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 :-)


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive














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