• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Elon Musk Vs. John Broder of NYTimes

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Not surprised to hear a big oil honk try to deflate accolades stemming from clean energy. Unfortunately, this is the society we live in. Big money can suppress a lot. What irks me is that clean energy is clearly something we need to keep pushing for as we can't depend on oil forever. Big oil wants us to depend on it forever, regardless of what the ramifications of having no oil left means. Great stuff that Musk had the facts from the vehicle to support his side of the argument. Fucking tool.


Here's the thing: they're both right & they're both wrong (they being Musk and Broder). The technology is brilliant and it is a game changer. Musk is the very type of innovator to pave the way for breakthroughs in technology. He's not some nameless person, working out of a basement, creating a water-run engine (not discrediting Stanley Meyer, as he was brilliant, but he wasn't as well known or as well funded as Musk is). So to discredit Tesla because it's essentially in the birth stage of the product life cycle is asinine.

However, Musk has to know that it is Broder's job to be 100% objective, even if Broder was not (not saying he wasn't, but those logs look damning). Point being, if you're going to throw the new Tesla S out there, you have to be aware of the negatives and the corresponding feedback. What Broder reported isn't new news: Musk has stated that they need a lot more charging stations. Again, one of his goals, along with making these cars much more affordable and for the charge to last longer, is to get them lined up across the U.S.

The biggest issue I have is the conflict of interest with Broder. Let's say he did do this test drive with an awesome, unbiased attitude. It doesn't matter because of the columns he's linked to. Bad job on Broder for accepting the assignment, worse job on NYTimes for assigning him (this is, unless, Musk handpicked him).
 
Damage,

It's not about "being a dumbfuck." It's about having a product that deserves mass consumption.

I'm in support of clean energy 100%. But I also recognize that old (read oil) habits die hard and that if you want to bring a successful product to the marketplace for mass consumption, it needs to be not only more effective but more convenient too.

When a car is brought to the market that doesn't require an hour of downtime in order to charge, then we're past this argument.

Pioneers get slaughtered, settlers prosper. Tesla's the pioneer and they themselves have admitted their producy is impractical. I'm sure there's future settlers out there in the laboratory right now working on something more convenient.

What Tesla is doing is noble, but they're most likely going to be a failed company that a successful company learns from or just provide partnerships with larger companies, which they are doing now.

Lol. You do realize how much money Elon Musk has. You do realize this car, this concept, and more importantly, this company has been championed by almost everyone. There's a reason TSLA is getting AAPL stock level buzz (well, before hedge funds decided to sell their shares of AAPL and make a killing while killing everyone else, me included lol)

Shut up.
 
Just because he has money doesn't mean ALL of his companies are going to succeed. If it tanks, is he just going to keep pumping money into a failed business? If people aren't buying it because it's impractical, does he just keep throwing money at the problem? I just don't see enough success in the near future to sustain it. Long term, the technology should be great once it's practical enough to actually be...uh...driven. But for now, it seems doomed to fail.

For an entrepeneur with an MBA, your lack of business sense is astounding at times...
 
Last edited:
Just because he has money doesn't mean ALL of his companies are going to succeed. If it tanks, is he just going to keep pumping money into a failed business?

If people aren't buying it because it's impractical, does he just keep throwing money at the problem?

I just don't see enough success in the near future to sustain it. Long term, the technology should be great once it's practical enough to actually be...uh...driven. But for now, it seems doomed to fail.

For an entrepeneur with an MBA, your lack of business sense is astounding at times...


:chuckles:

He has more money than god. And this isn't a failed business. Read up on them and the future growth potential (low and high multipliers). Again, we all know the prices are not economical for everyone. As the price decreases and the driving range(s) increase, it's going to explode (because let's face it: Prius's, while noble and awesome for the environment, look more butch than Subaru's).

EDIT: Explain to me why you think it's "doomed to fail"? How can't it be driven? 300 miles isn't a lot for your average commuter, twinkle toes.
 

Yeah, you didn't understand my question. I understand how regenerative breaking works, which is why I asked the question in the first place. Please reread my question.

Unless the guy starts his car from the top of a mountain to take advantage of gravitational forces, you're not going to create new energy with regenerative braking. You're going to save some of the energy you would normally waste when you're braking, but if you don't need to brake at all, like you're trying to get somewhere, it's actually wasteful to speed up and slow down.

If you're out of juice and you need to get to point B, accelerating and braking is going to decrease your chances of getting there. I'm very doubtful that anybody from Tesla Motors gave this guy that advice, and if they did they were completely incompetent, to the point of shooting their own company selves in the foot.

If it worked as you seem to be implying by linking me to this post (it doesn't answer my question though), or the way the writer's implying or advice giver from Tesla is implying (I really don't think they said that), then the world's energy problems would be solved. You'd never have to charge this car if that process created net energy. You could drive across the country by speeding up and slowing down, and I'm fairly certain that's not the case. Tesla Motors might mention it if it were, as they'd be instant zillionaires.

Anybody who wants to investigate the overall truth of this story needs to focus on this part of the article. They need to find out who gave this guy that advice (if he didn't make it up) and hold their feet to the fire. Maybe it's bad customer service, but it's hard to believe somebody would take such an amateur idea and claim it to be the company line in how to deal with the problem of running out of power. I'm guessing they won't find that person, because if they did then they will have found the person who will win the next nobel prize in physics. I'm not holding my breath.

If the driver was doing this, speeding up and slowing down, even with regenerative braking, he was the cause of his own loss of power, or somebody gave him advice that amounts to sabotage of what this experiment was supposed to be about. Ask any person with a degree in physics and they'll tell you the same thing. Promise.

Find the person that answered that phone to crack this case wide open. Up until now it's just a he said she said. Either that guy was given counterproductive advice or he wasn't. I bet they never find the person who told him that, but if they do, if that person exists, they won't be working there anymore after this.
 
He said the names of two people that recommended he do it while he was driving. Did they dispute they told him this?
 
Apparently they (Tesla personnel) did refute something, according to the article. I just reread it.

"I was given battery-conservation advice at that time (turn off the cruise control; alternately slow down and speed up to take advantage of regenerative braking) that was later contradicted by other Tesla personnel."

I don't think we ever got the names of who gave him that particular advice.
 
Musk has refuted most of this, but whatever, Side with Big Oil (shocker).

EDIT: that was suppose to come off as jovial but I realized it didn't. What bothers me still is that you're taking this guys article as fact, when Musk has actual facts that support his claims.Not saying either side is right or wrong, but it doesn't appear as if Broder is being 100% honest.

Anyways, there's no denying that the technology is awesome and Musk is a great person to have pioneering our future. He knows this is in an early test form. However, if you look at Broder's literature, something you did fail to bring up, he is very much in favor of oil. Maybe that had nothing to do with his write up, maybe it had everything to do with it. Point is he is disingenuous at the very least and in someone's pocket at the very worst.

Could my post have been any more benign? All i did was post Broder's reply and said after reading both sides that it doesn't sound as sinister as your original post. I didn't take either article as fact. You clearly took Musk's side as fact based on the way you pounced on Broder. There's three sides to every story. I'm guessing they're both fibbing to a certain extent and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

What's undeniable is that Musk has always been a prick....a smart rich prick, but a prick. He reinforced that in his reponses to the article. The car underperformed by 20% after every charge. It lost it's charge overnight. It obviously has software issues that don't compensate for cold temps. An electric parking brake in an electric car? Musk should have stepped up and admitted his product's shortcomings and addressed the data issue with Broder. Instead he got upset like he always does and yelled sabotage. As a result all he is getting is bad publicity....stupid, stupid, stupid.

I love technology and I love alternative energy....i just hate when every person that owns a company with a green product thinks that a market should be gift wrapped(WITH MY TAX DOLLARS) and handed to them before the product is ready. Electric motors are very reliable and efficient. Unfortunately no batteries exist that are reliable and efficient.


On a side note, I'd like to see our government offer rewards for certain accomplishments.
Offer a massive reward to the first company to come up with a mass producable alternative energy solutions, efficient batteries, cure for cancer/diabetes, etc.
 
I don't think Tesla has the right approach for electric cars. You don't need to start with expensive cars that are designed to make long trips that most people only take a few times/year, instead start with cars like this:

2012SmartFortwoElectricDrive-1-626x382.jpg


has a range of 68 miles and charges overnight by just plugging it into the outlet already in your garage. Seats two, appears to have a little bit of trunk space. Perfect for typical daily commutes. Just $25,000 before a $7500 tax credit.

http://www.smartusa.com/models/electric-drive/overview.aspx

Most families could replace one of their cars with something like that and keep their other car for longer drives and vacations and dramatically decrease their gas usage.
 
He said the names of two people that recommended he do it while he was driving. Did they dispute they told him this?

if they did tell him this, they failed physics. If he made up the advice, he failed physics.
 
:chuckles:

He has more money than god. And this isn't a failed business. Read up on them and the future growth potential (low and high multipliers). Again, we all know the prices are not economical for everyone. As the price decreases and the driving range(s) increase, it's going to explode (because let's face it: Prius's, while noble and awesome for the environment, look more butch than Subaru's).

EDIT: Explain to me why you think it's "doomed to fail"? How can't it be driven? 300 miles isn't a lot for your average commuter, twinkle toes.

If a product sucks, it sucks. Even if someone has more money than God, they're not just going to run at a deficit for years. Business isn't the government. Yeah, he's got other toys and other methods of income, but if it starts to tank...why would he keep feeding it?

I answered your edit question several times in my posts in this thread, but I'll feed into your "repeat yourself while I scramble for a response" debate tactic just to humor you. I think it's doomed to fail because of the battery. If Tesla's battery can be fixed before the company starts bleeding, then you probably have a successful business based on providing an efficient AND convenient car. If someone else develops a better car with a better battery while he's waiting to improve his own, oops! Clock is ticking, because I'm sure they're not running the business for free and I'm sure that this scenario and the CEO's reaction isn't going to help sales in what's most definitely only an emerging market.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Tesla has the right approach for electric cars. You don't need to start with expensive cars that are designed to make long trips that most people only take a few times/year, instead start with cars like this:

2012SmartFortwoElectricDrive-1-626x382.jpg


has a range of 68 miles and charges overnight by just plugging it into the outlet already in your garage. Seats two, appears to have a little bit of trunk space. Perfect for typical daily commutes. Just $25,000 before a $7500 tax credit.

http://www.smartusa.com/models/electric-drive/overview.aspx

Most families could replace one of their cars with something like that and keep their other car for longer drives and vacations and dramatically decrease their gas usage.

I agree with your approach, but that thing right there is a death trap. I wouldn't let anyone i care about drive that thing. It would have a hard time winning a collision with a golf cart. :chuckles:
 
I agree with your approach, but that thing right there is a death trap. I wouldn't let anyone i care about drive that thing. It would have a hard time winning a collision with a golf cart. :chuckles:

I was about to say the same thing. One time when liberal and conservative agree 100%.
 
Yeah, you didn't understand my question. I understand how regenerative breaking works, which is why I asked the question in the first place. Please reread my question.
Idk, im not an expert obviously. Im not very interested in getting into a long discussion on physics though. Of course energy is not created, but the point is that the kinetic energy is used to drive the motor, which has the same structure as a generator, creating charge. Of course it takes charge to drive the motor to speed up and theres no way to completely convert the kinetic energy, which I guess is kind of a restatement of the article, but I suppose you are correct in that it would be counterproductive.

Anyways, I'm more interested in which side is telling the truth in this whole debacle.
 
Damage strikes again...

But seriously, you have to charge the thing for AN HOUR every time you need to stop along your route? What a massive waste of time. God forbid you need to be somewhere on time and the stupid thing isn't charged.


Technology seems cool, but practicality hasn't caught up yet.

What's wrong with charging the thing for an hour and stopping to get a bite to eat? Other then that, piss in a bottle.

In a car you have to stop and fill anyways. And how many people travel its max amount of miles in a single day (excluding truck drivers, taxi & deliverers)?

I don't think Tesla has the right approach for electric cars. You don't need to start with expensive cars that are designed to make long trips that most people only take a few times/year, instead start with cars like this:

2012SmartFortwoElectricDrive-1-626x382.jpg


has a range of 68 miles and charges overnight by just plugging it into the outlet already in your garage. Seats two, appears to have a little bit of trunk space. Perfect for typical daily commutes. Just $25,000 before a $7500 tax credit.

http://www.smartusa.com/models/electric-drive/overview.aspx

Most families could replace one of their cars with something like that and keep their other car for longer drives and vacations and dramatically decrease their gas usage.

That car is ugly as sin.
 
Last edited:

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top