Tesla slams NYT review of Model S as "Fake"

[Dari]

Originally Posted by bigdog1218

Since when can't car reviewers put a car through some tough tests and push it to it's limits? Why does this car have to be babied just so it can complete a simple drive? At this point there's no spin Tesla can put on this garbage technology that defends the massive amount of government subsidies they get to fleece morons who think they're smart by supporting a broken technology.

$77,000 for a car that needs to limp at 45mph and limited climate control to reach a charging station? Haha, who can honestly defend this? Oh wait I forgot, this car is for driving 20 miles back and forth to work using zero emission electricity that magically appears and doesn't come from a power plant. The government needs to stop giving money to broken technology and give money to research actually involved in finding renewable energy.

You can do all of that so long as you don't lie.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by jpeyton

Wrong. If a gasoline powered vehicle was close to empty, showed an estimated range of 50 miles, and Broder drove 100 miles until it died and needed a tow, he would be an idiot.

And he is.

If the Model S showed a range of 70 miles, and Broder drove 50 miles before it suddenly died, his argument would have a leg to stand on.

If I called and they said it was okay, yeah, I'd get stuck...

[DominionSeraph]

Originally Posted by bigdog1218

Since when can't car reviewers put a car through some tough tests and push it to it's limits?

If a reviewer hitched a 30,000lb trailer on a truck rated for 10,000lbs and broke it, you'd be screaming bloody murder if he then went and complained about being stranded because the tow capacity wasn't enough.
The Tesla went 51 miles on 32 miles of advertised charge. Broder doesn't get to complain that it ran out before reaching Tokyo or the Moon.

[Aikouka]

Originally Posted by MrPickins

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most...iar-test-drive

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...ef=automobiles

See #6 and #7


For the record, I don't care one way or the other about Tesla, but it seems as though this journalist is either incompetent or being deceptive.

The thing is... I'm not really sure what you're trying to point out with this. He stopped at #5 with a 90 mile range, but according to him, when he went to leave the next morning, it was at 25. The quote that you inserted then goes to say that it ended up going 51 miles instead of 25, but how does that fix anything when the car should have gone around 90.

If there's no funny business going on with the journalist, then perhaps that specific car has issues?

Originally Posted by DominionSeraph

If a reviewer hitched a 30,000lb trailer on a truck rated for 10,000lbs and broke it, you'd be screaming bloody murder if he then went and complained about being stranded because the tow capacity wasn't enough.

Sir, your name may not be Armstrong, but that is quite the stretch!

The only way that would be comparable is if Tesla told him to do it, he complained that it didn't work, and then Musk complained about his complaint.

[MrPickins]

Originally Posted by Aikouka

The thing is... I'm not really sure what you're trying to point out with this. He stopped at #5 with a 90 mile range, but according to him, when he went to leave the next morning, it was at 25. The quote that you inserted then goes to say that it ended up going 51 miles instead of 25, but how does that fix anything when the car should have gone around 90.

That's the thing. It should not have gone 90 miles. 90 mi was the range when he stopped for the night, but neglected to plug it in for a maintenance charge. This means the car had to run the heater on the batteries overnight to keep them alive, reducing his range.

The real issue is that he left the charging station in Norwich with 32 mi displayed as the range, then tried to drive 68 mi. That's either neglect or stupidity right there.

[Arkaign]

Originally Posted by bigdog1218

Since when can't car reviewers put a car through some tough tests and push it to it's limits? Why does this car have to be babied just so it can complete a simple drive? At this point there's no spin Tesla can put on this garbage technology that defends the massive amount of government subsidies they get to fleece morons who think they're smart by supporting a broken technology.

$77,000 for a car that needs to limp at 45mph and limited climate control to reach a charging station? Haha, who can honestly defend this? Oh wait I forgot, this car is for driving 20 miles back and forth to work using zero emission electricity that magically appears and doesn't come from a power plant. The government needs to stop giving money to broken technology and give money to research actually involved in finding renewable energy.

Given CNG is abundant and cheap, I'd prefer a variant that runs on that. CNG is the equivalent of about $2/gallon, and is mostly domestically produced. CNG > Coal Electric.

I'd have a different opinion if our government morons were to federalize all electric power, and open hundreds of next-gen thorium-cycle nuclear plants, which would eliminate a tremendous amount of pollution and land destruction, and enable us to begin replacing reliance on foreign oil much more quickly. Putting extra development into next-gen batteries would be great as well.

Imagine 500 miles to a charge, coming from clean energy nuclear sources, with quickcharge tech and lighter weight batteries. Our current electric vehicles are largely a joke. Expensive, problematic, underperforming, and just sort of crappy. Remember that ludicrous 'race' with a Tesla vs. an M5? That M5 somehow managed to perform like shit, regardless of other tests showing dramatically better performance, and they probably could only get a single decent run from a Tesla, while the M5 will run great back to back to back to back to back, and refuel in minutes.

We have to start somewhere, but I'm honestly much more impressed with the Volt than anything Tesla makes.

[Pulsar]

Originally Posted by bigdog1218

Since when can't car reviewers put a car through some tough tests and push it to it's limits? Why does this car have to be babied just so it can complete a simple drive? At this point there's no spin Tesla can put on this garbage technology that defends the massive amount of government subsidies they get to fleece morons who think they're smart by supporting a broken technology.

$77,000 for a car that needs to limp at 45mph and limited climate control to reach a charging station? Haha, who can honestly defend this? Oh wait I forgot, this car is for driving 20 miles back and forth to work using zero emission electricity that magically appears and doesn't come from a power plant. The government needs to stop giving money to broken technology and give money to research actually involved in finding renewable energy.

So.... let us know when you're actually going to read the article and then discuss its merits intelligently.

Until you do, it's fairly obvious you're simply trying to troll for angry responses, which it appears no one is interested in giving you.

As far as the actual data goes, it appears Tesla has some pretty damning evidence as to journalistic misconduct. I hesitate to believe Tesla's assertion that the journalist was out to smear them. I find it very plausible, however, than he realized an article that said "it did what it claims to do" wouldn't get nearly as many readers as the piece he chose to write.

Considering the Tesla vehicle is the most instrumented, analyzed, and tested autos ever made, I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with them. Other media outlets have performed tests on the car and not seen all the problems that this fellow had. That in itself casts suspicions on his drive. They already kicked Top Gear in the nuts. It appears this joker was next in line.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by MrPickins

That's the thing. It should not have gone 90 miles. 90 mi was the range when he stopped for the night, but neglected to plug it in for a maintenance charge. This means the car had to run the heater on the batteries overnight to keep them alive, reducing his range.

The real issue is that he left the charging station in Norwich with 32 mi displayed as the range, then tried to drive 68 mi. That's either neglect or stupidity right there.

Broder has explained that pretty clearly. I don't see how this can be blamed on Broder. He was apparently told that regen braking and moderate driving would allow him to reach the supercharger.

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.

To reiterate: Tesla personnel told me over the phone that they were able to monitor the state of the battery. It was they who cleared me to leave Norwich after an hour of charging.

[Aikouka]

Originally Posted by MrPickins

That's the thing. It should not have gone 90 miles. 90 mi was the range when he stopped for the night, but neglected to plug it in for a maintenance charge. This means the car had to run the heater on the batteries overnight to keep them alive, reducing his range.

That makes sense. I wonder if that was ever mentioned to the people at Tesla when they told him to simply charge it for an hour.

Originally Posted by Arkaign

I'd have a different opinion if our government morons were to federalize all electric power, and open hundreds of next-gen thorium-cycle nuclear plants, which would eliminate a tremendous amount of pollution and land destruction, and enable us to begin replacing reliance on foreign oil much more quickly. Putting extra development into next-gen batteries would be great as well.

I would actually prefer to see a lot more centered around the latter. I've mentioned it before in this sub-forum, but I am not a fan of the $7500 tax credit on electric vehicles. I think we're wasting money on technology that is still in a bit of infancy (for this application). I'm waiting on someone to say, "but we need to show car makers that these are worthwhile!" ...and end up alienating customers because of poor-performing vehicles? If you want electric vehicles to become popular, they have to be available to the masses. Expensive Model S vehicles don't mean much at all in the long run.

Originally Posted by Arkaign

Imagine 500 miles to a charge, coming from clean energy nuclear sources, with quickcharge tech and lighter weight batteries. Our current electric vehicles are largely a joke. Expensive, problematic, underperforming, and just sort of crappy.

I keep seeing a lot of articles about newer battery technology, but I guess they fail to pan out in some fashion (probably cost). It's kind of a bummer, because newer battery technology isn't only helpful for vehicles... it could potentially help all of the battery-powered technology that we use every day from our laptops to our smartphones.

We have to start somewhere, but I'm honestly much more impressed with the Volt than anything Tesla makes.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Pulsar

So.... let us know when you're actually going to read the article and then discuss its merits intelligently.

Until you do, it's fairly obvious you're simply trying to troll for angry responses, which it appears no one is interested in giving you.

Eh, honestly... reading the rest of your post, I can't say that I get the idea that you're trying to do anything better.

Originally Posted by Pulsar

As far as the actual data goes, it appears Tesla has some pretty damning evidence as to journalistic misconduct. I hesitate to believe Tesla's assertion that the journalist was out to smear them. I find it very plausible, however, than he realized an article that said "it did what it claims to do" wouldn't get nearly as many readers as the piece he chose to write.

Honestly, I think you put way too much faith in data. Here's what I've taken away from what I read in the various articles and in what people have said here. It looks like the journalist probably didn't take into account cold weather and keep the batteries warm, which the car handled itself. This caused the reduced range that he experienced. Now, if we had actual call logs, we could find out what went down between Broder and Tesla, but all we can tell is that he didn't get good advice on how to handle the car. This could be purely Tesla's fault or a mix of both as Broder may not have informed Tesla that he didn't plug the car in overnight.

I think the biggest problem is Musk. Believe it or not, but a CEO should not behave like he does.

Originally Posted by Pulsar

Considering the Tesla vehicle is the most instrumented, analyzed, and tested autos ever made, I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with them.

Yeah... I'd like to see where you found this marketing spiel. After reading about how much testing some of the higher-end cars go through, I would probably doubt that Tesla has done nearly as much. Hell, I recall reading an article about the GT-R where they tested air flow through the engine compartment which simulated all pieces being in the car. However, when they put the actual wiring assembly into the car, they found that it affected the coefficient of drag too much. This caused them to go back and rework it to reduce the drag. Seriously, with stuff like that, I have a hard time believing that the Model S is some paragon of design.

Originally Posted by Pulsar

They already kicked Top Gear in the nuts.

Wasn't that lawsuit was thrown out because Tesla didn't have a case? It was another case of Musk throwing a temper tantrum because someone dared to say anything negative (even after Clarkson made so many positive remarks) about his baby.

[Brovane]

Originally Posted by Aikouka

I would actually prefer to see a lot more centered around the latter. I've mentioned it before in this sub-forum, but I am not a fan of the $7500 tax credit on electric vehicles. I think we're wasting money on technology that is still in a bit of infancy (for this application). I'm waiting on someone to say, "but we need to show car makers that these are worthwhile!" ...and end up alienating customers because of poor-performing vehicles? If you want electric vehicles to become popular, they have to be available to the masses. Expensive Model S vehicles don't mean much at all in the long run.

Tesla's strategy has always been to start with higher priced models of cars and develop and refine the technology on these higher margin vehicles and then move to produce lowwe price more practical cars. They are on the second model car of this strategy. The first model was the roadster, basically a expensive second vehicle. The Model S can be a primary car for a lot of people and is lot more practical than the Roadster along with a lower price range than the Roadster and a much broader price range. Tesla just didn't have the startup capital to move from a low volume high price product to low price high volume product. So if the Model S provides the technological and financial stepping stone to a lower price high volume model then the vehicle will mean something in the long run.

[Dari]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Broder has explained that pretty clearly. I don't see how this can be blamed on Broder. He was apparently told that regen braking and moderate driving would allow him to reach the supercharger.

The problem with your opinions here is that they are based on taking the reviewer's word, Broder's, at face value.

[SparkyJJO]

Originally Posted by Dari

The problem with your opinions here is that they are based on taking the reviewer's word, Broder's, at face value.

But are you trying to take Tesla's word at face value?

[DominionSeraph]

Originally Posted by Aikouka

Honestly, I think you put way too much faith in data.

wat

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Dari

The problem with your opinions here is that they are based on taking the reviewer's word, Broder's, at face value.

No, they aren't really.

Broder has a tow truck driver, and names of people at Tesla that he spoke to on the phone, as witnesses. Plus photos of an unlit supercharger.

Musk has nothing but interpretations of data that don't necessarily have to be interpreted his way. Musk should have handled the situation in a non-confrontational manner, imo.

When Musk interprets Broder's very short drive in a parking lot as an intent to kill the battery, rather than as someone doing what everyone does in a parking lot, I think that indicates who is pushing their own truth.

Let's hear from the Tesla employees who spoke to Broder on the phone.

There's also the question of what is meant by a "full" charge. The Tesla S considers a normal "full charge" 90%. If you want, or need, a 100% battery charge, you have to manually select that option. Otherwise, the car stops the charge at 90% for battery life.

It seems that Musk is now happy with the NYT review of the whole incident, anyway. The Editor does not think Broder did anything intentionally, after talking to most of the people involved.

[halik]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

No, they aren't really.

Broder has a tow truck driver, and names of people at Tesla that he spoke to on the phone, as witnesses. Plus photos of an unlit supercharger.

Musk has nothing but interpretations of data that don't necessarily have to be interpreted his way. Musk should have handled the situation in a non-confrontational manner, imo.

When Musk interprets Broder's very short drive in a parking lot as an intent to kill the battery, rather than as someone doing what everyone does in a parking lot, I think that indicates who is pushing their own truth.

Let's hear from the Tesla employees who spoke to Broder on the phone.

There's also the question of what is meant by a "full" charge. The Tesla S considers a normal "full charge" 90%. If you want, or need, a 100% battery charge, you have to manually select that option. Otherwise, the car stops the charge at 90% for battery life.

It seems that Musk is now happy with the NYT review of the whole incident, anyway. The Editor does not think Broder did anything intentionally, after talking to most of the people involved.

Pretty much this; the rampant fanboism of the reddit types certainly doesn't help - getting butthurt over one bungled review during the least-EV friendly conditions is not the right response, either as a CEO or PR head.

I guess if you're trying to cultivate an image of the car being a perfect substitute to conventional car, but eventually you will hit the hard reality of the constraints of purely electric vehicle.

[Aikouka]

Originally Posted by DominionSeraph

wat

I don't know if you're trying to troll, but I'll bite.

The data that's stored on the Model S simply provides Tesla with the state of the vehicle (in certain parameters) at different points in time. The problem is that data won't tell you the whole story, and simply trying to point to it as irrefutable proof isn't necessarily a very smart thing to do. Note that just because I say it's not smart to do it doesn't mean that the conclusion derived from the data is wrong.

Musk's data dump isn't going to tell him about any of the correspondence between Broder and Tesla's support personnel. It sounds like there was some miscommunication between the two, which lead Broder to perform a paltry (and arguably boneheaded) recharge that wasn't sufficient for his upcoming travels. Also consider the situation where Musk claimed that Broder was purposefully trying to run the Model S out of battery power by driving around a parking lot for a half mile. Broder claims that he was looking for the supercharger, which is a plausible explanation.

Data isn't going to tell you any of that.

[Rifter]

Completly disregarding the whole musk vs broder smearfest its not hard to figure out that tesla is probably right and broder is probably wrong.

This is far from the first review/drive this car has been on and none of the other reviews seem to have any of these issues to this extent.

Which means if the car hasnt changed, previous reviews had none of these issues, then the only variable that changed was the driver/reviewer so this is more than likely where the problem lies.

Its just basic logic, no need to get caught up in the he said/she said crap to figure this one out.

[DominionSeraph]

Originally Posted by Aikouka

Musk's data dump isn't going to tell him about any of the correspondence between Broder and Tesla's support personnel.

Broder's driver's ed classes are not a part of the car. They have nothing to do with its review.
If the support personnel told him to drive it into a lake, and he did, does that mean that the Tesla can't make it on a two day journey without ending up on the bottom of a body of water?

Broder blamed the Tesla recharging network when it was he who fucked up.

[LTC8K6]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2415612,00.asp

Seems like all are satisfied at the outcome. The Tesla S works okay, and Broder did not do anything wrong intentionally.

Here's a recreation road trip where the one Tesla had problems charging and needed tech support from Tesla.

http://strassenversion.kinja.com/tes...imes-247951069

[Brovane]

"Mr. Broder left himself open to valid criticism by taking what seem to be casual and imprecise notes along the journey, unaware that his every move was being monitored," New York Times' Public Editor Margaret Sullivan wrote in a NYT Opinion Pages piece.

So does this mean I wasn't aware that everything I did was being logged so I took some latitude with the truth to make a better story and I got caught?

[Kntx]

Originally Posted by Zenmervolt

The trend has been from things which require more special care to things that need less special care. Battery electric vehicles require more special care than gasoline vehicles and that's not a step forward.

ZV

Another point of view is that being able to refill fuel from your home is more convenient and less "special" than taking it to a service center every 300 miles.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Brovane

So does this mean I wasn't aware that everything I did was being logged so I took some latitude with the truth to make a better story and I got caught?

No, it means he's an idiot for not properly documenting the review.

If you are doing a review of a product, you should have proper notes and records, whether the review went great or went bad.

If he had proper records/notes done during his review, we probably have none of this controversy.

He could have had a vid recorder along, for example. Seems like a no brainer for this type of review.

He wouldn't have to claim he set the temperature at X degrees, or set the cruise at X mph, or claim the car display showed X. He could just show us the videos.

A video of trying to find a poorly lit/marked supercharger station in a parking lot would be much more informative than a claim and a flash photo, for example. It's much more in depth than a map of a partial circle of the lot.