Comments on: Five important lessons from the dustup over the NYT’s Tesla test drive

By: Derek Jensen

Derek Jensen — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:47:00 +0000

Even the idea that Broder would test the limits of a car with that kind of range is a failure as a journalistic exercise. Does the car get approximately the range it claims? Since the answer is “yes and it’s is huge but YMMV”, then there’s no story. More fast chargers along major highway routes are already in the works anyway.

The only legitimate story is the cold weather charge loss. And that could have been eliminated by plugging in overnight to an ordinary socket.

By: Nathan G

Nathan G — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:55:15 +0000

Ah! So you are still pushing apps, are you bob? ;-)

By: Nathan G

Nathan G — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:53:17 +0000

Assuming that the real Katie Fehrenbacher wrote this article, the only thing I can say is “you gotta be kidding me, babe!”

Sure, it’s all too obvious that you are in love with mr. musk. But, leaving your personal feelings and emotions aside, what you DONT seem to understand is that “data can be fudged”. In fact, as a Tesla owner, I may sue Musk and his company before he gets a chance to sue anyone else. And your Musk may be “combative” and all heroic to you (I know you are in love with him), but, trust me, once I get the suit started he and Tesla are history.

Also, who is Musk to tell us what speed we should be driving our cars at? I paid for it and I will wreck it any way I want.

Have the guts? Publish this comment and tell Musk to read it. I am coming for all the glory.

By: Rolf Westgard

Rolf Westgard — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:45:38 +0000

EV, you are the ideal buyer for an EV. I suggest that most of us are not. But there is clearly a place, perhaps a small one, for EVs.

By: Rolf Westgard

Rolf Westgard — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:38:27 +0000

If driving around in a parking lot crashes a car, that type of car is in trouble.

By: roseland67

roseland67 — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 01:10:24 +0000

We have, as a society, have been programmed to believe what we are told from our national newspapers, and we expect them to tell us the truth.
To refute a national newspaper article, is a monumental task
and usually a financially crippling one.
For the most part, these newspapers have been given a “free pass”
when it comes to giving it to us straight. If a slight bending of the truth makes
for a more interesting story, and an increase in revenue, print it
In the case of most newspapers, what is really more important to them,
to tell the truth or to sell ad space and circulars.
.
That was life before the internet, nowadays, someone is usually watching
and it isn’t always “Big Brother”.
If Musk does in fact KNOW what conditions the test vehicle was put thru,
then the NYT reporter may be in for more than he bargained for.
The reporter has no actual proof of his experience, only his word,
Tesla has facts, figures, graphs and charts to back up their claim.

Who knows, maybe the reported is “shorting” Tesla an he needed to
publish some bad review in hopes the stock would tank.

As for newspapers, it appears they’re dinosaurs on the road to extinction,
especially if they are not completely forthcoming with the truth.
Bloggers also if they can not be believed.

By: Nick F

Nick F — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 06:25:09 +0000

If only he had some kind of GPS system with him to find it. You would think in a modern car like a Tesla there would be something like that!

Musk you idiot. Next time add a some way for the driver to navigate. Add some kind of screen to the car the driver can use to do this.

;-)

By: Nick F

Nick F — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 06:19:54 +0000

“Driving at a constant speed (even if that speed is 80 mph) doesn’t require energy.”

If that was the case then you could accelerate to 80mph on the highway and switch off your engine because you wouldn’t be needing it. Right? ;-)

I think I know what you mean. Acceleration uses up a load of energy and going at a constant speed only needs a small amount of energy relatively speaking. The problem is that air resistance becomes the dominant force your trying to overcome at these higher speeds. There is a square in the formula to work this stuff out and so the faster you go the worse it gets in a non linear way. So driving at 80 is pretty bad if your trying to save energy.

By: coleki

coleki — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 21:11:12 +0000

Re: 80 mph

Driving at a constant speed (even if that speed is 80 mph) doesn’t require energy.

Accelerating to 80mph, on the other hand, does require energy.

By: coleki

coleki — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 21:06:44 +0000

It doesn’t matter how long the car traveled at 80mph, only that it accelerated to that speed. The amount of energy required to keep a car moving at 80mph that was already moving that fast is negligible.