Clueless NYT reporter manages to get stranded in Model S

Your opinion. I certainly did not read the article that way.

I hoped they learned their lesson, and plan to space the QC's less than 200 miles apart. A lot less, since not all of their cars have 85 kwh.

No, I think the general conclusion is that the car cannot reliably make the trip in the winter if posted speed limits are followed and cabin heating is used.

They are wrong. Just add wet roads and/or some wind to Tesla's own estimate tool.

 

Fantastically concise but powerful statement.

 

The other thing that they could do, that came out of the embarrassment was put a brake interlock into the system, and to actually have their black boxes work and allow owners to see the data after the accident. These things were fought hard against by Toyota according to internal documents released. They now have complied and unintended acceleration claims have disappeared.

Tesla has shown us the black box, so we know that reporter under filled the car. Unfortunately anti-ev people are still defending this reporter and his unethical behavior. Musk did a poor job of conveying the information originally, and made a couple of accusations that appear false - driving in circles to kill the battey, not being dead when the tow truck arrived. I think the extra publicity hurts both Tesla and the NYT. Tesla could have done better by waiting and confrongint the reporter with the data. They could have had the story - NYT reporter under charges tesla for his photo op. Along with ' Are you smarter than a NYT reporter, 20 people were able to easily charge teslas and make the trip with out a tow.

 

I like suitability -- thanks.
I have kept using 'reliability' because I earlier defined it to mean the likelihood of failing to travel 200 miles no higher than than what I expect/experience in my Prius.

I was also I suppose (somewhat sloppily) using the term to answer the question "can I rely on the car to go 200 miles in the winter, using the aforementioned speed and AC use parameters?"

I completely agree that the question is situational and does not imply any engineering flaws.

 

You have certainly taken some flack here, some of it understandable, some of it not. There is a very essential point you are making that many drivers would find the car unsuitable. It is in everybody's interest that those folks do not commit to an electric vehicle until (if ever) they fully understand the tradeoffs involved. The Broder story would have been a completely different thing if he had pointed out how he was unsuited (or poorly suited) for the trip as shown by his quite understandable misjudgments. Unfortunately, he strongly communicated the car is unsuited for the task for any driver due to the car's shortcomings.

 

Funny, how you downplay Musk's errors as a 'poor job conveying information' despite having the luxury of a black box, time, and a cadre of very smart people backing him up; while the reporter was 'unethical' although probably just relying on memory while driving.


I propose instead:

• Musk is full of Sh1t
• Broder would be well advised to keep a journal in the future, but to his credit did not come to any errant conclusion despite his sloppy memory.

 

Well you should check. Broder confirmed that he charged to 90%, then 72%, then 32 miles. The undercharging is not in dispute at all. The fact that he made to the charging station 200 miles is not in dispute either. He made that without stoping to recharge and did not need to be towed.

The thing that makes this a made up story isn't that he made it the 200 miles and had to slow down a little. That was fine as I've told you before.

The big problem that most of us have is him only charging to 72%, because as he says he didn't think he needed any more. This is after he slowed down to make it to the second charging station. It was followed by only charging to 32 miles for over a 60 mile trip. Those are the unethical parts of the story. He did not say he was undercharging to make it worse in the story, he acted as if it was the cars fault, not his own. That is misleading. He even included a graphic that implied the gauge was off, but not admits to that being misleading, and him intending it to be a cold soak.

You are defending unethical behavior because its a story you really want to believe. Read his responses if you think he fully charged the battery.

 

Musk is a CEO, we expect him to defend his car. I think he did a poor job, and don't like the false accusations. Musk has been accused of being a hot head, and I am sure that Broder purposefully undercharged the car. That is bound to set someone like Musk off.

The NYT is supposed to be one the best news organizations. We should expect that they review broder's unethical behavior. So far they have only let him answer, although they now because of bad publicity say they are investigating. Why do you think Broder undercharged the car. Do you think his explanations ring true? That after barely making it he thought he didn't need much power? Would you leave a gas station with half a tank of fuel after almost running out, when the fuel is free?

The NYT should have higher ethics and standards than TMZ. If the management does not issue an explanation and apology, I'll assume they do not.

 

If you consider that Dapaena from CNN did Newark to Milford in-
warmer weather
non-stop
range charged to 271 mi
62 mph cruise control ....

I can see how Broder barely made it into Milford the night before ...

I'm not convinced a lamp socket would have helped Broder with the cold soak given this gals experience... but I don't really know.

Gallons of sunshine run empty | PriusChat

 

I mostly agree with your post, although as an EV fan with caveats, I will say that I did not read the Broder article as an attack on the car, but as a warning of as you say, suitability for long range driving in the winter with or without QCs.

And if I may be a bit argumentative, if the Prius was built with a 4 gallon fuel tank that was best filled at stations spaced 200 miles apart and was the car Broder trialled, would we be arguing that our car has no shortcomings, it was just Broder's unsuitability and misjudgements at play ?

 

And so excuse blatant errors if not lies ? NOT

My opinion only: I think Broder was ignorant of the effects of winter driving, received ongoing poor advice from Tesla, and tried to limit charging times NOT to disparage the car, but to be able to write how the car made the trip in travel times much shorter than EV skeptics might assume.

Odd, eh ? You see conspiracy where I see a clueless guy who falls on this own good intentions.

I will say that he strikes me as a bit of a wimp, but then in that respect he probably mirrors $100k car buying people pretty well.

 

And so excuse blatant errors if not lies ? NOT

My opinion only: I think Broder was ignorant of the effects of winter driving, received ongoing poor advice from Tesla, and tried to limit charging times NOT to disparage the car, but to be able to write how the car made the trip in travel times much shorter than EV skeptics might assume.

Odd, eh ? You see conspiracy where I see a clueless guy who falls on this own good intentions.

I will say that he strikes me as a bit of a wimp, but then in that respect he probably mirrors $100k car buying people pretty well.

 

I don't think any of the flack was because of that, it was because of the rest of the bad truth.

You know if it was just misjudgments, then Broder should of just fessed up to them when the flack started, and said it wasn't the car or the charging stations, but how he used it. Unfortunately some want to say it's just normal behavior to under charge a car and leave a station without enough fuel. Its a problem with the cars. Any defense of that line is simply wrong.

 

Exactly

 

I think it is safe to say Broder had no idea the Model S's range gage would go from 90 miles to 25 overnight. ....

Could we all agree on point above? How would he have known that prior to the morning?


Yes, Broder may have been thinking, well, I'm going to drive 100 miles tonight, so 170 miles on gage (72%) should do it. It's a foolish mistake, but it might be a mistake a few other EV nubes make. Remember, you fill your gas tank in 2 minutes (I do). But going from 72 to 90% takes longer than 2 minutes, need to 'kill more time'.

 

I don't think the analogy between filling a gas car and recharging EV is valid. Takes over an hour to get 240 miles estimated range on MS, and 2 minutes to get actual 450 miles in my Prius. But you have a point about free fuel. Not that Broder would have been paying for gas anyway. He was either impatient or crafty.

 

I think that is a legitimate part of the story. Its not all dramatization, but the bad parts are. If he had charged to 90%, which he implied that he did in the first response, it also likely would not have been a problem. The fact is he only charged to 72%, after almost running out of fuel, at a free station, and acted in the article like he fully charged it.

I certainly would not have objected to that. He says he didn't want to plug in at night to test the supercharger network though, so he wanted it to not restore range. This is his own statement.

But he was already planning to write about how he barely made it. Something smells mighty fishy here. Still the really objectionable part to me was the photo-op on the flat bed truck. Why would you after undercharging twice, and we expect by that morning he knew this, would you leave a charger with only 32 miles showing? Still if there wasn't the picture of the flatbed, and he simply wrote, I was silly and left the charger early and had to waste 2 hours for a tow, it would not have been as offensive.

 

It was free fuel, and his story was about using it. How much time it took to recharge was part of the story. That was a negative tesla should have expected. What they did not expect was for him to stop early. Remember he is a writer. I stopped last in my prius with two flats, and was able to work from my laptop. Its not as if there was any reason for him to do this, or for a typical ev driver that has barely made a station to leave it early, unless they were close to home and there own charger.

 

Exactly

I might have to read that part again; my impression at the moment is that Broder spoke with Tesla and decided to cut short further charging when he was told he had enough. I'm willing to bet he had no faculties to assess the effects of cold on battery capacity, or how the range meter would change as he drove the car.

We read that part of the narrative as a bit ludicrous, but my response is 'What were you thinking, Tesla ?"

 

No, I didn't say that. I don't think it made Musk look good. He should correct those two things. But when you have been hit by a low blow, and you hit back too hard whose fault is it? Both people ofcourse, but its that guy that through the low blow that I look at worse.

You certain are entitled to your opinion, but I hope that you can see why those of us that read the article didn't think that that Broder was being objective to the car.

That would make more sense if the misleading photos were not a prominent part of the story, but again you are entiled to your own opinion.

I have no idea where that came from.