NY Times and Tesla S

[amirm]

This is why wealthy CEO engineers should not get into PR: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/that-tesla-data-what-it-says-and-what-it-doesnt/

If you don't know the back story, NY times tested the Tesla S and ran out of power before getting to its destination. The blamed it on cold snap which took the temps down to 30 degrees.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk pulled out the car logs and blasted the reported for fabricating details of the test. The above article is the latest round of fights between them. I don't see how anyone who knows anything about how reporters work would think he could win even if he had more facts on his side. As it is, I am sitting here thinking if I bought a Tesla and it keeps track of everything I do in it including when I go to the bathroom!

It is a simple fact that batteries lose a ton of their rated life when temps go down. When shooting with my camera in cold temps, I can have a fully charged Lithium Ion battery go dead after just using 10 to 20% of its life. The fact that the same thing happened here is just expected.

What is not expected is the random advice they gave to the reporter. They told him for example to speed up and slow down to rejuvenated the battery. Speeding up uses a lot of energy. I guess they thought it would warm up the battery bank in the process but I would think the net result is negative. Ditto for using the heater while sitting there for the charge to return. The batteries are not in the cabin so how was that going to be a net positive thing? No wonder then that the reporter found that it did nothing but reduce the remaining charge. Tesla makes things worse contradicting such advice given by their own people.

According to the reporter, he had made countless calls to Tesla people during his drive. Surely you don't get to cry foul after the fact when such communication went on and at this intensity. If someone tests something without ever asking you, sure. But this?

Any normal CEO who needed to make a living from a company would not remotely approach this affair this way. Even if they were right, they should have met privately with the reporter and got him to accept his mistakes, if any, and have him write a retraction. Failing that, the standard practice is to get another reporter do the same and and if you are right, write a positive review to counteract it. You don't go tweeting calling a NY times reporter a liar and such. The world just does not work that way.

BTW, I saw the car in the local mall and it far exceeded my expectations on every front including value. And I saw Elon Musk on a 60 minutes interview on space exploration and thought very positively of him. I just think he should let the PR people handle such things rather than getting personally involved. And being so emotionally defensive. Battery operated cars are going to have such limitations and you are going to face negative reporting from time to time.

Here is a reasoned response similar to mine from CNET: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-57569430-48/tesla-the-times-and-how-to-drive-an-electric-car/

Read the report and let me know what you think.

 

[GaryProtein]

The Tesla is a gorgeous car, but unless you really like a specific electric car for the car itself and NOT because it is electric, buying an electric car is a mistake. There is limited range, refueling=recharging it is inconvenient and time consuming especially if you are on the road and you will probably never recover the increased cost of the electric car in gasoline savings.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Unless you really like a specific electric car for the car itself and NOT because it is electric, buying an electric car is a mistake. There is limited range, refueling=recharging it is inconvenient and time consuming especially if you are on the road and you will probably never recover the increased cost of the electric car in gasoline savings.

electric cars exist for only one reason, they have been legislated into existance.....and are required by law.

we will all end up paying for them in the long run.....as they cost automakers much more to build than they can sell them for. it will drive the prices of all cars up and fewer people will be able to buy cars in the future.

same thing with the crazy projected fuel economy numbers we have to hit in 10-15 years.

i guess the people have spoken.

 

[FrantzM]

The Tesla is a gorgeous car, but unless you really like a specific electric car for the car itself and NOT because it is electric, buying an electric car is a mistake. There is limited range, refueling=recharging it is inconvenient and time consuming especially if you are on the road and you will probably never recover the increased cost of the electric car in gasoline savings.

I must say that I like the notion of Electric cars. 250 miles per 12 hours of charge does strike me as a good range. I don't drive that many miles every day. We can't foresee the future and it is likely that charging times will become shorter for now it is 12 hours but 2 to 3 hours would be more than interesting. One could have charging stations in garages and parking lots if their numbers grow. Business matter and you can bet your ICE (like that acronym ) that there will be such a business soon or swappable batteries.
Plugging my car at night makes sense for my way of life and the price per mile is low at first sight. I don't have any idea for reliability they are too new but electric engines have been around forever so...

As for recovering all the cost of the car .. A car is one of those things that depreciate the second you drive them ou of the dealer lot .. Whether electric car price decreases to the point of ICE cars is another subject matter entirely. it's quite possible. They seem to be less complicated ultimately than regular ICE cars.


P.S. ICE stands for Internal Combustion Engine.

 

[RBFC]

First, Tesla should be sure that all individuals who are "contacts" for technical advice are on the same page with the information and trouble-shooting for the vehicle. Second, Tesla should not have accused the reporter until they had completed an internal audit of all communications between said reporter and their technical advisors.

Lastly, i've seen information that the carbon footprint of generating the necessary electrical charge is greater than that left by using fossil fuel in the first place. I'd like to see more conclusive evidence of the comparative fuel costs, cumulative from production and R&D all the way to final consumer delivery.

Lee

 

[rockitman]

electric cars exist for only one reason, they have been legislated into existance.....and are required by law.

we will all end up paying for them in the long run.....as they cost automakers much more to build than they can sell them for. it will drive the prices of all cars up and fewer people will be able to buy cars in the future.

same thing with the crazy projected fuel economy numbers we have to hit in 10-15 years.

i guess the people have spoken.

I agree and the NY Bunk Times is wrong. CNN just did the same route and had no power issues. I for one could give a crap about electric cars. Until fossil fuel runs out, gas will always be superior for what I like (Performance) and sound out of cars.

 

[Daveski]

I've been doing my daily commute, for the most part, on an e-bike since the gulf spill. 12 miles at ~$0.03/day of hydro or wind generated electrons coupled with some of my own caloric energy. I've put more miles on my bike than I have my car the last few years. I do generate some CO2 from my lungs along with the occasional methane though.

Personally, I'd like to see fossil fuel about 4X the present cost and it would drive changes and development of alternates and we'd also likely import fewer tons of our consumables from across the ocean on cargo ships and export fewer tons of our limited natural resources on those same cargo ships transversing our oceans. Maybe even have a few less wars over controlling oil $. I think status-quo fossil is only cheap relative because we don't place enough value on our environment and limited natural resources or the costs incurred warring over it.

 

[amirm]

I was driving my car the other day and I remember thinking for a moment that it had 370 horsepower. Let's think: 370 horses worth of power. How can one man "need" that much pulling power??? Clearly I had the need. But one can't say that with straight face.....

I have an electric quad to run around our property. It is amazing for that. Don't need to ever worry about it starting, making fumes or much noise. At $12,000 was insanely expensive though. And I worry about nearly $2,000 for batteries in a few years....

 

[Bruce B]

I for one could give a crap about electric cars. Until fossil fuel runs out, gas will always be superior for what I like (Performance) and sound out of cars.

You're not going to find many cars that could out perform a Tesla Roadster. As for sound.... there are a few manufacturers that put a speaker in the car to amplify the engine sound!! Or better yet, put some cards in the spokes!

 

[Daveski]

As for sound.... there are a few manufacturers that put a speaker in the car to amplify the engine sound!!

http://youtu.be/b9XAC-BvUyo All those years and installs trying to keep alternator noise out, someone makes lemonade out of that lemon.

 

[edorr]

electric cars exist for only one reason, they have been legislated into existance.....and are required by law.

we will all end up paying for them in the long run.....as they cost automakers much more to build than they can sell them for. it will drive the prices of all cars up and fewer people will be able to buy cars in the future.

same thing with the crazy projected fuel economy numbers we have to hit in 10-15 years.

i guess the people have spoken.

Not suggesting the US is going about promoting development of electric cars the right way, but that does not mean you can dismiss the whole thing as non commercially viable without legislation forcing this upon the consumer. For starters, "better place" has attracted $750 million worth of venture capital. Tesla also has attracted 100s of millions of venture capital. This means some people (i.e. investors) believe this is a commercially viable technology.

http://www.betterplace.com/

 

[Andre Marc]

This is why wealthy CEO engineers should not get into PR: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/that-tesla-data-what-it-says-and-what-it-doesnt/

If you don't know the back story, NY times tested the Tesla S and ran out of power before getting to its destination. The blamed it on cold snap which took the temps down to 30 degrees.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk pulled out the car logs and blasted the reported for fabricating details of the test. The above article is the latest round of fights between them. I don't see how anyone who knows anything about how reporters work would think he could win even if he had more facts on his side. As it is, I am sitting here thinking if I bought a Tesla and it keeps track of everything I do in it including when I go to the bathroom!

It is a simple fact that batteries lose a ton of their rated life when temps go down. When shooting with my camera in cold temps, I can have a fully charged Lithium Ion battery go dead after just using 10 to 20% of its life. The fact that the same thing happened here is just expected.

What is not expected is the random advice they gave to the reporter. They told him for example to speed up and slow down to rejuvenated the battery. Speeding up uses a lot of energy. I guess they thought it would warm up the battery bank in the process but I would think the net result is negative. Ditto for using the heater while sitting there for the charge to return. The batteries are not in the cabin so how was that going to be a net positive thing? No wonder then that the reporter found that it did nothing but reduce the remaining charge. Tesla makes things worse contradicting such advice given by their own people.

According to the reporter, he had made countless calls to Tesla people during his drive. Surely you don't get to cry foul after the fact when such communication went on and at this intensity. If someone tests something without ever asking you, sure. But this?

Any normal CEO who needed to make a living from a company would not remotely approach this affair this way. Even if they were right, they should have met privately with the reporter and got him to accept his mistakes, if any, and have him write a retraction. Failing that, the standard practice is to get another reporter do the same and and if you are right, write a positive review to counteract it. You don't go tweeting calling a NY times reporter a liar and such. The world just does not work that way.

BTW, I saw the car in the local mall and it far exceeded my expectations on every front including value. And I saw Elon Musk on a 60 minutes interview on space exploration and thought very positively of him. I just think he should let the PR people handle such things rather than getting personally involved. And being so emotionally defensive. Battery operated cars are going to have such limitations and you are going to face negative reporting from time to time.

Here is a reasoned response similar to mine from CNET: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-57569430-48/tesla-the-times-and-how-to-drive-an-electric-car/

Read the report and let me know what you think.

For the record, Musk is a very controversial figure who has been in many high profile lawsuits and dust ups. This is nothing new.

It is a miracle the company has survived so many ups and downs.

 

[rockitman]

You're not going to find many cars that could out perform a Tesla Roadster. As for sound.... there are a few manufacturers that put a speaker in the car to amplify the engine sound!! Or better yet, put some cards in the spokes!

straight line torque is one thing...I'll take naturally aspirated hi-rev gas engines for the corners.
I like the sound and smell of gazoline in the morning....

 

[FrantzM]

You're not going to find many cars that could out perform a Tesla Roadster. As for sound.... there are a few manufacturers that put a speaker in the car to amplify the engine sound!! Or better yet, put some cards in the spokes!

+1 and it is the first of the breed.


You will see more, Early adopters will certainly pay more.

same thing with the crazy projected fuel economy numbers we have to hit in 10-15 years.

Remember the 70's American car makers were against the CAFE standards declaring that couldn't be met. The Japanese dutifully improved their cars and gas mileage and DEtroit almost bit the dust. Seem to be the same thing.

Under the current Laws of Physics, an ICE (internal Combustion Engine efficiency cannot surpass 37% (This is the limit imposed by a pesky Thermodynamic notion called the Carnot Cycle) .. Real efficiency of piston driven engine is much less than 30% ... and I am being very cautious as real numbers are often 18~20%. OTOH Electric motors routinely approach or surpass 70%. One more thing about electric engines their torque is essentially flat ... They can provide max torque almost from the start. For performance you can't do better. to get max torque at such a low revs.. The wet dream of all performance addicts to get max torque at idle!! It also seems to me that Electric cars are simpler mechanically than ICE. Speculation i don't have all the data.

Batteries are the main problems of electric cars and the whole world is researching better batteries. It makes a lot of sense for the USA Government to encourage such research on the US side lest we stay behind while the world is moving toward an electric and low carbon footprint future.. Supercapacitors are not Science-Fiction they are being used right today and could make the difference in Hybrid cars .. to me it is jut a matter of time Read THIS ... Tesla may fail others will join the Elecric car bandwagon, it is the future.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Not suggesting the US is going about promoting development of electric cars the right way, but that does not mean you can dismiss the whole thing as non commercially viable without legislation forcing this upon the consumer. For starters, "better place" has attracted $750 million worth of venture capital. Tesla also has attracted 100s of millions of venture capital. This means some people (i.e. investors) believe this is a commercially viable technology.

http://www.betterplace.com/

reality is that congress has jammed electric cars up the arse of the manufacturers.

the stand-alone electric companies are playing with house money. if they had to stand on their own they would crash and burn. it's all a sham.

and every consumer will end up paying the bill in the form of taxes and higher prices for cars. period.

investors are gambling that the 'green' gravy train will keep on going down the tracks. maybe not a bad bet considering the weakness of the conservatives politically for the near future.

 

[rockitman]

reality is that congress has jammed electric cars up the arse of the manufacturers.

the stand-alone electric companies are playing with house money. if they had to stand on their own they would crash and burn. it's all a sham.

and every consumer will end up paying the bill in the form of taxes and higher prices for cars. period.

investors are gambling that the 'green' gravy train will keep on going down the tracks.

hmmm, reminds me of solar panels...Solyndra. Gov't too stupid to realize the Chinese would dump solar panels in our market. $450 million of taxpayer money down the drain. Gov't needs to get out of the way of private sector business..

 

[RBFC]

From what I understand, Tesla asks a $5000 pre-order deposit from each prospective customer. This is refundable only until they contact you and state that your car is ready to be built. A surgeon friend is considering buying one, so this information is second-hand. $5000/customer provides a bit of seed money to get going....

Lee

 

[astrotoy]

I guess I'm the only WBF member that owns one - my Model S is a week old and I have put a couple of hundred miles on it. For me, so far its a very nice car to drive. I'm getting the advertised mileage range and with the time of use rates that I have from our utility (PG&E) I am paying less than 5 cents/kwh - or about 1.5 cents/mile for the fuel cost. It is an expensive car, especially with all the fancy extras, but no more than my other car, a 2007 Lexus LS460L Exec Class which I paid more for in 2007 than the Tesla this year. As I commented in the other thread, it costs that same as 2 pairs of interconnects, 1 set of speaker cables and 3 power cords of Nordost Odin. Like Nordost Odin, or horn speakers or single end tube amplifiers, it isn't for everyone.

Larry

 

[JackD201]

Love the way you put things in perspective Larry!

Looking forward to hearing about your Tesla experiences as time goes by. That and those of other electric vehicle owners as well.

 

[Soundproof]

Actually, California decided it wanted EVs, and that had manufacturers scrambling, several presidential terms ago. But during W's first term, that legislation was buried, and car makers could dump their EV-efforts (Ford dumped Think, GM dumped their electric car, etc.)

So nothing's been rammed up anyone's ass, but car dealers like to pull that canard when they have the opportunity.

As to Tesla, it's a hugely expensive battery pack with issues, but people like them and have fun experiencing a kick in the back when they touch the accelerator. One person I know used a Roadster for an almost daily 250 Mile commute - roundtrip - for over a year. Big grin on his face for the duration.

EVs make perfect sense if your travel distances are well within range and you don't have any haulage needs - and at any rate, the people able to afford the Tesla price point usually do have more than one car, anyway.

The NYTimes reporter doesn't look good after the disclosure of the telemetry, and he also has a long history of being anti-EV, so what did Tesla really expect?