Elon Musk calls NYT review of the Tesla Model S ‘fake,’ citing vehicle log data
thenextweb.com
thenextweb.com
If anything it will ensure others take a more rigorous fact checking process in the future.
If he can't prove it, I'd agree with TylerE.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Consumer Reports bought a Tesla for review, and when they announced it, they mentioned all the hoops they jumped through to prevent Tesla from knowing that they bought one.
Given Musk's tweet about how they always enable data logging for journalists, i'm wondering why it was so important for CR not to let tesla know they bought one.
The most likely reason is that they didn't want Tesla to cherry pick the best unit they had available to ensure a positive review.
It would be an awesomely poor publication that is only willing to report on people and organizations that won't sue the publication when it intentionally misrepresents the facts.
At best what's going to happen here is either a legal suit, or an apologetic exit. It's good that they were storing the logs - machines don't lie.
Unless of course there is legal entanglement.
[1] Tesla vs Top Gear, well documented by Tesla http://www.teslamotors.com/teslavstopgear
[2] NY Times piece in question: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the...
Edit: removed date of lawsuit per comment below
It was in 2011(http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/30/tesla-sues-top-gear-for-l... ), and it was over a largely positive feature on the roadster that aired in 2008.
Top Gear already had this exact interaction with Tesla. Either the Times didn't do their homework, or there is a high return on negative Tesla reviews.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5203228
for a more detailed discussion in this same thread of the Top Gear review and the litigation surrounding it.
Plus the real negative part of the article that Musk is glossing over is, having to turn off heat in a vehicle just to get somewhere, got to be loads of fun in the summer too.
So what we have is possible confusion on part of the reporter or bad UI design. Either way it only points out that a 100k electric car is not a road trip car. Its a trip for suburbanites or similar. Sure you "can" do a long trip but you don't have the range of alternative a normally fueled vehicle has.
battery powered cars are an interesting technology, I am not quite in agreement they are ready for prime time. Considering the range limits of the top of the line I doubt many would be satisfied with the entry level model.
The big automakers are investigating many different fuel systems simply because they know any replacement to truly take hold has to be simple enough for anyone. It just has too work, there is no place for a list of "buts"
You "have" to do the same thing in a gas powered car if you don't fill up the tank when given the chance.
www.sae.org/events/aars/presentations/2004-hill.pdf
Interestingly, the graphs on pages 14 and 15 of the linked report don't appear to support your point. That is, the green curve is strictly less than the blue curve at all investigated speeds.
It typically does (though not as much as the chiller would).
There's two costs to using the heater:
1. The electricity to power the fan comes from the engine. I'm not sure how much of an impact this actually is (depends on the power the fan needs) but there's something there.
2. The heat from the heater comes from the engine block, which cools the engine. On cold days (<15 F) this can have a huge impact on the engine's temperature and will often cool the engine well below it's most efficient operating temperature.
The alternator (or really any electric generator) has a magnetic field, and a lot of coiled up wire. Moving the wire thru the field generates electricity, the faster the wire moves the higher the voltage is. But the more current is moving thru the wire (more load, more things using the electricity), the more it pushes back against the magnetic field (because that current in the wire generates its own field) and so the harder it is to make it move.
That being said the amount of electricity, and thus the load on the belt, to run the fan is very very tiny compared to the energy required to heat the air. In an ICE, the heat energy is literally free. You were going to dump it anyway, might as well be into the cabin.
Since engine speeds vary greatly, having a dumb alternator that provided power scaled in proportion to RPM would be a disaster.
First, the power the run the fan is minuscule. On the order of a few Watts. Maybe a few tens of Watts at most. It's an order of magnitude less than what is needed to run seat heaters (and those have almost no measurable effect on a Model S's range, which is why "range mode" uses seat heat in favor of air conditioning). The energy use you're talking about is enough to move the car an extra few hundred feet after a multi-hundred mile drive.
Second, every ICE has a thermostat on the radiator. It greatly reduces coolant flow to the radiator when the car is warming up, or any other time that the coolant is below optimal temperature. I spent many years in the northern (continental) United States and never encountered a situation where the coolant temperature gauge on an ICE car failed to show normal operating temperature after 10-20 minutes of warm-up time.
The cold-weather fuel economy difference in a conventional car mostly comes down to greater air density.
The sparse atmosphere robs the engine of power, just as it reduces your body's ability to gather oxygen.
The engine's preferred operating temperature is much higher than any reasonable air temperature, and until that point is reached the engine oil will be less lubricative and the fuel (particularly in the case of diesel) less inclined to combust. It will naturally take longer to reach that preferred temperature when it is cold outside, because not only is the air cold but the engine is also this big lump of cold metal, absorbing the heat of combustion and pulling it away from the cylinder where it is needed.
Personally, high altitude driving helps my fuel economy -- I would speculate that it's due to decreased air resistance and the lack of power forcing me to drive a little more conservatively.
The extra fuel comes automatically because modern EFI (electronic fuel injection) motors use several sensors in a feedback loop to ensure that the air:fuel ratio is 14.7:1
There is an air temp sensor and compensation that adds roughly 1% fuel for every 10F drop in temperature. Then the oxygen sensor in the exhaust system measures whether combustion is hitting the 14.7:1 target and adds or subtracts fuel accordingly.
Go further North. I have not seen the temperature gauge on my car move since about October, and I have a huge piece of cardboard blocking the entire radiator to stop air flow.
This won't make any difference unless the thermostat is open. If your temperature gauge is on "cold", you're not even close to the point where the thermostat will open if it's operating normally. Which raises the question: have you had your thermostat checked to make sure it's not stuck open?
Actually, it makes a huge difference as it stops an enormous amount of very cold air going through/around the radiator onto the engine. Everyone up here does it, else cars would not be warm enough to run properly.
> Have you had your thermostat checked to make sure it's not stuck open?
Of course. Everything works great in summer when it's ~+25C
To give you a better understanding of how cold -50C actually is, I can drive for an hour, get out and put my hand directly on the exhaust manifold of my 4-cyl East-West engine (exhaust at front for cooling) and it's only just warm to the touch.
It's cold. Very cold.
Ah, that explains it. :-) I used to do cold weather testing when I worked as an automotive engineer; the coldest we ever tested at was -30 C, and there were plenty of test vehicles that didn't fully warm up at that temperature.
In an EV, heat must be generated at a very high energy expense. You can play with the mileage range estimator on Tesla's website. For the largest capacity (85 kWh) batter, heat knocks range down by about 50 miles. Depending on conditions, at 55 MPH, you're talking 350 to 300 or so with heat at 32F. A gasoline powered ICE will likely actually get slightly higher performance due to greater thermal gas expansion at low temperatures, and lower overall cooling demand: while running the cab heater doesn't consume much power, spinning the radiator fan does, and can usually be avoided in cold weather.
1) The nominal amount of electricity used by a heater blower motor is not going to measurably affect the range of your trip (this is most likely the same for the Tesla)
2) The heat from the engine block is waste heat from the relatively inefficient combustion process. This heat has to be actively dissipated in most driving conditions (typically even in winter). It is essentially free to pipe this heat into the cabin. Now contrast this with the Tesla's 400 electrical resistance heater, which has to directly compromise range to generate cabin heat.
My mitsubishi mini-split: 1. Can produce it's full BTU load all the way down to 5F, and 75% BTU load down to -13F. 2. Doesn't bother to blow air until it's warm :)
They aren't even that much larger than a resistance based coil system (though I could imagine the model S may not be able to fit them)
The fan practically never runs in cold weather. The only time it's needed is in hot weather, when you're stopped or at low speed and there's not enough airflow over the radiator and/or condenser. In cold weather the thermostat controls engine temperature, not the radiator, so the fan never gets told to turn on.
The reporter in this article both failed to charge his car as much as needed and took a large detour that took off some range of the car. If you want to drive recklessly, sure, you're going to run into issues. But there is a significant enough Level 2 charging infrastructure already and Tesla's Level 3-ish Supercharger network is going to supplement that entirely. As it is, I can already take long trips. I just have to wait longer for a full Level 2 charge than I will on a Supercharger in the very near future.
3 hours added to the trip - and probably more like 4 hours when you consider that the Supercharger stations are not going to be located right on the main roadways all the time.
A 1000 mile trip in a gas vehicle would require 3, maybe 4 fuel ups. I've timed my fill-ups many times, 7 minutes from off the road to back on (assuming an en-route gas station) is about the average. So, figure 28 minutes lost to fueling, vs. 4 hours. The Tesla will take at least 3.5 hours longer to make the same trip.
1000 miles at an average of 50 mph (seems low, but I've driven 720 mile trips from NH to MI many times) is 20 hours if you drive straight through. 20.5 hours with gas, 24 hours with Superchargers.
I love the Tesla cars, I've seriously considered the Model S, but I don't see how (for me) it is really a viable long-distance driver yet. Yes, you have a better chance of not getting stranded vs. maybe a Nissan Leaf, but it's a suboptimal alternative to gasoline still.
I think it'd be cool to have coffee shops or a lounge setting where you can use your computer in a relaxed environment while you make sure nobody messes with your car.
But honestly, when on a road trip with family, I am lucky to have a stop as short as 1 hour if we are eating a meal.
Rrriiiiggght. No one would ever key the paint work, slash the tires, (attempt to) hack the onboard systems of, or vomit into an unattended luxury car.
A better argument would be that the car is being charged on camera at a human attended station that takes security seriously.
As for "novelty value and thrill" well, yes, it's stupid, pointless, and exactly the kind of dumb arse flash fad that has happened in the past and could well happen in the future - there's no logic to such things.
It's like telling someone that a neighborhood he's thinking of moving into is unsafe without mentioning that your assessment based on the fact that the neighborhood is as likely as any other to get hit by a meteor. That doesn't qualify it as an "unsafe neighborhood" on the scale most people care about.
All those Supercharging stations are going to be located right next to places to eat. With about 4-5 hours between stops, that's right around when my stomach is going to start rumbling and I'll want to take a longer stop anyways.
They'd likely need more charging ports, though, in the long term.
On a trip that long, my wife is generally along as we'll, so we can trade off shifts driving. We will usually bring some snacks to eat along the way as well.
So, my numbers are still pretty accurate. You can go farther between fill ups on gas, and you can refuel (you, and the car) in less than 30 minutes ( or 45-60 minutes of you need more than a top-off, based on accessories use in the vehicles).
To establish a frame of reference, this means SF <-> LA would take ~7 hours instead of 5.5. SF <-> San Diego would be just shy of 10 hours.
I just drove from San Francisco to San Jose yesterday with my family, had to stop twice along the way for near-emergency bathroom breaks. 45 minutes every 4 hours sounds like NO PROBLEM.
I think we can safely conclude that unless there is going to be a huge breakthrough in battery technology really soon, EV's that run on batteries alone are not going to be a success for anything but short-distance commutes.
I'm still hoping for breakthroughs in other technologies that would make generating electricity so cheap that we can afford to waste a lot of it producing hydrogen. That would instantly obviate the need to lug around heavy batteries that take long to recharge, run out fast, require a lot of energy to produce, and are full of nasty chemicals that pollute the areas where they are mined.
Battery-powered EV's simply aren't all roses and sunshine, and I'm frankly quite amazed how easy the negatives are papered over.
From Google Maps, the Harris Ranch location is presently a single charging station. That is something which should be readily scalable as demand rises.
Your usage pattern at a given Supercharger station would be a factor of total traffic on nearby highways, Tesla ownership, and recharge needs. Present stations are at highway plazas -- not necessarily in high-ticket areas (hello, Harris Ranch and Barstow), but given the vehicle owner demographics and minimum 30 minute linger time, they'll likely offer typical captive-audience amenities, so the time won't be a total loss.
And charging is possible from other outlets, though at 5 miles/hour from 110AC, that's a good (or bad) 60 hours to recover full range. More likely you're getting sufficient charge to get to a higher-rated output.
Further though: so long as queuing depth is one vehicle (that is, you arrive, all chargers are filled, and there are no vehicles in front of you), the mean wait time assuming a 50% charge is 30/n, where n is the number of stations. So, 6 stations, queue depth of 1, you'll wait on average 5 minutes for someone to pull out, extending your total recharge time to 35 minutes. If Tesla strives for this as a 95%+ level of service, it should be tolerable, though high-travel periods (holiday weekends in particular) would tend to be worst-case scenarios.
I don't think that's the only option, battery swapping springs to mind as an alternative to beat the problem.
Family of four with a baby or two, and a trunk / roof rack full of luggage? Transferring between cars would be a bit of a PITA. I'd opt for the swappable battery in that case (or a liquid-fueled vehicle).
Changing it takes seconds, the entire operation more or less like going to the gas station to fuel a conventional car.
You would lease a battery for 3 or 5 years from a company, and then swap at that company's swap stations. They would bill you on something like total miles put on the vehicle or total miles delta put on at swap stations. You would have exactly one entity with which you would interact in case of battery issues: the company.
"Only a four hour difference for not using gas? Sign me up!"
I see what you mean about convenience, but a lot of people will forgo that. Besides, if you're traveling 1000 miles, why does 4 hours matter unless you have a hard deadline and need to travel straight through?
Anyway, the whole discussion is silly, no one buys a $45,000 car with a less than 200 mile range for the practicality of it.
On the other hand: you'll be shelling out about $60 for each gas station stop; and $0 for each Supercharger stop. That adds up too, you know.
> 3 hours added to the trip - and probably more like 4 hours when you consider that the Supercharger stations are not going to be located right on the main roadways all the time.
On the other hand, with normal commuting patterns you have to refuel your gasoline car about once every two weeks or month depending on the car and your driving habits. With an electric car, you just plug in every night and never stop at a smelly gross gas station again.
I don't know why people complain that when you use a product for what it's not designed for, it's bad at it. Electric cars are bad for road trips. If you're going 1,000 miles, use an airplane or at least a train.
an image: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AnwyDQUET2I/T6dyawydsqI/AAAAAAAAAG...
"In early October 2012, Agassi resigned from his role as worldwide Better Place CEO, and was replaced by Evan Thornley, CEO of Better Place-Australia. Briefly, Agassi remained on the company board, but a week later he resigned from that position as well. A few days after Thornley's appointment, Better Place asked its investors for a round of emergency funding, totaling about $150 million.[8][9] On October 11, 2012, Haaretz reported that Better Place might lay off up to half its staff of several hundred employees.[10] On October 29, 2012, Ynet reported that Better Place would that week lay off 150 to 200 people out of its 400-person staff in Israel as it seeks financing to combat its cash-flow problems.[11] In late January 2013, Thornley resigned, and Dan Cohen was named acting CEO by the board.[12]"
Of course there is! Here are some example buts for ICEs:
Gasoline is a dense energy source, but...
it stinks.
it's toxic.
it's too noisy.
its price is too determined by foreign politics.
it puts high stress and heat on the car, requiring constant maintenance.
it's not shelf stable.
its performance is dependent on altitude.But from an engineering point of view, I just don't find ICEs elegant. Too many moving pieces, and all that for about 30% efficiency (the remaining 70% is lost as waste heat). Good thing gasoline is so energy-dense, because when you're wasting 70% of your energy, you need that.
I would argue that efficiency and low emissions do not preclude something from being elegant. Steam plants can also be elegant, and they can be extremely efficient and low-emissions, but a steam plant cannot be bolted onto a motor car or a small aeroplane for which a turbine would be inappropriate. All forms of heat engines have their upsides and downsides.
Anyway, at the end of the day, consumers don't care one iota about engineering elegance.
The real question is where that fuel will be sourced.
I'd like to see efforts at using energy sources to manufacture gasoline from environmental sources of carbon, making the fuel carbon-neutral. How does that compare to electric vehicles?
There have been efforts to do this; basically any form of biodiesel that is produced by bacteria can probably be considered carbon-neutral.
I address issues of alternate fuels in a prior post, and suspect we'll see liquid hydrocarbons, of some stripe, for quite some time.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5204104
Edit: speling
A fair number of people can't put it together. The fact that we've extracted and re-released to the atmosphere a significant fraction of the hydrocarbons which have been sequestered via biological activity over a ~260 million year period, within a century, seems to escape a lot of folks.
As does the distinction between energy sources and energy media. And while technically fossil fuels are themselves a medium for sunlight, humans don't have to drive that particular conversion.
Besides, pedantism is one of the rare pleasures of old age.
While I see us moving from fossil fuel, I still see liquid fuels playing an important role in mechanized transit (ground, water, air) for as long as we're technologically capable of doing so.
For the average consumer of automobile technology, these are non-issues. Logistical and pricing issues are moderated and subsidized by governments and car manufacturers. From the consumer's point of view, you go to a gas station once a week, and the car "just works."
As superior as an electric system may be technically, economically, environmentally, etc, if you want it to take off, the UI and logistics need to be smoothed over until you get a similar level of "it just works" which matches the consumer's experience with gasoline.
> it stinks. > it's toxic. > it's too noisy.
These three points affect anyone who lives near heavy automobile traffic. Just because it's an externality doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
> its price is too determined by foreign politics.
When gasoline prices doubled from $2/gallon to $4/gallon, people certainly thought that was relevant. The price spike is partly responsible for the rise in hybrid vehicles.
> it puts high stress and heat on the car, requiring constant maintenance.
Oil changes every 5k miles and major services every 15k don't qualify as "just works" in my book.
> it's not shelf stable.
I'll grant you this one is irrelevant to consumers.
Not if I want to put my car in long-term storage. Then this, too, becomes quite relevant.
I live near a heavily trafficked road. To be honest these aren't problems; the noise issue is far outweighed by a) people playing uber-loud music on their car stereo (not any different with electric cars) and the noise of the electric train (BART) that runs above the road.
And we don't even know about all the external effects that gasoline cars have; there was this article in Mother Jones [1] recently that correlated leaded gas to the crime rate, owing to the detrimental effects lead has on the human brain.
[1]: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li...
There are few items in this day and age that don't require owners to perform periodic maintenance. Tesla cars aren't immune from requiring annual inspections (http://www.teslamotors.com/service) either.
And the externalities of electric cars matter quite a bit to the people who live next to coal-fired power plants.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/your-money/11shortcuts.htm...
Newer cars require oil change/service every 30000 km / 2 years. That would be ~20k miles.
However, it occurs over such a timespan that the immediate effects are a non-issue, just long-term. The average person does not take into serious consideration the 30+ year effect of a decision, but a more near-term one.
The rest is mainly a cost issue. Conventional cars have 100 years of mass production advantage.
It will take some time until price goes down, and catch gasoline. Electronics, batteries and electric engines are way easier to mass produce than thermal engines.
quiet - one of the selling points of expensive cars are how great their engines sound.
beautiful - I don't think it's look compare to an Aston Martin or Maserati. Maybe that's just me.
high status - mostly because they are so new and rare at this point.
I can't commen on the others because I honestly don't know.
It's not a sports car, luxury cars pride themselves on what you can't hear.
Well, the best performing option does have excellent acceleration (4.4s to 60) - but they aren't actually that fast in terms of top speed - 130mph. Of course, that is pretty irrelevant to most of us who don't have unrestricted Autobahns to drive on.
Are you saying people buy a maserati for what they can't hear?
I'm not arguing that it is a bad car. I just don't think we can say it blows away all cars on its luxury and performance.
In other words its not the end all be all of cars.
And having to take extreme care to look after the battery is not low maintainance.
If you want a beautiful machine with US style handling buy a Shelby Mustang (though they have now seen sense and make them with a non live back Axel)
The countries that do not have enough of it have to invent stupid excuses for invading the countries that do have, incurring in high costs while killing millions, because if not transportation halts and the economy nukes.
It is a highly pollutant for cities, specially diesel particles that are carcinogenic, while on electric generation plants you could use particle filters that are very efficient and cheap, and also far from where most people lives.
It is very complex and things breaks a lot. You need to change the oil frequently, drive belts and also the brakes while with regenerative braking they last forever.
Many of the other issues with gasoline- smell, toxicity, stability- have been largely addressed by the distribution infrastructure.
Oh, by the way, gasoline isn't all that toxic. It is more hazardous for its volatility rather than any poisonous properties for humans.
Last thought- one of the two things that are still an obstacle (performance at extreme altitude) is firstly always going to be an obstacle for any type of combustion engine and secondly addressable with a turbocharger if you care enough.
"Inhaling or swallowing large amounts of gasoline can cause death." http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=467&tid=83
I'm not saying don't buy one, but don't expect electric vehicles to be as reliable as ICE vehicles for at least another decade. Maybe two or three.
Electric vehicles using software "clutches" are to ICE-powered cars as SSD is to HDDs - at first, there will be downsides and only the adventurous will get to showboat, but in several generations the only reason you don't get an electric car (SSD) is if you really need the range (storage space using our analogy) or can't afford the upgrade.
Gasoline vehicles have gone from being absolute pains in the ass to maintain (I've worked on and rehabbed many an old vehicle, including mid 80's Oldsmobiles, 70's era air cooled VWs, and mid to late 90's GM vehicles) to significantly less pains in the ass, but still finicky creatures. 4 or 5 years in on modern ICE vehicles, you're going to start seeing problems that can often be expensive. If its not the electrical, it will be failed pump on the cooling system, or even a cracked impeller (now that they are made of plastic).
Can you prevent this all with regular maintenance? Of course, but let's not pretend like this isn't much more complicated than it needs to be. An electric vehicle isn't going to have tubes, pumps, fans, impellers, thermostats, spark plugs, valves,cylinders, ignition coils, injectors, oxygen sensors!!! ($10 part with several hours of labor to replace), catalytic converters... and my god how many other expensive, prone to breaking moving parts can I name.
And then you are sitting there talking about turbochargers? Really?? Do you have any idea what kind of maintenance is required, and oh wait, now we can up our octane to 93, pay out the ass for gasoline, and deal with all the extra wear an tear high compression turbo engines deal with......
Thanks, glad to see we have a stage of mutual respect established.
Gasoline doesn't even come close to winning internal combusion category. Diesel blows it away in reliability
Ah, I see, only the most reliable thing can be considered reliable? More importantly, gasoline engines can be designed like diesels. We have direct injection for gas engines. We have low-rpm torquey gasoline engines (see the slant-6). A key reason diesel engines tend to be more reliable is because diesel engines are often used in applications that demand reliability, while gasoline engines are often used in applications that are willing to sacrifice some reliability for extra performance. Which, mind you, is not something electric vehicles will be immune from.
If its not the electrical, it will be failed pump on the cooling system
And I suppose you think electric vehicles don't have liquid cooling and heating systems? Cute.
Why exactly would an ELECTRIC VEHICLE be less prone to electrical failure, anyway?
talking about turbochargers ... do you have any idea what kind of maintenance is required...
No, I have no idea. In fact, I've never even heard of turbochargers before, I'm not sure why I said that word!
Turbochargers are a trade-off to handle a deficiency. Electric cars make trade-offs too, as they are not perfect either; their deficiencies are simply different.
high compression turbo engines
Who said anything about that?
I still prefer Diesels for my own transport.
Diesel is another but it's a bit smelly although I was behind a Mercedes diesel SUV and didn't realize it until I read the rear badge, no smell at all.
Although bio-diesel or even straight vegetable oil can be burned since Rudolph Diesel intended the diesel engine to run on peanut oil so farmers could afford the fuel.
If that is the negative part then write an article about that and see how many views it gets. Fabricating a bunch of stuff will get more hits.
Also, assuming a more 'official' response is in the works, a tweet is still faster so both are probably a decent idea during a time-sensitive event like bad publicity.
Putting the tweets out there ahead of time also changes the conversation's point-of-view. Now the public will demand answers from the NYT along with Musk while everyone waits for the data. Hell, he doesn't even need to publish the data for a while. Everyone can sit back and watch what the NYT does next.
You have something important to say, and you're forced to drop pronouns and abbreviate words and break your message into several pieces. Your response to the world reads like a rushed text I'd get from my little sister.
To me, it just makes the whole thing feel somewhat petty.
But that's probably just me, getting older.
I really hope that this guy gets canned if he wove a narrative that is deceptive and false. Too much is riding on the public impressions. That being said, there are, at least, two Tesla roadsters in my area and they don't seem to have a problem driving around.
Am I the only that likes a good ol' throw-down! Put up or shut up, suckers.
So, was the 'detour' Musk refers to mixed in with the overnight drop? Or perhaps there was another unreported drain on the battery, overnight?
Looking back at the original article - www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html?pagewanted=all - it seems that at low-power-charge point 6, "after an hour [Tesla] cleared me to resume the trip to Milford". Presumably, that's why the reporter set out on a 118-mile journey (6-7, 7-8) with a car whose self-reported estimated range was only 32 miles.
So some things to look for in Musk's reply: (1) Why the severe overnight range drop? (2) Why the mixed-signals about whether it was OK to depart Norwich (point 6)?
I look forward to their being more information released, but given the above chart, I do not immediately believe that the NYT reporter lied just because the company that was being reviewed says so.
"Tesla data logging is only turned on with explicit written permission from customers, but after Top Gear BS, we always keep it on for media."
It states you have to explicitly sign to have your data logged, and they have it on by default for media reviews due to some incident with Top Gear.
If tesla is selling the car on the east coast, this is not a "fake" scenario. From a PR perspective, the damage is done. Gotcha;s aside by either NYT or Tesla (whoever is right) it sorta doesn;t matter...
Tucked towards the end was a note about how the mileage estimate is indeed an estimate and that cold weather (or hot!) among other things can affect milage. Shocker.
Now finding out that the facts may not have been represented is even more curious.
Let's see that car data Mr. Musk.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/13633-NYT-arti...
From actual Tesla owners, the performance seen by the NYT reporter appears to be par for the course. To date most all-electric vehicles have struggled in the cold. The Nissan Leaf has a terrible time of it, with the range decreased significantly. I was honestly excited to see how Tesla S card would fare in cold weather, and how the Tesla engineers got around this problem. Disappointingly it looks like they didn't, and (anecdotally) the problem may be even worse on the Tesla S than on the roadster or even the Leaf. Bummer.
To everyone comparing the cold weather performance of the Tesla to an ICE: yes, ICEs do get harder to start and less efficient in the cold. But for an ICE, that kind of cold is significantly under 0 farenheit - most of the U.S. is at a low enough latitude that temperatures like this are rarely seen and modern ICE cars will start happily without the need for block heaters and other measures. The reporter had significant trouble at temperatures around 30F which even an air-cooled car from decades ago will shrug off. We're talking about maybe 10% of the population having to take special measures during especially cold times of the year (block heaters for temps < 0F) vs >50% of the population (plugging in overnight, every day, for temperatures <= 30F). HUGE difference
Another blog post which sounds a bit more horrific than the NYT experience, although the Tesla owner really takes it with a good attitude:
http://andwediditourway.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/the-not-so-ev...
Other interesting information gleaned from the thread - 120V is useless for electric cars, you really have to have a dedicated circuit for them. And did I mention they hate the cold?
I'm rooting for Tesla and for electric cars. But I do wish they were rated to perform at lower temperatures, and that everyone (Tesla and reporters alike) was more transparent about this. I'd rather see a few people turned off on electric cars and the rest informed and trained with the care and feeding of the cars during winter, than to see people stranded out in the cold because they weren't aware of their cars' performance envelopes.
Also, 240v cars makes so much more sense in a world where 99% of people use 240v outlets, and in the US you can just oscillate two 120v's and get a usually-good-enough 240v signal.
Yes, although at least in my view part of the selling point is that we have plugs everywhere, so you have electricity anywhere right? Well, hunting around for a 240V plug is a big harder than 120V.
Also, even though 99% (???) of the world is on 240V, I think the current rating on those circuits still limits power to around 2kW sustained.
Thanks for explaining the 240/230v difference, I'd always wondered why it existed.
It is a little cumbersome though (had to plumb it to a tank, etc)
A bit like this one: http://www.cafeideas.com.au/product.asp?pID=3620&cID=211
But when you need a lot of power, you would install a 400V three-phase circuit (230 V between one phase and ground, 400V between two phases), something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_and_multiphase_power...
This kind of circuit isn't very common in households, but it's fairly simple to get one if you need it - most houses have three-phase power right up to the door, so an electrician can install it in a few hours. My grandfather had one for his circular saw.
But yes, hunting for these circuits on a road trip will be harder than finding a household circuit. Although that could change rather quickly if electric cars prove popular.
Only 10A? That seems very low, the common "mainland" circuits seem pretty much all rated 16A (@230V). So you can't even run some electric kettles at your place?
(but I confirm you can get 3-phase for very high loads, you'll usually pay the electricity company through the nose for running it though)
The standard for newer houses, the past 10-15 years or so, is indeed 16A. I have 5x16A + 1x20A and a 35A main circuit breaker, so I can pull about 8kW all together. Enough for a few kettles :) (This is for a a 40m^2/400 sq.ft. condo. A house would have more circuits and a larger main circuit breaker. And this is for Norway - we tend to follow similar standards as Denmark and Sweden, but there may be differences I'm not aware of.)
Ah that's probably it, I missed that you were talking about older houses. The content of your second paragraph sounds much like what I know.
That's not particularly meaningful. 60 hours to a full 85kWh charge.
EVs have no problem "starting" in low temperatures. You might not be able to draw as much power for the drive train as the pack is heating up, but it's not a primordial "fuel-air-mix won't explode" problem.
There is no "problem" to get around; you either risk your battery pack getting damaged or you have an active battery management system that regulates the packs temperature. That will consume power, no way around it.
Now there are some conflating issues we have to consider. Tesla recently disabled in a patch the sleeping modes of some onboard components, and this vampire load might be contributing greatly to the large loss of energy reported overnight. The other is the drivers mentality; you don't drive it to the point of 5% remaining and then fuel up, thats how you do it with ICEs. Instead, you just simply plug it in whereever you can. And frankly, if you are going to keep it outside overnight at very very low temperatures (thereby forcing the battery management system to expend energy for heating), plug it into a 120V. They can (contra to your statement) get enough power from even from a 120V to keep the battery pack (and your range) at least at the same level, if not adding range.
---
A side remark: I very much think this is a complete non-issue. 90% of driving is commuting, it is decidedly not long-range trips. And then this is mostly an issue of infrastructure; if there were at least 120V plugs at every parking lot, you wouldn't ever have to worry about these vampire loads. Infrastructure, since we are at it, is of course a much much bigger problem for gasoline cars; think of all the steps necessary to refine oil into gasoline and make it available at gas stations. Driving an ICE across states at the time of their advent would not have been a particularly enjoyable experience due to the general unavailability of fuel.
Edit: the thing that really bugs me about the response is that it's empty so far. If you've got conclusive evidence, show the evidence. Don't go all he-said-she-said in the meantime.
Speaking of inconveniences, how can someone who lives in an apartment own a Tesla vehicle? Most parking garages I've come across don't even have a standard 110v outlet, let alone the 240v outlets needed for faster charging. Is the solution for them to hope that there's a supercharger near by? It seems like Tesla is only viable if you live in a house.
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/musk-model-s-works-well-nyt-a...
Would you buy a second vehicle to accommodate your needs for the remaining 10% of your driving?
If you drive to grandma's/the in-laws/"up to the cabin" three or four times a year, that's only 1% of trips (assuming you commute every day and run local errands on the weekends). Most families in the US already have multiple vehicles. Why can't one be an electric?
Overblown, at least for modern cars. Girlfriend sometimes drives an ICE 1.5 miles to work, Gas mileage suffers ~30% versus freeway driving. When I did ~7 mile trips to work and back efficiency was <20% worse than freeway driving. Combustion chamber temps warm relatively quickly.
EVs have no problem "starting" in low temperatures. You might not be able to draw as much power for the drive train as the pack is heating up, but it's not a primordial "fuel-air-mix won't explode" problem.
In theory you're correct. In practice, ICEs will start and operate at temperature of -40F (perhaps with a bit of help heating the oil). The Tesla in the article was brought to its knees in temperatures within the positive teens.
And then this is mostly an issue of infrastructure; if there were at least 120V plugs at every parking lot, you wouldn't ever have to worry about these vampire loads.
Except now you have to convince everyone to install 120V plugs in parking lots, wire them up, figure out a way to bill for this or provided it for free, AND you have to remind the consumer to plug in every time they park their car.
Can anyone tell me why the car discharges when plugged into a 120V supply? It's mentioned in one of the links above and in the NYT article.
I'm aware that you can't supply much current with a standard 120V supply, but why would it discharge? I would imagine at a minimum you'd have a very slow charge rate, but from these two anecdotes, it appears in cold weather it still slowly loses charge when plugged into 120V.
Is the car constantly heating the battery? I could see that being the issue as engine block heaters draw a ton of current and they take a long time to heat up an engine block. I'm assuming the battery has a lot more thermal mass than a 300 lb engine block.
1) The current firmware assumes there is "unlimited" energy available when charging, so it can keep the battery warm with little impact on charging rate (this is not a bad assumption for everything other than 120V/15A charging).
2) The current firmware assumes that the battery needs to be kept warm when charging (this is not a bad assumption for everything other than 120V/15A charging, but may not be correct for low-power charging).
3) The power required to keep the battery warm in near-zero (Fahrenheit) temperatures is nearly the same as the maximum continuous power available from a 120V/15A outlet (1.44kW, because the maximum continuous load is only 80% of the maximum load), at least initially.
The firmware probably needs to be tweaked for cold-weather, low-power charging. The firmware needs to know how to estimate state of charge when the battery is colder than normal. It could probably prioritize charging ahead of heating until the battery reaches a higher state of charge.
Problem is, Tesla doesn't have moore's law to make the car run faster on the same charge or allow more empty space for bigger batteries, so the only real solution is more charging stations and faster charging.
tl;dr of course they're lying, it's easier to make stuff up then investigate so why wouldn't a reporter always just lie?
I don't think this is true "on any occasion"; that journalistic lying is news indicates that it rarely happens or rarely is caught.
I think it's possible to see this as an example of a problem with this individual journalist, or with the culture of journalism, without assuming "the journalist will turn out to be lying" in all circumstances.
The first is that few are in a position to prove journalistic lies.
The second is that journalists do not like pushing reporting on other journalists lying because they are outing people they know, and they may get the same treatment some day.
The third (and in some ways most important) is that since the rise of the "blogosphere" in recent years, facts have become much less important. (Why? Because if you report something wrong you get clicks, then you publish a retraction and get clicks, then you can do a puff piece about "how could this happen" and get more clicks. Bingo, you earned ad dollars 3x when fact checking would have earned you nothing. What incentive, then, is there to fact check?) Therefore there is an erosion of standards which means that we should expect lying to go up over time.
My sister was famous back in "the good old days" of the 80s, back when media actually cared about its reputation. Even then it was a good idea to assume journalists were lying slime. Today I firmly believe that it is much worse.
If you are a blogger and disagree, then tell me this. How much of a fact check did your last 5 stories get beyond, "Can I find someone else saying this?"
My last 5 blog posts (robotics on Hizook.com) were exceedingly fact checked. But then again, I'm a subject matter expert: I have a PhD in robotics. Terrance Tao... also exceedingly fact checked (Fields medal winner blogging about math). Richard Lipton... same (famous computer researcher blogs about P vs. NP).
I know that's not your point... but not all bloggers are equally sketch. Some of us know what we're talking about.
I also blog occasionally, and fact check my stuff. But if you're going to make money by the ad impression, you have a very specific set of incentives. Care and integrity are not high on the list.
But there are a ton of subject matter experts (like John Baez) out there blogging on objective stuff, and their average quality is often amazing.
Of all the times that I've been interviewed, I've been misquoted more often than not. Many others have noticed the same thing.
Scott Adams: "I've been interviewed several hundred times in my career. When I see my quotes taken out of context it is often horrifying. Your jaw would drop if you saw how often quotes are literally manufactured by writers to make a point. " http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/quote_approval/
Marco Arment: "I’ve learned the hard way, over and over again, that it’s most wise to talk to journalists the way you’d talk to the police: ideally, don’t. You have everything to lose and almost nothing to gain." http://www.marco.org/2012/09/19/quote-approval
Let the reporter do as he pleases, but inform him that you have a record of the interview too. That would keep them honest.
Woah woah here... I wasn't about to fully support the grandparent here, but I would hazzard a guess that more often than not, persons end up misquoted, out of context, or sentences are strung together "just so" to make you "think" in a certain manner, that may not be factual. It happens everywhere. My own anecdotal evidence: I was in boy scouts, we camped near a farm field, trampled rows of corn to make a boundary for a capture the flag game, got busted, and had to go back and pick up all the corn by hand and make amends with farmer. The newspaper wrote up a fantastic article about how local boy scouts helped the community by helping a farmer reap damaged crops. there were no lies or factual inaccuracies in the article, sans lies of omission. From this, and what others respond to you, I'd believe this happens more often that not. But certainly not at 100% either.
1. Lawsuits 2. Loss of credibility 3. Often the truth is more interesting than fiction
2. Almost never happens
3. The truth is harder to write and the editor wants 700 words in the next hour.
No, in that case you have a single data point that doesn't prove a larger point.
Don't get me wrong, I have no data to prove either side's argument, but suggesting that almost every single article written is a lie seems like a high level of paranoia.
It sounds like you are basing a sweeping assertion on your personal experience. I certainly empathize, but you simply can't paint the entire profession with that brush Even with the "not universally" half-caveat, you are still implying journalists lie and fabricate more often than not.
It would be an extraordinary claim to suggest that's not the case. Journalists are basically people who would rather be writing fiction, but who haven't figured out a way to get paid for it.
It's a terrible-sounding generalization to make, but I will stand by it.
Have you met a journalist?
Yes, many times.
Where on earth do you get that generalization from?
See above.
Election reporting isn't comparable to the scenario in this story, because there are literally more reporters than there are subjects being reported upon. In my experience journalists play fast and loose with the facts when there is a low likelihood that someone will call them on it. That's why the previous NYT scandals have involved remote correspondents (Blair) and/or cases where the journalists are serving as lapdogs for powerful political interests (Miller).
If this NYT reporter indeed misrepresented the facts of his test drive, then he's just an idiot, plain and simple. He either knew or should have suspected that the car was logging his every move, and that an adverse review would be challenged strongly by the company.
So I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to respond. You can't make a broad statement like "Journalists are basically people who would rather be writing fiction" then immediately rebase to "the scenario in this story".
Actually, the extraordinary claim is yours, since it is an outlier.
> Journalists are basically people who would rather be writing fiction
Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence to support this claim?
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” — Michael Crichton
It's of course ok to bend facts when it's in the service of a fictional story, but Crichton too frequently was portrayed (often by himself) as a true subject matter expert.
1. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html
2. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/glo...
http://www.crichton-official.com/features-spoonbending.html
Really? A medical doctor that believes in spoon bending and fortune telling? Sigh... Of course Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in Fairies
The idea that the author of The Andromeda Strain could be taken in by spoon-bending was also more than a bit frightening.
One could argue that news must be devoid of any such slants, angles, or specific POVs but then we get caught in a debate about boring news that won't sell vs. sensationalized news that is meant solely to increase sales. Just like for programmers it is a constant balance between quality, deadlines, and cost, for journalists it is between truth, importance, and sales. '12 more people dead in blast in Tel Aviv' is truth and important but not sensational enough to sell. 'No-name D-list celeb gets caught speeding' is truth and sensational but not important.
In articles like this, they're trying to make it sound important and sensational while skirting around the limits of truth. In personal articles we've been involved in, they play the angles to show importance and make it sensational while not caring much about the factual accuracies.
I don't really like to write. I am only doing it because of a desire to express an idea or concept. Maybe journalism could improve with that spearhead.
I haven't read every last word on the case, but it seems to me that Top Gear gave Tesla a very harsh review... but that they didn't cheat or do anything really wrong.
IMHO, I would at least give the NYTimes a chance to respond before jumping to any conclusions.
Top Gear's take on the lawsuit: http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2011/04/02/tesla-vs-to...
Tesla's reply: http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/how-we-see-it-top-ge...
Article on case being thrown out for a second time: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/23/top-gear-libel-c...
"English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and is considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. "
However, Top Gear have made their reputation winding people up. He was being pretty touchy by responding.
Here's what I posted at the time: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2856821
Of course, only time will tell in the case of the NYT.
But the judge said that this is the kind of thing you expect from Top Gear as an entertainment show and it was ok to say it ran out of charge?
Not accurate on both counts.
1. If I drive East West or North from my house right now on major national highways, I won't find a gas station for many hundreds of KMs in any direction.
2. The Veyron will drain it's gas tank in ~10 minutes, as will other high-performance cars that achieve 1/4 mile results similar to the Model S. http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/1206_2013_bugatt...
> Not accurate on both counts.
I'm all for electric cars, seems to me to be the future. But if Musk and Co will insist on reacting like a scolded car every time some reviewer says something negative, in a really over sensitive way, they aint never gonna look good.
On top of that, they are aggravating relationships that could be crucial in the future. Dunno about the NYT, but I can see Top Gear just ignoring them, even when the car does improve. And there would come a time when TG does say, "yes this car is now practical". Well, there might have been. Who knows now.
Sad that Musk is still crying over the TG "BS" too. Seems a bit of a grudge holder, even when proved wrong in law.
I really like Musk's usual style and what he stands for, I also think he is doing a great job developing these cars, and soon, he will get there, but all this is a real turn off to me. And I can't help thinking he is making his own life worse with these reactions.
Ronald Reagan's publicists used to love it when Frontline would have some scathing exposé of the administration, so long as they accompanied it with stock video of Ronald Reagan going around looking presidential, cutting ribbons at new senior care centers and such. It didn't matter if the announcer was discussing his cutting funds for such places. The text of the message didn't matter to them at all, only the images.
We think of ourselves as lofty, intelligent Homo sapiens, but we really mostly operate on an ape-like, "monkey-see, monkey do," level.
If you put yourself in shoes where such effects are really significant and cost you money or valuable publicity, I think you'd start to understand a bit more. It's much the same with various forms of prejudice and "oversensitivity." It's difficult to really understand the costs to all parties involved, short of direct experience.
There is no such thing. Law is inherently subjective.
That said, Musk also has a lot to lose by calling out a reporter for fabricating data. It's a pretty serious allegation, and he could get into hot water over it. Therefore, my intuition is that either: 1) Musk is not reading the data correctly, missing some important details, or 2) The data was recorded incorrectly by the car. My bets are on (2).
Unfortunately, this phrase: "lose all of his credibility as a reporter" is already an oxymoron.
They're an organization I respect and trust, and I suspect I'm not alone. I'll be very upset if the data clearly supports Musk's claims.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732395190457829...
Context on cultural significance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Cold_Blood
Also, as much as it pains me to say it, there's precedence for this sort of thing. Simply put: reporters make shit up from time to time.
Again, however, I have absolutely no idea who's right/wrong here and won't make a single assumption until the facts are out.
And yet Jayson Blair and Judith Miller rolled those dice. And that's just to name two high profile cases at that same paper.
I wouldn't be so sure that's such a rare thing.
Writers are expected to deliver a "good read". Nothing beats a bit of tragedy!
Writing a review that stands out against lots of positive reviews can give you a reputation as someone who isn't scared of controversy. This could have been a career boosting "critical" review.
The industry at large is still pro-petroleum. Want a reputation as pro-electric? Annoy your mainstream motoring marketing departments - the ones that lend you a stream of high quality vehicles to try, take you to track days, invite you to nice launch events, if you're lucky, fly you to their German HQ for new launches...
No one is saying he faked the whole review just that he omitted a couple heavily mitigating details. Since there were multiple legs where the car was claimed to come up short it will be interesting to see if all of those are refuted by the data or not.
From another article the "long detour" appears to have been getting stuck in traffic in lower Manhattan. Now, I don't know if Elon does much NYC driving, but IMO it's not worth pinning your credibility on a quick trip back to the interstate from the city.
Have you ever noticed who advertises heavily in newspapers? Lots of auto dealerships and car manufacturers.
"The Times's February 10 article recounting a reporter's test drive in a Tesla Model S was completely factual, describing the trip in detail exactly as it occurred. Any suggestion that the account was "fake" is, of course, flatly untrue. Our reporter followed the instructions he was given in multiple conversations with Tesla personnel. He described the entire drive in the story; there was no unreported detour. And he was never told to plug the car in overnight in cold weather, despite repeated contact with Tesla."
http://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-super-pissed-about-new-york-ti...
http://www.teslamotors.com/models/facts
> Tesla recommends charging Model S each night or when convenient to maintain optimum driving range and battery health. If you go on vacation, plug in your Model S before you leave.
The reporter is either an idiot or he wanted to become stranded.
I got a new car recently (gas powered) and I have not tried to test its range indicator by planning a trip to its capacity. If I did I would not take a detour through the largest city in the country or test out the acceleration. I also wouldn't stop at multiple gas stations and decide to not fill the tank. But hey, my article about sensibly using a vehicle wouldn't have made it into the NYT so what do I know.
Right?
"In at least one case, Tesla went even further. The Tesla service manager admitted that, unable to contact an owner by phone, Tesla remotely activated a dying vehicle’s GPS to determine its location and then dispatched Tesla staff to go there. It is not clear if Tesla had obtained this owner’s consent to allow this tracking5, or if the owner is even aware that his vehicle had been tracked. Further, the service manager acknowledged that this use of tracking was not something they generally tell customers about."
"There appears to be no reference to Tesla having the ability to track a vehicle’s location at its discretion in either the data recording section of the Roadster Owners Manual [Page 1-2, Column 2: PDF] or the addendum that covers the GSM connection [Page 9: PDF] "
AFAIK, Tesla has never addressed this publicly.
[1] http://theunderstatement.com/post/18030062041/its-a-brick-te...
Also, it's interesting to note the archive of the article's author: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b.... Seems like he's a climate/energy specialist rather than an automobile specialist as I had assumed.
Backstory: The BBC show Top Gear reviewed a Tesla, and gave it a glowing review, but noted that it was very expensive, that it would only last 55 miles if driven hard on a race track, that the brakes broke once during testing, that if you run out of charge you'd have to push it, and that at one point it overheated and suffered reduced performance. Tesla hit the ceiling and sued for libel over every negative comment in the review. But as even they eventually admitted, every single claim was absolutely true, and a judge threw the lawsuit out as completely groundless. Tesla's argument was that it may have been true, but it was misleading, but even in Britain the truth is an absolute defence for libel, as 30 seconds with Google would have told them.
Now they're going after another news organisation, again claiming that a review contained lies. If they can't substantiate this one either, they're going to look like idiots.
Tesla did have evidence that Top Gear lied -- the car had never run out of charge, even though Top Gear said it did. But the case never got to the stage where Tesla would present this evidence.
If you read the NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the...
The reporter doesn't claim he had charged the battery fully in all occasions. He states how long he charged the car for and what the milage indicator provided.
I can argue Musk is trying to get ahead of the story and create doubt among potential buyers about the veracity of the story. That's all he needs to do.
Basically, Tesla will probably come out with data that shows the battery was not fully charged and hence why lower milage. However, the reporter says he only charged the car for the distance he thought he needed. Therefore, Tesla will be a head of the story and the headlines his PR will create is that the car was not fully charged. And most people, including readers of this site, will not do further investigation. Rest assure those who are still considering buying a Tesla will buy it not knowing if the battery might have a temperature range issue.
Note -- I absolutely love Tesla and I can't wait for them to prove everyone wrong, but that still doesn't make the initial claim entirely invalid. I want to see the data before I make conclusions.
That's exactly what they said. You can (slowly) charge a Tesla at any electrical outlet.
If finding an electrical outlet the owner of which is set up to charge you money for your electrical charge and then sitting there for several hours seems as convenient to you as stopping at a gas station for several minutes, you should buy a Tesla.
This reviewer went out of their way to fabricate a sub-optimal experience in the vehicle. Tesla owners seem perfectly capable (or we'd surely hear about it) of avoiding these same mistakes.
Can we stop this? Until Musk posts data saying otherwise, it looks like the 90-mile range dropped to a 25-mile range while the car was parked overnight. Parking a car is not something crazy.
I thought it strange in the Top Gear review of the Roadster that they even mentioned it only got 55 miles on a full charge on their track (and faked it running out of charge). Most gasoline cars won't do much better when driving so flat-out. That is nothing unique to electrics whatsoever.
Using that as a basis to say "It simply doesn't work" was why Musk (rightly) is trying to cover himself when the press reviews. They seem to have some motive to defame Tesla. Nobody could say for sure if oil is behind it but it certainly smells fishy.
Uhm, even NASCAR vehicles go farther than 55 miles flat out. Most sports cars do not degrade that far. Even dropping down to 8 mpg would still net almost all sports cars over 100 mile range flat out.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000147320
I'm sure Elon Musk and Tesla are glad that they have the data logs for the trip. In my view, this is going to be key. All you need to do is compare the account by the journalist with the actual data and see where the discrepancies are.
It might be too earlier to tell w/o looking at the data ourselves, by if I had to bet I'd bet on Elon/Tesla for this one.
http://pdl.iphone.cnbc.com/VCPS/Y2013/M02D11/3000147320/2ED3...
TL;DR http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623#c...
I began to realize that journalists are not experts in all things or sometimes even one thing. Instead they are usually simply good writers operating under tight deadlines. And their goal is to write pieces that attract the attention of readers not simply provide accurate information. Lastly they are humans who make mistakes and have biases.
Take everything you read with a grain of salt. Think about how likely it is to be correct and not sensationalized or biased in some way. Check with others sources before you add what you read to your knowledge. The most dangerous thing is to think you know something that is either not known or wrong.
If you look at the map on the article, it clearly shows that the writer chose not to charge in Manhattan when remaining range read 79 miles and destination was 73 miles away (he barely made it). Later he leaves Norwich after only charging the car up to 32 miles of range remaining while the destination is 68 miles away... No wonder he ran out and had to be towed after 51 miles.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/02/10/automobiles/10t...
Oddly, some of this data is conveniently excluded from the article. The writer claims Tesla cleared him to drive from Norwich to Milford (68 miles). But he fails to mention that at the time the car reported 32 miles of range remaining (As indicated in the data on the map). Something is very fishy here.
There are issues with how Tesla reports its charge and maintains it charge, but, seriously, why try a trip that the car is telling you you cannot make? (EDIT: and that's after the car has been over-reporting its range for you the whole time. What, did you think it suddenly flipped the way it makes mistakes??)
ANOTHER EDIT: The writer says in his article: "after an hour they cleared me to resume the trip to Milford." The trip wasn't 79+ miles, it was about 46 + 11 miles. I wonder if it's going to be he-said-she-said about whether he was approved to make the drive.
The sensationalist part of this review is the bricking of the car. This happens shortly after the reporter claims that "after an hour they (Tesla) cleared me to resume the trip to Milford." So, any detour is only meaningful to the outcome of this review if it occurs after this clearance, because at that point Tesla HQ knows what the range of the car should be, and whether or not he will make it, and when to tell him to stop charging. Milford is a straight shot from Norwich. If a detour did occur in this critical period, it would reflect very badly on the author.
That being said I have no idea if the allegations are true and am eagerly awaiting Tesla's full blog post with evidence.
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/peopl...
If the detour was really long, hopefully the NYT will get sued. If the car wasn't fully charged by the reviewer it will be much harder to prove.
> Why would a reporter lie about the test?
To get a story that's more interesting than "I tried this car and it was good".
> To get a story that's more interesting than "I tried this car and it was good".
And because it fit the reporter's expectation of what would have happened, without having to bother with actually following through with the experiment.
Why he would bother to do that instead of simply lie, I don't know.
I will be interested to see the purported data. It may in fact turn out to be a relatively minor omission. I hope we'll see.
Is he paid to give talks at conferences? Or to speak at insider company events?
You'll be able to get it for $25 to $30 / share within the next 18 months. Save your money, bide your time. If we're just talking historical analysis (assuming you have no special knowledge of Tesla earnings etc), it's rarely a good idea to buy near the 52 week high, on top of being at its all time high, much less on top of a stock market near all time highs.
Tesla is so volatile it's almost guaranteed to fall back to earth and provide a far cheaper buying entry point. The stock price is completely unsupported by earnings, meaning it's completely driven - without a buffer - by the typically manic mood swings of investors.
Let the investors running Tesla up, swing to depressed and buy it far cheaper. Or to put it another way, wait until the herd is fearful and then be greedy.
doesn’t mince its words: 'Jan. 10 article recounting a reporter’s test drive in a Tesla Model S was completely factual [...] Any suggestion that the account was "fake" is, of course, flatly untrue.'"
Well, that joins issue directly with what Musk is claiming. Now it will be interesting to check the facts.
Earlier Hacker News thread about the New York Times review:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5191086
AFTER EDIT: I wonder if the reporter had a GPS-enabled tracking device on his person while he was doing the reporting? Maybe, maybe not, but that would be one more way to establish where the reporter (and, thus, presumptively the vehicle) was at different times during the test drive.
[1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/20/spacex_sues_consulta...
The SpaceX lawsuit seems justified, since it was basically extortion, as a thinly veiled consulting offer. SpaceX have real astronauts, with real experience, to advise them. This includes retired astronaut & shuttle commander Mark Kelly.
Then, the car uses the GPS mileage data alongside numerous other inputs to update its cruising range estimate based on what it thinks the batteries' current state of charge is. As anyone who has ever used a laptop or a cell phone knows, that is a far-from-solved problem.
Why does this matter? Well, we all know Tesla is a cutting edge technology. Those who buy that car understand that they're going to take on additional hardships and risks vs a gasoline vehicle. Culturally, what message is Musk sending by attacking the author and avoiding many of the issues raised? If you buy a Tesla and experience problems do you want a company that questions your honesty and integrity or one that says "Sounds like a horrible experience let's do everything on our power to fix it?"
Tesla has just started making their charging network so of course it's not sufficient in the Northeast, it's not sufficient anywhere. It's also not intended to be the sole supplier of electricity for your car, and the indented use of a Tesla vehicle is not long road trips. Most people will leave their home every day with a full charge and arrive home at night with almost a full charge.
This sounds like a customer service failure to me.
No. They would assume a person writing a car review is not an idiot and understands basic car concepts.
Such attitudes are shoved in my face when I see exclamations like, "Pictures or it didn't happen!" It's the same when big media corporations trade in innuendo and conspiracy theories and deliberately sabotage the dissemination of knowledge for their own ends. Such attitudes are so pervasive, that large swathes of the population actually disbelieve in any kind of objective truth, and accept mere social proof as its substitute and superior.
It's entirely possible that the journalist in question is innocent of deception and only guilty of poor journalism and/or poor trip planning and/or insufficient UI design. However, the issue with the review and that of the social contract are entirely related. In a world where reality itself is relative and subject to social proof, there is no need to double check your facts or to prove the null hypothesis. In a world where science is just another fabricated self-serving belief system, there's no need to apply one's scientific literacy or application of physics learned in school when doing things like taking a car trip in winter. One only need know enough to read the dials and gauges to be a good consumer, then complain loudly if things do not go one's way.
True competence, be it in programming or journalism or any significant endeavor, requires diligence with and prostration to the truth. Our society as a whole has forgotten this and our society as a whole is oblivious to the price it is paying as a consequence.
Another way to think of it: Our society as a whole doesn't have the epistemological foundation needed for the level of technical sophistication it has.
In ten years' time, I predict that straight battery-only electric vehicles will cost less than the gasoline equivalent and be VERY popular as commuter vehicles because gasoline prices will be over $6/gallon (especially if we build the Keystone XL pipeline to send more oil overseas).
One car in many households will likely require some kind of range extender, which increases the purchase and maintenance costs. There's a reason why SUVs are so rare in Europe: we've been spoiled by cheap gasoline in America.
They can sit out the electric car revolution as well...
Who the hell wants to go to "Milford, Conn." anyways ;)
(And IANAL, but the UK is somewhat infamous for its plaintiff-friendly libel laws.)
I'm a fan of both Tesla and Top Gear, and Tesla's complaints about Top Gear always seemed a bit daft to me. That is mostly because of who Top Gear is though.
This will a be moot point with drones in the near future though, most vehicles will have a 24/7 travel log from the government, just like they track all phone calls domestically without warrants. It will be super easy for a cluster of drones to track every car from start to destination.
I wouldn't expect an electric car to make it without a charge. I would usually fill up my gas tank twice. The fact that they made it close is great. The fact that the charging stations are that far apart sucks.
> "the tested Tesla was filmed being pushed into the shed in order to show what would happen if the Roadster had run out of charge."
Is this true? Is there no "emergency portable charge kit" that one could haul to anyplace with electricity and get a quick charge, possibly good for ~15 miles? If not then I smell a business opportunity.
It takes some effort to make a car that works in different conditions. Some brands that might work great in Central Europe have bad reputation in cold climates. Failure to start, puny indoor heating power, door insulation freezing shut, water lodging in concave spots and freezing. It is common enough that it is probably a conscious strategic choice to just not test / fix it. Then again, locally built houses also often fail in the weather. I guess humans never learn.
FWIW, NYT is the last place I would go for a good car review ;)
Tesla is located in California. It's a really hot and really dry climate. How about cabin fogging and moisture? How about the #1 killer of cars in wet and icy climates, rust? It seems elementary, and it should be. But like I said, I must admit I'm a bit worried.
I'm rooting for Tesla, but it would be a hilarious testament to Californian hubris if the Model S was undone by failure to consider the fact that other places have weather.
Starting a gasoline engine in cold is a different story - there, the battery is required to provide energy far above their normal working conditions.
1, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/green-driving/new...
1) gasoline-fueled cars have a significantly higher range than their electric battery-fueled peers,
2) heat is "free" in a gas-fueled car where it's an added cost in electric battery-fueled cars, and
3) gas range is more predictable than battery capacity, the latter of which being more sensitive to ambient temperature.
These factors contribute to a significant advantage for gasoline-fueled cars in colder climates.
The Tesla's 300 mile range is pretty close to most of the gas-powered cars I've owned here in the US.
> 2) heat is "free" in a gas-fueled car where it's an added cost in electric battery-fueled cars, and
Yes, but idling an electric car is free, where it's an added cost in gasoline-fueled cars. If I slide into a ditch in winter and get stuck, I'm going to be depleting my fuel either way.
While I'm at it, I'll also note the density of gas stations as a huge advantage over the relatively sparse network of battery charging stations, which can certainly add to the anxiety of winter driving, as mentioned in the review.
It'll work as long as you have gas, just as the Tesla's will work as long as you have battery.
I wouldn't want to drive in those critically cold areas without blankets/sleeping bag in case there was a problem and the car broke down. I've not been in temperatures cold enough for me to be unable to survive for an hour, with the clothes and blanket I've had in the car. (Worst was when I locked myself out of the car in the NM desert and had to sleep overnight in my coat in ~20F weather until a nearby store opened the next morning.)
And I wouldn't want to drive in the desert SW without lots of extra water, for the same reason.
You don't get an electric vehicle for the purpose of driving from DC to New York.
I have always plugged my EV in on a 120 volt circuit. It gets about 50-60 miles of charge per night. My commute is 10 miles. The car is full every morning, no matter how cold it is.
YMMV
I'm not a journalist but I would be more than happy to test drive and do a write-up! I would think it would be pretty easy to find 1000 journalists willing to do this.
Pure speculation. This could be a UI problem. The journalist thought the car was charged and ready to go but it wasn't.
Are you reading this, Elon? Pay gas stations to install 220v receptacles, and map the locations of those stations onto your cars' GPS systems. Make the kit, and make a compartment for the kit. Make an announcement that you're going to start doing this, and start doing it NOW.
This is all too common from car journalists: some of them will try to fake any test they can to try to harm the reputation of an upcoming car many people do believe in.
I'm not saying that journalist did it: all I said is that you should always be suspicious of claims like that by journalists. Many of them are little attention whores so you have to read between the lines.
And wait for more tests, counter-claims, car owners reports, etc.
It's sad that the journalists (not this one specifically) lack integrity because you can never know if an article was honestly done or not (like in this case).
> Tesla Model S was completely factual [...] Any suggestion that the account was ‘fake’ is, of course, flatly untrue.”
Yes of course, CNBC never lied in the entire history of a written word! [1].
Also, my memory ma not serve well, but weren't the CNBC journalist send to take photos from camps in Afganistan and when it turned out that there were no camps, they found some fence and faked the story of a reporter being inside the "camp" by taking photos through said fence?
[1] http://www.imediaethics.org/News/3061/Cnbc_corrects__apologi...