What! You don't say.  A media member has once again took a bias view and tweeked the test to get the desired results.  Good thing the car didn't have a gas tank.  They would've added a sparking device to blow the tank (chevy truck).  Or like the Ford Explorer, when a tv crew ran a test to prove how safe the vehicle was by only blowing a rear tire while driving a straight line.

/somebody paid this journalist

Tesla has every reason to lie, NYT has none, guess which Im gonna believe.Or are you libs just gonna label the NYT a conservative rag now?

God, RTFA. Tesla puts a data logger on THE CARS THEY LEND TO JOURNALISTS.

Oldiron_79: Tesla has every reason to lie, NYT has none, guess which Im gonna believe.Or are you libs just gonna label the NYT a conservative rag now?

"Payoffs from oil companies with a definite interest in the status quo" aren't a reason to lie?

lack of warmth: What! You don't say.  A media member has once again took a bias view and tweeked the test to get the desired results.

Probably trying out for a gig on Top Gear.  I heard they pulled a similar stunt.

Automotive journalists are only second to video game journalists in rankings of full of shiat shills.

To be continued...

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: God, RTFA. Tesla puts a data logger on THE CARS THEY LEND TO JOURNALISTS.

No, according to tweets, they only turn it on when they lend it to journalists.

jake_lex: ajgeek: Just the ability of a company to (remotely?) turn on full logging on any vehicle anytime makes me want to do everything I can to keep my 96 Neon running forever.

That's why I think this may backfire on Tesla.  They might get a "Wait, what, everything I do in my car can be logged?" reaction they don't want.

I mean, yeah, every car built now has a black box, but you don't like hearing a car company admitting "We can see everything in that black box at any time."

You don't hear them ADMITTING it...but that doesn't mean they can't.

Oldiron_79

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they both have reasons to lie, but they're just different. And it's a well known fact that the NYT has been an administration mouthpiece for quite some time. Like since at least the Vietnam war. SIgned,

LIB!!!!!

/I think you're going to believe derp.

notmtwain: I'm betting that the NY Times version of events is closest to the truth.

The article didn't make it all that bad for them-- just part of the learning curve with a new technology.

Elon seems determined to turn it into tons of free negative advertising.  He cannot win.

Being "close" doesn't count.  Even if NY Times was mostly right - they will still come out looking bad and biased.  Elon cannot lose here.

Jeremy Clarkson is amused

Oldiron_79: Tesla has every reason to lie, NYT has none, guess which Im gonna believe.Or are you libs just gonna label the NYT a conservative rag now?

Unlike conservatives and libturdarians we're going to find out the facts, not jump to conclusions based on who said it.

Popcorn Johnny: Lsherm: I do have to say, I have a 2006 Infiniti G35 sedan and the EPA estimates were a little low.  It was listed at 17/22 and I get about 23 on the highway.  They've only dropped about .2 mpg over the years, but the car has 140,000 miles on it, so that's expected.  When the AWD kicks in it can really hurt the mileage so it's good it doesn't snow much around here.

What's strange is that it seems that every car I've had with a huge motor and low mileage estimates does better while fuel efficient vehicles do worse than the EPA numbers.

My father has a 99 Corvette. At 75 mph, it gets about 33 mpg. In 6th gear it's almost idling along.

I'll reserve my outrage until I see the data.

Popcorn Johnny: Lsherm: I do have to say, I have a 2006 Infiniti G35 sedan and the EPA estimates were a little low.  It was listed at 17/22 and I get about 23 on the highway.  They've only dropped about .2 mpg over the years, but the car has 140,000 miles on it, so that's expected.  When the AWD kicks in it can really hurt the mileage so it's good it doesn't snow much around here.

What's strange is that it seems that every car I've had with a huge motor and low mileage estimates does better while fuel efficient vehicles do worse than the EPA numbers.

The EPA doesnt actually test vehicles these days they just apply a math formula based on weight and hp. Anyways the formula consistantly over estimates mileage for small vehicles andunderestimates mileage for large vehicles because it doesnt account for the fact that volume increases by the cube area increases by the square, so it does not take aerodynamics in to account at all.

chapman: lack of warmth: What! You don't say.  A media member has once again took a bias view and tweeked the test to get the desired results.

Probably trying out for a gig on Top Gear.  I heard they pulled a similar stunt.

Wait, so you're saying that the moustachioed gentleman who tried and failed to drive the G-Wiz up the 33% incline was really James May wearing a strip of electrical tape under his nose!?

I read the NYT article. What I don't get is why the author didn't just stop at a conventional electric car charging station. Those are all over the place (well, compared to Tesla's own ever few hundred miles). I assume the Tesla also has an adapter for the standard electric car chargers.

I bet Edison's sedan can electrify its potential customers...and elephants.

Some writer that barely got out of J School trying to cut corners got burned by his stupidity and tried to blame the car. Only problem is, cars today know more than the people driving them. OBD III for the win.

Oldiron_79: Tesla has every reason to lie, NYT has none, guess which Im gonna believe.Or are you libs just gonna label the NYT a conservative rag now?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/may/12/pressandpublishing.usnew s  They already lied before, and thats because they were just lazy

Popcorn Johnny: Lsherm: I do have to say, I have a 2006 Infiniti G35 sedan and the EPA estimates were a little low.  It was listed at 17/22 and I get about 23 on the highway.  They've only dropped about .2 mpg over the years, but the car has 140,000 miles on it, so that's expected.  When the AWD kicks in it can really hurt the mileage so it's good it doesn't snow much around here.

What's strange is that it seems that every car I've had with a huge motor and low mileage estimates does better while fuel efficient vehicles do worse than the EPA numbers.

Depends. I've seen two or three different sets of EPA fuel ratings for my car, but the latest numbers from fueleconomy.gov are way lower than I usually get.* (Hell, they're barely higher than my my brother used to get out of his 1990 F-150.)

*I usually see high 20s around town and commuting to work. (Rush hour sucks.) If I drive over to WI and put high-octane, no-ethanol gas in the tank (all the gas here is E10), I can get 35+ over long distances.

My favorite story about mileage is a Saturn I had in college. I'd get low 30s around town, 40+ on the freeway. (Personal best was 42, on a trip where I also... shall we say... drove very fast, through much of Pennsylvania.)

But the first few months I had it, I just drove to and from school. (I shouldn't have - I should have been walking, biking, or taking a bus, but I was geeked about having a car.) It was about two miles each way, which gave the engine just enough time to remember it was an engine, and maybe consider warming up, before I shut it off.

My second tank of gas lasted me the entire month of February. Average mileage? About 18mpg.

Assuming an EVs heat is operating at full blast (max temp / max fan speed) what does that do to the theoretical 400 mile range? Five percent less? Fifty percent?

It is fun to watch people take sides before data release. (give me a car that can run further on less ENERGY and you have my attention. Until then, electricity or gas is irrelevant to me)

Oldiron_79: Tesla has every reason to lie, NYT has none, guess which Im gonna believe.Or are you libs just gonna label the NYT a conservative rag now?

There are big oil shills on all sides of the political spectrum.

Nezorf: It will be interesting to see the fallout from this.
People mocking electrical cars
GPS data being released
Accusations of lying
The journalist ranks closing on Tesla motors so they don't get any more reviews as they "undermined' one of the their own


Actually the opposite would happen.  A reviewer lying undermines all other reviewers more than it undermines the company.  Reviewers will flock to Tesla even knowing their results are monitored it is win win for the reviewers.  Either you get a bunch of them showing that the Times reviewer (and Top Gear) were full of shiat and you maintain the integrity of the reviewing system.  Or you get a bunch of them showing that hey there may be something to these reports and you maintain the integrity of the reviewing system.

When looking at reviews integrity means a lot to the majority of people.  To people that love Tesla or hate Tesla they are going to listen to whatever biased review they want.

The same goes with the rest of the world, although the media seems to be fairly successful at selling opinion over fact now.

Happy Hours: Jeremy Clarkson is amused

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x315]

Or "Why Tesla datalogs the cars they lend to the press now."

One pack of vicious lies is all it takes.

Oldiron_79: Tesla has every reason to lie, NYT has none, guess which Im gonna believe.Or are you libs just gonna label the NYT a conservative rag now?

Throw in the fact that there is an actual log of actual data, and motives dont matter. The data will indicate who is lying. No need to motive speculation.

Given that many others have run the same test which has given the same results that Tesla claims, AND they claim that the logs vindicate them. If the reporter's story was accurate/truthful, Tesla would simply say "99 out of 100 times it works, as shown by all these other testers, this was an outlier"

I think there is a 99.99999% chance that this reporter will be out of a job in less than a month.

Grammar... how does it work?
I should proofread. anyway, You get the idea.

The only way Tesla could lose here is if they made a mistake and got data sets confused.