8 ms·

Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

379 points by nickheer 14y ago

cryptoz 14y ago
This article doesn't back itself up. Claims are labelled as 'False' and the evidence presented is 'Google Maps says so'. Maybe Musk's data doesn't add up (I doubt it). If that's the case, present something other than 'I plotted a route in Google Maps and it said 500. QED.'
- arrrg 14y ago
  Uhm … what do you expect? I thought this was all pretty convincing. What are your complaints?! I really don’t get it. How would you suggest measuring distance? Is Google Maps really not a good tool for doing so? Plus, Google Maps wasn’t really the centerpiece here, for any argument.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    This "defense" basically amounts to: See, Broder didn't lie, he exaggerated. That, and the things Broder did to try and get stranded were fair game. In that, they are making valid points, supported by facts. That it's the best they can do is telling. I look forward to replication attempts.
    - arrrg 14y ago
      You and your weird wishes for replication. Not gonna help. Plus, your framing is completely out of whack. You charge in there with your preconceived notions. As far as I can see, the only thing weird or unusual in the data is the speed. It’s not at 54 mph, it’s higher. That’s pretty inexcusable in itself. The rest seem like total non-issues to me. He never said he turned the temperature down at exactly mile so–and–so. The drop in estimated mileage from 90 to 45 actually happened (plus he is not contradicted by Tesla in his claim that customer support told him just driving even if the estimated range is so low would be ok). He did slow down to 45 mph. The explanation of being unable to find the charging stations and circling around is completely coherent and makes lots of sense. (Have you seen photos of those charging stations? They are pretty small.) So, the speed is the only issue here. We can ignore all the rest as FUD from Musk. Sad, really.
      - stcredzero 14y ago
        > You and your weird wishes for replication. The fact that you find replication weird, is weird. It would give me pause if I were in any empirically based project.
        arrrg 14y ago
        There is nothing wrong with replication, it’s just that it’s wholly unable to clear anything up in this case. The main important points of contention aren’t even disagreed over here. Those you could figure out by replication. It’s the interpretation of those results that’s the sticking point here. Some details that cannot be replicated are also disagreed on (heat, circling in parking lot, …), but replication won’t help you find out which is the correct interpretation.
        stcredzero 14y ago
        > There is nothing wrong with replication, it’s just that it’s wholly unable to clear anything up in this case. Sorry, but not only John Broder's intentions are in question here. If a bunch of other journalists replicate the trip, but come out with results more in line with Tesla's view, then this calls into question Broder's accuracy, intent or no. You know, there's an empirical context underlying everything here.
        arrrg 14y ago
        Not really, no. The main questions that could be replicated are not at all disputed. The rest cannot be. Simple as that.
        stcredzero 14y ago
        The "rest" doesn't matter, and a comparative measure of Mr. Broder's accuracy as a reporter can still be established.
        slantyyz 14y ago
    - dfxm12 14y ago
      Exaggerations have no purpose in this type of journalism. This wasn't an opinion piece... Yes, the author can write whatever the author pleases, but it is unethical to not print the truth and it is not unreasonable for readers (and Tesla) to expect the truth (and not exaggeration).
codex 14y ago
The most interesting point on the range graph isn't mentioned in Tesla's repsonse (or anyone else's), which is the huge drop in range overnight at mile 400, fron 80 miles of range to approximately 20. That is the Achilles' heel of the Tesla that caused the car to run out of juice in this (possibly contrived) example.
- wmf 14y ago
  BTW, running out of range and bricking are not the same thing. One requires recharging and the other requires $40,000.
  - codex 14y ago
    Thank you; Google agrees with you. I've changed the wording.
JPKab 14y ago
"Convincing? No. His other chart shows the mile range dipped below zero, which would indicate the car could not move. " Wow, I wish I could be as sloppy and awful at my job as these journalists are. Had he actually bothered to truly read the response he is commenting on, he would see that Musk states that, when the car's range dips below zero, it is running on reserve power. It takes some miles after "zero" for the car to actually stop moving. What a hack. There is truly nothing worse than reading something by someone who has no education in comprehending quantitative data try to critique it. However, I do agree with his statement on the climate control. That was something I noticed when I read Musk's response. Clearly, the Broder turned the heat down, just not as early as he thought/claimed.
- deletes 14y ago
  I was written by a woman actually. :) Can I add on argument 6.: >>No. That wasn't the point of the article. Broder wanted to see how the car would do on a long range road trip relying on Tesla's two official Supercharger stations. << Ok, he wanted to rely on only official stations, but did he really have to completely discharge the car? Why couldn't he just stop and charge when he was super low at any normal charge station, and explain in the article that the two supercharge stations, failed? Well that's because then he couldn't post a nice article titled >>Stalled Out on Tesla’s Electric Highway<<
  - JPKab 14y ago
    Yeah, I've seen journalists trying to defend Broder, acting as if he had zero incentive to have the car die on him. Funny how they say that, yet the article went to the front page of virtually ever link aggreagator out there, while glowing reviews are old news and are thus ignored. Broder knew it, and he wanted the car to die. We all know that. What is in debate here is to what degree he went to make the vehicle die that differs from what an average driver who wants to get to point B would have done.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- davidiach 14y ago
stcredzero 14y ago
This "defense" basically amounts to: See, Broder didn't lie, he exaggerated. That, and the things Broder did to try and get stranded were fair game. In that, they are making valid points, supported by facts. That it's the best they can do is telling. I look forward to replication attempts.
ajross 14y ago
It has to be asked, given the tone and rapidity with which this article went up: what relationship does Rebecca Greenfield (or maybe the editors at The Atlantic) have to Broder? This really feels like a "got your back" kind of thing. Media figures don't, as a general rule, write stories with the sole purpose of knocking down criticism of other media figures.
- untog 14y ago
  Media figures try to write timely articles in an effort to get as many pageviews as possible. This is a perfect example of that phenomenon- I would bet that this will be The Atlantic's most popular article of the week. Sometimes the reality is simpler than the conspiracy.
Kylekramer 14y ago
Article makes a few good points. There has been a lot of "Hurry for data! Boo journalists! Off with the oil shill Broder's head" talk here and elsewhere, but Tesla's data seems too far from an ironclad refutation of the article. The supposed circling would have lasted less than five minutes at 10-15 mph. It is a strictly subjective "he said, she said" situation about whether Tesla did tell Broder that he was good to go in Norwich. And unless the towing company is lying, the car did shut down, contrary to Tesla's claims. There is no clear winner or loser here.
- salimmadjd 14y ago
  Exactly! Musk is trying to get ahead if this story and he is using some well established tactics here, http://photojournalist.quora.com/Ironically-Musk-Tapped-The-Climate-Deniers-Strategy http://photojournalist.quora.com/Ironically-Musk-Tapped-The-...
  - MiguelHudnandez 14y ago
    That is a good point, except he followed up with tangible details relatively quickly. It took a few days for his technies to compile the blog post, but Tesla did provide the data--it's not doubt for doubt's sake. Now that the data is out there, we see the picture is not as clear as either side wants it to be. In hindsight, that's the obvious conclusion. I wish that Broder had been running a few cameras in the car during the whole trip. Then we could have some data to compare against Tesla's. For example, we could correlate the readings from the car's speedometer with video evidence from which we could calculate speed.
karanmg 14y ago
The headline should be updated to begin with "The Atlantic Wire claims..."
- untog 14y ago
  So should the Tesla one, right?
OGinparadise 14y ago
The problem I have with "he made it up": unless you have a computer keeping track of miles, speed and temperature, you are going to be "lying" about it. For example, I could easily say that I was riding at 67 mph but the computer point out that I actually went as high as 72, as low as 52 a lot of the time. Was I lying? Who the hell is going to remember or write about every speed change on a 500 mile trip? Was it a scientific study or a review for the average user to understand? But let's look at the big picture: I, personally, would NOT want a car that is so specific about the speed, cabin temperature and so on, or call a tow truck because the battery died out on you. 45 mph or 52mph, it's the same crap to me. Tesla, thanks to the tracking, may have every tiny detail, but their users generally agreed with the reviewer--at a Tesla site forum no less. Restaurant reviewer: Service was great but the food took an hour to arrive! Restaurant owner: He is a liar, food was on the table with 50 minutes and I have order slips to prove him wrong. Me: underwhelmed at the "evidence," 50min and an hour is essentially the same to me when waiting for food to arrive and I didn't expect the reviewer to hold a chronowatch.
- grecy 14y ago
  > 45 mph or 52mph, it's the same crap to me. In Australia, you'll get a $100 speeding ticket for going 7MPH over the limit. You need to drive more carefully. http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/penalties/speeding.html http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/penalties/speeding.html
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    Next time the New York Times tests a car in Australia, I'm sure your tip will come in handy.
  - tomrod 14y ago
    This is a law I could get behind. People regularly go 15 MPH over where I live--which is unsafe on the specific road I have in mind. The road is not a personal time transport no matter how late you are!
    - 14y ago
gfodor 14y ago
I guess it's time to muddy the waters. The truth is in the middle! Of course, the entire debacle can be summed up with the following exchange: Q: "How many miles did you have left to drive on the final leg?" Broder: "61" Q: "And how many miles did your car tell you that you could travel before recharging?" Broder: "32" Of course, Broder claims that Tesla told him it was OK to leave. I think this is bullshit, but will never know. The fact is he basically was stupid enough to essentially leave a gas station with half a tank when he had a full tanks worth of distance to travel. The only way you would do this is if you want to get stuck. I don't care how scientific you are trying to be, you wouldn't risk being stuck out in the cold with a dead car unless you really wanted that to happen. Why we should take anything this man writes about cars seriously is beyond me.
- fleitz 14y ago
  I'll second this... If he was in death valley, or the arctic with no cell reception, and it was 61 miles to the next station and the car said 32 no sane person would ever begin that journey.
  - dlss 14y ago
    I'll third this. Here are his quotes from the article about Broder's motivation: > [for why he didn't fully charge:] He wanted to show the real world experience of a real driver, who might not want to endure the hour and a half it takes to charge up, when only needing a certain amount of energy to get to point B. > [for why he didn't use any of the non-supercharging stations:] Broder wanted to see how the car would do on a long range road trip relying on Tesla's two official Supercharger stations. These two goals are simply not compatible.
    - makomk 14y ago
      They're entirely compatible. Non-Supercharger stations like the one he stopped at are really, really slow at charging compared to Supercharger ones - we're talking "leave your car overnight" slow here!
  - therandomguy 14y ago
DanBC 14y ago
> Musk accuses Broder of thinking "the facts shouldn’t get in the way of a salacious story" (which is an odd choice of adjective for a car review) The story was "Electric cars suck". Broder is well known for having anti-electric car opinions, so it's not surprising that he would want to write a negative review. Argument 1: The length of the detour is not as important as the type of driving during that detour. Argument 2: "But Broder never claims he turned down his heat at the 182 mile mark." - well, he does claim he turned it down and doesn't mention he had turned it up. People can lie by omission. Argument 3: "But the section before he broke down it does look like he chugged along at a pretty low speed.", perhaps. But not at the 45 mph claimed in the article. Argument 5: "No. His other chart shows the mile range dipped below zero, which would indicate the car could not move." The car has a small reserve. 0 charge would mean "charge the car right now". Argument 5: "Broder also explains that he did not charge fully because of the time it took to charge. He wanted to show the real world experience of a real driver, who might not want to endure the hour and a half it takes to charge up, when only needing a certain amount of energy to get to point B." I hope any real driver would know that a distance of 60 miles would need enough charge for a 60 mile journey, and that giving 30 miles of charge would be a stupid thing to do. Just as if you needed to drive a distance needing 20 gallons you'd be stupid if you only filled with 10 gallons. This article is, frankly, idiotic. All it takes is one person to drive the same journey, but with proper charging, and to release the logs to disprove Broder's points.
- JC001 14y ago
  For Argument 2 and 3, why would he not slow down and turn down the temperature earlier (such as when he claimed to have turned them down). If you already know you don't have sufficient range, why would you not try to be more efficient to extend your range as soon as you can? He knew what to do to make the car more efficient, he just chose not to until he could get the result he desired. I don't fully trust Musk and his counter claims, but this article and the other NYT pieces are obviously very Top Gear in their formulas... Which is very unfortunate for the EC revolution.
- btilly 14y ago
  All it takes is one person to drive the same journey, but with proper charging, and to release the logs to disprove Broder's points. Key point that you need to add. They need to do it in the same weather.
Nathanael47 14y ago
Do people really think that Broder lied about the car dying?
- uvdiv 14y ago
  It's obviously true, because Elon would be contradicting it if it weren't. Which he isn't. Instead he's muddying the issue like so: "As the State of Charge log shows, the Model S battery never ran out of energy at any time, including when Broder called the flatbed truck." (Technically true and useless) Broder's towing company further backs him up: http://jalopnik.com/towing-company-the-nyt-tesla-model-s-was-dead-when-it-196100064 http://jalopnik.com/towing-company-the-nyt-tesla-model-s-was...
- VMG 14y ago
  They think it was easily avoidable.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
adastra 14y ago
The "Norwich Charge" data point is all you need to understand what happened here. Notice how vague Broder is in his original account: "After making arrangements to recharge at the Norwich station, I located the proper adapter in the trunk, plugged in and walked to the only warm place nearby, Butch’s Luncheonette and Breakfast Club, an establishment (smoking allowed) where only members can buy a cup of coffee or a plate of eggs. But the owners let me wait there while the Model S drank its juice. Tesla’s experts said that pumping in a little energy would help restore the power lost overnight as a result of the cold weather, and after an hour they cleared me to resume the trip to Milford." At every previous charge, he noted the exact mileage remaining when he headed out. Why not this time? Because the estimated range when he left that charging station was less than he needed to reach his destination and he knew damn well that that was the case. http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/ratedrangeremaining0.jpg http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/r... (How he convinced the Tesla people to "clear" him at that point is a mystery that hasn't been followed up on by either party.) Later he hand-waves past this by saying he was testing the superchargers, not normal chargers. But the fact is he knew he would run out of charge midway to his destination if he didn't charge the car longer. Instead, he decided to intentionally set up a situation where the car would be stranded. Elon might have been better off concentrating on this point more, rather than some of the smaller inaccuracies. But the data is clear: the reporter was in full control of the situation and manufactured the failure himself.
- codex 14y ago
  Earlier in the article, Broder claims that Tesla blamed the mileage inaccuracies on a computer glitch, and that some battery reconditioning would restore the range lost overnight. So it's not impossible that either he, or Tesla, (or both) believed the mileage readout to be inaccurately low, caused by a bug triggered by low temperature readings. I think the author implies that this was the situation, but it is indeed vague. Unless a transcript of the phone calls is released, this will probably remain a contentious point forever.
  - adastra 14y ago
    That all comes down to what Broder claims someone told him on a phone call. Except he doesn't quote them verbatim and never provides the name(s) of the people he was talking to. Given all that they had at stake, namely a disastrous NY Times review, how likely is it that Tesla would knowingly say "Oh, your reading says 30 miles, but you have more than twice that still to travel? Meh, it's probably just a computer glitch. Carry on." Not bloody likely.
fleitz 14y ago
This is a huge PR win for Tesla, what started out as one NYT review has blossomed into 4 or 5 articles and a he said she said drama.
- VMG 14y ago
  Yeah companies love it when somebody calls their product unreliable and consumers are uncertain. That's what FUD is all about after all!
- spo81rty 14y ago
  There's no such thing as bad press!
onethumb 14y ago
I thought the most convincing part of Elon's post was his 3rd bullet point, which relies on no data outside of the article, and which this Atlantic Wire journalist ignores entirely: "In his article, Broder claims that “the car fell short of its projected range on the final leg.” Then he bizarrely states that the screen showed “Est. remaining range: 32 miles” and the car traveled “51 miles," contradicting his own statement (see images below). The car actually did an admirable job exceeding its projected range. Had he not insisted on doing a nonstop 61-mile trip while staring at a screen that estimated half that range, all would have been well. He constructed a no-win scenario for any vehicle, electric or gasoline." The car said it would go 32. It went 51. Broder claimed this "fell short". Clearly it didn't.
- lawdawg 14y ago
  Actually it did when the car reported 90 the night before and a call to Tesla assured him that a quick charge would "re-calibrate" the system because of a software bug.
  - jessaustin 14y ago
    If his only defense is bad advice from a marketing person, then this reporter has not adequately protected himself in this situation. This was a product review, and if he had used the product in the same way that any other consumer would use it then his only misfortune would have been some extra charging time. It's possible that if he had spent the extra time charging and then reported that, then Tesla and its obstreperous leader would have responded, "don't pay attention to the gauge on the screen, just listen to our marketing dude!" But that wouldn't have reflected as poorly on Broder as the current situation does. This is true even if you assume the best intentions from this reporter: he should know that Tesla is his adversary in his search for the truth and they will not suffer criticism passively. Many on HN and in the general public do not assume the best intentions of any reporter, and in light of that reporters should conduct themselves even more rigorously.
  - knowaveragejoe 14y ago
    Seeing as no-one has heard the phone call, it's hard to say what exactly the Tesla rep assured him of.
stevewilhelm 14y ago
I really want to buy an electric car, but range anxiety keeps me from doing so. Unfortunately, the NYT article doesn't help. The particular facts may be "peculiar," even fabricated, but the overall experience rings true. There are going to be trips that you can do easily today on petrol that would be difficult to do with the state of the art electric car from Tesla. It's time for Tesla and Better Place (betterplace.com) to join forces.
newhouseb 14y ago
> Where Google thinks it's located—we don't know the charging station's exact location No, we do. The photo here is of the northbound charging spots: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/tesla-begins-east-cost-fast-charging-corridor/ http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/tesla-begins-east... Assuming he took the car lane, even if he drove past every single parking spot all the way back out to the road to the highway, he would only cover 0.4 miles. http://goo.gl/maps/VzRjc http://goo.gl/maps/VzRjc
VMG 14y ago
I have the feeling that Musk shot himself in the foot with his original blog post. He accused Broder of a host things, that now are being reduced by some to seemingly critical points to the story while others debate minor points like the point at which the AC was turned on and if Broder missed the charging station or was trying to empty the battery. I think it boils down to this: 1) Does Broders trip represent a typical experience driving a Tesla Model S? 2) Could Broder have avoided running the car down to empty and having it toed?
- eridius 14y ago
  And the answers to that seem to be 1) No, but Broder wants you to think it's yes. 2) Yes, but Broder wants you to think it was no.
frinxor 14y ago
Here's her previous article on the subject 4 days ago: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/02/elon-musks-crusade-against-new-york-times-isnt-helping-tesla/62016/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/02/elon-musks....
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jtchang 14y ago
You know all this Tesla talk makes me actually want to own one now. Sure there is a lot of talk about mileage and charging stations but on the whole it is going to get better. And the more discourse we have the better chance the product will be given a good deal of attention.
danso 14y ago
This whole controversy has been a little depressing to read...not that the Tesla vs. NYT discussions here have been worse than on other forums, but just because it shows how technical minded people are as easily swayed by preconceptions and alliances as more ostensibly non-scientific minds. How many words have been expended in the other HN thread to allege that Broder -- after most have already established that he is a charlatan -- is receiving oblique funding from his Big Oil paymasters? It may very well be that Broder got a swimming pool full of BP-money in his offshore hideaway...but isn't it possible that just maybe, that Elon Musk has a vested interest in advocating for Tesla? Like, just a little bit? It doesn't have to be that Musk is trying to cover up the truth. It could just be that this is his big project and he is overly sensitive to (some of it admittedly unfair) criticism to the point where he'll see malice where there is none. It's possible: bias from sentimental influence is not unheard of in the scientific community. One of the most disappointing things about Musk's response was how he closed it with an out-of-context anecdote: In his own words in an article published last year, this is how Broder felt about electric cars before even seeing the Model S: "Yet the state of the electric car is dismal, the victim of hyped expectations, technological flops, high costs and a hostile political climate.” If you read that article, Broder was clearly referring to the controversy behind the Chevy Volt, which he also compared unfavorably to a "lawnmower". Oh wait, that was Elon Musk who said that: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-05-11/green_sheet/29962038_1_plug-in-hybrids-tesla-s-ceo-chevy-volt http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-05-11/green_sheet/2... So basically, if you think Musk knows what he's talking about, then Broder spoke the truth about the Volt. Yet Musk uses Broder's assessment as a closing statement of damning circumstantial proof that Broder is decidedly anti-electric car. Oh I know, this kind of cheap rhetorical trick is what all politicians and businessmen do, and it's OK if someone we all really admire does it, as long as his heart's in the right place. Maybe so, but I don't think it hurts to be a little more objective towards our heroes and realize that they can be prone to misjudgment too.
- halviti 14y ago
  I've read all the arguments on both sides, and while both have made good points, there is one that stands out. This reporter clearly barely made any attempt at recharging his empty vehicle in Norwich, and then attempted a drive well beyond the car's capabilities, then made the "running out of fuel" his headline. If he would have done this on gasoline, the result would have been the same, and I think that is getting lost in the clutter of all of the other points being made on this subject.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
mikemoka 14y ago
The articles about this event clearly explain in my opinion not who is wrong or right here but how much even the most smart reader's opinion can be guided or misled by what a specific author writes, whether by omissions, incomplete data or other rethorical techniques
nikcub 14y ago
This argument has nothing to do with facts, it is just one journalist attempting to defend another, and you can tell by the language used. For eg. in Argument 3 about cruise control and speeds, she says: But the section before he broke down it does look like he chugged along at a pretty low speed. "It does look like"? This is a graph, it has data points, its not about "looking like" - these points represent facts. At no point in the facts is there proof of cruise control being set at 55mph. She is taking a graph with real data and attempting to re-interpret it to fit the NYTimes story. This is an emotional argument, as with 'oh no, this was actually about testing supercharge stations'.
salman89 14y ago
Regardless of all this, Tesla should look hard at a mapping solution that ties with their onboard sensors - the car can intelligently tell you where to stop and charge and how long to charge for by knowing where you are trying to get and what charging stations are along the way.
lubujackson 14y ago
If you need to bring in graphs to show that someone was going 50 instead of 45 MPH (if the data even matches the speedometer), you've already lost the battle. This is all very aggressive on Musk's part when the overall review still holds up (Tesla cars are bit ahead of the curve for normals). If the log showed gross exaggeration I could see this reaction, but Musk is being a brat and wasting a lot of goodwill. Remember, car reviewers are car reviewers, not QA engineers. Things will go wrong, numbers won't match up exactly. If you want positive coverage, don't post your MPG (or the electric equivalent) with "best case" numbers like a normal gas car. Give yourself some wiggle room. Calling the flatbed tow truck is a pretty bad negative event for a normal car owner who is used to being able to ride on E for a few more miles.
chmars 14y ago
Why not simply doing a retest? Seems easy enough, it's still winterly cold …
AlexeiSadeski 14y ago
Elon's complaints have been silly from the get-go. When a company reviews your car, they don't use the standards which you want them to use. They don't do things precisely as you want them to. Reviewers make mistakes, they are new to the equipment, they don't know everything about your car. And you know what? That's a great thing. Electric cars, specifically, are unique products. They are novel, new (well, technically they've been around for a hundred years, but haven't been common for the past eighty or so). People don't know what to think about them. Average Joe Sixpack from the NYT treating this car as a normal driver would, and providing us his opinion, is a godsend.
aresant 14y ago
"Tesla Motors initially expected to sell at least 5,000 units in 2012 and set a sales target of 20,000." (1) As of January 2013's run rate, it takes GM 72 hours to sell that many cars. (2) How about a comparable luxury target? MB did 305,072 vehicles in 2012, so they do Tesla's sales every 2-weeks. (3) Perfect comps? No way, but still . . . To call Tesla an "early adopters" brand where you're going to run into some bullshit, is an under-statement. I was considering a Model S as my next vehicle, and even if the NYT article is accurate that dissuades me zero percent. I get that this vehicle is going to have some problems - BUT IT'S ELECTRIC AND BIG AND SEXY AND FAST AND NOBODY ELSE HAS ONE! But watching Musk's response to going full-Nerd-Nuclear (without CONCLUSIVE data) to trash a journalist and the institution of the NYT actually does give me pause in wanting to support that brand. In other words, in my personal case (of one person, one piece of data) Musk is damaging Tesla's goodwill more than he's helping it. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S (2) http://www.gm.com/content/gmcom/home/company/investors/sales-production.content_pages_news_us_en_2013_feb_gmsales.~content~gmcom~home~company~investors~sales-production.html http://www.gm.com/content/gmcom/home/company/investors/sales... (3) http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46221 http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46221
- AlexeiSadeski 14y ago
  I hope you're familiar with the costs of battery attrition which accompany owning a pure electric car.
  - jblow 14y ago
    I am, and the answer is: not very much. I own a Roadster, and after 2.5 years of daily driving, my battery capacity is down by 6%. That's not 0%, but it's also not a big deal.
    - AlexeiSadeski 14y ago
      That sounds like an extraordinarily small amount of degradation. Sufficiently small, in fact, that I suspect that your capacity measurements may be off. Capacity should decrease 5-10% per annum, from what I've read.
Ygg2 14y ago
I've got a stupid question. Why doesn't some impartial soul(s), try to recreate exact conditions as Broder describes them in the article? Tell Tesla what you will do, film your trip there. If their experience doesn't match Broder's they should just abuse the car until they recreate the exact condition Broder ended up.
AlexeiSadeski 14y ago
Elon's own arguments are absolutely killing the credibility of electric cars: -Turn the heat down for more range? Who the heck wants to drive around cold in an extremely expensive car? -Drive slowly? Again, what? Elon is simply agreeing with the reviewer's most damning findings: The consumer must make considerable sacrifices - in addition to spending more money - in order to properly use their Tesla car.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
asimjalis 14y ago
Is Tesla allowed log data without informing the users? Will these logs also be generated by cars that people purchase?
gusgordon 14y ago
Elon's argument should have probably been more focused. That doesn't change the fact, though, that there are numerous pieces of evidence showing that Broder expected unreasonable things out of the car, and then blamed the car when it failed.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
InclinedPlane 14y ago
I'm sure there are tons of small nuances and subtle details here, but at the end of the day I'm not sure they matter. The ultimate question is whether or not the NYTimes reporter presented an honest story, and that appears to be far from true. it certainly looks like he went out of his way to try to manufacture a story that isn't reflective of actual experience. But even if that's not the case there's more than enough evidence that he twisted the account and left out crucial details in the service of titilation and excitement rather than factual accuracy. Musk's job is to sell his cars, we accept that he might present things in a manner that is most flattering to his products. That's ok as long as he doesn't outright lie or mislead, we wouldn't expect anything else from any other company. But the reporter's job is to present the truth to his readers, and if he not only fails at that job but goes out of the way to present falsehoods what faith can his readers have in him? At this point, what makes him better than a reporter for a tabloid? Why should anyone believe anything he writes? If a reporter doesn't have a reputation for factual accuracy what good are they? P.S. I'm reminded of Dateline NBC's "investigation" of the GM C/K series pickup trucks. The trucks were fundamentally of an unsafe design, with side mounted external gas tanks. But Dateline's crash tests included adding model rocket engines to ensure that the rupture of the gas tank caused an explosion, without revealing that to the viewers. And that, I think, is the problem here where the reporter was not content to let the facts stand on their own and went to every effort to juice up the story (although not the car). Investigative journalism is a hard job, but when you make that leap and start adding embelishments you are no longer doing journalism you are entertaining.
justin66 14y ago
It's interesting that one of the results of Musk's reaction might be for the next journalist to bring a camera crew. It wouldn't have to be a Top Gear-style hit piece: just record all the phone conversations with Tesla personnel trying to figure out why things are not reading consistently. It's not going to leave a favorable impression.
rjurney 14y ago
A debate with DATA. How wonderful!
malandrew 14y ago
My bet is that John M. Broder made a call to James Bennet (the third person Broder ever followed on Twitter. They have published many things together. e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/13/us/president-s-acquittal-white-house-president-says-he-sorry-seeks-reconciliation.html http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/13/us/president-s-acquittal-w...), who is the Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic. James hasn't tweeted since February 8th, but retweeted John Broder today about 9 hours ago (screenshotted for posterity in case someone following up to blog about this wants it later) https://twitter.com/JBennet https://twitter.com/JBennet This now calls in question the integrity of James Bennet and Rebecca Greenfield. I haven't been able to determine a link between Rebecca and James other than that of subordinate. She's been at the Atlandic since July 2010 and he's been at the Atlantic since 2006. http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=43905376 http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=43905376 https://www.facebook.com/pages/James-Bennet/112357645448306 https://www.facebook.com/pages/James-Bennet/112357645448306 I tried finding the Facebook profiles for these three people to confirm connections, but it doesn't look like their profiles are publicly discoverable. Any journalists care to take on a story of examining the relationships within the third estate here? There's probably a story.
seanp2k2 14y ago
Am I the only one who feels like Musk is doing more to soil the reputation of electric cars than to advance it? It totally sucks that the media is being a bunch of meanies about this stuff, but in many ways, Teslas still aren't practical for unwashed masses. Also, their target market here will probably research this enough that the negative PR won't matter that much. It'll ruin public perception...just like they've done with diesel over the past decades. Now where's my diesel/electric car? Diesel/electric hybrid technology has been around since the first few years of the 1900s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel-electric_transmission#Ships http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel-electric_transmission#Sh... I am not impressed with our "progress".
justin_vanw 14y ago
Musk's rebuttal is too wide reaching. It makes some accusations that the evidence supports, but does not prove. This leaves his rebuttal open to a counter rebuttal, when the whole issue revolves around one facet of the data: The reviewer left Norwich with the car telling him he could travel 32 miles, when he needed to go 62 miles. If he hadn't done that, he would not have had an issue. The atlanticwire article doesn't address this point at all, and how could it? The car said it would go 32 miles. It went more than that, but less than 62. Any reasonable person, needing to go 62 miles, would want the number the car says to be greater than 62, because what kind of idiot tries to go 62 miles with a car with 62 miles of range left? Now, what kind of full on retard tries that with 32 miles left?
stedaniels 14y ago
All The Atlantic Wire "Convincing?" points are rather lame to be honest.
volts 14y ago
I'm impressed that car runs as good as it does. Maybe there's hope after oil! Go Elon!
podperson 14y ago
This article has confirmed crucial aspects of Broder's version with third parties, such as the truck driver who picked up the inert car (it doesn't matter if the battery still has 28% power if the parking brake won't turn off, iirc Priuses also refuse to discharge their batteries below a critical threshold), and used Google Maps to verify other issues (finding the Milford supercharger). I haven't seen anyone attempt to verify actual speeds based on computing the area under the speed graph, but I suspect that this won't help Musk's case. 19/22 (ratio of the wheel size of the car driven and the wheel size specification) is actually the perfect ratio to explain the variation between recorded speeds and reported speeds. Perhaps one is based on GPS and another on wheel rotation. The correct response to this story was: we need to improve our customer service, software, reporting of range (especially w.r.t. temperature) and messaging; customers need to better understand the tradeoffs of gas vs. electric cars, and not claiming a senior NY Times reporter will lie to generate some extra hits on a pretty minor story.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > I haven't seen anyone attempt to verify actual speeds based on computing the area under the speed graph ... Area under the curve -- then that would be to establish average speeds, yes? I think the recorded road distances and travel times would be a simpler way to establish that. > The correct response to this story was: we need to improve our customer service, software, reporting of range (especially w.r.t. temperature) and messaging ... Yes, that would have been a nice alternative to what actually happened. My pet gripe about Tesla in this affair was their advice to Broder to engage in stop-and-go driving as though that would help the car's range (it can't do that, it can only hurt compared to driving at a steady speed).
  - podperson 14y ago
    Area under the curve is distance. (Integral of speed over time is distance.) We know what the actual distances are so the actual distance could be compared to the area under the graph to verify its accuracy.
bborud 14y ago
Shit, this is disappointing. And I was hoping we could announce a villain in this story before the weekend -- and now you tell me that it is more complicated than that? Now I have to go back to being upset about there being horse-meat in lasagna.

379 points by nickheer 14y ago

This article doesn't back itself up. Claims are labelled as 'False' and the evidence presented is 'Google Maps says so'. Maybe Musk's data doesn't add up (I doubt it). If that's the case, present something other than 'I plotted a route in Google Maps and it said 500. QED.'

arrrg 14y ago
Uhm … what do you expect? I thought this was all pretty convincing. What are your complaints?! I really don’t get it. How would you suggest measuring distance? Is Google Maps really not a good tool for doing so? Plus, Google Maps wasn’t really the centerpiece here, for any argument.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  This "defense" basically amounts to: See, Broder didn't lie, he exaggerated. That, and the things Broder did to try and get stranded were fair game. In that, they are making valid points, supported by facts. That it's the best they can do is telling. I look forward to replication attempts.
  - arrrg 14y ago
    You and your weird wishes for replication. Not gonna help. Plus, your framing is completely out of whack. You charge in there with your preconceived notions. As far as I can see, the only thing weird or unusual in the data is the speed. It’s not at 54 mph, it’s higher. That’s pretty inexcusable in itself. The rest seem like total non-issues to me. He never said he turned the temperature down at exactly mile so–and–so. The drop in estimated mileage from 90 to 45 actually happened (plus he is not contradicted by Tesla in his claim that customer support told him just driving even if the estimated range is so low would be ok). He did slow down to 45 mph. The explanation of being unable to find the charging stations and circling around is completely coherent and makes lots of sense. (Have you seen photos of those charging stations? They are pretty small.) So, the speed is the only issue here. We can ignore all the rest as FUD from Musk. Sad, really.
    - stcredzero 14y ago
      > You and your weird wishes for replication. The fact that you find replication weird, is weird. It would give me pause if I were in any empirically based project.
      - arrrg 14y ago
        There is nothing wrong with replication, it’s just that it’s wholly unable to clear anything up in this case. The main important points of contention aren’t even disagreed over here. Those you could figure out by replication. It’s the interpretation of those results that’s the sticking point here. Some details that cannot be replicated are also disagreed on (heat, circling in parking lot, …), but replication won’t help you find out which is the correct interpretation.
        stcredzero 14y ago
        > There is nothing wrong with replication, it’s just that it’s wholly unable to clear anything up in this case. Sorry, but not only John Broder's intentions are in question here. If a bunch of other journalists replicate the trip, but come out with results more in line with Tesla's view, then this calls into question Broder's accuracy, intent or no. You know, there's an empirical context underlying everything here.
        arrrg 14y ago
        Not really, no. The main questions that could be replicated are not at all disputed. The rest cannot be. Simple as that.
        stcredzero 14y ago
        The "rest" doesn't matter, and a comparative measure of Mr. Broder's accuracy as a reporter can still be established.
        slantyyz 14y ago
  - dfxm12 14y ago
    Exaggerations have no purpose in this type of journalism. This wasn't an opinion piece... Yes, the author can write whatever the author pleases, but it is unethical to not print the truth and it is not unreasonable for readers (and Tesla) to expect the truth (and not exaggeration).

codex 14y ago

The most interesting point on the range graph isn't mentioned in Tesla's repsonse (or anyone else's), which is the huge drop in range overnight at mile 400, fron 80 miles of range to approximately 20. That is the Achilles' heel of the Tesla that caused the car to run out of juice in this (possibly contrived) example.

wmf 14y ago
BTW, running out of range and bricking are not the same thing. One requires recharging and the other requires $40,000.
- codex 14y ago
  Thank you; Google agrees with you. I've changed the wording.

JPKab 14y ago

"Convincing? No. His other chart shows the mile range dipped below zero, which would indicate the car could not move. " Wow, I wish I could be as sloppy and awful at my job as these journalists are. Had he actually bothered to truly read the response he is commenting on, he would see that Musk states that, when the car's range dips below zero, it is running on reserve power. It takes some miles after "zero" for the car to actually stop moving. What a hack. There is truly nothing worse than reading something by someone who has no education in comprehending quantitative data try to critique it. However, I do agree with his statement on the climate control. That was something I noticed when I read Musk's response. Clearly, the Broder turned the heat down, just not as early as he thought/claimed.

deletes 14y ago
I was written by a woman actually. :) Can I add on argument 6.: >>No. That wasn't the point of the article. Broder wanted to see how the car would do on a long range road trip relying on Tesla's two official Supercharger stations. << Ok, he wanted to rely on only official stations, but did he really have to completely discharge the car? Why couldn't he just stop and charge when he was super low at any normal charge station, and explain in the article that the two supercharge stations, failed? Well that's because then he couldn't post a nice article titled >>Stalled Out on Tesla’s Electric Highway<<
- JPKab 14y ago
  Yeah, I've seen journalists trying to defend Broder, acting as if he had zero incentive to have the car die on him. Funny how they say that, yet the article went to the front page of virtually ever link aggreagator out there, while glowing reviews are old news and are thus ignored. Broder knew it, and he wanted the car to die. We all know that. What is in debate here is to what degree he went to make the vehicle die that differs from what an average driver who wants to get to point B would have done.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
davidiach 14y ago

stcredzero 14y ago

This "defense" basically amounts to: See, Broder didn't lie, he exaggerated. That, and the things Broder did to try and get stranded were fair game. In that, they are making valid points, supported by facts. That it's the best they can do is telling. I look forward to replication attempts.

ajross 14y ago

It has to be asked, given the tone and rapidity with which this article went up: what relationship does Rebecca Greenfield (or maybe the editors at The Atlantic) have to Broder? This really feels like a "got your back" kind of thing. Media figures don't, as a general rule, write stories with the sole purpose of knocking down criticism of other media figures.

untog 14y ago
Media figures try to write timely articles in an effort to get as many pageviews as possible. This is a perfect example of that phenomenon- I would bet that this will be The Atlantic's most popular article of the week. Sometimes the reality is simpler than the conspiracy.

Kylekramer 14y ago

Article makes a few good points. There has been a lot of "Hurry for data! Boo journalists! Off with the oil shill Broder's head" talk here and elsewhere, but Tesla's data seems too far from an ironclad refutation of the article. The supposed circling would have lasted less than five minutes at 10-15 mph. It is a strictly subjective "he said, she said" situation about whether Tesla did tell Broder that he was good to go in Norwich. And unless the towing company is lying, the car did shut down, contrary to Tesla's claims. There is no clear winner or loser here.

salimmadjd 14y ago
Exactly! Musk is trying to get ahead if this story and he is using some well established tactics here, http://photojournalist.quora.com/Ironically-Musk-Tapped-The-Climate-Deniers-Strategy http://photojournalist.quora.com/Ironically-Musk-Tapped-The-...
- MiguelHudnandez 14y ago
  That is a good point, except he followed up with tangible details relatively quickly. It took a few days for his technies to compile the blog post, but Tesla did provide the data--it's not doubt for doubt's sake. Now that the data is out there, we see the picture is not as clear as either side wants it to be. In hindsight, that's the obvious conclusion. I wish that Broder had been running a few cameras in the car during the whole trip. Then we could have some data to compare against Tesla's. For example, we could correlate the readings from the car's speedometer with video evidence from which we could calculate speed.

karanmg 14y ago

The headline should be updated to begin with "The Atlantic Wire claims..."

untog 14y ago
So should the Tesla one, right?

OGinparadise 14y ago

The problem I have with "he made it up": unless you have a computer keeping track of miles, speed and temperature, you are going to be "lying" about it. For example, I could easily say that I was riding at 67 mph but the computer point out that I actually went as high as 72, as low as 52 a lot of the time. Was I lying? Who the hell is going to remember or write about every speed change on a 500 mile trip? Was it a scientific study or a review for the average user to understand? But let's look at the big picture: I, personally, would NOT want a car that is so specific about the speed, cabin temperature and so on, or call a tow truck because the battery died out on you. 45 mph or 52mph, it's the same crap to me. Tesla, thanks to the tracking, may have every tiny detail, but their users generally agreed with the reviewer--at a Tesla site forum no less. Restaurant reviewer: Service was great but the food took an hour to arrive! Restaurant owner: He is a liar, food was on the table with 50 minutes and I have order slips to prove him wrong. Me: underwhelmed at the "evidence," 50min and an hour is essentially the same to me when waiting for food to arrive and I didn't expect the reviewer to hold a chronowatch.

grecy 14y ago
> 45 mph or 52mph, it's the same crap to me. In Australia, you'll get a $100 speeding ticket for going 7MPH over the limit. You need to drive more carefully. http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/penalties/speeding.html http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/penalties/speeding.html
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  Next time the New York Times tests a car in Australia, I'm sure your tip will come in handy.
- tomrod 14y ago
  This is a law I could get behind. People regularly go 15 MPH over where I live--which is unsafe on the specific road I have in mind. The road is not a personal time transport no matter how late you are!
  - 14y ago

gfodor 14y ago

I guess it's time to muddy the waters. The truth is in the middle! Of course, the entire debacle can be summed up with the following exchange: Q: "How many miles did you have left to drive on the final leg?" Broder: "61" Q: "And how many miles did your car tell you that you could travel before recharging?" Broder: "32" Of course, Broder claims that Tesla told him it was OK to leave. I think this is bullshit, but will never know. The fact is he basically was stupid enough to essentially leave a gas station with half a tank when he had a full tanks worth of distance to travel. The only way you would do this is if you want to get stuck. I don't care how scientific you are trying to be, you wouldn't risk being stuck out in the cold with a dead car unless you really wanted that to happen. Why we should take anything this man writes about cars seriously is beyond me.

fleitz 14y ago
I'll second this... If he was in death valley, or the arctic with no cell reception, and it was 61 miles to the next station and the car said 32 no sane person would ever begin that journey.
- dlss 14y ago
  I'll third this. Here are his quotes from the article about Broder's motivation: > [for why he didn't fully charge:] He wanted to show the real world experience of a real driver, who might not want to endure the hour and a half it takes to charge up, when only needing a certain amount of energy to get to point B. > [for why he didn't use any of the non-supercharging stations:] Broder wanted to see how the car would do on a long range road trip relying on Tesla's two official Supercharger stations. These two goals are simply not compatible.
  - makomk 14y ago
    They're entirely compatible. Non-Supercharger stations like the one he stopped at are really, really slow at charging compared to Supercharger ones - we're talking "leave your car overnight" slow here!
- therandomguy 14y ago

DanBC 14y ago

> Musk accuses Broder of thinking "the facts shouldn’t get in the way of a salacious story" (which is an odd choice of adjective for a car review) The story was "Electric cars suck". Broder is well known for having anti-electric car opinions, so it's not surprising that he would want to write a negative review. Argument 1: The length of the detour is not as important as the type of driving during that detour. Argument 2: "But Broder never claims he turned down his heat at the 182 mile mark." - well, he does claim he turned it down and doesn't mention he had turned it up. People can lie by omission. Argument 3: "But the section before he broke down it does look like he chugged along at a pretty low speed.", perhaps. But not at the 45 mph claimed in the article. Argument 5: "No. His other chart shows the mile range dipped below zero, which would indicate the car could not move." The car has a small reserve. 0 charge would mean "charge the car right now". Argument 5: "Broder also explains that he did not charge fully because of the time it took to charge. He wanted to show the real world experience of a real driver, who might not want to endure the hour and a half it takes to charge up, when only needing a certain amount of energy to get to point B." I hope any real driver would know that a distance of 60 miles would need enough charge for a 60 mile journey, and that giving 30 miles of charge would be a stupid thing to do. Just as if you needed to drive a distance needing 20 gallons you'd be stupid if you only filled with 10 gallons. This article is, frankly, idiotic. All it takes is one person to drive the same journey, but with proper charging, and to release the logs to disprove Broder's points.

JC001 14y ago
For Argument 2 and 3, why would he not slow down and turn down the temperature earlier (such as when he claimed to have turned them down). If you already know you don't have sufficient range, why would you not try to be more efficient to extend your range as soon as you can? He knew what to do to make the car more efficient, he just chose not to until he could get the result he desired. I don't fully trust Musk and his counter claims, but this article and the other NYT pieces are obviously very Top Gear in their formulas... Which is very unfortunate for the EC revolution.
btilly 14y ago
All it takes is one person to drive the same journey, but with proper charging, and to release the logs to disprove Broder's points. Key point that you need to add. They need to do it in the same weather.

Nathanael47 14y ago

Do people really think that Broder lied about the car dying?

uvdiv 14y ago
It's obviously true, because Elon would be contradicting it if it weren't. Which he isn't. Instead he's muddying the issue like so: "As the State of Charge log shows, the Model S battery never ran out of energy at any time, including when Broder called the flatbed truck." (Technically true and useless) Broder's towing company further backs him up: http://jalopnik.com/towing-company-the-nyt-tesla-model-s-was-dead-when-it-196100064 http://jalopnik.com/towing-company-the-nyt-tesla-model-s-was...
VMG 14y ago
They think it was easily avoidable.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

adastra 14y ago

The "Norwich Charge" data point is all you need to understand what happened here. Notice how vague Broder is in his original account: "After making arrangements to recharge at the Norwich station, I located the proper adapter in the trunk, plugged in and walked to the only warm place nearby, Butch’s Luncheonette and Breakfast Club, an establishment (smoking allowed) where only members can buy a cup of coffee or a plate of eggs. But the owners let me wait there while the Model S drank its juice. Tesla’s experts said that pumping in a little energy would help restore the power lost overnight as a result of the cold weather, and after an hour they cleared me to resume the trip to Milford." At every previous charge, he noted the exact mileage remaining when he headed out. Why not this time? Because the estimated range when he left that charging station was less than he needed to reach his destination and he knew damn well that that was the case. http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/ratedrangeremaining0.jpg http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/r... (How he convinced the Tesla people to "clear" him at that point is a mystery that hasn't been followed up on by either party.) Later he hand-waves past this by saying he was testing the superchargers, not normal chargers. But the fact is he knew he would run out of charge midway to his destination if he didn't charge the car longer. Instead, he decided to intentionally set up a situation where the car would be stranded. Elon might have been better off concentrating on this point more, rather than some of the smaller inaccuracies. But the data is clear: the reporter was in full control of the situation and manufactured the failure himself.

codex 14y ago
Earlier in the article, Broder claims that Tesla blamed the mileage inaccuracies on a computer glitch, and that some battery reconditioning would restore the range lost overnight. So it's not impossible that either he, or Tesla, (or both) believed the mileage readout to be inaccurately low, caused by a bug triggered by low temperature readings. I think the author implies that this was the situation, but it is indeed vague. Unless a transcript of the phone calls is released, this will probably remain a contentious point forever.
- adastra 14y ago
  That all comes down to what Broder claims someone told him on a phone call. Except he doesn't quote them verbatim and never provides the name(s) of the people he was talking to. Given all that they had at stake, namely a disastrous NY Times review, how likely is it that Tesla would knowingly say "Oh, your reading says 30 miles, but you have more than twice that still to travel? Meh, it's probably just a computer glitch. Carry on." Not bloody likely.

fleitz 14y ago

This is a huge PR win for Tesla, what started out as one NYT review has blossomed into 4 or 5 articles and a he said she said drama.

VMG 14y ago
Yeah companies love it when somebody calls their product unreliable and consumers are uncertain. That's what FUD is all about after all!
spo81rty 14y ago
There's no such thing as bad press!

onethumb 14y ago

I thought the most convincing part of Elon's post was his 3rd bullet point, which relies on no data outside of the article, and which this Atlantic Wire journalist ignores entirely: "In his article, Broder claims that “the car fell short of its projected range on the final leg.” Then he bizarrely states that the screen showed “Est. remaining range: 32 miles” and the car traveled “51 miles," contradicting his own statement (see images below). The car actually did an admirable job exceeding its projected range. Had he not insisted on doing a nonstop 61-mile trip while staring at a screen that estimated half that range, all would have been well. He constructed a no-win scenario for any vehicle, electric or gasoline." The car said it would go 32. It went 51. Broder claimed this "fell short". Clearly it didn't.

lawdawg 14y ago
Actually it did when the car reported 90 the night before and a call to Tesla assured him that a quick charge would "re-calibrate" the system because of a software bug.
- jessaustin 14y ago
  If his only defense is bad advice from a marketing person, then this reporter has not adequately protected himself in this situation. This was a product review, and if he had used the product in the same way that any other consumer would use it then his only misfortune would have been some extra charging time. It's possible that if he had spent the extra time charging and then reported that, then Tesla and its obstreperous leader would have responded, "don't pay attention to the gauge on the screen, just listen to our marketing dude!" But that wouldn't have reflected as poorly on Broder as the current situation does. This is true even if you assume the best intentions from this reporter: he should know that Tesla is his adversary in his search for the truth and they will not suffer criticism passively. Many on HN and in the general public do not assume the best intentions of any reporter, and in light of that reporters should conduct themselves even more rigorously.
- knowaveragejoe 14y ago
  Seeing as no-one has heard the phone call, it's hard to say what exactly the Tesla rep assured him of.

stevewilhelm 14y ago

I really want to buy an electric car, but range anxiety keeps me from doing so. Unfortunately, the NYT article doesn't help. The particular facts may be "peculiar," even fabricated, but the overall experience rings true. There are going to be trips that you can do easily today on petrol that would be difficult to do with the state of the art electric car from Tesla. It's time for Tesla and Better Place (betterplace.com) to join forces.

newhouseb 14y ago

> Where Google thinks it's located—we don't know the charging station's exact location No, we do. The photo here is of the northbound charging spots: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/tesla-begins-east-cost-fast-charging-corridor/ http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/tesla-begins-east... Assuming he took the car lane, even if he drove past every single parking spot all the way back out to the road to the highway, he would only cover 0.4 miles. http://goo.gl/maps/VzRjc http://goo.gl/maps/VzRjc

VMG 14y ago

I have the feeling that Musk shot himself in the foot with his original blog post. He accused Broder of a host things, that now are being reduced by some to seemingly critical points to the story while others debate minor points like the point at which the AC was turned on and if Broder missed the charging station or was trying to empty the battery. I think it boils down to this: 1) Does Broders trip represent a typical experience driving a Tesla Model S? 2) Could Broder have avoided running the car down to empty and having it toed?

eridius 14y ago
And the answers to that seem to be 1) No, but Broder wants you to think it's yes. 2) Yes, but Broder wants you to think it was no.

frinxor 14y ago

Here's her previous article on the subject 4 days ago: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/02/elon-musks-crusade-against-new-york-times-isnt-helping-tesla/62016/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/02/elon-musks....

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jtchang 14y ago

You know all this Tesla talk makes me actually want to own one now. Sure there is a lot of talk about mileage and charging stations but on the whole it is going to get better. And the more discourse we have the better chance the product will be given a good deal of attention.

danso 14y ago

This whole controversy has been a little depressing to read...not that the Tesla vs. NYT discussions here have been worse than on other forums, but just because it shows how technical minded people are as easily swayed by preconceptions and alliances as more ostensibly non-scientific minds. How many words have been expended in the other HN thread to allege that Broder -- after most have already established that he is a charlatan -- is receiving oblique funding from his Big Oil paymasters? It may very well be that Broder got a swimming pool full of BP-money in his offshore hideaway...but isn't it possible that just maybe, that Elon Musk has a vested interest in advocating for Tesla? Like, just a little bit? It doesn't have to be that Musk is trying to cover up the truth. It could just be that this is his big project and he is overly sensitive to (some of it admittedly unfair) criticism to the point where he'll see malice where there is none. It's possible: bias from sentimental influence is not unheard of in the scientific community. One of the most disappointing things about Musk's response was how he closed it with an out-of-context anecdote: In his own words in an article published last year, this is how Broder felt about electric cars before even seeing the Model S: "Yet the state of the electric car is dismal, the victim of hyped expectations, technological flops, high costs and a hostile political climate.” If you read that article, Broder was clearly referring to the controversy behind the Chevy Volt, which he also compared unfavorably to a "lawnmower". Oh wait, that was Elon Musk who said that: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-05-11/green_sheet/29962038_1_plug-in-hybrids-tesla-s-ceo-chevy-volt http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-05-11/green_sheet/2... So basically, if you think Musk knows what he's talking about, then Broder spoke the truth about the Volt. Yet Musk uses Broder's assessment as a closing statement of damning circumstantial proof that Broder is decidedly anti-electric car. Oh I know, this kind of cheap rhetorical trick is what all politicians and businessmen do, and it's OK if someone we all really admire does it, as long as his heart's in the right place. Maybe so, but I don't think it hurts to be a little more objective towards our heroes and realize that they can be prone to misjudgment too.

halviti 14y ago
I've read all the arguments on both sides, and while both have made good points, there is one that stands out. This reporter clearly barely made any attempt at recharging his empty vehicle in Norwich, and then attempted a drive well beyond the car's capabilities, then made the "running out of fuel" his headline. If he would have done this on gasoline, the result would have been the same, and I think that is getting lost in the clutter of all of the other points being made on this subject.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

mikemoka 14y ago

The articles about this event clearly explain in my opinion not who is wrong or right here but how much even the most smart reader's opinion can be guided or misled by what a specific author writes, whether by omissions, incomplete data or other rethorical techniques

nikcub 14y ago

This argument has nothing to do with facts, it is just one journalist attempting to defend another, and you can tell by the language used. For eg. in Argument 3 about cruise control and speeds, she says: But the section before he broke down it does look like he chugged along at a pretty low speed. "It does look like"? This is a graph, it has data points, its not about "looking like" - these points represent facts. At no point in the facts is there proof of cruise control being set at 55mph. She is taking a graph with real data and attempting to re-interpret it to fit the NYTimes story. This is an emotional argument, as with 'oh no, this was actually about testing supercharge stations'.

salman89 14y ago

Regardless of all this, Tesla should look hard at a mapping solution that ties with their onboard sensors - the car can intelligently tell you where to stop and charge and how long to charge for by knowing where you are trying to get and what charging stations are along the way.

lubujackson 14y ago

If you need to bring in graphs to show that someone was going 50 instead of 45 MPH (if the data even matches the speedometer), you've already lost the battle. This is all very aggressive on Musk's part when the overall review still holds up (Tesla cars are bit ahead of the curve for normals). If the log showed gross exaggeration I could see this reaction, but Musk is being a brat and wasting a lot of goodwill. Remember, car reviewers are car reviewers, not QA engineers. Things will go wrong, numbers won't match up exactly. If you want positive coverage, don't post your MPG (or the electric equivalent) with "best case" numbers like a normal gas car. Give yourself some wiggle room. Calling the flatbed tow truck is a pretty bad negative event for a normal car owner who is used to being able to ride on E for a few more miles.

chmars 14y ago

Why not simply doing a retest? Seems easy enough, it's still winterly cold …

AlexeiSadeski 14y ago

Elon's complaints have been silly from the get-go. When a company reviews your car, they don't use the standards which you want them to use. They don't do things precisely as you want them to. Reviewers make mistakes, they are new to the equipment, they don't know everything about your car. And you know what? That's a great thing. Electric cars, specifically, are unique products. They are novel, new (well, technically they've been around for a hundred years, but haven't been common for the past eighty or so). People don't know what to think about them. Average Joe Sixpack from the NYT treating this car as a normal driver would, and providing us his opinion, is a godsend.

aresant 14y ago

"Tesla Motors initially expected to sell at least 5,000 units in 2012 and set a sales target of 20,000." (1) As of January 2013's run rate, it takes GM 72 hours to sell that many cars. (2) How about a comparable luxury target? MB did 305,072 vehicles in 2012, so they do Tesla's sales every 2-weeks. (3) Perfect comps? No way, but still . . . To call Tesla an "early adopters" brand where you're going to run into some bullshit, is an under-statement. I was considering a Model S as my next vehicle, and even if the NYT article is accurate that dissuades me zero percent. I get that this vehicle is going to have some problems - BUT IT'S ELECTRIC AND BIG AND SEXY AND FAST AND NOBODY ELSE HAS ONE! But watching Musk's response to going full-Nerd-Nuclear (without CONCLUSIVE data) to trash a journalist and the institution of the NYT actually does give me pause in wanting to support that brand. In other words, in my personal case (of one person, one piece of data) Musk is damaging Tesla's goodwill more than he's helping it. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S (2) http://www.gm.com/content/gmcom/home/company/investors/sales-production.content_pages_news_us_en_2013_feb_gmsales.~content~gmcom~home~company~investors~sales-production.html http://www.gm.com/content/gmcom/home/company/investors/sales... (3) http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46221 http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46221

AlexeiSadeski 14y ago
I hope you're familiar with the costs of battery attrition which accompany owning a pure electric car.
- jblow 14y ago
  I am, and the answer is: not very much. I own a Roadster, and after 2.5 years of daily driving, my battery capacity is down by 6%. That's not 0%, but it's also not a big deal.
  - AlexeiSadeski 14y ago
    That sounds like an extraordinarily small amount of degradation. Sufficiently small, in fact, that I suspect that your capacity measurements may be off. Capacity should decrease 5-10% per annum, from what I've read.

Ygg2 14y ago

I've got a stupid question. Why doesn't some impartial soul(s), try to recreate exact conditions as Broder describes them in the article? Tell Tesla what you will do, film your trip there. If their experience doesn't match Broder's they should just abuse the car until they recreate the exact condition Broder ended up.

AlexeiSadeski 14y ago

Elon's own arguments are absolutely killing the credibility of electric cars: -Turn the heat down for more range? Who the heck wants to drive around cold in an extremely expensive car? -Drive slowly? Again, what? Elon is simply agreeing with the reviewer's most damning findings: The consumer must make considerable sacrifices - in addition to spending more money - in order to properly use their Tesla car.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

asimjalis 14y ago

Is Tesla allowed log data without informing the users? Will these logs also be generated by cars that people purchase?

gusgordon 14y ago

Elon's argument should have probably been more focused. That doesn't change the fact, though, that there are numerous pieces of evidence showing that Broder expected unreasonable things out of the car, and then blamed the car when it failed.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

InclinedPlane 14y ago

I'm sure there are tons of small nuances and subtle details here, but at the end of the day I'm not sure they matter. The ultimate question is whether or not the NYTimes reporter presented an honest story, and that appears to be far from true. it certainly looks like he went out of his way to try to manufacture a story that isn't reflective of actual experience. But even if that's not the case there's more than enough evidence that he twisted the account and left out crucial details in the service of titilation and excitement rather than factual accuracy. Musk's job is to sell his cars, we accept that he might present things in a manner that is most flattering to his products. That's ok as long as he doesn't outright lie or mislead, we wouldn't expect anything else from any other company. But the reporter's job is to present the truth to his readers, and if he not only fails at that job but goes out of the way to present falsehoods what faith can his readers have in him? At this point, what makes him better than a reporter for a tabloid? Why should anyone believe anything he writes? If a reporter doesn't have a reputation for factual accuracy what good are they? P.S. I'm reminded of Dateline NBC's "investigation" of the GM C/K series pickup trucks. The trucks were fundamentally of an unsafe design, with side mounted external gas tanks. But Dateline's crash tests included adding model rocket engines to ensure that the rupture of the gas tank caused an explosion, without revealing that to the viewers. And that, I think, is the problem here where the reporter was not content to let the facts stand on their own and went to every effort to juice up the story (although not the car). Investigative journalism is a hard job, but when you make that leap and start adding embelishments you are no longer doing journalism you are entertaining.

justin66 14y ago

It's interesting that one of the results of Musk's reaction might be for the next journalist to bring a camera crew. It wouldn't have to be a Top Gear-style hit piece: just record all the phone conversations with Tesla personnel trying to figure out why things are not reading consistently. It's not going to leave a favorable impression.

rjurney 14y ago

A debate with DATA. How wonderful!

malandrew 14y ago

My bet is that John M. Broder made a call to James Bennet (the third person Broder ever followed on Twitter. They have published many things together. e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/13/us/president-s-acquittal-white-house-president-says-he-sorry-seeks-reconciliation.html http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/13/us/president-s-acquittal-w...), who is the Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic. James hasn't tweeted since February 8th, but retweeted John Broder today about 9 hours ago (screenshotted for posterity in case someone following up to blog about this wants it later) https://twitter.com/JBennet https://twitter.com/JBennet This now calls in question the integrity of James Bennet and Rebecca Greenfield. I haven't been able to determine a link between Rebecca and James other than that of subordinate. She's been at the Atlandic since July 2010 and he's been at the Atlantic since 2006. http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=43905376 http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=43905376 https://www.facebook.com/pages/James-Bennet/112357645448306 https://www.facebook.com/pages/James-Bennet/112357645448306 I tried finding the Facebook profiles for these three people to confirm connections, but it doesn't look like their profiles are publicly discoverable. Any journalists care to take on a story of examining the relationships within the third estate here? There's probably a story.

seanp2k2 14y ago

Am I the only one who feels like Musk is doing more to soil the reputation of electric cars than to advance it? It totally sucks that the media is being a bunch of meanies about this stuff, but in many ways, Teslas still aren't practical for unwashed masses. Also, their target market here will probably research this enough that the negative PR won't matter that much. It'll ruin public perception...just like they've done with diesel over the past decades. Now where's my diesel/electric car? Diesel/electric hybrid technology has been around since the first few years of the 1900s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel-electric_transmission#Ships http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel-electric_transmission#Sh... I am not impressed with our "progress".

justin_vanw 14y ago

Musk's rebuttal is too wide reaching. It makes some accusations that the evidence supports, but does not prove. This leaves his rebuttal open to a counter rebuttal, when the whole issue revolves around one facet of the data: The reviewer left Norwich with the car telling him he could travel 32 miles, when he needed to go 62 miles. If he hadn't done that, he would not have had an issue. The atlanticwire article doesn't address this point at all, and how could it? The car said it would go 32 miles. It went more than that, but less than 62. Any reasonable person, needing to go 62 miles, would want the number the car says to be greater than 62, because what kind of idiot tries to go 62 miles with a car with 62 miles of range left? Now, what kind of full on retard tries that with 32 miles left?

stedaniels 14y ago

All The Atlantic Wire "Convincing?" points are rather lame to be honest.

volts 14y ago

I'm impressed that car runs as good as it does. Maybe there's hope after oil! Go Elon!

podperson 14y ago

This article has confirmed crucial aspects of Broder's version with third parties, such as the truck driver who picked up the inert car (it doesn't matter if the battery still has 28% power if the parking brake won't turn off, iirc Priuses also refuse to discharge their batteries below a critical threshold), and used Google Maps to verify other issues (finding the Milford supercharger). I haven't seen anyone attempt to verify actual speeds based on computing the area under the speed graph, but I suspect that this won't help Musk's case. 19/22 (ratio of the wheel size of the car driven and the wheel size specification) is actually the perfect ratio to explain the variation between recorded speeds and reported speeds. Perhaps one is based on GPS and another on wheel rotation. The correct response to this story was: we need to improve our customer service, software, reporting of range (especially w.r.t. temperature) and messaging; customers need to better understand the tradeoffs of gas vs. electric cars, and not claiming a senior NY Times reporter will lie to generate some extra hits on a pretty minor story.

lutusp 14y ago
> I haven't seen anyone attempt to verify actual speeds based on computing the area under the speed graph ... Area under the curve -- then that would be to establish average speeds, yes? I think the recorded road distances and travel times would be a simpler way to establish that. > The correct response to this story was: we need to improve our customer service, software, reporting of range (especially w.r.t. temperature) and messaging ... Yes, that would have been a nice alternative to what actually happened. My pet gripe about Tesla in this affair was their advice to Broder to engage in stop-and-go driving as though that would help the car's range (it can't do that, it can only hurt compared to driving at a steady speed).
- podperson 14y ago
  Area under the curve is distance. (Integral of speed over time is distance.) We know what the actual distances are so the actual distance could be compared to the area under the graph to verify its accuracy.

bborud 14y ago

Shit, this is disappointing. And I was hoping we could announce a villain in this story before the weekend -- and now you tell me that it is more complicated than that? Now I have to go back to being upset about there being horse-meat in lasagna.