Checkmate: Tesla's Elon Musk Provides Driving Logs from NYT's "Peculiar" Model S Trip
February 14, 2013 12:41 PM
comment(s) - last by
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
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.
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
2/15/2013 7:50:26 AM
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
2/15/2013 3:28:38 PM
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
2/15/2013 5:43:07 PM
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!?
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.
2/16/2013 12:08:13 AM
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.
“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls
NYT Reports Poor Tesla Model S Range in East Coast Trip; Elon Musk Fights Back with Driving Log
February 12, 2013, 1:00 PM
Tesla Model S: Automobile Mag's 2013 Automobile of the Year
November 2, 2012, 2:14 PM
Report: 2015 Ford Focus Electric MSRP Slashed by $6,000, Will Retail for $29,995
October 18, 2014, 6:23 PM
Chevrolet Sonic EV to Have 200-mile Range, Debut in 2017
October 10, 2014, 12:01 PM
Auto Start-Stop Systems Will be Installed on Nearly 60% of New Vehicles by 2020
October 8, 2014, 4:19 PM
Volvo XC90 to Receive Triple-turbocharged, 450hp 2.0-liter Four-cylinder Engine
October 7, 2014, 2:29 PM
Nissan Still Trying to Make a Profit on Leaf EV
October 6, 2014, 5:46 PM
Quick Note: Photo of Tesla’s Model S P85D Shows Up Online
October 3, 2014, 9:48 AM
Most Popular Articles
Update: Motorola Droid Turbo Coming Oct 28, 48-hour Battery Life Confirmed
October 19, 2014, 9:19 PM
Google Announces Android 5.0 “Lollipop”, Nexus 9 Tablet, and Nexus 6 “Phablet”
October 15, 2014, 12:41 PM
Cool Science Video of the Day: Carnivorous Leech Eats Giant Jungle Worm
October 16, 2014, 6:44 PM
HBO, CBS Lead Charge to Ditch Cable
October 16, 2014, 4:40 PM
PS4 "Masamune" Update 2.0 Will Bring New Music and Customization Features
October 17, 2014, 1:05 PM
Latest Blog Posts
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
Space Terrorism is a Looming Threat For the United States
Apr 23, 2014, 7:47 PM
Facebook Aims to Provide Internet to "Every Person in the World" with Drones, Satellites
Apr 1, 2014, 10:20 AM
Retail Mobile Sites Experience Outages in Light of Simplexity's Bankruptcy
Mar 14, 2014, 8:48 AM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information