Phil LeBeau on CNBC "real time test drive"

[SteveG3]

Joyrider I think you are right. Without "fake" tweet, way less if any media coverage.

I do suspect there was a move Elon's been feeling like punching himself in the face about (a phrase he humorously delivered in yesterday's investor call on another matter)... the extent of attributing motive to Broder in the data blog Elon wrote. The blog was awesome, but the attributing of intent as in driving circles around lot to run out battery... well, I think that opened up either real indignation or feigned indignation for the NY Times. Seems eventually there was a deal cut, and I suspect this slight was used as a bargaining chip by the Times.

Elon learned from TG and did well with Broder incident, no doubt he's learned from it as well.

I think the only valid criticism of how Elon handled the situation is if a different approach would have gotten better results. I don't believe that to be so. Had he been "diplomatic" the situation would have never gotten so much attention and the re-enactments by other news organizations might never have come about.

In addition I believe Elon's vigorous reponse helps ensure Tesla will get even handed treatment from the press in the future. You can be sure Broder's article has been a huge subject around the water coolers in most all news organizations. And despite the response from the NYT you can bet it has been an embarassment internally. This whole bruhaha has not only been a good thing for Tesla, but probably for the news media in general, and dare I say, our country. Had Elon used kid gloves the Old Grey Lady would have quickly swept everything under her skirts. And the "paper of record" would have contributed to the spread of EV ignorance instead of EV fact.

 

[StephenM]

I think the only valid criticism of how Elon handled the situation is if a different approach would have gotten better results. I don't believe that to be so. Had he been "diplomatic" the situation would have never gotten so much attention and the re-enactments by other news organizations might never have come about.

In addition I believe Elon's vigorous reponse helps ensure Tesla will get even handed treatment from the press in the future. You can be sure Broder's article has been a huge subject around the water coolers in most all news organizations. And despite the response from the NYT you can bet it has been an embarassment internally. This whole bruhaha has not only been a good thing for Tesla, but probably for the news media in general, and dare I say, our country. Had Elon used kid gloves the Old Grey Lady would have quickly swept everything under her skirts. And the "paper of record" would have contributed to the spread of EV ignorance instead of EV fact.

this. Very well said and couldn't agree more.

 

[smorgasbord]

I think the only valid criticism of how Elon handled the situation is if a different approach would have gotten better results. I don't believe that to be so. Had he been "diplomatic" the situation would have never gotten so much attention and the re-enactments by other news organizations might never have come about.

We'll never know, but I disagree. Two people mentioned the events to me at work in the past few days. These are smart people. Both only heard that the car ran out of juice because it was too cold, even with the heating in the car turned off much of the time and mostly driving under the speed limit. One of them heard about "a recreation," but said that since it wasn't nearly as cold it didn't matter. Here in CA, no-one drives under the speed limit unless they're drunk or otherwise incapacitated.

At the end of the day, the article was not a fake. And Musk pushed his data analysis too far:
There was no driving in circles to try to run the battery down. The parking lot was not "tiny."
The car did have to be flat bedded since the wheels locked.
No-one has disputed that bad advice given to Broder by Tesla employees (speed and and slow down to regen, really?).
There was no "long detour" in Manhattan, just 2 miles, and known ahead of time.
The 11 minute charging discrepancy might be explainable by a) time to actually plug and unplug plus (assuming Broder wrote down the time before getting out of the car and then after when he got back in the car) b) time before the car actually starts changing when plugged in. I know my Roadster can take a little while when plugged in before charging actually starts. And, with the Model S at "0 miles" there could be something going on before the charging actually begins. And, to be fair, the 185 mile range when Broder stopped charging should have been enough if the car hadn't lost so much range overnight.

I'm not defending Broder in any way, but the sum total of the media exposure isn't the slam dunk most here seem to think it is.

 

[Joyrider]

To put my point of view in perspective I have recently retired from 30 years as a writer/producer for a major tv news organization. I think there few companies more self-important or self-righteous than a major media outlet. So I may be biased in my estimation of the awareness or concern of the general public over situations like these.

 

[bonnie]

(I finally had a moment to watch the videos. I've been reading the other coverage by diff outlets.) Wow. Just ... wow.

Is there anyone here not proud to be part of all this in some way? Game. Changing.

 

[Norbert]

We'll never know, but I disagree. Two people mentioned the events to me at work in the past few days. These are smart people. Both only heard that the car ran out of juice because it was too cold, even with the heating in the car turned off much of the time and mostly driving under the speed limit. One of them heard about "a recreation," but said that since it wasn't nearly as cold it didn't matter. Here in CA, no-one drives under the speed limit unless they're drunk or otherwise incapacitated.

At the end of the day, the article was not a fake. And Musk pushed his data analysis too far:
There was no driving in circles to try to run the battery down. The parking lot was not "tiny."
The car did have to be flat bedded since the wheels locked.
No-one has disputed that bad advice given to Broder by Tesla employees (speed and and slow down to regen, really?).
There was no "long detour" in Manhattan, just 2 miles, and known ahead of time.
The 11 minute charging discrepancy might be explainable by a) time to actually plug and unplug plus (assuming Broder wrote down the time before getting out of the car and then after when he got back in the car) b) time before the car actually starts changing when plugged in. I know my Roadster can take a little while when plugged in before charging actually starts. And, with the Model S at "0 miles" there could be something going on before the charging actually begins. And, to be fair, the 185 mile range when Broder stopped charging should have been enough if the car hadn't lost so much range overnight.

I'm not defending Broder in any way, but the sum total of the media exposure isn't the slam dunk most here seem to think it is.

I would disagree with, and "dispute" almost every point you make here, however I don't feel like going through the whole discussion again. When you state these intensely debated points so casually, it sounds like you wouldn't have followed the discussion in this thread:
NYT article: Stalled on the EV Highway (of course a long read with currently about 1200 posts).

 

[Norbert]

(I finally had a moment to watch the videos. I've been reading the other coverage by diff outlets.) Wow. Just ... wow.

Is there anyone here not proud to be part of all this in some way? Game. Changing.

Yes, he became really enthusiastic and brought it across very well. It told me that full acceptance of electric cars, in the mainstream media, might not be as far away as we sometimes think.

 

[Norbert]

Joyrider I think you are right. Without "fake" tweet, way less if any media coverage.

Interestingly, I just read an article with thoughts of Chris Paine (filmmaker of "Who killed the electric car") on this matter:

Tesla Model S Review Controversy: Can Elon Musk Vanquish The Electric Car Stigma?

Growing pains are a natural trade-off when trying to spearhead a new technology, particularly one that threatens the status quo, but Paine believes this particular controversy surrounding the New York Times’ review of the Model S will eventually play to Tesla’s favor.

“In the longer run, the details of this controversy will prove secondary to the exposure it gives to the brand and the Model S in particular,” Paine said. “Tesla doesn't yet have the advertising resources of big car companies. For many reading the story, this will be the first time they see the car or realize how fast and how far the car will go even with cold weather reductions.”

“Steve Jobs eventually mastered [challenges like] these in the computer business and my hunch is that Elon will too,” Paine said.

(More of his thought on Model S in the article.)

 

[Jason S]

At the end of the day, the article was not a fake. And Musk pushed his data analysis too far:
There was no driving in circles to try to run the battery down. The parking lot was not "tiny."
The car did have to be flat bedded since the wheels locked.
No-one has disputed that bad advice given to Broder by Tesla employees (speed and and slow down to regen, really?).
There was no "long detour" in Manhattan, just 2 miles, and known ahead of time.
The 11 minute charging discrepancy might be explainable by a) time to actually plug and unplug plus (assuming Broder wrote down the time before getting out of the car and then after when he got back in the car) b) time before the car actually starts changing when plugged in. I know my Roadster can take a little while when plugged in before charging actually starts. And, with the Model S at "0 miles" there could be something going on before the charging actually begins. And, to be fair, the 185 mile range when Broder stopped charging should have been enough if the car hadn't lost so much range overnight.

I'm not defending Broder in any way, but the sum total of the media exposure isn't the slam dunk most here seem to think it is.

1) car has to be flat bedded anyhow. The wheels locked just made that higher inconvenient (and was likely due to Broder not getting good tow instructions or not executing tow instructions correctly -- heck, if I needed to be towed in any of my cars I'd be LOOKING IN THE MANUAL (sheesh))
2) Nobody is willing to admit to wiretapping to disprove what Broder said on the phone. He said, she said.
3) "long" is also a measurement of time, not just distance.
4) 11 minutes to plug/unplug? begin charging? ... You don't have a Model S, do you? It begins charging immediately. Even at 0 miles (yes, I've done that).
5) 185 rated is not 185 miles in the cold and snow.
6) (and not one of your points) 35 miles rated is much less than 60 miles. Therefore don't be a nob and try a 60 mile trip with 35 miles rated.

 

[Joyrider]

At the end of the day, the article was not a fake. And Musk pushed his data analysis too far:
There was no driving in circles to try to run the battery down. The parking lot was not "tiny."
The car did have to be flat bedded since the wheels locked.
No-one has disputed that bad advice given to Broder by Tesla employees (speed and and slow down to regen, really?).
There was no "long detour" in Manhattan, just 2 miles, and known ahead of time.
The 11 minute charging discrepancy might be explainable by a) time to actually plug and unplug plus (assuming Broder wrote down the time before getting out of the car and then after when he got back in the car) b) time before the car actually starts changing when plugged in. I know my Roadster can take a little while when plugged in before charging actually starts. And, with the Model S at "0 miles" there could be something going on before the charging actually begins. And, to be fair, the 185 mile range when Broder stopped charging should have been enough if the car hadn't lost so much range overnight.

I'm not defending Broder in any way, but the sum total of the media exposure isn't the slam dunk most here seem to think it is.

No, at the end of the day the article is fake because it implied something that isn't true. The car ended up on a flatbed not because of a design flaw, or that it is too difficult a trip to make for an average driver. It ended up on a flatbed because John Broder did not use it the way it was designed, period. This has since been demonstrated publically by CNN, and CNBC, and the tesla owners' road trip.

Broder's test was no less ridiculous than my little narrative below:

"Hey, how do you like your new Tesla Model S?"

"Not too well."

"Oh...what happened?"

"It's at the bottom of the river and I just out with my life. I drove it off the boat slip and it sank like a stone...what a piece of junk!"

 

[smorgasbord]

I would disagree with, and "dispute" almost every point you make here, however I don't feel like going through the whole discussion again.

OK, so my point is made - the general public sees things differently than WE here on TMC see them. The public is going to apply their own current behavior to EVs, and will immediately think of any required change to that as something new to learn, possibly forget, and surely do wrong a few times. And, that's even if they're willing to change.

Unless we see EVs through the eyes of the non-converted, we cannot win the conversion battle.

The public hears - and Tesla's logs confirm - that the car lost 60 miles of range overnight. That's scary to them. They've all driven to friends or relatives or stayed at hotels where they wouldn't be able to easily charge. Losing that many miles is really scary to them. You and I know that Tesla will fix this, but they don't know that. At best, they'll wait.

Unless we see EVs through the eyes of the non-converted, we cannot win the conversion battle.

Let's say we convince them Broder lied about turning the heat down, or his speed - we know the cruise control stays dead nuts on speed, even during downhills due to automatic regen braking, so that's a lie on top of a lie (and the log with accelerator pedal angle would prove it). There are others, too. But, the general public doesn't care about the lies as much as they care about "What? I have to turn the heat way down?" "What? I have to drive 50MPH on a 65MPH road where everyone drives 72MPH?" That's not how they want to drive.

You know the joke about spotting the difference between a Jag and a Tesla on the freeway? If it's going slower than most traffic, it must be a Model S.

Unless we see EVs through the eyes of the non-converted, we cannot win the conversion battle.

They demand the car to be spot on with its predicted range remaining. "Why shouldn't I stop charging like Broder when the car says it can go 185 miles, which is more than he needed to go to get to the next charger?" You then say safety and range isn't exact, and they'll say "Well how much longer would Broder have had to wait in the cold for his car to fully charge?" And, then you'd have to admit that while 30 minutes is the best time for a half charge, the last half charge takes way longer than 30 more minutes.

Unless we see EVs through the eyes of the non-converted, we cannot win the conversion battle.

Ms. Sullivan's response is not perceived by the general population as a slam-dunk victory for Tesla (eg "few conclusions that are unassailable"). People don't want a car where a slight error in judgement means they might not make it without getting towed. People don't want to be precise in keeping track of how far they've driven and how far they have to drive. That's inconvenient. And people don't want an inconvenient car.

Unless we see EVs through the eyes of the non-converted, we cannot win the conversion battle.

I hadn't watched any of the CNBC videos, so after Bonnie's rave comments I watched the last one. But, after 10 seconds I turned it off. It was so warm that day that LeBeau was wearing only a light jacket and didn't even have it zipped up all the way! I can't recommend these warm-weather recreations as an answer to the NYTimes to my work friends - I'd get laughed out of the office. And they know that Roadster works for me since I drive it to work just about every day, and show them videos of road trips I make.


So, while the NYTimes' journalistic integrity has indeed been damaged (again), that doesn't automatically mean Tesla wins. People aren't keeping score, they're deciding if EVs are good enough for them or not. Even with Broder's shenanigans, they see a car that doesn't yield the range it promises, and that requires at best inconvenient driving habits and planning to be successful on what for them today are simple road trips.

Model S and SuperChargers are HUGE steps towards the EV revolution. But, if you're keeping it real, then you have to admit that Game Change has not yet happened.

 

[BryanW]

Smorgasbord, I agree with you that the general public sees things differently than we do here on TMC. I also agree that we must see things through their eyes and explain EV things in ways to which they can relate. It is BECAUSE of this that I think, Elon's "fake" tweet was so important.

My friends and relations know I am a Tesla fan and owner. Many are also NYT diehards. Shortly after the Broder article and Elon tweet I started getting questions. They mostly centered around asking me to explain both sides and help them understand why Elon called the article a fake when it seemed well written. Had Elon never called it a fake, they would never have accepted my answers. By summarily dismissing it, calling it a fake, then providing sufficient data to back his point, Elon helped me to help him in explaining to my 'non-EV NYT loving' friends why the article was not an accurate representation of the Model S or the supercharging network.

In my experience, the non-EV converted crowd benefitted by Elon's, CNN's, TMC's, and CNBC's responses. Granted my 'n' is small, but Broder's article had a definite negative impact on my acquaintances. Elon's response helped me turn it positive. As I told one friend, come visit, spend 5 min with me in the Model S and you'll agree with me what an idiot Broder is, there's a reason MotorTrend awarded it Car of the Year.

 

[scriptacus]

Agree 100% smorgasbord

 

[Jason S]

Strawman is a strawman. The general public can process the truth.

I've talked with plenty of folks about the car at the car wash and, oddly enough, the VW dealership. Just give 'em real world examples and it all makes sense. This includes many of the sales and service staff at the VW dealership. (I was hanging around talking with another guy for a while, just having a pleasant afternoon conversation.)

One car wash guy was driving a Chrysler 300, iirc. Just show him the screens, couple charging options and point out there were a bunch of chargers local (hey, I'm in California so that's a bit of a special case) and he was just tickled about it.

The Model S shows off as much more 'everyday' than the Roadster.

 

[Norbert]

OK, so my point is made - the general public sees things differently than WE here on TMC see them.

Of course the general public sees things differently than we do (even we on TMC see things differently among us). That's not something I disagree with. I don't think Elon's tweet was meant as educational material for the unknowing public, and a blog post will always have difficulties going up against a NYT article blaming every mistake on either the car or advice.

If someone buys an EV (Broder behaves more like someone thrown into it against his will), one needs to learn the basic features. The article doesn't reflect on that. It just gives a bad example, not to be followed. The Model S cannot use gasoline or gas stations. And not magic either. It uses electricity, which has its own rules. Like bicycles, motorcycles, and cars have their own rules. I think EVs are easier than bicycles and motorcycles, if you already drive a car, but they do need some learning. Obviously, since electricity is not magic working all by itself. So you need to make sure you understand the basics, especially, in this case, those relevant for road trips. Such as the "Max Range" option which automatically appears on the charging screen. Such as "regen", and that regen is on the accelerator (when letting it go), not on the brake pedal. I believe that much would already have been enough.

As I said, I'm not in a mood to discuss individual points, but when I said I disagree with your points, I meant more those that were supposed to show that the article wasn't fake, than those that were meant to show that Tesla's responses couldn't keep the article from having a negative effect overall. Nevertheless three quotes worth re-iterating:

Phil LeBeau, CNBC:

After spending 8 hours driving the EV from Washington, D.C. to Boston, I am convinced that this car is proof a solely electric car can and ultimately will gain acceptance by American drivers, and not just for those looking for a second car just to run errands around the neighborhood.

Nobody knows what will happen with those and other questions sure to come up. But I do know this after driving the Model S from D.C. to Boston: Tesla has built a car a lot of people will want to drive.

Chris Paine ("Who killed the electric car?"):

Growing pains are a natural trade-off when trying to spearhead a new technology, particularly one that threatens the status quo, but Paine believes this particular controversy surrounding the New York Times’ review of the Model S will eventually play to Tesla’s favor.

“In the longer run, the details of this controversy will prove secondary to the exposure it gives to the brand and the Model S in particular,” Paine said. “Tesla doesn't yet have the advertising resources of big car companies. For many reading the story, this will be the first time they see the car or realize how fast and how far the car will go even with cold weather reductions.”

- - - Updated - - -

Strawman is a strawman. The general public can process the truth.

Yep. As electric cars become part of the landscape, even our coworkers are going to figure out it's easier than riding a bicycle.

 

[dsm363]

Most people buying a $60,000+ car will hopefully bother to spend at least 30 min learning about the car. Yes, the general public sees things differently which is why the NYT article about ignoring the conditions, charging to exactly the range you need in ideal conditions and driving any way you want was so wrong.

You could make these same arguments against the iPhone or any new product as well. 'Who wants a phone that only lasts 10 hours and has all these programs? I just want to talk on the phone'...etc It will take time and education but most people buying the Model S will take the time since they are spending a lot of money to get the car and want to make sure that money is well spent.

 

[Norbert]

It was so warm that day that LeBeau was wearing only a light jacket and didn't even have it zipped up all the way! I can't recommend these warm-weather recreations as an answer to the NYTimes to my work friends - I'd get laughed out of the office. And they know that Roadster works for me since I drive it to work just about every day, and show them videos of road trips I make.

I think the time when Phil LeBeau arrived in Milford, CT, it was about 41F (weather.com), and before he arrived, a bit lower. Broder wrote about the same leg of the trip "the temperature was still in the 30s". So probably a difference of less than 10F. According to Tesla's online calculator, interpolating from the difference between 32F and 50F, a difference of 10F should correspond to a range of about ((232 miles - 218 miles) / (50F - 32F)) * 10F = 7.77 miles (for the speed setting at max = 65 mph).

7.77 miles is of course much less than Phil Lebeau had remaining (43 miles range), while driving quite normal speeds (AFAIK).

Tesla's online range calculator: Your Questions Answered | Tesla Motors

In other words, Phil LeBeau should not have had the slightest problem driving exactly the same way at 10F less, which would be 31F. No reason to get laughed out.

 

[smorgasbord]

It just gives a bad example, not to be followed.

It gives an example that the general population doesn't believe is unreasonable, and yet wasn't enough. They don't want to spend more time charging than the car says it needs. They don't want to have to drive at 50 MPH when the speed limit is 65. They especially don't want to turn the heat down on a cold day. Nothing that's been said or demonstrated by anyone is convincing that you won't have to do that when it's really cold.

Look, let's say Broder believed the car's range the second morning. Let's say he then went and charged the car, and it didn't have to be flatbedded. Well, he wasn't near a SuperCharger, so he'd be on a Level 2 charger about 3 hours in order to get back those 60 miles, right?

Great, the general population will say, I just lost 3 hours of my day and am late for my business meeting.


Or, let's say Broder even expected the car to lose 60 miles of charge overnight (I didn't until this story, and I pay attention to these things). Now, this is true Range Anxiety - how many miles am I going to lose tonight while I sleep? Jeez.

And even if I knew that, well, that means a full Max Range charge, which is bad for the battery. So, now I'm doing more Max Range charges than I should need to, which is making my battery degrade faster, just to be safe? And, I'm sitting the cold how much longer?

This reminds me of the "Ice storm coming, should I range charge?" thread. People have so much anxiety about the car losing charge when not plugged in that they're thinking that battery degradation from a Range Charge is better than letting the car sit for a few days. And, this is from OWNERS who love their cars. This is not good, folks.

Like bicycles, motorcycles, and cars have their own rules.

Thanks for proving my point - most people in the US don't like motorcycle nor bicycle rules enough to commute or take family vacations on them.

Nevertheless three quotes worth re-iterating: Phil LeBeau, CNBC:

As I said, I didn't get that far. I saw LeBeau's jacket and turned it off. You don't think others did the same thing?

For many reading the story, this will be the first time they see the car or realize how fast and how far the car will go even with cold weather reductions.”

All they'll remember is that Teslas can't handle the cold.

- - - Updated - - -

So probably a difference of less than 10F.

I don't believe that.

I don't believe Tesla's range calculator, which shows that driving 65MPH at 32 degrees (the lowest it goes, btw) yields 243 miles of range:

And, you don't believe that, either.


Edit: just saw I had to click the "Heat" button to have the range drop to 218 miles. That's still too optimistic at 65 MPH in the real world. Owners here talk about 178 miles of real world charge to charge range, and that's not on the coldest day of the year so far.

 

[scriptacus]

You could make these same arguments against the iPhone or any new product as well. 'Who wants a phone that only lasts 10 hours and has all these programs? I just want to talk on the phone'...etc It will take time and education but most people buying the Model S will take the time since they are spending a lot of money to get the car and want to make sure that money is well spent.

Is that a fair analogy? To me it'd be more like if the iPhone showed 3 hours of talk time remaining, but was really going to run out after 1 because you had the volume set above 70% and you had push notifications turned on. And then when you lock it and leave it on standby overnight you lose another hour because you're in an area with a weak cell signal.

 

[Norbert]

It gives an example that the general population doesn't believe is unreasonable, and yet wasn't enough. They don't want to spend more time charging than the car says it needs. They don't want to have to drive at 50 MPH when the speed limit is 65. They especially don't want to turn the heat down on a cold day. Nothing that's been said or demonstrated by anyone is convincing that you won't have to do that when it's really cold.

It wasn't necessary to drive slower than [a bit above] speed limits, or in uncomfortable temperatures. You are still misled by Broder's article. All that was necessary was to charge with the "Max Range" option. That takes more charging time, yes. Cause and effect.

Look, let's say Broder believed the car's range the second morning. Let's say he then went and charged the car, and it didn't have to be flatbedded. Well, he wasn't near a SuperCharger, so he'd be on a Level 2 charger about 3 hours in order to get back those 60 miles, right?

Great, the general population will say, I just lost 3 hours of my day and am late for my business meeting.

It also wasn't necessary to make the detour to the Level 2 charger. Zero hours there.

I don't believe that.

On the day of Phil LeBeau's drive, I looked up the temperature in Milford, CT, at the approximate time of arrival in Milford, on weather.com. I saw 41F.

Edit: just saw I had to click the "Heat" button to have the range drop to 218 miles. That's still too optimistic at 65 MPH in the real world. Owners here talk about 178 miles of real world charge to charge range, and that's not on the coldest day of the year so far.

Yes, you have to press the "heat" button, otherwise it shows you what happens at that outside temperature, without heating.

On the #TeslaRoadTrip, several Model S drove that trip at 38F, and the best I know they all had enough range left to do the same drive at the same speed, and comfortable cabin temperatures, yet at an outside temp of 31F.

I've heard 177 miles for *leaving a buffer*, and the range might be that low for example if there are lots of elevation changes, or in Canada temperatures, etc. But that's not the case here.