The logged data does support the broad lines of Broder's story (large drop in battery charge overnight, slow driving, turning down heating) and the 10-15% imprecision (driving at 52 mph instead of 45, heating goes down at 200 miles instead of 182, charge time of 47 minutes instead of 58) is well to be expected from what is a journalistic review and not a scientific experiment. So this all comes down to what customer service might or might have not said over the phone. Was Tesla customer service incompetent enough to suggest anti-solutions (use the brakes more to save energy, charge up to 32 miles when you need 60)? Was there miscommunication? Or did Broder completely make that part up?
> and the 10-15% imprecision is well to be expected from what is a journalistic review and not a scientific experiment
Sorry, but your standards are a bit low. A lot of things like a 10-15% imprecision, all biased in the direction of making the car perform less -- that's exactly what I'd do if I were trying to fix the drive's outcome.
If Consumer Reports had multiple things 10-15% off, all pointedly to support a given agenda, there would be an outcry. I see no reason why the NYTimes, in an article in which they are reporting data, should be held to a lesser standard.
It's important to note that unlike the NYT, Consumer Reports wouldn't review a car they didn't pay for. They will, however, preview/first-look cars they didn't buy.
AFAIK, car reporters for the big media conglomerates usually get expenses paid review junkets from the automakers. Those reporters tend to never post negative reviews for fear that they wouldn't get invited again. I think the same applies to movie and video game reviewers from major publications.
CR does have its hands on a Tesla, and they jumped through some hoops to ensure that Tesla didn't know who bought it or cherry pick a review unit for them.
> So this all comes down to what customer service might or might have not said over the phone.
Exactly, that is what I get out of it too. And that is probably conveniently unverifiable. Tesla really should repeat the trip with the same parameters as much as possible. Common sense dictates that if they waste power the way indicated that they should run out of juice and if they are conservative and follow the normal procedures that you could expect to observe when using any vehicle with a power source that depletes with use (which is all of them, including gasoline) that they should be able to complete the trip without a problem.
When driving in the North somewhere I came upon a sign that said 'no gas for 200 miles'. I had a half tank of fuel but I still drove back to the last town to make sure the tank was full. It seemed only prudent. In an electric vehicle with limited range and with a limited support infrastructure it would be folly to leave for a trip on a leg with an indicated range below the known distance to the next fuel source and to not know exactly where those sources are relative to the car and the planned route.
We don't need to know what was said, just that a call was made.
Broder claims that he was "cleared to drive" after an hour of charging with 32 miles of range on the car for a 61 mile trip.
But I don't think that actually happened (note how delicately Broder discusses this now). Tesla certainly denies it. And this is the reason the review was "bad", so this gets to the crux of the issue.
What at least happened, according to Broder, is that they told him to "plug it in for an hour, and then it should be good to go". Note the "should". Broder never actually says that he called Tesla back when the hour was up, explained there was only 32 miles of range left on a 61 mile trip, and that Tesla said "go for it, you are cleared for takeoff".
So Broder found his angle, thinking: I'll plug it in for an hour, then just leave, no matter what the range says. Hopefully it'll die on me this time. [Ed: I made up that last part, for flavor.]
Unfortunately, Broder wrote that Tesla "cleared him to leave", which doesn't seem to be the case, and according to Tesla, was not the case, and that's why he's in the hot water that he's in. If instead he simply quoted the reps and said he didn't call back, despite the data, he'd be in the clear (although the story would be far less compelling, since it'd be clear to everyone that Broder is either an idiot, or has an agenda -- or both).
Either way, all we need to do is see if Broder made a call to Tesla when the hour was up. His cell phone log is sufficient, and Tesla might have similar data on their side. We don't need to know what was said, we just need to confirm that Broder even had the opportunity to be "cleared" to drive by Tesla. Once we confirm that, then the tapes would be helpful. Otherwise, Tesla's version is the accurate one.
> So Broder found his angle, thinking: I'll plug it in for an hour, then just leave, no matter what the range says. Hopefully it'll die on me this time.
This is how most "journalists" operate. They're story-tellers who know what sells to their audience, and they gravitate towards that. Not the truth, but what their audience wants to hear.
