Elon Musk’s misguided attack on New York Times (dubdux.tumblr.com)
In essence, Elon Musk doesn’t think the New York Times author went far enough out of his way to make sure the car succeeded. (In fact, the author made way more concessions than a normal user would. He drove under the speed limit. He let the cabin temperature drop. He called Tesla HQ for tips and triage recharging locations. I wouldn’t have done any of that.)
51 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 37.0 ms ] threadIf I woke up in the morning and went to my car to drive to work and I found I didn't have enough mileage - despite it having twice as much as I needed the night before - I'd be pretty annoyed. Yes, everyone says that you should leave the car plugged in over-night, but it's such a different way of working with cars and something which feels like it shouldn't be required, which I think makes people a little unsure about buying electric cars.
Also living on the east coast (near DC suburbs) and having made a similar road trip to NYC many times, i cant remember the last time i did not spend 1 hour + at a rest stop to eat. refuel, relax, pee, etc.
What car do you drive that does 500+ miles per fill up? My civic will do maybe 450 miles of only highway driving on a 13 gallon tank, and my E350 will do barely 400 on an 18 gallon fill up.
Hmm, every car I've owned so far?
Renault Megane (1996)
Renault Clio (2009)
Volkswagen Scirocco (2012)
Besides, you're completely missing the point anyway.
The two main problems that electric cars have are a) image: it's simply not cool to have an electric car. To the majority of people, they're seen as an expensive compromise done to save Gaia and b) they don't offer any obvious functions not achievable by ICE.
Electric cars need metaphorical angry birds and social media apps if they're going to smash ICEs the way smartphones did dumb phones.
At the moment for someone who just needs a car, a $10,000 used vehicle is a pretty clear win on value.
I ski most weekends which is ~350 miles of driving and plugging in the car really isn't a huge deal. I did it when I had a diesel with an engine block warmer.
The exception receiving so much focus is kind of baffling. People seem really invested in finding faults with electric vehicles.
If you are travelling long distance in a gas car, do you put in just enough gas to get to the next station? Hell no, you fill that sucker up.
It takes longer to charge a car than it does to put in gas. Duh, we all know that. If anything having to wait an hour between charges is a great opportunity for restaurants and shopping centers.
For example, even 5 years ago I remember friends telling me that laptops will never replace a PC for them, because they are "too weak" performance wise. What do they use now 100% of the time? Laptops. I also remember how virtually everyone I talked to in the first year of the iPhone or so told me that the iPhone is an "inferior" phone because of its lack of good "good specs". The first iPhone had only 2 MP camera while mainstream ones already had 3 MP cameras, no video recording, and much smaller battery life than other "smartphones" at the time, and I think we all remember how much of a big deal the lack of MMS was made to be.
I also remember just a couple of years ago people saying how the ARM chips are just too slow and can't possibly compete with Intel in a consumer product. Now, even people on HN are saying that Tegra 4 is "too fast"/has too much performance that is not needed.
So my point is that if you're saying stuff like that about Tesla right now, you're probably not going to be one of the early adopters, but one from the early majority or late majority [1].
For the early adopters it's not going to matter that it takes hours to charge the car fully (mostly at night for them, so they won't consider it such a big issue), or 30 minutes to charge half of it. It's also not going to matter that they can't find charger for hundreds of miles at a time right now. For them it's all about "living the future now" and the potential of the technology. You know how they say that the future is already here, just not evenly distributed? Well they aren't the type of people that wait until it's "evenly distributed". They are the pioneer customers.
For early adopters it also won't matter that the car is still quite expensive right now, and doesn't have a "mainstream price". Also early adopters are not exactly known as the "pragmatic" type.
Now the early majority people, are quite the opposite (which is why the "chasm" can exist, because they have almost nothing in common in terms of how they look at technology, so an early majority guy, also known as a "pragmatist" won't use the early adopter that much for reference. They will look at the situation in a very pragmatic way. "Can I charge the car fast? Does it cost a reasonable amount of money? Can I charge it pretty much everywhere I want? How reliable is it? I don't want to be a 'beta' tester". These are the type of questions he's asking himself. You're probably in this group.
And the late majority customers or the "conservatives", are the people who will buy electric cars after they are almost dirt cheap, after almost everyone they know has one, after all the "issues" of electric cars have been fixed, and they are at least "good enough" for evertyhing they need, and from their point of view, at least as good as gas-powered cars. They won't buy them until all those criterias are met.
I think it's important to identify people like this, especially as the founder of the disruptive company, so you don't necessarily take the criticism as "maybe I'm just not doing something good here", but as a "these people are just not ready for it yet". And it's important to identify this so you don't immediately think that just because there's a lot of criticism in the beginning, it means it will fail. Of course even disruptive technologies can fail, but if they keep the early adopters happy, and keep improving it until it becomes good enough for the rest of the market, then it should be fine.
There are already chargers that charge in 5 minutes I believe, but they might be too expensive right now. It's only a matter of time before Tesla and ot...
I think Tesla is actually trying to be disruptive from above, which is a perfectly reasonable strategy. Unfortunately, to be disruptive from above you have to be better than the existing tech, because you have to justify the premium price.
I may be nitpicking here, however. I completely agree with your point on how to take and evaluate criticism.
I've always hated Ayn Rand's writing but he's probably the closest thing to a Galt-like hero.
Everybody can take in the info if they're interested and decide for themselves.
Having said that, 90% of the comments in this thread repeat arguments beaten to death and beyond before.
Very untrue. From the beginning, a lot of people found fault in Musk's twitter and CNBC performances, and its clear in ensuing discussion here and elsewhere that people who initially sided with Musk are adjusting their views based on the blog post and the NYT defense.
This isn't to say that there aren't Elon evangelists, but the response wasn't as uniform as the visceral reaction to SOPA
But yes, I am certain I am not the only person to see that Elon was exaggerating when he called the article "fake."
On twitter, for instance, you are most likely seeing tweets from popular people (which is not really representative). On reddit and HN the position on the page isn't representative of the pool's view.
I brought up the same problem in the thread regarding HN hiding stories: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5226147
I don't disagree with what you are saying in general but I am refuting the claim about the quantity. My complaint is really with the algorithm used to determine what shows up at the top here.
Hell, why even bother charging for 46 minutes? Charge it for however long you estimate it takes you to fill up the gas in your other car, and complain when the car runs out then, too.
Not a good piece at all; can't say whether that reflects on the author too or this is just him/her being mindkilled over, of all things, charging time.
Maybe a 58 minute charge at the last leg would've spared him the tow. But how could he have known? He had 125 miles to drive. He took the car to 185 miles of battery power.
There are a lot of factors in driving range. Tesla should be more conservative on their estimates, but realistically you don't fill a car just enough to get to the next station. And you definitely don't ignore low fuel warnings (even if you should have gotten a longer range.)
I'm not saying Tesla is perfect, but I do believe the NYT author wrote the article to make the car look bad to the average reader.
- Early guy looking at a Ford T1 and passing on the potential of the combustion engine?
I don't find the original article damning for the Model S- it just shows that the range is definitely affected by the cold, and that there are some additional factors that need to be considered that are different from gas engines. Any person who is considering an electric car should take those factors into account- for some they will be dealbreakers, and others they won't.
All other EVs that I know of shut off the battery contactors when the car is keyed off, and rely on a 12 V SLI battery (usually lead-acid) to support the vehicle when the power is off. The roadster did not do this, which is explained in Tesla's BMS documentation [1]. This means that any quiescent current consumed by the 12 V system will drain the main battery pack.
[1] http://webarchive.teslamotors.com/display_data/TeslaRoadster...