Problems With Precision and Judgment, but Not Integrity, in Tesla Test - NYTimes.com

As promised, I’ve spent the past several days looking into the reporter John M. Broder’s test drive of the celebrated electric car known as the Tesla Model S. The article, which focused on two new “superchargers” on the East Coast, was understandably disturbing to the company and to the car’s many admirers. The test drive, it’s safe to say, did not go well. In fact, its publication was accompanied by a startling photograph of the Model S on a flatbed truck, onto which it was loaded after depleting its battery charge on the last leg of the trip.

Tesla’s chief executive, Elon Musk, has charged that the story was faked, that Mr. Broder intentionally caused his car to fail, and that issues of journalistic integrity are at stake. On his Tesla blog, he released graphs and charts, based on driving logs, that contest many of the details of Mr. Broder’s article.

Mr. Broder and The Times have maintained that the article was done in good faith, and that it is an honest account of what happened. They have gone to some lengths to respond to the charges, point by point, on The Times’s Wheels blog.

But Mr. Musk, and many readers, remain dissatisfied. It’s not an exaggeration to say that I’ve heard from hundreds of them, either in e-mails or comments to my blog. (Some readers have also expressed their support for Mr. Broder and his article.)

One reader, Roger Wilson of Falls Church, Va., a Model S owner himself, expressed his opinion in more moderate fashion than many:

“In his article (and follow-ups), Mr. Broder states that he followed Tesla’s advice during his drive. But, if he had taken time to read the owner’s manual beforehand (which, at 30-or-so well-written pages, would have taken an hour), he would have known about:• “The ‘Max Range’ setting, which would have charged the battery beyond the ‘standard’ range and given him 20-30 miles more range; • “The ‘Range Mode’ setting, which would have conserved battery during the drive; • “The section entitled ‘Driving Tips for Maximum Range’; • “And, the concept of plugging the vehicle in (especially during his overnight stop): ‘Tesla strongly recommends leaving Model S plugged in when not in use.’ and ‘The most important way to preserve the Battery is to LEAVE YOUR MODEL S PLUGGED IN when you’re not using it.’“Had he employed at least one of these tidbits, he probably wouldn’t have been ‘stalled’ on the EV highway. But, then again, it wouldn’t be nearly as interesting a story if he made the trip successfully (and could have only complained about the inconveniences of staying at the charging station longer than he cared to or having to plug in the car overnight).“In follow-ups, he claims that he was only ‘testing’ the supercharger network. If this had been the case, the story wouldn’t have focused on him driving 45 m.p.h. and being cold (and the infamous picture of the Tesla on the flatbed), but would have simply stated that the two current supercharger stations (which just opened recently) are too far apart and that one might have to rely on non-Tesla public charging stations until more supercharger stations are installed.“Unlike Mr. Musk, I don’t claim that Mr. Broder ‘faked’ the story, but he certainly didn’t seem to employ the least bit of care or responsibility in fuel management (required of any vehicle, regardless of fuel type). One can only assume that Mr. Broder’s irresponsibility in fuel management was in hope that something beyond ‘inconvenience’ would happen to make the story more interesting. (Otherwise, no one, including me, would have paid much attention to his article.)“Tesla is not faultless in this, especially since it suggested the test drive. Tesla should have made it very clear that the 200-mile stretch between the two supercharger stations approaches the maximum distance and that all range maximization strategies should be employed.”

Over the past several days, I have questioned and listened to Mr. Broder, Mr. Musk, two key Tesla employees, other Times journalists, the tow-truck driver and his dispatcher, and a Tesla owner in California, among others. I am aware of other, much more successful test drives in recent days by Model S owners and media organizations that are intended to show that the charging stations work perfectly well (although those tests lacked an element of Mr. Broder’s drive: one of the coldest days of the year). And I’ve read hundreds of e-mails and reader comments. I’ve also had a number of talks with my brother, a physician, car aficionado and Tesla fan, who has helped me balance what might have been a tendency to unconsciously side with a seasoned and respected journalist – my own “confirmation bias.”

My own findings are not dissimilar to the reader I quote above, although I do not believe Mr. Broder hoped the drive would end badly. I am convinced that he took on the test drive in good faith, and told the story as he experienced it.

Did he use good judgment along the way? Not especially. In particular, decisions he made at a crucial juncture – when he recharged the Model S in Norwich, Conn., a stop forced by the unexpected loss of charge overnight – were certainly instrumental in this saga’s high-drama ending.

In addition, Mr. Broder left himself open to valid criticism by taking what seem to be casual and imprecise notes along the journey, unaware that his every move was being monitored. A little red notebook in the front seat is no match for digitally recorded driving logs, which Mr. Musk has used, in the most damaging (and sometimes quite misleading) ways possible, as he defended his vehicle’s reputation.

I could recite chapter and verse of the test drive, the decisions made along the way, the cabin temperature of the car, the cruise control setting and so on. I don’t think that’s useful here.

People will go on contesting these points – and insisting that they know what they prove — and that’s understandable. In the matter of the Tesla Model S and its now infamous test drive, there is still plenty to argue about and few conclusions that are unassailable.