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

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.


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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