Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by obeygiant, Feb 14, 2013.
Broder better start looking for another job.
Here is Tesla's response/breakdown of the data.
It seems Broder was more interested in making the drive fit his narrative of constant fear of running out of charge than reporting an unbiased review. Do the same thing with a gas-powered car and you are called an idiot.
Musk is on something too if he is going to deny winter conditions have a negative effect on batteries. You're range will be reduced in cold weather because the cold does reduce the batteries ability to hold a charge, you will have a higher heater setting to remain comfortable, etc.
Also not saying the NYT's reporter didn't do anything to purposely make the Tesla look bad, but it harm's Tesla's defense when they lie too.....
I've watched a lot of car reviews and what he did is pretty standard. Reviewers do everything they can to create a worst case scenario and run down the battery as quickly as possible. I'm okay with that because it challenges the manufacturer's numbers that come from a best case scenario. It does show the importance of reading more than one review before you pass judgement on a product.
Reviewers should come up with realistic scenario's to show what a typical driver will get out of the vehicle. They shouldn't be trying to purposely get the, " worst case scenario". It would be like saying the Prius only gets 19 MPG ignoring the fact you ran the Prius on a track..... They shouldn't do things to purposely make a vehicle look bad. You don't stop refueling your car when you only have 30 miles on a tank...... You don't start driving more aggressively when you're low on gas......
The things Broder did was outside the norm of what reviewers do. Unless the only other reviews you watch are from Clarkson, Hammond, and Capt. Slow......
Top Gear did that one.
I know, but Top Gear is entertainment only. If C&D, MT, R&T, etc did that, I would call for their heads if they tried to pass off track fuel economy as real world fuel economy( which Top Gear didn't either).
Broder's response. Much of what he said sounds plausible. It's all he said, she said.
CNN repeated the test that was designed and got much better results.
Maybe it's me but I think Tesla should work with a restaurant chain to place a spot with a "Tesla charging spot" at said chain restaurant. Also Tesla could put charging spots at those expressway "Welcome to (Insert State)" stops. This could really be a coup for tesla and the restaurant chain that Tesla make a deal with.
Broder's narrative reminds me an old 4-wheel-drive vehicle I used to drive that got 10 MPG at 50 MPH and < 5 MPG on a back road in 4WD-- on a 20-gallon fuel tank. Or the smart phone I used to have that, wherever I went, I was looking for plug to charge it.
In other words, Broder was trying to say that the Tesla is unfit for its intended purpose. A backcountry vehicle that can't be driven far into the backcountry because its range is so small, or, a cell phone that might as well be a land line, is not very useful.
I say Broder was trying, because, he failed. The intended use of a Tesla Model S is not as an interstate touring car. The only problem I have with the Tesla is the price. The car is absolutely perfect for 99% of my trips-- I wish I could afford one.
They're fun to drive, very similar to a Lotus in handling and feel.
The Tesla S is obviously still somewhat bleeding edge and it is clearly not as mature a product as your standard petro-fueled auto. Also, Musk occasionally comes across as your standard egomaniacal tycoon 'visonary' entrepreneur: can't take criticism, extremely protective of his product, given to personal attacks...
With that being said, I think the NYT review came off a bit overly critical. Broder should have realized that, with the journey ending on a flatbed truck, his test drive was going to come under a lot of scrutiny. It's obvious that the trip he failed to complete is possible with a Tesla S - though even the Tesla owners that subsequently completed the trip in convoy suffered one malfunction that required Tesla to push a firmware update to a car before it could complete the journey.
Contained within the BS coming from both sides are kernels of truth.
This reminds me of how unreliable reporters can be. While we so much want to believe that they are unbiased reporters of fact, I have found from my own dealings with the New York Times in years past that reporters can have agendas beyond what they are reporting and slant or even misreport to support the story that they're writing.
This seems to be a case where neither party was going to like the result, with the reporter likely working to get his result, since when does good news ever sell newspapers, and Tesla being in the uneviable position of having to get press coverage for a product that is in front of the market, yet having to get it from a medium in which objectivity has long been traded for sales and ratings.
The shame of this is probably that there is truth in both sides of this story, but the truth wasn't dramatic enough for the writer and the truth is not acceptable to Tesla. In any case, I find the writer's actions more egregious, since he is purporting to report the truth, whereas Tesla is merely marketing a product.
NYT editor said the reporter did not use good judgement:
The auto journalism community in the US and most of the rest of the world lean toward the slavishly fawning end of reporting for the simple fact that journalists who post critical reviews are refused access to new cars by manufacturer.
In this case the majority of blame should probably fall on the reporter for his bias, but 9 times out of 10 auto reporting is fairly heavily biased towards the manufacturer.