NY Times' Broder Responds To Tesla's Elon Musk 609
DocJohn writes "NY Times' John Broder responded to Elon Musk's blog entry. Accused of driving around a parking lot for no reason, for instance, Broder notes he was simply looking for the poorly marked charging station. Worst of all, much of Broder's behavior can be attributed directly to advice he received from Tesla representatives — something Musk fails to mention."
The reporter does not like electric vehicles (Score:5, Interesting)
There is another reporter duplicating this exact run.
Open the window and turn up the heater. Drive in circles in a parking lot.
Use the advise from Tesla motors in an odd way to maximize drain.
I await the other reporters story not this con job.
Re:The reporter does not like electric vehicles (Score:4, Interesting)
Male motoring reporters don't like electric cars. Simple fact.
In the UK Top Gear program, the only presenter ever to make a grudging positive comment about an electric vehicle is James May, nicknamed Captain Slow by the others. I suspect there might be an agenda at work there.
Re:The reporter does not like electric vehicles (Score:5, Insightful)
Musk has not published data, but charts...
Those charts are data. They're representations of time series. Do you think it only counts as data when it's numbers in columns? Then measure the chart, write down the numbers, and make yourself happy.
Re:The reporter does not like electric vehicles (Score:5, Informative)
A chart is just a presentation of data. A remarkably useful one, as humans have a much easier time analyzing trends and patterns in a picture compared to a presentation based on a list of numbers.
Oh, by the way, to make your own inference you typically need contextual information (metadata). If the data is presented as numbers or as charts is of much less importance.
Re:The reporter does not like electric vehicles (Score:5, Insightful)
And the car salesman doesn't like his half-baked vehicle to be reviewed negatively
How about "Car maker reacts poorly to a supposedly reputable publication putting out blatantly false statements that damage their reputation, having the data to back their complaint up"?
"Half baked" is kind of out in left field here-- the car did better than it should have, but could not complete an impossible task. Did you actually read Musk's blog entry? You know, the one with all of the data backing his "ramblings" up? Or the part where another journalist completed this exact same task with no issues?
Re:You clearly didn't review the charts given. (Score:4, Insightful)
So to start, I am totally down with the idea of electric cars; I think that the utility of them around town would outweigh for many people the range problems for longer trips*. I personally try to drive relatively little; I've put an average of well under 5,000 mi/year on my car. I probably shouldn't say this, but Tesla is the answer to "what's your dream car?" security question on some website. Believe me when I say I don't have a bias against electric cars.
(* There was some discussion about this in the previous thread which I almost participated in, but didn't. Ballpark figures for the Tesla seem to be an hour of charge for about every three hours of driving. Personally, this is enough of an increase in stopping time compared to what I currently do on long trips that I really wouldn't want to do a long trip in one.)
But... I've read Musk's comments and both responses on the NY Times blog (ironically I haven't actually read the original article), and to be honest I didn't really find Musk's blog post all that convincing. And this is after a bit of me wanting to see the NY Times review get nailed to the wall.
For instance, Musk claims that the logs show that the heat was turned up when the reporter said he turned it down. But within 20 minutes of the point at which Musk says proves his point, the temperature was turned down -- dramatically. The NY Times article doesn't really give a precise "I turned down the heat at milepost 182"; that's a mileage that Musk seems to have derived from the following quote from the original article:
But Musk doesn't say how he arrived at that number in his blog post; he just asserts that's the point at which the reviewer says. IMO it's not too much of a stretch to think that the above review is imprecise enough that skirting that arrow over just 20 miles to where the temperature was lowered could be what actually happened.
This point in particular sits very poorly with me on Musk's side; I really feel like he was looking for faults with the data hard enough that he was probably prone to find ones that weren't actually there.
Note that I'm not by any means absolving Broder. I think that this story still has a bit more to play out until it reaches its resolution (if it ever does, without phone calls). But I really do feel like the "oh the NY Times got served!" people are really jumping to conclusions, even given Musk's data. I've been burned too many times my assuming things when they looked so clear before.
Re:You clearly didn't review the charts given. (Score:5, Funny)
For all intensive purposes
I try not to be a grammar Nazi, but man you even italicized it.
Re:You clearly didn't review the charts given. (Score:5, Funny)
I try not to be a grammar Nazi, but man you even italicized it.
The Italicians weren't Nazis, just allied to them. Grammar fascist would be more accurate.
Re:You clearly didn't review the charts given. (Score:4, Funny)
I try not to be a grammar Nazi, but man you even italicized it.
The Italicians weren't Nazis, just allied to them. Grammar fascist would be more accurate.
roflmao
Re:You clearly didn't review the charts given. (Score:5, Funny)
roflmao
I think you mean Honorable Chairman ROFLMAO.
Re:You clearly didn't review the charts given. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You clearly didn't review the charts given. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah. Can you guess why?
Illiteracy, obviously.
Re:You clearly didn't review the charts given. (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah. Can you guess why?
You don't read much?
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/intensive.html [wsu.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I guess trying to smear a car company to get a story of the year award would count as an intensive purpose.
Re:You clearly didn't review the charts given. (Score:4, Funny)
I try not to be a grammar Nazi,
And yet.... You are.
Try harder. Nobody likes a pedantic ass. Technically correct or not.
I lied. I don't really try.
Re:You clearly didn't review the charts given. (Score:4, Interesting)
Telling people they are ignorant yahoo buffoons is not pedantic. It may be rude.
Re:You clearly didn't review the charts given. (Score:4, Insightful)
"the conclusions of the original report -- that the car performs poorly in cold weather, that it takes longer to fill up and that much more careful planning is needed driving it -- stand."
Why the need to lie about it then?
Re:You clearly didn't review the charts given. (Score:5, Insightful)
Broder's response makes no sense. What rep would EVER suggest
. I was given battery-conservation advice at that time (turn off the cruise control; alternately slow down and speed up to take advantage of regenerative braking)
since both of those are very obviously bad for the battery? What person would believe that advice?
And his explanation for how he came up with 45mph and frigid cabin temperatures when the logs utterly contradict that are lame at best.
You can look at the other points any which way, but this smells of furiously trying to come up with an excuse for a smear attempt.
Re:You clearly didn't review the charts given. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are some fishy things though. When he's presented with logs, all of a sudden everything he did is because of tech support. Very convenient. And then there's tech advice like this: I was given battery-conservation advice at that time (turn off the cruise control; alternately slow down and speed up to take advantage of regenerative braking).
Why would such a thing work unless you believe in perpetuum mobiles? I mean, seriously, the world needs more BS detectors. It's possible some nitwit gave hime that advice, or the reporter misunderstood, or he lied.
Unless the phone logs are kept, we'll probably never know. The only thing remaining is to repeat the test, or continue argueing untill the sun turns into a red giant.
Re: (Score:3)
Errrrm, try reading his original article again - not Elon Musk's blog post about it, but what he actually wrote . He said the same things about the advice he'd got from Tesla then as he's saying now - this obviously isn't just something he came up with after Tesla released their interpretation of the logs.
Re:The reporter does not like electric vehicles (Score:5, Insightful)
But there is no real information in this entry. The rebuttal and the rebuttal thereof are more interesting. Reader comments I've seen are very much biased in favor of Mr. Musk, but most of them are based on the logic "he released data, therefore he is right" rather than a look at what actually was released and what it means.
Overall, this is a skirmish about nothing, except that it is very interesting to observe how the public reacts.
Re:The reporter does not like electric vehicles (Score:5, Informative)
A couple of points (Score:5, Interesting)
A charging station he had previously been to...which makes his claim seem pretty suspect to me.
Also, Musk did say this: "The final leg of his trip was 61 miles and yet he disconnected the charge cable when the range display stated 32 miles. He did so expressly against the advice of Tesla personnel and in obvious violation of common sense."
That was the most damning accusation, and on that note, Musk refutes the claim that he was told by Tesla employees to act as he did.
Re:A couple of points (Score:4, Insightful)
Musk refutes the claim that he was told by Tesla employees to act as he did.
What, you figure Musk was there when they talked to him? No, he called the employees and asked them what they said. You figure they're going to admit screwing up to the big boss who's clearly pissed off? Or, Musk may just be claiming the advice was different, without even checking. I don't know, you don't know, and (unless Musk was recording the calls) nobody knows for sure what was said.
Re:A couple of points (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not the kind of thing that is a "screw up" -- this is the kind of thing that someone would claim to have happened while lying his ass off.
Do you even listen to yourself?
Re: (Score:3)
In colder conditions Lithium batteries *don't* discharge themselves. The reaction actually gets weaker and they stay at their charge level longer. On the other hand, if you leave the heater on in your car overnight, well, I could see that causing the battery to discharge itself...
Re:A couple of points (Score:5, Insightful)
"...drove the EV something like 2 miles into the heart of a major city with huge traffic congestion issues where it could take 45 minutes to move a mile..."
FTFY
Case in point:
http://gawker.com/5789444/guy-proves-childs-big-wheel-bike-is-faster-transportation-than-a-nyc-bus [gawker.com]
A grown man riding a freaking big wheel went one mile in NYC in less time than the city's fleet of buses take to go the same route and distance. He not only beat the bus, he did so by two minutes. On a big wheel. That two miles looks a bit bigger now doesn't it?
But that isn't as much the point, is it? Per Musk's data from the Model S driven, the guy undercharged the car three separate times, sped like a maniac with the heat cranked up, and drove it around in circles in a parking lot trying to kill off the battery. He then responded to the accusations with basically a "nuh uhhhh!" when they had a freaking black box recording every single thing done in the entire vehicle.
This is the kind of crap you catch 10 year olds trying to pull on their parents.
Re: (Score:3)
Dont 99% of customer service lines have some sort of disclaimer which says "this call may be monitored for customer service purposes"?
You think they have no oversight into what their reps are saying?
Re:A couple of points (Score:4, Interesting)
You do know that by "monitoring" they mean "recording", and by "may be" they mean "100% will be". Even small companies can afford a call recording system for their support lines. It would be remiss of Tesla not to record calls, particularly after enabling all the stats logging in the car for media reviews.
Yes, the ball is back in Musk's court, and we will now find out if they record their support calls. We will also hopefully find out where that charge went overnight.
Re: (Score:3)
he in fact published that he drove 51 miles, 19 of which were on an "empty" battery.
Driving the car on last drops of energy is bad for the battery. The reporter says he saw the warnings about recharge for half of the way. He shouldn't have driven the last 19 miles, especially because at that time the car failed hard, locking the transmission. The battery was really empty at that time, below the level that is necessary to keep the car functional.
The reporter says that Tesla's support people were sure th
Re:A couple of points (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens if it gets unusually cold at night and you weren't watching the weather forecast? Is it OK to call your boss and say that you aren't coming to work today because your $80K car ran out of juice? You would be better off saying that your dog ate the keyfob :-)
As I said in another comment [slashdot.org], the reporter planned to travel for 124 miles, and he charged the car for 185 miles. That is 49% margin. What margin *should* he had aimed for, in your opinion? Should I charge for 200 miles if I need to travel only 20 miles? What if I have to park at the airport for three days, what does the discharge chart say? Maybe I should call the tow right from the airplane when I return? People are not always available to immediately tend to the demands of their cars, especially if there are thousands of miles between them, and when business needs may force you to delay return for a few days. A gas car will patiently wait for you, and your boss will pay for the parking ($15 per day, hardly an expense.)
Note that he had 90 miles remaining when he arrived at the hotel. That would be twice as much as needed to return to Milford. The math was correct, until the car was left overnight. Next morning instead of having 200% of the range he was left with 50% at first, and then with 35% ... This same discharge was noted by other reviewers, so there is nothing unique here. Tesla knew about that but never warned the driver. Perhaps EV drivers should be specially trained on care and feeding of their cars. This reporter was not. All this debacle is a clash of wishes of Tesla (that ain't fishes) and casual approach of the reporter who drove an EV as a regular car (which it isn't, being far more fragile and demanding.) It doesn't help that Elon Musk is a thin-skinned person who can never be at fault.
Re:A couple of points (Score:5, Informative)
A charging station he had previously been to...which makes his claim seem pretty suspect to me.
When? On the way up?
Not true: there are separate service plazas on each side of the highway. Furthermore, if you look at Google's "satellite" photo [google.com], they are not symmetric -- the parking lot is a completely different layout on the two sides, and the Tesla charging station (marked on the Google image) is in a different location.
Re:A couple of points (Score:5, Informative)
Because it's an electric car. It's not like a gasoline car where filling the tank takes twice as much time as filling half a tank. The charge you get doesn't ramp up linearly with time. It starts off charging quickly, then slows down. If you charge it up to max, you're going to be sitting at the charging station for several hours. The quickest way to get from one place to another (minimizing charge times) is to use about a 50% quick-charge at each stop (supposed to take a half hour).
If you look at the logs Tesla posted, you can see that's exactly what he did. The two interim supercharges gave him approx 200 and 150 miles in range. The controversial Norwich charge was not a supercharge station, so he would've been there overnight if he'd charged to full there. He did the prudent thing - take on only as much charge as needed to get to the next supercharge station. Except according to him, Tesla employees told him he could get there with a smaller charge than the mileage meter showed was needed. According to Musk, his employees told him no such thing.
come on... (Score:5, Interesting)
The model S may or may not be a good car. It sure seems like it's a pain to charge up on long trips. But this guy Broder sounds like he's full of it.
Re:come on... (Score:4, Insightful)
So the different wheel/tire combos differ by 0.7%.
The speed difference between them is huge... (Score:4, Insightful)
Was there a GPS logging that could confirm one story or the other? 54 mph vs 60 is quite a big difference on this long of a journey...
Re:The speed difference between them is huge... (Score:5, Insightful)
Was there a GPS logging that could confirm one story or the other? 54 mph vs 60 is quite a big difference on this long of a journey...
The data logging showed speeds as high as 81 MPH. That's hardly limping along at 45 and it's certainly not a "difference in wheel sizes" as the reporter claims. Plus he drove .6 miles in circles mostly at speeds between 10-15 MP while supposed "looking for a charging station". If you didn't find it on your first time circling the small 100 car lot, why wouldn't you just slow down to look for it rather than going in circles around the lot 30-40 times at a speed too fast to carefully look?
Re:The speed difference between them is huge... (Score:4, Funny)
Plus he drove .6 miles in circles mostly at speeds between 10-15 MP while supposed "looking for a charging station". If you didn't find it on your first time circling the small 100 car lot, why wouldn't you just slow down to look for it rather than going in circles around the lot 30-40 times at a speed too fast to carefully look?
I expect that you've identified the problem. He ran out of juice because he drove the car 0.6 miles further than they'd planned for.
Re:The speed difference between them is huge... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not about the .6 miles. It's about trying to say "the car died right in the parking lot" in his review.
Who said that? That's not either stated or suggested in the review [nytimes.com] or in the rebuttal [nytimes.com]. If you're saying that's what the author was trying to do, maybe you ought to offer some evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
He charged the car to 185 miles of range. He planned to drive 79 miles to Stonington and Groton and 45 miles back to Milford, total of 124 miles. 185 vs. 124 - isn't it a reasonable margin, unless you must allocate unknown miles for shrinkage, seepage and other losses? Gas cars don't ask us to do such math.
Should he have it plugged in for longer, after the battery was at zero by the time he arrived at the supercharger? Probably yes, he should have done that - if he is paranoid about his EV's range. He sh
Re: (Score:3)
My gas car says I have about 350 miles range when I fill up the tank. When I drive it at 80+ mph for 250 miles, it says I have 30 miles of range left. Range estimates change based on conditions unknown at the time of the original estimate. That's true for any vehicle. If the average Joe drives his car based on the initial range estimate rather than what it's currently telling him, he's an idiot and deserves to be stuck on the side of the road. That isn't the car's fault; it's the operator's.
As for recharge
Re:The speed difference between them is huge... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you didn't find it on your first time circling the small 100 car lot, why wouldn't you just slow down to look for it rather than going in circles around the lot 30-40 times at a speed too fast to carefully look?
30-40 times? Hah.
My estimate of the perimeter around the main parking lot area is about 500 feet. That would put it at 6-7 times max to get 0.6 miles.
But look: the Tesla charger isn't in that group of parking spaces, it's lower down to the left. Directly in front of the building. (Google helpfully has it marked.) Going around the whole building would take the distance up quite a bit more, depending on what path you follow. (It's not totally clear from there what paths are legal, and there doesn't seem to be street view.) If you got there, drove around the main parking lot a couple times looking for something that wasn't there, went up and down an aisle or two, then found yourself going around the north side of that building, that'd probably be sufficient to hit 0.6 miles.
And furthermore, 0.6 is even an overestimate. Based on Musk's own graphic [teslamotors.com], that 0.6 includes much of the exit into the service plaza. Just that exit could easily account for 20% of that 0.6 miles.
I'm not saying that Broder is in the right when it comes to the whole story. I think there are a number of unanswered questions, and some parts of his review + Musk's data that are suspicious. But, I also think that a couple part in particular of Musk's post are grasping at straws, and I think "Broder was driving around trying to run the car out of power" is one of them -- I find Broder's explanation way more credible than Musk's pseudo-accusation of sabotage.
Re: (Score:3)
Was there a GPS logging that could confirm one story or the other? 54 mph vs 60 is quite a big difference on this long of a journey...
The data logging showed speeds as high as 81 MPH. That's hardly limping along at 45 and it's certainly not a "difference in wheel sizes" as the reporter claims. Plus he drove .6 miles in circles mostly at speeds between 10-15 MP while supposed "looking for a charging station". If you didn't find it on your first time circling the small 100 car lot, why wouldn't you just slow down to look for it rather than going in circles around the lot 30-40 times at a speed too fast to carefully look?
1) There was a single, brief spike to 81 MPH.
2) When he claims 45, the log shows a little over 50. He doesn't claim that the discrepancy was caused by a difference in wheel sizes - he mentions it as a possible explanation (which sounds quite unlikely to be the case).
3) By my estimation on the map, 0.6 miles is 2circles around the quite large parking lot in Milford. That's not excessive. 2. Not "30-40." And his speed "too fast to carefully look?" He went 0.6 miles in 5 minutes, meaning his speed was 7
Re: (Score:3)
Was there a GPS logging that could confirm one story or the other? 54 mph vs 60 is quite a big difference on this long of a journey...
I don't know for sure, but it seems like there was. When Broder claims he was driving around [nearby streets, presumably] looking for the [in his words] poorly marked charging station, Tesla is saying that he was driving around in a parking lot. The only way Tesla could know the difference would be GPS data. This stands to reason because as remarked elsewhere, when an electric car is low on charge, it alerts you verbally, and asks if it can "lay in a course" [Star Trek term :-)] to the nearest charging
Believe it or not! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
He's claiming Tesla representatives instructed him to purposefully drive past the reported range then lie about it? That does not sound credible.
He says that Tesla reps claimed he'd have enough range despite the range on the display. It sounds like the reps were guessing that the range shown the night before was accurate because it was given based on a warmed up battery, while the morning range was from a cold battery, which isn't reflective of the battery temperature while in use. As it turned out, they were almost right - once he got going the range display elongated and nearly got him to his destination.
"...something Musk fails to mention." (Score:5, Insightful)
Something that Broder also failed to mention in his original article. In my opinion, if you are claiming to review A CAR, and THE CAR says it won't reach your destination, and someone one the phone says go anyway, and you go, and it fails to reach the destination, implying there's something wrong with the car by saying it should have but didn't is either being deliberately misleading or unforgivably stupid. There's no third option.
Clearly, tech support for computers with drivetrains is as stellar as tech support for computers in general, but if Broder is going to blame everything on bad advice, even if every single thing he says is true, it destroys his credibility as a technology reviewer of any kind. That would be no different than doing a review of an operating system and saying "it kept losing all my settings" when in fact what was happening was some tech support person kept telling you to reinstall it from scratch. That's a pretty important thing to mention explicitly. The Tesla didn't just "fail" by Broder's own words it failed because he was told to do dumb things and actually did those dumb things *against the advise of the car itself*.
And that's the best case scenario assuming I take it as a given every single factual statement made by Broder about the test drive is accurate. That doesn't account for why CNN's route replication appears to have been dramatically different.
Re:"...something Musk fails to mention." (Score:5, Insightful)
The third option is the Broder is lying and didn't get that advice. Seems kind of obvious. And in keeping with the rest of the facts.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a different "if" not a third option of that "if." But it also falls within the category of being deliberately misleading.
The point though is that if he's lying, that's bad. But if he's telling the truth, that doesn't seem to be significantly better.
It's not hard to structure the question to get the answer you want, then take the stupidest possible interpretation. I mean, various entities have been doing this to scientists for a long time:
Example:
"Hi, when I parked the car last night it said 82 miles but this morning it says 42? Will it make it to my next stop?"
"The battery will lose capacity due to the cold. You should consider the distance to your destination if you're going on a long drive and charge the car appropriately."
"But the battery display s
Does Broder not know how to fill'er up????? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does Broder not know how to fill'er up????? (Score:5, Informative)
He was at a "regular" charging station, not a supercharging station. It was an unscheduled stop and he charged it for an hour, which he says Tesla support staff told him would be enough to get back to the supercharging station. Reportedly, they said that the lost range would be recovered as he continued to drive, warming the batteries. It would have taken as much as five hours to fully charge the car at that station.
How do I know if Musk is truthful about the logs? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How do I know if Musk is truthful about the log (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering two other reporters from Consumer Reports and Motor Trends drove essentially the same route without any of the problems Broder had, combined with Broder's history of electric car bias and oil friendly articles, I'm much more inclined to believe Musk over Broder.
Re:How do I know if Musk is truthful about the log (Score:4, Informative)
Considering two other reporters from Consumer Reports and Motor Trends drove essentially the same route without any of the problems Broder had, ...
Actually that's not entirely true. The drop in battery charge overnight that doomed Broder by his account happened to the Consumer Reports [slashdot.org] author as well, and that was in slightly warmer conditions.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there anyone outside of Tesla that can independently verify that the logs actually recorded what Musk says they recorded? Why is there an automatic assumption by some that what Musk is publishing is what the logs actually recorded? How would we know if Musk is falsifying what's in the logs?
Well, Broder didn't dispute anything in the log in his response other than his driving speeds (and he doesn't even disagree with all of it, admitting to reaching 80 at one point). Everything else he corroborates.
The only thing I found to be misleading with regards to Musk's interpretation of the log is when he said that Broder raised the cabin temperature instead of lowering. Before Broder's response, when looking at the plots the first time, I did notice that a few miles after Broder raised the temperatu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there anyone outside of Tesla that can independently verify that the logs actually recorded what Musk says they recorded? Why is there an automatic assumption by some that what Musk is publishing is what the logs actually recorded? How would we know if Musk is falsifying what's in the logs?
How would we know if Musk is falsifying what's in the logs?
Because it is a HUGE risk to take. What if the reporter had Google Tracks running on his phone? What if he made phone calls that disproved his location according to Musk? What if he stopped at a McDonalds and has the receipt and it disagrees with Musk's data? What if he drove by a security camera...
All Broder would need to do to destroy Musk's claims is prove that any bit of his data is wrong, because then Musk would only have two options: Ad
Overnight battery charge loss (Score:3)
So, what caused the sudden drop? The speed graph isn't fine enough to determine of the car was driven, and although there is a cabin temperature spike, the reporter says that happened the next morning when he was told to run the heater for a while. The engineers were obviously thinking it was temperature related, and thought that with a bit of "conditioning" it would all be ok. Thus the suggestion to run the heater, and to slow-charge. Finally the assumed the computer had it wrong and told him it was ok to drive - and were probably wrong.
So, the only real conclusion left is that the battery actually lost charge overnight. Did Broder sabotage the result by running the heater longer than claimed, or drove around in circles (again) to run it down, or maybe he just left the headlights on overnight?. We'll probably never know.
The alternative is that the Tesla batteries discharge substantially when not being used in cold weather. That should actually be pretty easy for someone else to test.
Root Cause Analysis finds for Broder (Score:4, Insightful)
After reading the Musk analysis and the Broder rebuttal, I have to come to the conclusion that Mr. Broder's assessment is honest an accurate. I think there are two critical points that he brings up. These points do not paint Musk as a conniver, but simply as a proud engineer. He is trying to defend the engineering of the vehicle, but the problem was not with the engineering. The problems were purely operational in nature. First:
"I was given battery-conservation advice at that time (turn off the cruise control; alternately slow down and speed up to take advantage of regenerative braking) that was later contradicted by other Tesla personnel."
There are multiple references like this in the article, but I will address them all with this statement. Mr. Broder's account shows an all too common problem: a support organization that does not provide consistent or specifically correct answers to customer's questions. Guess what? Good support is hard. For a company of Tesla's age, with a product that has very little "gamma testing" to it's name right now, it is not the least bit surprising that Mr. Broder received conflicting and ultimately counterproductive support advice. Second:
"it may be the result of the car being delivered with 19-inch wheels and all-season tires, not the specified 21-inch wheels and summer tires. That just might have affected the recorded speed, range, rate of battery depletion or any number of other parameters."
A change in the overall tire/wheel diameter generally requires having your speedometer re-calibrated if you want it to give you an accurate reading. It is entirely reasonable to expect that there is a lot of calculation going on inside the vehicle that is dependent on being able to correctly correlate RPMs to distance traveled. It's also reasonable to expect that differences in the rolling resistance between the stock tires and the AW tires would also have some impact.
These are not engineering problems. These are operational problems with process, knowledge, and execution. Musk should be rightly proud of the car his company is built, and should be rightly terrified that his post-purchase support could potentially burn a lot of goodwill once he runs out of early-adopting fanboys and geeks who will cut him slack and are motivated to fix their own problems. The I Just Want It To Work crowd will be a tougher audience.
Combining the stories (Score:3)
I think it's quite possible that neither is being entirely dishonest.
The main disagreement is about not fully charging the car. But it's pretty critical to remember that charging, even at a supercharger, takes a long time.
If you're on a roadtrip would you really want to wait around at a supercharger station for an hour? I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that if the person is 150 miles from their destination they're going to wait till the range estimator reads 155 then take off.
Also one thing not quite clear from the NYT article:
"It was also Tesla that told me that an hour of charging (at a lower power level) at a public utility in Norwich, Conn., would give me adequate range to reach the Supercharger 61 miles away, even though the car’s range estimator read 32 miles – because, again, I was told that moderate-speed driving would “restore” the battery power lost overnight."
Note that this wasn't a supercharger station, this was just somewhere he could plug in so charging was slow. It's not quite clear to me whether he was told the car would be fine with the estimator at 32 miles, or the car would be fine after being plugged in for an hour. But I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people who could do some magical thinking to convince themselves that the guy on the phone said it was enough so it must be so!
The speed discrepancy is hard to account for (unless it was a dumb thing like the wrong tire size), but as for the 80 mph spike, maybe he just floored it to pass someone, and even though the logs show he wasn't at 45 mph for the limping stage he did reduce his speed, which suggests he was trying to extend the range and not run it dry like Elon Musk suggested. As for all the charging stations along the final route there's no evidence Broder had access to this info.
As for the cabin temperature the data definitely shows he drops it quite a bit, Elon Musk is definitely fudging the interpretation when he suggests it was always around 72.
In short Broder tried to use the car like a lot of people would, spending the absolute minimal amount of time waiting at a charging station, and due to some misunderstandings and bad breaks that tend to happen when you're pushing the limits, got burned.
Tesla kept logs. (Score:5, Insightful)
They know exactly what Broder did with the car. It's like your son telling you he didn't visit that porn site when his laptop's IP address is logged by your router as having done so. Seriously, the guy didn't understand the technology he was fucking around with and his lack of credibility is about to be exposed in a big way.
Re:Tesla kept logs. (Score:5, Insightful)
They know exactly what Broder did with the car. It's like your son telling you he didn't visit that porn site when his laptop's IP address is logged by your router as having done so. Seriously, the guy didn't understand the technology he was fucking around with and his lack of credibility is about to be exposed in a big way.
Exactly.
Tesla reps told him to drive 80?
Tesla told him to undercharge even though the range indicator said he wouldn't make it. Not once, but THREE times?
Tesla told him to lie about limping along at 45, even tho the log shows he never drove at 45?
Caught in a latent lie he tries to blame others. But mom, dad said I could....
Re:Tesla kept logs. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because "logs" are an endless series of JPG files depicting a graph of speed vs time and a charge vs time.
Go sit in the corner, facing the wall.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It has nothing to do with being in the pocket of big oil. The story was a smear.
Re:Nope (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
Try, " he's a journalist",
As an ex-journalist, I can tell you, being an asshole is what gets you the story. No one cares if Mary Sunshine writes about marshmallows and lollipops.
If there is no controversy, there is no story, certainly no front page, and then no paycheck. Musk is just job fodder, it's got nothing to do with anything relevant, just Broder notching his belt.
It's a hard thing to shake, as many of you can attest over the years, I still play in the threads with a similar writing style adapted to forums. Amazing assertion, conflicting response, bring out the facts and pound,pound,pound. Before you know it, you've been sucked in and are part of the sickness. It's so funny, people are suckers for "news" and take propaganda like medicine. It's not about news, it's about careers and selling ads.
Although there is freedom of the press, you'll note, Jefferson is always quoted saying that there is nothing to be learned from the "News papers". It's always been the same, but now digital and faster, speeding the lies to your frontal lobes in HD and stereo surround.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it so far fetched to imagine that there isn't a conspiracy, and his bias is just part of who he is? Humans are irrational. They form opinions and become entrenched in them. Millions of people are pretty biased in interpreting politics, not because they are part of some mass conspiracy, they are just stubborn and close minded.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
What's most likely is that he's just sloppy and got caught fudging the data. It was a Fake, But Accurate moment, a firecracker in the gas tank moment, or, a Zimmerman tape edit moment
Reported fudge, lie, push the truth to fit their preconceived notions. What his was? Who knows. But he tried to make a stupid point and got caught.
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily really *wants* to destroy... probably more along the lines of thinking that the inconvenience (limited range, long recharge time, and drastically increased initial expense) isn't worth the benefit. At worst, they are shortsighted... not necessarily actively wanting to see the end of the world.
If electric cars had a comparable range and recharge time to gasoline cars, you'd see increased adoption. If EV's cost about 10% of what they do right now, you'd see *overwhelming* adoption... wi
Re:Anyone who doesn't like electric cars (Score:5, Insightful)
BBBZZZZ You both lose. This transcends stupid comments about the Tea Party or saying he's a Lefty. He's a Reporter. He did what Reporters do, distort, mislead, lie. Probably to enhance his reputation and certainly to enhance revenue...look how many clicks NYTs is getting from this.
Re:Anyone who doesn't like electric cars (Score:4, Insightful)
look how many clicks NYTs is getting from this.
And I would imagine Tesla's website is getting a few extra clicks today. What a great game - create a bit of controversy and everyone wins.
Re:Anyone who doesn't like electric cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Anyone who doesn't like electric cars (Score:5, Interesting)
I knew enough about Tesla cars, or so I thought. I always figured they were impractical for me because their price puts them at a sole-car position for a person, and for long trips there was nothing that could be done about not being able to reach places > 300 miles away.
The scandal actually gave me a second or third look at them and let me see that the supercharger network is coming along. I also thought that the supercharger network was dumb, reasoning that I wouldn't want to wait 50 minutes to recharge my car in the middle of a trip. The article made me rethink that as well. On a drive of >300 miles I almost always stop somewhere for lunch. Basically the cars range just enforces a break every few hundred miles.. not that bad a thing.
There are still problems unspoken by this article. What if multiple cars are ahead of you and it takes 2 hours to charge? You can't really plan those delays into a trip, not a business one at least.
I'm still a big fan of the Chevy Volt for being 100% electric, with the backup gas engine if needed. And it doesn't look completely ridiculous like the nissan leaf, nor does it require new infrastructure like the Tesla.
Re:Anyone who doesn't like electric cars (Score:5, Interesting)
Tesla has the benefit of being the first ones out there with a real EV that works, so they have an opportunity to set the standard. They need to put as much as they possibly can into getting supercharging stations at every rest stop, restaurant, and hotel in and around population centers. You're going to spend 45 minutes eating at Denny's (or wherever) anyway. If you can plug in your Tesla and charge to nearly full while you do it? That's brilliant.
Once they have critical mass of infrastructure in place, they can charge a very small licensing fee to other EV manufacturers for the interface technology and set the major standard for the next couple decades while practically printing money along the way.
As for the Volt, it can't be "100% electric" if it has a gasoline engine. Just like the Prius and others, it's an EV until it isn't. That entire time, it's an overcomplicated bit of machinery trying to be all things to all people. I just hope Tesla manages to get their next model out soon since it's targeting under $30,000 with specs comparable to the Model S. That, I think, is where they have the opportunity to get huge.
Re: (Score:3)
The Chevy Volt is a series hybrid. It's the same idea as a diesel-electric. You run an engine to run a generator to run a motor. That may sound wasteful, but the conversion losses are low (~5%/conversion) and (in heavy machinery, at least) you do away with gear boxes, which is a big win, and you get the engine running on the Atkinson cycle, which is a big efficiency win.
The new thing for the Chevy Volt is to throw a battery in the mix to get you regenerative braking (another big win).
So while the Chevy V
Re:Anyone who doesn't like electric cars (Score:5, Insightful)
What part of releasing the raw logs from the vehicle to dispute a biased at best - outright fabrication at worst - is shooting the messenger?
The guy wrote an outright hit piece against the car. It would have been a damning piece of news, if only it were true.
Re: (Score:3)
The part where the graphs (not raw logs!) basically confirm everything he said, especially the part that's most damaging to Tesla - the drop in range remaining from 90 miles to 25 miles overnight, unexpectedly leaving him without enough range to reach the nearest Supercharger. (Look at the vertical drop in range at the 400-mile mark. It's hard to see what actually happened because Tesla have carefully avoided releasing any graphs of range against time, or any raw logs of the same.)
In fact, Elon Musk is bein
Re:Anyone who doesn't like electric cars (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? You think they benefit from creating negative publicity concerning the quality of an expensive car? Really? Someone is going to go "oh, there's that car I read is impractical, let me buy it!"?
Holywood PR agents will tell you. (Score:3)
Well, the article proofed the car has plenty of ra (Score:3)
Well, the article proofed the car has plenty of range for people in say my country, where that range even in cold weather is more then enough to drive across the entire country.
The whole electric car debate roughly has three parties.
Those who NEED to drive really long distances regullarly, they are very few and to be pitied, really if you have to commute +300miles even once per week, you are doing something wrong with your life.
Those who really don't need to and know their normal car usage is below 50 mi
Source: (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Source: (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet they can apparently still hold office.
Electric cars aren't the only way to reduce (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
And people who love tech enough to build their own computers universally love them. While this reporter may not have had brains, I think his experience more accurately reflects what would happen if you put an electric car in the hands of a non-enthusiast tech-illiterate driver. I've had to do enough tech support for family and friends to know that they'll do all sorts of stupid stuff which is quite obvious to me that they shouldn't do.
The reason Apple is so successful is because they dumb down the tech to the point where those non-enthusiast tech-illiterate users have no problems using it. That's what needs to happen to electric cars before they'll be widely accepted. If the experience of enthusiasts mattered as much as you seem to think, your grandmother would be using Linux on the desktop today. And just like Linux, if you're going to blame problems in using the tech solely on the stupidity of users, it's going to languish at 1% market share.
Personally, I think Broder is a tool who set out to jeopardize the test drive if he could. But at the same time I can't fault him for sensationalizing the problem with charge times and charge rates. That's a huge difference between EVs and ICE vehicles, and it needs to be stressed over and over to the public until it becomes "common sense" that you can't just fill 'er up in 5 minutes like you can with gasoline. The sooner everyone is made aware of that drawback, the sooner it will cease becoming a problem.
Overnight rated range remaining (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Overnight rated range remaining (Score:5, Interesting)
This overnight loss of range had been previously reported by Consumer Reports, and Tesla reportedly told them the same story- that the range will recover as driving is resumed and the batteries are warmed up. This was also in the vicinity of the Milford supercharging station.
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2013/01/rapid-charging-at-a-tesla-ev-supercharge-station.html [consumerreports.org]
"The night before my voyage back to work, I had 88 miles left, according to the car's computation. I knew that would be cutting it pretty close, so I planned on a 30-minute supercharging session in Milford to gain some juice and added peace of mind. But while parked outside my house overnight, the temperature dipped and so did the indicated range, which now read only 58 miles. (Yes, a little range anxiety began to set in.) How can 30 miles evaporate just like that? According to Tesla, the car's computer takes into account the freezing temperature and readjusts the remaining range. The company also said that, upon restarting, the battery warms up and the computer once again updates the range. I didn't notice it adding miles to the range but the range remained steady for most of my 28-mile drive back to the supercharger. I connected to the charger with 50 miles on the meter and after 30 minutes, I was back to 150 miles—more than ample range to get back to our East Haddam test track."
Re:Logs don't Lie Bitch (Score:4, Insightful)
Pack it in, because logs don't lie.
Perhaps not, but logs can be altered.
I'm not saying they were in this case, but just saying "logs don't lie" seems a bit naive when the only log data we have to go on are those provided by Tesla, hardly a disinterested party.
Re: (Score:3)
Admit it, you were caught being a New York Times reporter.
Pack it in, because logs don't lie.
The logs clearly show a story closer to the reporter's account than Tesla's.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? He said he drove at 45mph with little to no heat. The car says he drove at 81 with the heat cranked up to over 70F in freezing temperatures where you'd be comfortable in the low to mid 60s.
Sounds like a real asshole to me.
Re:Logs don't Lie Bitch (Score:4, Insightful)
Just a bunch of Journalist Homers circling the wagons to protect Broder.
Re:Musk (Score:5, Insightful)
You must be unaware of the fact that there are very clear instances where bending over for a customer is the worst thing a company can do. This "customer" is in the wrong, regardless if Musk has the personality of a rabid wolverine on PMS.
Re:Musk (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this "Insightful"? Given the low regard that the general public have for reporters, why would they regard the reporter as a customer like them?
Personally, I don't think reporters get called enough on their BS. I am not a big Elon Musk fan (he came across like a baby after the "Top Gear" situation), but his response in this situation raised my opinion of him a couple of notches.
Anyway, in the past, I have observed a strong bias against particular cars in the Automobiles section in the NY Times. There are occasionally very good automotive-related articles there, but, for the most part, I take everything that I read in that section with a grain of salt. Given that NYC is one of the most car-unfriendly cities in the US, I have always wondered why the NY Times even has an Automobiles section.
No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, I'm way more inclined to trust Tesla. Why? Well they have data, the reporter doesn't. I figure both sides have a reason to make shit up.
Reporters are not someone I truest with facts these days, it is stories. They like to have the big story, and that often means scandal, be it true or false. We have have, many, many times, seen the press neglect evidence in their haste to get a story, omit things that don't fit with their narrative, frame things (pictures in particular) to show what they want, and sometimes outright make shit up.
Now I also figure Tesla has a reason to lie since, after all, they want to sell cars and as such want their cars portrayed in the best possible light. Companies don't want to admit faults of their products if they don't have to.
So given that both sources can be suspect, who do we believe? Well the one with the more credible data. The reporter has nothing but "ummm, the tires were the wrong size" which is a very half-assed explanation. Tesla appears to have rather extensive data logging. Given the choice between data and assertion, I'm inclined to trust the data. Give me some proof it is wrong if you wish to convince me otherwise.
This guy has no credibility, particularly in light of his half-assed response. To me it sounds like he was trying to gin up a sensationalized story, got caught, and now is doing a poor job covering.
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, anyone who has read the newspaper (or watched a TV news) report of an event they themselves have been involved in knows how inaccurate such reporting can be. There are various reasons why (never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence), but there it is.
The surprising thing is how much faith people then put in the rest of the articles in the same issue of the paper.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I don't think reporters get called enough on their BS. I am not a big Elon Musk fan (he came across like a baby after the "Top Gear" situation), but his response in this situation raised my opinion of him a couple of notches.
Hmm. FWIW I was up until the Tesla event, a very casual Top Gear watcher. I enjoyed watching it - I know nothing about cars at all - but took it as an entertaining, fact-based car show. I assumed that everything that they did, while very funny, was done in a relatively factual way - but from what I've heard the Tesla thing was basically outright deceptive.
Maybe it becomes more obvious if you watch a lot of Top Gear but I would have watched that episode casually and assumed the car ran out of juice and was
Re:Musk (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as a person who provides support professionally...
Fuck you, fuck the horse you road in on, fuck your mother, your father, your sister, and your dog.
If Musk's people gave the right advice, and he's positive they did, major props to him for standing behind them. I wish more companies out there would be willing to tell off the "customers" who purposely act the fool.
How you treat those above you shows nothing. How you treat those "below" you shows everything.
Re: (Score:3)
Stunningly bad.
...
Claiming that a reporter for a major newspaper is blatantly lying is absolutely not the right way to go about this.
The detail here as to where Musk went astray was in assuming bad faith on the part of Broder. All of the raw data that Musk described was good; if he had stated the facts he knew and then asked the question "How can we explain the discrepency?", that would have been a lot better PR.
Unfortunately this is the kind of thing that I don't usually see managers or marketers do well; the people that "stick to the facts" and know when they've strayed outside of what they know for sure tend to be engineers. Elon Mu
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and then three months later the same reporter pulls the same stunt with the same results using a car gained from another source. Then what do you do? Come back and claim it wasn't actually your support staff, but the reporter the whole time?
The best thing Musk can do is get some high-profile neutral third party to come in, look at the raw data, and publicly report that the NYT reporter is full of shit. The NYT would then likely throw the reporter under the bus to save the credibility of the brand (esse