Norbert
TSLA will win
Looks like this is now an updated version with more details and video, compared to the one I saw first!
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
NYT article: Stalled on the EV Highway
- Thread starter Jeeps17
- Start date
- Status
Looks like this is now an updated version with more details and video, compared to the one I saw first!
Distrust of the media is very fashionable in some quarters, but this seems to be driven more by politics than facts. Tesla is a great company and it will survive this, but how they handled this is terrible.
Bradleybang
Member
Can't find your post. Did it get deleted? I also searched for the words "liar" and "stupid"... No matches.Strange, since this is all this article is about.
I guess it never got approved. :crying:
I'll try again
I'm relatively new here (I've lurked for a long time, but registered very recently), so forgive my jumping in on a very "hot" thread. But it seems to me (and I know no one like this kind of response) that there are errors on both sides.
To start with the part you're going to hate me for, I blame Tesla for not properly briefing the driver (especially egregious since it was a major media outlet, but all press -- and all owners -- should be briefed about "how" to drive/take care of an EV). He should have been thoroughly instructed in the proper use of the car in cold weather, told to Range charge, and informed about overnight power loss due to the car keeping the pack warm. Not doing so was inviting the "nightmare scenario" that eventually occurred.
And Mr. Musk's reply is such a huge attempt to discredit the reporter's entire experience - while enjoyable - didn't really help, except to point out some inconsistencies. For example, he would have been a lot better off not attributing motive to the "drive around the parking lot" thing, since if the reporter wanted to kill the car there were much better ways, nitpicking some things (the timing of the the climate control reduction, which did occur slightly after - and, again, if he wanted to kill the car, he could have left the climate control hot and gone really fast the whole time) and basically trying to obfuscate the issues that happened (the 12v battery was dead and clearly was the cause of the parking break lock - the tow truck driver, who was contacted, confirmed that the car couldn't be moved - and so the "pack was never dead" bit is mostly spin) and blame the whole thing on the reporter's "agenda".
Which, at some level, I understand. I'm sure he was incredibly angry that this happened at a major media site, that it was so mishandled internally (it sounds like the this particular press liaison is no longer at Tesla), that he wasn't able to spin the reporter out of the story with a personal phone call and apology for the experience, the reporter didn't drive it the way it was "meant" to be driven (but he wasn't told to do), that misinformation was given (or misunderstood), producing a result that fed directly into the classic EV range anxiety happened-at-Top Gear "dead EV" story.
Now, that may be the story the reporter intended to write before he started. He certainly made a lot of mistakes, but those mistakes were kind of "treat it like a ICE" errors that you can kind of understand, especially if he was misbriefed (and I truly believe he was). They seem stupid to those of us who know something about the vehicle - we're enthusiasts/owners/prospective owners. There's no way we would let this happen to us. It's too "easy" not to make this kind of mistake...which is why we're all so angry about the article. It all seems so...obvious. But, again, why would he have charged at all that last time if he just wanted it to die anyway? And why ask Tesla for advice?
In contrast, take a look at the Verge's recent Tesla video and test drive. Now, they play on the range anxiety thing in the first minute of the video - and they do almost run out of charge (which doesn't seem to be their fault). But, overall, it's clear they've been well briefed, warned against playing sports-car too much, their experience is great, and they give it a thumbs up. And the follow-up articles of people doing the same run the reporter did with positive results show that it's possible.
I really think it would have been better for Tesla to respond by saying that they regretted the experience the reporter had, that the reporter made some simple mistakes, that charging fully would have resolved the problem, and that normal drivers are properly instructed on the use of range charging, plugging in at night, etc...and then, pointing to a series of articles of people doing the same drive, successfully.
Allow the public to understand that this was an exception, not the rule. That's so much better than an out-and-out war/smackdown. And it seems to be closer to the truth.
Anyway, those are my quick-and-dirty-I-have-the-flu-and-can-barely-think thoughts. It certainly doesn't make me nervous about doing the same east coast trip. And I don't think it would seriously make anyone reconsider the viability of the Supercharger network (except, perhaps, that, in really cold weather, it might be better to put them a bit closer together, as Mr. Musk himself suggested).
Thanks for letting me put that out there, and for reading.
To start with the part you're going to hate me for, I blame Tesla for not properly briefing the driver (especially egregious since it was a major media outlet, but all press -- and all owners -- should be briefed about "how" to drive/take care of an EV). He should have been thoroughly instructed in the proper use of the car in cold weather, told to Range charge, and informed about overnight power loss due to the car keeping the pack warm. Not doing so was inviting the "nightmare scenario" that eventually occurred.
And Mr. Musk's reply is such a huge attempt to discredit the reporter's entire experience - while enjoyable - didn't really help, except to point out some inconsistencies. For example, he would have been a lot better off not attributing motive to the "drive around the parking lot" thing, since if the reporter wanted to kill the car there were much better ways, nitpicking some things (the timing of the the climate control reduction, which did occur slightly after - and, again, if he wanted to kill the car, he could have left the climate control hot and gone really fast the whole time) and basically trying to obfuscate the issues that happened (the 12v battery was dead and clearly was the cause of the parking break lock - the tow truck driver, who was contacted, confirmed that the car couldn't be moved - and so the "pack was never dead" bit is mostly spin) and blame the whole thing on the reporter's "agenda".
Which, at some level, I understand. I'm sure he was incredibly angry that this happened at a major media site, that it was so mishandled internally (it sounds like the this particular press liaison is no longer at Tesla), that he wasn't able to spin the reporter out of the story with a personal phone call and apology for the experience, the reporter didn't drive it the way it was "meant" to be driven (but he wasn't told to do), that misinformation was given (or misunderstood), producing a result that fed directly into the classic EV range anxiety happened-at-Top Gear "dead EV" story.
Now, that may be the story the reporter intended to write before he started. He certainly made a lot of mistakes, but those mistakes were kind of "treat it like a ICE" errors that you can kind of understand, especially if he was misbriefed (and I truly believe he was). They seem stupid to those of us who know something about the vehicle - we're enthusiasts/owners/prospective owners. There's no way we would let this happen to us. It's too "easy" not to make this kind of mistake...which is why we're all so angry about the article. It all seems so...obvious. But, again, why would he have charged at all that last time if he just wanted it to die anyway? And why ask Tesla for advice?
In contrast, take a look at the Verge's recent Tesla video and test drive. Now, they play on the range anxiety thing in the first minute of the video - and they do almost run out of charge (which doesn't seem to be their fault). But, overall, it's clear they've been well briefed, warned against playing sports-car too much, their experience is great, and they give it a thumbs up. And the follow-up articles of people doing the same run the reporter did with positive results show that it's possible.
I really think it would have been better for Tesla to respond by saying that they regretted the experience the reporter had, that the reporter made some simple mistakes, that charging fully would have resolved the problem, and that normal drivers are properly instructed on the use of range charging, plugging in at night, etc...and then, pointing to a series of articles of people doing the same drive, successfully.
Allow the public to understand that this was an exception, not the rule. That's so much better than an out-and-out war/smackdown. And it seems to be closer to the truth.
Anyway, those are my quick-and-dirty-I-have-the-flu-and-can-barely-think thoughts. It certainly doesn't make me nervous about doing the same east coast trip. And I don't think it would seriously make anyone reconsider the viability of the Supercharger network (except, perhaps, that, in really cold weather, it might be better to put them a bit closer together, as Mr. Musk himself suggested).
Thanks for letting me put that out there, and for reading.
I agree there is a problem with range dropping when not driving, and the remaining miles showing drastically lower after the batteries cold soak. But, the car uses power when not driving. It seems pretty obvious to me. Sure it is more than one would expect, and hopefully Tesla can reduce it with further soft/firmware updates.
He certainly thought he put enough energy into the car, but bottom line he didn't. Sure the dash indicated that he probably put enough in. Not to mention he added a sitting car with the heat on, plus he added at least 22 miles of distance to his trip, only charged an hour on a 208V 30A charger (I am assuming). So basically did not even offset his driving and heating of the car with the hour long charge. I bet if he just went for it from the hotel back to the supercharger he would have been within a mile of making it at worst.
cnn responds to nyt article/feud... redoes trip
CNN shoots down | The Raw Story
(suppose this can be merged or deleted as the thread for the broder response has the link... didn't see it.. 135 pages. lol.)
CNN shoots down | The Raw Story
(suppose this can be merged or deleted as the thread for the broder response has the link... didn't see it.. 135 pages. lol.)
Last edited:
Krugerrand
Meow
That's certainly an interesting way to phrase it. Fashionable? Really? Distrust garnered by the experience of hundreds of thousands of people over decades is 'fashionable?'
RoadsterWarrior
Member
CNN makes it to Boston, no drama, no story.
Test drive: DC to Boston in a Tesla Model S - Feb. 15, 2013
Test drive: DC to Boston in a Tesla Model S - Feb. 15, 2013
I imagine he was. He apparently talked to George B about superchargers, and where they were located a week before his trip. No one is saying anything about this, so I imagine Tesla didn't give him explicit directions, and maybe a quick here is the car look. But the 17" screen gives a full paragraph on charging. Both sides probably botched the learning Tesla not giving enough, but enough where Broder isn't harping on it.
I agree the Twitter comments didn't do anything to help the situation. Twitter rarely does with its 140 character limit. And the Tesla response should have picked the few blatant problems with the story, rather than go for quantity. But quantity is often more effective than quality in arguments like these.
Who doesn't fully fill their tank on a road trip He didn't treat the Tesla like an ICE. And besides the Tesla isn't an ICE so even that would be somewhat unfair. Why charge for 47 minutes if you want an ICE experience. Just charge for 7 the go on your way. John Broder is applying a double standard, arbitrarily to make a point. That you cant drive from DC to Boston in January in a Tesla.
Krugerrand
Meow
Welcome to the forum!
I didn't read past this opening for a couple of reason. 1) I don't actually believe much of what the reporter claims he was told by Tesla. When he can provide proof, I'll reconsider. 2) Tesla does in fact brief people on how to use the car. Ask all the people who've taken the Get Amped Tour, all the people who've taken test drives, all the people who've taken delivery of their car, and all the previous journalists. Indeed, even this journalist says he was given 'instructions', which btw, he failed to follow.
P.S. Don't hate you...yet. :wink:
This to me the key point. However, it's a more subtle one because it doesn't mean the article was faked or that he lied. It just means he was biased, which is a much harder thing to show. I'm sure in his own mind he believed he was just doing what an "ordinary" person might. He's smart enough to know it wasn't a good idea, but the poor slobs that might be tricked into buying the car won't, so he's just "demonstrating" what will happen. Same with not plugging in overnight or not doing a range charge at Newark (I mean, golly, the car said it was done charging).
I guess we can't know, of course, what Tesla told the reporter.
I've taken a test drive, though, in the Northeast, in the winter (in fact, just a week or two ago, right after the blizzard), and absolutely didn't get a full briefing about charging, cold weather, or anything similar. They went through the operation of the touchscreen and general controls.
And there's a bunch of he-said-she-said about the instructions. We can't know what was said unless the whole thing was taped. And if you think that the reporter has an agenda, so does Tesla - and a much stronger incentive to spin, no?
- - - Updated - - -
Well, I can say I've stopped at an expensive gas station on a trip and only filled enough to get me home/to my destination/whatever. A foolish economy, but I've done it. And, assuming he didn't know about Range charging (we have to kind of assume), or thought it would damage the battery (and given that he thought the regular charge gave him "enough" range, and seemed to not understand the cold issues...)... I don't know.
Like I said, these all seem like basic, stupid mistakes. I tend not to ascribe malice to something that can be explained by ignorance. And I think he was ignorant/dumb (again, coming from our own knowledgeable position), not malicious. Being a "dumb reporter" isn't good, of course. But pulling out the "bought by big oil" conspiracy theory thing (as has been done elsewhere on the forums) seems, well, more than a bit over the top.
I've taken a test drive, though, in the Northeast, in the winter (in fact, just a week or two ago, right after the blizzard), and absolutely didn't get a full briefing about charging, cold weather, or anything similar. They went through the operation of the touchscreen and general controls.
And there's a bunch of he-said-she-said about the instructions. We can't know what was said unless the whole thing was taped. And if you think that the reporter has an agenda, so does Tesla - and a much stronger incentive to spin, no?
- - - Updated - - -
Well, I can say I've stopped at an expensive gas station on a trip and only filled enough to get me home/to my destination/whatever. A foolish economy, but I've done it. And, assuming he didn't know about Range charging (we have to kind of assume), or thought it would damage the battery (and given that he thought the regular charge gave him "enough" range, and seemed to not understand the cold issues...)... I don't know.
Like I said, these all seem like basic, stupid mistakes. I tend not to ascribe malice to something that can be explained by ignorance. And I think he was ignorant/dumb (again, coming from our own knowledgeable position), not malicious. Being a "dumb reporter" isn't good, of course. But pulling out the "bought by big oil" conspiracy theory thing (as has been done elsewhere on the forums) seems, well, more than a bit over the top.
agentsmith1612
Member
But that is what you have to change in your mind if you buy an EV.
Its not the same like in a ICE.
If you dont plug it in at night, there will be an issue to this behavior.
The people have to think more about what they could do and what not and what effects will come up with what behavior and if the people can not handle that, they are to silly or have to learn. Only simple thinks but important.
Actually no. If Tesla 'spins' too much (there is always some marketing spin), it will come back to bite them, and it wouldn't take long at all.
CNN's recent trip along the same route shows that the car is capable of making the trip in one day. The upcoming test by owners will show (I am confident) that it can be done with the overnight stop.
The reporter has a history of dismissing EVs. It very well could have been an simple issue of his bias combined with not paying attention.
It is also possible he was given bad information.
It is also possible he wanted a story of the Model S on a flatbed. We may never know.
But, there are so many inconsistencies between his reports, the data, his later statements, and common sense that he looses a lot of credibility.
Fact is we only have his word on what Tesla told him which is counter to everything I've ever heard from Tesla. There is zero chance an engineer (he said he talked with an engineer) would 'clear' him to drove 65 miles in the cold on 32 miles of rated range.
We can't prove malice maybe but he definitely tried to spin things in a negative light after the fact. He didn't even do a standard charge the second time stopping at 182 miles I think. No excuse for that.
I agree with dnanian that Tesla's response was overboard. They shouldn't accuse reporters of bad faith. I think they look whiny when they characterize driving around a parking lot looking for a charger as intentional malfeasance. The data with the comments are damning enough without trying to fabricate an agenda.
Broder's reply is an effective rebuttal to most of Tesla's complaints. However, he invents some seriously out there excuses to justify some of the numeric discrepancies. He argues that he set the cruise control at 60 mph, but the car went over 80 mph because "Most drivers are aware that cars can speed up, even sometimes when cruise control is engaged, on downhill stretches." (This is I-95 in Connecticut, not a drive down Mt. Washington). or that the difference between his article that said 45 mph and Tesla's log that says 60 mph "may be the result of the car being delivered with 19-inch wheels and all-season tires, not the specified 21-inch wheels and summer tires." The 245/35R21 tires are less than 0.2% bigger than the 245/45R19 tires, so how can that explain a 30% difference in speed?
I know it's bad for a reporter to say "I must have misreported the speed by a few mph", but the data clearly demonstrates he misreported his cruise control set speed. Trying to pass it off as anything but a bad memory or bad note-taking seems to just further damage his credibility to me. Broder should have simply not responded to this.
To Tesla I say: don't assume bad faith, even if bad faith seems readily apparent to you. Just report the facts, and let readers form their own conclusions.
To Broder I say: don't fudge the numbers by 10%. You're a reporter; get the data correct. If you had said you set the cruise control at 60 mph instead of at 45 mph, and that you charged for 47 minutes instead of 58 minutes, Tesla wouldn't have many charges that could stick, and you'd still have a story. (Namely that you can't drive a supercar like a supercar if you want to get 200 miles out of it, Tesla's reported range numbers can be deceivingly optimistic, and the car loses a ridiculous amount of rated range overnight.) There was no reason to fudge the numbers.
Broder's reply is an effective rebuttal to most of Tesla's complaints. However, he invents some seriously out there excuses to justify some of the numeric discrepancies. He argues that he set the cruise control at 60 mph, but the car went over 80 mph because "Most drivers are aware that cars can speed up, even sometimes when cruise control is engaged, on downhill stretches." (This is I-95 in Connecticut, not a drive down Mt. Washington). or that the difference between his article that said 45 mph and Tesla's log that says 60 mph "may be the result of the car being delivered with 19-inch wheels and all-season tires, not the specified 21-inch wheels and summer tires." The 245/35R21 tires are less than 0.2% bigger than the 245/45R19 tires, so how can that explain a 30% difference in speed?
I know it's bad for a reporter to say "I must have misreported the speed by a few mph", but the data clearly demonstrates he misreported his cruise control set speed. Trying to pass it off as anything but a bad memory or bad note-taking seems to just further damage his credibility to me. Broder should have simply not responded to this.
To Tesla I say: don't assume bad faith, even if bad faith seems readily apparent to you. Just report the facts, and let readers form their own conclusions.
To Broder I say: don't fudge the numbers by 10%. You're a reporter; get the data correct. If you had said you set the cruise control at 60 mph instead of at 45 mph, and that you charged for 47 minutes instead of 58 minutes, Tesla wouldn't have many charges that could stick, and you'd still have a story. (Namely that you can't drive a supercar like a supercar if you want to get 200 miles out of it, Tesla's reported range numbers can be deceivingly optimistic, and the car loses a ridiculous amount of rated range overnight.) There was no reason to fudge the numbers.
- Status
