Tesla provide data logs alleging New York times review was a hatchet job

quad_red

Pretty damning, if true.

A whining manufacturer trying to discredit a reviewer or a sinister hatchet job by a journo?

Data released by Tesla Motors late Wednesday night directly contradicts a damning review of the automaker’s Model S sedan by the New York Times.

The data, pulled directly from the electric sedan’s on-board computer, claims that New York Times reporter John M. Broder never ran out of energy during his extended drive of the Model S, despite his account to the contrary.

According to Tesla, Broder was given explicit instructions for his drive: keep the speed at 55 mph and turn down the climate control. Broder claims to have set the cruise control at 54 mph and at one point writes he, “limped along at about 45 miles per hour.” However, the logs released by Tesla show that he drove at speeds ranging from 65 to 81 mph, and kept the interior temperature at 72 degrees, increasing it to 74 degrees at one point.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/02/tesla-logs-nytimes/

TGi666

I blame the stonecutters :pac:

Alanstrainor

Wasn't it a similar story with Top Gear and the Tesla S or what ever it was called?

A lot of people are against Tesla, just because they're in the electric business.

kiffer

They didn't like top gear's report either...

Edit: crud... too slow kiffer.
Yeah they did the same thing, pulled the records out of the computer and showed that the car never ran out of power.
Top Gear responded by sayinf that the scene showing them pushing the car was a demonstration of what would happen id you did run out... which is a bit of a cop out... they could have ar least driven it to empty to show just how long/short a time it takes.
Let the stig race around the track at top speed for a while.

Interceptor

Face it Tesla, nobody wants your silly noiseless toys.

two wheels good

Interceptor wrote: »

Face it Tesla, nobody wants your silly noiseless toys.

More than 2000 buyers (2008 - 2012) of the very expensive Tesla refute that.
And of course the planet desperately needs the technology to be developed.
BTW Wouldn't you enjoy immediate max torque from 0 revs?

Oafley Jones

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I initially was a big fan of the Tesla S but having looked in the Tesla forum about the large number of issues that they are having I wouldn't touch one.

Would love to have a go of one. Really like the little details such as the door handles extending from the body when you approach the car. Quite nice looking as well. The dash is an abomination though. Who ever thought that replacing traditional controls with a sole 17 inch touchscreen is a good idea - where you can browse the net while moving - needs to be got rid off.

JohnxF

I had a look at one in a Tesla 'shop' in a mall in the US when I was there recently. Really nicely designed and finished with quality materials. The front and side looks great, but the back looks a bit like a Jag XF to my eyes and a bit ungainly. The pop-out door handles are a gimmicks alright and I don't see the benefit of the large touchscreen controlling all the things where a simple proper dial/button interface would be much more useful for such things as the radio or aircon.

Stallingrad

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Owners have reported the doors unlocking themselves, the touchscreen not working for 15 minutes after the car starts, handles not popping up. All sorts of fun stuff that you wouldn't want to happen. Its basically a car hooked up to a cheap Android handset from the sounds of it :pac:

Ideally every new car would be 100% from the get go. This is rarely the case, even from mainstream manufactures with massive budgets evolving existing cars (why does BMW come to mind). Tesla is baby amount the aged (decrepit?), problems will be sorted and early adopters need to be aware of this.

I think what the company has achieved so far has been phenomenal.

Tar.Aldarion

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Wasn't it a similar story with Top Gear and the Tesla S or what ever it was called?

A lot of people are against Tesla, just because they're in the electric business.

Yeah basically top gear had the script written before they even got the car. This journalist made it all up. This is why logging data is good, they ripped him to shreds: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive

I'd love a go in one of those.

Tar.Aldarion

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Would love to have a go of one. Really like the little details such as the door handles extending from the body when you approach the car. Quite nice looking as well. The dash is an abomination though. Who ever thought that replacing traditional controls with a sole 17 inch touchscreen is a good idea - where you can browse the net while moving - needs to be got rid off.

Loads of people already install tablets into their car like that themselves, I'd say a lot of stuff will be heading that way. I don't imagine it is very user friendly yet.

Tar.Aldarion

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Agreed no car is 100% but I wouldnt be too impressed spending 50+k on a car only to be used a public beta tester.

Well all these people were taking a gamble - paying for it 4 years ago, then everybody and their mother called it car of the year, so I wouldn't be too disappointed with initial kinks.

deandean

Sounds to me like that the journalist got caught out plain-and-simple, making up a story. That is gutter-journalism in its worst form.

I doubt that any other motor manufacturers will be offering that guy one of their cars for a test drive.

bbuzz

On the subject of the Top Gear report, Tesla brought the BBC to the High Court twice and lost both times. Also, apparently the report was going to be very positive but the Top Gear producer's didn't like Elon Musk's attitude. Which is understandable, the guy seems way too up himself.

Stallingrad

bbuzz wrote: »

Also, apparently the report was going to be very positive but the Top Gear producer's didn't like Elon Musk's attitude.

So they toned down the review of a car because they didn't like they guy? If that is true what a petty, stupid program.

bbuzz

Stallingrad wrote: »

So the toned down the review of a car because they did't like they guy? If that is true what a petty, stupid program.

It's just what I heard. Top Gear's an entertainment programme anyway and it's always been based on opinions, so of course the way the car company acts is going to have an influence. Same with all motoring journalists tbh, why do you think the manufacturers bend over backwards for them and fly them all over the world, all expenses paid, for car launches.

Anan1

bbuzz wrote: »

Top Gear's an entertainment programme anyway and it's always been based on opinions, so of course the way the car company acts is going to have an influence. Same with all motoring journalists tbh, why do you think the manufacturers bend over backwards for them and fly them all over the world, all expenses paid, for car launches.

What about responsibility to the readers? IMO anyone who does that is not fit to be called a journalist.

Matt Simis

Tesla’s data claims that Broder never completely charged the Model S during three separate charging sessions, including one charge before the final leg of his trip, when Broder disconnected the charger with an indicated range of 32 miles, despite planning to drive 61 miles

The automaker is also questioning the length of a trip Broder made through Manhattan, reportedly giving his brother a ride in the car, as well claiming that the writer drove around in circles outside a Supercharger station for malicious reasons.

Thats appalling on behalf of Broder and the NYT. Clearly he was paid off or has shares in a competitor to take such chances with his creditability and get his employer into trouble as I doubt he did it to sensationalise purely to sell the article/paper.


Its sad that Tesla repeatedly need refer to data logs to protect themselves. Its fantastic they had the foresight to record such detail, but not good the Motoring Journo world is so corrupt that they need it.

ShadowHearth

What a gobshiete journalist. Surely he should be just shamed and out of the building with his little box of belongings.

the_syco

bbuzz wrote: »

the guy seems way too up himself.

After helping to found Paypal, and founding SpaceX, I don't blame him for acting like he has balls, as he does.

jackofalltrades

Good to see Tesla keeping motoring journalists honest.

According to Tesla, Broder was given explicit instructions for his drive: keep the speed at 55 mph and turn down the climate control. Broder claims to have set the cruise control at 54 mph and at one point writes he, “limped along at about 45 miles per hour.” However, the logs released by Tesla show that he drove at speeds ranging from 65 to 81 mph, and kept the interior temperature at 72 degrees, increasing it to 74 degrees at one point.

Driving at 55mph along an interstate is a recipe for getting tailgated. Everything is going to overtake you at that speed.

Also I hardly think setting the climate control to 72F(22C) is excessive during winter, when it's close to 0 celcius outside.

HAHA I did read the article yesterday.

It's really hilliarious because if reporter John M Broder knew anything about cars, especially electric cars he would heave known that the car keeps logs.

Tesla's battery is also climate controlled unlike the Nissan Leaf so cold weather shouldn't effect it.

Same with Nissan, you won't pull a stunt like this with Nissan either as the Leaf records every journey you do!. So well done to Tesla, I think the car did a fantastic job and shame on reporter John M. Broder who only goes to prove that a lot of journalists today are without integrity.

If you ever crash in an E.V and you lie about speeding you're done for !

Cienciano

Why is everyone slating the journalist? The Tesla company has a lot to lose if their review is less than perfect. Of course, they wouldn't be less than honest :rolleyes:
Here's the journalists reply:

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/the-charges-are-flying-over-a-test-of-teslas-charging-network/?smid=tw-nytimes

Look at the end of the day the 21 KW/hr Leaf can do 3.5 miles per kw/ hr average efficiency = 75 miles range of 21 kw/hrs usable.

The Tesla even with 3 miles per kw/hr =240 miles. No big deal.

What do people want ? Faster charging more than more miles really, and Nissan should be able to achieve that with MK II Leaf in 2015, they are already testing 10 min charging. That's over 150 KW of power !

the_syco

Deleted User wrote: »

What do people want ? Faster charging more than more miles really, and Nissan should be able to achieve that with MK II Leaf in 2015, they are already testing 10 min charging. That's over 150 KW of power !

Like shooting petrol already on fire, it's only a matter of time before someone dies due to stupidity (iPod charging? :P).

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

Like shooting petrol already on fire, it's only a matter of time before someone dies due to stupidity (iPod charging? :P).

Na it's far less likely than catching fire pumping petrol.

There are various safety features built into the charger and car. + Current only flows when the car knows it's connected to the charger and vice versa.

pred racer

Cienciano wrote: »

Why is everyone slating the journalist? The Tesla company has a lot to lose if their review is less than perfect. Of course, they wouldn't be less than honest :rolleyes:
Here's the journalists reply:

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/the-charges-are-flying-over-a-test-of-teslas-charging-network/?smid=tw-nytimes

So the only 2 reviews of tesla products that have come to my attention have had tesla ranting and raving about unfair tests.
I'm sorry but having read the journo's comments, it sounds like the tesla suffers from the same problem all ev's do.........the range is ****e, and like all battery powered devices, they dont last as long as the manufacturers claim. And they take longer to recharge.
Until they have a useable range in normal conditions, ie 3-400km with the heater ,the radio and the lights at motorway cruising speed (130kmh imo) they are only for fanbois and tree huggers (sorry mad lad )
You wouldnt buy a phone you had to charge twice a day would you?

Btw Im not against electricity as a form of power for cars, but the technology has a long way to go.

pred racer

pred racer wrote: »

So the only 2 reviews of tesla products that have come to my attention have had tesla ranting and raving about unfair tests.
I'm sorry but having read the journo's comments, it sounds like the tesla suffers from the same problem all ev's do.........the range is ****e, and like all battery powered devices, they dont last as long as the manufacturers claim. And they take longer to recharge.
Until they have a useable range in normal conditions, ie 3-400km with the heater ,the radio and the lights at motorway cruising speed (130kmh imo) they are only for fanbois and tree huggers (sorry mad lad )
You wouldnt buy a phone you had to charge twice a day would you?

Btw Im not against electricity as a form of power for cars, but the technology has a long way to go.

Typical Yawn ! :pac:

The Tesla model S 80 kw/hr had more than enough range for anyone, simple.

pred racer

Deleted User wrote: »

Typical Yawn ! :pac:

The Tesla model S 80 kw/hr had more than enough range for anyone, simple.

Not for me I'm afraid. A 100k car that cant do 200 miles because it was a bit cold, and the driver went a bit fast:rolleyes:

pred racer

pred racer wrote: »

Not for me I'm afraid. A 100k car that cant do 200 miles because it was a bit cold, and the driver went a bit fast:rolleyes:

Bull crap, the model S will do a lot more than 200 miles.

The journalist deliberately set out to discredit Tesla

Crap talk.

More anti E.V dribble.

pred racer

Deleted User wrote: »

Bull crap, the model S will do a lot more than 200 miles.

The journalist deliberately set out to discredit Tesla

Crap talk.

More anti E.V dribble.

Grand so,
Link me to a couple of reviews which say it can do 200 miles of normal driving.
Ill gladly change my opinion.
Or I could just come back and call it anti ICE dribble (a compelling argument dont you think?)

Tar.Aldarion

pred racer wrote: »

So the only 2 reviews of tesla products that have come to my attention have had tesla ranting and raving about unfair tests.
I'm sorry but having read the journo's comments, it sounds like the tesla suffers from the same problem all ev's do.........the range is ****e, and like all battery powered devices, they dont last as long as the manufacturers claim. And they take longer to recharge.
Until they have a useable range in normal conditions, ie 3-400km with the heater ,the radio and the lights at motorway cruising speed (130kmh imo) they are only for fanbois and tree huggers (sorry mad lad )
You wouldnt buy a phone you had to charge twice a day would you?

Btw Im not against electricity as a form of power for cars, but the technology has a long way to go.

Yeah and in the first review they admitted it. This second one stinks of lies from the journalist but I'm sure time will shed more light.
They had their oil guy writing this article. All his stories are about oil and oil policy. They have a car writer, yet he wasn't the one doing it.

firefly08

To be fair to TG, they addressed the allegation about having the review pre-written back when the suit was first filed.

Short version is, they had the review already written because they had already driven the car.

There seems to be a popular belief that the media, big oil companies and various other vaguely defined corporate fat cats simply hate the idea of the electric car and engage in all manner of intrigue and skullduggery to stop it from catching on. But I think they are just whinging.

Cienciano

It sounds simple to me. Tesla overestimated the battery life. Every consumer electronic product in the world does the same. Every car is the same really, the MPG they show in the brochure is never what you get in real life, but it's not as big an issue because they generally have a bigger range than EV's and are much easier and faster to fill up.
Interesting, Tesla took top gear to court twice and lost. I think they're a bit of a ryanair, all publicity is good publicity.

Tar.Aldarion

Cars last shorter on racetracks, all cars. Yet the car actually never ran out of battery, that's not why they lost. Top gear admitted it never ran out of battery. On tog gear they would never say "Nissan say their GT-R will get 23 mpg on the highway, we worked out that on our track it only averages about 9 mpg!" Or "Nissan say their GT-R has a range of 330 miles, but we worked out that on our track, it's only 78!"

They just said the Tesla distance was reduced and didn't say anything about it, they were just being misleading because it is an electric car and it's a tv show.
So they pushed a charged car to the charging spot.

Cienciano

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Cars last shorter on racetracks, all cars. Yet the car actually never ran out of battery, that's not why they lost. Top gear admitted it never ran out of battery. On tog gear they would never say "Nissan say their GT-R will get 23 mpg on the highway, we worked out that on our track it only averages about 9 mpg!" Or "Nissan say their GT-R has a range of 330 miles, but we worked out that on our track, it's only 78!"

They just said the Tesla distance was reduced and didn't say anything about it, they were just being misleading because it is an electric car and it's a tv show.
So they pushed a charged car to the charging spot.

But it was clear that it was the track, and driving hard they were talking about. From what I read, it didn't run out, but it would have after 55 miles or whatever the distance was. And it would have, they just didn't continue doing the exact same lap after lap.
Teslas argument was that it never actually ran out. Didn't see the whole review, but that bit is perfectly logical from Top Gear from me, seems the judge agreed too!

Tar.Aldarion

Cienciano wrote: »

But it was clear that it was the track, and driving hard they were talking about. From what I read, it didn't run out, but it would have after 55 miles or whatever the distance was. And it would have, they just didn't continue doing the exact same lap after lap.
Teslas argument was that it never actually ran out. Didn't see the whole review, but that bit is perfectly logical from Top Gear from me, seems the judge agreed too!

From watching the show itself you can see they were being misleading on purpose, they could have elaborated but they chose not to. They admitted they were misleading but because they are an entertainment show and not a news show that they shouldn't be done for libel, that is why they were not done for it.


Personally think people are a bit crazy saying it's a conspiracy by car companies in this instance, they dont care about the tesla and it's tiny volumes, it's nothing to them, and they are all making their own electric cars.

pred racer wrote: »

Grand so,
Link me to a couple of reviews which say it can do 200 miles of normal driving.
Ill gladly change my opinion.
Or I could just come back and call it anti ICE dribble (a compelling argument dont you think?)

I don't know about the tesla, but I remember this about the roadster:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/13/teslas-roadster-rolls-241-miles-on-single-charge-annoys-petrol/

Ideally I'd want it to be further/them to be cheaper before I would get one. It still has a way to go.

firefly08

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Cars last shorter on racetracks, all cars. Yet the car actually never ran out of battery, that's not why they lost. Top gear admitted it never ran out of battery. On tog gear they would never say "Nissan say their GT-R will get 23 mpg on the highway, we worked out that on our track it only averages about 9 mpg!" Or "Nissan say their GT-R has a range of 330 miles, but we worked out that on our track, it's only 78!"

They just said the Tesla distance was reduced and didn't say anything about it, they were just being misleading because it is an electric car and it's a tv show.
So they pushed a charged car to the charging spot.

Ahem.

Ok maybe the Nissan GTR wasn't in there but in this test they do test many of their favourite supercars to show exactly what MPG they get on the track.

Tar.Aldarion

haha yeah fair enough, I just think it was a bit unfair to only ever mention it about one car when they are actually reviewing that car on its own. They would mention that it ran out of c harge (if it actually had)but wouldn't say why for entertainment. That ferrari lol.

pred racer

pred racer wrote: »

Grand so,
Link me to a couple of reviews which say it can do 200 miles of normal driving.
Ill gladly change my opinion.
Or I could just come back and call it anti ICE dribble (a compelling argument dont you think?)

The EPA's official rating for the Model S 85 kw/hr is 260 miles. Now even they admit it can be more can be less just like any other car , petrol, diesel etc.

They gave the efficiency of the Model S as having a range of 38 kwh/100 miles

The Nissan Leaf got 34 kw/100 kms the update due this summer is supposed to improve that by 15% or more.

There have been various tests done in the leaf and Model S to show that the Leaf can go 60-110 miles and the model S 200-350 miles. All depends how you drive it.

The Leaf has an average efficiency according to the mynissanleaf forum of 3.5 miles /kwh so if the Leaf has 21 usable kwh that's 3.5 x 21 =73.5 miles. It can be more can be less but that's the average.

If the Leaf had the Tesla's battery of 85 kw/hr it would have a range of 297 miles. and a cost to charge being €0.18 x 85 =€6.80 on night electricity.

The tesla is supposed to be more efficient than the current leaf so it would probably go the 300 miles.

These same journalistic reviews also gave the Prius MK II had an efficiency of about 40 mpg, rubbish. I easily get 60-65.

Matt Simis

pred racer wrote: »

Grand so,
Link me to a couple of reviews which say it can do 200 miles of normal driving.
Ill gladly change my opinion.
Or I could just come back and call it anti ICE dribble (a compelling argument dont you think?)

Range is boring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPzna3p3P5s

Anyhow, most Tesla reviews show a different picture to this one (or TGs), the fact 2 reviews made more headlines isnt Tesla's fault. There are plenty of reviews and impressions out there and if you want a proper review of something as tech focused as the Tesla, prolly best not to hand it to old oil at the NYT.


You wanted 2 showing better range to eat your hat right?


http://www.wired.com/reviews/2012/09/tesla-model-s/3/

Wired's 4 day test drive wrote:

The lone outlier was a 140-plus-mile trip intended to mimic a weekend cruise. It included city driving, 80 miles of freeway, and a spirited, 20-mile blast through the hills of Altamont, California. Just like in any other vehicle, when you’re caning it hard, energy consumption goes through the roof.

Unlike the Tesla Roadster Sport I tested some two years ago, the Model S was completely fault-free when it came to speed and prowess, no matter the conditions or abuse. But the range remains a sticking point — the 42-mile drive home was an exercise in butt-puckering throttle moderation as I rolled into my driveway with only a single mile left on the battery.

Can the Model S hit its EPA-certified 265-mile range? Based on my time behind the wheel, there’s no doubt. But if you want to satiate that atavistic thirst for pavement-pummeling torque on a regular basis, be prepared to top off the cells with frequency.

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

The Verge's multiday Review wrote:

But after an hour, we were back on the road with about 200 miles of range back in the battery; it’s remarkable how much faster these Superchargers are than the Level 2 system we’d used in Morro Bay. My drive to San Francisco was bittersweet, knowing that I was just a couple hours away from relinquishing a very special car that I can’t afford — and even if I could, I’d be staring down the barrel of a multi-year waiting list with a $5,000 deposit. [Editor's note: Tesla tells me in a follow-up email that wait times have improved to 3-6 months.]

Granted The Verge review showed from 180 to something under 250 miles per charge, but its not bad and it included mountain passes and cold weather. Not perfect but not too shabby, they liked the car anyhow.


PS: Lots more linked from here:
http://www.teslamotors.com/models/reviews

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/15/autos/tesla-model-s/index.html

It just proves that Broder's NYT review of the Model S was complete BS.

Who is going to drive like a mad man will probably run a bit short until more of those super chargers are installed, but for normal people the Model S has all the range anyone is ever going to need. And especially perfect for Irish roads.

Remember the super chargers Tesla are installing are 100,000 watts compared to the ones currently installed in Ireland which are 50,000 watts.

Currently the Leaf will charge to 80% from completely dead in 30 mins, the tesla chargers could do it in 15 mins, and remember you will never arrive on a completely dead battery.

Nissan can install an 85 kwh battery no problem, but it would be more expensive, but not so expensive as people think, you see Tesla choose the 18650 cells, they are small laptop cells already in mass production and have been for several years making them much cheaper.

Tesla have an option to fully replace an 8 year old battery (40 kwh) in 8 years for 6,000 euro's, that battery is almost twice the size of the one in the Leaf. Nissan chose a different battery chemistry over the ones used in the Tesla because they offered higher discharge in a smaller battery and there is little chance of fire unlike the ones used in the tesla, but tesla use liquid cooling or heating, and non have went of fire yet.

Most of your laptop batteries never went on fire either I bet ?

I think if Nissan offered 40 kwh in Leaf II and option for super charging i.e 100-150 kw or 5-10 min charging and for a cost of no more than €24,000 then they would be on to a winner, that would give a very real 150 mile range, though I don't know how powerful the current fast chargers installed in Ireland or about to be installed can be made ? mayeb they have to install new ones again ? just shows how fast e.v's are progressing!

Chevy are releasing the Spark e.v next year in Europe with a mad 400 lbs of torque that's almost as much as the Model S ! Though I bet it will be toned down when it reaches Europe, though sadly, currently there are no hopes for more than leaf sized 20 kwh battery.