Tesla Says NYT Review Cost Them $100M

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A bad NY Times review cost Tesla $100M? I think someone is talking out their ass or setting up for a lawsuit.

Elon Musk, speaking on Bloomberg TV, said "a lot" of people canceled orders for Tesla's Model S following a scathing New York Times review. "It probably affected us to the tune of tens of millions, to the order of $100 million, so it's not trivial," Musk said. "I would say that refers more to the valuation of the company. It wasn't as though there were 1,000 cancellations just due to The New York Times article. There were probably a few hundred."
Click to expand...
 
not to say that his company won't go on to be successful (like his previous one), but i have a hard time trusting companies that blame reviewers and don't take that as feedback. no different than video games or gfx cards.
 
traycerb said:
not to say that his company won't go on to be successful (like his previous one), but i have a hard time trusting companies that blame reviewers and don't take that as feedback. no different than video games or gfx cards.
Click to expand...

But the review was blatantly deceptive.
 
A news article caused the cancelled orders? It couldn't be the hundreds of software glitches they've not ironed out yet. Nah.

I'd cancel my order too if a NYT article pointed out glaring issues I've not been aware of like the car stalling while driving on the highway, or the door lock unlocking while driving (I have two kids).

It's journalist's job to objectively report the news, not be Tesla's marketing agency.
 
ChedWick said:
But the review was blatantly deceptive.
Click to expand...

It's a car. Not a toy. Tesla shrugged off the issue saying "meh, nothing software updates can't fix eventually when we get around to it."
 
Azhar said:
A news article caused the cancelled orders? It couldn't be the hundreds of software glitches they've not ironed out yet. Nah.

I'd cancel my order too if a NYT article pointed out glaring issues I've not been aware of like the car stalling while driving on the highway, or the door lock unlocking while driving (I have two kids).

It's journalist's job to objectively report the news, not be Tesla's marketing agency.
Click to expand...

That's not what was done here. The NYT reporter's review didn't match up with the vehicle data recorded by the car about the trip, the company contends. They have fairly compelling evidence that he didn't drive the way he reported in his review, and a third party set of journalists attempting to mimic his experience had completely different results.
 
Most people are completely unaware of the amazing number of recalls and TSB's almost every vehicle on the road has (and has had). Wether or not The car had issues...I don't know. But I do know (for a fact) that there have been recalls on certain popular "current" vehicles that include steering wheels falling off, whole wheel and tire assemblies falling fall while driving, hubs breaking, fuel lines breaking, cruise control systems getting stuck, ignition switches not working, on and on and on. I remember the dual tank fiasco on older Chevy trucks that was just a way for major media outlets to convince people to spend their money on cars instead of trucks.

This thing with Tesla is more than likely politically motivated.
 
Azhar said:
It's a car. Not a toy. Tesla shrugged off the issue saying "meh, nothing software updates can't fix eventually when we get around to it."
Click to expand...

No, they did not. There were discrepancies between what the reporter claimed and what the car data showed, and other drivers have completed the same trip under similar conditions. The reviewer also skipped a charging station despite the low power warning and let it sit overnight without charging.

Electric cars need electricity. Who knew! :rolleyes:
 
Azhar said:
A news article caused the cancelled orders? It couldn't be the hundreds of software glitches they've not ironed out yet. Nah.

I'd cancel my order too if a NYT article pointed out glaring issues I've not been aware of like the car stalling while driving on the highway, or the door lock unlocking while driving (I have two kids).

It's journalist's job to objectively report the news, not be Tesla's marketing agency.
Click to expand...

Objective is not the word I'd use to describe the reporting practices of said journalist.
 
Wouldn't be surprised if petrol suits were behind it all. Tinfoil, I know, right?
 
Electric cars are just plain stupid. Where you you think the electricity comes from? The magic power fairy?

Since the majority of electricity is generated by coal, charging up your supposedly clean electric car is almost certainly being done by burning coal somewhere else. Electricity, factoring in the inefficiencies of coal burners, transmission losses, and the loss in converting from AC to DC and storing it in a battery, is a hell of a lot less efficient than an internal combustion engine.
 
I haven't been following this story that closely but if this is the one where they checked the car's "black box" and found the reviewer was not only misleading but outright blatently lying half the time, I think maybe they deserve to get sued.
 
Of course the reviewer is not going to admit to it, if he admits to it he will likely get fired and the paper will loose credibility.

So you can expect the paper and the writer to fight this regardless.
 
damicatz said:
Electric cars are just plain stupid. Where you you think the electricity comes from? The magic power fairy?

Since the majority of electricity is generated by coal, charging up your supposedly clean electric car is almost certainly being done by burning coal somewhere else. Electricity, factoring in the inefficiencies of coal burners, transmission losses, and the loss in converting from AC to DC and storing it in a battery, is a hell of a lot less efficient than an internal combustion engine.
Click to expand...

That's only the tip of the iceberg, environmentally. The batteries that electric and hybrid cars use first must be produced. That begins at a nickel mine in Canada, not exactly an environmentally friendly or fossil-fuel free operation. That nickel is then typically shipped to China (more fuel), where it is refined and produced into batteries in coal fired factories. Those batteries are then shipped (fill up the tanks, we're crossing the Pacific again) to auto factories which are then installed into vehicles. Where do the batteries go at the end of their lives? Recycled, we hope.

I realize the environmental impact refining of fossil fuels is widely known, but anyone thinking electric cars are the answer needs to ignore the hype.
 
It's clear by some of the comments in this thread that several of you are talking out your ass and don't know the backend story from a couple of weeks ago. Even a fellow NYT editor says of the reporter: "Did he use good judgment along the way? Not especially."
 
Rhinohelix said:
That's not what was done here. The NYT reporter's review didn't match up with the vehicle data recorded by the car about the trip, the company contends. They have fairly compelling evidence that he didn't drive the way he reported in his review, and a third party set of journalists attempting to mimic his experience had completely different results.
Click to expand...

DeathFromBelow said:
No, they did not. There were discrepancies between what the reporter claimed and what the car data showed, and other drivers have completed the same trip under similar conditions. The reviewer also skipped a charging station despite the low power warning and let it sit overnight without charging.

Electric cars need electricity. Who knew! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
QFT for both of these comments. You know [H], people barely finish reading the sensationlist title let alone actually reading the article or worse yet... reading related news items to get a better idea.

MavericK96 said:
I haven't been following this story that closely but if this is the one where they checked the car's "black box" and found the reviewer was not only misleading but outright blatently lying half the time, I think maybe they deserve to get sued.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, you have been following more than most of the responses here.I also coulda sworn this was a re-post actually. I wonder if they will win though.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
No, they did not. There were discrepancies between what the reporter claimed and what the car data showed, and other drivers have completed the same trip under similar conditions. The reviewer also skipped a charging station despite the low power warning and let it sit overnight without charging.

Electric cars need electricity. Who knew! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well that's obvious. I didn't know about the skipping part though. But why would a reporter deliberately trash a company? I can see them trash politicians for political idealism and agenda, but a car company for producing cars?
 
For anyone that thinks electric cars suck....

I invite you to travel to a country where gas is unrestricted and dirt cheap.

Inland cities in Mexico, Venezuela.

Yeah the smog is so terrible it gave me asthma and made my eyes itch.
 
damicatz said:
Electric cars are just plain stupid. Where you you think the electricity comes from? The magic power fairy?

Since the majority of electricity is generated by coal, charging up your supposedly clean electric car is almost certainly being done by burning coal somewhere else. Electricity, factoring in the inefficiencies of coal burners, transmission losses, and the loss in converting from AC to DC and storing it in a battery, is a hell of a lot less efficient than an internal combustion engine.
Click to expand...

Where do you think gasoline comes from? The magic gasoline fairy? That we simply dig a hole and use a hose to suck out gasoline directly into our cars?
 
XamediX said:
Don't worry, you have been following more than most of the responses here.I also coulda sworn this was a re-post actually. I wonder if they will win though.
Click to expand...

I actually heard about it through Penny Arcade. They did a comic and a newspost on it, which led me to read parts of the review and Tesla's response to the review. They seemed to have a lot of charts and data to back up their claim so it seems fairly straightforward what this guy did.
 
Azhar said:
Well that's obvious. I didn't know about the skipping part though. But why would a reporter deliberately trash a company? I can see them trash politicians for political idealism and agenda, but a car company for producing cars?
Click to expand...

Because scathing reviews are more fun to read than perfectly positive reviews. Everyone likes gossip.
 
Gweenz said:
That's only the tip of the iceberg, environmentally. The batteries that electric and hybrid cars use first must be produced. That begins at a nickel mine in Canada, not exactly an environmentally friendly or fossil-fuel free operation. That nickel is then typically shipped to China (more fuel), where it is refined and produced into batteries in coal fired factories. Those batteries are then shipped (fill up the tanks, we're crossing the Pacific again) to auto factories which are then installed into vehicles. Where do the batteries go at the end of their lives? Recycled, we hope.

I realize the environmental impact refining of fossil fuels is widely known, but anyone thinking electric cars are the answer needs to ignore the hype.
Click to expand...

The process to produce gasoline isn't pretty either. And combustions engines as well.
 
Azhar said:
Well that's obvious. I didn't know about the skipping part though. But why would a reporter deliberately trash a company? I can see them trash politicians for political idealism and agenda, but a car company for producing cars?
Click to expand...

Maybe not a deliberate act, perhaps an act of omission, or forgetfulness, but either way it makes the story sound way better and the impact is immediate while the fallout to clean up the truths takes considerably longer, hell look at the whole Prius is dirtier than a Hummer story there are still people who use that as proof whenever someone says "green car", hell in this very thread someone mentioned nickel mined in Canada which was featured in that story (FYI Canada mines about 10% of the world's supply, and nickel is used in so many other things from anything stainless steel to coins that it's stupid to point at car batteries and shake a finger)
 
Azhar said:
. But why would a reporter deliberately trash a company? I can see them trash politicians for political idealism and agenda, but a car company for producing cars?
Click to expand...

Why would a game reviewer give a shitty game a 9/10? Why would publishers shove 20 ads per page into a magazine?

I think you know why.
 
MavericK96 said:
I haven't been following this story that closely but if this is the one where they checked the car's "black box" and found the reviewer was not only misleading but outright blatently lying half the time, I think maybe they deserve to get sued.
Click to expand...

Apparently the reporter didn't know he was being tracked, but logs showed him doing things like going 20mph faster than claimed at times, and driving around in circles in a parking lot for a significant amount of time.
 
Term-X said:
Wouldn't be surprised if petrol suits were behind it all. Tinfoil, I know, right?
Click to expand...

Tinfoil indeed. Petroleum companies also produce natural gas, and it's likely that in the next few decades that a plurality/majority of our electricity will be coming from natural gas. Of course natural gas right now is cheap, but that's not likely to last, especially if we put millions of electric cars on the road. Also, petroleum companies are well aware that oil and natural gas will run out eventually. They are moving quickly into biofuels, and slowly into solar and wind energy technology so they can control and profit from energy longterm.
 
damicatz said:
Since the majority of electricity is generated by coal.
Click to expand...
Maybe in your state. Hydroelectric and wind contribute more to the power grid than coal does in mine.

I guarantee electric vehicles would take off if people had to pay the true and unsubsidized cost at the pump. I doubt many people could afford $15 a gallon.
 
Yeah, energy companies aren't so stupid as to hedge all their bets on crude oil. No matter what direction we go, they'll make money.

Besides that, the $100m seems spurious but I wouldn't expect anything less from Elon Musk. The man could open a simple lemonade stand and somehow controversy would surround it.
 
bucket said:
Maybe in your state. Hydroelectric and wind contribute more to the power grid than coal does in mine.

I guarantee electric vehicles would take off if people had to pay the true and unsubsidized cost at the pump. I doubt many people could afford $15 a gallon.
Click to expand...

And most people couldn't afford the true cost of food.
 
LMAO, I thought people are lining up to buy the Model S. All the canceled orders should be filled up in no time. I think Elon Musk is just setting up for the next earning conference call.
 
Anyone that thinks this company is up to par making vehicles go check out the docmentary a few years ago when they even had the film maker purchase one of there cars and it had to be brought back because of "issues" The way the documentary showed how they were running this company I wouldnt go near them with a 10-foot poll. Electric cars are still not better then gasoline powered ones because of factors, heat/cold affect battery power, limited range, no infastructor too speak of for the common driver, too damn expensive. I am not impressed with MPGs Volt/Leaf/Prius currently get simply because 20/30 years ago gas powered engines were easily making 40/50 mpgs just with gas not a lot of people remember that.
 
staticlag said:
For anyone that thinks electric cars suck....

I invite you to travel to a country where gas is unrestricted and dirt cheap.

Inland cities in Mexico, Venezuela.

Yeah the smog is so terrible it gave me asthma and made my eyes itch.
Click to expand...

That is NOT because of gasoline itself. There aren't really any regulations or guidlines that people have to follow about vihicle emissions down there.

Even a well tuned car without all kinds of emmissions equipment (0 emmisions equipment) will pass emmisions tests as well as or better than a brand new car that has all kinds of emmisions reduction crap on it.

I know this for a fact as I have rebuilt and tuned engines that are capable of this. It also increases power and reduces fuel usage.

Poor tuning and disreapir will very easily cause lots of emmisions as well as greatly reduce power and fuel mileage.
 
ServerKing said:
Anyone that thinks this company is up to par making vehicles go check out the docmentary a few years ago when they even had the film maker purchase one of there cars and it had to be brought back because of "issues" The way the documentary showed how they were running this company I wouldnt go near them with a 10-foot poll. Electric cars are still not better then gasoline powered ones because of factors, heat/cold affect battery power, limited range, no infastructor too speak of for the common driver, too damn expensive. I am not impressed with MPGs Volt/Leaf/Prius currently get simply because 20/30 years ago gas powered engines were easily making 40/50 mpgs just with gas not a lot of people remember that.
Click to expand...

Yep, and thanks to all the added regulations and emmissions crap, fuel mileage and power output is lower.

Want better fuel mileage AND more power on a newer? Hollow out or remove the multiple catalytic convertors and other emmisions crap and install an aftermarket ECU.

The only trick is that in places that actually have emissions testing is that you have to know how to set up the aftermarket system so it will still give the "correct" signal to the testers at the emissions place.

And if tunes correctly, they engine will not output any more "emmisions" than before. Possibly even less as the stock ECUs are by design detuned.

The catalytic convertors are what burn the extra unburnt fuel that is passed through the engine because they are tuned so horribly from the factory.
 
Tesla's had a tough time with reviewers. Between Top Gear and the New York Times, it seems as though there's some significant bias against them.

That's not to say that their products are great or anything — because they probably aren't all that great — but I'll support them in calling out the lies and half-truths being reported. The $100m number is probably high, but taking into consideration the fact that negative reviews can deal significant brand damage, it's probably not that far-fetched. Besides, they're gaining significant press over the matter, and most press is good press: people are hearing about the car, and the information Tesla is countering the NYT with isn't bad information.
 
Azhar said:
A news article caused the cancelled orders? It couldn't be the hundreds of software glitches they've not ironed out yet. Nah.

I'd cancel my order too if a NYT article pointed out glaring issues I've not been aware of like the car stalling while driving on the highway, or the door lock unlocking while driving (I have two kids).

It's journalist's job to objectively report the news, not be Tesla's marketing agency.
Click to expand...

You mean people actually believed something published in the New York Times?
Maybe the reporter though his was a Republican run company :)
 
bucket said:
Maybe in your state. Hydroelectric and wind contribute more to the power grid than coal does in mine.

I guarantee electric vehicles would take off if people had to pay the true and unsubsidized cost at the pump. I doubt many people could afford $15 a gallon.
Click to expand...

Tax breaks are not the same subsidizes.

If we only had to pay the true cost at the pump, without all the excessive taxes and regulations (like ethanol) the price would be closer to $2.00 a gallon.

As for Electric cars, without all the subsidizes, tax breaks, rebates to the consumer, the car makers, and even the battery companies, sales would be almost non-existent due to the much high prices.
 
nutzo said:
Tax breaks are not the same subsidizes.

If we only had to pay the true cost at the pump, without all the excessive taxes and regulations (like ethanol) the price would be closer to $2.00 a gallon.
Click to expand...
First, tax breaks are subsidies. There's been a push in the media by energy company-backed pundits to say they're not, but financially they're the same and have the same effect. That doesn't mean they're necessarily bad, but they are subsidies. The word just has a negative connotation with the general public so they're trying to rename it, like "death tax" vs. "inheritance tax."

The "true" cost without the subsidies is much, much higher, even without regulation.
 
they'll recover.

remember that shit about toyota's unintended acceleration, which was really due to idiot behind wheel?

now toyota is back at #1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top