A review published late last week by the New York Times of Tesla’s new Model S electric vehicle saying the car stalled on the highway in freezing temperatures during its test drive has been challenged by Telsa’s co-founder Elon Musk who said the review “does not factually represent Tesla technology.”

Tesla’s Model S in California in August 2012. (Photo: Tesla)
John Broder for the Times lead with several points about the vehicle that would have predicted the test ride to be successful. He called it a “technological wonder,” noted the many awards the Model S has earned and the reviews that would have you believe it’s the “coolest car on the planet.”
“What fun, no? Well, no,” Broder wrote.
Broder continued to describe his trip from a Washington, D.C., suburb in sunny 30 degree weather that seemed to be going well until he neared New Jersey and started to notice charge problems with the car that made him doubt if he would make it to the next charging station:
I began following Tesla’s range-maximization guidelines, which meant dispensing with such battery-draining amenities as warming the cabin and keeping up with traffic. I turned the climate control to low — the temperature was still in the 30s — and planted myself in the far right lane with the cruise control set at 54 miles per hour (the speed limit is 65). Buicks and 18-wheelers flew past, their drivers staring at the nail-polish-red wondercar with California dealer plates.
Nearing New York, I made the first of several calls to Tesla officials about my creeping range anxiety. The woman who had delivered the car told me to turn off the cruise control; company executives later told me that advice was wrong. All the while, my feet were freezing and my knuckles were turning white.
Broder made it to the charging station in Milford, Conn., but not before he received the “Recharge Now” warning. He wrote that he fueled up on electricity, but after driving again noticed the car’s charge said it had driven further than he actually had gone and it seemed to lose charge overnight — by morning at 10 degrees the car only had 25 miles of range.
There were measures Tesla officials advised Broder to take to restore lost energy due to cold weather, which he did. After he had used an adapter in the car to hook it up to a power source, one that isn’t as powerful as a charging station though, Broder got back in the vehicle to go to the actual station in Milford:
The displayed range never reached the number of miles remaining to Milford, and as I limped along at about 45 miles per hour I saw increasingly dire dashboard warnings to recharge immediately. Mr. Merendino, the product planner, found an E.V. charging station about five miles away.
But the Model S had other ideas. “Car is shutting down,” the computer informed me. I was able to coast down an exit ramp in Branford, Conn., before the car made good on its threat.
Broder wrote he then had to be picked up by a tow truck, which he says Tesla’s New York service manager, Adam Williams, ordered for him.
After all the incidents, Broder spoke with Tesla Chief Technology Officer J.B. Straubel who said the two charging stations on the East Coast are at the mileage limit for the Model S and acknowledged cold weather reduces range by about 10 percent, not to mention the energy used by the car’s heater for driver comfort.
“Hopefully you’ll give us a little slack in that we put in the East Coast stations just a month ago,” Broder reported Straubel saying. “It’s a good lesson.”
Only, Tesla’s Musk, after seeing the New York Times review and looking at the data logs of the car Broder used, said the test drive account by Broder was “most peculiar” because the car never actually ran out of battery at any time while it was driven.
NYTimes article about Tesla range in cold is fake. Vehicle logs tell true story that he didn’t actually charge to max & took a long detour.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 11, 2013
“The logs show again that our Model S never had a chance with John Broder,” Musk wrote in a blog post on Tesla’s website Wednesday. “In Mr. Broder’s case, he simply did not accurately capture what happened and worked very hard to force our car to stop running.”

This image shows the charge of the battery over the duration of the trip. (Image: Tesla)
Here are a few bullets from Musk’s blog post that contradict some of the claims in Broder’s review:
- As the State of Charge log shows, the Model S battery never ran out of energy at any time, including when Broder called the flatbed truck.
- The final leg of his trip was 61 miles and yet he disconnected the charge cable when the range display stated 32 miles. He did so expressly against the advice of Tesla personnel and in obvious violation of common sense.
- In his article, Broder claims that “the car fell short of its projected range on the final leg.” Then he bizarrely states that the screen showed “Est. remaining range: 32 miles” and the car traveled “51 miles,” contradicting his own statement [...]. The car actually did an admirable job exceeding its projected range. Had he not insisted on doing a nonstop 61-mile trip while staring at a screen that estimated half that range, all would have been well. He constructed a no-win scenario for any vehicle, electric or gasoline.
- On that leg, he drove right past a public charge station while the car repeatedly warned him that it was very low on range.
- Cruise control was never set to 54 mph as claimed in the article, nor did he limp along at 45 mph. Broder in fact drove at speeds from 65 mph to 81 mph for a majority of the trip and at an average cabin temperature setting of 72 F.
- At the point in time that he claims to have turned the temperature down, he in fact turned the temperature up to 74 F.

(Image: Tesla)

(Image: Tesla)
Musk’s list goes on.
In response to some of Tesla’s contradictions that came out earlier this week to his review, Broder wrote his account of the trials with the car were not fake. He noted too that Musk called him before the review was published to apologize for the less-than-pleasurable test drive and acknowledged that charging stations on the East Coast should be closer — 140 miles apart instead of 200 miles — given traffic and temperature.
Musk addressed the apology in his blog post Wednesday as well:
I called to apologize for any inconvenience that he may have suffered and sought to put my concerns to rest, hoping that he had simply made honest mistakes. That was not the case.
Musk goes on to detail how he believes Broder has shown a bias against electric cars in the past. Musk has called upon the New York Times to investigate these claims and also said on Twitter that he is working with other journalists to take the same test drive.
Tesla blog coming soon detailing what actually happened on Broder’s NYTimes “range test”. Also lining up other journalists to do same drive.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 11, 2013
Bloomberg reported New York Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy saying the story was “completely factual” and calling claims that the review was faked, “flatly untrue.”
Read more of Musk’s blog post for details into where he believes Broder might have skewed facts in his review here. Also be sure to take a look at Broder’s full review here.
Here a recent review from Cars.com of the Model S:




















































































































elosogrande
Feb. 19, 2013 at 1:51pmBroder has a bias against electric cars, because he has written uncomplimentary things about them? Could the truth be that electric cars don’t do the job, and Broder is just calling a spade a spade when he tells the truth about his experiences? The Tesla looks good, but you can’t go anywhere. How can you enjoy a thousand mile road trip, if you have to stop every 140 miles to recharge the batteries? It would take a week to get to your destination. If you have a need to show off, buy a Tesla, but just park it in your driveway. Then, your neighbors will assume that your rich…and stupid.
Electric cars, and green energy in general, are boondoggles for friends of the left to promote, in order to get rich; and they are getting rich at the American Taxpayer’s expense. Obama continues to take our money and piss it away on the Volt, several incompetent battery manufacturers, companies like Solindra and A123, Tesla and others. Check the records and find out who are on the boards of directors and who the major stock holders are at these companies. Find out how much money they send to The DNC and Obama PAC’s. We’re being bilked by these people, as well as powerful politicians, who are getting rich while these companies produce crap at our expense. At A123 they made thousands of batteries during the year or so they were in business, and as I understand it, the batteries were all thrown away. A123 never planned to make batteries. They planned to make money.
Report this comment
ericgt
Feb. 16, 2013 at 12:34amTesla sued Top Gear for their review, two cars both broke-down. videos on youtube/bing
Report this comment
alphaseinor
Feb. 18, 2013 at 12:19amActually the reason why they sued top gear is because at first glance they broke down, but if you actually listen to JC he never actually said they broke down, just many people infered that they did by way of the presentation.
Tesla lost the lawsuit because the cars didn’t actually break down, and the presentation only implied what would have happened if the cars did break down (which is the same for any car).
If you watch the top gear full episode (you can find it on you tube series 12 episode 7) you’ll notice they used the Tesla roadster as a way of promoting what they saw as a better technology; Hydrogen fuel cell.
While the merits of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are yet to be seen, the tesla is here, now, and while is not a perfect vehicle by far, it’s still lightyears ahead of anything Nissan, Mistubishi, GM, Ford, Honda, VW (my favorite), or any other vehicle manufacturer on the planet.
The only thing you should be asking yourself is, why can a startup in Silicon Valley get the electric car so right, and every other manufacturer get it so wrong.
The Tesla technology is in the new Rav4 Electric, and that’s getting great reviews.
Report this comment
RightThinking1
Feb. 19, 2013 at 1:24pmI believe that the Consumer Reports Fiskar did break down..
Report this comment
alphaseinor
Feb. 19, 2013 at 7:06pmFiskar isn’t tesla… not even close
The Fiskar is a Hybrid electric (think an expensive Prius) using a GM turbo 4 cylinder engine
Report this comment
Krutch
Feb. 15, 2013 at 11:06amWhere are the savings? Electricity has to be made to charge the ‘car’ and that means coal, ie carbon emmissions, or nuclear as in radioactive waste. Plus all the pollution created when making the batteries for these “pollution free” cars.
How many people have to die from liberal ‘feel good’ crap before this insanity ends?
Report this comment
Mako Dragoon
Feb. 15, 2013 at 2:05pmThe cost of electricity is less than the cost of gasoline because we can produce electricity from coal more efficiently than we can produce motion from gasoline.
Electric vehicles will not likely replace all our vehicle needs, nor are they practicle for most people yet, but they are getting better all the time. My wife has a first generation Prius that is approaching 200K miles and running strong. It’s NEVER need a brake job, although I did put about $1800 into the battery once. We average about 43 mpg. Gen 2/3 Prius has better batteries and go 300k+ without battery maintenance.
Report this comment
Snafu777
Feb. 15, 2013 at 2:49pm@Krutch
These purportedly green cars also do a lot more damage in other ways, as well. The rare metals and minerals used to make these cars are used in much higher abundance than in regular gas guzzlers, and have to be mined(usually by underpaid wage slaves in verious parts of africa and asia, shipped literally around the world to a the Inco Superstack where they can be melted down, purified and processed into a worthwhile state which literally has created a deadzone for miles around the superstack in Canada due to the thousands of tons of poisonous fumes it emits every year. (Nasa has even used this dead-zone as a replacement for the dead wastes their equipment will eventually face on mars.) Then all of that metal gets shipped back to china or japan to be made into cars, and then shipped back AGAIN to the US or whoever else is dumb enough to buy these things. and that’s before you even get into the seat and start needing to think about fuel, and with the kibosh Obama is putting on coal mining guess what we’ll all be moving to. Yup. Solar and wind which’ll also have all the same kind of metal requirements that the cars have, or oil, which would be the biggest of hypocrisies. These green cars are a joke. If you want green then wait for hydrogen… you’ll be waiting for a while, though.
Report this comment
RightThinking1
Feb. 19, 2013 at 1:27pmMako,
Except that, coal will soon not be an option. Expect electricity prices to go up. In the meanwhile, the plug-ins in most of the country are coal-powered.
Report this comment
Fourthhorseman
Feb. 14, 2013 at 10:19pmHydrogen fuelcell vehicles are a pipe dream for the foreseeable future. It takes more energy to make hydrogen than hydrogen makes! Not to mention you being fried to cinder in crash. Final nail in the coffin: cost. These cars would be affordable only by the rich even if mass produced. Oh yeah: no infrasturcture to fuel them!
Report this comment
khandahar&jalalabad
Feb. 15, 2013 at 8:20amCould you post a link to confirm this, a simple google search showed you can make hydrogen at home with a 9 volt battery. Plus the navy has been doing it for years with submarines I believe.
Report this comment
GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
Feb. 15, 2013 at 9:17amAnother ACE as addressed in a post below these. Hydrogen has been used in ICEs for several years now: http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/
And, NO, you will not go up as a fireball in a wreck. Assuming you don’t store it as a compressed gas, of course.
Notice how they point to China for driving up the price of lanthanides (rare earth metals). This also goes back to their attempt to acquire Gulf western for the lanthanides mine in CA, which was blocked for “national security” reasons. But hey, we can use Lion-6 for storage. Oh wait, no we can’t, Congress made it illegal to sell Lion-6 in the “free” land of the USA back in the 60′s. Why you ask, “national security” reasons, how would big oil deal w/ the competition. They even shot a storage tank w/ a 50 BMG incendiary, only to watch it smolder.
lanthanides are very important to electronics like your flat screen to the common flint lighter. Is this cause for concern? More than you can imagine.
Report this comment
RightThinking1
Feb. 19, 2013 at 1:34pmKhan:
It has been well-known for (?) 100 years that it requires more electrical power to produce hydrogen via electrolysis than can be recovered by either combustion, or fuel cells. The common sense approach is this: If it WERE possible, then by combusting hydrogen (or by more direct conversion via fuel cell) the derived energy could be used to make more hydrogen by electrolysis. Wouldn’t that be nice? Something for nothing!
See also : http://phys.org/news85074285.html
Report this comment
JustMeHere_01
Feb. 14, 2013 at 8:53pmWe were having this discussion in our local News Paper several years ago. I did some research and discovered that if everyone had an electric car there would not be enough resources to re-charge them.
Additional generation plants would need to be built just to serve this process. The article that I was reading about this also stated that a wind mill farm that provided 800Mws of energy suddenly went off line because of the lack of wind to turn the blades.
800MWs is a lot of energy. That is more energy that is required to provide energy to the Capital City of Florida. The peak energy use to serve it is a little over 600MWs.
Report this comment
TROONORTH
Feb. 14, 2013 at 9:46pmJust one other small point; full electric cars have no heaters and no A.C. You cannot extract sufficient ‘work’ from the batteries of these cars to enable them to travel any significant distance and heat or cool at the same time. So unless you like traveling in the north in a freezing cold car, or in the south in a four wheeled broiler, these electric cars are nothing but status symbols with no real value as a form of transport.
Report this comment
alphaseinor
Feb. 18, 2013 at 12:58amwow… you can’t seriously believe that an electric car can’t heat or cool the cabin. How about you go drive a tesla next time you are near a dealership in the north or blazing hot south and see how wrong you are.
Report this comment
Patriot Z
Feb. 14, 2013 at 6:11pmshoot that car costs well over 100k and takes an hr(at best) to 12 hrs(standard plugin) to charge. sure i can see potential in electrivs. but it has to come to a resonable point first. if the govt tget the hell outta the way we could do it
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Feb. 14, 2013 at 7:03pmTesla was a great band. It’s a shame that they all have to share one car nowadays.
Report this comment
alphaseinor
Feb. 18, 2013 at 1:03amhttp://www.teslamotors.com/models/options
starts at $52,000, and tops out at $87,400
It starts cheaper than the price of a BMW M3, and ends Cheaper than a S Class Mercedes.
Doesn’t cost $100,000
Report this comment
rdc1974
Feb. 14, 2013 at 5:36pmAre some of you that stupid when it comes to the function of hydrogen fuel cells? The water that is produced is a minimal amount. It is not a freaking uncontrolled water hose shooting all over the streets. It is hot and most will be released as steam with a slow dripping effect as you drive along. Cars now produce water as a byproduct of the exhaust. You would essentially see 0 difference. The roads are not going to ice up and the world will not flood because of the amount of water produced in a hydrogen fuel cell system. Some of you are as ignorant as the sheeple on the other side of the isle drooling in there laps.
Report this comment
GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
Feb. 14, 2013 at 6:52pmTo all those armchair “engineers” who want to promote hydrogen fuel cells. The only thing a fuel cell replaces is the BATTERY, the drive train is still electric. So no matter what, the drive train will still have to be developed (PERIOD) Now, where is all that hydrogen going to come from, electrolysis? Think again, you still have to generate power via a 50% efficient generator, then each step reduces that even more to create the hydrogen gas(Rectifying to DC, transport, not to mention water purification and supply). At this point in time H2 is recovered from methane, which is high in SULPHUR, which contaminates the PLATINUM. There is another hole in your hypothesis, as there is SIX TIMES MORE GOLD THAN PLATINUM and you want to poison it w/ cheap fuel.
So unless you have some miracle piece of engineering the trillion dollar corporations have yet to figure out, please, STFU about hydrogen fuel cells.
Report this comment
Alaskaninfidel
Feb. 15, 2013 at 1:49pmWhen calling people stupid…always a good idea to check your spelling lest you appear, “stupid”.
Report this comment
UNALIEN
Feb. 14, 2013 at 2:32pmVice Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, the “father of the Prius” who helped put hybrids on the map, said he believes fuel-cell vehicles hold far more promise than battery electric cars.
“Because of its shortcomings — driving range, cost and recharging time — the electric vehicle is not a viable replacement for most conventional cars,” said Uchiyamada. “We need something entirely new.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/us-autos-electric-hydrogen-idUSBRE91304Z20130204
Report this comment
alphaseinor
Feb. 18, 2013 at 12:43amso let’s go out and buy a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle right now!
Currently hydrogen is not viable and I’ll explain why… As for hydrogen being greener, you still have to smelt metals (nickel, gold, paladium, platinum, inconel, etc) to make a fuel cell, they don’t last forever, so they will need to be replaced. Lithium ions still need nickel.
Technology hurdles to overcome for hydrogen:
Price, current fuel cells are coming down, however they are still slightly south of a million dollars (thanks to commodity prices) think $650,000+ just to produce.
Durability, No fuel cell lasts forever, the same can be said for battery technology. Currently the fuel cell has a long way to go to catch up with a lithium ion battery (or a nickel cadmium battery for that matter).
Storage, Currently storing hydrogen is a very hard problem to solve, for one since it’s the smallest element, it leaks out of any seal, so if you have your car parked for a long period of time, it will de-fuel itself. again, battery technologies (not usually Lithium Ion) have the same problem, but again like with durability it has less of a problem than hydrogen
Storage volume, We cannot store enough hydrogen inside of the vehicle to power a car for as long as a Tesla can. The BMW Hydrogen 7, which currently has the highest storage capacity has a 70 mile range.
Both hydrogen and battery electric vehicles still need the same powertrains.
Now as for catching fire, that’s the Fisker Karma, it’s a hy
Report this comment
BlackCrow
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:52pmDon’t try to BS an engineer with a data logger.
Still doesn’t change the fact that on a BTU to ton mile basis the Tesla is a pig when it comes to energy expended to mile traveled.
The electric companies are installing “smart” meters so they can change more for peak usage. Why? Because that is cheaper and easier than going though the PERMITTING (government red tape) needed to add needed capacity (power plants and transmission lines) What is going to happen when a large number of electric cars go on that already over loaded grid? Not going to work!
Report this comment
GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
Feb. 14, 2013 at 2:04pmObviously you are not an engineer, or you would know an ICE is only 20% eff. In cold climates the excess heat is used to heat the cabin, which is much worse when your mileage is effected by said heat generation.
The ONLY reason Musk called was his good nature believing a New Yorker would be honest, which we know in rarely the case. Look at what the port authority did to the twin towers for their renovation project, killing people an lying about it is all in a days work in NYC.
Quantity of started post will not make your OPINION anymore valid, plz stop whining and GET AN EDUCATION.
Report this comment
aermacchirider
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:51pmGonzo
Posted on February 14, 2013 at 12:35pm
If Obama had pursued hydrogen cell technology instead of battery technology for automobiles, we would be further down the road to energy independence.
I disagree that hydrogen will be the magic bullet, Gonzo! If water is all that is expelled from the exhaust of a hydrogen car. 200 million cars pumping water into the streets and atmosphere will have dramatic effects on environment. water evaporates, produces clouds, rain etc. Imagine what the humidity would be in heavily populated areas. We probably be in a constant state of fog or real greenhouse atmosphere. Of course you never hear this from those who are most likely to profit from research and development of this so called solution
Report this comment
Gonzo
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:56pmOh yea, the world would surely end.
Report this comment
VoteRightDammit
Feb. 14, 2013 at 2:17pmAermacchi:
Was that comment serious or were you being sarcastic?
If serious …. you SERIOUSLY need to stop speaking / commenting until you get a wee better grasp on science.
I mean …. DAMN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
Report this comment
Southerner01
Feb. 14, 2013 at 3:40pmSo just put a water collector on the exhaust and reuse the water. Split it back into Hydrogen the next time you recharge.
Report this comment
aermacchirider
Feb. 14, 2013 at 4:28pmOk experts, Enlighten me! Where would the water or water vapor expelled by a hydrogen car go? Water doesn’t just disappear! http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_precipitation.htm
I’m sorry, but if there were 200 million + vehicles spewing water into the atmosphere there would have to be some type of consequences. Also, how would water expelled from exhaust affect driving in areas that have below freezing temps for months at a time. would it create icing conditions?
Report this comment
Gonzo
Feb. 14, 2013 at 5:35pmI guess you prefer carbon dioxide to water? It’s a drip, a tiny drip of water! It’s not a friggin fire hose!
Report this comment
aermacchirider
Feb. 14, 2013 at 6:43pmA drip!! one drip? per mile, per min,per sec, ?? I tried a web search without finding any specific answers to how much water is exhausted from a hydrogen engine and until someone can prove to me that the hydrogen fuel cell is the savior to our needs I’ll just stick to my guns. It’s unproven and impractical just like the electric cars. There is going to be some sort of drawback, Guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
Report this comment
Guitarcarl
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:42pmWho do these people really think they are fooling?! Everyday hundreds of millions of us drive to a pump and pay more and more money to buy the only energy source that has ever really worked for mass transportation. The earth is swimming in the stuff and we act like it’s a crisis to get it. Our leaders mesmerize us with worthless shinny baubles while they tighten the strangle hold on the true black gold. Mores the worse, we encourage them to our own peril for a bowl of pottage as the squander our birthright.
Report this comment
Mikev5
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:39pmAll this green stuff is 90% hype and 100% propaganda to support an agenda like agenda 21 none of these green fantastic goodies have given us anything but a black hole in the economy.
If this stuff was so fantastic we would have jumped on it in an instant and most of these gadgets have been around for many years with a proven lack luster low performance consistently.
Sorry but a rotten egg is a rotten egg no matter how much you polish it up and say it’s delicious.
Report this comment
JRook
Feb. 14, 2013 at 5:31pmreally, exactly how long did it take for the gas powered car to reach the technically stability and reliability it enjoys today. It was not that long ago that it was rare for a car to log over 50,000 miles without spending as much as it cost on maintenance and repairs. Let’s hear from the 10,000 plus owners of Tesla cars instead of the pathological ideologues. You know those who start with the answer and either modify the question or change the facts to support that answer. The only mistake that has been made up to this point in the US was the failure to build 20 nuclear power plants and develop an integrated smart grid.
Report this comment
BlackCrow
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:38pmFor BTU in to ton mile traveled the diesel engine is the runaway champ with the gas engine next in line. Hydrogen fuel cells are WAY behind due to the amount of electricity needed to electrolyze the water. Not quite but nearly as bad as battery electric cars. You HAVE to account for transmission and conversion loss in the efficiency equation. To think about efficiency without taking the complete production chain into account is dis-honest.
The deal with electric cars is electricity is cheap. The fuels used to produce electricity are incredibly inexpensive per BTU (British Thermal Unit). Unless you are willing to install a nuclear decay generator in your house electricity will either be inefficient due to central power plants and the losses in transmission or unreliable from local wind and solar generation.
Go take some engineering classes before believing the cra p you see in the media and on he net.
Report this comment
term limits for congress
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:27pmThe fire supression system was draining the car’s battery.
Which,… if he wanted heat…
Report this comment
oldguy49
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:40pmyea …..i thought this was a HOT car also…….lmao
Report this comment
Ghandi was a Republican
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:26pmIf only we could get rid of petroleum, we could go back to whale blubber and trees to power these things. The original green energies. “Petroleum saved the whales” What irony.
Report this comment
Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Feb. 14, 2013 at 2:01pmThe greenies seem to think that oil is not a natural product of the earth. Oil is, exponentially, less toxic than mercury or cadmium, used in CFL’s and solar panels, respectively, but oil is, by far, cheaper and you can derive far more energy from it than you can any of the green energies.
I am not against research for new sources of energy, but I wish the greenies would quit pushing, on us, technologies that are not yet feasible. It will come, some day, greenies, just be patient.
Report this comment
curmudgeon60
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:22pmMy husband builds and installs the automated lines for some of Tesla….he says it’s a well done auto….he also happens to be an intelligent, honest, humble man that thinks before he speaks and speaks on what he knows. (some of you need to think on that before posting ‘opinions’. I’ll trust in his ‘review’.
Report this comment
Ghandi was a Republican
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:32pmCan he afford one? Does installing electrical harnesses made in China by 4 year olds = technological breakthrough? Does obama count installing an assembly line in Sweden as a ‘job saved or created’? If so/not, what does the ATM technician get classified as? If a kiosk operator plies his/her wares at the mall, but there is none at the mall with any money, are they still a person?
So many questions!
Report this comment
VoteRightDammit
Feb. 14, 2013 at 2:25pmYour husband may, in fact, be an humble and honest man … and you are, clearly, in love with him and proud …
but that misses the point.
The Tesla car IS, indeed, a great car *** FOR AN ELECTRIC CAR ***. But the entire concept of an electric car is absurd, and no matter HOW close to optimum we build them we can never exceed the theoretical best. Electricity still must be generated for these cars. Electricity must then be transmitted over inefficient power lines (wasting a good deal of the electricity generated). And then the car itself can’t get past the losses in the electric motor.
All of this still leaves electric cars without a dream of ever competing with the efficiency of gasoline powered cars.
Oh – except in the Pravda ravings of the anti-science White House.
Report this comment
CommonSenseTalk
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:20pmNYT is propaganda machine for US government. US own GM and the Chevy Volt. The government must prove that GM has the best idea for electric cars. Why would Tesla even let NYT’s look at their car, let alone drive it. This is like buying a new Rolex on the street corner for $40, you get what you pay for.
Report this comment
lefty5005
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:29pmI wouldn’t let the NYT evaluate my most recent bowel movement.
Report this comment
GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:00pmAnyone who take a NYT review seriously is just asking to be lied to. I read SUPERMOB, about Sidney Korshak, and looked for reviews to come across the NYT piece that offered no feedback what so ever. The book is 400pgs, yet the Hebrew critic focused entirely on a 3pg accusation made by an actor who didn’t like Regan. And what SAG would like Regan, he stabbed them in the back REPEATEDLY, as SAG president. Anyway he discredited the ENTIRE BOOK over these 3pgs, ignoring 40pgs of how Sammy Davis Jr was discriminated against for dating white actresses(evidently this was bunk as well). Because as we all know, all business in the US is above board, and criminals could never control the unions (sar, b/c some can’t read between the lines).
I side with Tesla on this, because I ACTUALLY KEEP UP with electric vehicle tech on http://endless-sphere.com/forums/
Contrary to Scipro and Gonzo who are just giving an uninformed OPINION.
Thank you Klimas.
Report this comment
grimmster
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:17pm@groundzero aka encinom.
You wouldnt know anything about electric vehicles if it bit you on the ass.I worked in the auto industry for 35 years, and i can tell you this, battery and hydrogen powered vehicles will NOT be a viable form of transportation for at least another 10 years, and most likely, twenty years plus.But, since you “study” electric vehicles, lets hear some of your knowledge on the subject, and please, do this without coping and pasting crap from wikipedia……idiot….
Report this comment
Cavallo
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:39pm@Grimm, It will really depend on some break through in efficiency and function of the power source. That innovation might not come for sometime, and it might never ever come. Electric powered vehicles just might not ever be a better substitute for a gasoline powered motor.
Report this comment
GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:50pmI have nothing to do w/ encinom, and doubt he even reads books much like yourself. U r the 1st to respond and have to put @GZ, i think ppl can tell who is the idiot. It’s a wonder you can even operate a computer, and seriously doubt you understand what the capabilities. Unlike the fred flintstone cars you would build, modern cars can tell more about how you drive than you can remember. Ever hear of an insurance “snap shot”, that is what they are doing observing how you drive. If the door are locked, how hard the brake pedal is pressed, many aspect that determine what good and bad drivers do. So go play w/ ur mamas vibrator:
http://www.break.com/index/possibly-the-best-news-clip-ever-2415747
Report this comment
VoteRightDammit
Feb. 14, 2013 at 2:28pmMethinks the doth protesteth too much, encinom.
BTW: I would think an ‘educated’ and ‘intelligent’ individual, such as are you (in your own eyes) would be capable of stringing together English sentences with a little more aplomb ….
Report this comment
diablosho
Feb. 14, 2013 at 12:57pmIt seems to me that their calling him a liar is a bit premature. What probably happened is that either the charging station or the car’s recharge cut-off switch is faulty. Either way, the “refueler” clicked (just like when we are fueling our cars, and the pump handle “clicks” and stops pumping) too early.
Remember folks…Tesla’s very existence is entirely based on the existence of Global Warming, and as such they routinely promote false “science”. They are not to be trusted, until the facts PROVE their account of the story is true. Until then, I trust the driver…
Report this comment
Ghandi was a Republican
Feb. 14, 2013 at 12:57pmIt should come with a meter showing how much electricity was wasted coming down the grid on the way to the car. Truth in advertising. These loons actually think their car is running on magic electricity.
Report this comment
Gonzo
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:13pmSomewhere there is a coal fired plant chugging out smoke to power all those “green” car’s energy.
Report this comment
Ghandi was a Republican
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:24pmActually no. They exist only in pictures from 1920. Have you ever seen one in real life? NO! That is a myth of algore too. But there are dead Eagles from wind turbine blades, and scary power lines. These idiots think that electricity originates at a plug. It’s simply wasteful. Which liberals love outside the other side of their faces. Wasted energy = higher costs. Higher cost = punishment for all. Punishment for all = Communism.
Report this comment
Gonzo
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:53pmWe have 15 to 20 of them still in GA. Not sure how many because some have closed or are closing due to EPA regulations. My point is that “green energy” isn’t as green as the yuppies like to think.
Report this comment
DanMarc
Feb. 14, 2013 at 12:55pmThe car was named after a Tesla coil, which is a wire that just goes in circles around and around and gives off electrical energy. That’s all the car can do. It was properly named.
Report this comment
GroundZero is Nuclear Demolition x3
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:08pmWow, Dan, you have been posting almost an entire month.
I doubt you would know a real scientist if he were to slap you in the face for making such a ridiculous statement.
Nikola Tesla did some very amazing things, some we may never confirm: http://www.reformation.org/tesla-and-tunguska.html
Report this comment
Ghandi was a Republican
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:11pmIt was not named after the coil. It was named after the man who pioneered and propagated A/C current.
The man was was a genius and a visionary. He would also be laughing his arse off at this car. The only real way to power this care economically and environmental is with a supplementary electric motor and battery system. that charges off generators attached to the drive system, fed only from wasted inertial energy.
Possibly a fueled motor that constantly keeps the battery dully charged. The advantage of charging the battery directly from a plug is non-existent.
Teslas’ only claim to fame is the power that can be generated from an A.C. motor, and that they duped the American taxpayer into subsidizing a toy for millionaires. Neither of which is a breakthrough.
Report this comment
DZ-015
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:23pmBoth the Tesla coil and the Tesla car company are named after Nicola Tesla, a Serbian-American scientist who showed up Thomas Edison when he developed the alternating current power generation system we use today.. The Tesla coil was his invention, while the car company was simply named in his honor. It looks like the test car may have had some bugs related to the cold weather, but the reviewer seems to have taken liberties with the truth concerning his test drive.
Report this comment
Pat Alexander
Feb. 14, 2013 at 12:43pmAn expensive government sponsored experiment produces expected results. Who is surprised?
Storage of electricity has been a continuing problem with these.
Until/unless better batteries are developed – 100% electric cars will continue to be Chakra Al Gore & the rest of the greenie’s wet dreams…
Report this comment
Gonzo
Feb. 14, 2013 at 12:53pmThe battery technology wasn’t there when we decided to blow millions on it. Hydrogen cell technology is there. Of course Bush put money behind that and Barry couldn’t handle admitting it might be worth pursuing.
Report this comment
Max jones
Feb. 14, 2013 at 12:42pm…….Meh.
Report this comment
SciPro
Feb. 14, 2013 at 12:40pmDisappointing, you would think after all this time, some-one would get the electric car right … but no ..
It’s the charge problem .. battery technology is just not there yet .. I winder if it will ever be …
Report this comment
Gonzo
Feb. 14, 2013 at 12:42pmSpot on.
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Feb. 14, 2013 at 12:55pmSCIPRO, C’mon man, we really know what these cars do…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrjOzKth9GE
Report this comment
AnOregonian
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:18pmSimple solution: A tow package and a gas powered generator.
Report this comment
Cavallo
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:27pmElectric cars were first tried very early on. They were scrubbed because Gasoline engines were just so much more efficient. As far as being green, forget it. Electric cars are not and will not be good for the environment. The batteries wear out very quickly, as well as how insanely dirty they are to manufacture. What do you do with a dead battery? Imagine millions of car engine batteries wearing out over a few years. What do we do with that kind of toxic waste? However, I don’t trust anything the NYTs prints. If they wrote the sky was the color blue I would step outside to check.
Report this comment
Gonzo
Feb. 14, 2013 at 12:35pmIf Obama had pursued hydrogen cell technology instead of battery technology for automobiles, we would be further down the road to energy independence.
Report this comment
gyro
Feb. 14, 2013 at 12:59pmYAY this is exacty correct !!!
Report this comment
ThirtyEightWinks
Feb. 14, 2013 at 1:49pmHydrogen cells? Where do you get the hydrogen from? You run a coal power plant to make electricity to electrolyze water to get hydrogen. It is just another “elsewhere emission” power system.
Report this comment
Gonzo
Feb. 14, 2013 at 2:00pmThat coal fired plant would be running anyway wouldn’t it? Take a few million gas burning cars off our roads and we may not need middle east oil. Or would you rather keep dealing with people that want us dead?
Report this comment