
Elon Musk calls NYT review of the Tesla Model S ‘fake,’ citing vehicle log data - sethbannon
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/02/11/elon-musk-calls-nytimes-review-of-the-tesla-model-s-fake-citing-vehicle-log-data-as-proof/
======
cs702
I _love_ this: Musk has promised to respond publicly to the negative NY Times
review WITH DATA FROM THE CAR directly contradicting the assertions in the
review. From now on, reviewers will be extremely careful about exaggerating
the negatives of, or lying about, Tesla vehicles.

~~~
TylerE
This is also a good way to never get positive press coverage ever again.

~~~
smackfu
Honestly, I'm surprised anyone is even willing to do a review, when they have
shown a willingness to sue the press for libel. Why bother taking the risk?
Just let them have no press.

~~~
jonknee
Any company or individual should be willing to sue the press for libel. It
should also not be of any concern to a media outlet because by rule you should
not be committing libel.

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.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
In a perfect world. But in the real world, your concern has little to do with
whether or not you actually committed libel. Just because you didn't, doesn't
mean the company that you just trashed won't lawyer up and claim otherwise. If
US courts were "loser pays", this would be somewhat less of a concern.

------
jonknee
It was a bizarre piece, especially for the NY Times. It read like someone who
got a car that had a 30MPG sticker on the window, put in exactly 10 gallons of
gas and planned a trip of exactly 300 miles. In the snow. Any normal person
wouldn't have even been in that situation, but the reporter then proceeded to
use every opportunity to double down on his bad choices.

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.

~~~
barney54
The NY Times is standing behind the review.
<https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/301071288326307840>
<https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/301071386141667329>

Let's see that car data Mr. Musk.

~~~
GeorgeTirebiter
NYT's Judith Miller lied about WMDs. So the paper isn't exactly known for
accuracy.

------
iyulaev
There's an interesting thread from the Tesla Motors club, with lots of input
from actual Tesla owners:

[http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/13633-NYT-
arti...](http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/13633-NYT-article-
Stalled-on-the-EV-Highway/page1)

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...](http://andwediditourway.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/the-not-so-ev-life.html)

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.

~~~
revelation
ICEs are significantly less efficient at startup and until they get up to
their normal operating temperatures. That's not so much a problem for long
range trips, but taking multiple single-digit mile trips spaced apart in the
time dimension.

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.

~~~
majormajor
It's blown out of proportion for the normal use case, but I still think it was
a very interesting review. I didn't expect them to be great road-tripping
vehicles at this point, but was a bit disappointed by how the weather affected
things. Even Musk's comments so far don't change my impression of that: so
it's fine for a road trip if you make sure you don't get stuck in traffic, and
make sure you never ever miss a chance to get it fully charged up, especially
if the weather is cold? That's just not going to be competitive convenience-
wise for long trips right now, no matter how much spin you want to put on it.
The open question to me is just how fast the driver was going on the highway
(90+ would make me raise an eyebrow or too), I'm not really sympathetic to the
rest of Musk's claims at all. And unless he can provide some conclusive log
evidence, collaborated by outside evidence, that's far more damning than what
his comments so far describe, it reflects pretty poorly on the company to me.
_Much_ more poorly than the original review, since I expected that to be
pretty much a worst-case scenario—and was very interested in just how well it
would handle that kind of stress test.

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.

~~~
cremnob
I didn't buy his explanations when I saw him on CNBC and Bloomberg. The
impression I got is that he's whitewashing the review, focusing on how fast he
was driving and pointing to another NYT reporter who got 300 miles (and when
the anchor pointed out that it was in different driving conditions, he sort of
glossed over it).

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.

~~~
patrickk
Link to the Bloomberg and CNBC interviews:

[http://www.bloomberg.com/video/musk-model-s-works-well-
nyt-a...](http://www.bloomberg.com/video/musk-model-s-works-well-nyt-article-
ridiculous-XYFihqn~TVCxd1fYBTJ~Xg.html)

<http://www.cnbc.com/id/100439335>

------
Eliezer
Naturally, on any occasion when it is actually possible to check a
journalistic report against reality, the journalist will turn out to be lying.
This is not absolutely universally true, but it is impossible to appreciate
just how often it is true until you have been reported-on in a case where you
know the facts yourself.

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?

~~~
gfodor
There really needs to be a phrase for this. I've noticed it myself. Whenever
the news reports on something I happen to know a little bit more than average
about, they almost universally get material facts (not just nitty gritty
details) completely wrong. Taken inductively this is pretty damn scary.

~~~
chime
I have had over a dozen positive articles about me written in newspapers,
blogs, and TV segments over the years. Every single one of them misrepresented
key facts, exaggerated my accomplishments, and oversimplified the
invention/process. Initially I was shocked at the inaccuracies but over time I
realized that despite the journalists' best intentions, they have to look at
my story from different points of views and pick the angle that best fits the
column's theme/focus - prodigious kid invents technology even Microsoft can't
(David vs. Goliath), smart techies whip up app on weekend (HP/Apple garage-
style startup), friendly-neighborhood IT guy takes a stab at unrelated field
(everyone's a hidden genius).

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.

~~~
Gravityloss
But I like boring news that get straight to the point. Often the "getting an
angle" style just makes the story longer, incoherent and boring.

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.

------
eli
Tesla previously accused BBC's Top Gear of airing a "phony" review and sued
them. The case was thrown out by a judge who ruled that the review was
essentially true and that no reasonable person would draw untrue conclusions
from it. (my words)

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...](http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2011/04/02/tesla-vs-top-gear-
andy-wilman-on-our-current-legal-action/)

Tesla's reply: [http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/how-we-see-it-top-
ge...](http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/how-we-see-it-top-gear-lawsuit)

Article on case being thrown out for a second time:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/23/top-gear-
libel-c...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/23/top-gear-libel-case-
tesla-struck-out)

~~~
alan_cx
Top Gear's review was mostly very positive. Tesla picking up on the "bad" only
advertised the "bad" to any one who hadn't seen the Top Gear review. Now we
might see the same thing again here with the NYT.

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.

~~~
stcredzero
_> Sad that Musk is still crying over the TG "BS" too. Seems a bit of a grudge
holder, even when proved wrong in law._

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.

------
michael_miller
I'm skeptical of Musk's claim that the review was fabricated. What motive
would the author have to fake the review? He would lose all of his credibility
as a reporter, essentially killing his carer if anyone found out. Seems like a
really high price to pay.

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).

~~~
Swannie
Why?

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...

~~~
mikec3k
That's it exactly. You don't want to piss off the oil companies, so you always
make electric or hybrid vehicles look as bad as possible.

~~~
Swannie
Yes. It's not a direct comparison, but you don't see motoring journalists
complaining about running out of petrol. "I only though I had to put $5 in...
and it told me it was no longer empty... why did I run out 100miles down the
road?"

------
smackfu
Jalopnik has a response from the Times:

"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://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-super-pissed-about-new-york-times-tesla-
range-128299695)

~~~
jonknee
From the land of common sense:

<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.

~~~
smackfu
That doesn't make it seem like the charge should go down overnight, just that
you should top it up whenever you can because the range is pretty limited.

~~~
dublinben
I think it should be common knowledge among anyone reviewing an electric car
that battery performance degrades in cold weather.

~~~
brown9-2
So no one is to ever review the car from the perspective of a neophyte owner?

~~~
jonknee
I seriously doubt anyone is going to spend $60-100k on a car that's well known
to be different than all other cars and take it out on a road trip without any
planning. If the author had charged the car when he had several opportunities
to do so he would not have had any trouble.

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.

------
newman314
I'm looking at this from a different angle. Based on what I read from this
article [1], Tesla is able to send data from a car back to the factory and on
at least one occasion has done so without the permission and knowledge of the
owner.

"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...](http://theunderstatement.com/post/18030062041/its-a-brick-tesla-motors-
devastating-design)

~~~
jessaustin
I agree this is troubling, but sadly I don't think it will be much longer
until most of us submit to this sort of monitoring by our insurance companies.

------
imjk
It's easy to write off Elon Musk's attacks on Top Gear and the NYT as an
overzealous founder defending his company or as a savvy PR strategy against
bad press, but you also have to keep in mind the number of parties that want
to to see Tesla fail and the huge amount of influence they have, namely the
oil and traditional auto industries. Most "revolutionary" companies come under
similar resistance. I'm interested to see what facts Musk lays out.

Also, it's interesting to note the archive of the article's author:
[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b...](http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_m_broder/index.html).
Seems like he's a climate/energy specialist rather than an automobile
specialist as I had assumed.

~~~
vor_
Implying that the the oil and auto industries have gotten to the NYT is a
serious accusation. Incidentally, the NYT is sticking by its story and has
called Musk's accusations "flatly untrue".

~~~
foobarqux
Serious but obvious. Media companies make money primarily from large
advertisers.

~~~
kylebrown
Take a brief glance at the author's articles and you will see an extensive
list of titles you could describe as anti-oil and pro-environment.

~~~
foobarqux
My comment was only into relation to the influence the oil and gas industry
has on media companies, not to this particular author or to this specific
story.

~~~
vor_
With all due respect, your previous comment was that your accusation against
the NYT was serious but obvious.

~~~
foobarqux
I am not the OP and I didn't make the accusation. But if the accusation is
"that the the oil and auto industries have gotten to the NYT" then yes that is
both serious and obvious.

------
Lazare
Tesla really does themselves no favours by their confrontational stance with
the media. I hope - for their sakes - they are on stronger ground here than
they were with their embarrassing lawsuit against the BBC.

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.

~~~
hristov
Top Gear did not use the truth as a defense. On the contrary the judge ruled
that the truth did not matter. In other words the judge ruled that Tesla would
not be entitled to win even if Top Gear had lied. The case never got to the
fact finding stage.

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.

------
salimmadjd
Horrible reporting by TNW! Musk claims, "NYTimes article about Tesla range in
cold is fake. Vehicle logs tell true story that he didn't actually charge to
max & took a long detour"

If you read the NYT, [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-
on-the...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-
highway.html)

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.

------
natural219
The length of the detour really matters here. Even if Tesla's claims were
true, unless there was truly malicious reporting going on, I think even this
kind of basic negligence is still a valid point against the Model S. Consumers
might forget to charge their car properly, or not take into account
detours/pitstops when planning for the Model S's range.

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.

~~~
rthomas6
I don't really see how this is different than forgetting to put gas in a car,
other than the larger amount of time it takes to charge a Tesla.

~~~
jessaustin
It's different because when you realize your mistake with a gasoline engine,
as long as you aren't driving in eastern Utah or some similar remote location,
you can easily stop at any one of thousands of convenient gas stations to
correct your error. Perhaps that will be true someday for Tesla, but it isn't
today.

~~~
STRML
That combined with the charging time is the only difference.

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.

~~~
protomyth
"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."

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.

------
dave1619
For those interested, here's an interview with Elon Musk on CNBC this morning.
He explains his reasoning pretty clearly.

<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.

~~~
ricardobeat
Well said: "if you had a gas vehicle, filled the tank halfway, meandered
through downtown manhattan, and then expected to reach your previous
destination people would just think you're a fool"

~~~
artursapek
raced to your previous destination _

------
cjensen
NYT takes facts seriously and they issue written corrections for even the most
trivial inaccuracies. If the allegations by Musk are true, the article's
author will be looking for a new job soon.

~~~
lclarkmichalek
That's good, as according to everyone in this thread, all journalists do is
lie and every action they take is malicious.

~~~
Ygg2
I had experience with journalist and they don't so much as lie as much as they
"enhance the truth". Like your battery was lowish on cold weather but you
still got there, but in your journal you write "Battery took cold badly and I
was unsure if it would get there with the charge I had. By grace of gods and
not Tesla I managed to get there". Compare that sentence to this "Battery
worked below optimal when weather was below freezing, but I still got where I
wanted." Which one sounds more appealing to general public? Which one is more
sensational.

TL;DR [http://www.smbc-
comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623#c...](http://www.smbc-
comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623#comic)

------
spikels
I used to take for granted that what I read in the NYT and learned from other
highly regarded sources was factual and thoughtful. Then I read an articles
about a subject I knew really, really well and the reporter got it completely
wrong. Then it happened again and again. This made me worry about the quality
of the information on subjects I don't know about.

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.

------
gdeglin
The NY Times article didn't pass the sniff test the first time I read it.

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...](http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/02/10/automobiles/10tesla-
map.html)

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.

~~~
danielweber
It does seem colossally stupid to drive a 79+ mile trip when the meter says
you only have 32 miles left.

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.

------
codex
It's a bit disingeious of Musk to propose that journalists repeat this trip,
knowing full well that the problems reported in the original article stem from
cold weather. The weather on the East Coast is getting warmer by the day. It
is almost spring. Even if Tesla can tell each journalist to stop charging at
Norwich at the same point they did originally (assuming they can determine
that reliably), the battery state at that point, and going forward, will be
different because of the weather.

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.

------
abat
The thing about product reviews in mainstream publications like the NYTimes,
is that their goal isn't just to tell you how good the product is. Most of the
readers aren't actually on the market for a Tesla, they just want to be
entertained and feel like they learned something new. To reach these casual
readers, the reviews really need to be narrative stories. "Range anxiety"
makes for a very good narrative because it adds a layer of suspense (ie "will
he make it?"), so it makes sense that the reviewer would have a motive for
faking the review even if his goal isn't to hurt Tesla.

That being said I have no idea if the allegations are true and am eagerly
awaiting Tesla's full blog post with evidence.

------
cryptoz
This morning would have been a wonderful time to buy stock. TSLA was way down
(due to this review?) and earnings are coming up soon. This makes me wonder if
the NYTimes or this reporter had some ulterior motive; a conspiracy to
discredit Tesla? A personal vendetta? Why would a reporter lie about the test?

~~~
avar
There's probably a much simpler explanation: That automotive journalists are
really lazy, have a story in mind before they ever drive the car in question,
routinely do stuff like this, and are only being called out now because of
black boxes being embedded into some newer cars such as Tesla's.

~~~
jonknee
He was not an automobile journalist, which is probably why it reads like he
has no concept of how cars work or that planning a trip to test a car's
theoretical range limit in winter is a poor way to review a car. John Broder
is on the "Green" beat:

[http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/peopl...](http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_m_broder/index.html)

------
tokenadult
From the update to the submitted article: "Update: A New York Times statement
as reported by CNBC

<https://twitter.com/CNBC>

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.

~~~
revelation
The car has a GPS on it, and (for owners) theres a REST API from Tesla that
will relay its coordinates to you. I assume they are logging positions when
logging is enabled.

------
codex
What is it about Elon Musk's companies constantly suing people? Tesla sued Top
Gear for libel. SpaceX sued a safety consultant asking clarification about a
rumor [1]. Now this tiff may well end in a lawsuit.

[1]
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/20/spacex_sues_consulta...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/20/spacex_sues_consultant/print.html)

~~~
jlgreco
Actually reading that article you link, that seems like a pretty massive
mischaracterization of that lawsuit.

~~~
codex
Yeah, it's a bad article, but the best I could find. The article is slanted
because the it only contains quotes from SpaceX, so you hear only one side of
the story, with nothing from the defense. The case was settled.

~~~
jlgreco
Unless there is absolutely no truth whatsoever to SpaceX's side of the story,
that guy sounds like a major sleaze who deserved a lawsuit.

------
mongol
The review gave me the impression that the vehicle did not provide accurate
(over a period of time) predictions of how much mileage was left. If that is
the case, why should the vehicle logs be more accurate? If the car measures
something wrong, the logs would reflect that.

~~~
CamperBob2
Presumably the vehicle is logging its GPS position at regular intervals.
That's a pretty uncontroversial thing to do.

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.

------
jusben1369
I admire Musk and love what he's doing in general. I think he's an
inspirational entrepreneur. It makes sense that he's defending his company.
Having said that I think this is an interesting tack to take. Firstly, this is
the New York Times. I'm sure they take their integrity pretty seriously.
Secondly, Musk has sued before so that would make them _particularly
sensitive_ to ensuring that they got their facts and figures correct if
they're going to post a negative article. Thirdly, I'm not sure how much of an
argument Musk is really mounting here. There are still a bunch of charges left
unaddressed. That the charge dissipated much faster than it was telling the
driver. That cutting things like heating and speed were solutions? That it
didn't have a sufficient charge to unlock a handbrake etc.

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?"

------
smackfu
The main thrust of the article seemed to be that Tesla's charging stations
aren't sufficient in the Northeast, being almost at max range apart. I doubt
even Musk would disagree with that.

~~~
jonknee
No, the crux was that this car is useless because Tesla's charging stations
are sufficient in the Northeast and that the car doesn't have the range that
it should and that if you get this car it will leave you stranded.

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.

------
jasonkolb
From the NYT: "[The reporter] was never told to plug the car in overnight in
cold weather, despite repeated contact with Tesla."

This sounds like a customer service failure to me.

~~~
grecy
If a person writing a car review were test-driving a brand new Ferrarri, and
was in constant contact with customer service about something-or-other, do you
think they'd tell them to fill up the gas tank? or drive carefully in snow?

No. They would assume a person writing a car review is not an idiot and
understands basic car concepts.

~~~
friendly_chap
But there are a lot more people familiar with gas based cars than electric
cars.

------
kmfrk
If anyone even doubts whether the NYT are going to respond to this (of course
they are), you can ping their public editor @sulliview, who's an immense
treasure to the paper. She'll report on it, no doubt.

------
srlake
I'm impressed that he doesn't hesitate to call out the NY Times. Musk clearly
doesn't care about politics or tiptoeing around sensitive issues.

------
stcredzero
Our culture is badly broken. When "the social contract" for broad swathes of
society is so little regarded that _lying is a matter of course,_ then we have
already reached worrying levels of dysfunction, of the sort that historians
point out when they discuss the fall of the Roman Empire, Czarist Russia, or
the USSR. A point all of those have in common: The denizens came to assume
public information was false as a matter of course, as a time and sanity
saving measure. Large swathes of our society think of lying, even when
deceiving large swathes of the public, as a kind of sport, and profiting from
such lying as a kind of serendipitous fortune to be exploited without
conscience, like finding cash on the sidewalk.

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.

------
mncolinlee
This is why range extenders will stay popular even as battery technology
improves.

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.

~~~
DigitalJack
Hopefully we'll be on capacitors by then. Perhaps backed by a battery, in a
similar fashion to some hybrids today having a battery backed by gas.

------
solsenNet
I think we've proven that we don't need the East Coast for: the PC revolution,
the Internet revolution and the Mobile revolution.

They can sit out the electric car revolution as well...

Who the hell wants to go to "Milford, Conn." anyways ;)

------
mtgx
If this is true, then he should sue NYT or the author, unless the author
admits it's true in another article. I've heard quite a few random people use
the NYT article as an argument against Tesla/electric cars, and I think that
article can have long term negative impact on electric cars (even if it won't
be a complete deal-breaker for electric cars). So he needs to either get them
to admit the review was not accurate, or sue them.

~~~
jlgreco
Didn't Tesla sue Top Gear for basically the same thing? I recall that didn't
turn out well for Tesla, though perhaps the fact that Top Gear is widely
recognized as being entertainment not serious journalism had something to do
with that.

~~~
eli
I don't know if their seriousness played into it. My understanding is that the
judge ruled, essentially, that Top Gear was correct when they spoke about the
car having extremely limited range _when driven on their race track_ and that
no reasonable person would confuse range on a racetrack with regular driving.

(And IANAL, but the UK is somewhat infamous for its plaintiff-friendly libel
laws.)

~~~
jlgreco
My impression was that the 'seriousness' came into play because they did not
merely claim that the car had poor range on a track, but that it ran out of
juice while they were testing it, which was not the case. Making untrue
statements to make a true point about a limitation of the car was permissible
since nobody reasonably expects anything else of Top Gear. I doubt a "serious"
publication can get away with that sort of thing though.

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.

------
ck2
I'm curious if a private owner tried to sue Tesla for range claims if Tesla
would magically show up with the logging data for the customer.

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.

------
krschultz
I went to school in Newark Delaware and lived in Groton Connecticut.It's a
long drive. There is almost always traffic somewhere.

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.

~~~
vilda
That's a chicken and egg problem. Electrical charging stations are far cheaper
to build than gas stations. At least until there's enough electrical cars to
require an upgrade of the whole infrastructure.

------
wcchandler
FTA:

> "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.

~~~
ricardobeat
AFAIK every car comes with a portable charger that works from standard wall
outlets.

<http://www.teslamotors.com/charging#/outlet>

------
cardine
If you are rich enough to own a Tesla, you probably also are rich enough to
have a second car or to fly. I've been considering getting a Tesla, and long
distance doesn't matter that much to me because I'd take a 2 hour flight over
a 7 hour drive any day.

------
ChuckMcM
Challenging thing. I agree the NYT article read like a hatchet job but still.
Nobody likes having their baby called ugly, the response though could be a bit
more measured. Looking forward to Tesla's log analysis and their take on the
situation.

------
Gravityloss
Maybe when Tesla becomes a more global brand, they'll start using heat pumps
for heating.

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.

------
Vinnix
Yeah I met an owner of one of these and not a single problem was with it...As
enthusiasts we read articles to know about what makes something great.

FWIW, NYT is the last place I would go for a good car review ;)

------
hakaaaaak
Good for Elon. Every CEO should stand up for his product like that.

------
taylorbuley
Forgetting to turn off the tape recorder: classic journalism trick.

------
lotso
Even if the reporter fabricated parts of the story, aren't the concerns about
driving in cold weather still relevant? Any Tesla owners want to weigh in?

~~~
jonknee
No more so than the concerns of driving in warm weather (AC uses electricity).
You get less than optimal mileage in less than optimal conditions. This is
true for any vehicle. My gas powered car jumps around on its range calculation
too.

~~~
WiseWeasel
One big difference is that heat (and thus warm air) is a by-product of
internal combustion, so a typical car's heater will ALWAYS work, which turns
out to be critical for survival in certain climates. Having the A/C go down in
extremely hot weather will leave you uncomfortable; having the heater go down
in extremely cold weather can kill you.

~~~
ceejayoz
> One big difference is that heat (and thus warm air) is a by-product of
> internal combustion, so a typical car's heater will ALWAYS work, which turns
> out to be critical for survival in certain climates.

It'll work as long as you have gas, just as the Tesla's will work as long as
you have battery.

~~~
marvin
Was just what I was thinking. Running out of gas, or having your engine crash
in -40 degree Celcius weather is a life-threatening situation if you've been
stupid and not packed any clothes.

------
lectrick
I own a Chevy Volt and it gets about 20% less range in the ~32 degrees F
temperatures we have around here in NYC environs right now.

------
kennethcwilbur
This is silly. It's like buying a toaster and then complaining when it fails
to make panini.

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

------
Zimahl
_Tesla blog coming soon detailing what actually happened on Broder’s NYTimes
“range test”. Also lining up other journalists to do same drive._

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.

~~~
codex
Unfortunately, it's not an exact repro, as the original journalist's problems
had to do with cold weather, and the weather is getting warmer as we speak.

------
bobsy
Is this a design problem with the Tesla? With my petrol car I know when the
car is completely filled with fuel. It is obvious in Tesla?

Pure speculation. This could be a UI problem. The journalist thought the car
was charged and ready to go but it wasn't.

------
anona
Based on Tesla's past claims against Top Gear (that turned out in favor of Top
Gear in court), I would give the NY Times the benefit of the doubt here.
Especially since Tesla hasn't produced any evidence yet.

~~~
hristov
That court case does not mean as much as you think it does. Just because Top
Gear won, does not mean that they were truthful. The judge merely said that
even if Top Gear lied their lie would not be legally actionable.

------
ed_blackburn
Is it terribly smart picking fights with the media when you're in the consumer
business. Good luck to him for taking it on.

------
rtrunck
NYT says the author drove the first 114 miles in 84 minutes (~81 mph avg)....

------
notdrunkatall
Tesla needs to pay gas stations to install 220v receptacles and include an
adapter kit with every Model S that will fit all of the common plugs out
there. That's all there is to it. Consumers aren't going to want to buy these
cars en masse if they're scared of being stranded somewhere, and they're going
to be scared of being stranded somewhere if it's 100 miles either way to the
nearest charging station, regardless of how much range the car has left.

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.

------
martinced
I told you so right here on HN, just after the journalist posted his
sensational article.

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).

------
mikec3k
I'm willing to bet that guy was paid off by an oil company.

~~~
twoodfin
Really? I'll take that bet. Shall we say $1,000?

------
joering2
hmmm lets see: a journalist of media behemoth that major stake is in hands of
the same people that have stakes in gasoline car manufacturers drafted a
negative review for a company with a product that may forever shift the way we
drive cars and how much we spend for this privilege...

> 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...](http://www.imediaethics.org/News/3061/Cnbc_corrects__apologizes_for_fake_2011_story_about_nba_lockout___escorts.php)

