Slashdot Mirror
Elon Musk Lays Out His Evidence That NYT Tesla Test Drive Was Staged
mykepredko writes "Tesla Motors CEO and founder Elon Musk definitely isn't the best guy to try to pull a fast one on. The visionary entrepreneur set Twitter a titter when he claimed earlier this week that New York Times writer John Broder had fudged details about the Tesla Models S car's range in cold weather, resulting in what he termed a 'fake' article. Musk promised evidence, and now he has delivered, via the official Tesla blog."
Musk was smart -- the logs don't lie, and they don't jibe with what the reporter said. Now, this was in print, in the new York Times -- I'd be fascinated to have seen the same story reported with in-car cameras. I have a funny feeling it would turn out differently.
And for Top Gear to film a bunch of people pushing the Tesla they were test-driving -- implying that it had run out of go, when in fact it still had some juice left -- that's just rotten. Entertaining TV, but crummy journalism, and cheap.
Maybe they own him.
Being that you actually have to turn this feature on yourself, I'd say that amounts to prior consent...
The Top Gear scam, as admitted by Top Gear's producers, was that they had already decided on the result AND written the script before receiving the vehicles. Yes, it's entertainment, yes I love the show too, and yes, Tesla's response wasn't the greatest (lawsuit subsequently thrown out for legal technicalities despite judge confirming intentional lies by Top Gear), but come on they were presenting a review as if it was a result of testing, not of scripting...
Yeah, the truth from the media? The US has been bought and sold. All of it.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Theory: Broder didn't realize the logging capabilities of the car, and when the Model S' software ui initially supported his internal baises he took liberties with the truth. By "documenting" his experience through Tesla support he attempted to falsely add credence to what would be a traffic generating, "anti-electric" review masked in the journalistic repute of the NYT.
Firstly, all of Broder's excessive winging about the cold weather (I think) was designed to subtly imply that the Model S doesn't work in the cold. You future buyer, will be cold and your car will break. This is why Musk had to address the cold weather link directly in the evidence blog posting.
Secondly. Broder likely couldn't have fathomed that every parameter in the car was being logged. Very specific details add credibility and character to a story. They make the author appear diligent, and one who gives great attention to detail. In the past such details were a "literary tool used to bend the story. Now thanks to data driven engineering words and truth in such matters should align more closely.
Lastly. For a man who may or may not have a bias against electric vehicles (cars at least), the observation that "the estimated range was falling faster than miles were accumulating" at the outset of the author's journey might have set the tone of the coming review. With all the incessant calls to Tesla support to document all the "trouble", Broder had plenty of documentation to support his (what was IMHO a) journalistic malignment. This angle also had the added benefit of generating views for NYT - plus through the courtesy of Tesla arranging a tow - the money shot.
I hope NYT has the ethical chops to do what they must.
(comment posted first at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5220302)
Read the blog post, it takes 2 minutes. He did run out of charge, in fact he KNEW he was going to run out of charge because he took a 61 mile drive with a 32 mile reading on the charge indicator. During that drive he drove past several charging stations.
He also drove around in circles in a parking lot trying to make it run out of juice at one point.
The writer had an agenda, and he should have known they would log the data and prove him a liar. Musk was incensed by the Top Gear article and proclaimed that he would never let a journalist have a car without logging enabled.
Frankly the writer of the article should be fired, this evidence is very damning.
This is a trick question, right? Well, of course it is, you called a reporter for the NYT a legitimate journalist...which of course he is, in the fine tradition of Jayson Blair and Walter Duranty.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Having the brake default to "on" when the battery is dead is a safety engineering issue. Just like in a truck you need air pressure to take the brakes OFF, not to apply them. If the battery fails and the emergency brake is the only thing keeping a car parked on a hill, you want the car to stay where it is. Now I will agree that there is probably a need for some sort of "manual release" that can be used by towing companies.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
A corporate CEO who has data to back his claims.
Also, why would he try to tarnish this car? He doesn't appear to own an oil company.
Could be as simple as page views. A story saying the car doesn't perform as advertised generates a lot more interest than one saying "yep, everything worked as expected." Just like Top Gear did a while back. Of course, I stopped expecting Top Gear to be reliable a while back and now just enjoy it as pure entertainment (which it really is), but this guy pretended to be writing a genuine news story.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
You drive 600mi often? The car is not for you.
Millions of people drive less than 100km a day. The car's for them.
The pathetic complaint that the range is low is funny, because the vast majority of people never make use of the maximum range of their car. If you do, good for you! Just keep using a gas guzzler and shut up.
Yes, there's a loud and large lobby of anti wind, anti solar and anti electric car types out there furiously churning up as much FUD-mud as possible, hurling around accusations and insinuations as quickly as they can wheel them out. Lies and misdirection. The only question is whether it's a real grassroots effort from the genuinely misinformed or a directed public opinion massaging effort. My guess is a healthy combination of the two, particularly because these types will never ever admit they were wrong and will never ever stop arguing.
When I see an unbiased third party do the test - like Consumer Reports or Motor Trend - then I'll take what has to be said seriously.
You may have made that comment sarcastically, but in case you didn't (and for those unfamiliar with the other tests):
From CR: Tesla Model S - The electric car that shatters every myth.
From Motor Trends: 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year: Tesla Model S.
While those two publications aren't perfect, they seem to have way more credibility than Broder.
Musk will print your driving log, and you'll end up getting traffic tickets in the mail.
No.. no. I wont.
Years ago I adopted a foolproof way of avoiding speeding fines; and one that keeps me and everybody around me safer; I simply obey speed limits.
As your driving improves you might discover this secret too.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
Yeah it was probably a global political conspiracy funded by big oil. Not some dumbass from the NYT that wanted a sensational story instead of another, "yeah it works as advertised."
What happened with Top Gear?
They showed what would almost certainly happen in reality, under a given set of circumstances.
However, what with TV production schedules, budgets etc. (and probably not wanting to really push the car all the way back to the hangar) they acted it out, rather than actually driving the car until it turned into a brick on wheels.
In other news, food 'prepared' on cookery shows is probably stone cold and dried to a husk by the time the guests taste it and obediently go 'yum'. The windows behind TV presenters on news shows are added in post-production. When someone uses a phone on TV, even in a documentary, there isn't actually someone on the other end. When you see an interview, unless its actually live, the interviewer has probably re-recorded his side of the conversation after the fact, and the editor has probably cut out a load of 'ums' and 'ers' from the guest's responses.
To summarise - if you see it on TV it has probably been staged somehow. The issue is whether the claims are honest.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Also, why would he try to tarnish this car? He doesn't appear to own an oil company.
Which gets yet-another-nearly-interchangeable-columnist more hits?
Option 1: 'I drove a Tesla S. It takes longer to charge than to pump gas; but is otherwise pretty ok.'
Option 2: "Electric so-called 'supercar' strands writer during epic freezing nighmare journey!"
Writing for the NYT moves at a slower pace than being a blogger and whoring for hits; but is subject to the same basic incentive structures.
And do you remember what the OTHER cars were like in 1971? The Vega well could have been the best of the lot.
"lefties don't like authoritarianism as much" Say what? Authoritarianism is a whole different spectrum from left/right. Communist dictatorships are as lefty as left can be. They're also authoritarian up the wazoo. Fascist dictatorships are as righty as right can be and also authoritarian up the wazoo. And on the other hand, you have anarchists on both sides - radical individualist righty anarchists, and radical collectivist nobody-owns-anything lefty anarchists.
Yeah, those pesky facts and how they bully the liars. Burn facts!
Idiot.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
No, they did not.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/04/top-gear-responds-to-teslas-lawsuit/
1. We never said that the Teslaâ(TM)s true range is only 55 miles, as opposed to their own claim of 211 [Autopia: Actually, Tesla claims 245 for the Roadster], or that it had actually ran out of charge. In the film our actual words were: âoeWe calculated that on our track it would run out after 55 miles.â The first point here is that the track is where we do our tests of sports cars and supercars, as has happened ever since Top Gear existed. This is where cars are driven fast and hard, and since Tesla calls its roadster âoeThe Supercar. Redefinedâ it seemed pretty logical to us that the right test was a track test. The second point is that the figure of 55 miles came not from our heads, but from Teslaâ(TM)s boffins in California. They looked at the data from that car and calculated that, driven hard on our track, it would have a range of 55 miles.
Reputable? Top Gear? Are you high? Have your seen the India special? I love the show, but it is fake as hell.
Tesla might be exaggerating the milage that is no reason others should be going to the other extreme.
Cute. Americans thinking any of their media is 'lefty' is hilarious to the rest of the world.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.