3 ms·

I don't think 'largely factual' is largely factual. The difference between this review and the NYT one is night and day. Omissions, misrepresentation and tone m

• jrockway 14y ago
  The question here is whether or not you should be an expert to review a car: the author of the Times article did seem confused about some aspects of the car that would not be confusing to an experienced user. Making matters worse were the weather conditions that are extremely unforgiving to an electric car. So while I wouldn't call it a perfect review, the points it made were relevant. You can't expect people to change cabin temperature settings to be uncomfortable, drive 45mph on the freeway, not drive when it's cold out, and to know the nuances of the car's range estimator. (If the range display says "0 miles", it's reasonable to assume that the battery is dead.) Remember: the car mostly worked fine, which is a huge coup for electric cars. The article emphasizes the negatives, but the negatives are all things that can be fixed -- many with a simple software upgrade. So on that note, I don't think the review was particularly bad, and I certainly don't think the Times was compensated to make the car look bad, as Musk accuses. (The article is also a good human factors and UI case study. When customer service and an electronic read-out disagree, one implicitly trusts the read-out more. It happens to airline pilots, too.)