Brodergate: "low-grade ethics violation"

[Nubo]

"How to Flatbed a Tesla Without Really Trying"?

 

[evnow]

Of course it would, and if Tesla is content to only sell their cars to the Brad Berman's of the world, they won't have any significant problems. But that's not who they're trying to market to.

We are not talking about Broder being the target consumer. We are talking about Broder the reporter.

Don't ever confuse the reporter for a consumer. As I wrote earlier, a consumer has little incentive to get stranded - infact the opposite. Not so with reporters.

Reporters are more like power brokers. They are the "elite" - not your normal consumers.

 

[GRA]

Of course it would, and if Tesla is content to only sell their cars to the Brad Berman's of the world, they won't have any significant problems. But that's not who they're trying to market to.

We are not talking about Broder being the target consumer. We are talking about Broder the reporter.

Don't ever confuse the reporter for a consumer. As I wrote earlier, a consumer has little incentive to get stranded - infact the opposite. Not so with reporters.

Reporters are more like power brokers. They are the "elite" - not your normal consumers.

We have a different view of reporters :lol: And it was you, wasn't it, who compared Broder to Brad Berman? Both are reporters, last I checked. The difference is that Berman is an EVangelist/geek, and Broder isn't. Tesla wants and needs to sell to the mainstream; after all, how many EVangelists are there in the world with the necessary income to blow $80k or more on a car? Twenty thousand? Pretty doubtful, and I suspect Berman doesn't have that kind of scratch.

One question I have, does the S' map show J1772 chargers, or only superchargers? I find myself very puzzled how either Broder or a Tesla Customerr service rep could only find a charger 11 miles in the wrong direction, if the S' map showed all J1772 chargers. Of course, the search may have been limited to free chargers that didn't require a card, since Broder presumably wouldn't have had one, which would explain the wrong way detour. BTW, saw my first S in the wild today, a white one. Nice, if conventional looking. Flashed the driver a thumb's up, which he returned.

 

[KevinSharpe]

no foil hats or conspiracy theorizing required but extreme skepticism warranted.

I think one could say the same thing about Tesla's decision to withhold the log files and prevent public scrutiny of the 'evidence'... why would they do that?

 

[mkjayakumar]

Because then that will give you an opportunity to say the raw data and log files are all cooked up. If you can't trust Tesla when they provide an analysis from their collected data, you are not going to trust them no matter what data they provide.

If you look at it, anyone who trusts Elon would be satisfied with his analysis. Raw data is of no relevance.

 

[KevinSharpe]

Because then that will give you an opportunity to say the raw data and log files are all cooked up.

It would be pretty easy to spot logs that have been tampered with and the Tesla community has a long history of reviewing them. IMO providing the logs would put an end to many of the outstanding questions.

If you can't trust Tesla when they provide an analysis from their collected data, you are not going to trust them no matter what data they provide.

Not at all... I would trust peer reviewed data more then I trust one parties analysis of the data.

Raw data is of no relevance.

I completely disagree... many legitimate questions remain and we need raw data to get to the truth (assuming that's something you are interested in);

http://www.duckware.com/blog/tesla-elon-musk-nytimes-john-broder-feud/index.html

 

[smkettner]

There is no reason to have the logs. I will say it again, Broder never fully charged the vehicle. The morning Broder was towed he was at L2 connected and charging but left before the vehicle indicated enough range. The data logs are just a bunch of he said/she said noise.

Who leaves a filling station without sufficient range to get to the next? Answer: Broder

 

[mkjayakumar]

The incessant quest for logs is nothing but another way to obfuscate the real issue of Broader not charging the car to the required level before taking it out.

As you know in the he-said/she-said battles after a couple of rounds the one with the larger reputation to lose gets hurt the most.

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

the logs are irrelevant, they will always be debatable and only confuse the basic fundamentals. by his own admissions, it's clear the guy was not driving the car in the way that any owner would and most importantly, his general conclusion in his articles, that EV's aren't practical and that they are a failure, has been proven wrong by everyone who has duplicated the route.

it's quite possible that Elon/Tesla jumped to a conclusion that Broder deliberately ran the car out of juice by driving it in circles, since the logs looked suspiciously like what Top Gear did but the bottom line is still the same. Broder knew next to nothing about the car he was driving and pretty much went at the attempt with the assumption that it would fail.

Like all new technology, EV's take some getting to know before trying to press their limits, that's about all he proved.

no foil hats or conspiracy theorizing required but extreme skepticism warranted.

I think one could say the same thing about Tesla's decision to withhold the log files and prevent public scrutiny of the 'evidence'... why would they do that?

 

[SanDust]

Of course the logs are important. Musk said he had logs that PROVED Broder had faked the drive and intentionally put the car on the flatbed. To support this claim he then produced a graphical representation of what he claimed the logs said but refused to produce the logs. No one with a decent analytic bent will consider this sufficient. As this article from the Columbia School of Journalism points out, interpretation of data is based on intention, a fact reflected in the phrase "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics". As the article notes, even the interpretation released by Tesla supports at least three different interpretations of the data, two of which show the Model S in a negative light. http://towcenter.org/blog/what-the-tesla-affair-tells-us-about-data-journalism/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Without the actual data there is no realistic way to ascertain which of these interpretations is correct. As the Columbia Journalism article notes, "Tesla didn’t release the data from the review. Telsa released their interpretation of the data from the review. This interpretation took the form of the graphical representation they choose to give it, as well as the subjective write-up they imposed on it." This leads to the situation where one can reasonable label as false or unconvincing EVERY claim Musk makes: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/02/elon-musks-data-doesnt-back-his-claims-new-york-times-fakery/62149/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The only conclusion which all these interpretations support is that, if you have to park your car on the street and live in a cold climate, then the Model S is definitely not the car for you.

 

[SanDust]

According to data gathered by the Department of Transportation http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/chapter4.cfm#fig45, 97% of vehicle trips are less than 50 miles and 88% of them are under 20.

For 97% of all travel, the Tesla S is zero compromise, in fact it exceeds performance in the one key area so many Americans crave, acceleration.

Nice try but no cigar. By your definition the Leaf is "zero compromise" most of the time. Zero compromise means no compromise all the time. Not zero compromise almost all the time, or most of the time, or some of the time.

 

[AndyH]

According to data gathered by the Department of Transportation http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/chapter4.cfm#fig45, 97% of vehicle trips are less than 50 miles and 88% of them are under 20.

For 97% of all travel, the Tesla S is zero compromise, in fact it exceeds performance in the one key area so many Americans crave, acceleration.

Nice try but no cigar. By your definition the Leaf is "zero compromise" most of the time. Zero compromise means no compromise all the time. Not zero compromise almost all the time, or most of the time, or some of the time.

Zero compromise is meaningless until the person using it defines the bounds. For some, a Model S will be a 'zero compromise' vehicle - and for others it will not. Same for a Leaf or any other vehicle.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

According to data gathered by the Department of Transportation http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/chapter4.cfm#fig45, 97% of vehicle trips are less than 50 miles and 88% of them are under 20.

For 97% of all travel, the Tesla S is zero compromise, in fact it exceeds performance in the one key area so many Americans crave, acceleration.

Nice try but no cigar. By your definition the Leaf is "zero compromise" most of the time. Zero compromise means no compromise all the time. Not zero compromise almost all the time, or most of the time, or some of the time.

by YOUR definition there is no such thing as zero compromise because EVERYTHING has compromises...everything

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

No one with a decent analytic bent who isn't already satisfied that Broder screwed the pooch on this "test drive", based on his own account, will not find any level of detail of the blog release sufficient.

SOP for the Tesla S, plug it in at night, RTFM, that came in the glove box, it's short and sweet! anyone taking a test drive of a vehicle and wanting to draw broad conclusions about the state of the entire industry really needs to do their homework before embarking on the attempt.

Of course the logs are important. Musk said he had logs that PROVED Broder had faked the drive and intentionally put the car on the flatbed. To support this claim he then produced a graphical representation of what he claimed the logs said but refused to produce the logs. No one with a decent analytic bent will consider this sufficient. As this article from the Columbia School of Journalism points out, interpretation of data is based on intention, a fact reflected in the phrase "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics". As the article notes, even the interpretation released by Tesla supports at least three different interpretations of the data, two of which show the Model S in a negative light. http://towcenter.org/blog/what-the-tesla-affair-tells-us-about-data-journalism/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Without the actual data there is no realistic way to ascertain which of these interpretations is correct. As the Columbia Journalism article notes, "Tesla didn’t release the data from the review. Telsa released their interpretation of the data from the review. This interpretation took the form of the graphical representation they choose to give it, as well as the subjective write-up they imposed on it." This leads to the situation where one can reasonable label as false or unconvincing EVERY claim Musk makes: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/02/elon-musks-data-doesnt-back-his-claims-new-york-times-fakery/62149/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The only conclusion which all these interpretations support is that, if you have to park your car on the street and live in a cold climate, then the Model S is definitely not the car for you.

 

[SanDust]

No one with a decent analytic bent who isn't already satisfied that Broder screwed the pooch on this "test drive", based on his own account, will not find any level of detail of the blog release sufficient.

SOP for the Tesla S, plug it in at night, RTFM, that came in the glove box, it's short and sweet! anyone taking a test drive of a vehicle and wanting to draw broad conclusions about the state of the entire industry really needs to do their homework before embarking on the attempt.

Everyone is wrong but you. The NY Times is wrong. The Columbia School of Journalism is wrong. The Atlantic is wrong. Basically everyone who doesn't assume that Broder "faked" the story and wants actual facts supporting this allegation is wrong.

Likewise, you now seem to be saying that anyone thinking that EVs are not great everyday drivers -- including presumably VW, Audi, Toyota, and all the other car companies which are definitely not bringing out BEVs -- are wrong. BEVs are super convenient and make great everyday drivers, and the culprit for the dismal sales is not the high costs and limited range, nor, as Henry Blodget has pointed out, that a car like the Model S is a bad value proposition becasue "they're not that useful for one of the key uses that most would-be car-owners would want to use them for -- the ability to comfortably, conveniently, and reliably transport oneself from city to city without living in fear that the battery will die and leave car and driver stranded." No, the real culprit is the lame stream media which is writing nasty articles saying preposterous things, such as that a car costing $100,000 that can't go more than 200 miles and loses 65 miles of range when it's parked is, you know, inconvenient to take on trips.

I'm glad you like your toy. Have fun with it. But don't pretend it's anything but a toy or that, as Blodget points out, customers for the Model S are "folks who can afford cool curiosities".

 

[KevinSharpe]

No one with a decent analytic bent who isn't already satisfied that Broder screwed the pooch on this "test drive", based on his own account, will not find any level of detail of the blog release sufficient.

SOP for the Tesla S, plug it in at night, RTFM, that came in the glove box, it's short and sweet! anyone taking a test drive of a vehicle and wanting to draw broad conclusions about the state of the entire industry really needs to do their homework before embarking on the attempt.

Everyone is wrong but you. The NY Times is wrong. The Columbia School of Journalism is wrong. The Atlantic is wrong. Basically everyone who doesn't assume that Broder "faked" the story and wants actual facts supporting this allegation is wrong.

+1 SanDust

I find it fascinating that so many people support Tesla's refusal to release the logs... I guess once you've created your witch then the next logical step is to burn them... no additional evidence required

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

i fully understand why Tesla does not want the graphs to be public since NONE of us fully understand what else those logs contain.

there is a time/temperature chart that would clear up a few questions but its really water under the bridge. there are simply a select few that refuse to recognize the basic facts of the story and what the logs do clearly show.

unfortunately it has become obvious that more data will not change anything at this point. each side is entrenched in their own beliefs and this thread is basically done.


**edited**

 

[KevinSharpe]

there are simply a select few that refuse to recognize the basic facts of the story and what the logs do clearly show.

sorry but I don't understand, have you seen logs published?

 

[evnow]

http://insideevs.com/teslas-musk-still-striking-back-at-falsified-new-york-times-model-s-review/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“I would call it a low-grade ethics violation. Not a Jayson Blair-crazy-fabrication variety, but I would call it low-grade. It was not in good faith—that’s an important point.”

 

[evnow]

I find it fascinating that so many people support Tesla's refusal to release the logs... I guess once you've created your witch then the next logical step is to burn them... no additional evidence required

NYT was earlier asking for logs to be released. Not sure whether they did that - but they haven't mentioned it since.

I agree that either the log is made up or Broder's account.

My guess is, the logs are correct and not made up. Mainly from Broder's reaction (he didn't say anything about log being made up).