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."
Did John Broder think that in a car as sophisticated as the Tesla they wouldn't keep event the simplest of logs? My home router keeps more detail than it took to debunk this story. When I'm 30 miles from stranded my far less sophisticated Volt starts nagging and the Nav system offers "Plot a course to the nearest refueling point?" If you ignore this for half an hour, I assume you run out of gas. I'll never know.
Fake news enthusiasts should probably form a club so they can bounce ideas off one another and prevent embarrassingly weak lies from getting into print. It makes them all look... lame.
The good news is, you can't fake results with a Tesla.
The bad news is, your car can and will tattle on you.
The slope - it is a slippery one.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It gets old when we see so many on the far right wing scream about the MSM when in fact, they are under reporting things, not over reporting.
But now, you have a CAR reporter who cheated for some odd reason. It could be because he was on the take. Or it could be because he needed a story. Regardless, Border needs to go. He has no integrity.
Tesla monitors cars remotely now to warn owners who are in danger of bricking the batteries by not keeping them charged. And while you might ask whether you can trust them not to monitor where you go if you buy a car from them, you should certainly expect them to use the capability if it's THEIR test car and you're writing a review of it.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
Jalopnik called the tow truck company, and they confirmed that not only was the car out of charge, and not only did they need to leave the car on the charger for an extended time because it was so low on charge, but that they were on the phone with a Tesla employee in California, as the electric parking brake was locked, and wouldn't allow the vehicle to move onto the flatbed.
http://jalopnik.com/towing-company-the-nyt-tesla-model-s-was-dead-when-it-196100064
Now, this very well could be the NYT reporting being in bed with the tow truck company, metaphorically speaking, but I think there's more to this than Musk wants to let on.
Musk will print your driving log, and you'll end up getting traffic tickets in the mail.
But, I bet that oil company envelope he got under the table will make his humiliation more palatable.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Why let facts get in the way of a good story?
Anyone who is surprised to see this from a newspaper shouldn't be. They aren't in the business of telling the news - they're in the business of selling papers and putting advertising in front of eyeballs.
Unfortunately.
not to worry, sir, its normal. please type 'ifconfig' and read back its contents for me and I'll check on its next-hop adjacency while you do that.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
That was never an issue. The issue was that Broder did not charge it fully and then ran it down. IOW, the tow truck driver is simply confirming what everybody agrees on.
John Broder works for the New York Times. They don't lie. Who do you trust more, a legitimate journalist or a corporate CEO? Seriously, people.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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.
Sorry but a tow truck company is not a credible source for anything. Additionally that story contradicts itself. The vehicle coasted on a freeway off-ramp but then become unmovable once stopped? ..did I miss a step somewhere?
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
When you're citing a Gawker Media site as a reference, please forgive me if my opinion is not swayed.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
Ten years ago it was the car companies, now it's the automotive press that seems determined to hasten its demise. Sad.
To reduce crime, make fewer things against the law.
Of course Elon has proof to back up his claims. He is the guy behind that car after all. And if his car used pink unicorns, he'd have proof of their existence.
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. Until then, I'll treat everything with skepticism.
I hope they sue the NY Times AND the reporter for libel, because this is what it is. Finally someone designs a mass market electric car with plenty of speed and range, and they get stuck with a fucking liar with his own agenda. The car may be nowhere near perfect, but it's certainly good enough. Once it's produced in quantity I'm sure tweaks will be made. But if this project dies before it's born, we won't see another one till the next billionaire comes along.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
tow truck companies - the most ethical of people on the planet
go of the minut1ae host 3hat the house You can. No, Satan's Dick And
We assumed that the reporter would be fair and impartial, as has been our experience with The New York Times, an organization that prides itself on journalistic integrity.
AHAHAHAHAAAA that's a good one! They think they're better than everyone else and certainly haven't had any journalistic integrity regarding politics (being clearly biased for years now), so why would you expect it for a vehicle review?
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.”
Too bad about that, but at least you zinged him back real good. Orbital high-five good.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Musk is not claiming that the car still had a charge. If you RTFS you'd see that the accusation is that the reporter purposely did not charge the car and that is why it ran out of electricity. This occurred after behavior was logged that appeared to indicate an attempt to drive the car in circles in a parking lot until it died. When that failed, it was minimally charged and driven until it died on the road. Assuming the Tesla data is accurate, it doesn't disagree with your claims from the tow company and there's no reason to think there's anything more to it than what Musk describes.
The vehicle coasted on a freeway off-ramp but then become unmovable once stopped? ..did I miss a step somewhere?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from reading the post above, I'm guessing you missed the part where he put the parking brake on?
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)
How would a tow truck driver know a Model S was out of charge? Most tow truck drivers can't even chew gum and drive at the same time.
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.
Top Gear is a shameless proponent of everything that electric vehicles have to overcome in the marketplace. The devotion to 'performance' in the 1/4 mile, invidious comparison, conspicuous consumption and the glorification of the automobile as a status symbol (see #2) are Top Gear's raison d' etre. If Musk wanted a favorable review, he obviously forgot to guarantee hookers and booze at the end of the 'test drive.'
That's it in a nutshell (as we all know TV to be).
Is nothing to be proud of.
The electric car thing will never work until the power can be taken from the road. Like slot cars.
The alternative to limited government is unlimited government.
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.
Cruise control was never set to 54 mph as claimed in the article, nor did he limp along at 45 mph. Broder in fact drove at speeds from 65 mph to 81 mph for a majority of the trip and at an average cabin temperature setting of 72 F.
At the point in time that he claims to have turned the temperature down, he in fact turned the temperature up to 74 F.
The charge time on his second stop was 47 mins, going from -5 miles (reserve power) to 209 miles of Ideal or 185 miles of EPA Rated Range, not 58 mins as stated in the graphic attached to his article. Had Broder not deliberately turned off the Supercharger at 47 mins and actually spent 58 mins Supercharging, it would have been virtually impossible to run out of energy for the remainder of his stated journey.
Let me get this straight: I can't drive 65 or turn up the heat without having to worry about getting stranded? It takes an hour to refill the thing, and I have to do it three times to drive 600 miles?
Why the fuck would I ever want to buy one of these cars?
That Jalopnik article has since been updated, pointing out how both Musk and Broder could be correct.
UPDATE: A source who has seen the data logs explains how it's possible how Broder and Musk could both be truthful but sort of wrong. The high-voltage battery in the pack, allegedly, had enough power to move the car a much greater distance than needed to move the car onto a flatbed, maybe as far as five miles, but the 12V battery that powers the accessories and gets its juice from the high voltage battery shut down when Broder pulled into the service station.
When Broder decided to turn the car off, which was a mistake, the parking brake (operated by the 12V battery) was rendered unusable. If Broder was told not to turn the car off, it's his mistake. If Tesla told him to do it, or didn't inform him he shouldn't do it, then it's their mistake.
This is not the first story that calls into question the NY Times accuracy/impartiality on tech related news stories.
What scares me about this is:
How much is Tesla implying that the customer is using the car wrong?
Are we really looking at Terms of Service about how you are going to use an automobile you purchased? I know this was a media test drive, but what's to stop Telsa from using their diagnostics to throw you under the bus for speeding if you complain about running out of juice in a remote location "if the customer had been operating the car properly it wouldn't have run out of charge."
Are Tesla owners getting a nanny that will monitor their driving habits and tsk tsk at them when less than optimal driving results and range happen?
I understand the car is very complex, but in the real world stuff happens and you can't assume the conditions or even the actions of the driver are going to be optimal.
The brake isn't held on or off by electric power, because that would be illegal.
What happens is that a surprisingly small electric motor (about the size of an electric window motor) tensions up the perfectly ordinary mechanical handbrake mechanism through a screw jack. The friction of the screw is sufficient to stop the tension in the brake cables slackening it off.
This is pretty common on cars now, for some reason. I think they're fairly horrible to use and make hill starts difficult.
John Broder works for the New York Times. They don't lie.
While the NYT might have a well deserved reputation for quality reporting, it does not follow that employees of that organization never lie or that they never get the facts wrong. I've personally had a reporter from a regional paper do a hatchet job on me when I was a high school athlete based on some joking comments I made. If you think reporters (including those at the NYT) do not approach stories with biases you are being very naive.
Who do you trust more, a legitimate journalist or a corporate CEO?
False dilemma. I trust data. If the journalist can back up his reporting with data and a logical narrative then I will believe him. If he cannot then I will not. Right now we have quite a lot of data on the side of Tesla and rather little from the journalist aside from his narrative. Reporters are not to be trusted any more than anyone else and there are countless examples of reporters tinkering with the "facts" in pursuit of a good story. They provide information but you have to decide if the information is credible.
Not a day goes by that some one says "I did this" or "I did that" and the end result is "I didn't work". Yet going back to a nice log file in fact shows "you didn't do that" and "you actually did this, causing your issue". I'm not sure when people will learn that you cannot lie about what you did when everything you do is logged, but its awesome to point it out when they flat out do and you have the evidence.
Disgraced NYT writers:
Science writer Jonah Lehrer - plagiarism.
Jayson Blair - plagiarism and fabrication of facts.
There are a few more but I'm at work right now. Whether the writers are staff or free-lancers it's irrelevant - the editors should be thorough in grilling their own writers for facts and accuracies. They're supposed to be the gate-keepers.
Why would Broder lie? Who knows. Maybe personal fame for "calling out" a big company, so he can be contracted to write for other organizations. If it was a positive review, it would come off as an ad, and people would forget about it.
People typically remember "investigative" journalism - hit pieces where someone has done wrong. Articles where things go right are often forgotten and delegated to Readers' Digest. Nobody wants to be known for writing "soft" pieces (also known as "fluff").
NYT is the paper where if the reporters aren't making news up whole-cloth then they are probably just uncritically repeating government propaganda. I wonder what they would have to do to lose their reputation as the world's best daily? Even Judith Miller still works as a journalist. Apparently, nobody gives a damn.
The Post Office was doing great until someone made a plan for them switch to electric vehicles.
All of the sudden a bill was pushed through that they had to pre-fund their pensions for complete coverage 75 years in advance and now they're eliminating weekend delivery.
All I'm saying is, the folks at Tesla need to watch their backs.
When the baleful eyes of the oil barons fall on you, well... Sauron has nothing on them.
"Instead of plugging in the car, he drove in circles for over half a mile in a tiny, 100-space parking lot. When the Model S valiantly refused to die, he eventually plugged it in."
Wow. That's pretty damning right there.
When the mud flies, it's a matter of determining who has the most reality on their side. If indeed the tesla folks have logs that prove that what was written was wrong, but a fat out lie, then maybe the tesla folks have ground for a lawsuit, dunno. However, I do know that in times like the ones that we live in, it's important to take into consideration the fact that the only thing stopping a new way of living, for us all, aka progress, is to lie about what's emerging. So that can only really mean that the folks at tesla have a good product that has their competitors freaking the fuck out.
just my .02
There appears to be a reference to his driving at 81mph. Surely that's above the speed limit, so can we look forward to a cop knocking on his door for a fine as well?
Perhaps Broder would like to test drive --- A ROCKET SHIP!!!
Maybe he would refrain from screwing around with the fuel tanks; and if not, problem solved.
The plots show a precipitous drop in charge level around the 400 mile mark that doesn't match the constant discharge slopes elsewhere. The only thing that happened at that time was the temperature increasing from 70F to 75F. It seems odd that at 35% charge the heaters would have that effect when nothing seemed to happen at other times with the temp above 74F.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
The link you posted says the accessory battery could be out of juice while the engine battery still had a bit of charge. Dead batteries can lock the brake on normal cars.
But none of that matters, because the journalist intentionally ran the battery out - never fully recharging, and driving farther than the projected range. It was already past "0 miles left" when it finally gave out. It is irresponsible for him to let the charge run out, nevermind lying about it in a national paper.
I know this is Slashdot but still, RTFA, it has all about Top Gear and everything else you might ask. Maybe Slashdot can ban posting without clicking on a link first?
They are selling them faster than they can make them and it has received spectacular reviews from the automotive press--or at least any automotive press that hadn't already made up their minds that "electric cars suck". This is a car which is more than competitive within its segment (luxury sports sedan). It's just a matter of time until the technology becomes more affordable and trickles down into mass market segments.
It's absurd to claim that electric cars won't be practical until we have fusion reactors when they are clearly practical in some segments today.
You sound like the sad, pathetic curmudgeons who crap on any trans-formative new technology--I'm sure some jackass said the same things about "horseless carriages" at the time. Someday soon you will be just as wrong and just as irrelevant.
There is a simple way to prove it. Have someone else who is acceptable to both NYT and Tesla motors repeat the trip with the following differences;
1. Video the whole trip.
2. Charge to full at each stop.
Compare the logs from both trips and report the results. Let the readers decide who is telling the truth. How about we have more reporters telling the facts and fewer commentators telling us how to think.
can fuel them with grass and they can procreate.
By the way:
Half an hour of supercharge gets you 150 miles. An hour would normally get you about 260 miles.
There is a an update on that Jalopnik article that states "A source who has seen the data logs explains how it's possible how Broder and Musk could both be truthful but sort of wrong."
Evidently the parking brake runs off the 12V accessory system which shut down when the car was turned off at a service station. This locked the parking brake.
1. I can't feed my horseless carriage grass, it needs some special fuel that I can only get a special stations?
2. I can't breed my horseless carriage to make more horseless carriages.
3. It costs how much?!?!?
Why would anyone ever buy one of these things?!?
Sorry but a tow truck company is not a credible source for anything.
And Musk is?
The tow truck company has no vested interest in the success or failure of Tesla.
Musk does. Pity his spurious lawsuits keep getting thrown out of court for some reason, hey?
That's gonna leave a mark.
Hopefully, a bootprint on the rear end of a near-future job seeker.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
-H. L. Mencken
We all want to trust news sources, but it's really just naivete to think that corporate interests don't trump journalistic integrity. They absolutely do. Not just in terms of the actual reporting, which I'll grant you is probably less common. It's far more likely the case in terms of what stories to cover; what stories to bookend on those to produce a particular spin or emotional response; and what advertising to juxtapose with all of that. But I don't think a journalist, even a NYT journalist, is above taking a massively overpaid and cushy job at an oil company a few years after an early exit from journalism in exchange for a one-time unfavorable review.
Journalists are humans and prone to the same failings as the rest of us. Even honest journalists are under the mantle of their news bureau, who in-turn is under the mantle of their parent company. Those parent companies drive the agenda, the story arc, the dialogue, and thusly drive the money back into their pockets. I don't want to be too conspiratorial, but money drives it all.
The NYT does not have a parent company that I'm aware of, but I'm sure the executives rub shoulders with the executives of other large companies and conglomerations (like auto industry and oil execs). That becomes a kind of club where everyone looks out for each other. No one wants to be ostracized because that means less power, influence, and access. We're talking about people with enough of those qualities to effectively end the career of anyone who isn't on-board and hide their hand in it.
OK so maybe that is a bit conspiratorial, but I'm willing to bet there's more than a grain of truth to it.
To answer your question, I don't trust a legitimate journalist any more or less than a corporate CEO. Everyone has an agenda. "Telling the truth" is likely an agenda that only exists in J-School, when you're too young to know that the world is a far darker place than you realized.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
self-worth from their belief that "electric cars suck".
..dick!
Elon Musk, a propaganda artist, is mad because he doesn't get good publicity every time. His credibility is on the same 0-0 scale as Fox News. Note that the reporter did not, in any way, claim that the car ran out of power when he drove it in circles. Next question, are these GPS mph or spedometer MPH. Those do not necessarily match; car spedometer must show the car going the same speed or faster than the car. So if his GPS said 45 and the spedometer said 50, the calibration error exceeds standards, unless rounding error, in which case, it could actually be within DOT standards.
It's funny that Tesla hasn't posted them, or given them to a third party for analysis and review, but has spent a lot of time doing this exhaustive analysis on their blog.
I love the idea of electric cars, I want them to be successful, but this whole things strikes me as a little too much noise and too little actual content. If Tesla thinks he lied make public info that people can look at and assess. He drove in circles? Because you say so? Okay... sure.
I also think some of the points he makes are asinine... driving 54 mph? Not turning the heat to 72f in the winter in an electric car with NO ambient heat source? Yeah, high, welcome to real world conditions. I don't know how hardy these norwegians are, but I don't like driving in 65f, or spending 80 hours driving to my target. Avg speeds in the northeast are about 65-75mph for most folks, if you aren't testing in those conditions you've already failed IMHO.
RT
Jalopnik reached out to the towing company to verify. The Tesla was DOA, along with several other recent developments. It's an interesting read, but it sounds like Elan Musk is full of shit and in full on spin mode.
http://jalopnik.com/towing-company-the-nyt-tesla-model-s-was-dead-when-it-196100064
reviewed the car and verified the range, as has the EPA and the NY Times (a previous NY Times review got 300 miles). Motor Trend named it car of the year as did a number of other companies.
Then shut up.
The supercharge thing is fine on the surface. Park and go get something to eat, come back in an hour. The problem is the graphics I see of them show about 5 chargers. I didn't see any pictures of actual supercharge sites so I could be wrong on the 5, but still, it's a pretty limited number. That means on a massively heavily traveled corridor like I95 a whopping 5 cars an hour can fully charge. I understand that most people charge at night and will seldom need a supercharge. But considering the sheer volume of traffic I have to wonder if you will end up spending 3 hours waiting to supercharge, and 1 actually doing it.
The plot of estimated range vs. miles traveled is particularly interesting... if the range estimation was accurate, the slope while driving should be -1. However, it's pretty consistently around -1.3, with the exception of the section between about 400 and 475 miles (note that the x and y axis scales aren't the same, so you can't just eyeball the line or measure the pixels). I.e., an estimate of 130 miles only gets you about 100 miles of actual driving. Which Broder also noted in his original article: "At 68 miles since recharging, the range had dropped by 85 miles." Why doesn't the estimate adapt to driving conditions and style? In my gas-powered car, the estimated range remaining does seem to take into account the current running average mpg.
In any case, I'm not really interested in what happens after the Milford supercharge (at ~320 miles): he should've charged to completion there, or charged longer at Norwich. The Delaware to Milford supercharge is the portion that's interesting to me. Musk claims that Broder drove the car hard during that section, but I'm not seeing it in the logs. He was going about 60mph during most of that (Musk quibbles that Broder said he set the cruise at 54mph--whatever; neither 54 or 60 are driving the car hard). The slope of the estimated range vs. actual mileage for that section is about -1.25. The distance between the Delaware and Milford stations is 200 (or 202) miles. The estimated range after a 90% charge at Delaware is 242 miles. So factoring in the inaccuracy, an estimated 242 miles translates to an actual 193 miles--not quite enough to reach the destination. And that's while driving below the speed limit.
Then, on the NYTimes' original response to the controversy (at http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/the-charges-are-flying-over-a-test-of-teslas-charging-network/ ) Broder writes:
I drove more than 100 miles below 55 on cruise control to conserve power.Yet the graphic presented by Elon Musk ( http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/speeddistance0.jpg ) of speed vs. distance clearly shows that Broder's statement is false, unless Elon Musk is presenting false data logs. Of course, one possible explanation could be an uncalibrated speedometer, which showed Broder the numbers he wrote in his article. But considering the digital-ness of this fancy-schmancy electric car, I expect that the display is a digital display of speed and that the console speed displayed actually matches the speeds logged and graphed by Musk.
.
Now little things lke "I but the climate control to low at 182 miles" when he really did it at 212 miles (approximately eyeballed by me) which would have seemed like picking at details and mistakes takes on a sadder dirtier note of trying to spin the story the way he wanted it to turn out.
:>(
How sad for the nytimes if Elon Musk's allegations turn out to be true and Broder lied.
One of the most painful things in life is reading ANY output from a well-regarded American writer in either a newspaper or magazine. Uniquely on this planet, these American writers have evolved a writing 'style' solely designed to one end- to make extremely low IQ American readers believe they are reading something 'clever'.
Every word, every method, every narrative device is a well honed con. A real conman knows that words are the ultimate tool. You can sell anything to a significant majority of people, so long as you put forward your phoney argument in the right way.
Reading any American journalism makes me want to puke. The slick oily artifice is hyper-apparent, even in the works of people like Twain and Steinbeck. These are words NOT designed to tell the truth, but to have an emotional effect on the simplistic brains of American readers, regardless of truth.
Now this tradition is so engrained in American journalism, and following it is the ONLY way to gain recognition and reward, that even would-be honest writers learn how to puke out words that follow these 'conman' rules. The embellishments and 'never-happened' first-hand experiences become second-nature to these writers, and most no longer even realise they are doing something problematic. This made-up verbal diarrhea is the ONLY way a US journalist builds a career or earns the glittering prizes.
PS I'm afraid the same applies to science and engineering journalism in most popular US magazines and websites. Lying is just a way of life for successful US writers. It is the Great American Tradition.
After Musk's initial complaint, the Times doubled-down and defended their report as accurate, and then Musk presented this quantitative evidence. Someone at the Times is going to be very pissed with Mr. Broder if Tesla's data stand up to scrutiny.
"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 " -- this really kills any credibility of the nyt author and is clearly evident on the NYT graphic accompanying the original article
that he drove around in circles near a charger, trying to kill the battery is a fair part of the test IMO.
i don't know if he had an agenda, but it was definitely at least partly his decision (whether due to malice, stupidity or laziness) to start a 61 mile drive with 32 miles of indicated range
Of course, I can't prove it until someone with the means to do so conducts a study on the reporter, but it's fairly obvious what's happening here. I see absolutely no other reason to write such a scathing and skewed review of a great car like the Model S. Not to mention that, according to TFA, the reporter tried to run the charge down when the car outperformed what the meters said it would do. I see now way that a big check with a fair deal of 0's was not involved in this.
But what Musk does not describe is how the test vehicles are picked to begin with. It wouldn't be the first time a manufacturer rigged a test for a favorable review. I remember quite a few years ago some video card manufacturers got caught rigging their chipsets to detect when they were being tested and report better numbers. Just the simple fact that he states they rig the cars they give to reporters is enough to question the whole test from the start in my eyes.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Any good tow truck driver has these:http://homytools.com/hydraulic-vehicle-automotive-moving-jack-dolly-hydraulic-car-dolly They let them move vehicles that have their ebrake on and to change cars direction so they can be towed/or if tire is flat and needs to be moved
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
Sure, because the NYT left the charger with 32 miles estimated range and then drove it 51 miles to make sure the battery would actually go flat. Run a gasoline car until the guage reads E, put in a single gallon of gas and drive more than the car's MPG and SURPRISE! you're out of gas. You might even get a tow truck driver to agree that you're out of gas if you ask him to verify it.
But don't try that at home, many gasoline cars don't take kindly to being run out of gas.
Re:Don't be too quick to pass judgement on this one..
.
Please mod parent up, it is not a troll, despite being rated and moderated as a troll! How fucking clueless is it to have a parking brake system that depends on battery power, when every other car has the parking brake as a manual-mechanical linkage to the braking system which allows it to be engaged and disengaged regardless of the battery status of the vehicle? It is silly for tesla to have the parking brakes done this way.
Look at other articles he has written. He is consistently pro-oil and anti-environmentalist.
See: Dirty Hippies get arrested for obstructing the utopian big oil future.
This guy is an oil shill.
Everyone else does, that's what makes the 24 hr (s)news cycle deliver so much snooze-worthy crap!
Broder appears to have posted a response.
It is a solemn thought: dead, the noblest man's meat is inferior to pork.
Go go Musk. Love it ;) Stupid damn paparazzi needs to learn some physics (and common sense). You don't name yourself after one of the worlds greatest scientists unless you mean serious business!
I love logs like these, since they let you fact check both sides. They paint a pretty damning picture when you take them with Tesla's notes, but Tesla's notes are rather one sided and skip some obvious facts that they'd rather ignore but which are plain for all to see. Similarly, Broder's account was clearly sensationalized a bit in various parts, though not in all of the ways that Tesla claims. For instance:
1) The cabin temperature logs Tesla provides have a note saying that Broder turned up the temperature at the 182 mile mark when he claimed he turned it down. If we read the original article, we see that Broder merely mentions having noticed a decreased reported range at the 182 mile mark (114 miles from start + 68 since charge), but he never said he decreased his speed or turned down the heater at that exact time. What we see in the logs is that he did turn up the heater slightly around that time, but very shortly thereafter he turned it down to its lowest setting, exactly as he claimed. If you're looking at the logs, it's easy to spot the deep valleys where he did what he said he did at about the time that he said he did it.
2) Similarly, if you compare the graphs, you'll see that at about the time he dropped his heating down to its lowest setting, his speed also dropped down to around 54 miles per hour, again, as he claimed. That said, he seemed to imply in the article that he maintained that speed for quite some time. What the logs show is that he only maintained that speed for a short period of time, before resuming his typical driving habits that had him in the mid-60s for his speed. He conveniently neglected to mention how long he maintained that speed, leaving it to the reader to assume that he maintained it until his next stop, which was untrue.
3) Tesla disputes the time that Broder claims he spent charging at Milford (the Times' picture claimed 58 minutes, Broder's article says "nearly an hour", but Tesla claims 47 minutes). It's possible this was a simple case of misunderstanding, where he was in the service station for 58 minutes (including the rather shady 5 minutes driving around the lot to seemingly try and kill the battery) but actually only spent 47 minutes charging. Either way, there's no dispute that his range read 185 miles when he stopped charging the car before it was done. Tesla suggests that it's his fault for not charging it to full, even though the reported range was 60 miles greater than what was necessary to reach his next stop.
4) If you look at the logs showing the reported range, you'll see a sudden drop in range of about 50 miles at the 400 mile mark. Broder claimed that the reported range went from 79 miles to 25 miles overnight, which is exactly what the logs show. Tesla doesn't make a point of highlighting that blip in the logs, to say the least. We also see that Broder once again turned his thermostat to an extremely low setting, though the logs do not support his claim that he limped along at 45 miles per hour (though he did slow down quite a bit...maybe he made a typo when meaning to say 54 miles per hour?).
5) Broder never mentions in the article what the estimated range was after his last stop, instead merely saying that "after an hour they [Tesla] cleared me to resume the trip". Since he says he woke up a Tesla official on the west coats to ask for instructions and this was not his scheduled stop, it's quite possible he got someone half-asleep or unfamiliar with the fact that he had stopped at a non-Supercharger station, meaning that they cleared him after the hour that the Supercharger would have taken, rather than the several hours necessary at the station he was at. Either way, he was definitively not charged enough (which he clearly knew), since both Musk's notes and the Times' own map indicate that he had around 32-35 miles of reported range after he had charged, which was nowhere close to the 51 necessary to reach his destination.
Long story short, both sides are trying to spin the facts in their favor. As far as I can tell,
Also makes towing fun.
The brake isn't held on or off by electric power, because that would be illegal.
You got a citation for that?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
This guy thought he was smarter than an entire company that gets paid to be the best at what they do. In the most simplest of terms he was just pwnd by 'Engineering'. It is not something you get to see every day and so I very enjoyed blog article.
However, the top gear review was only entertainment, they don't do 'journalism'. Sure it was crummy for Tesla, but I don't see how anyone can argue TG was outline. If we were to take TG as journalism then I would be lead to believe, that a Bugatti Veyron is faster than the Euro Fighter, a Cobra gunship could never shoot a Dodge Viper, a Toyota Hilux is indestructible, the Stig has a cousin in every country, a boat car can drive/float across the English channel, and the list goes on.
According to Broder's blog on why he drove on low speed in circles:
"She [Tesla employee] said to shut off the cruise control to take advantage of battery regeneration from occasional braking and slowing down. Based on that advice, I was under the impression that stop-and-go driving at low speeds in the city would help, not hurt, my mileage."
And that was the moment when he believed to have invented endless engine.
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/the-charges-are-flying-over-a-test-of-teslas-charging-network/?ref=johnmbroder
I'm sure the NYT will issue a full-page apology, now.
When he first reached our Milford, Connecticut Supercharger, having driven the car hard and after taking an unplanned detour through downtown Manhattan to give his brother a ride, the display said "0 miles remaining." Instead of plugging in the car, he drove in circles for over half a mile in a tiny, 100-space parking lot. When the Model S valiantly refused to die, he eventually plugged it in. On the later legs, it is clear Broder was determined not to be foiled again.
the rated range historesis, charge logs, and cabin environment logs are all available. The speed logs from the vehicle directly contradict any claims made by the reviewer to have 'limped along' at anything less 60. this is an asshole, not a journalist.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Jeremy Clarkson got 17 mpg while driving a Prius, so I can totally see the Tesla Roadster not meeting the expected range on Top Gear.
Musk's post is absolutely damning for three reasons:
1) Millionaires never lie.
2) Logs abso-tively cannot be falsified, massaged, or sexed up
3) Reporting/Logging software never fails. No software fails. Ever.
Is born out to be true...
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3455899&cid=42876871
Great job on Elon Musk's part. I know people were asking for where the evidence is. At this point, I think the NY Times smartest move would be canning the reporter. And publishing an article on the amazing ability of new technology to track and report you movements, and how this could play into future law enforcement. ;-)
And apparently, neither is the New York Times, so now who do we trust?
The car coasted down the off-ramp, then the driver applied the electric parking brake, and the car ran out of charge. How will the electric parking brake, which was holding the vehicle in place, be released, if there's no mechanical linkage that can be operated manually?
Unless they're being paid (the tow truck company, that is), which I covered in my original post. I mean, it's insane for anyone to believe that Musk is above manipulating a graph that he's released to make his baby seem like its failure was the fault of someone else. How many battery failures were there with the roadster?
Since when has Jalopnik been known to be as terrible a news source as their corporate overlords? They're the only blog in that network that is credible in any way, shape, or form. Why? Because they're gearheads that know cars, and in the years that I've been reading, I haven't noticed sensationalism as a normal tool of theirs. That said, every news source should always be thought of as 'in-question' because all writers have a personal agenda, all editors have a personal agenda, and all companies have a corporate agenda. So, please forgive me if your pithy slight against a pretty damn good auto blog is considered meaningless.
and not elon's interpretation of them?
In the 3rd pic the Rated range to distance log.
the 80miles rated range to a sudden drop to 35 would be a WTF moment for me if I was driving this thing, anybody know the scenario that would cause that? It might be legit that he thoguht he had 80 miles
Also the low power charge (not at a super station) does that mean that if we pluged it in for 30 minutes it only gets a about 1mile per minute? So if we needed to go the other 200 miles on the route, it'd be 200 minutes? Though Broder here asserted he charged it for an hour, he did add that if tesla said it would regain its charge lost over night, he might be led to believe that the est 32 might "jump" back up to the original 80 he had as the logs show.
I also thought that batteries should never lose their entire charge, so elon's assertion that the battery never ran dry is probably a fail safe mechanism they put in place after that article a month ago that some guy left his in the airport for 2 months only to find it bricked.
4th pic, the climate control, how many of you guys fiddle with the cabin temperature like the logs said you would?
like you go from 73.5 to 69 to 71 all in a matter of minutes? that assertion just confuses me. What if the clima control just doesn't react as expected?
Also in pic 1, someone want to explain to me what the downline means at the 450 mark? the car was cruising at 50 then hit 0 instantly then went back up to 50? Huh?
Not saying Broder might not have added some sensationalism to tell his story, as people have mentioned "It just works" is kind of boring. But I'm not fully sure about Elon's side either
Agreed. Trying to wring every last joule of electricity out of the battery isn't a bad thing, and it's useful to determine what, if any, safety there is in the 'tank' of the Model S. It's basically the same thing as validating that when your car's trip computer says that you've got 50 miles of gas left, you actually HAVE 50 miles of gas left.
Right, and that's fine. He KNEW it was going to run out of charge. Did he know that the parking brake would be locked, preventing him from getting the vehicle to a charger, once it was dead?
And of course the writer had an agenda. So does Elon Musk. So does every blogger, writer, Slashdot commenter, and editor alive.
Have you ever tried to use a vehicle dolly to move a car onto a flatbed truck? I have. The casters are not big enough to adequately make it onto the flatbed without slipping.
"She says that their records indicate the car's battery pack was completely drained."
What records. All that means is that the call they received for a tow, had a stated reason as "battery drained"
A towing company has no means to test or confirm such. Second, when my wife needed a jump in our 1st generation Prius. She had to argue for 20 minutes that the battery was in the trunk. They couldn't find it. And refused to listen to her. Called a second tow truck operator. Who still was clueless. After 30 minutes of arguing, they listened to my wife. Lo and behold they found the batter in the trunk.
Furthermore, the Tesla Model S is like a 100x beyond my 1st generation Prius. So claiming a tow truck handler had ANY knowledge or understanding other than what the driver told them "battery pack completely dead". Is just BUNK!!!
"(Broder's own report said that the car couldn't be moved because its electric parking brake was stuck in place.)"
I've seen flatbeds tow cards with parking breaks on. They hook the winch and the whole car bounces up and down off the ground as it's dragged. Done every day, hundreds of times.
"12V battery that powers the accessories and gets its juice from the high voltage battery shut down when Broder pulled into the service station."
And why would that battery drain? Just wondering if Mr. Broder is influenced by Tom Beaudette and Motel 6 "We'll leave the lights on for ya!"
http://jalopnik.com/towing-company-the-nyt-tesla-model-s-was-dead-when-it-196100064
I'm not seeing the shilling.
It's clear that Mr. Broder frequently writes on oil and environmental topics, but it seems to me that he's as plausibly pro-electric as anti-electric. Even the one article cited in the Tesla blog response hardly seems anti-electric car; if anything, it's the opposite: it's a story about how companies seem to keep trying to kill electric cars.
Sounds like a dumb design, to use a completely separate battery system for the parking brake, rather than just have a step-down transformer that runs off the existing battery voltage powering it.
How does a dead battery lock the brakes on a normal, gasoline operated vehicle, other than one with an electric parking brake (in which case, a car with a dead battery can always be jump started)?
And it does matter. Tesla wants these cars to replace normal gas operated cars, yet every screen, dial, and component in the car saps power. If the real world range is insufficient to make the vehicle worthwhile for longer distance trips, why would someone in the US buy one, other than 'green cred'?
From the article:
... they had literally written the script before they even received the car (we happened to find a copy of the script on a table while the car was being “tested”). Our car never even had a chance.
Really? The above statement implies that the protested author was foolish enough to carry his article around while he test drove the car, and even was sloppy enough to leave it on a table where anyone could find it. Preposterous!
I do not think I can believe either side on this
You are using ones that are not made for it then. Try going out and spending yoru money wisely on better ones. I have done it plenty of times and with good winch, plus non cheap ones its easy to do. Instead of cheap plastic casters, try the ones with rubber tires..Works just fine
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
Media causes a stir and the company who can benefit most from the stir out-stirs the initial "stirrer" while also creating drama among the internet cattle who just have to take a side. ... and this is in California. We only had a few "cold" nights that month. On the other hand, the S is perfectly fine for daily commute to work if you keep up with the charge. It can be a daily city car , if you can live with the fact that once in a while you have to reboot the damn thing in the morning while you're late for a meeting, or that certain bits and pieces do have a mind of their own once in a while, or that the performance figures are a bit misleading, or that you simply can't buy the car for the advertised prices. .. albeit not for long drives. On the other hand absolutely everything is electronically controlled. So if you like to shift some gears and have some fun on your drive, well too bad so sad. There's also the cram factor. In the back, at least for me, it feels .. umm undersized.
C'mon people, it's not so complicated. There is truth to the initial story. I have a friend with an S and in December he never got the promised range
It is a beautiful car, makes for a comfortable drive in the city and a smooth cruiser on the highway
Model S is exactly what it is advertised to be. A great car for those baby boomers with money who like to pretend they are hip, or their spoiled grand kids, or for trophy wives , or just rich housewives, or boring/smug executives or bored individuals who have nothing to do with their money. Now admittedly I know two decent folks who bought it not because of the smug factor but because they just wanted to have one.
For everybody else who could afford a Tesla S, but like to have more fun driving, there's BMW M5 ( same price, more space, more performance and a lot more fun) or a Jag XFR or even that new fast Caddy.
Anyway, I rambled enough, going back to the point i was originally tried to make, it's funny seeing how people jump on each side so quick without even thinking that the media guy might have made up some things to amplify the impact of his story,or that the new Messiah in town, Musk , with his checkered past when it comes to honesty and truthfulness, might have had his engineering massing the interpretation of the logs. I am not accusing him of doing so but who here was there when they downloaded the logs? Just sayin'.
The bottom line is, this is much ado about nothing. Everybody is defending his piece of the pie.
toodles
There's been mention of the 2/12 response from Broder (previous to Musk's rebuttal), but the first post-rebuttal articles are now showing up:
* http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/conflicting-assertions-over-an-electric-car-test-drive/?smid=tw-share
Plus a general line by line analysis of Musk's comments:
* http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/02/elon-musks-data-doesnt-back-his-claims-new-york-times-fakery/62149/
I'm pretty sure that you would question the test regardless.
"did not, in any way, claim that the car ran out of power when he drove it in circles
No, but he did claim that he didn't drive it in circles, that he didn't take it on a side trip into new york, and that he followed instructions given to him by Tesla employees on where and how much to charge the car.
101k dollars buys me a lifetime of fuel.
Got Code?
Elon Musk case is a weaker than it appears. Good analysis of the data.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/02/elon-musks-data-doesnt-back-his-claims-new-york-times-fakery/62149/
Go google "new york times reporter fake stories." Jayson Blair, Judith Miller. Now this loser. What's of note here is that even tho the NYT got burned, there appears to be no process in place to vet reporters stories, and failing to vet - which can happen - hold the reporter(s) accountable when they do publish knowingly fake stories.
It's worth reading the New York Times article author's response to the accusations which was written before Elon Musk's new blog post with the data. And also remember when this all happened before? I'm not sure who to believe, but I'm not sure why everybody thinks the NYT reporter is blatantly lying but Musk wouldn't fudge the numbers a little. I think some of Musk's response is weak and still dances around some major issues that the reporter had with the car. All the graphs he posted are shown in miles instead of time, which hides some of the problems that the reporter talked about, like going to bed with with a 90 mile charge and waking up and finding the battery with 25 miles.
How much ganja that would have been detected in the cabin air, with an air quality monitor, would be an interesting chart to see.
does not do Tesla any favors.
a 100k car where running the interior temperature at comfortable levels has a detrimental effect on range... wow
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
It's interesting how most, if not all, of the ad hominem attacks on Tesla Motors are done using anonymous accounts. I've read through half the comments for this article now, and some anonymous coward seems determined to throw dirt on Tesla and defend the journalist.
c++;
You know, not that I don't agree that the whole review smells very fishy, but it would help Tesla's (and Musk's) case if logs were released showing these same numbers over *time*. For example, as was pointed out, at 400mi, the internal temperature abruptly went up a bunch, then down again, while the car lost a ton of predicted range without moving.
What happened? Did he turn on the heater and sit in a parking lot for a few hours? Did he leave the car overnight and then come back in the morning to find the charge depleted (the way he claimed) but turned on the heater briefly to warm the cabin then started out anyhow? Did he leave the heater on all night, depleting 2/3 of the car's remaining charge while it was sitting still and unoccupied?
Now, this could be easily determined... if we had logs over time. In fact, a lot of things would benefit from this analysis.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Given all that evidence, it's obvious the reporter did in fact want the car to "break down." I guess he didn't know that every single thing the car did was being tracked. There's no explanation for what he did other than purposely attempting to make the car fail. Lying about turning down the heat to prevent running out of electricity when in fact he turned it up to make it run out faster is just further evidence that it was all premeditated.
You see, this is exactly why I support paywalls for online newspapers. Quality journalism deserves to be rewarded. Insightful and accurate stories will not write themselves for free.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
And the catalytic converter can require replacement if you run the engine dry.
So why don't they show the AA taking the latest hot rod to the manufacturers to have the engine replaced?
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) 1986, Schedule 3, chapter 18:
"(c) in either case, its braking force, when the vehicle is not being driven or is left unattended (and in the case of a trailer, whether the braking force is applied by the driver using the service brakes of the drawing vehicle or by a person standing on the ground in the manner indicated in sub-paragraph (b)) can at all times be maintained in operation by direct mechanical action without the intervention of any hydraulic, electric or pneumatic device and, when so maintained, can hold the vehicle stationary on a gradient of at least 16% without the assistance of stored energy."
There's your citation.
Everything from the Elon's logs align with what John said happened. The "irregularities" in the logs are all reasonably within the measurement variances of the instruments, or within the programming safeties of the car itself. Even the harshest claims by Elon are just restatements of what John wrote, in a more inflammatory manner.
Here's a simple example: Elon claims the car had juice left. This is true -- Li-ION batteries have a limiter to prevent 100% discharge. There's technically juice left in the battery. But it's irrelevent -- that juice can't be used -- because it would damage the battery to use it, and the car won't allow you to use it. A tow truck driver confirmed the car had reached its safety-cut off, and locked the wheels, and had to spend over an hour dragging the car onto a flat-bed. So, Elon lied -- He stated a technical truth that's not accurate to the scenario.
There's tons others -- speed variance between the speedometer and a GPS within normal variance limits for the instruments. Charging to only 28% -- 2-3x the anticipated mileage. It's like buying $5 worth of gas to drive a $2 trip. The logs match what John, the reporter, said happened.
IMHO, the reporter is telling the truth. Elon is making mountains out of molehills to distract us from the truth. And, I read both Articles -- not just talking out my ass like a bunch of commenters here...
You are making it too complicated. Broder is a Reporter. Despite the myth that they are for finding the truth and holding it up to the light, they are actually about selling newspapers and enhancing their own reputation...wait, strike that. Reverse it.
To make matters worse, he is with the NYTs, which has a habit of playing fast and loose with the facts in preference for ideology. Elon Musk is Rich and his cars are for the Rich...at least for the very well to do. Who knows what twisted thinking happens in Broder's brain, but he set out to make the car look bad for his own personal gain.
That's my bet anyway. Will Broder have the guts to respond? Will NYTs management?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
David S. Broder, father of fake "bipartisanship" and "centrism?"
In other words, does hack journalism run in the Broder family?
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Although this evidence does seem to show that the NYT reporter is a liar, one of the most alarming issues was the overnight loss of charge. Broder claimed that his car went from 90 miles range to 25 miles range overnight for no reason.
You can see what looks like exactly this issue in the charts between Milford and Norwich.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I dont think the evidence is damning at all.
the history of car companies is littered with attempts to fake data to make their cars look better than they really are.
why should tesla be any different?
i dont find the logs posted at all convincing. when an independent third party retrieves the logs from the car I would
be willing to listen.
i think it is funny how everyone jumps to defend tesla here, but if something similar occurred with a gasoline powered
vehicle from detroit I don't think the response would be the same at all.
this is not to say that the tesla isn't a good car. i am only saying that there is no independent evidence here. Tesla has
financial motives to lie, so I wouldn't be so quick to side with them.
What, none of you guys have ever faked a log? I'm disappointed in the slashdot crowd.
Most interesting to me is the tow truck driver and the locked parking brake. Would he agree that the battery was dead then?
I'm not too concerned about this, because I'm not likely to be buying a $50k+ car ever. But it is interesting that Tesla won't let a Detroit car reviewer have one:
http://www.freep.com/article/20130214/BUSINESS01/302140060/New-York-Times-Elon-Musk-engage-in-war-of-words-over-Tesla-Model-S?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE
(By Mark Phelan, Detroit Free Press Auto Critic )
" I haven't reviewed a Tesla yet because the company won't make any test vehicles available in Detroit. It has offered me one-hour tests in warm-weather locations like Los Angeles, but nothing local, and no extended trial representative of owning the car. "
No it sounds like a dumb design to use an electrically powered brake on an electric car when a mechanical brake uses no electricity what so ever.
Regardless, Top Gear faked the tests, that's why the results were scripted before they shot the film.
AccountKiller
I have read through both responses and there is no way identify what data is good or bad. For example Musk claims the battery was not fully charged, but the reporter mentioned "Charge complete". Both could be correct in this case. For the speed there could be a disparity between the driver reported speed and what Tesla's system is reporting. That the reporter called Tesla multiple times asking for advice is something Musk ignores while he makes the case for what happened with the data logs. I don't see any reporter taking out another Tesla though without their own recording equipment.
That doesn't seem all that out of character, I think they had a supercar fuel challenge, and various supecars were geting 3-6MPG on track.
I know my m3 gets about 9mpg on track, though my previous VW on the track got about 11-12mpg.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
He drove two lap around a parking lot trying to find the charging station, which was not well lit. 3000 feet. 5 minutes. Have you ever spent that much time in a parking lot looking for a parking spot? Why would Broder lie? I don't know. But I can think of a billion reasons why Musk would.
You need to read this: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/02/elon-musks-data-doesnt-back-his-claims-new-york-times-fakery/62149/
They won't make money from us types, we just sneak around their paywall. NYT is a stupid rag anyway why would anyone pay for it?
I would love to see other papers showing how NYT fabricated this story with the real evidence.
It's not a very good one. I'll leave it to you to figure out why but I'll give you a hint: "NYT"
Also, I wonder what they do about trucks and air brakes.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
They figured out why the emergency break was locked. It was because the key was turned off. Had the key been turned on the car would have rolled onto the flatbed without problem. The same thing occurred when they tried to get the car off the flatbed.
Those numbers must be using the new method? The new method assumes California reformulated gasoline rules, which while great for reducing pollution from cars manufactured before 1981 (when Oxygen sensors became mandatory), tends to reduce the gas mileage by 20% or more.
If it's calculated with the new EPA method, per the above, then that's truly impressive, since on unreformulated gasoline, that'd work out to 70.58 MPG, which puts it slightly under the 72 MPG from the 1992 Honda CRX/HF.
But it's nice to know that it holds the worlds record, even though it should actually have gone to the Honda.
We know the facts in this case and can see how far the news article diverges.
Think of all the times you read a news article about some topic you don't know much about besides what the article tells you - and yet we tend to take those articles at face value.
The handful of times I have known people involved in an event which got reported on in a newspaper, the article often diverged wildly from reality. One time, a murderer was reported as "having been tracked down after a 3-day manhunt" when in reality once he came off his meth high he walked to the nearest police station and handed himself in.
cheap web design
Hi ,I relay impressed to your webpage it’s totally appropriate. As called I bookmarks your site.
Thank you
You still get another could hundred miles on the gasoline engine in a hybrid. But, if you drive to work and back and your round trip is only like 5 miles. You can go pretty much all electric whereas with the conversions your gas costs 1.20 a gallon.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
One company does something wrong, so all companies must do something wrong?
Tesla didn't say they "rig" their vehicles. He did say they add additional logging. They'd be dumb not to.
I see similar things all the time at work. Business folks will fail to perform some action and when questioned about it they'll come up with some excuse about the application wouldn't work, or I didn't get the e-mail. Then we do some investigation and find that the logs tell a different story. Namely that they never even tried to open the application, or that they e-mail they supposedly didn't receive is marked as read and sitting in their deleted items folder in Outlook. People naturally take the path of least resistance, and the path of least resistance is often to blame technology. What they don't realize is that the technology is keeping track of what they're doing and can replay the actual events that took place. In our case, it would be bad form to publicly embarrass an employee by throwing logs on the table and saying they're full of it, but in this case Tesla had nothing to lose by doing so.
I have a Nissan Leaf, total electric. Leases were available for $200/month, $0 down. I was putting $150/month worth of gas in my truck driving it around town. The truck now is parked, waiting to be used as a truck a couple times/month or as a backup vehicle when one of our fleet (2 married kids, my wife, my Leaf - 7 total vehicles) is in the shop. It's a great backup.
I charge the Leaf off 110V in the garage overnight. I plan ahead and charge accordingly. Right now I have 23 miles of charge (checked from my desk using my iPhone), will either run over to a close-by 220V charger after lunch and leave it there until quitting time (for free), or plug it in tonight and be ready for the weekend. My commute is a few miles/day, I can do that and run errands on 1-2 charges/week. I've not seen a noticeable increase in my electric bill in the 5 months I've had it.
Would I buy it as my only car - no, not yet. Would I buy it outright and not lease it - no, not yet. Am I saving money for the next couple years while the technology matures - absolutely.
Would I rather have a Tesla? You bet. Can I justify the cost - no way.
I think you'll find that in the US they have very similar regulations.
Trucks use a bloody great big spring to hold the brake on, and have a complicated system of reservoirs and check valves to ensure that a burst pipe doesn't just instantly lock all the wheels. Buses have an even more complicated system with a sort of a latch thing that holds off the parking brake mechanism.
It's a conspiracy theory! Forget the evidence, The NY Times will debunk it and Anderson Cooper will do a special on it exonerating Broder because electric cars are BS and doomed to go the way of the printed news....Right?
Slashdot is a full day behind on this story. Most of the up-modded comments here were knee-jerk reactions rushing to the support of Elon Musk. Although Musk has been shown to have over-reacted, and he's ended up looking like kind of a cad for the accusations he's made, it's really nothing compared to the caddishness of the people commenting here.
Everything in Top Gear is true. Nothing is ever staged in that show. It is 100% real.
Sarcasm.
That said, I haven't seen the epsoide in question (Canada is several seasons behind :(). Usually it is pretty easy to see that something is being staged in Top Gear. Though they do have a political slant (i.e. cars are great, piss off), so I don't know if they tried to be a bit sneaky or not. Usually it is pretty in cheek however.