
A Most Peculiar Test Drive – Follow Up - neuralnetwork
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive-follow
======
aresant
Musk is filtering the NYT's response when he says:

"the Public Editor agreed that John Broder had “problems with precision and
judgment," “took casual and imprecise notes” and made “few conclusions that
are unassailable.”"

Let me try to cherry pick some points from the very same NYT response (1),
spun towards the opposite conclusion:

"Mr. Musk presented his data "in the most damaging (and sometimes quite
misleading) way possible" and "I am convinced that [Broder] . . . told the
story as he experienced it."

My point isn't that my choice quotes above are accurate, but that Musk's
assessment is disingenuous to the NYT's response, and that's in the first
paragraph of his article.

I'm not sure what Musk is trying to accomplish at this point, his "spin" is
transparent and it feels condescending.

Tesla's goodwill in my eyes is fast eroding.

(1) [http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/problems-
wi...](http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/problems-with-
precision-and-judgment-but-not-integrity-in-tesla-test/)

~~~
Afforess
Disagree. Go read the NYT editorial response, it's so full of spin it could
serve as an amusement park ride. It only served to muddy the waters, give some
kind of half-not-apology, in the hopes the issue would drop.

I'm surprised so many people are hating on Mr. Musk.

~~~
brown9-2
Can you elaborate on what you thought was "spin" or how the public editor was
unfair?

~~~
Afforess
Sure.

\---------------

First the NYT says Broder was honest:

 _Mr. Broder and The Times have maintained that the article was done in good
faith, and that it is an honest account of what happened._

Then the NYT says Broder was misleading (dishonest):

 _Mr. Broder left himself open to valid criticism by taking what seem to be
casual and imprecise notes along the journey_

\---------------

Next, the NYT says Broder should have taken more detailed logs:

 _A little red notebook in the front seat is no match for digitally recorded
driving logs..._

But next the NYT says more detailed logs are pointless:

 _I could recite chapter and verse of the test drive...I don’t think that’s
useful here._

\---------------

And the NYT says Border did the test drive in good faith:

 _I am convinced that he [Broder] took on the test drive in good faith_

But then the NYT criticizes his good faith:

 _...there is still plenty to argue about and few conclusions that are
unassailable_

\---------------

That's just a quick snapshot of the whiplash-inducing spin in the NYT
editorial.

~~~
brown9-2
It's possible to both do something in good faith and fail to be precise in
your notes. The latter does not make you "dishonest".

~~~
Afforess
I personally believe that errors of omission and misleading details are
identical to dishonesty, but I understand not everyone may see it that way.

That is why I said it was misleading, and parenthesized my judgement of it
(dishonest).

~~~
robinh
NYT doesn't actually speak of errors of omission and misleading details
anywhere. You can't just go making stuff up. To take what you quoted: _Mr.
Broder left himself open to valid criticism by taking what seem to be casual
and imprecise notes along the journey_ <\-- what this means is NOT what you
are pretending it means. It simply means "this wasn't done in a laboratory, so
you can hardly expect everything to be correct up to 6 sig figs. Therefore,
feel free to point out if some specific details aren't quite right."

~~~
bigiain
It seems to me that when your boss, the person who jumped to your public
defense immediately when criticized without first checking the facts, and the
person who's businesses reputation is made or destroyed by the public
perception of your trustworthiness - prints this about you, you've just been
thrown under the bus:

"I’ve also had a number of talks with my brother, a physician, car aficionado
and Tesla fan, who has helped me balance what might have been a tendency to
unconsciously side with a seasoned and respected journalist – my own
“confirmation bias.”

My own findings are not dissimilar to the reader I quote above, although I do
not believe Mr. Broder hoped the drive would end badly. I am convinced that he
took on the test drive in good faith, and told the story as he experienced it.

Did he use good judgment along the way? Not especially. In particular,
decisions he made at a crucial juncture – when he recharged the Model S in
Norwich, Conn., a stop forced by the unexpected loss of charge overnight –
were certainly instrumental in this saga’s high-drama ending."

To me - that's like responding to a phone call about a reference for someone
from a recruiter/employer with "Ummm, they're punctual, and, umm, they fit in
OK socially - most of the time".

You wouldn't jump to employ a guy who can't arrange a much more glowing
reference than that - and you wouldn't believe much of what Broder writes - at
least not without expecting to read poor judgement and results of flawed
decisions.

------
niggler
For all the talk about Broder lying and manipulating the record, I would argue
that the follow-up is far worse in terms of intentionally misinterpreting the
facts.

"Yesterday, The New York Times reversed its opinion on the review of our Model
S and no longer believes that it was an accurate account of what happened."

Could not be further from the truth. NYT stands behind the integrity of
Broder. And it's clear based on the cherry-picked quotes in the next few
sentences that Musk omitted the inconvenient facts. (quoting “problems with
precision and judgment," but omitting where NYT stands by the integrity of
Broder's account)

The worst part of this is that Tesla still hasn't answered to the actual issue
here: the advice that Tesla gave Broder. And until they actually address the
issue at hand, Musk is playing games with a public that seems to worship him
and want to take down NYT.

~~~
snewman
Heartily agreed. I am extremely disappointed with Musk over this incident --
and now with the NYT as well, for failing to stand their (valid) ground and
failing to call out Musk's blatant lies and manipulations.

As the dust settles, it appears that the worst that Broder is guilty of is
being less than lab-test-precise in his reporting. (He did make some
unfortunate decisions, such as not charging further on various occasions, but
all of these decisions strike me as entirely reasonable given the facts as he
understood them at the time, and -- critically -- the advice he was given by
Tesla.) It should be noted that the basic thrust of his piece appears to be
entirely accurate: everything started out fine; then he started having range
problems; he took significant but not drastic measures in compensation; these
measures were insufficient. For instance, he may have been a bit sloppy about
details such as exactly when he turned down the cabin temperature or exactly
what speed he slowed down to, but it's uncontested that he did lower both
temperature and speed well below what a normal driver would expect in a normal
car.

The car seems to have committed a sin larger than any of Broder's: it "lost" a
large amount of range overnight. This was one critical element in the eventual
failure (the other being various bits of bad advice from Tesla, in particular
the advice to ignore the low range reading after charging for only a short
period at the public station that morning).

But the worst sins, by far, are Musk's. He made many sensational accusations.
Some seem clearly false, such as Broder "driving in circles" in a supposed
attempt to kill the battery (Broder's explanation that he was simply looking
for the charging station is far more plausible). Many more of Musk's
statements are deliberate distortions of the worst kind. The "battery never
ran out of energy"... which may be technically true, but whatever energy may
have remained in the main battery, the car was so dead that it couldn't even
be towed without a flatbed truck. "Why would anyone do that?" (leaving the
last charging station with insufficient charge) when it now appears
uncontested that this was under explicit advice from Tesla. "Drove right past
a public charge station" -- which he didn't know about, Tesla staff didn't
tell him about, and Tesla staff had implied he wouldn't need. And so forth.
His entire "most peculiar test drive" piece reads like something Fox News
would say about an Obama policy proposal -- nitpicking, distorting,
misdirecting, and outright mocking.

I've always been a fan of Tesla, SpaceX, and Musk, but I will never look at
him in the same way again.

~~~
robinh
"I've always been a fan of Tesla, SpaceX, and Musk, but I will never look at
him in the same way again."

I felt the same way, and that's why I think it is appropriate to link to the
following post:

<http://lesswrong.com/lw/31i/have_no_heroes_and_no_villains/>

(There are some valid criticisms of LessWrong and EY, but none of the problems
really concern the above post, which is simply an excellent piece.)

What we're seeing here is that kind of thing happening.

~~~
tunesmith
Off-topic, but what sort of valid criticisms of lesswrong and ey have you
seen? I'm not aware of any discussion about that community other than at that
community itself. Just curious if there are any links/summaries.

~~~
wamatt
I've found Less Wrong to be somewhat useful and interesting community, and
I've made some friends over the past year at a few of the meetups in the Bay
Area.

That said, it's possibly slightly ironic that many (perhaps even the majority)
of the LW members, (in my personal experience) seem to naturally posses low
levels of instrumental rationality, and tend to be unusually self-unaware of
their own feelings and unconscious motivations.

Another way to say this: "common sense" is not something (in my experience),
that is respected, understood or utilized in spades within the community.

Furthermore, while there are criticisms of LW out there, I agree with Aaron
Swartz's central claim _[1]_ about a lack of skepticism. While I'm a huge
advocate of Bayes theorem, I would be wary of calling myself a "Bayesian", or
other self-reinforcing label. Although calibrated belief networks (eg BBN's)
_[2]_ are powerful, they can also fall prone to delusional outputs where there
exists a lack of sufficient external feedback.

Much of the rhetoric focuses around the charismatic and arguably pompous
(don't mean to sound harsh) character of Eliezer Yudkowsky. IMHO this is
considerably more evident, than the level to which HN centers around PG, for
example. As for LW, further comparison's have been made to a cult before.
_[3][4]_

In addition, and this is more a personal quibble, there seems to be an
inclination towards debate vs dialectic. But that's probably true of nearly
any community out there. HTH.

 _[1]_
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/atm/cult_impressions_of_less_wrongsi...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/atm/cult_impressions_of_less_wrongsingularity/75l5)

 _[2]_ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_network>

_[3]_
[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13018494520A...](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13018494520A06344600&page=3)

 _[4]_ [http://kruel.co/2012/07/29/possible-reasons-for-a-
perception...](http://kruel.co/2012/07/29/possible-reasons-for-a-perception-
of-lesswrongsiai-as-a-cult/)

~~~
tunesmith
That's a good summary, thanks. I know that with myself, I have a side interest
in analyzing communication patterns (and argument patterns) in others -
communities in particular. So I start getting analytical and looking at things
in terms of rationality and bias. But I find that it might be making me slow
down in my personal life - meaning, I start to arrive at things methodically
and analytically that could be arrived at much quicker through intuition and
common sense. It's frustrating. So I'm not sure it's just ironic - it might
even be causal.

------
mistercow
What doesn't come across in this post is how squirmy the public editor's post
is ([http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/problems-
wi...](http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/problems-with-
precision-and-judgment-but-not-integrity-in-tesla-test/)) .

It is particularly weird that the editor seems to imply that it was somehow
_unfair_ of Tesla Motors to turn on the data recorder without telling Broder.
If the Times had collected more rigorous data than Tesla and then cornered
them on some claim or other without revealing that they had contradictory
data, the Times would be patting themselves on the back for their hard-hitting
investigative moxie. But I guess it's a different story when the shoe is on
the other foot.

~~~
csours
It was unfair to turn it on while representing to him that it is only turned
on "with customer consent" and not telling him that they don't consider him a
customer.

~~~
toomuchtodo
It's unfair to use your product's features to catch someone lying about said
product during a review? Heaven forbid!

~~~
flyinRyan
You're being pretty ridiculous. If Border had been told the data was on he
would have probably approached note taking in a completely different manner.
Having not been told that he took shoddy notes and relied on human memory,
perception and so on. Now the real data comes back and makes it seem like he
was lying and that's not fair.

~~~
dmak
Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what it seems like you are implying:
It's okay for someone of his stature (from the NYT) to take "shoddy notes and
[rely] on human memory", since he wasn't told that "the data was on".

~~~
flyinRyan
No, there are many problems with it. For example, how do we even know the data
is right? If the people Broder called gave him bad advice, maybe it's because
something was inaccurate? Maybe the data isn't quite right. If Broder had
known this whole thing was going to be recorded he could have brought his own
recorder to protect himself from an overly aggressive company lying about his
experience.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Shoddy data collecting/telemetry? Seriously? Is that what you're suggesting?
Because SpaceX (another Musk company) has rockets that dock with the space
station.

Definitely not worshiping Musk here, but if you can get a rocket to dock with
the ISS, I'm pretty sure you can collect charge state, speed, and cabin
environment control settings pretty accurately.

~~~
flyinRyan
This is very much Musk worship. You really think they use the exact same
software at Tesla as they use for SpaceX? Is there any reasons _at all_ to
believe the programmers from these two companies have ever even met each
other? Or share code via some kind of cross-company repository?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Since Musk drives product development at both companies and owns both of them,
yes, I'm confident engineers collaborate between the two companies. It would
be stupidity not to.

------
gojomo
Musk's post does not reflect how a paper, and specifically the NYTimes Public
Editor position, works.

The Public Editor's opinion is not the same as the NYTimes' opinion, so it is
wrong to say, as Musk does, that "The New York Times reversed its opinion".

It can be an easy mistake to make, if one doesn't read carefully or understand
journalistic conventions (such as the difference between signed and unsigned
editorials). But the sidebar of the Public Editor's page helps to clarify:

 _Margaret Sullivan is the fifth public editor appointed by The New York
Times. She writes about the Times and its journalism in a frequent blog – the
Public Editor’s Journal — and in a twice-monthly print column in the Sunday
Review section. The public editor’s office also handles questions and comments
from readers and investigates matters of journalistic integrity. The public
editor works independently, outside of the reporting and editing structure of
the newspaper; her opinions are her own._

That is, the Public Editor is an in-house critic and independent opinion, but
not a final arbiter or official mouthpiece.

~~~
cremnob
I hope more people read this. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding
by some people here about the Public Editor (which is actually an ombudsman).
That's not going to stop Elon from capitalizing on their ignorance though.

------
doktrin
I am losing respect for Musk with every subsequent chapter of this PR blitz.

What at first promised to be a battle of facts vs fiction is instead turning
into yet another word-twisting smear campaign.

This is disingenuous. In fact, his willingness to blatantly twist the words of
the NYT calls into question all his previous statements (including some of the
interpretations surrounding the data collected during the drive). Unfortunate.

------
Kylekramer
For a person so obsessed with journalists' accuracy, he is pretty quick to
interpret/cherrypick/adjust the public editor's piece in the best possible way
for him.

~~~
supercanuck
I don't think journalists' accuracy is what he is obsessed with. This was a
single PR battle and while Elon is an admirable engineer, he is proving he is
an equally good marketer.

~~~
Kylekramer
I don't know if declaring a concession when there wasn't one is good
marketing. I can almost guarantee this post is going to blow up in his face.
Playing fast and loose with the truth in an argument based on the whether the
other party told the truth? Press is going to love this response and tear him
to pieces.

~~~
larrys
"Press is going to love this response and tear him to pieces."

Agree. As the saying goes don't pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the
barrel. Journalists probably stick together and have each others back more
than they don't. Not to mention that they could very well be jealous of Musk's
fame and fortune as well.

In many people's eyes as well where there's smoke there is fire. For example
if this story appeared on 60 Minutes even as fair and balanced it would not be
good for Musk and Tesla. (Not the same situation of course but to anyone
curious dig up "60 Minutes Audi" to see what happened to that brand.)

------
ignostic
> _"The New York Times reversed its opinion on the review of our Model S and
> no longer believes that it was an accurate account of what happened."_

Contrast with this:

> _"The Times have maintained that the article was done in good faith, and
> that it is an honest account of what happened."_

It's hardly accurate to say that the Times "reversed its opinion." Revised,
maybe, but the article he's referring to did more side-stepping than anything.

Elon isn't winning points with me by trying to spin the story to sound more
favorable.

~~~
shrikant
You're right, but this is a PR battle at this stage, and these are rarely
known to be won on nuance and accuracy.

~~~
ignostic
Perhaps that's true for most people, but I expected more from both sides.

~~~
streptomycin
What more did you expect from the NY Times? They seem to be quite forthcoming
and balanced.

~~~
crusso
Their reporter was busted for at best being sloppy and at worst lying to grind
an axe against electric vehicles -- and they delivered a mealy mouthed half-
admission of fault. A controversial, sensational story that isn't
"unassailable" and was shown to be very questionable should have been
withdrawn without mincing words. If they want to run the tests again under
more rigorous circumstances, then they're free to do so.

We really should expect better from those with the job of giving us
information.

------
Breakthrough
For those who are curious, here's the NYT article Mr. Musk is talking about:
[http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/problems-
wi...](http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/problems-with-
precision-and-judgment-but-not-integrity-in-tesla-test/)

" _[...] I do not believe Mr. Broder hoped the drive would end badly. [...]
Did he use good judgment along the way? Not especially. In particular,
decisions he made at a crucial juncture – when he recharged the Model S in
Norwich, Conn. [...] were certainly instrumental in this saga’s high-drama
ending.

In addition, Mr. Broder left himself open to valid criticism by taking what
seem to be casual and imprecise notes along the journey, unaware that his
every move was being monitored._"

~~~
cube13
Here's the full quote of the last one: "few conclusions that are
unassailable."

>"People will go on contesting these points – and insisting that they know
what they prove — and that’s understandable. In the matter of the Tesla Model
S and its now infamous test drive, there is still plenty to argue about and
few conclusions that are unassailable."

It is disingenuous to misquote to that extent.

------
joe_the_user
Let's figure what the important points are.

The Times effectively said "well, our review wasn't quite true but..."

And Tesla figuratively jumped in and said "Hey, I'm glad you admitted your
review wasn't true".

Seems like a fine way to end things.

Sure, one could say "But - but, the 'truth is the middle'..." Sure but when
you're publishing a review that going to have an economic effect on a company,
you have an obligation to both not be false and to not be "sloppy to the point
of falsity". So what if Broder was found to not be engaging in an malicious
falsification? That the Times admitted Broder was far too sloppy is enough so
that Tesla's job of protecting his company's reputation is done.

~~~
DrizzitT
Interesting. Only when it comes to the defense of Musk, we can "figure what
the important points are"?

The Times review's important points were "Supercharger distances are a bit
iffy and cold weather drastically affects driving distances"

Tesla's important points were "Hey, since you quoted your speed wrong, I'm
going to accuse you of lying/intentional sabotage and ignore all other
issues/bury the criticisms"

To be honest, the Tesla owners telemetry drives confirms Broder's issues on
the first 200 mile leg to Milford. I believe 4 out of 6 drivers ended with <
30 miles remaining (one with 3 miles remaining I believe) on a full 100% 270
mile range charge. Broder charged to 240.

Broder made many stupid choices. But the "important points" are that more
superchargers are needed (confirmed by CNN), and cold weather affects battery
level (confirmed by Consumer Reports). There were many ways of dealing with
those two issues while showing that Broder had a outlying experience without
turning this into a media whinestorm.

~~~
Shivetya
The Consumer Reports article can be found here
[http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2013/02/tesla-model-
s-w...](http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2013/02/tesla-model-s-winter-
chills-limit-the-electric-cars-range.html)

Its events like this which only go to show, even a 100k

------
venus
> But, most of all, we would like to thank our customers, who rallied
> immediately to the defense of Tesla and the electric car revolution, sending
> hundreds of heartfelt letters of support to The New York Times in the space
> of a few days!

Holy propaganda style writing batman. Does Musk's business card for Tesla have
the job title Dear Leader?

------
nicpottier
"Entirely of their own volition, several customers spent the past holiday
weekend recreating the Broder test drive route and showing that it can be done
easily using the Tesla Supercharger network on the East Coast. "

Musk loses some points here by not being exactly forthcoming about the details
of the 'community drive' that took place, which actually required an over the
air update to complete due to one of the cars not taking a full charge:

Source: [http://green.autoblog.com/2013/02/18/tesla-model-s-road-
trip...](http://green.autoblog.com/2013/02/18/tesla-model-s-road-trip-drivers-
have-no-problem-video/)

He should have just left that bit out, now it calls the rest into question.

------
mikemoka
I know I am walking upon a mined field here, but I think that, despite his
hero status, a certain kind of insecurity is showing these days from him. I
mean, if you are sure you have a good product would you argue to death with a
journalist or will you answer him then let the public try and judge the
product on his own when it comes out?

I mean, I don't think that if someone would have badly criticized the iPhone
someone at Apple would have been deeply concerned, because they were certain
that thousands of authors and thousands of users would have praised it soon
thereafter, and a few bad opinions wouldn't have harmed it much.

~~~
entropy_
While I fully agree with your point -- This response rubs me the wrong way too
-- when it comes to cars bad PR can be way more damaging than with phones.

Check this out:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes#Unintended_accelerat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes#Unintended_acceleration)
(referenced by someone higher up in the thread). One TV show with a car that
had been tampered with caused a massive amount of lost sales for Audi, to the
point where they considered pulling out of the US market entirely. Sales
didn't bounce back for a full 15 years.

I can definitely see why someone in the auto industry would be extremely
touchy about things they think were written by journalists in bad faith.

------
b1daly
While it does seem Musk might actually feel personally aggrieved, I see the
situation as follows: In spite of a lot of progress on making a fully electric
car, the Tesla S has obvious shortcomings as a replacement for an ICE car.
Mainly, it requires constant vigilance to maintain the battery, and the
battery is subject to unpredictable behavior with regards to predicted range
and maintaining a charge, which are worsened by cold.

These weaknesses were illustrated by the original NYT article, and no amount
of spin, or "better" reporting can change this.

Musk knows that once a meme gets started along the lines of ""Tesla is the car
that leaves you stranded unpredictably and doesn't work in cold climate" gets
started, it is game over for reaching a mass market. So the story is a
potential existential threat to the company, requiring maximum response.
Losing credibility with some of the HN crowd is not such a threat, the market
they represent is tiny.

He mainly needed to bring up doubts about the story enough to prevent it from
becoming a defining story on the S. It might not have been pretty, but in this
I would say he succeeded.

------
tokenadult
I had better recycle some electrons to mention a neglected article about the
Tesla Model S that is not part of the crossfire between Elon Musk and the New
York Times. There was an extensive, and on the whole rather favorable, review
of the Model S from The Verge

[http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/12/3969260/going-the-
distance...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/12/3969260/going-the-distance-
driving-tesla-model-s-in-the-real-world)

submitted to HN while most participants were discussing the original New York
Times review by John Broder. (Most participants missed the discussion on the
article from The Verge.)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5208154>

The author of the report in The Verge takes care to mention, "Tesla hopes for
its first quarter of black ink this year after a decade of operation, but make
no mistake, it’s still in the throes of startupdom. Much of its working
capital has come from nearly half a billion dollars in low-interest rate
government loans. It has just a few dozen dealers around the world." Elon Musk
seems desperate to stay in spin mode about any article on the Model S that is
less than laudatory precisely because he can't brag up his company by
referring to market share or sales growth or other issues that most
entrepreneurs refer to.

AFTER EDIT: I appreciate the kind reply that mentions that Tesla Motors
reports fourth quarter results tomorrow (Wednesday 20 February 2013). That
will be interesting reading. Of course I was referring to the kind of general
statement that a president of a successful company can make along the lines of
"We have a growing, profitable business, and the word of mouth from our
customers in cold states speaks for itself." But that's not what I hear from
Musk, but rather nit-picking about published reviews.

The comment below prompted me to look up some investor news about Tesla, and I
found a Motley Fool blog post

[http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/this-weeks-5-dumbest-
stock...](http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/this-weeks-5-dumbest-stock-moves-
tesla-motors-inc-tsla-65147/)

commenting on the results of Musk's initial response to the New York Times
review: "Tesla had to defend itself on this, but drawing more attention to the
incident in a way that forces Tesla drivers to be patient through recharging
stations, lighter on the accelerator, and focused on the most direct path from
one destination to another doesn't sound like potent marketing material for a
car that costs at least $60,000."

~~~
revelation
Well, he can't because Tesla (TSLA) is a public company and releases its Q4
report tomorrow on the 20th. He can't possibly "leak" detailed numbers on
market share, sales growth etc.

That said, the Verges review is worth reading (and watching) for the video
editing alone.

------
omonra
I think it's telling that the blog post fails to link to the NYT article. Ie -
if you _really_ need to know what the public editor said, go google it.

This is a painfully obvious PR war in which the truth is the first casualty.

------
alan_cx
At this point my head drops in t my hands and I sigh.

Basically, with out having to say anything it can look like the NYT did
concede. Just superficially, but enough. However, now we have yet another
response form Tesla, people, like the people here, will go over it work by
word to see if it all squares up now. And of course it doesn't. So what's
next, another response from NYT?

If it were me, I'd have stopped this right after the NYT article. Both sides
could declare some sort of victory and lessons learned, and move on. Now, of
course, Tesla open up again fro more scrutiny, and as people here have pointed
out in detail, Tesla don't stand up.

All this will do is entrench opinion and further increase the notion that Musk
is a man who makes false claims and freaks out when called out. That is how
the motor world sees him. Which to my mind is mad because Musk will need the
support of these guys to sell units.

Perhaps Musk feels he can ignore the motor industry culture entirely and
create a whole new one for electric. If that's the idea, then OK, fine. But if
so, he has a right battle on his hands, and I suggest he doesn't need it when
IMHO what he needs to do is continue to develop and perfect his product. But
then, why keep trying to court the motor industry?

Maybe that is the way to go. Completely ignore the current motor culture, and
create a whole new culture for electric vehicles. I mean, the railway industry
doesn't court the motor industry. Or vice versa. Car manufacturers dont try to
impress train manufacturers. They are totally separate. So, separate out the
electric car culture. Just a wild thought!!!

------
SeanLuke
I think that Tesla has a legitimate complaint with the NYT for the article.
But the very first sentence of this post is a bald falsehood:

> Yesterday, The New York Times reversed its opinion on the review of our
> Model S and no longer believes that it was an accurate account of what
> happened.

The public editor is not the New York Times' opinion. She is the newspaper's
ombudsman. Her opinions are entirely her own and are independent of the
newspaper, and indeed often are at odds with the newspaper's policy or
opinion.

This is not just spin, it's a petty and unnecessary lie. Musk has blown a lot
of credibility with me.

 __Edit. This post comes at a curious time: Tesla's potentially make-or-break
quarterly earnings report is due the next day.

------
DannoHung
Things to take note if you ever decide to do business with Musk's companies as
a customer: He will twist every word and fact possible if something doesn't go
right publicly.

------
querulous
The two biggest failings of the Tesla S highlighted by Broder still remain
unaddressed. The overnight discharge of the battery and the questionable
instruction by Tesla representatives are still question marks that Elon Musk
has done nothing to refute.

------
Swizec
I think we should get a Model S review done by Clarkson. That's the only way
to be sure if the car is any good.

But somehow I don't see that happening after Top Gear's handling of the
Roadster ... (Tesla made a big fuss when Top Gear had two teslas break down
and/or run out of power during a day of testing on their track)

Top Gear's conclusion at the time was the the Tesla is not suitable for the
real world [yet]. Tesla of course disagreed ... publicly and loudly.

~~~
lacksconfidence
The 'fuss' with top gear is that they implied the car ran out of energy and
had to be pushed, while the car logging shows it never ran out of energy and
had enough juice to drive back into the garage from any point on the track.

Top Gear could have tried to be accurate, and just kept flogging the machine
around the track until it actually ran out of energy, but they really dont
care. Top Gear isnt a news show, its entertainment. Its a soap opera about
cars.

~~~
Swizec
Yes. And if you figure out their idiolect it is the single most informative
car show about cars I will likely never be able to afford I have ever seen.

~~~
stcredzero
_> idiolect_

A mashup of idiocy, intellect, idiosyncrasy, and dialect?

~~~
Swizec
In compliance with my "educate, don't ridicule" rule:

"In linguistics, an idiolect is a variety of language that is unique to a
person, as manifested by the patterns of vocabulary, grammar, and
pronunciation that he or she uses."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiolect>

------
bambax
> _The bottom line is that the Model S combined with Supercharging works well
> for a long road trip, even in a cold, snowy winter._

No. The bottom line is you can't drive the Model S in winter even if you have
the time or inclination to call a dedicated Tesla support line a total of
twelve times during a two-day trip.

The bottom line is Tesla's advice is worthless.

The bottom line is you should plug the car in every instant it's not running
(which is exactly what the user manual says).

\- - -

I used to be a heavy smoker. What made me stop is, everywhere I went, the only
thing I could think about was "where can I get cigarettes if I run out?"

I would not like to drive a car that would put me in the same state of mind.

------
MikeCapone
Here is the piece by the NYT's public editor, Margaret Sullivan, that is
referenced by Tesla:

[http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/problems-
wi...](http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/problems-with-
precision-and-judgment-but-not-integrity-in-tesla-test/)

------
Shivetya
okay, so what instructions were given to Mr Broder prior to his trip? Surely
they don't just hand the keys over and say "have fun".

Reading one owner's story it appears there are settings one could use to get
more range than standard range, range mode settings to extend the range, and
so on. As in, perhaps the people handing the car off should have done a better
job at it.

There are still stories from owners of Tesla S cars who have not had the
greatest experiences. Any car where it comes down to a comfortable cabin or
having the range to reach the next charger screams "work in progress".

I am all for new technology in cars, I just don't think the taxpayer needs to
help foot the bill for luxury versions of such.

------
dylangs1030
I'm not going to say he's wrong, but Musk's response is a little
condescending.

Two parties are fighting over public image, I get that. It didn't have to
escalate to this point, but it did. And now, when Musk has essentially emerged
victorious, he makes a _further_ blog post to grind his heel into Broder while
he's down?

That's not honorable.

------
MarkMc
Musk is showing bad judgement by mis-characterising the change in attitude of
The New York Times.

Broder showed poor judgement by leaving a charging station with an estimated
range of half the distance he wanted to travel.

Margaret Sullivan is the one person who seems to have good judgement in this
whole affair.

------
ScottBurson
Viewing one's product through almost ridiculously rose-colored glasses seems
to be a necessary attitude for a visionary product leader. Steve Jobs
certainly had it. Perhaps that level of enthusiasm is required in order to get
these products built.

In any case, Broder's review and the subsequent donnybrook don't make me any
less likely to buy a Tesla -- not that I have that kind of cash lying around
:-) I've owned rechargeable devices for years. I'm well aware of what's
involved in maintaining batteries, and it would never even occur to me _not_
to plug in my electric car overnight, if I had one. D'oh! as they say.

------
supercanuck
Judging by this thread, is appears Elon Musk is losing his innocence.

------
mobbom
The NYT article seemed overly dramatic, as do Tela's responses. I don't know
what the point of the NYT article was - the range wasn't as stated? It loses
charge overnight in cold? And of course it's going to run out of charge if you
don't fully charge it. But then Tesla keeps making statements that are also
exaggerated to their benefit. The NYT rebuttal wasn't as one-sided as Elon's
post suggests. Hard to find someone to 100% root for in this soap opera.

------
DigitalSea
I guess Broder will be looking for a new job shortly. If that's the case, is
this guy now finished as a journalist? I mean, he made some pretty big
mistakes here (even if not intentional) his actions have been seen as damaging
to the Tesla brand (only short-term though).

~~~
DigitalSea
Would be nice to know why my comment is being down voted. It wasn't spammy,
insulting and I thought it was on cue. This is my opinion, it's these kind of
unwarranted actions that are detrimental to HN. The community of this place
has taken a massive downward spiral in the last year or so

~~~
biot
Here is what pg had said about downvoting over the years:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2435588>

In short, downvoting to express disagreement has always been done and is
reasonable. Also, "Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does
any good, and it makes boring reading."

------
eps
If nothing else, the media will now think twice before giving an unfavorable
review to Tesla cars.

On the other hand, the paid-for crtique and general crusade against electrical
vehicles will now probably shift to less notable outlets, but on a larger
scale. Think - dozens blog posts detailing bad ownership experiences, and not
with company loaners that log every bleep, but with actually bought cars. It'd
be interesting to see how Tesle is going to handle this... because frankly I
don't think they can.

~~~
flyinRyan
>If nothing else, the media will now think twice before giving an unfavorable
review to Tesla cars.

You think so? I would think the opposite. Tesla has no power but to throw a
fit and act foolish. If anything, I would expect future reviews to approach
the review negatively and defensively.

------
nnq
Are there really such things as honest car reviews?! ...I guess EM just made a
really bad judgement: he pushed his "candy money" _too late_ towards NYT, or
he somehow managed to _push it to the wring person_! (this really bodes bad on
the public image of his business skills, so this could make some over-cautious
people reconsider investing in his businesses - though I'd still place my bet
on him ;) )

------
codex
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

\-- Hamlet, Act III, scene II

------
scragg
Anyone on HN own or reserved a Model S? I'm thinking of reserving the cheaper
configs.

------
recoiledsnake
Musk's response has no answers to the following key questions

1) Was Broder advised to brake frequently to use regenerative braking? (This
kills the battery).

2) How much displayed/real charge does the car lose overnight in cold weather?

3) Was Broder advised that heating the cabin will increased the displayed
range?

4) When Musk said the battery never ran out of charge what did he mean? That
was meant to cast doubt on Broder implying he called the towing company
needlessly, but a Tesla rep spent a long time with the towing truck driver on
the phone and couldn't get it to release the parking brake. Why the technical
BS nitpicking stating the battery still had charge if it was totally useless?

Broder gave us the times and names of support reps and all we get is this
extreme piece of worthless spin?

The fact that he's not answering the above questions leads me to believe that
Broder was given some really bad advice by incompetent reps and Musk is trying
to shift the blame completely onto Broder.

Broder should've recorded the support phone calls without telling Tesla, just
like they turned on logging on the car he was driving.

~~~
uvdiv
Add to that

5) What were the cruise control setpoints?

This data must certainly have been logged, and Musk hasn't released it. Musk
accused Broder of lying about using cruise control. So why not back this up
with direct evidence, why only release speedometer logs?

My inference is that these logs must support Broder's account _very_ strongly.

------
DanBlake
This is a major blow to Broder. (Career ending?)

As unlikely as it may be, Imagine he was giving his best effort and his car
did act as he wrote. What shitty luck.

One thing is for sure- Reviewing a Tesla is a risky thing to do. Most other
car companies wouldn't go out in public to say the review was
incompetent/fake/staged.

~~~
corresation
_This is a major blow to Broder. (Career ending?)_

Is it? Musk again seems petty and vindictive, and he is quite transparently
very carefully selecting pieces that essentially pitches to the converted.

The editor gave a very coached response that was hardly the win that Musk
seems to think it was.

~~~
revelation
In Germany, if you ask your employer for a job reference, he has to write it
in the most positive words or invite a lawsuit. This leads to the bizarre
situation where in such a job reference, everything is a testament to the
capabilities of the employee. You can only detect the intended statement by
comparing various levels of exaltation and looking for key phrases.

How does this relate to Sullivans statement? It's the same situation: you can
not openly condemn the work of a colleague or the NYT as a whole. So you write
everything in the most conflict-averse way as possible. That is why its such a
"coached" response and 1/2 of it is even the quote from a Tesla supporter.

But frankly, everything you need to know about Broder is in the headline:

 _Problems With Precision and Judgment_

~~~
iyulaev
___In Germany, if you ask your employer for a job reference, he has to write
it in the most positive words..._ __

The US, in my experience, is no different, whether it be job references or
letters of rec. Good writers will be able to use nuance to make their meaning
clear, and good readers must be able to interpret the nuances appropriately.

