mmarshall

I don't quite follow you here. In a gas or diesel-powered car, if you run of fuel, it's no different from running out of charge in a battery. You're stuck either way (and you can't drive to the nearest station)....unless somebody either brings you a gallon of fuel or a portable-charger for the battery.

bagwell

I'm sure there's 100X more regular ole electrical 110v outlets than gas stations in the USA...

My0gr81

You do, then report it accurately in the review, don't make it look like it didn't meet expectations. Which is,I think, what the whole hoopla is about.

Vladi

Conclusion to the story

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most...iar-test-drive

Driving circles in the parking lot? Wow... Slow news day at NYT uh?

spwolf

tesla superchargers are 240 miles apart on east cost.

spwolf

yes but it takes 48hrs to recharge from 110v :-)

My0gr81

If the NYT reporter actually did what Tesla says he did, drive around in circles in the parking lot, then the NYT should issue a retraction on the story. Considering what happened to Tesla's stock price, they may have a case for suing for damages:


http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/def...rticlemap0.jpg

spwolf

I guess you shouldnt drive your car on parking lots, and you should not drive it at 70 MPH :-).

this will get just worse for Tesla... there is a reason that Toyota is paying 1 billion to settle lawsuits that werent their fault.

My0gr81

The point is that it was driven around in CIRCLES in the parking lot with the clear intent to make it run out of power. It was also driven at 70mph when it was REPORTED to have been at 50mph. Why would the reporter feel the need to misrepresents the facts if there was no ulterior motive or agenda?

While it is true that Tesla may be better off letting this story die, the fact that it had material impact on their stock price and their reputation, they would be irresponsible to let the NYT get away with it. Toyota has the cash reserves to pay it out, Tesla doesn't. Toyota has the history and reputational strenght to endure a few bad publicity events, Tesla doesn't, yet, and they won't get a chance if they let stories like this go out unchallenged.

I couldn't give a damn about Tesla, but based on the story in the NYT and the retort by Tesla, it is clear that NYT owes an explanation on what actually happened.

bagwell

to 100% yes.

spwolf

it was driven on parking lot for 5 minutes... 5 minutes... not 500 minutes.

as to the 70mph, are you going to be driving your 100k sports sedan 45 mph to get maximum mileage? Its 70mph, not 130 mph.

moral of the story - when they read above, people will be vary... moral of the story, your mileage in ev will vary. moral of the story - you dont run successful business by attacking journalists and calling them names.

Allen K

iTrader: (4)

Not so much you should't drive under those conditions, but more you shouldn't try to misrepresent facts to swing the story in your favor Data recordings are pretty damning to the picture that the reporter was attempting to paint

spwolf

well full is 260 miles... without tesla super chargers, it is really pointless to have this car... even with tesla super chargers, it takes 100 minutes to charge to 260 miles.

i like tesla and would like to own one... but people need to realize few things and Musk needs to grow up.

My0gr81

I guess we need to move this in the debate forum. Nobody is disputing the facts that one should be able to drive their cars around in circles in the parking lot, or at high speeds. Heck, I do this with my car too. What is in question is the integrity of the reporter from NYT to represents the facts as they were instead of trying to misrepresent them to embelish his story or worse, further his agenda. Technically, if you don't attack journalists that tarnish your name, then you become an open target. It is best for Tesla to set the stage now.

BTW, for some companies, Reputational Risk is a Key risk reported at the Board of Director level. They have a zero tolerance policy on any negative story and they pursue anyone that "without proof or corroborating facts" tarnishes their reputation to the fullest extent of the law. They have to, they can't afford not to.

<VENOM>

260 is more then enough, people who buy this car are the same ones buying cars they really don't need and never letting the needle drop below half a tank