimer, I agree with this to a point. But I don't see why we all give the oil companies a free pass on this point. We pay a lot more money to defend Middle East shipping lanes and oil pipelines than we do on any incentives for EVs.
So there have been somewhere in the neighborhood of ~40,000 EVs sold under that $7,500 tax break. That's $300 million which seems like a lot of money until you realize it wouldn't float a task force in the Persian Gulf for a month or pay for military bases we have to guard pipelines or even build them.
I just don't get why we give oil a pass and don't seem to mind spending $Trillions on that?
An example: http://www.globalresearch.ca/its-not-just-the-oil-...


RE: Gotcha!
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2013 7:50:26 AM , Rating: 2
Wow why do people keep saying this?

The oil companies given a free pass? The oil companies are the biggest thing keeping our Government afloat. They pay hundreds of billions combined in taxes. And the people of this country pay even more in fuel taxes on petroleum products. If it wasn't for these revenues, our Government actually WOULD be collapsed at this point.

Sure there are fuel subsidies. And I'm against those too. But make no mistake, they totally pale in comparison to the revenues generated!

Now when you can say the same about EV's, I'll gladly shut up about this. Have we gotten ANYTHING back? Will we?

As far as your link, what is this, 2004? The "War for resources" nonsense is just that. Nonsense. We haven't taken or "secured" one red cent of that oil. In fact the oil from the region we did help sell, 100% of the profits went to rebuilding Iraq. We import more oil from Canada or South America than the entire Middle East anyway.

As far as why we went to Libya, well I still don't know or understand that one. But Obama and his supporters tell me to shut up, and it barely cost us any money anyway. /shrug


RE: Gotcha!
By topkill on 2/15/2013 3:28:38 PM , Rating: 1
You don't think it cost us a good chunk of our military budget to keep a huge presence in the middle east? The amount we get from there vs. Canada or Mexico is not important. We are still dependent on the oil we get from the region so we have to spend a fortune keeping it "secure".

Yes, they pay hundreds of billions in taxes (in years where they don't play games with the accounting) but they suck that much back out of our economy. We have $300-$400Billion worth of a trade deficit because of that oil on top of the military spending.

Look, don't get me wrong...I love oil. It's the only reason America became a world power to start with and allowed us to build our industry and our way of life. And it's not going anywhere for another 100-200 years. But the less we need, the better our economy is now.

I don't remember having to send troops to Winnipeg recently to keep anyone in line. I don't remember having to send troops to Hoover Dam to keep electricity flowing or to North Dakota for the oil and natural gas there.

Unfortunately, oil is a world commodity. As long as ANYONE needs it from the middle east, we all pay a higher price. Because if their supply is disrupted then we end up bidding against the rest of the world for the Canadian oil...or even the American oil! Free markets are great, but as you said, there is no free lunch. They can sell that oil anywhere they want and we have to bid for it.

On the EV front, yes, we're going to "pay the man", but at least the "man" is an American source for our NG, coal, hydro and nuclear. That money stays in our economy. So I'm not ranting against oil per say, just trying to minimize our dependence on it.

And the sooner we get out of the middle east, the sooner the asswipe muslim fundamentalist find someone else to hate (and they will always hate SOMEONE cause it distracts from their own stupid bullshit). And face it, we don't spend anytime running around sub-Saharan Africa and ignore genocides there because they don't have shit we want. But we do send them a "Get well soon card" now that Obama's in office. LOL


RE: Gotcha!
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2013 5:43:07 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry but you're being fed a bunch of Liberal lies. It's a well established belief we're in the Middle East to "secure" oil. It's also a crock.

Every time we "invade" the Middle East, the supply of oil is put in jeopardy as the region destabilizes. Not to mention the price increases. We don't gain ANYTHING by fighting there. Hell look at the first Gulf War, something like 6 million barrels of oil, per day, were burned up! Oh yeah, great way to secure that oil right!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires

Secondly this whole "dependent" on oil some anti-Capitalist came up with. You sound like a really smart guy, but you're being manipulated. We're no more "dependent" on oil than, say, water. Or the ore in the ground we turn into metals. It's a resource that we use because it's the best, cheapest, and most profitable one for the job at hand.

If I tried to ban electricity because we were too "dependent" on it, I would be labeled a loon. And rightly so. But for some reason, because Liberals and environmentalists have worked for years to make this argument more acceptable, people think it's fine to say we're "dependent" on oil. And that's automatically a bad thing. And a reason to limit it's use. Which is just as crazy if you think about it.


RE: Gotcha!
By topkill on 2/16/2013 12:08:13 AM , Rating: 1
Thanks for the link and the discussion. I'm really trying to think this through and decide which side of the issue I'm on.

I think we're confusing the cause and the effect though if we look at the Kuwait oil fires and their effect on price. The week before the Iraqi invasion, oil was at $18/barrel and immediately jumped to 23.20 afterwards. (I know, what quaint little numbers by today's standards LOL). But that's a 29% increase before we ever got involved.
It is the threat of issues like this causing a disruption to oil supplies that I believe keeps us in the region and flexing our muscles to make everyone behave...as well as the morons can.
I think that is the reason why we have such a strong presence in the region and I can't find any other. We don't have a huge presence like that anywhere else in the world. Anyway, I can't think of any other reason for us to be over there in such force, but I'm willing to find out there is a different reason.

I'm far from a liberal in truth. I'm licensed to carry concealed in a couple of states, come from a military family, I have never voted for a Democrat for President, and many other things. Drones? Let's triple the number next week and kill ten times as many assholes that need it.
But I'm also for gay rights (why discriminate, they aren't asking me to do anything), I like a clean environment and I don't like us buying lots of oil. If there are cleaner ways to get energy, then that's great. but the main reason I don't like it is because I think it does harm to our economy. If it can let me stop breathing exhaust fumes, then great. But even as a geek who like to tinker with electric cars, they are many years away from being mainstream. Many.
Not all of us easily classify as either conservative or liberal.


RE: Gotcha!
By Yeah on 2/15/2013 1:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
Okay so Rant on - What kind of people take a 'road trip' for in upwards of 550 miles? Most people I know road trip for 75 to 150 miles out of town. This guy took a short ' vacation' according to the miles he took. And plenty of people stop to sleep .. look at sights etc. which you can do while our vehicle charges. I just found it upsetting that you Brandon instead of telling that guy how dumb his comment was about it being a ' simple roadtrip ' .. it that it wasnt.. 500+ miles is a long damn way to go. /Rant off


RE: Gotcha!
By web2dot0 on 2/16/2013 12:51:20 PM , Rating: 1
That's what the specs says.

It was specified AHEAD of time. If you don't like the stats that's fine, but no one is lying to you about the technology limitations. For 47mins, he can go grab a coffee, have lunch and rest a bit. That's normally how long people take time off between stops on a road trip.

Not everyone is 18years old driving 30hrs non-stop across the country.

If you are deliberating trying to sabotage the review, I guess you can just not charge the car, and go drive it at 130mph and turn up the heat to max. But no one really cares about your review.

The purpose of a review is to follow the recommendations from the manufacturer, and if the restrictions is deemed too great, say it in the review. Document all the shortcoming that you believe is a unreasonable compromise, but you cannot lying/slander the product by misrepresenting what actually took place.


RE: Gotcha!
By V-Money on 2/14/2013 9:58:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Requiring a full hour to refuel/recharge is unacceptable, in my opinion. I understand that storing that much energy in a rechargeable battery in that amount of time is an impressive technological achievement, but it's still far from good enough. They need to get that time down to more like 5 minutes in order to be competitive with conventional vehicles.


So you are saying that they should either use technology that doesn't exist or stop making vehicles? I think you fail to see the application in this vehicle. An hour to charge might be unacceptable if you are frequently driving longer than the range of the batteries, but for the vast majority of people near cities this would work just fine for the most part. Even with the lowest model's 140 mile range I could get away with charging it about once a week on average. I live next to DC (I hate it here and the traffic can be atrocious at times) and this car would honestly work perfect in my case since everything I could need (i.e. grocery store, school, work, Costco, Ikea, Nations Capital) is within 10 miles of where I live. You can argue about what I would do when I decide to go on that random long cross country trip, and I would reply I would rent a car anyways so I don't put the miles on my new Tesla.


RE: Gotcha!
By Chernobyl68 on 2/15/2013 12:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
a 5 minute full-recharge is pretty much impossible with current battery technology. It might be possible with a capacitor, however.


RE: Gotcha!
By web2dot0 on 2/16/2013 12:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
I very LARGE capacitor, and you better use it up, or it will leak all the energy in short time :-D

No credible person would storage that much energy in a capacitor.


RE: Gotcha!
By SPOOFE on 2/16/2013 2:31:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Requiring a full hour to refuel/recharge is unacceptable, in my opinion.

I have absolutely no interest in a car that couldn't theoretically carry me a thousand miles in a day, even if I may only ever use that capability once or twice in my life.

However, I think it's short-sighted to completely dismiss such a vehicle due to "charging times". The vast majority of the commuting population could deal with >300 miles per day, and a not-insignificant percentage could handle >30 miles per day.


RE: Gotcha!
By SPOOFE on 2/16/2013 2:33:48 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and (because there's no Edit feature) I think the more troublesome flaw in EV's is the fluctuation in charge times in accordance to the weather. I don't know what sort of battery tech would be necessary to keep a sudden freak cold snap from ruining your trip.


RE: Gotcha!
By highlander2107 on 2/15/2013 11:02:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think the REAL important thing to take from this article is..... Don't be so quick to believe everything you read and that "Writers" do have bias and can/do influence thier wirting to convey the message THEY want to send you.


Dude. ANYONE whos read Jason Mick knows that.


RE: Gotcha!
By chemist1 on 2/18/2013 1:03:05 AM , Rating: 2
Not so fast. There's two sides to this, and Tiffany presents only one. See, for instance:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/02/...


RE: Gotcha!
By tamalero on 2/18/2013 10:54:03 AM , Rating: 2
you know, makes me wonder on WHO paid this guy to make the electric cars look bad and severely unreliable.
The Gas/petrol companies?


RE: Gotcha!
By Schrag4 on 2/19/2013 2:35:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I hear most writers at the NYT are shills for Big Oil

lol

Thanks, tamalero, I needed something hilarious to cheer me up :-)


What happened at 400mi?
By hyvonen on 2/14/2013 4:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
Some odd behavior by the reporter, but lots of strangeness in the logs and Elon Musk's conclusions as well. Let me state some plausible scenarios in the reporter's favor:

1) Something strange happened at 400mi... "Rated range remaining" shows a major dip, while "Battery state" shows just a small one. A bug in the range rating algorithm? Is this where the "battery depleted quickly" (overnight?) and the reporter called Tesla, and was told to stay in the car to warm up the battery?

2) Rated range goes to 0 several times (and had been 0 for a while when the tow truck was called). Maybe the car shut down even though there was charge in the battery because the rated range was zero (because of a bug)... for instance, because of full discharge could "brick" the car:

http://www.geekosystem.com/tesla-charging-problems...

Towing company agrees that the car was dead:

http://jalopnik.com/towing-company-the-nyt-tesla-m...

3) Climate control at 182. The reporter says he set it to "low". What I see in the graph is that the temperature went down 2 degrees, and then slowly started climbing up. Why would it go down suddenly unless it was set to go down?

4) Speeds. When the reporter says he was driving 54mph, the log shows 60mph. When he said he was driving "around 45mph", the log shows about 51mph. Could it be that either the log has an offset of 6mph? Or that the speed is shown wrong in the display of the car?

4.5) The scale in the temperature log is similarly a bit "off".. each step seems like it should be indicating a one-degree step, but steps are less than one degree if you look at the Y-axis scale. Did Tesla "tweak" the scales (including the speed log scale)?

5) Driving the car in circles to kill the battery? This is implausible - the Rated range shows well over 100miles left. Surely the reporter woudn't be stupid enough to think that he could kill 100+ miles of battery range by driving around a parking lot for a short period of time?

Overall, many claims Tesla/Elon Musk make here are somewhat suspicious. It's also suspicious that the reporter didn't charge the car fully in Norwich... (then again, could it be that there was something wrong with the charging station..?)

Both Tesla and the reporter have an incentive to lie: lying gets the reporter a easy-to-sell article, while lying helps Tesla do damage control. Maybe there's a little bit of both (although I think Tesla has a much stronger incentive to lie here to protect the reliability reputation of their #1 product)

But the unbiased third party (the tow company) says the car was dead, which makes me feel that maybe the reporter is (mostly) telling the truth, but Tesla is trying to discredit the reporter in every possible way (arguing about temperature settings is particularly childish).




RE: What happened at 400mi?
By NellyFromMA on 2/14/2013 4:41:49 PM , Rating: 3
Just saying, my neighbor does towing for triple A and if he was going to tow my car I would REFUSE HIM because IMO it is scary that he is even allowed to tow.

That said, what tow guys knows CRAP about an EV. Just saying lol


RE: What happened at 400mi?
By HammerStrike on 2/14/2013 4:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
It's also worth mentioning that when you go through a parking garage you typically go in circles as you change elevation through the ramp. Could be what happened - he went up/down a couple of levels to find a parking spot, but unless the GPS/tracking device recorded elevation it would appear he went in circles for a minute or two, then stopped.


RE: What happened at 400mi?
By hyvonen on 2/15/2013 2:25:59 AM , Rating: 1
I'm a little surprised about the downvotes I got, especially as there were no posts with major disagreement.. I thought my post was pretty fair and reasonable, looking at the situation from a different angle (with the exception of 5 which I later realized was factually incorrect)

Did I just get downvoted by Tesla PR folks looking to crack down on any dissent...?


RE: What happened at 400mi?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/16/2013 7:05:53 AM , Rating: 2
Dude look where you are. Anyone who doesn't worship EV's here gets an automatic -1.

But who cares about downvoting? You made a great post, nothing changes that.


Big Brother
By Jammrock on 2/14/2013 1:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
What this article taught me: Those who are scared that Big Brother is watching...you're right.

Cars like this do have a ways to go, true, but it's nice to see someone trying and doing a good job of getting us there.




RE: Big Brother
By Mint on 2/14/2013 5:52:01 PM , Rating: 4
Logs are only enabled for press cars.


By Cheesew1z69 on 2/14/2013 12:48:34 PM , Rating: 3
Off with his head! >_<




Important first steps...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/14/2013 5:35:51 PM , Rating: 3
This is what I'll say about the whole EV market birth...

I will not be being one any time soon, but I welcome the development and people willing to pay out the a$$ to get these high priced, high-performance Teslas right now. Let them be the beta testers as the technology matures.

However, just as people balked at those "crazy" horseless carriages which had to be refilled with something called "gasoline" instead of a trusty horse and buggy, people today are outraged at the thought they have to charge an EV overnight or "plan their trips" in order to get from one place to another without coming up empty.

We'll get there eventually, but it will take time. EVs are nowhere near being suitable for the majority of people that live in rural areas or take long trips, but for those that can make it work, more power to ya.




This is modern journalism
By Cluebat on 2/15/2013 11:48:31 AM , Rating: 2
Pathetic fishwrap should go the way of the dodo.

No government bailouts for the fifth column.

Let them wither and die.




By hero_of_zero on 2/16/2013 1:05:47 AM , Rating: 2
One thing people mostly not talking about the said reported said he had cruse set @54MPH and the log shows him avg 60 and at one point 80MPH avg.So he didn't have cruse set like he said he did at least from the data log.
I don't know what the speed limit is where he drove.But here in Canada over 100KMPH (60MPH)-110 KMPH is speeding.




!
By MarthaGray22 on 2/17/2013 9:23:53 PM , Rating: 2
uptil I looked at the bank draft saying $4667, I didn't believe that my friend woz like they say actualy earning money part time from there pretty old laptop.. there friends cousin started doing this for less than 6 months and resantly paid for the loans on their cottage and bought a gorgeous Cadillac. we looked here, Great60.comCHECK IT OUT




By BladeVenom on 2/14/2013 1:27:59 PM , Rating: 1
Has anyone take the NYT seriously since the Jayson Blair scandal?




checkmate my ass
By Roffles on 2/14/13, Rating: 0
what a car!
By DockScience on 2/14/13, Rating: 0
what this really shows
By GulWestfale on 2/14/13, Rating: -1
RE: what this really shows
By ChronoReverse on 2/14/2013 2:17:31 PM , Rating: 5
No, all this proves is that if your tank has 30 miles left in it, you don't try to make a 60 mile trip.

It's the same with gasoline.


RE: what this really shows
By StormyKnight on 2/15/2013 9:41:42 AM , Rating: 1
Except with gasoline you can't swing a dead cat and not hit a gas station except the the most remote of areas. That luxury doesn't exist in the EV world.


RE: what this really shows
By kingmotley on 2/14/2013 2:22:50 PM , Rating: 5
is that gasoline cars aren't ready for prime time. if i have to plan a trip to my friend's hoise according to the weather (!), the speed i want to be driving at, avoid all detours (what if there are roadworks and i have to make one?) and then i have to stay overnight at his place because all the gas stations are closed, then i'm missing out on the one great thing that walking offers: the freedom to go wherever i want, whenever i want.

For the record, my car which gets ~17MPG, and has a ~12 gallon tank, can only go ~204 Miles before I need to refill it, which is considerably lower than the telsa S.


RE: what this really shows
By Solandri on 2/14/2013 3:40:27 PM , Rating: 4
That's not really a limitation of the gasoline car though. If you go 200 miles in your car, all you have to do is drop by a gas station for 5 minutes and you're ready to go another 200 miles. The range on a single tank of fuel isn't that big a limitation. You don't have to plan around the tank running empty because it only takes 5 minutes to correct it. If a detour puts you over the 200 mile range, you just spend the 5 minutes at the gas station now instead of later.

For the Tesla, best case you'll need to charge for 30 minutes to add another 150 miles of range (worst case it needs hours of charging). So unless you like stopping in random locations for 30 minutes to several hours every 3 hours, you do have to plan your trip around the battery running flat.

EV proponents need to stop pretending there are no drawbacks to EVs. They have their advantages and their disadvantages compared to ICE cars. For some usage cases the advantages heavily outweigh the disadvantages. For other usage cases the reverse is true. Informing consumers means telling them about both the advantages and disadvantages. Not pretending the disadvantages don't exist.


RE: what this really shows
By Gurthang on 2/14/2013 4:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well, that is not exactly fair to EVs either. Just because we have nearly 100 years of infrastructure built to support gasoline cars does not make EVs which barely have made it to the point where there is a standard method for charging them enough so that stations can be built to supply said charging.

Mind you I still think the batteries we use for EVs have a long way to go. And even then the kind of current necessary to push 200 miles of power into some future super battery in 5 minutes would be scary. So while these EVs currently have a 30 "supercharge" to just the half way mark, which is impressive for batteries I still think it kind of stinks for long distance travel. And I can't imagine myself considering a EV beyond a little short distance commuter at this time.

Personally if we really wanted EVs to be a success in road power along the major roads/highways is the way to go. Then at least the batteries would only be needed to "boost" and be used for the areas without in road power infrastructure. You'd likely be able to shrink the batteries and cost of said vehicles greatly with that sort of design. Throw in some clever design work and I bet you could also use the same power lines to help cars navigate, communicate, and pay tolls making the roads that much smarter for everyone.


RE: what this really shows
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2013 4:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For the record, my car which gets ~17MPG, and has a ~12 gallon tank, can only go ~204 Miles before I need to refill it


Does this car have a name? Because unless you own an exotic car or something with monster power levels, I'm calling BS on this "`204" miles per-tank nonsense.


RE: what this really shows
By GulWestfale on 2/14/2013 9:42:35 PM , Rating: 3
if your car runs out of gas, you stop at a gas station, and buy more. when your tesla runs out of gas, you're screwed. and since your running out depends heavily on your driving speed and the weather, each trip must be planned carefully. that is the point i was trying to make.
i do understand that an electric vehicle makes sense in a large city, as a grocery getter, but as a primary vehicle in north america, it just doesn't cut it.


RE: what this really shows
By hyvonen on 2/15/13, Rating: -1
OK - BUT
By Dr of crap on 2/14/13, Rating: -1
RE: OK - BUT
By P_Dub_S on 2/14/2013 1:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't the Tesla S have a heating and cooling system that keeps the batteries at optimum temperatures?


RE: OK - BUT
By tdktank59 on 2/14/2013 2:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it does, its an active liquid cooled system.
Pretty sure this runs 24/7 but don't quote me on this.

Tried to find an article without it ripping on nissan or any other company for that matter, but it gets the point across.
http://www.plugincars.com/tesla-ceo-rips-nissans-b...


RE: OK - BUT
By Harinezumi on 2/14/2013 1:13:44 PM , Rating: 3
The temperature inside the car is relevant because it takes battery energy to run the heater.

On what are you basing your assumption that Tesla didn't test their car at -20F?


RE: OK - BUT
By NellyFromMA on 2/14/2013 1:20:02 PM , Rating: 4
The issue isn't cabin temp, its that the user lied about the actual usage he reported on.

That's scummy, but that said, it indirectly highlight s the pain in the ass that is actually using a vehicle of this nature.

The majority of corners cut were because its annoying as hell that you must go 45-55 for optimal distance which is extremely counter to how a naturally aspirated engine performs (greater speed tends to enable greater milage to a point), and its probably more annoying that to 'fill up the tank' you must reserve an hour of your time vs 5 minutes, and if you skimp out even 10 minutes you severely impact your mileage.

These vehicles have come a LONG way and I can appreciate that as a tech enthusiast and an auto enthusiast (the distinction is getting harder to make) but from a consumer perspective, this is trash.

Why pay a premium for terrible mileage and huge inconvenience?

Just my two.


RE: OK - BUT
By P_Dub_S on 2/14/2013 1:28:00 PM , Rating: 5
I think people who are buying the Tesla aren't buying it to go on road trips. It would make more sense as a weekend driver or for a regular commute day in day out.


RE: OK - BUT
By michael67 on 2/14/2013 3:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
The Tesla's are pretty popular here in Norway, as they are taxed very low.

But anyone that can afford a Model S can afford a second car for road trips.

I drive a Think City from and to work every day 77km/48mile to and from work, where i charge my car for free.
(I have 0 driving cost)

But for long trips i still have a GS450h, and if i did not have that one i would have gotten me something like a second hand Toyota Camry, as a second car for long road trips.

Anyone that can afford a $100K EV can afford a second car, new or used.

And for me, a 265mile/425km drive range is good for all my driving except for holidays trips, and we most of the time take the plane for those.

For me our Think City is good for 99.5% of my trips, and that one whit its aging battery only has a range of 120km/75miles.

Me and the rest of the family (sisters of my wife, there husbands and there and our kids, 9 drivers) own 3 Think City's that we use as we need.

I don't get why EVs getting a beating on there short range, as most people drive less then 50km/30miles a day 99% of the time.

Are EV for every one, hell no, but if you fall in a certain group EV could be a nice alternative.

For me a single or two person inline car would be perfect, don't need a 4 seat car to get me to and from work.

I would like something like the Renault Twizy, but then with a 100% closed cabin, as i don't wane drive with thick outdoor winter clothes all the time when its winter, or getting wet when it rains.
http://www.renault.co.uk/cars/model/twizy/product....

Don't need a lot of comfort but more then the Twizy offers.

Think that small EV, or 500cc vehicles like the Twizy (but wit more comfort) are the future, as we don't need big 4x4's whit V8's to go to work alone, as petrol is just getting to expensive to waste on those guzzlers.


RE: OK - BUT
By NellyFromMA on 2/14/2013 3:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for sharing your experience. I've actually been very open minded towards EVs but this article in particular indirectly highlighted a cruel reality in the current state of the tech, at least how it is applied in the Tesla models.

I've never heard of Think City, probably because it doesn't have a presence in the USA (does it?).

I'll look into that. Certainly if one brand performs poorly, it isn't indicitive of the technology as a whole showing no promise. However, I thought Tesla was one of the top-performers in this area. If so, that's not saying much IMO.

I'll look into Think City. Thanks again for sharing.


RE: OK - BUT
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2013 4:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'll look into Think City.


Look into your own personal jaws-o-life as well. Cause if anything bigger than a squirrel hits that thing, you're a dead man.


RE: OK - BUT
By NellyFromMA on 2/15/2013 2:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
lol didn't mean for purchase. Just in general. I take it the thing resembles a "Smart" car going by your comment.


RE: OK - BUT
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2013 2:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
lol ah ok. Well scale is kind of hard to judge with pics, but this thing makes the Smart look like a luxury liner.


RE: OK - BUT
By NellyFromMA on 2/14/2013 3:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
Cleary you're correct, however, based on what I draw from this article and passed observations, it's barely suitable for that.

It's more like subsidizing research by buying protoypes in hopes future revisions will make them more efficient and hence more realistic.

Aren't these cars rather costly upfront? It doesn't really seem like the cars price tag and performance (mileage) line up with that of someone who only drives lightly?

Wouldn't they be better served with a Honda fit? That little nothing-mobile (i'm a honda fan btw) is practically the definition of affordable and barely emits any harmful emissions.

Just saying, from a practicality perspective, how is this a consumer win even for the demographic that I agree this is geared towards?


RE: OK - BUT
By wiz220 on 2/14/2013 1:31:00 PM , Rating: 5
You make reasonable points about limitations with electric cars, but it doesn't absolve the reviewer of the breach of journalistic ethics that he committed. He was trying to say that the car didn't perform as Tesla said it should, it would appear that this was a lie. Whether or not you or the reviewer can abide the limitations of electric vehicles is irrelevant, the car's performance is (by the looks of the evidence) as advertised, and that's the primary issue.


RE: OK - BUT
By hyvonen on 2/14/2013 4:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not 100% sure the evidence here can prove without a doubt that the reporter lied. The evidence comes from Tesla - a biased party - that could have potentially tampered with it to protect themselves.

The third party statement that the car was in fact "dead" when it was getting towed makes me question the credibility of Tesla's statements.


RE: OK - BUT
By NellyFromMA on 2/14/2013 4:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
The issue isn't whether the car was dead at the time of the tow. It's more whether or not this guy lied abotu charging it properly and driving within the (quite poor) outline.


RE: OK - BUT
By mrisinger on 2/14/2013 1:33:10 PM , Rating: 5
"its annoying as hell that you must go 45-55 for optimal distance which is extremely counter to how a naturally aspirated engine performs (greater speed tends to enable greater milage to a point)"

No, this is EXACTLY how a combustion engine performs. The "point" which you are referring to, where mileage starts dropping, is almost always right about 50 - 55 mph.


RE: OK - BUT
By Sivar on 2/14/2013 1:47:33 PM , Rating: 3
Right -- Resistance from air (which the engine/motor must overcome) is about the square of speed.

It is possible to gear a car such that it gets better mileage at 75MPH than 50, but that would be due to inefficient gearing (it isn't that the car is so much more efficient at 75MPH, it's that it has to run at a strangely high RPM at 50MPH).
The most efficient speed for most cars with gear transmissions is probably just over the minimum cruising speed at the highest gear, though automotive engineers may want to chime in if I am missing important variables.


RE: OK - BUT
By Droidmage on 2/14/2013 2:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
Most cars with a single overdrive gear usually around 30% overdriven get their best milage around 55mph. Some newer cars have an even higher overdrive, sixth great in a corvette is right around 50%, will get better gas milage at higher speeds.


RE: OK - BUT
By Solandri on 2/14/2013 2:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
Least resistance is around 45-50 mph. Air resistance is a b***h.

Higher overdrive gearings don't raise that. It just reduces the mileage dropoff at higher speeds. Sivar is correct. If a car's best mileage is at a higher speed, it doesn't mean least resistance is at that higher speed. It just means the car has crappy gearing for the lower speed, and you probably shouldn't buy it.


RE: OK - BUT
By DanNeely on 2/14/2013 2:30:45 PM , Rating: 3
Least air resistance is at 0 MPH relative to the wind. ~50 MPH is when it becomes larger than other sources of energy loss in the vehicle.


RE: OK - BUT
By Solandri on 2/14/2013 3:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for pointing out that alternative interpretation of what I wrote. My fault for not being more clear about what exactly I meant.

If you calculate purely based on instantaneous resistance or resistance over time, the fuel efficiency equivalency you're calculating is gallons consumed per hour.

That's not what we're after here. We're after gallons per mile, since the objective is to travel between point A and point B using the least fuel. So the resistance figure you want is resistance per distance covered.

If you do that for air, rolling, and engine friction, the minimum ends up being around 45-50 mph. Consequently your best mileage (assuming ideal gearing) is at those speeds. This is in contrast to gallons per hour, where your lowest fuel consumption happens at (obviously) 0 mph.


RE: OK - BUT
By Rukkian on 2/14/2013 1:34:05 PM , Rating: 3
I dont think anywhere it was stated that you can only go 45. The issue is that the article claimed that he had the cruise set at 45, when he obviously did not. The article is full of lies from top to bottom, and that is what Musk has a problem with.

You mention that it is counter intuitive from an ICE is actually false, as the only time it is better to go faster is to the point where your car switches into its highest gear (typically around 45mph). After that point, the wind resistance very much eats away at your mpg, but most people do not care, as they would rather get where they are going faster and pay the extra.

According to the data from Musk, the writer even drove around in circles to try and completely make the car stall, which further seems to show that he was trying to make a sensationalistic piece just to try and get readers. If what Musk is saying is true, and I have no reason to not believe it, the article belongs in National Enquirer along with alien abductions, and not in the NYT.


RE: OK - BUT
By tayb on 2/14/2013 1:20:52 PM , Rating: 4
I think Musk was merely pointing out that the article is full of lies, one of which was temperature settings. This is libel.


RE: OK - BUT
By GotThumbs on 2/14/2013 1:27:06 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed,

While I don't like all the frivolous lawsuits that happen today, I think Tesla has a legitimate case and MUST take legal action. These kind of false statements can/do have consequences.

The "News" media has gotten out of hand and become more like spin doctors. Anyone remember the Bond movie where some nut-job media mogul wrote his own news...and then made it happen?

That's not far off from today's media.

Always ask your-self....What are they NOT telling me? Withholding of important information does sway public opinion/emotions, and the media KNOW IT.


RE: OK - BUT
By voodoobunny on 2/14/2013 1:51:17 PM , Rating: 3
If I were the New York Times, I would be planning a HUGE apology to Tesla right about now. And also working out how to fire John Broder in the most public and embarrassing manner possible and claw back whatever I paid him to write that article.

This is a major legal headache for the NYT. If Tesla can prove from the logs that the NYT outright lied about the Model S's performance, then the only real question in the libel suit will be how much the NYT should pay.


RE: OK - BUT
By Wererat on 2/15/2013 9:49:34 AM , Rating: 2
I agreed and upvoted this before replying but feel obliged to add: the modern media does not admit wrong. They feel entitled to define truth for everyone; if the facts don't fit the reporting, then alter the facts until they fit.

When I was a kid and read Huxley and Orwell, I thought that people might take those words as instruction manuals. Guess I was right.


RE: OK - BUT
By hubb1e on 2/14/2013 1:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
Heating the cabin takes a lot of power. It's somewhere like 2000W at warmup and 600W just to maintain the temperature. People are advised to lower the cabin temperature and use the seat heaters which are more efficient than heating the air.


RE: OK - BUT
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2013 2:14:46 PM , Rating: 1
What assurances do we have these logs are legit? I'm having a hard time believing such a liberal rag, that's been so in the tank for anything EV/clean energy related, would set out to torpedo Tesla.


RE: OK - BUT
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/14/2013 2:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
Normally I'd agree with you, but the writer has been pretty down on EVs for a while:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/sunday-review/th...


RE: OK - BUT
By Chernobyl68 on 2/15/2013 12:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
Hah! I love how he quotes Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich...tea party much?


RE: OK - BUT
By Keeir on 2/14/2013 3:01:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What assurances do we have these logs are legit?


None.

On one hand you have Elon Musk who has a financial interest in his company defending his product.

On the other you have a newpaper with a financial interest in writing the most shocking story possible. One which has had multiple issues in the recent history with fact checking its reporters stories.

The "smoking" gun in this situation would be that the Reporter himself claimed the Model S went 51 miles when it read 32 miles of range. The Reporter himself claimed to set out on a 60+ mile journey with 32 miles of reported range. The -only- way this makes sense is if the reporter ment "72" miles instead of 32. But he hasn't declared his own mistake yet.


RE: OK - BUT
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2013 3:32:24 PM , Rating: 1
If they wanted to shock someone, a story about EV's being less practical than ICE's isn't what I would call shocking. Especially given the weather conditions.

I'm not saying the logs are faked. I just thought someone should point out the possibility. I saw everyone here taking the logs for granted, so I figured I would be "that guy" again and use the dreaded 'critical thinking'.

Musk seems to be nitpicking, big time. He's basically accusing the guy of not doing every single thing possible to baby the car. Including bashing someone for not documenting the use of cabin heaters? Who does that? I can't recall the CEO of another car company lambasting the media because they didn't hypermile their vehicle. Which is what Musk is pretty much saying with all this "you didn't hypermile the car so it looked better than it did"

I'm in heaven either way on this. If Musk wins, FINALLY the credibility of the so-called "media" gets questioned by a few more people than the same "right wingers". If Musk loses, that's strike three in his attempt to sue his way to favorable reviews. If indeed this ends up in court. Which I believe would be a huge mistake.


RE: OK - BUT
By ChronoReverse on 2/14/2013 4:11:06 PM , Rating: 3
No that's not it at all.

You're reading this through some sort of weird lens here.

Musk is not nitpicking that by driving at 74 instead of 72 the car lost range, but that the reporter is [b]outright lying[/b]. The reporter claimed he was forced to turn down the temperature but he had actually increased it.

The other thing is that the reporter is either an idiot or outright sabotaging. How else do you explain trying to do a 61 mile leg when the display says 32 miles left? How else do you explain doing small loops for half a mile in a parking lot?


RE: OK - BUT
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2013 4:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How else do you explain doing small loops for half a mile in a parking lot?


It's fun?

I do that all the time in my car. Impreza doughnuts ftw! Then I go and gas up, which takes 3 minutes tops. It the Tesla can't do the same, it's inferior clearly.

quote:
The reporter claimed he was forced to turn down the temperature but he had actually increased it.


Who cares? Why is the environmental controls a factor here (rhetorical, I know why)? They aren't in EVERY OTHER car article/review.

See what Musk is doing here? By going after the media and breaking down this stuff into such detail, he's actually further informing the general public about just how many pitfalls and inconveniences are involved with owning his product. Good going!

quote:
You're reading this through some sort of weird lens here.


Well that's my prerogative, buster! :)


RE: OK - BUT
By NellyFromMA on 2/14/2013 4:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
Can't help but agree that when I started reading this, I was like 'go Tesla' until indirectly, what I learned was that what required of the user to properly use there vehicle is silly and it kind of highlights how the target demographic is completely misaligned with the price tag.

What's worse, it seems terribly inconvenient. Getting people to pay a premium for cons in nearly every other way other than feeling 'good' is strange. How 'good' can an owner feel about themself when they just spent 3 times more tthan he needed to achieve 'economic' results.

Honda Fit sucks, but it seems to be infinitely more economical and reliable than the Tesla's overall. Not as stylish, but I mean they aren't buying the Tesla for style right? Oh wait, they are, just not body style, more like 'cool points'.

If the internal cabin temp has to be adjusted to accomodate for battery temps, holy crap thats awful.

Yes, the guy who wrote the article is clearly scummy. He could have at least fulfilled his end of the deal and then told the attrocious story through the eyes of someone who did their best and hated the car anyways.

The only winners here are the people who didn't buy a Tesla it seems.


RE: OK - BUT
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2013 6:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
Good stuff. Hard to argue with that.


RE: OK - BUT
By Solandri on 2/14/13, Rating: -1
RE: OK - BUT
By Keeir on 2/14/2013 1:25:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You have to watch out for the temp you have the INSIDE the car?? When it's -20F I'm not paying attention to how long or what the temp in inside the car. IT NEEDS to be warm.


One of the best features of an electric car is that, if the car is plugged in at an outlet, you can set the car to warm up automatically without even being in it.

The journalist in question drove an electric car in the middle of winter and decided to only stay at places that would not let him plug in.

The journalist essentially set out to create a situation the Model S would fail in that seemed "commonplace". Based on Tesla's data, he did not succeed. I am not sure why he couldn't have just done the logical things and pointed out how bothersome they were. (IE, the Superchargers give ~4 miles/minute. To drive 61 miles means he would have had to wait at the charger for 15+ minutes! A good 10 minutes longer than an out of gas car. Or how about the struggle to find a hotel that allows plug-ins?)


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki