Tesla Motors Bitch-Slaps Lying "Journalist"
 

Wow, Elon Musk (Tesla's co-founder) just bitch-slapped John Broder, a "journalist" who recently wrote a hit-piece about his experiences driving a Model S electric car.

Vehicle logs show that Broder drove faster than he claimed, charged for less time than he claimed, cranked the heat higher than he claimed, didn't stop to charge when he could've, took a detour, drove circles in a 100-space parking lot for over half a mile (in a failed attempt to get the car to run out of juice), and stopped charging prematurely (only up to 28% before he claimed to run out of energy).

Note that Tesla's "supercharging" stations add 150 miles of range in 30 minutes (for free). Had Broder charged as long as he claimed (or even just a few minutes more than he really did), he wouldn't have been driving the car beyond its projected range (for his last leg, he drove 61 miles when the car told him range was 32).

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most...iar-test-drive

This obviously get a lot of attention here in Norway. Tesla guys are pretty upset, and rightfully so.

Yes, but the readers such fabricated articles are pitched at see what they want to, then their eyes and ears close over.

He lied, but once it's out there it's too late (save for full front page retractions with the heading "SORRY, WE TOLD GREAT BIG FAT LIES").

Reminds me of something else.

On a side note, Tesla's blogpost also underscores why Top Gear has little credibility. I loves me some Top Gear... it's one of the most entertaining shows on TV, and is even occasionally insightful. However, I stopped trusting them after what what they did to the Tesla Roadster:

After it aired, Tesla asked Top Gear to edit the episode for re-broadcasts. Top Gear refused, Tesla then sued them for libel (not a good move, IMO), and Top Gear won.

I still enjoy watching Top Gear, but in 2008 I learned to take everything they say with a grain of salt.

This morning, I posted this elsewhere:

Well, since then Broder has posted a response at http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013...hat-it-doesnt/

To his credit, he explained some of the discrepancies and wrote that he had driven around in that parking lot because he was looking for the charger.

That written, much of what happened still remains unexplained... some of it could be due to Broder taking sloppy notes or Tesla's data logger needing calibration (both of those are speculative).

But on some of the issues, either Broder is lying, or he's a complete idiot.

Had he either charged it to 90% before leaving it overnight, or plugged it in overnight, he wouldn't have had a problem. His rationale for not doing at least one of those things is silly.

And I find it difficult that he actually thought he could drive 61 miles when the car told him the range was 32 miles. His excuse is that Tesla personnel supposedly told him "to leave it connected for an hour, and after that the lost range would be restored."

Even assuming that he really did get that impression from the Tesla personnel, it still should've been obvious that the car didn't recover enough range (just based on his own account of how it transpired). Given all the articles he's written related to cars and/or energy, Broder has enough familiarity with this sort of thing that he has no excuse for ignoring that 32 mile range indicator.

Musk deserves some criticism too, at least for not knowing how to deal with a PR situation like this. Did he contact Broder or the towing company to get more information before accusing Broder of intentional sabotaging the test? Doesn't seem like it.

Yes. I'm thinking "60 Minutes" and Audi, a company they almost destroyed with their irresponsible reporting and ignorance.

Could it not be both?

Others have reviewed the logs and say that Tesla is exaggerating, and Broder was less then diligent about documenting the exact details of his test drive.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/techn...-fakery/62149/

I like Tesla, but they need to stop pretending that there cars are good for taking long road trips. It's a good city car or for a well planned out of town trip.

Broder is guilty of not following the specific rules Tesla set for him, and Tesla is guilty of trying to rig the test by setting rules that don't reflect real world use.

:popcorn:

i agree (assuming that Tesla is being more accurate than the reporter, but they both have skin in this game) that Tesla was done a huge disservice here and the reporter should be hooked up to the charging station until his battery is at 100%.

That said, the portion above is EXACTLY why I won't own an electric vehicle until the infrastructure matches the gas infrastructure.

Would any of us put up with a gas vehicle where we had to worry about the heater settings, driving a little faster than the manufacturer's recommended speed, making a few extra circles around a parking lot, or not completely filling the tank and then worrying that we could make it to the next gas station, particularly when not driving through the Sahara Desert or the Amazon, but one of the areas of the US with probably the highest station per car ratio on the world?

Sounds like tesla is in the wrong reading his response.

CNN made the trip with battery to spare by following the Tesla instructions.

The point is, you CAN do it the Tesla way and maximize range, or you could do it the FR-s way and charge it more often...

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/15/auto....html?iid=Lead

This is just a mess. Plenty of blame to go around. Bad journalism, bad PR.

I really like the Model S, and what it represents - but it isn't a particularly good fit for the US. Distances here are too long and things are too far apart. It's a great car for Europe, but not here, at least not until the range is increased.

As was said, the Model S makes a good city car, but who wants a 4k lb. luxobarge for a city car? A very narrow niche of people, I'm guessing.

The Model S can get from 160-200 miles range. How is that relegated to city only? It's perfectly suited for the US and NOT Europe like the Leaf, Focus, etc are.