NYT article: Stalled on the EV Highway

[Ruffone]

A thought or two on the subject...

As we all know in the real world, no two identical items are truly alike. In the automobile world, two people buying the exact same vehicle may have two totally different experiences over the lifetime of their ownership. One may have no problems at all while the other might have issues with the car since day one. And as we also know, must manufacturers will deny there are any issues with their product until their face turns blue. And this is where the government stepped in and created the "Lemon Law". And then look at it from the high tech side of things... How many times are we downloading updates to our phones and or computers due to errors that cause these devices to freeze up or act funny? And now look at all the recent news concerning all the issues with the lithium ion batteries in Boeing's 787... I own several cordless power tools that use lithium ion batteries and they don't perform as well during cold weather, their charge doesn't last nearly as long as it does during warm weather.

There are just too many unknowns to make an educated guess on what the real truth is on this subject... Sure a group of other Model S owners made a similar trip too but, did they follow the NYT's trip down to a "T" during the same weather conditions? Did they think to use the same exact car that the NYT used in their run to truly play out his scenario like any scientist of any worth would do. Sure the CEO of Tesla showed some fancy graphs to prove his point but, why will he not release the entire data log from NYT's trip? I know if it were my company and someone was trying to throw me under the bus I would throw out everything possible to prove them wrong.


What it comes down to is that we are dealing with new technology that has yet to be perfected. Show me any first year release of any new model of any automobile that is released without any snags, there are none. The only way to improve the product is to learn from each and every driver's experience, whether they are experienced EV users or not. Tesla's CEO could have come away looking so much better if he would have looked at this as constructive critism and then talked with the reporter and offered to go with him on another trip. Coming out and calling the article fake and not fully releasing all the information the company has on the trip only makes it look as if he is hiding something...

Don

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

What it comes down to is that we are dealing with new technology that has yet to be perfected. Show me any first year release of any new model of any automobile that is released without any snags, there are none. The only way to improve the product is to learn from each and every driver's experience, whether they are experienced EV users or not. Tesla's CEO could have come away looking so much better if he would have looked at this as constructive critism and then talked with the reporter and offered to go with him on another trip. Coming out and calling the article fake and not fully releasing all the information the company has on the trip only makes it look as if he is hiding something...

+1 (I hope Tesla are listening)

 

[dsm363]

A thought or two on the subject...

As we all know in the real world, no two identical items are truly alike. In the automobile world, two people buying the exact same vehicle may have two totally different experiences over the lifetime of their ownership. One may have no problems at all while the other might have issues with the car since day one. And as we also know, must manufacturers will deny there are any issues with their product until their face turns blue. And this is where the government stepped in and created the "Lemon Law". And then look at it from the high tech side of things... How many times are we downloading updates to our phones and or computers due to errors that cause these devices to freeze up or act funny? And now look at all the recent news concerning all the issues with the lithium ion batteries in Boeing's 787... I own several cordless power tools that use lithium ion batteries and they don't perform as well during cold weather, their charge doesn't last nearly as long as it does during warm weather.

There are just too many unknowns to make an educated guess on what the real truth is on this subject... Sure a group of other Model S owners made a similar trip too but, did they follow the NYT's trip down to a "T" during the same weather conditions? Did they think to use the same exact car that the NYT used in their run to truly play out his scenario like any scientist of any worth would do. Sure the CEO of Tesla showed some fancy graphs to prove his point but, why will he not release the entire data log from NYT's trip? I know if it were my company and someone was trying to throw me under the bus I would throw out everything possible to prove them wrong.


What it comes down to is that we are dealing with new technology that has yet to be perfected. Show me any first year release of any new model of any automobile that is released without any snags, there are none. The only way to improve the product is to learn from each and every driver's experience, whether they are experienced EV users or not. Tesla's CEO could have come away looking so much better if he would have looked at this as constructive critism and then talked with the reporter and offered to go with him on another trip. Coming out and calling the article fake and not fully releasing all the information the company has on the trip only makes it look as if he is hiding something...

Don

Your cordless power drill doesn't have an advanced, liquid controlled battery management system so not a direct comparison. Same with the Boeing battery system. Different Li ion chemistry and pack design I believe. Yes, they didn't drive the exact same car but Broder never bothered to fully charge the car to 100% so by simply doing that, they made the trip possible. Had nothing to do with the cars not being identical.

Tesla's data might have propriety information. I've heard people say they didn't release the full data logs before but what would it accomplish? Either Tesla faked those charts they released that showed Broder lied about his speed and cabin temp or they didn't. If you think they faked the data, they could easily do that for the 'full data logs' as well and people would be saying the same thing then.

Tesla definitely could have taken a softer tone but think they were justified in being upset by the article. Just look at the follow up articles from the NYT and you'll see Tesla was right that they are not playing this down the middle or being objective.

 

[JRP3]

There are just too many unknowns to make an educated guess on what the real truth is on this subject

That is a false statement. We know the prime mover of this failure, the simple fact that the car was never fully charged. Period, end of story. You don't get to claim a product failure when you don't take the basic common sense steps to use it properly. If you never fully charge your drill and it runs out, do you blame the drill, or the cold, or the way you were using it? No.

Sure a group of other Model S owners made a similar trip too but, did they follow the NYT's trip down to a "T" during the same weather conditions? Did they think to use the same exact car that the NYT used in their run to truly play out his scenario like any scientist of any worth would do. Sure the CEO of Tesla showed some fancy graphs to prove his point but, why will he not release the entire data log from NYT's trip?

Again, if the car had been operated as designed, or at least charged properly even once, none of this would have happened. The log data simply show how inaccurate Broder's reporting was, but even if it matched exactly what he said, it cannot erase the problem that he caused by never charging the car properly. That point needs to be hammered home over and over because apparently some people aren't getting it.

What it comes down to is that we are dealing with new technology that has yet to be perfected. Show me any first year release of any new model of any automobile that is released without any snags, there are none.

What new automobile is tested on a long trip without ever being filled up, and then blamed when it runs out? There are none, until now apparently. The only difference is this one is filled with electrons instead of petroleum products. You might want to ask yourself why the selective criteria are being applied.

 

[Al Sherman]

Just look at the follow up articles from the NYT and you'll see Tesla was right that they are not playing this down the middle or being objective.

Exactly. You're arguments are straw men Don. If you don't believe the logs were fake, you can not ignore the fact that the drivers behavior wasw either incredibly stupid, or he intentionally tried to flatbed the car.

 

[Doug_G]

Okay I've just moved the last four pages of this thread to Arguing in Circles in the Off Topic section (and was tempted to move it to snippiness). If you want to continue to go in circles on that argument please do it over there. Sorry if anyone's valid discussions got caught up in it.

 

[Bearman]

Tesla Model S Controversy! Plus Ford SVT Raptor and Sporty Diesels - Wide Open Throttle Episode 54

 

[scriptacus]

Seems like a reasonably fair analysis to me. I especially agree with the following:

"That prominently displaying a "mile range" based upon EPA or ideal estimates, instead of displaying a "mile range" based upon actually projections is, well, incredibly misleading for the driver (especially for someone test driving the car, who does not know the car inside out)."

---
Teslas response regarding raw logs doesn't worry me at all. The format their data was provided in seems adequate because it provided the correct data.

 

[Doug_G]

Okay I've just moved the last four pages of this thread to Arguing in Circles in the Off Topic section (and was tempted to move it to snippiness). If you want to continue to go in circles on that argument please do it over there. Sorry if anyone's valid discussions got caught up in it.

...and again. I've unlocked that thread, so the arguments can continue over there. If you have something new to add here (like the video Bearman posted) then by all means do so.

 

[Kevin Sharpe]

If you have something new to add here (like the video Bearman posted) then by all means do so.

I can't find a link to this article so guess this is new (it was updated today)?

The Tesla (Elon Musk) and New York Times (John Broder) Feud - Understanding the real reasons the Tesla ran out of charge

 

[Doug_G]

Okay, that's new!

 

[Norbert]

Well, a new article but not a new message:

Claim:

A New York Times reporter trusted the range, and as a direct result, ran out of charge on the road — and wrote an article stating that.

Reality:
He already experienced, at least before charging for the third leg, where he charged only 185 miles, that the "rated range" display (unlike the "projected range" display, which he never even mentions) needs to be translated into current driving conditions. It does not consider the cold or speed.

He didn't state that he trusted that specific number as being the "real" range (perhaps carefully avoided doing so), he only suggested to the reader that he should be able to do so. Almost like saying 'I have the right to misinterpret this number'.

 

[stevezzzz]

I can't find a link to this article so guess this is new (it was updated today)?

The Tesla (Elon Musk) and New York Times (John Broder) Feud - Understanding the real reasons the Tesla ran out of charge

The blogger makes a number of fair points on both sides of the ledger sheet, but he also makes too many errors* to be completely credible.


*Note I said 'errors', not 'stupid mistakes' or 'malicious intent'.

 

[Krugerrand]

I have to agree with Norbert.

We're suppose to believe that Mr. Broder doesn't have the capacity to learn like any average intelligent human being? That he couldn't extrapolate along his journey that the displayed rated range wasn't necessarily indicative of how far he could actually drive based on conditions and his own style of driving? Really? Please. Don't make Mr. Broder out to be an individual of uncommonly low IQ, he's already dealing with enough questions about his journalist integrity.

Mr. Sharpe, at this point I can only conclude that you're being purposely obtuse.

 

[dsm363]

If you've seen Shawshank Redemption, calling someone obtuse can lead to trouble.

 

[brianman]

I can't find a link to this article so guess this is new (it was updated today)?

The Tesla (Elon Musk) and New York Times (John Broder) Feud - Understanding the real reasons the Tesla ran out of charge

All it takes is one (significant) lie to call an entire "news" article to be called into question. For me, the cruise control issue is still stuck in my craw.

In the MPH chart under "8. The time-based charts - entire trip" where is the 54mph cruise control period? The chart is simply way too spiky to align with known Model S cruise control behavior. Nonetheless, if you discount that the only loosely compatible period begins around the 7 hour mark. Does that align with the timeframe presented by Mr. Broder?

 

[Norbert]

The blogger makes a number of fair points on both sides of the ledger sheet, but he also makes too many errors* to be completely credible.


*Note I said 'errors', not 'stupid mistakes' or 'malicious intent'.

Yes, for example in "12. The shocking truth", the blog claims he could have made it, had he driven directly back in the morning. (BTW, I doubt the distance Groton -> Milford was really only 46 miles, though those specs are generally quite confusing.)

Perhaps that might be true, but that calculation included using the 'reserve' and would have come far closer to zero than one should risk.

The "shocking truth" is simply that he didn't have enough charge to leave any reasonable safety margin. In the graph there, the red diagonal line starting at ~320 miles confirms this: Had he continued driving in the night before, he had arrived with about the same range, so only a surplus of about 20 miles (the detour to Norwich), barely the missed distance to Milford. So, it appears, had he continued driving the night before (instead of spending the night at the hotel), he might have arrived in Milford, but with almost no (if any) remaining range. He simply didn't charge enough.

(Which, BTW, also means that the overnight loss was similar to about only 7 - 10 kWh, and likely a one-time loss due to the battery cooling down, losing heat energy).

 

[Krugerrand]

If you've seen Shawshank Redemption, calling someone obtuse can lead to trouble.

Right you are!

 

[Norbert]

Yes, for example in "12. The shocking truth", the blog claims he could have made it, had he driven directly back in the morning. (BTW, I doubt the distance Groton -> Milford was really only 46 miles, though those specs are generally quite confusing.)

Perhaps that might be true, but that calculation included using the 'reserve' and would have come far closer to zero than one should risk.

The "shocking truth" is simply that he didn't have enough charge to leave any reasonable safety margin. In the graph there, the red diagonal line starting at ~320 miles confirms this: Had he continued driving in the night before, he had arrived with about the same range, so only a surplus of about 20 miles (the detour to Norwich), barely the missed distance to Milford. So, it appears, had he continued driving the night before (instead of spending the night at the hotel), he might have arrived in Milford, but with almost no (if any) remaining range. He simply didn't charge enough.

(Which, BTW, also means that the overnight loss was similar to about only 7 - 10 kWh, and likely a one-time loss due to the battery cooling down, losing heat energy).

I'll provide more detail, since the blog also talks about this in "11. Milford, CT until failure". There the blog asserts that the distance was 125 miles, based on Broder's statement that the distance Groton -> Milford is 46 miles (which I question).

The blog's graph in (11), and the added diagonal line, here even more clearly, shows that a non-stop drive (without overnight stay at the hotel) would have covered the same distance. (Yet without the Level 2 charge of about 7 kWh.) Given that the detour to the L2 charger in Norwich wasn't part of the original plan, a non-stop drive would have avoided this detour. According to the graph in Broder's article, the distance to Norwich was 11 miles, and since this was a triangle, I'm assuming on the way back it added may be 9 miles, for a total of about 20 miles, trying to be exact.

This means a non-stop drive, starting at the Supercharger in Milford, without overnight stay, could have gone only about 20 miles further. And even using the reserve!

Considering that on the second leg of his trip he drove 206 miles (according to his own numbers) with a charge of 242 miles, he was achieving about 85% of the rated range, losing 15% due to speed plus cold. With the same percentage, a charge of 185 miles would have taken him 157 miles. This would have been enough, so where did it go? Looking at Tesla's speed chart suggests he was driving at *higher* speeds than before (and without cruise control).

Looking at Tesla's rated range graph suggest he arrived at the hotel with roughly 82 miles rated range (not 90). So he lost about 103 miles rated range. His graph says the distance was 79 miles, which corresponds well to Tesla's charts. That's a loss of 23%, instead of the previous 15%. Using the same loss on the remaining range of roughly 82 miles gives a range of 63 miles, barely what was needed for the way back, with no safety margin at all. And more or less confirming the interpretation made above, using the red diagonal line.

All this indicates that in spite of charging only 70%, he increased the average speed (aside from not using cruise control) and consumed a good bit more energy than before.

 

[FalconNinetyD]

MotorTrend talks about the Tesla/New York Times Kerfuffle

(Tesla talk at 4:45)