Quick recap of what's going on here: 1. Elon Musk, owner of Tesla Motors (and many other things that make him a billionaire) had his car, the Tesla S, a clean battery powered car, test driven by NYTimes writer John Broder. One of Musk's main goals is to get Tesla charging stations across the U.S. (there are many on the east coast). 2. Broder test drove the car from Boston to DC. Suffice to say, it didn't go well, per his accounts - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html?ref=automobiles&_r=1& In a nut shell, Broder is asserting that the Tesla S doesn't give you as great of a performance as Musk claims, that the car ran out of battery power ("ran short of it's projected range on its final leg"), that the charge time was much longer than anticipated, that he had to set his cruise control to 54 (in a 65MPH hwy), that he had to turn his Temperature down to 64, eventually culminated with the Tesla S stalling out and needing a flatbed. This is not good news for Tesla and it's shareholders, who could revolutionize the auto industry and eliminate our need for oil and who also received car of the year awards from many independent publications. But here is why it gets interesting 1. Broder isn't the NYTimes main car writer. While this may (or may not) matter at face value, it does when he is one of their oil industry reporters (90% of his articles are about Oil - http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refer.../b/john_m_broder/index.html?offset=0&s=newest) 2. After his article was published, Tesla's stock dropped But thankfully science prevails. Behold - Tesla's car log's (http://www.slashgear.com/tesla-tears-down-nyt-model-s-review-with-cars-own-logs-14269310/) Another source (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...ogs-that-show-the-new-york-times-blatant-lies) The logs show that Broder lied about everything. 1.He turned the heat up, not down, when the automated system told him not to (his avg cabin temp was 72) 2. he passed several charging stations when he was given a warning that his battery was low 3. he drove around in many circles, at the charging station mind you, leading to the battery to die and him needing a flatbed 4. most damning, he disconnected the charge cable when the range displayed 32 miles - even though the final leg of his trip was 61 miles. In other words, he didn't complete his charge. In short, it appears Broder changed the facts of his findings to fill whatever agenda(s) he may have. CNN's car reporters asked to test drive the same car and the same route (*note that the temperature was warmer when the CNN guys did it, which does have an effect on the battery power, but only 12-16%). The result? They made it to Boston with 96 miles to spare with no issues. I want to see these logs as well. Personal note: I loath people who curb technological breakthroughs, especially when they can effect so many people. Sure, Tesla's prices are large (40-100K) - but this is just the start. Prices will drop, and Tesla will make much more affordable cars. Not completing your charge would be akin to saying, "Hey, i get 25 miles a gallon and work is only 23 miles away - I'll only put in 1 gallon and see what happens". It's asinine and, based on Broder's connection to big oil, is pretty despicable. Tesla's stock is up again, but let's assume it didn't (which happens all the time - you get bullshit reports from "analysts" with an agenda that causes a stock to drop - making very few rich and many fucked). Then what? Coming from someone who has worked in the clean energy field, this hits home. And it really pisses me off.