[cryptoz]

This article doesn't back itself up. Claims are labelled as 'False' and the evidence presented is 'Google Maps says so'.

Maybe Musk's data doesn't add up (I doubt it). If that's the case, present something other than 'I plotted a route in Google Maps and it said 500. QED.'

[arrrg]

Uhm … what do you expect?

I thought this was all pretty convincing. What are your complaints?! I really don’t get it. How would you suggest measuring distance? Is Google Maps really not a good tool for doing so? Plus, Google Maps wasn’t really the centerpiece here, for any argument.

[stcredzero]

This "defense" basically amounts to: See, Broder didn't lie, he exaggerated. That, and the things Broder did to try and get stranded were fair game.

In that, they are making valid points, supported by facts. That it's the best they can do is telling. I look forward to replication attempts.

[arrrg]

You and your weird wishes for replication. Not gonna help.

Plus, your framing is completely out of whack. You charge in there with your preconceived notions.

As far as I can see, the only thing weird or unusual in the data is the speed. It’s not at 54 mph, it’s higher. That’s pretty inexcusable in itself.

The rest seem like total non-issues to me. He never said he turned the temperature down at exactly mile so–and–so. The drop in estimated mileage from 90 to 45 actually happened (plus he is not contradicted by Tesla in his claim that customer support told him just driving even if the estimated range is so low would be ok). He did slow down to 45 mph. The explanation of being unable to find the charging stations and circling around is completely coherent and makes lots of sense. (Have you seen photos of those charging stations? They are pretty small.)

So, the speed is the only issue here. We can ignore all the rest as FUD from Musk. Sad, really.

[stcredzero]

> You and your weird wishes for replication.

The fact that you find replication weird, is weird. It would give me pause if I were in any empirically based project.

[arrrg]

There is nothing wrong with replication, it’s just that it’s wholly unable to clear anything up in this case.

The main important points of contention aren’t even disagreed over here. Those you could figure out by replication.

It’s the interpretation of those results that’s the sticking point here.

Some details that cannot be replicated are also disagreed on (heat, circling in parking lot, …), but replication won’t help you find out which is the correct interpretation.

[stcredzero]

> There is nothing wrong with replication, it’s just that it’s wholly unable to clear anything up in this case.

Sorry, but not only John Broder's intentions are in question here. If a bunch of other journalists replicate the trip, but come out with results more in line with Tesla's view, then this calls into question Broder's accuracy, intent or no.

You know, there's an empirical context underlying everything here.

[RyanZAG]

I don't really understand your point.

If someone takes the same car and follows the same route and gets the same results, then it's going to prove the reviewer correct. If repeating the trip by someone else who isn't trying to wreck the car gives different results, then that is very much a valid point here.

[dfxm12]

Exaggerations have no purpose in this type of journalism. This wasn't an opinion piece...

Yes, the author can write whatever the author pleases, but it is unethical to not print the truth and it is not unreasonable for readers (and Tesla) to expect the truth (and not exaggeration).