-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Arguing in Circles
- Thread starter Kevin Sharpe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Off Topic
Lots of questions remain about the interpretation of the data that Tesla have published.... releasing the data would allow us to make up our own minds which is important if Tesla want to retain our trust IMO.
- - - Updated - - -
Agreed!
- - - Updated - - -
Many people have the skills required to interpret the raw car data... look at some of the amazing projects from third party's using Tesla or Leaf proprietary data.
It would help me decide who I can trust and for me that's important... I think we all know the Model S has some cold weather issues and I suspect that's what the NYT and Tesla hit up against in the failed drive by Mr Broder. What I can't fathom is how serious this issue is because I no longer know who to trust.
What am I supposed to think when I read this? Upset at Major Headliner Issue. Is this a company I can still trust with my $100K?
Last edited:
NigelM
Recovering Member
1,371 posts on this subject, I think it's been beaten to death guys. Unless there's something new let's not start rehashing.
Please let this go. We all know your position that Tesla is hiding something since they won't release the 'full data'. It's pretty obvious to everyone else what Broder did on this drive but doesn't seem apparent to you.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
If you can't trust the car builder to properly interpret their data why would you trust them to provide you with accurate data? Next you'll demand the actual car so you can extract the data yourself.
Why not ask the Model S drivers who experience it first hand every day, including the ones who recreated Broder's trip successfully? Why is this one car so important to you but the thousands of others are not? The simple issue that Broder ran into was not operating the vehicle properly, including filling it up when he could have. If you don't trust yourself to operate at a higher level of competency than Mr. Broder I'm not sure how you could ever own any vehicle, ICE or EV, since they both require proper fueling and use procedures.
It's apparent that you cannot.
Please let this argument die. Nothing is going to be resolved by rehashing it again and again. Don't make me banish it to Arguing in Circles again.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Some recent updates on this piece of detailed trip analysis... I don't think it's been reported here so is presumably 'new';
The Tesla (Elon Musk) and New York Times (John Broder) Feud
Beavis
Model S Signature 991
NigelM
Recovering Member
Kevin, that's kinda odd seeing as YOU posted about it on March 1st in this very thread!
Just go back a few pages: Arguing-in-Circles/#post287724
For good measure you posted the link a second time 37 minutes later: Arguing-in-Circles/#post287757
And as this was your third time of posting can we safely say it isn't new?
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The fact it's proprietary data is probably why Tesla doesn't want to release it in raw. Before they released the data, I was guessing at what kind of format they would release it in and my conclusion was graphs would be the best way since the public can interpret it and it also gives enough granularity to the data to make clear conclusions without being overwhelming.
And as pointed out, Broder didn't release his raw notes anyways, so why should Tesla release raw data (esp. when the current data is already more granular than anything Broder has released). I suspect if raw data is released all that will result is many more different interpretations (there's already plenty with the current data) as every blogger/commenter puts on their journalist hat (and also log interpreter hat). There would be no further clarification as the unresolved points all lie on Broder's conversations with Tesla reps. We need telephone recordings in order to know those.
Apparently the data released by Tesla is already enough for the blogger you posted to draw very specific conclusions, although I disagree with his conclusion. Tesla's range gauge (even the ideal/rated version) does take into account temperature since if you charge it in cold temperatures the range you get is lower (not 240 miles in standard charge, but something like 237 miles). This is because apparent SOC is lower in cold temperatures (and those numbers are direct mappings of SOC, as I point out below).
What it doesn't take into account is driving conditions and that is actually the correct behavior since those gauges are supposed to be direct maps of SOC using established conditions. Ideal range is 55mph travel at room temperature, no wind, no accessories. Rated range is the EPA cycle. If those numbers vary with conditions it'll turn into a GOM rather than a SOC meter.
And there is a number that does vary with conditions and that's your projected range. If he bothered to look at the manual or played around with the touchscreen (like most owners would have done, the Energy screen is only one click away) he would have known. What Tesla doesn't have is a predictive mode (the projected range is based on history, not on a prediction based on your expect trip ahead), but that will result in something like the GOM in the Leaf (which doesn't have particularly good reviews).
Similar threads
