Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

theatlanticwire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 262 posts

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#151

Post by pbreit »

gamblor956 wrote: post #116
lawdawg wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you (or 99% of HN) read the NYT article? "When I parked the car, its computer said I had 90 miles of range, twice the 46 miles back to Milford. It was a different story at 8:30 the next morning. The thermometer read 10 degrees and the display showed 25 miles of remaining range" "I called Tesla in California, and the official I woke up said I needed to “condition” the battery pack to restore the lost energy." Look…

The NYT upgraded their paywall this week, so there is a good chance that most of HN did not in fact read the NYT article before commenting on it. Also, there is a disturbing amount of herd mentality in these comments; people are instinctively shielding/supporting Elon Musk, a fellow techie, rather than the "interloping" journalist, even though even a cursory Google search of other reviews of the Model S, the Roadster…

Can you provide a citation for the mis-statements about the Boeing battery situation? I couldn't find any.

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#152

Post by danso »

onethumb wrote: post #149
danso wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The car said it would go 32. It went 51. Broder claimed this "fell short". Clearly it didn't. Your statement is on point only if you don't consider what was in the actual graphic: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/02/10/automobiles/10t... An excerpt: "Driving a 2013 Model S with an 85-kilowatt-hour battery pack, which has an EPA range rating of 265 miles...the car barely reached the next Supercharger, 206 mile…

That's not how I read it. The summary was pretty specific... "The next day" isn't a summary of the trip, it's a summary of that day. That day, the car projected 32 miles. It delivered 51. It didn't "fall short" that day.

Huh? The summary is not specific at all (that's why it's a summary). Read it again. It says:

The next day, in 10-degree weather...

In fact, it's easier to look at Elon Musk's annotated version to see how it was misinterpreted: http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/a...

Notice how his red highlighted area encompasses the summary (which is in a different font-size) and the bullet-point-like annotations...yes, I guess if you read the infographic in that left-to-right fashion, you would make that connection...but if you read it in numerical order (as indicated by the numbered bullet points), you would not associate the two statements.

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#153

Post by schiffern »

smackfu wrote: post #85
gfodor wrote: post #21

I guess it's time to muddy the waters. The truth is in the middle! Of course, the entire debacle can be summed up with the following exchange: Q: "How many miles did you have left to drive on the final leg?" Broder: "61" Q: "And how many miles did your car tell you that you could travel before recharging?" Broder: "32" Of course, Broder claims that Tesla told him it was OK to leave. I think this is bullshit, but will…

> The fact is he basically was stupid enough to essentially leave a gas station with half a tank when he had a full tanks worth of distance to travel. Part of the problem is that apparently the Tesla's displayed range can show one value after a cold night, then will increase when the battery warms up and is providing more energy. So you legitimately can start driving with too little range, and then it will come back.…

You would think the range calculations would account for that effect. They already have temperature sensors in the pack, and storing some historical data is cheap.

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#154

Post by schiffern »

aresant wrote: post #121

"Tesla Motors initially expected to sell at least 5,000 units in 2012 and set a sales target of 20,000." (1) As of January 2013's run rate, it takes GM 72 hours to sell that many cars. (2) How about a comparable luxury target? MB did 305,072 vehicles in 2012, so they do Tesla's sales every 2-weeks. (3) Perfect comps? No way, but still . . . To call Tesla an "early adopters" brand where you're going to run into some b…

Re: volume, remember that Tesla is only on the second step of the Grand Three Stage Plan.

* Low volume, high price car.

* Mid price, mid volume car.

* Low price, high volume car.

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#156

Post by pbreit »

fleitz wrote: post #39
Shivetya wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

did he think he added 32 more miles? I wonder if this is still a problem of UI and such... still its a 100k car and Musk is quibbling over temperature settings... really?

Go to a BMW dealership, take an M5 for a test drive, when the car says it was 32 miles left try to drive it 60. It's a 100k car and it won't make that feat either.

I think we all know that batteries and battery gauges work quite differently from gas. Or do we?

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#157

Post by metalsahu »

danso wrote: post #72

This whole controversy has been a little depressing to read...not that the Tesla vs. NYT discussions here have been worse than on other forums, but just because it shows how technical minded people are as easily swayed by preconceptions and alliances as more ostensibly non-scientific minds. How many words have been expended in the other HN thread to allege that Broder -- after most have already established that he is…

I don't think Broder was violating his journalistic integrity but I do think he fell into the confirmation bias trap. He took the car for a test drive with the preconceived judgement that electric cars are not ready yet esp. in cold weather conditions. Then he subconsciously starts doing things to support his hypothesis, hiding behind his flawed reasoning that this is what any common person would do. The experiment was doomed to fail from the start. I can very easily create a similar situation with a gas-powered car -- it really isn't very hard to run out of gas if you are not vigilant about how much gas is left and where the gas station is located. In this case the charging stations are no where as widespread as gas stations are.

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#158

Post by astine »

pbreit wrote: post #151
gamblor956 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT upgraded their paywall this week, so there is a good chance that most of HN did not in fact read the NYT article before commenting on it. Also, there is a disturbing amount of herd mentality in these comments; people are instinctively shielding/supporting Elon Musk, a fellow techie, rather than the "interloping" journalist, even though even a cursory Google search of other reviews of the Model S, the Roadster…

Can you provide a citation for the mis-statements about the Boeing battery situation? I couldn't find any.

He's probably refering to this incident :http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/elon-musk-boeing-7...

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#159

Post by makomk »

dlss wrote: post #65
fleitz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll second this... If he was in death valley, or the arctic with no cell reception, and it was 61 miles to the next station and the car said 32 no sane person would ever begin that journey.

I'll third this. Here are his quotes from the article about Broder's motivation: > [for why he didn't fully charge:] He wanted to show the real world experience of a real driver, who might not want to endure the hour and a half it takes to charge up, when only needing a certain amount of energy to get to point B. > [for why he didn't use any of the non-supercharging stations:] Broder wanted to see how the car would d…

They're entirely compatible. Non-Supercharger stations like the one he stopped at are really, really slow at charging compared to Supercharger ones - we're talking "leave your car overnight" slow here!

Re: Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

#160

Post by makomk »

halviti wrote: post #87
danso wrote: post #72

This whole controversy has been a little depressing to read...not that the Tesla vs. NYT discussions here have been worse than on other forums, but just because it shows how technical minded people are as easily swayed by preconceptions and alliances as more ostensibly non-scientific minds. How many words have been expended in the other HN thread to allege that Broder -- after most have already established that he is…

I've read all the arguments on both sides, and while both have made good points, there is one that stands out. This reporter clearly barely made any attempt at recharging his empty vehicle in Norwich, and then attempted a drive well beyond the car's capabilities, then made the "running out of fuel" his headline. If he would have done this on gasoline, the result would have been the same, and I think that is getting l…

If he had done this on gasoline, he could have got a full top-up in under 10 minutes rather than the 10+ hours it would have taken to do a full charge at Norwich.
Post reply on HN