A Most Peculiar Test Drive – Follow Up

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

by neuralnetwork • 13 years ago

277 200 13 years ago

teslamotors.com

MikeCapone• 13 years ago

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...

Breakthrough• 13 years ago

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...

"[...] 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."

cube133• 13 years ago

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.

DanBlake2• 13 years ago

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.

corresation2• 13 years ago

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.

DanBlake2• 13 years ago

I think the public perception of broder is that hes either:

1) Malicious/Lies to obtain desired result

2) Incompetent

Neither bodes well for him.

robryan• 13 years ago

Had he not been though this article would have counted against tesla mostly unchallenged. In this case he has forced some concessions from the paper which may make the difference when people are researching the car for possible purchase.

enraged_camel• 13 years ago

>>The editor gave a very coached response that

If by "coached" you mean "squirmy", yes. I mean, she refused to take a stance on the issue and instead tried to play the role of an impartial observer, and failed completely.

revelation3• 13 years ago

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

manaskarekar2• 13 years ago

I love it.

No matter who's right or wrong here, the next person to review a Tesla will think twice before going about the usual raised-pinky bullshit write-up.

I love this whole episode, irrespective of who's right or wrong for so many reasons.

A CEO pin pointing bullshit (alleged) to such a degree and tech/auto journalism getting a nice dose of facts.

waterlesscloud4• 13 years ago

Would you trust any details Broder reports?

I wouldn't. He's proven to at best be very sloppy with the details.

flyinRyan8• 13 years ago

Are you kidding? This was probably great for Broder's career. For sure he has more followers as a result of this.

And you're right, most car companies wouldn't ever let themselves look so petty and unprofessional. If they did, you can bet that a lot more journalists would line up hoping to stir some major controversy!

Kylekramer2• 13 years ago

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.

bcbrown• 13 years ago

No kidding. "Public Editor agreed that John Broder had “problems with precision and judgment," “took casual and imprecise notes” and made “few conclusions that are unassailable.”"

What was actually written: "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."

natrius2• 13 years ago

Mangling a quote like that is effectively lying. It's a pretty stupid move to make after succeeding in challenging the negative PR.

cube133• 13 years ago

I'm confused. The NYT didn't retract anything. If they acknowledged that Tesla was, in fact, 100% correct, they would have done that. Go take a look at their corrections page.

So how does the editor's piece actually support any of what he's saying?

supercanuck2• 13 years ago

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.

AceJohnny2• 13 years ago

good marketer? To me he seems childish and combative.

I understand he had beef with the original scathing review, but his own rebuttal should've been bulletproof. While it made some good points, it was also nitpicky and interpretive. I expect better from the public face of the silicon valley's vehicular prodigy.

cube133• 13 years ago

By straight out misquoting about what was said? That's not a good marketer.

Kylekramer2• 13 years ago

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.

tokenadult3• 13 years ago

he is proving he is an equally good marketer

You are entitled to your own opinion. My opinion is that I am not alone in being turned off by Musk. I no longer desire to buy a product from a company he operates. As an astute friend of mine who is both a theoretically trained scientist and active entrepreneur wrote as a comment on the New York Times public editor piece (on my Facebook wall), "Even if you completely accept Elon Musk's analysis, the bottom line is that owning this car is very expensive and a big pain in the tookus." If I spend that much money on what one of my law school classmates once called a "penis car," I don't want the car leaving me feeling like a schmuck or the car company's president acting like a schmuck in public.

gamblor956• 13 years ago

Mr. Musk is very good at marketing Tesla's poor performance in cold weather. He single-handedly streisanded the company's cold-weather battery problems. Before, only EV afficionados knew about the problem. Now, everyone does.

All he's managed to prove is that he should leave the marketing to the professionals and go back to whatever it is he does at Tesla.

dmak2• 13 years ago

It really made me question the integrity of the data logs. He could have cherry picked that too.

Shivetya3• 13 years ago

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.

ignostic2• 13 years ago

> "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• 13 years ago

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

ignostic2• 13 years ago

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

mobbom• 13 years ago

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.

mistercow4• 13 years ago

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...) .

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• 13 years ago

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.

nthitz• 13 years ago

Most customers actually have to purchase the vehicle rather than just getting a test model to review.

toomuchtodo3• 13 years ago

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

mistercow4• 13 years ago

Doesn't sound to me like they explicitly represented it to him one way or the other. After the Top Gear situation, it's surprising to me that he wouldn't assume that they would turn it on. In any case, I don't think this can reasonably be considered underhanded behavior on Tesla's part.

Swizec3• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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.

Swizec3• 13 years ago

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.

omonra• 13 years ago

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.

niggler• 13 years ago

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.

revelation3• 13 years ago

You take the same stance of "false statements are not lying if you make them to the best of your knowledge". That can not be the standard we hold journalists to.

Broder has "problems with precision and judgement" and his method of keeping a log is "casual and imprecise notes" in "a little red notebook in the front seat". He is a hopeless amateur in the 21th century.

snewman• 13 years ago

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.

robinh4• 13 years ago

"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.

foobarqux• 13 years ago

"Vern: You know, one of two things happens when you meet your heroes, either they're assholes, or they're just like you are. Either way you always lose."

alan_cx2• 13 years ago

I agree with you main point, but not the last bit.

The "public" don't worship Musk and don't want to take the NYT down. The small group who like Musk do, but a whole bunch of public don't. This forum is very pro Musk, but also intelligently critical, while very much wanting to support him. The frustration here with Musk is very obvious. But that is only a small part of the pie as it were.

See, I have one foot in the hacker/geek/tech world, and one foot in the motor world. The motor world laughs at electric cars and Musk is the main "green hippy idiot" who makes great claims that fail, from their POV. Its worse, they feel threatened by Musk and his electric cars, as he threatens the big sexy V8 and the manly roar of man mobiles. And I can see that too. But any way they can attack him, they will. And these guys are the ones he needs to eventually convince.

Thats a lot of writing for such a small point!!!!

mikemoka• 13 years ago

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.

manaskarekar2• 13 years ago

I agree about sensing that feeling too. But I think it stems more from emotional involvement in the product in addition to what is at stake for the company at this make or break stage.

entropy_• 13 years ago

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... (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.

DigitalSea2• 13 years ago

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).

DigitalSea2• 13 years ago

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

rsofaer• 13 years ago

It's just wrong for reasons that are covered in comments near the top. The public editor isn't part of Broder's management, and Musk is vastly exaggerating what she wrote about Broder anyhow.

biot• 13 years ago

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."

tokenadult3• 13 years ago

Here's a friendly suggestion: if you notice downvotes on a comment during its edit window (the first two hours the comment is posted), just edit the comment, with a FRIENDLY question asking why people disagree with you. (It can be assumed that downvotes are prompted by disagreement, and as someone else has already reminded you, that has always been permitted by the culture here.) It's okay to fix a comment with an addition (I usually mark additions to my comments with the phrase "AFTER EDIT") to respond to how people react to your comment at first. We all have opinions here, and I can learn from anybody here, whether they agree with me or not.

flyinRyan8• 13 years ago

What a ridiculous post! Why would Broder be looking for a new job? And who cares if his actions were seen as damaging to the Tesla brand? Tesla is not Walmart, they're no one to fear in the slightest.

joe_the_user• 13 years ago

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.

makomk2• 13 years ago

The Times review had some details that were incorrect, but getting them right wouldn't have made it any more favourable to Tesla. Elon Musk's response, on the other hand was both technically accurate and fundamentally dishonest. Technically the car may not have run out of battery power, but it was dead until recharged nonetheless. Technically it reported its range accurately on the last leg, but that was no help to Broder since once he found out it had lost most of its range overnight there wasn't enough left to make it to the Supercharger. If you look at the logs, he did drive around for 0.6 miles on empty when he reached the second charger - but that's what happens if you miss the turning. He could've charged completely rather than just to 28%, but Elon neglected to mention that would've taken 10 hours, longer than it actually took to complete the trip including breaking down and getting towed! And so on, and so forth.

Broder's figures are wrong, but Elon's entire story is basically a lie, and that's far worse.

DrizzitT• 13 years ago

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.

Shivetya3• 13 years ago

The Consumer Reports article can be found here http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2013/02/tesla-model-s-w...

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

donohoe2• 13 years ago

Actually lets be clear - odd as it is - the Public Editor does not speak for the Times.

aresant• 13 years ago

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...

wuest2• 13 years ago

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

Musk has apparently decided after Top Gear that negative press is going to be an issue which he will fight to the death. It certainly feels like he's digging his way out of this particular PR hole.

venus3• 13 years ago

> he's digging his way out of this particular PR hole

Out of? Or into?

I have to admit I like Musk a lot more when he keeps his mouth shut. With this and his ludicrous Boeing grandstanding, he is sounding less like a mature, visionary CEO with every word he says.

Volpe• 13 years ago

I don't think it misrepresents it too much. It's a pretty 'squirmy' retraction.

Basically they are saying what Broder wrote was incorrect, and showed poor judgement, but without faulting Broder in any way. (As ridiculous as that sounds)

donohoe2• 13 years ago

Lets be very clear - it is not a retraction.

Public Editor is not part if the newsroom. It is a role outside if it and she does not have any authority other than to post to her blog.

If there is a retraction it will be clearly posted on the original article.

makomk2• 13 years ago

Imagine, for a moment, that Broder had a more detailed record of his drive and had used it to make the article 100% truthful and accurate. Would it have been any more flattering to Tesla or to the Model S?

socalnate1• 13 years ago

Agreed. This blog post is at least as disingenuous as the original article that Musk called "faked."

Afforess3• 13 years ago

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.

JumpCrisscross2• 13 years ago

If Kim Jong-un said he was the Queen of Pluto and the Financial Times responded with "the Kim family are genetically engineered Nazis", I would still lose respect for the Financial Times.

Musk's portrayal of the New York Times's response is dishonest; that burden is not lightened by the Times's original article having been similarly inventive.

softbuilder• 13 years ago

Being disappointed isn't the same thing as hating.

brown9-24• 13 years ago

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

Danihan• 13 years ago

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

He's attempting to change the public perception surrounding a very questionable hit piece on his company.

While it feels somewhat polarizing to me, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

flyinRyan8• 13 years ago

IMO, he's making it look worse. I didn't even know about this article and I've still mostly avoided reading about this stuff but my take away so far is that Elon's car is hard for normal people to use, and he's so aggressive at attacking anyone who would say anything bad about it that they're probably right.

Of course you can say "but, you're not even fully informed about the issues" and it's true, but neither will most consumers.

ww520• 13 years ago

Well the NYT's response is basically admitting fault begrudgingly. Their usual response is, "we stand 100% behind the published piece." Getting them to give this response is amazing. Musk can certainly claim victory.

eli7• 13 years ago

The Public Editor has no obligation to stand behind anything the NYT's publishes. Just the opposite -- they are supposed to stand up to the paper where appropriate. I don't think it's fair to say that they usually stand 100% behind sloppy reporting (but feel free to point me to other instances).

metalsahu• 13 years ago

I see nothing wrong in Musk defending his position vigorously because he had complete faith in the car but more so because the logs clearly indicate Broder forgot to top-off. The NYT review is damaging not only to Tesla's sales but also questions the viability of electric cars. I am ok with how Musk handled the situation and I don't think Tesla is going to lose any more goodwill in the long run any more than Apple lost during Steve Jobs' response during 'Antennagate'...the difference is that there is no damning evidence against the Tesla.

More importantly I feel that this incident has heralded a new era in media communications where the press can no longer wield this one-sided power over companies, now the companies are in a position to retort back.

JumpCrisscross2• 13 years ago

I see something wrong in him mis-representing his opponent. Saying the New York Times "no longer believes that it was an accurate account of what happened" is a rose-tinted reading of the Times's response [1]. Granted, I may be projecting my Swiss sensibilities about what constitutes honest discourse.

[1] http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/problems-wi...

guiambros• 13 years ago

C'mon, the entire response is a joke. The NY Times is just trying to save their face, after precipitously baking Broder without knowing the facts (and knowing that Tesla had that amount of data of the test drive).

Ms. Sullivan herself admits that "Did he [Broder] use good judgment along the way? Not especially." And also that "...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." Still, she insists that it was all done in good faith and integrity.

I'm sorry, but this is The New York Times. You can't just say "oh, our journalist just messed up by NOT following common sense instructions, and NOT taking proper notes, and still writing a misleading article [about the wrong topic -- the car -- rather than the super charge stations which was the original intention]. But hey, it was all in good faith, so no harm".

To me this is exactly the opposite of what I'd expect to hear from the editor of the NYT. She missed the opportunity to recognize the flaws of the original article, apologize on behalf of their journalist for not taking proper diligence and care that you'd expect from such publication, and offer readers (& Tesla) to re-do the entire test and publish the results again.

cynicalkane2• 13 years ago

The record clearly establishes that Broder engaged in unrealistic driving patterns to get the car to run out of juice--stuff like driving around in circles and ignoring range warnings--and then went on to lie and mislead people about it.

There's a good point to be made here about arguing: like baseball, choose the juciest, easiest pitches and then swing for the fences. Don't try to argue every point and stretch the truth to do so, because it damages credibility. Musk tried to argue more than he should have.

So we have a whole lot of people attacking Musk when the NYT did a provably dishonest smear job and is trying not to admit it.

tlrobinson• 13 years ago

"C'mon, the entire response is a joke."

If Musk could really back up all of his accusations, why would he be "satisfied" with this "joke" of a response?

It seems Musk prematurely accused NYT of "faking" the review, then realized they couldn't back up that accusation, and are taking this opportunity to back down.

neuralnetwork2• 13 years ago

I am surprised that so many people are "disappointed" in Elon Musk. So he overemphasized some parts and underemphasized other parts of NYT's response (which admitted that there were some inaccuracies in the contested article). But so what? Elon Musk and Tesla have done an amazing job with the Model S, and its quality does not change because of the misrepresentation. If this is enough to get disappointed in Elon Musk, then you should awfully disappointed with a whole lot of people.

robinh4• 13 years ago

No, because that's not how disappointment works. You must understand that Elon Musk is considered one of the most ultimately successful technological innovators on earth by many here: he began with a startup, then proceeded to build a commercial space company, work on solar energy and electric cars. It is unsurprising that this causes many of us technically inclined people to unconsciously worship Musk - if only a little bit.

Then, when it turns out that the person you've just neatly placed upon a pedestal does something you very much disagree with, too, is when people actually become disappointed.

eli7• 13 years ago

I can only speak for myself, but I'm disappointed because it seems like a really cool car and I really like what he's doing, but the way Musk viciously attacks critics is a serious turn-off. I think the essence of Broder's complaints about the range of the car and cold weather and getting used to a car with different operating constraints are entirely legitimate even if they weren't written with the precision one might expect from the NYT (and, it's worth noting, it wasn't an altogether negative review). It's disappointing that he would attack not just the review, but the reviewer personally.

pyre• 13 years ago

Your argument is: "Because Elon Musk and the Tesla team have done an amazing job with the Model S, it is impossible/improper/wrong for people to be upset/disappointed in his behaviour." Really?

loup-vaillant• 13 years ago

That's hardly a spin.

Musk: "Victory! The NYT admits Broder got his facts wrong!"

Devil's advocate "Defeat! The NYT still stays Broder was honest!"

No contradiction here, just plausible deniability. Broder made honest mistakes that lead him to get his facts wrong (well). Tesla motors is happy to come out clean, and its cherry picking is just making clear they won't press the issue.

pmr_• 13 years ago

I have a problem with honesty as the redeeming quality problem of the article. Honesty is certainly one of the most important traits of a journalist, so is understanding bias and preventing bias as much as possible. Broder was honest in representing his trip but apparently (sloppy notes, see NYT article) didn't do due diligence when it comes to questioning his own perception and recounting of the events.

venus3• 13 years ago

> 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?

doktrin5• 13 years ago

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.

gojomo• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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.

ScottBurson• 13 years ago

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.

tokenadult3• 13 years ago

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...

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...

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."

revelation3• 13 years ago

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.

supercanuck2• 13 years ago

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

querulous• 13 years ago

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.

alan_cx2• 13 years ago

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!!!

DannoHung• 13 years ago

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.

b1daly• 13 years ago

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.

recoiledsnake• 13 years ago

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.

pacala• 13 years ago

I can only hope that from now on reviewers of Mr. Musk cars will turn their mobile phones in data recording stations and even the field. Broder was taken by surprise; there is little precedent for the kind of irrelevant spin he was the subject of.

uvdiv• 13 years ago

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.

MarkMc• 13 years ago

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.

dylangs1030• 13 years ago

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.

scragg• 13 years ago

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

codex• 13 years ago

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

-- Hamlet, Act III, scene II

SeanLuke• 13 years ago

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.

nicpottier• 13 years ago

"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...

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

nnq• 13 years ago

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 ;) )

eps• 13 years ago

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.

flyinRyan8• 13 years ago

>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.

bambax• 13 years ago

> 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.

A Most Peculiar Test Drive – Follow Up

Related Stories