[pbecotte]

Guessing you didn't read the article? This article is saying that when Tesla made those complaints, Edmunds reran the test the way that Tesla suggested and got the following results. Sure, maybe its not a big deal that the cars come up a few miles short of the advertised range under these conditions, but the Tesla ones were the _only_ ones to do so, which is at least interesting.

[justina1]

It would be a very interesting result if it were a controlled test in any way. Tell me, how do you test two cars in real-world driving conditions when one care goes 100 miles further than the other? The longer range car must go through more 'real world' than the other, right? Is Edmunds going on a 10 mile identical loop in identical weather again and again, or did they extend their existing circuit? I guess we'll never know.

Also, they "re-ran" the test? The went from real-world, to a test track, and then _only_ released the results of the 'buffer' range. Then they "re-ran" again but with just two of the cars. Then, they only shared the results for one of the cars they tested (noticeably missing is the data from the other car) calling it "validation" of their results.

You have to at least agree that not releasing the full data on their results is suspicious, no? It seems like they got caught with bad data and a hyperbolic headline ("Every Tesla we've tested has failed to hit its EPA range estimate") and then rushed to find any data that would help confirm their results. That's confirmation bias if I've ever seen it.