Tesla Disputes NY Times Article With Data Logs

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, has released data logs that he says refutes the claims made in a rather unflattering NY Times article about the Tesla Model S. One possible way both sides can be right? If the gauges weren't properly displaying the charge levels of the car which, as far as I know, no one has looked into.

The logs show again that our Model S never had a chance with John Broder. In the case with Top Gear, their legal defense was that they never actually said it broke down, they just implied that it could and then filmed themselves pushing what viewers did not realize was a perfectly functional car. In Mr. Broder’s case, he simply did not accurately capture what happened and worked very hard to force our car to stop running.
Click to expand...
 
That's fuckin' awesome that Tesla comes back at this fail 'journalist' with a fuck ton of facts, calling him out on his bullshit claims.
 
I love the detailed logs Tesla was able to collect. Showing the complete Fail and straight out lying of this journalist.
 
Teh top gear people like a certain type of muscle/super car. And if electric vehicles make it then Their cars will no longer be made. they are biased because they are protecting their show and their lifestyle.
 
There was another article that made a lot of sense, saying Tesla made a mistake by claiming the car could do everything a regular car could (like tow something) and instead should only focus on the fact that you can go 0 - 60 in 4 seconds around town and then some, and never buy gas.
 
In addition the Journalists of the NY times rally stinks. I actually worked for the NY times. They have a strong liberal bias. and most of their readers are aging and have conservative viewpoints. I used to get letters for cancellations and that was a major reason. I worked in the billing department doing data entry. The two greatest reasons people cancelled and they had to close the call center was the price increases and the extreme left wing bias. They need to have balance.
 
Game Master 128 said:
The New York Times should fire this journalist.
Click to expand...

Why? I haven't seen them fire anyone else for making up stories.

This IS the New York Times after all, I don't understand why anyone would actually believe something they printed.
 
Just curious -- do you think that bashing an electric car is a sign of a liberal bias?
 
After dissecting the data and speaking with author of the original article, The Atlantic Wire says that Elon Musk's data doesn't back up his claims. Round #2...fight!

Not all of Musk's data is entirely convincing and the parts that are don't point to a malicious plot. In the end, it looks like Broder made some compromises to get from the Newark charging station to the Milford one, in both speed and temperature. Broder may not have used Musk's car the way Musk would like, but Musk is, for now, overhyping his case for a breach of journalism ethics.
Click to expand...
 
LOL> NYT guys says he went "54" with the cruise control.

The logs say otehrwise.

Perhaps logs faked>?
 
First cvomment on that article wins:

Here's the most important data point: Musk says Broder unplugged the charger after charging to a range of 32 miles and then drove off for the final segment of his trip which spanned 61 miles. The car made it 51 miles. If Broder can't contest that, there isn't much use quibbling over Musk's other accusations.
Click to expand...

This. The article Steve links to is supposition and nit picking. The car logs it's actions via GPS and other data loggers. They know where it went and how long it was there.

Broder flat out lied in his article. Cruise control at 54? LOL. Right. Anyone ever drive in NY?
 
PunditGuy said:
Just curious -- do you think that bashing an electric car is a sign of a liberal bias?
Click to expand...

Depends. Tesla isn't a UAW company. The big three are. Which do you think the libs are more likely to side with?
 
What failures and lies? Everything NYT's Broder reported is backed up by Tesla's logs.

The only fail really is the first supercharge at Milford, which was not a full charge, and was followed by an overnight stop without plugging in the car, and was further followed by a charge up to 32 miles of range when the distance back to Milford was over 50 miles, so it was making sure never to be able to reach Milford. Broder has no excuse for the first incomplete Milford supercharge, since he had already experienced the discrepancy between the displayed range and actual mileage, so he shouldn't have taken any chance. Unless the car itself displayed a "charge complete" signal, in which case it's Tesla's fault. Let's wait for Broder's answer.

Otherwise most of what Tesla's CEO says is not supported by the evidence in the logs he published himself.

As for the locked parking brake, it shows a very bad design from Tesla, to be expected from such a new manufacturer. I'm sure they'll learn from it and will fix the problem in later models, no big issue, Tesla cars are still amazing in many regards. In any case, Broder was right to report the issue.

I have been following the issue since yesterday, I find it fun. Even posted on Tesla's site, but the comments are moderated and apparently never published. Or maybe just delayed, I'll check again later.
 
Even if every bit of the NYT review were true, I'd buy one of these hands down if I had the money.

I don't need to travel that far, and this is an awesome car.

I had paid reservation for one and would have picked mine up in May, and my divorce not forced me to cash out my reservation :(
 
It sounds to me like Broder should have put more detail into his article than he did. And what Tesla owner is going to pass up any possible charging sites along a route like he did? He wanted to prove how it would operate for everyday people, well most everyday people are going to charge up wherever they can regardless if the sign says Tesla charger or not and definately wont charge less and less at each station along the way. What rational person is going to stop at 32 miles knowing they need to go further than that?
 
adonn78 said:
Teh top gear people like a certain type of muscle/super car. And if electric vehicles make it then Their cars will no longer be made. they are biased because they are protecting their show and their lifestyle.
Click to expand...

That seems spurious. The "top gear" sort of people like fast, well-handling cars. If electric cars make it there, then people will adopt them. The problem remains the performance and the issues with charging.

And that will slowly change, along with the prices.
 
After reading both sides is that is says the guy needed to go 61 miles but he only charged it enough to 32 miles.

What did he think was going to happen?
 
Whether he's right or wrong, Elon Musk is an idiot.

If something negative comes out about the cars that is clearly true, the journalists will be all over it with a relish and no sympathy. Instead of a Page 2 in a couple of places, it will be front page everywhere.
 
adonn78 said:
Teh top gear people like a certain type of muscle/super car. And if electric vehicles make it then Their cars will no longer be made. they are biased because they are protecting their show and their lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Actually the Top Gear guys have never had a problem with the electric motor, as they have said they can be even more powerful than gas or diesel. The problem is, and what they showed on the show that Tesla complained about, is that electric cars in there current implementation have a limited range. At some point they will run out of power and then you need to charge it. And regardless of whether or not the NYT guys spent 47 or 58 mins charging either way that is at least 42 mins too long compared to a regular gas fill up or indeed anyone that wants to get somewhere. The other problem is "fast" charging destroys the batteries even quicker like in about 3 years they will become useless and you would have the spend the money a a small toyota to buy a new pack.
 
D-Wiz said:
Actually the Top Gear guys have never had a problem with the electric motor, as they have said they can be even more powerful than gas or diesel. The problem is, and what they showed on the show that Tesla complained about, is that electric cars in there current implementation have a limited range. At some point they will run out of power and then you need to charge it. And regardless of whether or not the NYT guys spent 47 or 58 mins charging either way that is at least 42 mins too long compared to a regular gas fill up or indeed anyone that wants to get somewhere. The other problem is "fast" charging destroys the batteries even quicker like in about 3 years they will become useless and you would have the spend the money a a small toyota to buy a new pack.
Click to expand...

People expecting batteries to get good enough to charge in a couple of minutes are retards. We are decades away from that I would say. What we need is better capacity to negate the time to charge which is still a decade away I believe. There is still too much R&D and testing to do to get batteries to last a full 24 hours at 100 mph like people expect.
 
I've been watching this boil over on Elon's Twitter feed for the past day, now it’s a kitchen fire. I’ve also been monitoring the TMC forum, sifting around other opinions. It’s interesting how the New York Times is defending John Broder. I'm still a little skeptical on the published data, but Elon provided a good knockout blow on round one.
 
I'd hate to be Elon Musk (he seems like a great guy) in this case... Defending himself from all of these haters.
 
the logs are pretty damning NYT has new article out on it that basically say "NO YOU THE LOGS ARE FAKE" >.>
 
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive
here are the logs make up your own mind
best ones imo
speeddistance0.jpg

speedmph0.jpg
 
The data logs and charts are actually the best proof that Broder did not lie.
His only fault was not to charge fully at Milford when he already experienced on the first stage of his trip that the expected and actual range were wildly different in cold weather.
 
Chimel said:
The data logs and charts are actually the best proof that Broder did not lie.
His only fault was not to charge fully at Milford when he already experienced on the first stage of his trip that the expected and actual range were wildly different in cold weather.
Click to expand...

to bad the logs show he drove much faster then he said he did....
 
The New York Times has done this many times before, with particular lies, omissions, and misleading statements when it comes to anything of a political nature.
adonn78 said:
Teh top gear people like a certain type of muscle/super car. And if electric vehicles make it then Their cars will no longer be made. they are biased because they are protecting their show and their lifestyle.
Click to expand...
Are you really that naive?

The Top Gear people don't care about cars whatsoever, they are entertainers and the shows purpose and focus is on ratings to make MONEY.

A boring review about things working as advertised has no drama, no twists, no excitement, and most importantly no CONTROVERSY to get people talking about the show and thus watching even if they hate Jeremy Clarkson. This means more attention, and more attention means they can charge advertisers more.

So expect every show to be greatly entertaining, but do not expect Top Gear to ever be honest about anything, and certainly never give them the benefit of the doubt of having any integrity whatsoever and realize that they are known to script their shows long before they "test" whatever vehicle they put on the show.
 
Chimel said:
The data logs and charts are actually the best proof that Broder did not lie.
His only fault was not to charge fully at Milford when he already experienced on the first stage of his trip that the expected and actual range were wildly different in cold weather.
Click to expand...
Did you just suffer a stroke, or are you suffering from some kind of dyslexic reading comprehension issues? Please actually read the article and notice the string of lies from start to finish.
 
guess i should add too that yes i know it was colder when they NYT did the drive but with 96 miles of range left that would more then make up for the lower temps as once the batteries get up to temp from use its a non-issue
 
J So said:
After reading both sides is that is says the guy needed to go 61 miles but he only charged it enough to 32 miles.

What did he think was going to happen?
Click to expand...

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/that-tesla-data-what-it-says-and-what-it-doesnt/

It was also Tesla that told me that an hour of charging (at a lower power level) at a public utility in Norwich, Conn., would give me adequate range to reach the Supercharger 61 miles away, even though the car’s range estimator read 32 miles – because, again, I was told that moderate-speed driving would “restore” the battery power lost overnight. That also proved overly optimistic, as I ran out of power about 14 miles shy of the Milford Supercharger and about five miles from the public charging station in East Haven that I was trying to reach.

To reiterate: Tesla personnel told me over the phone that they were able to monitor the state of the battery. It was they who cleared me to leave Norwich after an hour of charging. I spoke at some length with Mr. Straubel and Ms. Ra six days after the trip, and asked for the data they had collected from my drive, to compare against my notes and recollections. Mr. Straubel said they were able to monitor “certain things” remotely and that the company could store and retrieve “typical diagnostic information on the powertrain.”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top