Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
The Media Transportation Technology

Elon Musk Lays Out His Evidence That NYT Tesla Test Drive Was Staged 841

mykepredko writes "Tesla Motors CEO and founder Elon Musk definitely isn't the best guy to try to pull a fast one on. The visionary entrepreneur set Twitter a titter when he claimed earlier this week that New York Times writer John Broder had fudged details about the Tesla Models S car's range in cold weather, resulting in what he termed a 'fake' article. Musk promised evidence, and now he has delivered, via the official Tesla blog."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Elon Musk Lays Out His Evidence That NYT Tesla Test Drive Was Staged

Comments Filter:
  • by localroger ( 258128 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:34PM (#42897251) Homepage
    Tesla monitors cars remotely now to warn owners who are in danger of bricking the batteries by not keeping them charged. And while you might ask whether you can trust them not to monitor where you go if you buy a car from them, you should certainly expect them to use the capability if it's THEIR test car and you're writing a review of it.
  • A Good Story (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:39PM (#42897313)

    Why let facts get in the way of a good story?

    Anyone who is surprised to see this from a newspaper shouldn't be. They aren't in the business of telling the news - they're in the business of selling papers and putting advertising in front of eyeballs.


  • The logs don't lie (Score:5, Insightful)

    by talexb ( 223672 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:41PM (#42897349) Homepage Journal

    Musk was smart -- the logs don't lie, and they don't jibe with what the reporter said. Now, this was in print, in the new York Times -- I'd be fascinated to have seen the same story reported with in-car cameras. I have a funny feeling it would turn out differently.

    And for Top Gear to film a bunch of people pushing the Tesla they were test-driving -- implying that it had run out of go, when in fact it still had some juice left -- that's just rotten. Entertaining TV, but crummy journalism, and cheap.

  • by bruce_the_moose ( 621423 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:42PM (#42897377)
    Ten years ago it was the car companies, now it's the automotive press that seems determined to hasten its demise. Sad.
  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hEpen ( 96597 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:44PM (#42897413)

    Maybe they own him.

  • by Ossifer ( 703813 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:44PM (#42897419)

    Being that you actually have to turn this feature on yourself, I'd say that amounts to prior consent...

    The Top Gear scam, as admitted by Top Gear's producers, was that they had already decided on the result AND written the script before receiving the vehicles. Yes, it's entertainment, yes I love the show too, and yes, Tesla's response wasn't the greatest (lawsuit subsequently thrown out for legal technicalities despite judge confirming intentional lies by Top Gear), but come on they were presenting a review as if it was a result of testing, not of scripting...

  • Re:A Good Story (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:45PM (#42897437)
    Yeah, the truth from the media? The US has been bought and sold. All of it.
  • Theory (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Qrypto ( 462155 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:45PM (#42897441)

    Theory: Broder didn't realize the logging capabilities of the car, and when the Model S' software ui initially supported his internal baises he took liberties with the truth. By "documenting" his experience through Tesla support he attempted to falsely add credence to what would be a traffic generating, "anti-electric" review masked in the journalistic repute of the NYT.

    Firstly, all of Broder's excessive winging about the cold weather (I think) was designed to subtly imply that the Model S doesn't work in the cold. You future buyer, will be cold and your car will break. This is why Musk had to address the cold weather link directly in the evidence blog posting.

    Secondly. Broder likely couldn't have fathomed that every parameter in the car was being logged. Very specific details add credibility and character to a story. They make the author appear diligent, and one who gives great attention to detail. In the past such details were a "literary tool used to bend the story. Now thanks to data driven engineering words and truth in such matters should align more closely.

    Lastly. For a man who may or may not have a bias against electric vehicles (cars at least), the observation that "the estimated range was falling faster than miles were accumulating" at the outset of the author's journey might have set the tone of the coming review. With all the incessant calls to Tesla support to document all the "trouble", Broder had plenty of documentation to support his (what was IMHO a) journalistic malignment. This angle also had the added benefit of generating views for NYT - plus through the courtesy of Tesla arranging a tow - the money shot.

    I hope NYT has the ethical chops to do what they must.

    (comment posted first at [])

  • by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:46PM (#42897447)

    Read the blog post, it takes 2 minutes. He did run out of charge, in fact he KNEW he was going to run out of charge because he took a 61 mile drive with a 32 mile reading on the charge indicator. During that drive he drove past several charging stations.

    He also drove around in circles in a parking lot trying to make it run out of juice at one point.

    The writer had an agenda, and he should have known they would log the data and prove him a liar. Musk was incensed by the Top Gear article and proclaimed that he would never let a journalist have a car without logging enabled.

    Frankly the writer of the article should be fired, this evidence is very damning.

  • Re:Sorry, no (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Attila Dimedici ( 1036002 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:47PM (#42897473)
    This is a trick question, right? Well, of course it is, you called a reporter for the NYT a legitimate journalist...which of course he is, in the fine tradition of Jayson Blair and Walter Duranty.
  • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:48PM (#42897491)
    Having the brake default to "on" when the battery is dead is a safety engineering issue. Just like in a truck you need air pressure to take the brakes OFF, not to apply them. If the battery fails and the emergency brake is the only thing keeping a car parked on a hill, you want the car to stay where it is. Now I will agree that there is probably a need for some sort of "manual release" that can be used by towing companies.
  • Re:Sorry, no (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:50PM (#42897511)

    A corporate CEO who has data to back his claims.

  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Baloroth ( 2370816 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:53PM (#42897539)

    Also, why would he try to tarnish this car? He doesn't appear to own an oil company.

    Could be as simple as page views. A story saying the car doesn't perform as advertised generates a lot more interest than one saying "yep, everything worked as expected." Just like Top Gear did a while back. Of course, I stopped expecting Top Gear to be reliable a while back and now just enjoy it as pure entertainment (which it really is), but this guy pretended to be writing a genuine news story.

  • by david.emery ( 127135 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:54PM (#42897559)

    This is not the first story that calls into question the NY Times accuracy/impartiality on tech related news stories.

  • I love DATA! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by who_stole_my_kidneys ( 1956012 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:57PM (#42897615)
    Not a day goes by that some one says "I did this" or "I did that" and the end result is "I didn't work". Yet going back to a nice log file in fact shows "you didn't do that" and "you actually did this, causing your issue". I'm not sure when people will learn that you cannot lie about what you did when everything you do is logged, but its awesome to point it out when they flat out do and you have the evidence.
  • by Nemyst ( 1383049 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:58PM (#42897635) Homepage

    You drive 600mi often? The car is not for you.

    Millions of people drive less than 100km a day. The car's for them.

    The pathetic complaint that the range is low is funny, because the vast majority of people never make use of the maximum range of their car. If you do, good for you! Just keep using a gas guzzler and shut up.

  • by preaction ( 1526109 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:58PM (#42897641)

    If you have to regularly drive 600 miles, you don't. That's 8-10 hours of driving though, with no breaks. You sure you wouldn't mind an hour layover or two?

  • by hattig ( 47930 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @01:59PM (#42897659) Journal

    That's a recharge every three hours. Given that drivers are recommended to take a break every two hours, it's not so unreasonable as long as there is a rapid recharge point to take a break at. But yes, it's not like refilling at a gas station.

  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swilde23 ( 874551 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:00PM (#42897683) Journal

    This isn't entirely accurate, but it's wrong in a way that makes Broder look even worse.

    After Tesla's Top Gear debacle [], they put logging devices in the cars and had future reviewers agree to their use []. This is something that Broder was (or should have been) aware of.

  • by hab136 ( 30884 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:04PM (#42897767) Journal

    >Let me get this straight: I can't drive 65 or turn up the heat without having to worry about getting stranded?

    The Superchargers are 200 miles apart, but you can use regular chargers too. If you look at Tesla's blog post, there were chargers all over the place. You're not going to get stranded unless you're a dishonest reporter with a grudge against electric cars.

    >It takes an hour to refill the thing, and I have to do it three times to drive 600 miles?

    Drive 3 hours (200 miles at 65 mph), stop for charge and lunch. Drive another 3 hours, stop for an hour break. Drive another 3 hours, and you're at your destination, so let it charge up overnight.

    If you're a trucker with a pee bottle that doesn't want to stop for anything, I'm sure this isn't great. For normal people, an hour break every 3 hours of driving is fine.

  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Intrepid imaginaut ( 1970940 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:04PM (#42897771)

    Yes, there's a loud and large lobby of anti wind, anti solar and anti electric car types out there furiously churning up as much FUD-mud as possible, hurling around accusations and insinuations as quickly as they can wheel them out. Lies and misdirection. The only question is whether it's a real grassroots effort from the genuinely misinformed or a directed public opinion massaging effort. My guess is a healthy combination of the two, particularly because these types will never ever admit they were wrong and will never ever stop arguing.

  • by Fastolfe ( 1470 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:05PM (#42897777)

    Why the fuck would I ever want to buy one of these cars?

    Clearly the car is intended for people that would not have a problem with three one-hour charging stops for a 600-mile trip. Clearly you are not one of those people, so I don't think we can answer your question.

    Many people rarely take 600-mile trips. Of those that do, many would be fine with three one-hour charging stops. You can plan one or two stops around meals, for instance, to minimize the inconvenience. Those that need to make those trips and can't wait to charge will need to buy a different kind of car. No one is suggesting this type of electric car is appropriate for all purposes.

    Many households with two working adults end up with two cars: a long-range large-capacity family vehicle and a smaller commuting vehicle. Electrics will dominate the latter use case before the former, for these reasons.

  • by MickyTheIdiot ( 1032226 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:05PM (#42897783) Homepage Journal

    If the logs or forged to that extent there is going to by something sloppy somewhere. Everyone has access to them and it will be found... too many eyes.

  • Re:I'm a skeptic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MiniMike ( 234881 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:05PM (#42897787)

    When I see an unbiased third party do the test - like Consumer Reports or Motor Trend - then I'll take what has to be said seriously.

    You may have made that comment sarcastically, but in case you didn't (and for those unfamiliar with the other tests):

    From CR: Tesla Model S - The electric car that shatters every myth [].

    From Motor Trends: 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year: Tesla Model S [].

    While those two publications aren't perfect, they seem to have way more credibility than Broder.

  • by EasyTarget ( 43516 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:07PM (#42897841) Journal

    Musk will print your driving log, and you'll end up getting traffic tickets in the mail.

    No.. no. I wont.
    Years ago I adopted a foolproof way of avoiding speeding fines; and one that keeps me and everybody around me safer; I simply obey speed limits.
    As your driving improves you might discover this secret too.

  • by BradleyUffner ( 103496 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:08PM (#42897865) Homepage

    Let me get this straight: I can't drive 65 or turn up the heat without having to worry about getting stranded?

    What kind of car do you drive now where you are able to use more energy than you put in to it?

  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SomePgmr ( 2021234 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:10PM (#42897885) Homepage
    Yeah it was probably a global political conspiracy funded by big oil. Not some dumbass from the NYT that wanted a sensational story instead of another, "yeah it works as advertised."
  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by postbigbang ( 761081 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:12PM (#42897935)

    No problem. The BBC will hire him in a heartbeat. They, too, seem to have tarted up electric car reviews as well.

  • by itsdapead ( 734413 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:13PM (#42897967)

    What happened with Top Gear?

    They showed what would almost certainly happen in reality, under a given set of circumstances.

    However, what with TV production schedules, budgets etc. (and probably not wanting to really push the car all the way back to the hangar) they acted it out, rather than actually driving the car until it turned into a brick on wheels.

    In other news, food 'prepared' on cookery shows is probably stone cold and dried to a husk by the time the guests taste it and obediently go 'yum'. The windows behind TV presenters on news shows are added in post-production. When someone uses a phone on TV, even in a documentary, there isn't actually someone on the other end. When you see an interview, unless its actually live, the interviewer has probably re-recorded his side of the conversation after the fact, and the editor has probably cut out a load of 'ums' and 'ers' from the guest's responses.

    To summarise - if you see it on TV it has probably been staged somehow. The issue is whether the claims are honest.

  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MickyTheIdiot ( 1032226 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:20PM (#42898091) Homepage Journal

    Big Oil's control of certain members of Congress is not a conspiracy. Conspiracies are secret by definition and the Oil Lobby's congressional pressure is right out in the open.

  • by ADRA ( 37398 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:20PM (#42898109)

    To be fair, top gear does this ALL THE TIME. Its an entertainment program and they do so by panning some cars and lauding others (like DIY kits or 500k super cars). Any typical top gear viewer shouldn't consider a 'bad review' on the show as a buying decision.

  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MickyTheIdiot ( 1032226 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:21PM (#42898119) Homepage Journal

    Why are so many people so willing to accept "rampant left bias" but refuse to see the rampant corporate bias?

  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Intrepid imaginaut ( 1970940 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:21PM (#42898127)

    I never said anything about big oil. But now that you mention it, yes businesses do try to stifle new technology they feel threatened by. Take for example the antics of the RIAA.

  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjames ( 1099 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:24PM (#42898177) Homepage Journal

    The really sad part is that even without the logs, his own story doesn't add up. He plainly states that he left Milford with a displayed range of 32 miles and ran out of power at 52 miles, then claims that actual range was SHORTER than the projected range.

    I would typically be very skeptical of a review rebuttal from a company, but given that and the detailed data Musk provided, I'm convinced the 'review' was a hatchet job.

  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:28PM (#42898261) Journal

    Also, why would he try to tarnish this car? He doesn't appear to own an oil company.

    Which gets yet-another-nearly-interchangeable-columnist more hits?

    Option 1: 'I drove a Tesla S. It takes longer to charge than to pump gas; but is otherwise pretty ok.'

    Option 2: "Electric so-called 'supercar' strands writer during epic freezing nighmare journey!"

    Writing for the NYT moves at a slower pace than being a blogger and whoring for hits; but is subject to the same basic incentive structures.

  • Re:I'm a skeptic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:31PM (#42898309) Homepage Journal

    Of course Elon has proof to back up his claims. He is the guy behind that car after all. And if his car used pink unicorns, he'd have proof of their existence.

    When I see an unbiased third party do the test - like Consumer Reports or Motor Trend - then I'll take what has to be said seriously. Until then, I'll treat everything with skepticism.

    Considering how easy it is to monitor vehicle state, functions and location with a few added gadgets, all of which we have been hearing are being placed in some rental cars, beginning a few years ago, never mind this car is built around the corner from Silicon Valley Broder assumed they wouldn't be watching. Here's an education for future journos, keep it honest and keep your job.

  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:32PM (#42898313) Homepage

    Top Gear implicitly presents themselves as reviewers. They never state, unless they are being sued, that they are faking. In the Tesla case, they admitted the shot of the Tesla towed with dead batteries was a fake. They had scripted the battery failure. Their excuse? It's just a TV show, duh.

    They weren't found "innocent". The judge said his court wasn't there to judge truthfulness, only liability for financial damage and a case for libel. He found the show non-libelous, and he, somehow, determined Tesla took no monetary damage from the show.

    I don't watch Top Gear. I don't understand the purpose of faked reviews. People do take it seriously.

    The NYT needs suing. Now.

  • Re:I'm a skeptic. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:35PM (#42898391)

    Wow. 1971. It's almost like there were different people working there 40 years and it was a different time in automobile advancements and technology. Seriously, is that the best trolling you can do? Digging up old articles from 25-40 years ago to reflect on how a magazine might be run today?

  • by Kreigaffe ( 765218 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:35PM (#42898409)

    No. All they did was save themselves time.
    Tesla's engineers told them the estimated range they'd get on the Top Gear track.
    Top Gear drove a few laps, but did not drive to the maximum range they were quoted.

    They then ACTED as if they drove that distance, and proceeded to show viewers what would have happened had they driven the distance Tesla told them the car would go. There was no deception, all they did was act like they drove it until it died so they could then show the problems with the car. Namely, the PRIMARY problem, that running out of fuel isn't just a hike with a jerrycan to fix.

    What, you think only going a few laps around the track is bad? That's really not different from any other supercar. That's not the bad side to the Tesla. The bad side is that if you drain the battery, you're pretty much fucked. Call the tow truck, you're not driving again any time soon.

    Top Gear has never shown every single lap a car would drive before it went dry, because it's TV and that would be boring to watch. They never claimed the range would be any less than what Tesla's engineers calculated it would be -- yeah, they actually simply *assumed Tesla was right* about the range.

  • Re:I'm a skeptic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:37PM (#42898449) Homepage

    And do you remember what the OTHER cars were like in 1971? The Vega well could have been the best of the lot.

  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rostin ( 691447 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:48PM (#42898665)
    The key phrase there is "as much." It turns out that conservatives edge out liberals in their support of censorship by a fairly narrow margin []. In my experience, there's also a big difference between the types of ideological control that the two groups would enact, with liberals being more commonly in favor of, for example, odious "hate speech" laws and compulsory "diversity" training.
  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chilenexus ( 2660641 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @02:50PM (#42898697)
    He has already published at least one article decrying the poor state of technology and performance of electric cars - why would he write an article that contradicts his already published opinion with pesky real facts? He's got a point to make, dammit!
  • by msauve ( 701917 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @03:02PM (#42898927)
    "like I95 a whopping 5 cars an hour can fully charge"

    When you see 5 Teslas on the road in an hour, let us know.
  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elfprince13 ( 1521333 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @03:08PM (#42899011) Homepage
    "lefties don't like authoritarianism as much" Say what? Authoritarianism is a whole different spectrum from left/right. Communist dictatorships are as lefty as left can be. They're also authoritarian up the wazoo. Fascist dictatorships are as righty as right can be and also authoritarian up the wazoo. And on the other hand, you have anarchists on both sides - radical individualist righty anarchists, and radical collectivist nobody-owns-anything lefty anarchists.
  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ( 660144 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @03:10PM (#42899045) Homepage

    Anyone who can watch 5 minutes of Top Gear without realising it is a sitcom couldn't afford a Tesla anyway.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14, 2013 @03:10PM (#42899069)

    So, he showed the Tesla can be run flat in 15-20 mins, and he did the same with a petrol car, and somehow that is inconsistent? Sounds like he treated the Tesla the same as any other, and the pointed out the downside is it can't be refuelled easily when that happens.

  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by h4rr4r ( 612664 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @03:16PM (#42899173)

    Read your own article.

    âoeAlthough Tesla say it will do 200 miles we have worked out that on our track it will run out after just 55 miles and if it does run out, it is not a quick job to charge it up again,â Clarkson said in commentary.

    Note the weasel words "calculated", meaning they did not test it.

    Couple of staged shots? They pushed the car back to the garage claiming it ran out of juice. So basically the biggest scene was staged. What part was not staged? A lap or two?

    How is it bullshit to point out when someone fakes something?

  • by geoskd ( 321194 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @03:21PM (#42899279)

    If Tesla is keeping tabs on consumers, then that's definitely a bigger sin than Broder lying through his teeth. Any proof they do this for everyone? I'd be more likely to believe they only do it if you're driving THEIR car which they loaned you for a test drive for you to report truthfully on. Probably not safe to just assume they respect your privacy more than your cell phone company does though.

    There is no bigger danger to democracy than an individual who is tasked with educating the public knowingly falsifying reports. There is a reason in our society that journalists enjoy strong protections under the constitution, but that protection comes with responsibility, and Broder has violated the trust. If the NYT doesn't act, then they are complicit.


  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TCM ( 130219 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @03:28PM (#42899433)

    Yeah, those pesky facts and how they bully the liars. Burn facts!


  • Re:Broder response (Score:4, Insightful)

    by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @03:29PM (#42899465) Homepage Journal
    No, that was written two days ago in response to Musk's original (tweeted) criticism of the article.
  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by h4rr4r ( 612664 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @03:32PM (#42899529)

    No, they did not. []
    1. We never said that the Teslaâ(TM)s true range is only 55 miles, as opposed to their own claim of 211 [Autopia: Actually, Tesla claims 245 for the Roadster], or that it had actually ran out of charge. In the film our actual words were: âoeWe calculated that on our track it would run out after 55 miles.â The first point here is that the track is where we do our tests of sports cars and supercars, as has happened ever since Top Gear existed. This is where cars are driven fast and hard, and since Tesla calls its roadster âoeThe Supercar. Redefinedâ it seemed pretty logical to us that the right test was a track test. The second point is that the figure of 55 miles came not from our heads, but from Teslaâ(TM)s boffins in California. They looked at the data from that car and calculated that, driven hard on our track, it would have a range of 55 miles.

    Reputable? Top Gear? Are you high? Have your seen the India special? I love the show, but it is fake as hell.

    Tesla might be exaggerating the milage that is no reason others should be going to the other extreme.

  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Maritz ( 1829006 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @03:35PM (#42899581)
    Cute. Americans thinking any of their media is 'lefty' is hilarious to the rest of the world.
  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @03:41PM (#42899667)

    Top Gear implicitly presents themselves as reviewers.

    People do take it seriously.

    And they race sports cars against people on bicycles and bobsleds. Play conkers with caravans. Build their own boat-cars. And launch rocket powered cars off of ski lifts...

    They put cars through absurd challenges, the scoring is completely arbitrary and they usually cheat.

    They negatively review the Porsche Cayman because "people who drive it know its because they can't afford a 911". They rated the Ford GT 'seriously uncool' simply because one of them owns one. They dislike french cars for being french, American cars for being built for Americans, and if a Ferrari breaks down on the show, all is forgiven because you don't buy a Ferrari for reliability anyway...

    Its a great show, and I enjoy it tremendously.

    But you have to watch it the way one watches The Daily Show or The Colbert Report; in that there is a great deal of truth and even insight on display if you know how to recognize it, but if you take it too seriously you are just going to make a complete ass of yourself.

  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @03:53PM (#42899863)

    Why are so many people so willing to accept "rampant left bias" but refuse to see the rampant corporate bias?

    Maybe it has something to do with who is complaining. Here's a simplified theory:

    Conservatives, by definition, want to conserve the status quo. So they are not going to be happy about news reporting on any changes.

    Progressives, by definition, want to see a change in the status quo. So any reporting on the way things are is nothing new to them - they wouldn't be progressives if they didn't already think the status quo sucked.

    So you get one group getting their views challenged and another getting their views reinforced. Seems plausible that the one getting their views challenged would be motivated to find allternate explanations that don't conflict with their world view.

  • by holmstar ( 1388267 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @03:55PM (#42899907)
    I'm pretty sure that you would question the test regardless.
  • Re:Pathetic. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by chrismcb ( 983081 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @09:24PM (#42904683) Homepage

    I think that tracking that deeply is an invasion of privacy.... although it's a double-edged sword at this rate.

    Invasion of whose privacy? The reporter was reviewing/testing a car that belongs to Tesla. It wasn't the reporters car. Most companies that lend out product to be reviewed and tested log a TON of data.
    This wasn't some private individual out in about in his own vehicle.

"If you lived today as if it were your last, you'd buy up a box of rockets and fire them all off, wouldn't you?" -- Garrison Keillor