Slashdot Mirror
NY Times' Broder Responds To Tesla's Elon Musk
DocJohn writes "NY Times' John Broder responded to Elon Musk's blog entry. Accused of driving around a parking lot for no reason, for instance, Broder notes he was simply looking for the poorly marked charging station. Worst of all, much of Broder's behavior can be attributed directly to advice he received from Tesla representatives — something Musk fails to mention."
Is it so far fetched to imagine that there isn't a conspiracy, and his bias is just part of who he is? Humans are irrational. They form opinions and become entrenched in them. Millions of people are pretty biased in interpreting politics, not because they are part of some mass conspiracy, they are just stubborn and close minded.
They know exactly what Broder did with the car. It's like your son telling you he didn't visit that porn site when his laptop's IP address is logged by your router as having done so. Seriously, the guy didn't understand the technology he was fucking around with and his lack of credibility is about to be exposed in a big way.
What's most likely is that he's just sloppy and got caught fudging the data. It was a Fake, But Accurate moment, a firecracker in the gas tank moment, or, a Zimmerman tape edit moment
Reported fudge, lie, push the truth to fit their preconceived notions. What his was? Who knows. But he tried to make a stupid point and got caught.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
He's claiming Tesla representatives instructed him to purposefully drive past the reported range then lie about it? That does not sound credible.
BBBZZZZ You both lose. This transcends stupid comments about the Tea Party or saying he's a Lefty. He's a Reporter. He did what Reporters do, distort, mislead, lie. Probably to enhance his reputation and certainly to enhance revenue...look how many clicks NYTs is getting from this.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You must be unaware of the fact that there are very clear instances where bending over for a customer is the worst thing a company can do. This "customer" is in the wrong, regardless if Musk has the personality of a rabid wolverine on PMS.
Was there a GPS logging that could confirm one story or the other? 54 mph vs 60 is quite a big difference on this long of a journey...
The data logging showed speeds as high as 81 MPH. That's hardly limping along at 45 and it's certainly not a "difference in wheel sizes" as the reporter claims. Plus he drove .6 miles in circles mostly at speeds between 10-15 MP while supposed "looking for a charging station". If you didn't find it on your first time circling the small 100 car lot, why wouldn't you just slow down to look for it rather than going in circles around the lot 30-40 times at a speed too fast to carefully look?
Something that Broder also failed to mention in his original article. In my opinion, if you are claiming to review A CAR, and THE CAR says it won't reach your destination, and someone one the phone says go anyway, and you go, and it fails to reach the destination, implying there's something wrong with the car by saying it should have but didn't is either being deliberately misleading or unforgivably stupid. There's no third option.
Clearly, tech support for computers with drivetrains is as stellar as tech support for computers in general, but if Broder is going to blame everything on bad advice, even if every single thing he says is true, it destroys his credibility as a technology reviewer of any kind. That would be no different than doing a review of an operating system and saying "it kept losing all my settings" when in fact what was happening was some tech support person kept telling you to reinstall it from scratch. That's a pretty important thing to mention explicitly. The Tesla didn't just "fail" by Broder's own words it failed because he was told to do dumb things and actually did those dumb things *against the advise of the car itself*.
And that's the best case scenario assuming I take it as a given every single factual statement made by Broder about the test drive is accurate. That doesn't account for why CNN's route replication appears to have been dramatically different.
How is this "Insightful"? Given the low regard that the general public have for reporters, why would they regard the reporter as a customer like them?
Personally, I don't think reporters get called enough on their BS. I am not a big Elon Musk fan (he came across like a baby after the "Top Gear" situation), but his response in this situation raised my opinion of him a couple of notches.
Anyway, in the past, I have observed a strong bias against particular cars in the Automobiles section in the NY Times. There are occasionally very good automotive-related articles there, but, for the most part, I take everything that I read in that section with a grain of salt. Given that NYC is one of the most car-unfriendly cities in the US, I have always wondered why the NY Times even has an Automobiles section.
But there is no real information in this entry. The rebuttal and the rebuttal thereof are more interesting. Reader comments I've seen are very much biased in favor of Mr. Musk, but most of them are based on the logic "he released data, therefore he is right" rather than a look at what actually was released and what it means.
Overall, this is a skirmish about nothing, except that it is very interesting to observe how the public reacts.
So to start, I am totally down with the idea of electric cars; I think that the utility of them around town would outweigh for many people the range problems for longer trips*. I personally try to drive relatively little; I've put an average of well under 5,000 mi/year on my car. I probably shouldn't say this, but Tesla is the answer to "what's your dream car?" security question on some website. Believe me when I say I don't have a bias against electric cars.
(* There was some discussion about this in the previous thread which I almost participated in, but didn't. Ballpark figures for the Tesla seem to be an hour of charge for about every three hours of driving. Personally, this is enough of an increase in stopping time compared to what I currently do on long trips that I really wouldn't want to do a long trip in one.)
But... I've read Musk's comments and both responses on the NY Times blog (ironically I haven't actually read the original article), and to be honest I didn't really find Musk's blog post all that convincing. And this is after a bit of me wanting to see the NY Times review get nailed to the wall.
For instance, Musk claims that the logs show that the heat was turned up when the reporter said he turned it down. But within 20 minutes of the point at which Musk says proves his point, the temperature was turned down -- dramatically. The NY Times article doesn't really give a precise "I turned down the heat at milepost 182"; that's a mileage that Musk seems to have derived from the following quote from the original article:
But Musk doesn't say how he arrived at that number in his blog post; he just asserts that's the point at which the reviewer says. IMO it's not too much of a stretch to think that the above review is imprecise enough that skirting that arrow over just 20 miles to where the temperature was lowered could be what actually happened.
This point in particular sits very poorly with me on Musk's side; I really feel like he was looking for faults with the data hard enough that he was probably prone to find ones that weren't actually there.
Note that I'm not by any means absolving Broder. I think that this story still has a bit more to play out until it reaches its resolution (if it ever does, without phone calls). But I really do feel like the "oh the NY Times got served!" people are really jumping to conclusions, even given Musk's data. I've been burned too many times my assuming things when they looked so clear before.
Speaking as a person who provides support professionally...
Fuck you, fuck the horse you road in on, fuck your mother, your father, your sister, and your dog.
If Musk's people gave the right advice, and he's positive they did, major props to him for standing behind them. I wish more companies out there would be willing to tell off the "customers" who purposely act the fool.
How you treat those above you shows nothing. How you treat those "below" you shows everything.
If you didn't find it on your first time circling the small 100 car lot, why wouldn't you just slow down to look for it rather than going in circles around the lot 30-40 times at a speed too fast to carefully look?
30-40 times? Hah.
My estimate of the perimeter around the main parking lot area is about 500 feet. That would put it at 6-7 times max to get 0.6 miles.
But look: the Tesla charger isn't in that group of parking spaces, it's lower down to the left. Directly in front of the building. (Google helpfully has it marked.) Going around the whole building would take the distance up quite a bit more, depending on what path you follow. (It's not totally clear from there what paths are legal, and there doesn't seem to be street view.) If you got there, drove around the main parking lot a couple times looking for something that wasn't there, went up and down an aisle or two, then found yourself going around the north side of that building, that'd probably be sufficient to hit 0.6 miles.
And furthermore, 0.6 is even an overestimate. Based on Musk's own graphic, that 0.6 includes much of the exit into the service plaza. Just that exit could easily account for 20% of that 0.6 miles.
I'm not saying that Broder is in the right when it comes to the whole story. I think there are a number of unanswered questions, and some parts of his review + Musk's data that are suspicious. But, I also think that a couple part in particular of Musk's post are grasping at straws, and I think "Broder was driving around trying to run the car out of power" is one of them -- I find Broder's explanation way more credible than Musk's pseudo-accusation of sabotage.
Less so for Tesla. Their site doesn't have any external ads, so they're not making anything from ad revenue, and most people can't afford their cars.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
Considering two other reporters from Consumer Reports and Motor Trends drove essentially the same route without any of the problems Broder had, combined with Broder's history of electric car bias and oil friendly articles, I'm much more inclined to believe Musk over Broder.
Musk has not published data, but charts...
Those charts are data. They're representations of time series. Do you think it only counts as data when it's numbers in columns? Then measure the chart, write down the numbers, and make yourself happy.
In this case, I'm way more inclined to trust Tesla. Why? Well they have data, the reporter doesn't. I figure both sides have a reason to make shit up.
Reporters are not someone I truest with facts these days, it is stories. They like to have the big story, and that often means scandal, be it true or false. We have have, many, many times, seen the press neglect evidence in their haste to get a story, omit things that don't fit with their narrative, frame things (pictures in particular) to show what they want, and sometimes outright make shit up.
Now I also figure Tesla has a reason to lie since, after all, they want to sell cars and as such want their cars portrayed in the best possible light. Companies don't want to admit faults of their products if they don't have to.
So given that both sources can be suspect, who do we believe? Well the one with the more credible data. The reporter has nothing but "ummm, the tires were the wrong size" which is a very half-assed explanation. Tesla appears to have rather extensive data logging. Given the choice between data and assertion, I'm inclined to trust the data. Give me some proof it is wrong if you wish to convince me otherwise.
This guy has no credibility, particularly in light of his half-assed response. To me it sounds like he was trying to gin up a sensationalized story, got caught, and now is doing a poor job covering.
What part of releasing the raw logs from the vehicle to dispute a biased at best - outright fabrication at worst - is shooting the messenger?
The guy wrote an outright hit piece against the car. It would have been a damning piece of news, if only it were true.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
And people who love tech enough to build their own computers universally love them. While this reporter may not have had brains, I think his experience more accurately reflects what would happen if you put an electric car in the hands of a non-enthusiast tech-illiterate driver. I've had to do enough tech support for family and friends to know that they'll do all sorts of stupid stuff which is quite obvious to me that they shouldn't do.
The reason Apple is so successful is because they dumb down the tech to the point where those non-enthusiast tech-illiterate users have no problems using it. That's what needs to happen to electric cars before they'll be widely accepted. If the experience of enthusiasts mattered as much as you seem to think, your grandmother would be using Linux on the desktop today. And just like Linux, if you're going to blame problems in using the tech solely on the stupidity of users, it's going to languish at 1% market share.
Personally, I think Broder is a tool who set out to jeopardize the test drive if he could. But at the same time I can't fault him for sensationalizing the problem with charge times and charge rates. That's a huge difference between EVs and ICE vehicles, and it needs to be stressed over and over to the public until it becomes "common sense" that you can't just fill 'er up in 5 minutes like you can with gasoline. The sooner everyone is made aware of that drawback, the sooner it will cease becoming a problem.
And the car salesman doesn't like his half-baked vehicle to be reviewed negatively
How about "Car maker reacts poorly to a supposedly reputable publication putting out blatantly false statements that damage their reputation, having the data to back their complaint up"?
"Half baked" is kind of out in left field here-- the car did better than it should have, but could not complete an impossible task. Did you actually read Musk's blog entry? You know, the one with all of the data backing his "ramblings" up? Or the part where another journalist completed this exact same task with no issues?
Broder's response makes no sense. What rep would EVER suggest
. I was given battery-conservation advice at that time (turn off the cruise control; alternately slow down and speed up to take advantage of regenerative braking)
since both of those are very obviously bad for the battery? What person would believe that advice?
And his explanation for how he came up with 45mph and frigid cabin temperatures when the logs utterly contradict that are lame at best.
You can look at the other points any which way, but this smells of furiously trying to come up with an excuse for a smear attempt.
"...drove the EV something like 2 miles into the heart of a major city with huge traffic congestion issues where it could take 45 minutes to move a mile..."
FTFY
Case in point:
http://gawker.com/5789444/guy-proves-childs-big-wheel-bike-is-faster-transportation-than-a-nyc-bus
A grown man riding a freaking big wheel went one mile in NYC in less time than the city's fleet of buses take to go the same route and distance. He not only beat the bus, he did so by two minutes. On a big wheel. That two miles looks a bit bigger now doesn't it?
But that isn't as much the point, is it? Per Musk's data from the Model S driven, the guy undercharged the car three separate times, sped like a maniac with the heat cranked up, and drove it around in circles in a parking lot trying to kill off the battery. He then responded to the accusations with basically a "nuh uhhhh!" when they had a freaking black box recording every single thing done in the entire vehicle.
This is the kind of crap you catch 10 year olds trying to pull on their parents.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
What happens if it gets unusually cold at night and you weren't watching the weather forecast? Is it OK to call your boss and say that you aren't coming to work today because your $80K car ran out of juice? You would be better off saying that your dog ate the keyfob :-)
As I said in another comment, the reporter planned to travel for 124 miles, and he charged the car for 185 miles. That is 49% margin. What margin *should* he had aimed for, in your opinion? Should I charge for 200 miles if I need to travel only 20 miles? What if I have to park at the airport for three days, what does the discharge chart say? Maybe I should call the tow right from the airplane when I return? People are not always available to immediately tend to the demands of their cars, especially if there are thousands of miles between them, and when business needs may force you to delay return for a few days. A gas car will patiently wait for you, and your boss will pay for the parking ($15 per day, hardly an expense.)
Note that he had 90 miles remaining when he arrived at the hotel. That would be twice as much as needed to return to Milford. The math was correct, until the car was left overnight. Next morning instead of having 200% of the range he was left with 50% at first, and then with 35% ... This same discharge was noted by other reviewers, so there is nothing unique here. Tesla knew about that but never warned the driver. Perhaps EV drivers should be specially trained on care and feeding of their cars. This reporter was not. All this debacle is a clash of wishes of Tesla (that ain't fishes) and casual approach of the reporter who drove an EV as a regular car (which it isn't, being far more fragile and demanding.) It doesn't help that Elon Musk is a thin-skinned person who can never be at fault.