Shared publicly  - 
 
Tesla released the car logs related to the disputed New York Times car review:
27
2
Scot McSweeney-Roberts's profile photoMichael Scragg's profile photoChris Row's profile photoSERGIO NUNO GONCALVES's profile photo
13 comments
 
So, according to Musk, normal operation for a Tesla is to drive down the highway at 54 miles per hour freezing your b*** off? No thanks. 
 
While owners are posting home made ads for their Model S experience. One reviewer has issues. Interesting. Love to get +Motor Trend Magazine figures on the S being Car of the Year if it's that bad. Meanwhile cheaper stock for everyone to gobble up! 
 
+Brian Holm-Hansen you didn't read the article. The point is the New York times write John Broder lied on his review of the car. He said he was driving one way which is very energy efficient but in reality was driving the total opposite. It's like saying "I drove a Toyota Prius at 65 MPH in Eco mode and only got a 26mpg rating. WAY below estimated!!!" While in reality you were driving 90 MPH in sport mode with tire pressure low and 700lbs of luggage in your trunk. The reviewer John Broder set out to tarnish the image of the Tesla S and Tesla caught him on it and called him out.
 
+Jonathan Figueroa Of course I read the article. That's where I got the "54 miles per hour" quote from. Musk's own comments in the article (if you read all of it) don't make the Tesla very appealing. 
 
Sorry +Brian Holm-Hansen , I phrased it wrong. I should of said you misinterpreted the article. No where does Musk say that the ideal driving conditions are 54mph with no heat. Just that John Broder said that he slowed to 54 to conserve energy. When in reality he actually drove faster. Or when John stated he turned down the heat to conserve energy when again he did just the opposite. If you actually look at the factual numbers in the article linked http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive you'll see that the Tesla S is VERY appealing. Especially after careless abuse the car endured and never lost charge (even at -3 miles estimated left it still drove). So I do apologize for saying you never read the article. I should of just stated that you didn't understand the whole situation and statements fully.
 
+Jonathan Figueroa Why do take what Tesla say as absolute fact? I see no reason to believe in what Tesla are saying any more or less than what John Broder is saying.
 
Tesla should never give so much power to one reviewer. why tempt them with so much spotlight.

Have multiple reviewers test the car simultaneously. The average review for this car is extremely positive already. Let that drown out those who would sacrifice the truth for some spotlight. 
 
There's no such thing as average reviewer, something with prestige and bigger customer reach like the NYT is always going to have more impact.
 
+Steve Broome, no one said "average reviewer", you did. As for reviews that carry weight, read Motor Trend and the Wall Street Journal. They raved about this car. They carry just as much, if not more, weight than NYT.
 
+Brian Holm-Hansen No, but it's what you do to achieve maximum range, which is exactly why this person got this car to review.  To test the range and viability of the car on long trips.

Also a scenario, if you passed up gas stations in your honda civic and run yourself out of gas... how ridiculous would you sound if you complained about it in your review of the car.  If you didn't want to run out of gas you would have driven the car slower or stopped at a gas station.  This common sense applies to any car you operate.

This is more about dishonesty to run up an agenda or page hits than about EV viability in the first place.  We should all want the media to be objective as possible in consumer reviews.  If Musk's data is correct, the author clearly was not and ran the car in a way to write his own conclusion.
Add a comment...