Tesla Driving Logs Contradict New York Times Claims

I expected this (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5209596). A few days ago when I read Musk's claim that the computer log contradicted Broder, I realized Musk would have to be crazy to make claims that might later be contradicted by the computer records, and therefore his account was likely to be true.

And it seems it is. Apparently the desire to tell a damning story about the Tesla is overwhelming, as it was in an earlier case that resulted in Musk's decision to turn on logging for media-driven cars. This time the log has prevented a classic "he said, she said" controversy.

The Tesla might have problems in cold climates, the special charging stations might be too far apart for convenient wintertime operations (as Musk has acknowledged), but according to this result, the Broder account isn't a useful evaluation of the car.

What a position Tesla Motors is in. If you only allow friends of the technology to evaluate the car, the reports aren't meaningful or useful, but if you let a "neutral" party perform an evaluation, the wish to report something "interesting" is apparently irresistible.

Ten or twenty years from now, when battery technology has greatly improved, this might all seem like a tempest in a teapot, but at the moment, without computer logging, a few unchallenged reports like Border's could destroy Tesla's chance to produce an early example of a promising new technology.