Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

NYT article: Stalled on the EV Highway

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
People will weigh in on all sides. It's not a big deal. What is important is they can't explain away that some owners did the same drive without the same issues as Broder. It pretty much proves his drive was a fraud for anyone that is willing to be informed.

Exactly. Key phrase right there. It's amazing to me the number of people who like to live with blinders on.
 
From 2 days ago but didn't see it posted here ..
Tesla's Elon Musk makes misguided attack on New York Times - IGN

This author also has no clue. Wrong on so many fronts it's tough to dissect.

dsm363, I think your comment [in the comment section of the article] went a long way to refute the article.

Basically one needs to know that the "rated range" displayed is not a promise that the car will drive that far, as it does not consider current driving parameters such as speed and use of climate control.

Broder repeatedly suggested that a Model S owner would expect that to be the case, without actually saying it. It is not the case. And Broder already knew that from experience when he charged in Milford. The 17" display can display the "projected range", based for example (different options) on the last 15 miles real world driving. Broder does not mention it. He acts as if he is able to estimate the car's needed charge, while also acting as if he doesn't know a thing about it.

The other crucial point that the article gets wrong is that it asserts that Broder's article didn't try to test if the Model S could make the trip without running out of power. Thereby it suggests that it would not have been necessary to charge 100%. This is misleading since almost all the serious negativity in the article comes from things that happened only because he didn't get a 100% charge at the Superchargers as he should have, because he didn't charge sufficiently. It's like making a crash test and leaving the reader under the impression it was an accident of the car's fault, and then complaining about all the things that got damaged, individually, as if they all broke by themselves.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps add something like this:

"As I was on the phone with Porsche's product expert, I was told the car need to be repeatedly filled with a liquid called 'gasoline', at one of their new 'gas stations'. When I started pouring gasoline into it, using an awkward and smelly mechanism, a display updated the price (which I was expected to pay immediately) faster than I could think. It quickly reached $20, and I wasn't ready to pay more than that. Given the average income around here, who in their right mind would pay more than that for a single trip? So I made sure to stop this, and pulled a big lever on the handle, but it kept dropping small amounts of gasoline, some of it on my shoes, which I could still smell hours later. Guess what, barely 90 miles later (I assure you I was driving less than 78.5 mph at least at one moment), the car started making funny noises and occasionally stuttered in its mechanical motion to a degree far above the usual vibrations it had all the time. Eventually it ceased functioning, but I could still drive off the highway and come to a stop. Porsche's product expert explained to me on the phone that it must have run out of gasoline, in spite of the horrendous amount I paid for it."

To add a related calculation: The amount you have to pay for the equivalent of one Supercharger charge, in current gas prices, requires most in the US to work more than two hours.
 
I wonder if the Model S records switch settings?

If Broder says he set the Cruise Control at 54 did the MS record that? We all know that a CC setting is the bottom end of speed. A driver can set it and drive any speed over the setting without it changing.
Maybe Broder just heavily sets his foot on the accelerator for miles on end. That way he can honestly say he set the CC at a certain speed and that would explain the mysterious "discrepancy" he mentions.
 
I wonder if the Model S records switch settings?

If Broder says he set the Cruise Control at 54 did the MS record that? We all know that a CC setting is the bottom end of speed. A driver can set it and drive any speed over the setting without it changing.
Maybe Broder just heavily sets his foot on the accelerator for miles on end. That way he can honestly say he set the CC at a certain speed and that would explain the mysterious "discrepancy" he mentions.
If a reporter sets his cruise control at 54 and the steps on the accelerator to average 65 mph, and then "reports" that he had his cruise control set at 54, he should be fired. Regardless of whether it's technically true, engaging in such clear deception should end one's career as a reporter.

Trying to use a 19" vs 21" wheel excuse or a cars can go faster than cruise control downhill excuse is so ridiculously weak it's comical.

Unfortunately, Tesla got so caught up in leveling so many charge against him, that when he can successfully rebut some of the charges, Tesla looks bad, and some of his comically weak excuses get overlooked.
 
I also think that there shouldn't be any difference between what speed is shown to the driver on the display to what is actually recorded for logging. This should come from the same source. So the argument that there might be different tires been used just doesn't hold for me. We are not talking about actual versus displayed speed. We are talking about the speed shown to the driver versus the logged speed. This is completely different. While the displayed speed could be different to the actual driven speed due to measurement errors, tolerances etc. the displayed speed and the logged speed should be the same. If there is a speed of 81mph in the log files it also has been shown as 81mph to the user. I'd be surprised if there is any discrepancy between it. The actual speed might have been different, but that is not the discussion point. I don't quite understand how Broder even can come up with this kind of reasoning.
 
I'm not so sure. I think it accomplished what he set out to do, though probably with much more controversy than he expected.
It's looking like nothing will happen to him and he'll keep his job, so the DB is actually probably pretty pleased with himself. :mad:

I'm pretty sure his editor is mad at him right now. They have to defend him publicly, but they know he screwed the pooch and they don't like anything that messes with NYT's reputation, which this does in spades. His dreams of promotion are likely dashed.

- - - Updated - - -

To add a related calculation: The amount you have to pay for the equivalent of one Supercharger charge, in current gas prices, requires most in the US to work more than two hours.

+1 Great point!
 
To add a related calculation: The amount you have to pay for the equivalent of one Supercharger charge, in current gas prices, requires most in the US to work more than two hours.

I agree. Excellent point, never thought about it like that. 200miles/22mpg=9.09 gallons (9.09*$3.50=$31.81) so could even be more than two hours at work if you do after tax income.
 
I also think that there shouldn't be any difference between what speed is shown to the driver on the display to what is actually recorded for logging. This should come from the same source. So the argument that there might be different tires been used just doesn't hold for me.
Thank you for pointing this out! This was my initial thought when I first read his excuse but I was too lazy to put it down here. Its just too obvious and his talking about tire sizes is too ridiculous to waste time even considering whether our not that should be taken seriously.
 
Here's my question: What were the charge and driving mode settings when the car was delivered to Broder? "Max Charge" and "Range Mode" set to "on"? I hope that Tesla can figure that out. If it was, and he switched it back to "Standard Charge" and "Range Mode" to "off" then that would be damning. He claims that the UI read "Charge Complete" while showing "242 miles".
 
I also think that there shouldn't be any difference between what speed is shown to the driver on the display to what is actually recorded for logging. This should come from the same source.

excellent point!!! I hadn't seen this point in various articles or comments... makes the whole back and forth on this issue moot. To me this is worth your sending into Sullivan's office, [email protected]

Broder writing this smells like the magician waving one hand so we don't see what the other hand has done. I'm glad the NY Times still hasn't said anything... maybe they are giving it the time it needs to put together all these pieces.
 
Last edited:
Is it just me, but the type of charger isn't obvious on the Recargo page: Saybrook Point Inn & Spa - Old Saybrook, CT - Recargo

A level one charger (110 wall current) wouldn't help much. J-1772 covers a lot of ground.

It says J1772 in the text box under the map.
Screenshot_13.jpg
 
It says J1772 in the text box under the map.
View attachment 16760
J-1772 covers a lot of ground. It includes 110 volt 15 amp. That would be a level 1 charger.

You have to be a member to follow the Details/Edit link.

It looks the same on my iPhone.

It's bad page design. The user looking for a charger needs the relevant information ASAP.

Maybe the app is better.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.