Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Sues BBC's Top Gear For Libel
thecarchik writes "About two years ago BBC's Top Gear aired a test drive of the then relatively new Tesla Roadster. In the particular episode, Tesla Roadsters are depicted as suffering several critical 'breakdowns' during track driving. Host Jeremy Clarkson concludes the episode by saying that in the real world the Roadster 'doesn't seem to work.' Tesla claims that the breakdowns were staged, making most of Top Gear's remarks about the Roadster untrue. Tesla also states that it can prove Top Gear's tests were falsified due to the recordings of its cars' onboard data-loggers. What's Tesla asking for in the lawsuit? Tesla simply wants Top Gear to stop rebroadcasting the particular episode and to correct the record."
This may or may not be an uphill battle for them.
Under track conditions (with one of those jackasses pushing the pedal to the floor), yeah, the mileage on the Tesla is probably going to be atrocious.
As for the rest, not sure who exactly takes Top Gear seriously. It's a fun show, but I don't really look at it for good car facts. Nor should anyone else.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Between all the quadrillion-dollars-demanded-lawsuits and shut-down-everything C&Ds, it's nice to see a lawsuit that simply wants a little justice. No big demands, just a "stop lying about our product" and "say sorry". It even looks like they have a good amount of evidence, unlike many recent suits on /.
Even if they turn out to be wrong, Tesla just got a small point of favor with me for that. It's kind of sad that "not being evil" is noteworthy in a lawsuit nowadays...
Tesla simply wants Top Gear to stop rebroadcasting the particular episode and to correct the record ...and pay them £100,000 in damages
Fixed that for you!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/30/tesla-sue-top-gear
I think Tesla should drive over and deliver the lawsuit to Top Gear in person. Or perhaps they have tried already.....
It irritated me at the time.. they made the thing seem like a poorly-designed money sink that barely worked. It really makes me wonder, though, what would they get out of saying stuff like that if it weren't true? If Tesla has the records and they really did stage breakdowns and dead batteries, to what purpose? It's a show about ridiculously expensive cars that most of us ill never even see, much less drive. Tesla is definitely in that category, and considering the drooling they do over some pretty ridiculous (and ugly) cars.. why pick on them? They made plausible claims, mostly, but the one where they ran out of power after 55 miles I thought was weird. The others (overheating, brakes) could have happened, but there seemed to be a LOT of problems for what is basically a straight-from-the-factory Lotus with an electric drivetrain. (In the show they raced it against a Lotus, you can barely tell the cars apart without looking at the badges).
Anyway, just makes me wonder if they made it seem like crap (assuming Tesla is telling the truth) in order to appease the old-school dream car companies so they'd keep sending them toys to play with, or maybe Tesla was being a pain in the ass and they wanted to tweak them, or if they just thought it's be funnier.
Evil will always win, because Good is DUMB
don't they get it? Clarkson is going to lambast them now, anyone who has ever complained to that show has been ridiculed for months
Tell that to all the people who decline to buy a Tesla because of what they saw on Top Gear...
How we know is more important than what we know.
Topgear is entertainment mixed with factual information. The problem is that the two aren't clearly delineated. Are the challenges scripted as hell? Yes. But other segments can be far more ambiguous. Apparently, I'm crazy for thinking the power-laps and the car reviews weren't scripted in advance, and any problems that crop up legitimately crop up. What Tesla is alleging is no matter how wonderful the car was, Top Gear was going to say it broke. To me, as a viewer, it was definitely not clear the Tesla review was entertainment and not factual.
That said, I still like Top Gear. I'm just going to be way more skeptical about anything they say about a car, ever. Maybe the Morris Marinas is a great car, afterall.
How old are you? 14? Can't you come up with anything new? You must be around 14 because that about the only age range that is still amused by Tub Girl.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Staged? Top Gear always stages things. How else could they compare a Ferrari to a bicycle or a jet plane to a car. It's entertainment, folks. If Tesla thinks that Top Gear unfairly cost them sales then they are just plain stupid.
I watched that episode. IMO they showed the strengths and weaknesses of the car. The idiot, Clarkson, claiming that 55 miles of pedal-to-the-metal driving is "real world" is no more ludicrous than Tesla claiming that their roadster is a competitive sports car.
That Tesla CEO douchebag should just take his lumps and go racing if he thinks he thinks he has the car for it.
This isn't the first group that has gotten upset at Top Gear. They have a pretty long list. The BBC goes to bat for them almost without fail, not surprising since the show has an estimated viewing audience of 350 million worldwide.
It also should be noted that in the episode in question, they also feature a test drive of the Honda FCX Clarity, Honda's hydrogen powered car. And they liked it a lot.
Tell that to all the people who decline to buy a Tesla because of what they saw on Top Gear...
Very few Top Gear viewers have that much disposable income, desire for an all-electric two-seater, and would accept without question what they saw on Top Gear. After all, the Tesla Roadster is a very unique car on today's market; if you wanted one and then changed your mind you would not be able to get a comparable vehicle from Toyota, Ford, Honda, etc ... Or even any of the premium brands for that matter because there is no other two-seater all-electric roadster for sale in the US today.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Both Tesla cars given for testing did NOT ever get below 20% charge.
And the onboard data loggers and battery charge indicators (plus a capacity check after the fact,) will show all of that.
No wonder you posted as AC.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
It is clear from the episode that they were highlighting the issue of charging. 16 hours from a wall socket and a 200 mile range. As noted, it would take days to go from one end of the country to another.
It is a fact therefore, that the car does not really work in any practical sense.
It could only be corrected, by having pre-charged battery packs at every filling station along the route. That would make it just as, or more, expensive than petrol.
considering in TFA they talk of having to constantly answer questions of potential customers that were raised in that very episode...
Entertainment or not, when you claim that a car broke down a lot and it turns out you were lying about it, there's a problem.
We see a lot of this "Oh, we don't have any responsibility because we're entertainment used to excuse a lot of really reprehensible stuff. Whenever some right-wing turd makes fun of a handicapped person or says something really racist or homophobic, it's always "oh we're entertainment" but then they turn around and tell their viewers how they're serious journalists (I've got a list if you really need examples).
You don't get to have a show that gives opinions about products and then say those products broke when they didn't break, no matter how much "fun" you're having.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No shit. They review cars that aren't even and never will be in production, compare/contrast £135,000 sports cars, and then go plow snow in Norway on a combine for fun. If you're taking this shit seriously you are the biggest buffoon.... in the woooorld.
That said, I love watching Top Gear. My DVR usually has at least 6 recorded episodes on it at any given time. For me it may be the single most entertaining show on TV. But I sure as hell wouldn't buy (or pass on) a car simply on what they say about it. I have enjoyed the hell out of cars that they hate; and may never get a chance to drive most of the cars they love.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Any one that watches top gear would have never considered a tesla in the first place considering that you could buy 3 lotus elise's (the car the testa is based on) for the price of one tesla.
The idiot, Clarkson, claiming that 55 miles of pedal-to-the-metal driving is "real world" is no more ludicrous than Tesla claiming that their roadster is a competitive sports car.
Fairly sure clarkson never claimed that, he did claim (correctly) that a real world problem is that it would take days (given 16hour charge time and ~200 mile range) to cross the country.
Tesla is about to learn a very hard lesson about Top Gear. Just from a clout standpoint...they've got to *think* real hard about this move. Top Gear has more clout in the auto industry than anything short of gasoline. Bugatti/Audi/VW/etc let all three hosts drive the Veyron and even Captain Slow took the thing to 250+ mph on a $2millionUSD(to buy)/$5millionUSD(to build, they take a huge loss) car. You don't do that with people-with-no-influence, no matter how good their insurers are. Top Gear also regularly rakes much bigger auto manufacturers over the coals when they don't play by Clarkson's rules.
In a recent episode, Bentley (iirc) refused to lend a car for a road test segment Top Gear did in Albania. In it's place they bought a dirt old Yugo for probably on the low side of $500 and proceeded to call it a Bentley for the rest of the segment, piling on withering criticism the entire time. Chrysler refused to provide a test vehicle for a trip to Bonneville, so Top Gear just went and *bought one* (charger)....and proceeded to make fun of Dodge the rest of the show.
Tesla is about to find out what it's like to be the heckler in a club with a good comedian. Think Ru Paul v. Milton Berle. Are they gonna get high fives from their buddies or is Don Rickles about to tear this company a new asshole?
But when they do review 'everyman' cars, they do a great job. Now I know I can drive a Fiesta off of a Royal Marine landing craft on to a beach with a contingent of Royal Marines in the back seat. But seriously, when they do review an average car, it is a good job.
Now if we could get English Top Gear in Canada on one of the channels that aren't in the added price category that would be great. Unfortunately all we are going to get is the American knock off. Hooray! [/end sarcasm]. Crap.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
No interest in producing cars? What do you suppose those car-shaped things in their dealership are? I hope they're candy!
You don't get to have a show that gives opinions about products and then say those products broke when they didn't break, no matter how much "fun" you're having.
However, Top Gear doesn't sell itself as a source for information. Hell for a while BBC America was comparing it to Jackass in their own commercials. I'm pretty sure there aren't many people who make purchasing or lifestyle decisions based on Jackass, so why should a niche car manufacturer be worried about people making purchasing or lifestyle decisions based on Top Gear? The likelihood that anyone who watches Top Gear without realizing it is for entertainment purposes would have the money for a Tesla Roadster is almost certainly zero.
And you do realize that none of the main hosts actually have any qualifications to be automotive testers, right? Clarkson is an experienced journalist who barely knows how to use a ratchet. May has a degree in music who needed almost an hour to change plugs and oil on a rear-mounted V8, and is also known as "Captain Slow". Hamster was a radio host and is so short he almost needs pedal extensions to drive a Porsche. Really you'd probably be almost as wise to take dental advice from them as to take car purchasing advice.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
they arent supposed to get below 20% charge you idiot. the battery pack runs from 20-80%. 20% is when the car displays an out of charge warning like your gas gauge light. any reasonable person would then stop the car to recharge instead of running it bone dry and having it towed.
This is one of my favorite shows of all time, and I think that is partly because of the idiotic and insensitive nature of the hosts. It is entertaining because they are not afraid to make fun of each other or anyone else on the show; and they certainly never hesitate to point out their own perceived shortcomings of certain vehicles. Without being able to do this freely, the show would certainly be far less amusing.
Untrue!
Our money overlaps with their interests. And, apparently, their interests overlap with our government.
I sure wish I could make a shit-tastic car that nobody would buy for anything other than a showroom piece and then get a few hundred mil from uncle sam.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
What do you suppose those car-shaped things in their dealership are?
Overpriced Power Wheels (TM)?
(I've got a list if you really need examples).
A citation quality list would be a really good thing to have.
Sometimes you run into a dittohead or similarly brainwashed person who is just at the right place in their life where a little demonstration of their idol's hypocrisy is enough to open their eyes. It worked for Paul Haggis - director and writer of movies like Crash and Million Dollar Baby. 35 years under their spell but he was finally ready to see the truth.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Now if we could get English Top Gear in Canada on one of the channels that aren't in the added price category that would be great.
If it makes you feel any better I have to pay extra in the US to get BBC America, which is the only way I can watch the UK version of Top Gear. And for that matter we still have never seen any of the episodes with the Black Stig...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
One of the cars didn't run out of charge, the brake system failed. Tesla claimed that it was something simple (blown fuse I think) and Top Gear was making it worse than it really was
You know, I don't think it really matters if the problem was a junebug on the windshield if it made the frigging brakes fail.
Or, as Big Mike, my old wrench-monkey buddy put it: when prioritizing motorcycle problems: "Go" is optional. "Stop" is mandatory.
I think that fits just dandy for cages, too.
I hate how Top Gear is so against ANY electric or hybrid car. Yes, some hybrid and electric cars are weak, but that doesn't mean they all are. Good hybrid cars are often better then their gas counterparts in turns of performance. And if you've ever seen a Tesla, it's a kick-ass car!
So here's what clarkson had to say at the time. From the times online:
Phone calls were made. Editorial policy wallahs were consulted. Experts were called in. No “i” was left undotted. No “t” was left uncrossed. No stone remained unturned in our quest for truth and decency.
Tesla could not complain about what was shown because it was there. And here’s the strange thing. It didn’t. But someone did. Loudly and to every newspaper in the world.
..
This was weird. Tesla, when contacted by reporters, gave its account of what happened and it was exactly the same as ours. It explained that the brakes had stopped working because of a blown fuse and didn’t question at all our claim that the car would have run out of electricity after 55 miles.
You would figure that if these claims were so outrageous, tesla would have contradicted them at the time.
I make all my bowling ball-and-athletic cup purchases based on Johnny Knoxville's advice.
Very few Top Gear viewers have that much disposable income, desire for an all-electric two-seater, and would accept without question what they saw on Top Gear.
You have the statement reversed. It doesn't matter what the average Top Gear viewer is likely to do. What matters is how likely the average Tesla buyer is to watch Top Gear.
Not everyone that buys a Tesla is looking for only an all-electric two-seater. I've talked to a few people that are in the market for a two-seat sports car in that price range, but they're not sure the Tesla is ready for prime time since it is so new.
If they're on the fence and see that episode, they're likely to go ahead an buy the Porsche, Lotus, etc..
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
All spammers are Vietnamese, now? Wtf?
You are welcome on my lawn.
The subject pretty much sums it up.
Except Top Gear is entertaining, at least the Brit version. The US version is more like Jackass, i.e. a bunch of annoying shit-kickers. And yes even the Tanner seems to have turned into a shit-kicker; I guess it was the time he spent as a stunt driver on the Dukes of Hazard.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
That New Yorker article about Haggis and his changing views of CoS is a hell of a story. There's something about a person who has been buffaloed, flim-flammed, scammed and fleeced finally opening his eyes that makes for a very compelling read.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I wouldn't be so sure. Judging from the number of people who have been killed or maimed trying some of those stunts on their own, it appears that there is a certain segment of the population that indeed makes lifestyle decisions based on watching Jackass.
One must never underestimate people's capacity for missing the point.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Who apparently doesn't mind making stuff up.
Companies provide cars to Top Gear. Forget for a moment about the stupidity of lying to make one of your benefactors look worse. If the only way you can make a story compelling, even comedy, is to be fraudulent, then there's a problem.
All they had to do is run a disclaimer saying "The car really didn't break down like we pretended" and it would be OK. Or run a disclaimer saying "The events portrayed are entirely fabricated and are in no way indicative of anything real about the cars' quality". But they would never do that. Why? Because they are trading on the notion that there's something useful buried in what they are doing. My guess is that they're afraid of making it clear that none of what is portrayed on the show is in any way real.
And if any part of what they're doing is supposed to be taken as real, then they've got a responsibility to make it clear when they're making stuff up.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Being politically incorrect and making fun of things they don't like regardless of established fact is part of what makes the show a success.
For those who have seen it: the "Cool Wall" : decisions are sometimes made as to where a car goes simply because Clarkson is taller than Hammond and Hammond can't take one down.
This is childish and often hilarious stuff here. And that is part of what makes it successful.
As for Tesla: you make yourselves look far worse pursuing this lawsuit than Top Gear did lampooning your car, first off.
If you lose you will look even worse!
And you may:
If a brake fuse blew and caused a brake issue- yup, that right there counts as broken brakes, does it not?
My car gets about 22mpg average. On a track day I can expect 8mpg or less.
14x22=308
14x8= 112
That sorta makes the fuel/electric consumption look realistic for a hard used track day, does it not?
So let's see here:
*Tesla is suing a company that is unlikely to settle or retract their statements for an amount of money likely to be less than the cost of legal action and even IF they win and force retractions will guarantee that they are made fun of at every opportunity by the entertainment show concerned. (Another show where Bentley was supposed to supply a car and did not- a Yugo was driven instead but referred to as a Bentley for the entire episode.)
*The show concerned is an entertainment show that expresses the hosts opinions of cars and many other aspects of life, and occasionally purports to be stating facts.
*At least some of the claims made by the show would appear to have some basis in reality although it is easy to believe many or all were magnified. It is possible that some false claims were made on this entertainment program and mis-represented as fact.
Seems to me that Tesla would be better off re-thinking the lawsuit....
Linux computers, watercooled, photography
Then I guess my '87 Jag with seized rear brake calipers is doing great!
I want to shoot the messenger!
So... Tesla waited 2 years before doing this when it could have set the record straight the moment it happened?
Given Clarkson's general dislike of electric vehicles, I thought he was quite generous with the Tesla, at least for the first half of the segment. He seemed genuinely surprised and impressed with the acceleration in the drag race. And the performance in the head-to-head race around the track. And with The Stig's lap time.
Frankly, he's been a lot more scathing at the offerings from much more established car makers. And they keep sending more cars for Top Gear to play with.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
From:
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=13250247
"When the White House announced the federal government would loan $465 million to Tesla, a California start-up company with plans to develop an all-electric sedan, President Obama called it an "historic opportunity to ensure that the next generation of fuel-efficient cars and trucks are made in America."
The loan also represented a lucrative opportunity for Steve Westly, a major investor in the car company who had raised more than $500,000 for the president's campaign."
I don't know if there's more to the article as the "Next" link seems broken at the moment. Is the story about the Tesla/BBC suit coming out now in order to bury this story? I'm not a conservative, Republican, conspiracy theorist or someone with an agenda against Obama but this seems very coincidental...
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
My recollection of the show is that the Tesla is OK-ish but not earth shattering or ground breaking. The lap time wasn't bad but certainly not impressive which is most likely affected by the weight of the batteries. In the same episode the Honda FCX Clarity is featured which has a fuel cell and behaves exactly like you'd expect from a Honda sedan. This impression is probably what most viewer remember.
Tesla were probably thinking that being featured on Top Gear would have resulted in a free commercial. Very naive. And suing after more than two years after the first broadcast won't do them any favours. The Streisand effect will be limited by their sort-of reasonable demands but they show themselves as a bunch of sorry sulking kids.
As said many times before, Top Gear is a show and not a car review programme.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Most of the highly rated comments are assuming that all Tesla's claims are true.
Having just watched the segment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DfHyGD7_pM
The review starts off really quite positive.
Tesla claims that Top Gear misrepresented the company along these following points:
1. The Roadster ran out of charge and had to be pushed into the Top Gear hangar by four men.
4:56 - Top gear doesn't actually state that they ever ran out of battery. They simulated it ("and if it does run out") as an illustration that driving the car as marketed (As a sports car) gives you a much smaller range than the quoted figure. They could have done it for real by driving it around the track for hour, but what does this gain exactly?
2. The Roadster’s true range is only 55 miles per charge (not 211).
This is a blatantly false claim by Tesla. Jeremy stated that they worked out that the range "around their track" is 55 miles, while also mentioning the 211 mile claimed range by Tesla. When he later calculated the time to drive to Scotland, with the 16 hour recharge rate from a normal electrical socket, it was obvious he was using the 211 mile figure. (It's a trip of @700 miles)
3. One Roadster’s motor overheated and was completely immobilized as a result.
The motor did overheat (6:48), but Jeremy stated that he had "reduced power", not "no power". There was video showing that the car was continuing at a reduced speed, followed by a shot of the car parked forlornly on the track, but I seriously doubt this is sufficient for a libel suit.
4. The other Roadster’s brakes were broken, rendering the car undriveable.
If I remember correctly there _was_ a problem with the brakes at the test track. Something to do with a fuse on the regenerative braking system. Top Gear never stated that car was undriveable, only that they couldn't use it (It either was suitable for track work/filming, or Tesla were attempting to fix the issue). This appears to be a strawman argument.
5. That neither of the two Roadsters provided to Top Gear was available for test driving due to these problems.
This is a nice case of weasel words. This doesn't say that neither car had troubles, only that both cars didn't have troubles _at the same time_.
Additionally I'll also note that this lawsuit is a change of tune from their previous comments, where a PR person spoke to the press immediately after the review:
"She said the company would not be pursuing the matter with the BBC. "We would love to have them drive it again whenever they want.""
"But she said she was generally happy with the overall tone of the review. "I thought it was a positive piece for Tesla by Top Gear standards. I personally like the show – it savages cars in a very entertaining way.
"My concern was with American viewers who were tuning in for the first time and might not understand the whole angle of the show. We wanted to make clear that range was not a concern over the entire time of the [Top Gear] test.""
More info:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/dec/24/jeremy-clarkson-top-gear-tesla-electric-car
http://jalopnik.com/#!5118465/clarkson-ignores-bbcs-carefully-worded-response-responds-to-tesla-on-his-own
http://jalopnik.com/#!5112828/tesla-issues-response-to-top-gear-review
This smells like a marketing exercise.
They say both cars broke down in the end: http://www.spike.com/video-clips/c3neux/top-gear-reviews-the-tesla-roadster
Am I the only one reading this and remembering Quiz Show? Exact same sort of thing (imo).
One man's pink plane is another man's blue plane.
And the batteries overheated. I wouldnt mind seeing tesla vs elise from driveway to track doing some laps and back challenge.
You don't generally watch Top Gear for information, as the vast majority of cars that get time on there are well beyond what >99% of drivers can ever reasonably expect to purchase in their lifetime..
What about the 1%? Those people who have the money. Seems to me they would probably be more the type who (unlike me) would actually watch the program, and have their buying choices influenced by it.
They got a rather positive review, as far as Top Gear reviews go. They didn't go to the show room undercover to buy a car, only to demolish it outside of the show room the minute they picked it up. They didn't substitute it with a 20 year old clunker because Tesla refused to give them one for testing and still rate the clunker as it. Every manufacturer knows that Top Gear reviews are never ever fair, balanced or can be bought. Top Gear is never ever serious about it's reviews since the "new" Top Gear. Give your car to Top Gear and they'll make fun of it and trash every aspect about it they can find something negative about.
By the way, no brakes when a fuse blows? I wonder how they got road approval with that? If Toyota did that, they'd be in a lot more trouble than they are now.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
I'm sure you could at least find out where to get your teeth whitened.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
You are a lot more offensive than any spam ever spammed in the history of spamming. God, why am I talking to a fukcing troll?
Top Gear is for cars, what Slashdot is for tech.
~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~
You should actually watch the review instead of just making stuff up (I can't believe you can get modded informative when you say "It's been a while since I've seen the episode" while the review in question is actually linked to the article. Why not just watch the review, it takes 10 minutes! and you will actually know what you are talking about). They were given two cars, and the point they were making was about the amount of time it takes to charge the cars, and how that made then essentially unusable for long road trips (they suggest that for normal driving you should buy two so you can use one while the other is charging). This is a real concern, and it is not misrepresented. While a normal car takes a couple minutes to fill, the Tesla takes hours. And they did say "We've worked out that it would only get 55 miles in our track driving" they never claimed it actually ran out of charge during testing (which is what tesla is disputing). They showed a simulation of it running out of charge, but they could have easily just run it down! Who would say that they couldn't? That's not the point they were making. The visuals are for dramatic effect. Complaining that it didn't actually run out during testing is just nit-picking. Everyone knows that if you drive a car far enough, it will run out of energy.
As for whether or not the breaks actually broke, or the engine actually overheated, Tesla doesn't seem to be disputing that as far as I can tell.
And you are exactly the reason what's wrong with this show. You took the stuff they made up seriously.
1) It *doesn't* take 18 hours to charge a Roadster. It takes 3 1/2 hours from the normal charger it ships with. IIF you drain it completely dead.
2) *Neither* vehicle ran out of charge. There merely pretended they did.
Can you see why they're suing? People like you take this show seriously and believe the stuff they just made up.
And, FYI, no roadster goes 200 miles in actual track duty. Track duty generally cuts your MPG to 1/4 to 1/3 of what you get on the highway. At least the Roadster has regen for the curves.
Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
Maybe the Morris Marinas is a great car, afterall.
Perhaps, but they still seem to attract falling pianos way too often for my taste...
They say the cars didn't break down. Take note: cars. Top Gear claimed on-air that not only did both require recharging (Tesla also says neither ran out of charge), but that they both broke down. Tesla says that's a fabrication.
One car's motor overheated and basically shut down, "reduced power" was what Clarkson said when it happened. The other car's brakes failed.
Those are failures, regardless if they were temporary or not.
The problem is, Top Gear tests cars as though they are going to be driven on "track days" which are basically amateur racing where the cars are pushed hard for a long time - totally unlike the real-world road driving most people do. Most mass-market cars would suffer brake failures or other problems when used this way.
Frankly, given that Top Gear tests cars on their track the way they do, the review was pretty balanced. They showed that although the Tesla didn't handle quite as well as the Lotus that it's based on, it could out-accelerate the Lotus on the straights.
On almost every episode of Top Gear there is a multi-hundred-thousand dollar (up to millions of dollars) car sliding around the test track, being pushed to its limits in ways that no street driven car would be. The Tesla, like many cars, isn't built to take it. Would you be upset if your $2,000,000 Bugatti suffered the same problems? Yes. Would you even be surprised if a $20,000 Honda's engine overheated or brakes failed when driven that way for an extended time? No. The issue is that the "real world" Clarkson was talking about was on their track, not on public roads.
The Tesla is built to be a sporty car, but not a race car. There are some cars that can take abuse all day long and do just fine, and some that can't. There's nothing wrong with that. When I owned a Porsche I was able to drive the car very hard all day long and then drive it home as though nothing had happened. My V8 Camaro could beat the Porsche in a drag race (wouldn't come close on a corner though) but it would have ended up ruined given a day of the same treatment the Porsche took.
Top Gear has also driven a Prius around their track as fast as possible, with a V8 BMW M3 following it to prove that hybrids aren't the end-all of fuel economy (the BMW got far better gas mileage because the Prius was never designed to be driven on a track). The same type of driving is a recipe for using up 100% of an electric car's charge pretty quickly, and given that type of usage, the comments about recharge time are valid. But, if you just want to drive sedately to work and back, the Prius is going to get much better gas mileage than the M3.
Sending a "performance" car to Top Gear that isn't designed for the rigors of track use is guaranteed to result in a bad review. It's not like they're doing bland consumer reviews of family cars like PBS' Motor Week.
Sometime the Tesla guys should watch the review of the Bentley where one of the rear tires explodes, and think themselves lucky. Heck, the seats in one Mercedes-Benz (an AMG Black model) were compared unfavorably to a pile of rocks. You don't see M-B complaining.
Putting moderation advice in your
You are wrong on several critical points. Tesla is not claiming that the actual breakdowns were scripted. The only thing they are claiming was scripted was the scene where the Tesla runs out of charge. To be clear, the car did actually overheat, and the other car's breaks did stop working. Those were not scripted or false.
The scene of the car running out of charge is a dramatic lead-in to their discussion of the car's major real-world flaw, which is charging times. Watch the clip and you will see that they way they make their claim implies that the car running out of charge was simulated
Realistically, they did not need to simulate this, because they could have actually driven it until it ran out of charge. Of course, it's not surprising that they wouldn't do that, since it's a huge waste of time and the end result is a foregone conclusion. It seems to me that Tesla is really just whining over a technicality, since it's true the car will run out of charge, and that's what they showed.
There were a few misleading claims. There were a few damaging claims.
I suspect Top Gear's defence will be that the misleading claims weren't damaging and the damaging claims weren't misleading.
It didn't run out of power on the track. Misleading. But damaging? It would have done.
The breakdowns were staged. However, these were breakdowns that actually happened. Once again not damaging.
Will only manage 55 miles. Potentially damaging, But since it's actually true, not misleading.
Honestly, a to of this seems pretty weasely from Tesla. They claim it will manage 211 miles in a verified test. That's fair enough. You don't buy a Tesla as a commuter car though. You'll probably want to go to a track day or two. There may well have always been a car available but there was only one available for a lot of the time and they didn't have one available with good charge at all times.
Honestly, how people's bullshit detectors didn't go off with this show from day one I'll never understand. Now this show has ascended the ranks of the virtueless as a scripted pile of deceitful posers, to their official seat among the evil people. Falsifying the failures of the Tesla Roadster!? For dramatic effect or politics? Who cares! It’s equally depraved and boring TV. What's clear is that the show's vehicular criticism is unreliable - because it is a STAGED FICTION that fools people into believing they're getting honest discourse. Yes. It makes people into fools! Why have I chosen to rail against Top-Gear and not The Bachelor? But I haven't! My points and opinions are actually baseless musings, merely presented to you in an informative journalistic style for entertainment value.
...they also dubbed in a sample of a turbine shutting down during the the sequence where the power "runs out". If that isn't enough to suggest that the viewer is being misled, then what is?
Realistically, they did not need to simulate this, because they could have actually driven it until it ran out of charge. Of course, it's not surprising that they wouldn't do that, since it's a huge waste of time and the end result is a foregone conclusion. It seems to me that Tesla is really just whining over a technicality, since it's true the car will run out of charge, and that's what they showed.
Then why don't they show other cars "pretending" to run out of gas and having to be pushed, since it's true that other cars will do that? That's also a foregone conclusion. It would be stupid to simulate and show each car running out of gas. So why simulate and show it for one car, when it never happened?
...lots of jokes at Tesla's expense.
And... on that bombshell...
Both are as factual as The Onion, and as unbiased as the Daily Mail.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
And add to that the fact that unless they are total morons, they had to have watched Top Gear and thus be aware they are goof balls. I mean these are the people that did a beach assault with the Royal Marines using a sedan.They do silly things with cars, they rip on shit that doesn't matter at all to normal people. Also any sort of performance car tends to get reviewed by Clarkson who (at least on camera) is a complete speed freak and doesn't like any car that can't go 200mph+.
If they didn't expect a review like this, they either didn't do due diligence in checking out the show, or were idiots. If they didn't want a review like this, they shouldn't have submitted it to Top Gear.
The whole reason I (and plenty of others) watch Top Gear is how silly it is. I don't want to see a factual review on a super car I will never own. I want to see Clarkson tear ass around their track, spin out, and complain about trivialities. It is fun to watch.
I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter
Er, try again.
London - Edinburgh is 400 miles.
Dover - Wick (ie. going straight up the country) is 750 miles.
If you want to go 'end to end' (which maybe doesn't qualify for how long the country is, but is still a single road journey) it's 840 miles. Whichever way you look at it, the whole island of Britain is somewhat more than 'only ~500 miles long'.
-Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience-
Which is presumably the point at which the fuel warning light comes on and the car starts to deliberately limit performance in order to encourage you to recharge. Not sure when the car stops running totally - none of this appears to be documented anywhere - but I suspect it's closer to 20% full than 0% given that fully discharging lithium ion batteries does reduce their lifespan.
It's about time someone took those guys down a notch. The scenarios are so contrived that the draw such huge conclusions off of the smallest unimportant decisions. Then they claim that certain cars are crap because they don't compare to those 3x their price. It pisses me off how much they do for the entertainment value rather than trying to actually fairly depict the car they are testing. There certainly are plenty of defamatory statements that get made all of the time on the show.
Maybe they really just didn't drive it around so much, and since they wanted to get a shot of the car running out of batteries, they staged it.
They've staged quite a few more things on that show. Cars spontaneously catching fire. Piano falling from the sky. James supposedly died in Albania (was back the next show). Hey, they just do that. We know it.
Did you guys think that all the contests they showed were really such a close finish every bloody time? Wake up.
I think Tesla makes a mistake with this lawsuit. I do not believe that Top Gear plainly lied about the car. But they more than likely staged some things. They might say sorry publicly, but they'll do it in such a way that they make Tesla look silly. They have a habit of making fun of America anyway... and to get sued - a lawsuit is quite an American habit actually. I think it'll backfire.
Actually, if my personal situation was only a little bit different (no kids, a little bit more money, no regular long distance trips), I could realistically see myself buying one. And I do enjoy watching Top Gear, and this epidsode made me think "nah, I'll just wait until they make one that doesn't break down all the time".
Well, I think complaining about mileage for an electric car, but not for gasoline cars _on a track_ is stupid, because it's unfairly complaining about a car not having a never-ending supply of fuel in one type, and not the other.
If you really want that to be the complaint, please for every car you put on the track, measure the mileage you get on the track, let's see how many yards you get from a zonda or bugatti.
The complaint is that it takes a long time for the battery to recharge, just framed stupidly to ask the question again.
If Tesla is sure that they have a good car that can go 211 miles per charge, I'd throw up a challenge to Top Gear, Make the challenge be that they use the car as their normal car for a week, see how it goes.
the problem will still be slow recharge time, like everyone knows, but it would be interesting whether the capacity of the cars is enough for their day-to-day driving or not.
Then why don't they show other cars "pretending" to run out of gas and having to be pushed, since it's true that other cars will do that?
They have done, for particularly thirsty vehicles. In particular, I remember Clarkson getting ribbed thoroughly for owning a model that was so thirsty under normal driving conditions it couldn't even make it from his house to the TV studio without a fill-up. (I forget which model of car it was; I wasn't thinking about buying a supercar then, and I'm not now.)
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
It *doesn't* take 18 hours to charge a Roadster. It takes 3 1/2 hours from the normal charger it ships with. IIF you drain it completely dead.
4 hours, with the special 70A at 240V charge connector that you have to have installed by an electrician. Which may well mean having your house rewired or even a better feed put in from the electricity company - most houses here in the UK have a whole-house fuse of 100A or less that's owned by the electricity supplier and is illegal to tamper with, and getting full charging speed apparently requires a 90A breaker on the charging feed alone. Careless installation seems like a good way to blow the main fuse and end up with no power to your house.
What's more, Top Gear were talking about scenarios like a trip to Scotland, where you wouldn't have access to conveniently-placed Tesla charge sockets every hundred miles. In that scenario the best you can do is convince someone to let you use their electricity and get the rather slower 18 hour charge. Likewise, if you visit someone and need to recharge in order to get home, or run out of power some distance from home, it's the slower charge for you again. About the only time you can achieve the 4-hour charge time is on occasions when you'd better off recharging overnight anyway.
Exactly. A friend of mine once saw them in action in the French Alps during one of their "races": they unloaded the cars from trucks at the bottom of a hill and drove up a short stretch of twisting road, followed by the trucks which then picked them back up to bring them to the next stretch of the "race".
However, it seems that they went a little too far with Tesla, claiming breakdowns that didn't really happen. If this is true, Tesla has every right to sue. They deserve the free publicity, too.
Of course it does remain to be seen how far the truth was stretched. Maybe they only drove 27.5 miles and noted that the battery was half empty. That would sort of make their claim of 55 miles per charge legitimate even if they never actually ran down the battery. And did the brakes really break down or not? I guess we'll see in the lawsuit, or in the rectification either way.
Thankfully Tesla doesn't have much to loose on the matter, since there is almost no overlap between Top Gear viewers and potential Tesla customers. For that matter, there is also almost no overlap between slashdot readers and potential Tesla customers, either.
My employer recently bought a Tesla Roadster as our company car. As far as I can tell, the only real downside is the number of speeding tickets we're getting.
.... in the woooorld.
Well done. That really sounded like Clarkson's voice in my head.
It doesn't take that much time to run down the battery. If the 55 mile figure is correct, and the average speed on the track is over 55 mph, it should take them less than an hour, right? And that's assuming a full battery to begin with, while they had probably already run it down quite a bit. They probably only would have needed to drive it for anoher 15 to 30 minutes or so to catch the atual low battery event. And if something went wrong (Clarkson forgetting his lines, sun in the wrong spot,...), they would simply need to charge it up to a few percent and do it over. I really can't see a good reason for simulating this, and fitting a spinning down turbine sound over it for crying out loud.
Mod parent funny!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because it running out wasnt the point: the charging time needed for when it DOES run out is the point.
Ford GT. He also took it on a large drive with the others and they made constant jokes about how often he needed to fill up.
1. The Roadster ran out of charge and had to be pushed into the Top Gear hangar by four men.
4:56 - Top gear doesn't actually state that they ever ran out of battery. They simulated it ("and if it does run out") as an illustration that driving the car as marketed (As a sports car) gives you a much smaller range than the quoted figure. They could have done it for real by driving it around the track for hour, but what does this gain exactly?
Credibility. Proof. Ultimate defense against a libel suit.
And he LOVED that car. Bought one himself and it had lots of problems ... broke his heart a bit and he returned it or sold it.
You'd think if he just made up everything based on personal bias, that he would have tried to downplay any and all negatives for a car that he dearly loves.
So 2 years after the show aired they suddenly have evidence in the form of on-board computer records? Records that anyone here on slashdot could easily forge not to mention the programmers at tesla. The idea that they have a an electric car that has a massively larger range than any other electric in the world is implausible enough, but the fact that its a sports car should be the nail in the coffin. Anyone that's ever raced electric RC cars knows that acceleration is the bane of battery life.
With what I know of batteries and electric motors, my guess is they are both correct. Teslas purported range is probably taken from doing 25mph (or less) on a closed track with no stops. I saw the top gear episode and there's no doubt that they hammered that car just like they do every other car they put on their track. If tesla really wants to argue their point they should ask a simple question... what was the range/fuel economy of the lotus while they were pounding it just as hard? Those super cars usually get as low as 1 or 2 miles per gallon while their being raced... and they have a 20 or 30 gallon tank on them at most? So it's likely it had even LESS range than the electric under the same conditions.
55 miles ROUND A TRACK /= 311 miles driven to get as much range as possible.
idiot.
Suing just for the publicity, as the website name 'teslavstopgear' clearly points out. Might as well go all in and have Judge Judy officiate.
I'm kind of confused, why is everybody talking as if Tesla had been proved right in any way? They've made a claim in a lawsuit. They haven't proved it, or even given any real information about it.
Top Gear's claim about range specifically states that they calculated the range on the track to be 55. They didn't state the method of calculation. Did they drive it until the gauge read half full and double it? Then if their calculation is incorrect, then Tesla's gauge is incorrect, not their calculation. Unless there's proof that you can flog a Tesla on a track and get significantly more mileage out of it, then Top Gear's claim is valid and correct. Note that Tesla does not give a fuel economy estimate for driving their sports car agressively on a track, just that driving carefully can increase the range by 50%. I know I've driven my car carefully on the highway and gotten 28MPG, but on a track I get a little less than 4MPG.
This doesn't require a lawsuit. It requires an independent race car driver, one Tesla, a track, and a video camera. They've had two years. If they haven't done this, then their claim is BS.
There doesn't seem to be any dispute that the brakes stopped working on one and the engine overheated in the other. Claiming the engine overheating is not a breakdown is ludicrous, if the car stops running on it's own (or slows down enough that it's obviously having a problem), it's a breakdown, even if the solution is just to let it cool down. It would definitely count on a gasoline car, why anyone would think it doesn't on an electric is beyond me.
As far as the car being shown to coast to a stop on the track, unless they specifically pointed out each one as a breakdown, there's nothing libelous about it.
They are entirely accurate in their claim that it doesn't work in the real world. If it did, why did Tesla feel the need to give them two so one could charge while the other was running? Is there any other real world car that you'd need two of for a day's driving?
This sentence no verb.
Holy Cr@p! Did no one think this through? Fuses pop all the time! I assume when they say fail they mean "not work as well" but still.
Apparently, I'm crazy for thinking the power-laps and the car reviews weren't scripted in advance, and any problems that crop up legitimately crop up.
It's more likely a mix of the two. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't spend some time during the week driving the cars, then they take all of their thoughts and findings and script them into a segement where they recreate any issues they may have had. For instance, if the test car broke down twice while they were trialling it, they'll mention that it broke down twice and recreate it breaking down in the film. I don't really have an issue if that's the case, they can't have a full camera crew following them around all the time while they're testing, shooting schedules are far too tight, it makes more sense to take time doing the review then script it up into a tight filming slot on the day, that's not really misrepresenting their findings.
You're massively underestimating how much of an issue range, charge times and availability of charge points are for people considering electric cars. With petrol it's almost a non-issue these days, if you run out you walk a few hundred yards to the nearest petrol station, or you call your car breakdown service and they come give you enough to drive home, or you get a friend to drive out to you with a can - mentioning that cars can run out of petrol isn't necessary in a review (unless it's a car with a ridiculously low MPG rating, in which case they often do make a point of that too), mentioning the charge issue in an electric car review, on the other hand, is a key factor.
Well I suspect it wouldn't really help their case if they claimed nobody had ever mentioned the episode to them, of course they're going to say they're sick of people asking about it. In reality I should think they'd be happy if the episode was sending potential customers their way with questions they can address, companies usually pay a lot of money to have sales leads dropped in their laps like that. I can't believe anyone would seriously use a show where they tried to launch a car into space or set a pedestrian on fire with a converted combine harvester mounted flamethrower as the basis of their research to buy a £100k car, though.
I've read it will cut motive power at about 10%. The other electrical systems will run, but the car will stop moving. AFAIK they do it for exactly the reason that you said, fully discharging the battery is bad.
You are correct that the 4 hour charge time requires the high power wall connector. It seems that the charge rate can be set, since "Breaker rating will determine charge time. The Roadster can draw 80% of the Breaker Amperage." 80% of breaker rating is the law in the US for continuous draw, so it seems that the unit can be set to draw current based on the breaker upstream of it. From the Tesla site (same page you quoted):
Breaker Rating (Amps) Draw (Amps) Approximate Charge Time (hours)
90 70 4
80 64 4.2
70 56 4.7
60 48 5
50 40 6
So if your whole house feed is 100A, install a 50A breaker and expect a 6 hour full charge. Overnight that shouldn't be a big issue, right?
Interestingly, the amount of charge delivered varies with charge speed (efficiency and all that) - at 70A 280 Ah is delivered, at 64A=268.8 Ah, 56A=263.2Ah, 48A=240Ah, and 40A=240Ah. The 4 hour charge 'burns' 16.6% more power than the slower 5 or 6 hour charge. For every 6 fast 4 hour charges, you could have 7 5 or 6 hour ones for the same $$$.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Ferrari: The test was staged, the car could not have broken down because our data loggers show the tank was never empty.
Fandroids hate facts.
Unfortunately Top Gear is not only very popular , but also still believed to have elements of factual content by many people. So naturally anything that trashes their car on the show is going to adversely affect Tesla's reputation and sales.
Personally I think they have a sound case for this legal action. Top Gear faked events and then presented them as fact. Claiming afterwards that they were simulations of what might happen is total BS. Any other car they test might spin off the track and kill Clarkson in a fossil-fuel fed explosion. But you don't see them simulating that.
It was the Ford GT (the new one) Clarkson got ribbed for that as it was continually needed filling up.
Have a nice day!
I can't even count how many other cars have been verbally ripped to shreds by Clarkson. Everyone knows that his reviews are supposed to be funny, so I'm not sure why anyone would take them seriously. I've always wondered how they've stayed out of legal hot water with regard to not getting sued by manufacturers whose cars get poor reviews. I always assumed that the BBC ran the episode by them before airing it to get their blessing, but I guess that's not the case. At any rate, Top Gear is some damn fine television, in particular Clarkson's over the top sarcasm is wonderful. Without it, I'm not sure they'd have a watchable show. The cars are just supporting characters IMHO.
You know, I'm not even that old, and I seem to recall that an important part of my upbringing was learning the ability to look at any information presented to me and make an evaluation of the merit of that information.
When you have a society that relies on disclaimers to tell them what is fact, fiction, or opinion, that society is in big trouble: once disclaimers have all the trust, you can make society believe anything "just because it said so in the disclaimer/citation."
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Going by what Jeremy Clarkson says (the reviewer who did the Tesla piece, for those that don't know), I'd think every car manufacturer would have claims against Top Gear. Most BMW's are described as rubbish. Audi's are for male-roosters. French cars are all crap. Porsche 911's were designed by Hitler, nor have they changed since 1938. Most American cars are dreadful. Ford Mustang's have the rear suspension of an ox cart (true, that...). The old Saab 9-5 had enough torque to change the rotation of the earth. And on, and on, and on. It's what Top Gear does. The Tesla Roadster wasn't singled out.
Top Gear is 20% car information and 80% entertainment. Jeremy's work in particular is overwrought with irony and sarcasm. That's the way he is, and I and many others love it.
The piece on Tesla did nothing more than point out the "range anxiety" problem. That shouldn't have been unexpected. The fact is, Top Gear presents cars in a way that many people (350 million or so?) find entertaining. IIRC, they did have a few positive things to say about the Tesla while it was working. The handling and acceleration was good. But they did point out that after a thrashing on the track, they ran out of juice after ~55 miles. And then just like the battery-powered R/C cars of my youth, you're stuck inside for the next X-hours while the thing charges back up. That is the #1 problem with electric cars, and Top Gear did nothing more than to play on that issue.
Bottom line, if Tesla had wanted a rainbows-and-unicorns review of the Roadster, they should have called MotorWeek.
Edison's machine is a love song. I'm no Mama's fool. Call it what you want, the way it is you're caught in a dream.
Kriston
the Tesla is an American car. Top Gear has always made fun/trashed of American cars because of their poor handling, cheap quality, under-engineering, crappy mileage, etc.
Tell that to all the people who decline to buy a Tesla because of what they saw on Top Gear...
As if anyone spending $100K+ on a car would rely on a wacky comedic television car show to make their purchase decision.
That's like voting based on what you hear on Comedy Central. Oh, wait...
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
"Why did Top Gear say your car sucked and only went 50 miles for 16 hours of charge" is not a very good sales lead. Having to explain to every customer that asks that question that Top Gear was running the Tesla at race-track performance and simulated the breakdown without actually testing it is expecting the customer to believe the owner of the car saying a negative review is biased/wrong/lying/whatever. People on Slashdot won't listen when a Microsoft rep says something bad about Google or Apple, why would a Top Gear viewer believe Tesla?
I don't understand the summary at all!
Could someone please provide a simple car analogy?
In America, critical thinking is a college level skill. :(
There was one episode where the Stig drove a Koenigsegg around the track. It was squirrely around the corners and actually veered off into a tire wall. They said that if there was a spoiler on it, it wouldn't have had that problem.
So did Koenigsegg sue? No. They know that Top Gear is 50% fun and 50% PR, so they took the car back to the shop, slapped a spoiler on it, and sent it back. How cool is that?
What Tesla should have done is say, "Thanks for giving our car a good thrashing. We're working on some modifications to improve track performance and we'll send you that car when it's ready." And then actually do so. That way, Clarkson has no choice to say, at the very worst, "Tesla may make eco-cars, but they're a hell of a lot of fun and I think they may be on to something..."
I have to agree, at least to a large extent. Sure, Top Gear is an entertainment show -- not "Consumer Reports TV for vehicles". But what's so "invalid" about showing the Tesla only goes 55 miles on a charge, with pedal to the metal driving? That's one of the realities and weaknesses of electric cars that it's worth noting Tesla hasn't been able to overcome either.
It's probably telling that Tesla Motors isn't even attempting to sue for anything more than getting the episode pulled from television. I mean, if they've got such a strong case of this being inaccurate and damaging information, why not sue for monetary damages while they're at it? Surely the legal fees are somewhat substantial....
And in a more general, overall sense? I think Clarkson and co. are absolutely right in giving the Tesla roadster a hard time. What niche does the car really fill? It's not suitable for any real racing, because it's not comparable enough to the competition to even be allowed to enter it in many formal racing events. It's WAY too expensive and out of reach for the very audience who is concerned that high gas prices are hammering their pocketbook. It seems to be little more than a way for the uber-wealthy to buy yet another high dollar "exotic sports car" while trying to say they're "environmentally conscious" at the same time. I bet in any exhaustive analysis of the total environmental impact of owning such a car, it wouldn't fare that well against a gasoline-powered counterpart anyway. (Consider the whole process of making its batteries and environmental impact disposing of them will have, whenever they wear out. Consider the environmental impact of generating the electricity used to recharge the car all the time. Are its owners going to exclusively connect them up to wind farms?)
I've talked to a few people that are in the market for a two-seat sports car in that price range, but they're not sure the Tesla is ready for prime time since it is so new.
If they're on the fence and see that episode, they're likely to go ahead an buy the Porsche, Lotus, etc..
Hmm.
Tesla $109k
Lotus Elise (same chassis) $55-65k
If they're buying the Lotus instead it's probably because it's considerably cheaper.
If they're on the fence and see that episode, they're likely to go ahead an buy the Porsche, Lotus, etc..
I agree, except I would add if someone is on the fence and simply hears about that episode then they are less likely to buy. Word of mouth and second hand information is a multiplier that marketing is very familiar with. The viewers of Top Gear are just the tip of the ice berg.
I'm sure Bentley Motors execs are still losing sleep over all the customers lost thanks to Top Gear.
That Tesla CEO douchebag should just take his lumps and go racing if he thinks he thinks he has the car for it.
That "Tesla CEO douchebag" is the founder of four companies, one of which already reshaped the entire landscape of the industry it was a part of (internet sales), and has since been sold. Another is currently revolutionizing the American launch vehicle (read: rockets) landscape by providing cheaper and (hopefully) more reliable and more frequent access to space than any other company that has come before it. One of which is is actually trying to make some progress into developing a greener society, rather than just blathering on about how evil oil is like many companies in that industry are currently doing. And the final of which is actually trying to develop some inventive, new, efficient methods to make electric cars that people actually want to buy.
While not all of Musk's ventures are currently at the success level of Paypal, they certainly are noteworthy, and they certainly aren't afraid to try something new and better, kind of like how Google provide a new and better search engine that changed the internet forever. So you can piss and moan about how silly it is to sue Top Gear all you want. But referring to Musk as a "CEO douchebag" is inflammatory at best, and downright stupid at worst. That man has stated, in no uncertain terms, that he fully intends to retire on Mars. He has done more for pushing this county's industries into the future than just about any other inventor/engineer/scientist/techie that I can think of in the last decade. So show some damn respect.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
It appears that your definition of "marketing exercise" is idiosyncratic. Asking for money in a lawsuit is not the sine qua non of using a lawsuit as a marketing tool. Being reasonable in your demands does not defeat marketing value. The fact that you are so attached to the concept that Tesla is being reasonable and therefore is a good company not just out to gain some marketing exposure itself tends to show that, at least to the extent you represent their target market, the marketing exercise is working.
That Tesla CEO douchebag should just take his lumps and go racing if he thinks he thinks he has the car for it.
That "Tesla CEO douchebag" is the founder of four companies one of which already reshaped the entire landscape of the industry it was a part of (internet sales), and has since been sold. One of which is currently revolutionizing the American launch vehicle (read rockets) landscape by providing cheaper and (hopefully) more reliable and more frequent access to space than any other company that has come before it. One of which is is actually trying to make some progress into developing a greener society, rather than just blathering on about how evil oil is like many companies in that industry are currently doing. And the final of which is actually trying to develop some inventive, new, efficient methods to make electric cars that people actually want to buy.
While not all of Musk's ventures are currently at the success level of Paypal, they certainly are noteworthy, and they certainly aren't afraid to try something new and better, kind of like how Google provide a new and better search engine that changed the internet forever. So you can piss and moan about how silly it is to sue Top Gear all you want. But referring to Musk as a CEO douchebag is inflammatory at best, and downright stupid at worst. That man has stated, in no uncertain terms, that he fully intends to retire on Mars. He has done for pushing this county's industries into the future than just about any other inventor/engineer/scientist/techie that I can think of in the last decade. So show some damn respect.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Computers have no incentive to lie. They toil their short lives for just 12V DC, until they burn out from work, or discarded by an ungrateful owner because it can no longer pull malware-loaded Windows + antivirus. Top Gear, on the other hand, has a show to run, so insincere twists for amusement or cash incentives are readily applied.
It seems that the charge rate can be set, since "Breaker rating will determine charge time. The Roadster can draw 80% of the Breaker Amperage." 80% of breaker rating is the law in the US for continuous draw, so it seems that the unit can be set to draw current based on the breaker upstream of it. From the Tesla site (same page you quoted):
That's interesting. I saw that, but having read the installation guide (which is also available online) there's no mention of a way to set the current drawn and the spec in that says that it requires a 90A breaker and has a 70A current draw full stop.
Tesla is about to learn a very hard lesson about Top Gear. Just from a clout standpoint...they've got to *think* real hard about this move. Top Gear has more clout in the auto industry than anything short of gasoline.
I'm pretty sure that Tesla is well aware of that clout. That clout is exactly why they are proceeding with this motion; that clout has been used injuriously. If Top Gear were watched by only 100000 viewers, there would be no need for a suit.
Further, to the point you make in your subject line, the mere filing of this suit is also publicity for Tesla. Good publicity. They're getting their side of the story out. And as they are not asking for monetary damages, they have very little to lose.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
When did I say that this lawsuit is strictly for marketing purposes?
That is the standard charger that most Tesla Roadster owners buy. And it's 3 1/2 hours (note the "less than 4 hours" -- I assume you know what "less than" means). The standard for home construction in the US today is 200A service. And the vehicle generally charges at night when you're not using much power elsewhere anyway. Or is your impression of people who live in dingy old farmhouses from the 1930s with 60A circuits buying Tesla Roadsters?
Wait, so now you're presenting the vehicle as instead of a track car, a long-distance cruiser? Anyway, here in the US, where most of their sales are, dryer sockets are 30A/240V, range sockets are 50A/240V, and RV sockets are 50A/240V (same connectors). I don't know what you in the UK use for your high power sockets, mind you. Yes, you *can* charge a Roadster on a normal socket, but it's not designed for that. Normal sockets are basically for emergencies-only, to give you enough power to get to the next *real* charging station.
Let's be clear: Top Gear *lied*. They said it ran out (it didn't). They said that it has to take 18 hours to charge (it doesn't, and almost no Tesla Roadster owner will ever charge their car on a standard socket; that's not what they're designed for).
Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
All cars run out of energy; be them electric, gas, or diesel. When's the last time they went to great effort to show a Ferrari or Lamborghini running out of gas? It was a stunt engineered for the sole purpose of being turds.
I would suggest that if a Ferrari or Lamborghini took more than a couple minutes to fill up the tank, they would.
But overall, it's always been obvious they hate electric cars as well as american cars. And you're right, it was definitely slanted to make Tesla look bad.
I can empathize. As an American, I'm very glad to be able to watch the real Top Gear on BBC America. I tried to watch the American spin off and didn't make it through the whole episode.
You are wrong, the "mileage" DOES matter, I own a sports car and I do track days, I get around 8mpg when I'm going around the track, if I show up with a full tank, I can just about make it all day without having to refuel.. but it has happened that I needed more gas during the lunch break.
If I owned a Tesla, I would have ran out of 'juice' around luch, and not been able to get on the track due to the recharge time. So while that doesn't matter to probably 95% of people who own sports cars, it *does* to me.. I love the lotus chassis and I would LOVE to own a Tesla, but that's a dealbreaker for me, I would have to own a separate trackday car..
I think that's what they are doing.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
I would find Tesla's case a lot more convincing if they had something more than computer logs. Perhaps they should get some of the BBC employees who were there at the track that day to give sworn statements as to their perception of what happened.
(Not that human testimony is all that reliable, but corroboration with some other source would seem necessary.)
At the moment it's a he-said-she-said argument. The BEST approach would be for Tesla to offer a rematch, and to have a couple of Tesla-certified technicians on hand to diagnose any problems, lest some idiot jump to the wrong conclusion on account of some idiot light on the dashboard lighting up at an inopportune time.
After all, that's the scientific method, isn't it? When you have a dispute, run the test again, and verify the results.
Surely nobody objects to the scientific method *here*.
Pick One: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~stremler/sigs/sigs.html (Note - disable Javascript first!)
Some say he was genetically cloned from one of Napoleons toenails. Others suggest he's a script written in an old version of perl.
All we know is, he's called Samzenpus
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
When a broadcaster decides not to show some episodes of the Simpsons for some time because of jokes about nuclear meltdown, its censorship, when Tesla demands that an episode of Top Gear will not be shown anymore, it's not censorship.
Fandroids hate facts.
No match there. Like most of the poster's have said, Top Gear is entertaining, but the three buffoons on this program are definitely mental midgets who will do anything - short of suicide - to get ratings. Scratch that part about suicide - they have tried that too. Take Top Gear for what it is: entertainment and nothing else. It is definitely not a car enthusiast show.
When will we, as Americans, ever learn? The ONLY people who gain anything at all from a lawsuit, or any legal action for that matter are the attorneys. This little poke, which seems to be purely in fun, will get at least two attorneys a seat in the Congress of California or possibly even one of them in the US Congress. When we pass a constitutional amendment that prohibits attorneys, paralegals, chiropractors, judges, sheriffs, police chiefs or any other professional legal leech from running for public office, we will once again see a government of the people and by the people. Until then, just try to keep enough KY jelly in stock and hope the medical profession is able to maintain enough practitioners to treat the hemorrhoids which are the inevitable result of our failure to act on this problem. Shoot, even the Egyptians, Libyans, Syrians, Jordanians and heaven only knows how many other Islamic countries are rising up against the Evil of Attorneys. When will the people of the USA find the courage to rid ourselves of the menace that they pose. The folks at Tesla are a daring lot, and have fearlessly ventured where no-one had ever gone. Of course they're going to have some "teething" issues. But cut them some slack! They have accomplished an amazing feat of engineering, they don't need two British "hayseeds" to validate it. These guys have had the good sense to find a way for themselves to drive the finest "motorcars" on the planet and get paid for doing it. I say "Good job guys!" Ferrari hasn't brought me a car to play with for a few weeks, and I'll bet if you're reading this that the Ferrari dealership in your area won't even let you sit in the showroom model. I can absolutely certify that Tesla hasn't provided ME with a car to test. I'd write an honest review of it and shoot some HD footage of the amazing problem they have faced and the amazing ingenuity they have consistently demonstrated.