Slashdot Mirror
Top Gear Fights Back At Tesla
An anonymous reader writes "Top Gear's producer Andy Wilman responds to Tesla's lawsuit: 'We never said that the Tesla's true range is only 55 miles, as opposed to their own claim of 211, or that it had actually ran out of charge. In the film our actual words were: "We calculated that on our track it would run out after 55 miles."' Interesting points, and as far as I can remember also correct. But I'm assuming Tesla is going the get the PR they want on this regardless of any court rulings."
Really?
It's about time that Nikolai stands up for himself and goes after the use of some of his inventions. Poor guy - if he doesn't he's likely to end up broke, broken, and dead in a hotel on 34th Street in NYC.
Huh?
You might think a 60+ mile per gallon Kawasaki Ninja 250 with a 4.8 gallon fuel tank will have a range of over 200 miles but it seems if I drive around in circles in my driveway it only has a range of a few hundred feet.
It seems like a bad product is protected by law from being told or reported as a bad product.
I disagree, I used to do some acting, and it could take an enormous amount of time to get a short segment filmed. It's not uncommon for a 5 minute piece to take an entire day to film, or at least several hours. And if you're inside or on a sound stage it's not that big of a deal, but if you're having to restrict yourself to the portions of the day that have light, you're in a much less predictable situation. Even the sun going behind the clouds can make shooting a cohesive scene impossible until it returns.
Most of the rest of it is going to be pretty easy to determine and should largely be settled by the time this goes to trial. If Tesla's employees gave them the estimate that will quickly be determined. And Tesla did eventually admit that the breaks had failed, at least in the way that a consumer would call broken.
Samuel Johnson is dead, so I'll speak up, not being quite dead myself. The dancing bear quote is usually attributed to him.
A lot of the reporting seems to focus on claim it would only go 55 miles. As far as track cars go, that's pretty good. The Ford GT would only go about 60 before it would empty it's tank. A series earlier, they figured a Ferrari 599 only got 1.7 miles per gallon on the track.
Apart from reliability issues (both Tesla cars broke in various ways), the biggest flaw the cars had was that while the range was on par with regular track cars, when you ran out of fuel in the other cars, you took a few minutes to fill up and could go back out. The Tesla, on the other hand, was done for the day as it took something like 12 hours to recharge.
That was the damning conclusion of the Top Gear episode, and it was entirely accurate. Even if Tesla has improved the recharge time, it's still hours long. Tesla is just trying to distract from that fundamental fact - despite the fact it's marketed as a sports-car, it's not suited to track use. Even if people have no plans on taking it to the track, it's allure is tarnished by that fact.
the current fake weather is to be re-introduced (by vatanical decree) as the new improved fake weather. several meetings of the royals, holycosters, weapons peddlers, eugenatics etc..., resulted in further plans to kill us all, as it was written, on the georgia stone.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110403/ap_on_hi_te/eu_the_sunshade_option/print
Look a normal super car will run out of fuel in around 20 minutes of driving flat out. They also tend to burn through a set of 8 grand tires in the same period of time. Tesla never said it had a range of 200+ miles at it's top speed. The script proved the intention of the episode was to show the limitations of an electric car not to be a fair test of what the Tesla could do. All high end sports cars are tempermental and to varing degrees fragile. The real point is that the car could match cars costing twice as much and that's while hauling around a mass of batteries. The episode was cut together to show the car breaking down and running out of charge constantly which didn't happened. If they wanted to show the limited range Clarkson should have driven from London and tried the make it to Northern Scotland and let it run out of juice. The problem is he knows under normal driving conditions it'd do better than 200 miles and it might actually impress some people. It made for a better coffin nail in electric cars to claim it's true range was 55 miles and not over 200 miles. They also seem to be the only ones making the 55 mile range claim and they never bothered to actually test the range. I always considered the episode biased but I got upset hearing it was mostly scripted ahead of time. As I said in an earlier post it calls into question every review they have ever done.
IIRC they liked the diesel Corolla better than the Prius.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Yes they are just stooges for the BP Man, man. Corporate shills trying to mind numb the populace so they don't see what is really happening to the world. Um no, TG has recommended diesel versions of some vehicles when it makes economic sense and they did mention the BP disaster, they told the US to basically suck it.
PS Everyone hates hippies because they are terminally stupid and smell awful.
I would not expect the normal consumer experience to mirror that of the drivers on the TG track. I also would not expect published petrol MPG figures to match the MPG TG gets on their track.
L.V.X., brother mouse
And rarely accurate. At least without relying on the scientific system to justify the positions they hold. I'm not denying that under incredibly lead foot driving the Tesla could be dragged down to 55 miles on the track but the implication is that 55 was a realistic range. Top Gear was trying to imply and quite successfully tied that number to the range fears that people have about electric cars still. Clarkson and Top Gear have an agenda like anybody else, Fifth Gear is more so like Motor Trend, scientific and honest, Top Gear is more like Car and Driver with Clarkson paralleling Yates and his numerous run-ins with environmentalists over the years. This doesn't make them bad people but it makes them irresponsible for doing certain things when they know full well their opinions are firmly set. As a side topic, the Tesla sports car name is "Roadster" and they don't run the car in any track competition as a company. So whoever is declaring that Tesla wants you to use it on the track with confidence is making insinuations about the car that just aren't there.
Rubbish. They've "reviewed" plenty of TDi cars over the year, and raced them too. The reality is most diesels are dull old man cars, whereas top gear concentrates on fast sport and supercars. And yes, they did take the piss out of BP's mess. You're a deluded fool if you think BP are behind Tesla's shit. The reality is their car is rubbish, and they tried to sell a rich boy's toy in the middle of a global recession. Had they built it from scratch and not used an old Lotus design, then tripled the price, they may have head some credibility. As it is, they're just a bunch of weenies crying because they have a failed product.
If fools like you thing Tesla got a bad "review", just wait until the court case is over and Clarkson does a real number on them. 350 million views are going to be pointing the finger at Telsa and laughing.
Give it a year or two for its batteries to start crapping out and then its true range will probably be less than fifty-five miles.
This: "The second point is that the figure of 55 miles came not from our heads, but from Teslaâ(TM)s boffins in California. They looked at the data from that car and calculated that, driven hard on our track, it would have a range of 55 miles."
So they are suing the BBC over a claim they themselves fed to the Top Gear producers which was only relayed in the show.
Yeah, really, I can see how Top Gear acted in bad faith here. How dare they trust the information from the manufacturer!
British Petroleum? It's Beyond Petroleum and it's roughly equally British and American owned. It's an international company.
As for your insinuation that Top Gear have bias and don't criticise others due to sponsorship, i guess you have no idea how the independence of the BBC works.
If Tesla wants to be innovative then they damned well better appeal to a broader audience rather than calling Coca Cola champagne.
Tesla is like Segway. They create a luxury product because that makes money and they use the income to scale up and create more mainstream products, like Tesla's upcoming consumer grade sedan. They are the closest thing to an innovative car company the US has left and to my mind instead of bailing out the big players we should have taken the public share in them after the unions refused to take control and handed it over to Tesla and let someone actually doing something smart have a shot at turning the US auto industry around.
It's the difference between a joke and test results.
Of course they did. The Diesel Corolla has better fuel economy, and is actually greener to produce than the Prius. Hell, the Range Rover is greener to manufacturer and operate over its life than the Prius is to manufacture.
TG cracked enough BP jokes at the time. Thing is, the spill really wasn't all that of of a deal outside of the US. BP is British in name and not really all that much else, so no-one in Britain really cares about what they do. Why would they? Also, the oil platform didn't belong to BP in the first place, so that's even further removed from anyone in Britain really caring.
If you believed some of the news reports in the US you'd have thought that the Queen herself blew up the rig. Seriously, it was an environmental (and economic) disaster, with several companies involved but not nearly big enough to expect a British TV car show to do a full hour special on it. If they did that for every oil screw up then they'd never actually talk about cars.
IIRC they liked the diesel Corolla better than the Prius.
I think that, in context, it might have the same ringing endorsement of "If you're going to rinse your mouth out with liquefied shit, we liked rabbit shit better than bear shit."
Yea because a sports car that can only do 30 miles and hour when the take is low is a feature.
It is great to see the BBC not succumbing to pressure from fools.
I for one would not have been able to use a Tesla as a daily driver once in the last 15 years: between driving to work and travel during the day, 250 miles is not enough range. I would have been stuck someplace I could charge for the night at least half the time. And if anyone tells me I can fully charge an electric car on 120v US standard household current in 30 minutes I will call you a liar at this time in their development.
The cars stopped functioning normally. That means "broken." If you have an internal combustion engined car with 2 of 4 spark plugs fouled and not firing is your car still fine but just operating with reduced power? No. It is broken and needs to be fixed. Next question!
And the brakes were broken, end of story. How easy the fix was is irrelevant: the brakes broke. Done.
As for a previous comment including Motor Trend as an example of "honest" reporting- seriously? That comment alone makes everything else you say suspect by association, man.
If you watch the Top Gear segment remembering who is doing it- an entertainment show that loves fast cars that handle well, you will actually see that they LIKE the car but don't feel it (or any other pure electric) is ready for use by most of the motoring public.
Which is a very accurate assessment.
For the money, a Lotus (which the Tesla was based on) is a far more practical, useful and reliable vehicle and leaves plenty of money left for fuel and purchasing "carbon credits" for those who so desire.
And yes, it goes faster too.
Linux computers, watercooled, photography
Seeing as Topgear is a BBC production, the show itself doesn't come with sponsorship. The outdoor events, perhaps as they're not run by tax payer's money (see TV License).
What?
I assume while it's on the track they're flooring it to autobahn-esque speeds. Standard ranges (the ones you'd find on a car sticker) don't usually assume you're going beyond the posted speed limits.
so in a single word, "nothing"?
Faking results isn't a legitimate tactic in my books.
Battery didn't go flat and the car didn't have to be stopped while the engine was reading hot, but the footage suggested it should.
The brakes issue is legitimate but I don't consider 1/2 a pass.
Nobody from Top Gear ever said that the battery went flat. What they said was that the battery WOULD go flat after 55 miles of driving, and this number came from the Tesla people who were at the track on that day. same for the engine - nobody from Top Gear said that the car had to be stopped, they said that it only drove with "reduced power". Which was true.
Wait, i remember them saying something along the lines it had to be pushed back into the garage due to a dead battery. Perhaps it was not 'real' but it still eluded to it being.
I know they do things for entertainment and there is a LOT of satire on the show, but i do hope they get their hands slapped for this as i have seen them do similar to others and some people actually take it seriously.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Stick your dumbass Yankee whining up your arse. One word for you: Halliburton.
fucking semantics. what is the real difference between claiming that you calculated that on your track it would run out after 55 miles, and saying that it's range is only 55 miles?
is something green, or a mixture of 50% yellow and 50% blue?
You don't see car manufacturers complain when *motoring show/magazine* says that on a track a car with stated MPG of say 15 averages say 7.5. Heavy sustained driving like that takes more juice, regardless of if its juice juice or just regular juice. I bet their 211 range claim is based on driving at 30 without turning or stopping or such nonsense.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
No, in a single word, "everything." TG's track is pretty much worst-case scenario. You are never going to drive a car in anything resembling that fashion in real life. It's like the difference between saying "most people will get 4 hours out of their laptop battery," and then someone coming along and running 5 video cameras off it while playing Crysis over a 4G stick, with 5.1 speakers, and then going "Yeah, it'd last about 5 minutes." Their results are still accurate, but hardly fucking useful.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Tesla made a mistake of not including the only deployed Level 3 fast charger option in their car. Otherwise they could fill up in 15-30min.
http://www.chademo.com/ has over 600 fast chargers installed, most of them in Japan. Both Nissan Leaf and Mitsubishi MiEV can charge from these. A couple of US companies are licensing the tech for demo/fleet uses.
The rest of the world has not yet managed to come up with a workable standard for international fast charging.
Once Level 3 standard gets worked out worldwide, and new EV models get equipped with the connector, taking EVs to the track becomes entirely viable.
Nobody from Top Gear ever said that the battery went flat.
So Jeremy looking confusedly at the dashboard then cutting to a scene of crew members pushing the Tesla off the track was meant to imply what, exactly?
Without any other clues as to what actually happened, it is up to the viewer to infer that the batteries had run flat.
=Smidge=
A little disclaimer: I'm an environmentalist, I work for an international environmental organization, bicycle commuter, haven't owned a car in over 15 years, and spend my vacations volunteering at animal rescue facilities.
I've been reading a lot of "the Top Gear guys are petrolheads who only care about big petrol engines" and such comments. One thing a lot of people seem to be forgetting about this case is that, on the same episode where they tested the Tesla, they also tested the Honda Civic Electric Fuel Cell. And guess what? They had nothing but high praise for the Honda.
One may argue that they didn't push the Honda nearly as hard as they pushed the Tesla, but that is because they were holding each car to the candle of what each manufacturer claims. Honda claims their car is just a Honda Civic. Reliable user-friendly everyday transportation. So that's how it was tested it. Just like every other reliable user-friendly everyday transportation vehicle they test on the show. The Tesla on the other hand describes their car as a supercar. So they did the tests the same way they do all other supercars. On the track at high speeds. The Honda succeeded as reliable user-friendly everyday transportation. Yet the Tesla failed miserably as a supercar. That is all there is to it.
So no, this has nothing to do with Clarkson being a petrolhead. Yes, he is a petrohead and an ass. Vey funny, but an ass nevertheless. I highly disagree with most of his opinions about just about anything. But I think both tests were spot on.
I would expect if they said "calculated" and then showed the car running out of juice that they had actually tested the car and run out of charge at 55 miles rather than pulled a "calculation" out of their butt and then made it look like it was based on actually driving the car. I think there is a simple solution. Actually run the car at track speeds until it runs out of juice. If I were on a jury I would want to see those results. If TG was right about 55 miles, plus or minus 10 miles then they win. If Tesla is right and it is significantly over that then Tesla wins.
Anonymous fool Coward, the issue here is they said the Tesla got only 55 miles on a charge rather than its claimed 200+, based on their "calculations", which are BS. I never said they hadn't reviewed cars. But I've watched the show, where they obviously don't like diesels because they aren't as zoomy as gasoline cars. Which you obviously don't like either, for the same reason. Yet the Tesla is zoomy, and they don't like it either. Though it can't really be because of "55 miles on a charge", because they're not stupid enough to believe their own "calculations" are the reality. It's not because it's
a rich boy's toy in the middle of a global recession", because they love plenty of those, so long as they're gasoline powered.
Where did they "take the piss out of BP's mess"?
The reality is that you and they are oil worshippers. At least they have the courage of their convictions to put their names to their prejudice, unlike you Anonymous Coward.
--
make install -not war
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXfV2hw_2Xo
Crying "dumbass" is classic Yankee whining, though it's really from Dixie. But thanks for that universally BS logic, that one American oil criminal makes another British one nonexistent.
--
make install -not war
The "study" reporting that was highly flawed, since it effectively discounted the entire development cost of the Hummer (I've never seen any reports regarding the Range Rover), while including the development cost of the Prius.
Correct it and *oh look* it doesn't add up at all.
The Tesla is a "statement car" - it is intended to show that electric power is not just for smug twits who enjoy the smell of their own farts.
Apparently, the people at Tesla have spent too much time with their noses firmly planted between their own butt cheeks.
FWIW, I see no sign that Top Gear ever mentioned BP ("British Petroleum") in connection with its poisoning the Gulf of "Mexico" last year, but plenty of evidence of BP's ongoing sponsorship of that show.
Not sure how you managed that. The BBC is publicly funded, paid for by the TV license (mandatory for anyone owning a television in the UK). They do not charge a subscription, nor do they accept advertising including program sponsorship.
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
Anonymous fool Coward, the issue here is they said the Tesla got only 55 miles on a charge rather than its claimed 200+, based on their "calculations", which are BS.
Yes they were BS because they were based on Tesla's calculations.
I see no sign that Top Gear ever mentioned BP ("British Petroleum") in connection with its poisoning the Gulf of "Mexico" last year, but plenty of evidence of BP's ongoing sponsorship of that show.
Dumb fucking Yank. BP do NOT sponsor the TV show. NOBODY sponsors the TV show. It is fully funded by the British TV Licence payer and the money they make selling the programme around the world. BP sponsor a once a year 3 day long live event held at a car show at the Birmingham NEC.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
BP don't sponsor the TV show you dumb shit. It is the BBC - the programmes are paid for by the TV licence fee and money made selling the programmes overseas.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
If you clicked the link I helpfully included you'd see plenty of sponsorship of Top Gear along the lines you mention.
--
make install -not war
fucking semantics. what is the real difference between claiming that you calculated that on your track it would run out after 55 miles, and saying that it's range is only 55 miles?
I don't know - is that the same difference as claiming they claimed they calculated it, or that they claim Tesla themselves calculated it?
Fandroids hate facts.
Thanks for the original BS logic that because you failed to find Top Gear criticizing BP on Google that there was some conspiracy to protect the shareholders (a large proportion of whom are Americans). You are just a total fuckwit with some ridiculous trans-Atlantic chip on your shoulder. Now do yourself a favour and see if you can actually use Google to look up why BP is not, and has not been for a long time, British Petroleum. That's if you can remove your head from your enormous arse.
especially for Tesla.
Top Gear is a comedy show. It contains British Satire. They rip the pish out of stuff. This is a national sport in which the British have no equal (re: Gervais Golden Globes http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=1Ryr5EqURkQ).
And why not? It's funny!
Oh for the benefits of a classical education.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
This is the difference between "calculated" and "observed".
L.V.X., brother mouse
If the battery would have gone dead after 55 miles, and they drove it 25, of course they stopped before the battery was dead -- the purpose was to demonstrate to the audience in a visceral and entertaining way what would happen when the battery went dead, which would have been after 55 miles of use. There is no need to actually drive it to those 55 miles unless you're trying to verify things, but that figure was given to them BY Tesla. Who are they to argue with the manufacturer when the manufacturer is handing them numbers like that?
Nope, you simply take their word that it's 55 miles -- especially if you drive it a bit and the battery seems to be draining charge at a rate consistent with going dead after 55 miles. So you drive a bit, but not the full 55 miles that would kill the batteries for 18 hours, and then you film as if you had driven the 55 miles and the battery really was completely drained. Yeah, you're not showing reality 1:1, but you're showing what really would happen, according TO TESLA, had they driven 55 miles on their track.
How is that deceptive?
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
we did bail out tesla, and that was a mistake
company just isn't going to make any money. end of story. all electric vehicles? not ready for prime-time. the tesla is a car to sit in a showroom, or to ferry yourself to a luxurious event. it's not going to translate into a production vehicle for general use -- the market is abysmally small, and made up almost entirely of people living in dense urban areas. You know, the sorts of people that aren't as likely to own a car. It's a car for people who don't need a car for 18 hours a day. If you don't need a car for 18 hours a day, you probably don't need a car.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
55 miles wasn't TG's number -- RTFA ;)
Tesla gave TG that range for their track, so it's not much of a jump to presume the maker of the car is correct
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
You still didn't answer his question.
Here, I'll repeat it in case you forgot:
You are welcome on my lawn.
My guess is that it did run out at some point in the day. They probably weren't being that careful with it and were doing the typical hooliganism that they do on their test track (best part, IMO). It ran out and they did some napkin math to figure out how much that would be normally (my guess is that it ran out in less than 55 miles due to numerous 0-60 filming takes. They then probably calculated it out to roughly 55 miles of hard driving.
The same thing happened with the Prius that Fifth Gear tested. Ran flat-out on their test track, it got something like 18 or 19 mpg. The new Honda Insight also only got half a "hot lap" as well before the electric assist cut out/wasn't doing anything useful any more). These cars aren't made for sportscar type use but are really made for typical people who trundle along at the speed limit and accelerate like they are on Prozac.
Then again, the Tesla is being marketed as a true sports car. Expecting 50-60 miles range while being driven as such isn't that unreasonable. Most other electric vehicles wouldn't last 10 miles driven that hard.(which IIRC, both shows had also shown with other EVs in the past) If my EV got 55 miles in Top Gear's hands, I'd consider myself to have won the lottery.
How is that deceptive?
Do they push every car off the track to demonstrate what happens when fuel runs out?
brandelf -t FreeBSD
In the UK you have a annual safety test for motor vehicles, called the MOT. No vacuum powered brakes when the car is supposed to have them, is a failure. No vacuum powered brakes and no way to fix them is a tow-away for the AA. If you get in an accident with a car that has broken vacuum powered brakes and you subsequently crash into something, you are liable. How much more clear would you like the term "broken" defined? It doesn't matter that in an emergency case you could still stop the car, by using excessive force on the pedal, it's technically, legally and for insurance purposes considered broken.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/electric-shocker
Tesla is like Segway. They create a luxury product because that makes money and they use the income to scale up and create more mainstream products, like Tesla's upcoming consumer grade sedan.
When you look at the history of the American automobile, the "driving force" has always been the mass-matrket car.
That is where the money is.
When you put 20 million cars on the road, as Henry Ford did, you generate truckloads of cash that can be pumped into R & D.
No matter how matter how good the impression your electric or steamer made on the streets in 1905 you are not going to be able to compete against that kind of investment in alternative techologies.
On a totally unrelated subject, is it cheaper for a company these days to sue someone, and create a self-sustaining marketing campaign that keeps on giving or have a decent marketing & sales department
Um...speaking of dumb shits, I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.
Actually, sorry they said "worked out" not calculated just after they portrayed the driver losing power on the track. The meaning is clear and the meaning was misleading. But like I said just run the car at its top speed and see how far it goes. Would take less time than talking about it on Slashdot.
I shagged Tesla's mum in the butt.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
No, but they do point out that if you drive the Veyron flat out, it runs out of fuel in 12 minutes, which assuming it's doing 400 kph the entire time (and it can't be, right?) is about the same range: 50 miles. :)
When you look at the history of the American automobile, the "driving force" has always been the mass-matrket car.
It takes a huge up front investment to enter that market, so it is not practical for a smaller company, the way the luxury/performance car market is. Economy of scale is hugely important in the mainstream market and basically does not apply at all to the luxury market. It is just the same as Segway, gyroscopic systems are very expensive, but people will pay it for a cool toy. Once you're making enough from the toys, you scale up and can make affordable systems for the handicapped.
all electric vehicles? not ready for prime-time.
Sure they are, but the US infrastructure isn't ready for them. That's the point of starting with the luxury market.
it's not going to translate into a production vehicle for general use -- the market is abysmally small, and made up almost entirely of people living in dense urban areas. You know, the sorts of people that aren't as likely to own a car.
Your assertion is ignorant. The vast majority of the US market is multi-car homes where at least one car is used for local commuting much less than 250 miles a day. Electric cars fit perfectly for that application.
If you don't need a car for 18 hours a day, you probably don't need a car.
Yeah, because nobody commutes to and from work as 90% of their driving? Well, except fricking everyone!
This is a high end sports car. You are supposed to take it out on the track, accelerate and brake hard. Driving the car as it is designed to be driven will get you all of 50 miles or so on the battery. Driving the car as a typical commuter will get you over 200 miles on the battery.
Following with your laptop comparison, think of this as a big 'desktop replacement'. Running Crysis, with the quad core processor and memory at full speed, 17" monitor at full brightness, powering your big surround headphones, charging your phone and gameboy, you might only get half an hour of battery life. Using a spreadsheet with the processor and memory downclocked, three of the four cores gated off, monitor on low brightness, no headphones, and no USB devices, you will get several hours out of the battery. The system was designed for gaming, and using it as such will drain the battery very quickly. Using it for typical office work will get you several times the battery life.
Why buy the big heavy laptop if you're not going to play intensive games on it? Why buy the expensive sports car if you're not going to take it out on the track and have fun? The show was reporting that if you DO use it as intended, those are the consequences.
Well, if the US are mainly populated by idiots like you - and I leave that open for debate for now - then they indeed won't make any money. But, hey, who cares if you continue on your slide back to third world status. The rest of the world moves on.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
They don't have to -- with every other car, if it runs out of fuel, someone grabs a gallon canister and trots over, drops in enough fuel to get it off the track, and there you have it.
now, they may push it in to the warehouse regardless.. but running out of gas on the track is not a big issue for an IC car. An electric? Yes, you would need to push it.
There's a huge difference between running out of juice in an IC car and an electric. I've run out of gas before. Hell, I ran out of gas the first time in 1998 -- note the year, cell phones weren't huge. It was a 3 mile walk for me to my buddy's house, but after that -- after they all had their chuckles -- we just nabbed their car and the gas for his lawnmower, threw about a half gallon into my tank, problem solved. Had I been in an electric car, it would have needed to be towed.
It's a not-very-subtle distinction between the two that I think was well-illustrated by the scene in question. What actually happened to them is irrelevant -- they were demonstrating what actually would happen to you, and in THAT light, the whole shebang is accurate.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Not convinced a google search result listing attributes to proof. As I said. The live event is an external show, not the tv programme. They aren't really the same thing from the same source. The live event just carries the presenters and brand but not necessarily the blessing of the BBC
Tesla themselves gave them the numbers.
Should TG have not trusted them?
It does add an interesting twist to the story to hear TG claim that Tesla engineers told them 55 miles. But that is not what they said in the episode. According to the clip I saw they portray the driver running out of charge (which didn't actually happen) and then they say that "we worked out that on our track it would run out after just 55 miles".
I think the only thing that really matters is if around 55 miles is an accurate number for its range at track speeds or not. I think it is crap that TG didn't actually run the car for 55 miles on its track on a full charge and it is also crap that Tesla doesn't just run the car around a similarly configured track and similar speeds and tell us what the range really would have been.
How isn't it deceptive?
It's as bullshit as when they 'helped' the alkali metal reactions in Brainiac by adding explosives. For a review show to present what they expect to happen as fact, without bothering to test what actually happens is worthless and deceptive. Why have a test track at all, if you're just going to recite numbers out of a spreadsheet for your results?
Top Gear's tests cover the real-world driving conditions of very few people. Sure, there are people who flog exotic and sportscars on the street...
Hang on, isn't the Tesla model they tested supposed to be an exotic sports car? I agree that this is not how most people would drive a car but most people don't own a seriously expensive sports car, let alone a car capable of being on the fun side of 185 mph (they might get it there but I doubt it wil be much fun!). It does not seem unreasonable to presume that someone who spends a serious amount of money on a car like this might want to take it to a track and put it through its paces. This is not a normal car so why assume normal driving conditions?
Reminds me of the guy rowing across the Atlantic ... 2/3 of the way over he got tired and turned round.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Tesla made the calculations, idiot
Don't let your ignorance prevent you from continuing to post FUD.
There are portable(and some wireless) chargers for situations where an urgent charging is needed. About as fast and inconvenient as trying to scrounge up some proverbial gas can that's full of good gas just around the corner.
It is no more necessary to push an electric car than it is a liquid fueled one, unless of course you're going for the dramatic effect.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
Nice try tying that together but the logic falls short unless portable quick chargers are as common as lawnmower gas cans. The point is the infrastructure is simply not there to quickly get an EV back on the road in anywhere near the same time frame as an IC vehicle (given the same problem of no fuel). As of right now, if you owned a Tesla and ran out of gas you would either be towed, or have someone bring your custom portable charger (citation needed btw) out to the car and then you WAIT for it to charge. The only dramatic effect is you pushing the bounds of logic to support your weak hypothesis.
Good-bye
If you think what we just saw is an economic depression, you are sorely mistaken.
My mini cooper track car gets 4.2 mpg on the track with high octane fuel. It has a 13.1 gallon tank. Doing the math it's 55.02 miles on a full tank. So not really a big deal that the tesla gets EXACTLY the same on a track.
Of course when not tracking, I get 27mpg on 91 octane just driving normally on the street.
Now, I'm going to flip this on you a bit: You've been hurting from the gasoline prices lately, yes? Pretty much everybody is.
Sorry to burst your bubble but, according to wikipedia the battery pack for the Tesla model in question costs $36k and has a lifetime of 100k miles which is 36 cents/mile travelled to which you can add about 3 cents/mile in electricity costs (86kWh per full charge at 200 miles/charge and assume 7 cents/kWh). Current US petrol prices seem to be about $3.55 per US gallon so for a petrol car to have the same fuel costs as the Tesla it would need to have a fuel consumption worse than 9.1 miles per gallon...which is about comparable to a hummer.
So, unless the cost of petrol gets very significantly higher (by x3-4) or the cost of batteries drops considerably the fuel cost of an electric vehicle is significantly higher than a petrol driven one. I wish that were not the case but sadly, for now, it is.
It does add an interesting twist to the story to hear TG claim that Tesla engineers told them 55 miles. But that is not what they said in the episode. According to the clip I saw they portray the driver running out of charge (which didn't actually happen) and then they say that "we worked out that on our track it would run out after just 55 miles".
So Tesla is suing because they had the copyright on the 55 mile range calculation?
Fandroids hate facts.
Of the TV program or of different events outside the TV program?
Sorry. The TV program is not sponsored, and they have made fun of the BP disaster. You are usually pretty well-informed, but on this issue you need to either watch more Top Gear or shut up.
Running for your very life, and jamming it full throttle to the floor isn't sporting. It's racing, where you try to keep your vehicle in front of all the others.
Sporting is going down US1 between SF and LA and getting to Santa Barbara in 3.5hrs. Racing, and chancing becoming cliff decoration can be done in 2.5.
I find doing a video where you make a viewer presume you ran out of fuel when you didn't is disingenuous. Being red-faced hopping mad when you ran out at 57 and they told you 55 could be understood, after all, a 55mi range is rather small even for gas gulpers.
Drawing a conclusion before the test(s) have been done is also disingenuous, even if you are prepared to change the scores should you find out that reality flies in the face of your pre-conclusion.
Was it fair to Tesla? Not as written, IMHO.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Except Audi never had a suck cruise control problem. It seems that suburban housewives have a declining ability to differentiate the brake pedal from the gas pedal. Undoubtedly, this was the same problem for Toyota. You'll notice that most of the people interviewed on the national news, claiming to have suffered this problem, were soccer moms, or old and decrepit. I'd bet most were also driving distracted. Some (i.e. most) people, with their current skill set, simply have no business being behind the wheel of an automobile.
And yet, it's the most casual thing in the world to be a driver, never mind that we're slinging multi-ton murder machines around like it's nothing. It's time for better driver training and testing.
No they are suing because Top Gear pointed out the inherent flaws of electric powered cars instead of saying the Tesla was the second coming of Jesus.
Maybe he needs to watch the Top Gear video again
I think Top Gear is actually helping Tesla by suggesting people buy two tesla's, one to drive and one to charge.
P.S. Tesla: suing the media... not a great idea. They have viewers, lots of them, and can bash Tesla every episode if they wished for FREE. OH and suing makes Tesla look guilty as hell, and every news outlet will now cover the tesla-looks-guilty lawsuit. Better idea: play nice. Make an excuse and let them test again with a car that does get 200+ miles per charge. Everyone's happy.
P.S.S. Tesla: lots of luck with the lawsuit. Unless you were standing there with video cameras (like top gear was) to prove the car lasted more than 55 miles or the brakes didn't fail, I'd say Top Gear probably has this one in the bag.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Why have a test track at all, if you're just going to recite numbers out of a spreadsheet for your results?
To test the handling? Also, they do quarter mile tests etc sometimes, so they don't always rely on the figures.
which is totally what she said
... portable, really?
Still hundreds of pounds.
If there was a portable system which could rapidly transfer a charge to a battery, that did not weigh as much as that battery, we'd be using it instead of the battery. Think about what you're saying. The Tesla's battery weighs 1,000 pounds. A portable system to transfer 1/10 of the battery pack's capacity would weigh... about 1/10 of the battery. 100 pounds. That's about the same as what, a gallon and a half of gas? Which weighs maybe 10 pounds?
There's also absolutely no other use for such a beast. Can of gas? Who doesn't have a can of gas. if you have a lawn, you have a lawn mower. If you have a lawn mower, YOU HAVE A CAN OF GAS.
Ohhh, you're an urbanite, no lawn mower, no can of gas? Sounds like a personal problem to me.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
The question "How far does it go?" should have a two word answer in the following format: "a number" followed by a "distance unit, e.g. miles". And no asterisks or superscripts. Here is an acceptable example.
Q: How far does it go?
A: 30 miles
Not a single manufacturer gives a short answer. Instead, one gets three pages of legally framed narratives.
I think that manufacturers and their models should be dismissed if the answer to the above question is longer than two words.
Everybody points to the fact that they didn't SAY it, however it was implied, as many people have pointed out.
To the point that I've had the following conversation over and over again:
"I wouldn't get a Tesla, their batteries run flat in no time! I saw it on Top Gear, he was going around the track, and then it just died."
"No, they don't. That was a dramatized fake thing they showed on Top Gear."
"Really? Because I thought that's what happened."
Seriously, I've had these conversations over and over again. Same as a lot of their "stunts", "challenges", and similar. I end up having the same "No, it's bullshit, please recognize it's a stupid fucking show." conversations.
So in this case, while what they said was "our calculations show", a reasonable bystander likely takes the rest of the contextual information to mean "the car died on us".
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
LOL WHO THE FUCK NEEDS TO BE DRIVING FOR 18 HOURS A DAY?
I'm thinking you're not asserting people drive for 18 hours a day, but that it takes 18 hours to recharge. This is a common mistake made by morons who forget that you don't empty your tank everyday. So, in the same way that you don't have to fill up your tank everyday, your entire charge isn't drained, everyday. Meaning it takes less time.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Exactly! This is what I've been trying to say about Ferrari, Pagani, Lambourghini, Koenigsegg, Porche, McLaren, Maybach, and similar. Those poor struggling producers will never make it in the automobile industry. If you want an American example, Saleen.
While I'm being facetious here, I know that those companies above have eventually merged with others, however some of them haven't, and some have different financing arrangements such that they are independent. However, none of them started from the mass-market, most of them started with fuck all capital, and most of them make a fuck load of money.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
the purpose was to demonstrate to the audience in a visceral and entertaining way what would happen when the battery went dead
And nowhere is that explained in the show - only in an after-the-fact comment prompted by Tesla's complaint. So again: Jeremy looking confusedly at the dashboard then cutting to a scene of crew members pushing the Tesla off the track was meant to imply what, exactly? The car didn't need to be pushed and it was never explained why it was.
I'm sure the expected range whipping one of those high-end sports cars around the track is much less than the official rating too, but you'll never see one of those being pushed back to the hangar...
=Smidge=
I need a car for 1 1/2 hours a day, and cover 100KM. There is no other way to travel to work. Therefore I need a car,
and something that has the range of this car would do nicely. In fact a friend of mine drives his Tesla to work every day, and charges it for a 10KW solar array on his home.
Could you be more worng?
Google says that's 325 miles. You'll never make it in one day with a Tesla.
And that's their point. It's not a realistic car. There's nothing at all disingenuous about that.
Sure, you could use it to commute to work. But there's no fun in that with a sports car. I believe Nissan makes an electric more appropriate to that market.
The Tesla is an expensive toy, and as such, cannot perform to the general expectations of other expensive toys in its class, due to the current inherent limitations of its power source.
The problem was dramatized. Top Gear is an entertainment show. I don't see why this is an issue, especially since the problem with the car is real and verifiable.
I saw the show. I would still want to have a Tesla if I could afford it, but it would have to be my second high-end sports car, because I'd want to have one I could actually drive long distances if I wanted. As it is, I can't afford the first one, so I'm not getting a Tesla anytime soon.
Er...maybe being sued would make them look guilty. Not sure I see how filing a civil lawsuit as a plaintiff makes one look guilty...
Make an excuse and let them test again with a car that does get 200+ miles per charge.
The car they were driving does get 200+ miles per charge...on the EPA combined cycle. Which is exactly what Tesla claimed. No car Top Gear has ever driven achieved the rated miles-per-tank or miles-per-gallon numbers. This is really basic.
Unless you were standing there with video cameras (like top gear was) to prove the car lasted more than 55 miles or the brakes didn't fail, I'd say Top Gear probably has this one in the bag.
Perhaps if Top Gear was denying the facts you'd be right. As it stands, they admit that the car never died during their testing. That is to say, they admit to staging the scene where Clarkson says "uh-oh" as the car "dies" and then staging the scene where a bunch of guys push the car back to the hangar! I'm sorry, but if you don't call that misrepresentation, I don't know what else to say.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. They could have (and in fact did) note that the car would only go 55 miles the way they push it on the track. That much is fine. But in this case they didn't just note that...they pushed it off the track after showing it "dying." Which of course never happened.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
First, saying "that's what could have happened" doesn't excuse them from lying about what happened. But more importantly, this statement: "...they were demonstrating what actually would happen to you..." is false. Because that's not what would have happened to you. You'd drive it like hell for about 35 miles on the track, and then the computer would warn you that you were low and reduce power, and you'd go, "hey maybe I shouldn't strand myself like a dumbfuck" and drive home. Which is another way of saying that even playing by Top Gear's own rules ("we can say anything happened if it theoretically could have") they are liars. It wasn't even a correct representation of what would have happened if they had driven it until it complained.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
I won't excuse GP; I'm unaware of any really portable charger that would get your Tesla Roadster home. But when you say, "EVs are bad because they are completely impractical for many situations." you've gone way too far. They are impractical for about 5% of the driving public, and that in no way makes them "bad." Then you compound the situation with "they cost way more than an IC to own." which is just total nonsense. The beauty of EVs is that they cost next to nothing to maintain and fuel. You absolutely can't find an IC car with performance anywhere near the Roadster's with a total cost of ownership that can touch it. Once the Model S comes out this will be even more apparent...it'll likely have a TCO about the same as a Ford Taurus.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
My guess is that it did run out at some point in the day.
Good guess. Completely wrong. Both Tesla and Top Gear agree that it never ran out. Therefore the rest of your post is bunk.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
Everybody points to the fact that they didn't SAY it, however it was implied...
No, dammit, it wasn't just "implied." They showed it happening. That's every bit as explicit as saying it. If I'm watching a video and some guy gets shot in the head and falls down dead, his death was not "implied" just because the narrator didn't say, "that guy just died."
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
... the breaks had failed.
"Brakes".
The word is "brakes".
No sig today...
Yeah, good point.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Yep. If Tesla is right then they could lend Top Gear another car for a couple of days to test in front of a crowd of reporters and let the Pesky Facts(tm) speak for themselves.
No sig today...
When you look at the history of the American automobile, the "driving force" has always been the mass-matrket car.
Get your history straight. The Model T was not the first automobile. There were a lot of cars for a long time that fit the "too expensive for the mass market" description. And eventually we got a Model T. This will happen again.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
You say it's not a realistic car. In my realism, my truck gets 14mpg with a 17gal gas tank. That's 238 miles. That's 119 miles round trip. Yes, I can fill it up at the end and go for a lonnnnnng way, until I have to switch drivers, etc. My Metro gets 44mpg, but has only an 8gal tank. One way is 352.
The dramatization is indeed falsehood until it's proven. Entertainment? No.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Name one time government did any good.
Rural electrification. Interstate highways. Public education. The Civil Rights Act of 1964. THE FUCKING INTERNET.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
Wrong question. There's no difference there that matters. But Tesla's complaint is not with them saying that it would have run out after 55 miles. Their complaint is that they showed it "dying" and being pushed off the track, when neither of those things actually happened. And furthermore, neither of those things would have happened if they had run the battery down...the car would have warned them and reduced power, and they would have puttered around the last lap (or another 30 miles if necessary) to the hangar. Please...go watch the clip. They really do act like it totally failed on them. And that never would have happened.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
Guys, you have just totally fallen for Clarkson's straw-man. The problem is not that the 55-mile claim is inaccurate. The problem is that they showed the car dying when it didn't and would not have even if they had run it down. They showed people pushing a perfectly drivable car! Defamation!
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
Rural electrification.
Rolling blackouts in california. Massive blackout that took out the Northeast a few years ago.
Interstate highways.
Crumbling infrastructure. Bridges to No where.
Public education.
Called on of the worst amoung developed nations.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Poverty has become even worse among African Americans
THE FUCKING INTERNET.
Some of the slowest broad band speeds among developed nations. Back bone traffic got routed through china a few years ago.
...doing 400 kph the entire time (and it can't be, right?)
Well, technically it could ... but good luck finding a suitable road.
I don't see what Tesla's problem is. If you can thrash the hell out of a Tesla Roadster for 55 miles then I'd say that's pretty good for an electric car. Every over car ever built also gets low mileage if you thrash it, why should theirs be any different?
No sig today...
It was NOT a typo. It is a BLATANT MISSPELLING. Fool.
The problem is that they showed the car dying when it didn't and would not have even if they had run it down.
What? Do you not understand how electricity works?
If the battery is dead it won't go anywhere. The point Top Gear is saying is that when it does die you can't go anywhere for hours. Now you may say that 90% of your will be covered by its range. That also means then that it's 10% less car. If it's 10% less car it should cost 10% less than the Lotus Elise it's based on. Except it doesn't. It cost 3 times as much.
So you are paying 3 times as much for 10% less car.
All topgear did is rightfully point out what a terrible car it is and that's not including the reliability problems it has with the motor overheating and the brakes failing.
While it didn't "run out", if it was in reduced power mode (which appears to be the case) with 10-20% left (not "out", technically), it'd surely be time to stop testing it and consider it to be done for the day. They probably drove it 45-50 miles and extrapolated the data that maybe they could get 5-10 more miles out if it but didn't want to drive at lower speeds to find out (no point, really). It's like Honda's Insight when Fifth Gear tested it. It lasted about 1/2 - 3/4 lap before it was providing barely any assistance. Sure, some, but 10-20% extra power isn't enough to be considered meaningful. The exact term Fifth Gear used, IIRC, was "it's gone" - now, technically, it wasn't *100%* gone, but it made no real difference. The second lap was no better than what you'd expect from the car with the engine providing all of the power.(not too good)
You didn't hear Honda complaining. The Insight isn't made to do track days and when driven at full throttle yes, the small battery pack depletes ridiculously fast. Neither, unsurprisingly, is the Tesla. It's quick - very quick - but it assumes that such acceleration will be brief and that the majority of your trip will be fairly normal driving or at fairly constant highway speeds once you get going that fast.
Top Gear drove it hard and well, it only lasted a short time in their hands.(I'm shocked they didn't make it explode or die like half of the stuff they test - heh) That said, it completely pummeled the other EVs that they had subjected to similar treatment in the past. Tesla needs to get off of their high horse and admit that it's not a race car and that when it's subjected to abnormal driving, range will suffer accordingly.
Still hundreds of pounds.
More mindless, ignorant bullshit. You can get a nice L1 charger that maybe weights in at all of 20 lbs. 20 minutes of charge would get you far enough to finish in a more convenient location. There are plenty of ways to get a depleted EV charged. For someone as smart as you, it's interesting you can only think of one method and that's the one that makes EV's seem totally unusable for real world activities.
There's also absolutely no other use for such a beast. Can of gas? Who doesn't have a can of gas. if you have a lawn, you have a lawn mower. If you have a lawn mower, YOU HAVE A CAN OF GAS.
Ohhh, you're an urbanite, no lawn mower, no can of gas? Sounds like a personal problem to me.
As a matter of fact, I'm anything but an urbanite. I live in quite a rural area, and frequently utilize gas cans for far more than just lawn mower usage. If you would bother to read what I said, I wrote "good gas". The problem with gas in gas cans is that it ages rapidly and frequently attracts water and sometimes more contamination. Some of my gas cans contain 2-stroke mixed fuel. I'm not about to allow gas out a gas can into my $30K car unless I've had the chain of custody on that gas/gas can the entire time.
What's the matter, you don't have simple extension cord? Where do you live?
brandelf -t FreeBSD
Riiight, because I can knock on the door of any neighbor and they ALL have...wait a minute, who the fuck owns one of those?
What you seem to be missing on purpose is that nearly everyone has a gas can whereas the odds that the guy down the street has a portable charger that 1.-has enough power to actually give an electric car enough juice to move more than 4 inches, and 2.-just happens to have said magical charger all juiced up and waiting for me is practically non existent. Hell I bet if you figured the odds you would have better odds of winning $500 with scratch off tickets than actually finding that charger in ANY random sample.
So whether you choose to face it or go "la la la" is your business but the simple FACT is the current infrastructure doesn't support EVs and ICs simply don't have that problem. I guarantee in just my apt building if I started knocking on doors I'd find at least 3 that had gas cans in their cars, how many of these electric chargers am I gonna find? None. And THAT was the point OP was trying to drive home that you seem to be missing. So here is your WHOOSH thanks and have a nice day.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
A claim whose figure was from Tesla's staff. Should be interesting court.
Top Gear was spot on about the real world implications - refueling time is one area electrics need to improve to be viable replacements, as opposed to short trip around town, vehicles.
Which is why ideas like Better place have come about. They suggest you have battery swap stations instead.
Unfortunately that requires a lot of new stations and standardised batteries. Tesla would no doubt always require high performance batteries, which may never be available at all these stations...
My other Sig is very funny.
It is a show about 3 man that make witty comments about cars. They like big "bad" cars. Fuel economy is mentioned shortly and then they go on racing again. Since they happen to get all super cars (Economically a ridicul concept) they can make make or break a super car with a single line. Super cars have to give out a feeling, being a economical car is not one of them.
Having them test a economical car is like giving them caravans. They love them. .... to chrash them just for one whitty line in the interview that follows.
Worst thing that could happen now: let them test the 2011 model Tesla. I am sure they will find a way to burn them without even driving.
What's the matter, you don't have simple extension cord? Where do you live?
Not a lot of outlets in the middle of the highway moron. No matter what you have to push it to an electrical source.
Weren't the rolling blackouts caused by people like Enron speculating with the energy supply?
So again: Jeremy looking confusedly at the dashboard then cutting to a scene of crew members pushing the Tesla off the track was meant to imply what, exactly? The car didn't need to be pushed and it was never explained why it was.
I was meant to show you what would happen if Tesla wasn't interfering with the testing and prohibiting Top Gear from showing the Car running out of juice. They could have run it down to 0 but weren't allowed too.
I'm sure the expected range whipping one of those high-end sports cars around the track is much less than the official rating too, but you'll never see one of those being pushed back to the hangar...
Nope most of the time when there pointing out a high end exotic's short range it's just left by the roadside as the presenter walks away. Been done many times.
One simple test would what they showed have happened if Tesla allowed them to drive until the batteries where depleted. YES. All TG did was illustrate the very true fact that once it runs out of juice you have to wait hours to recharge it. Not a huge factor when driving a leaf 15 miles to work everyday but you don't buy a $100,000+ sports car to drive for an hour at a time.
Jeremy was very correct. In the real world pure electrics just don't work.
That's because Jeremy Clarkston (JC) is the second coming of Jesus. They have stated that many times on the show.
I think it is crap that TG didn't actually run the car for 55 miles on its track on a full charge
Well then get pissed at Tesla. They would not allow TG to run the batteries out.
That L1 charger won't work away from a power outlet.
A gas can will.
The point is, anything that actually STORES energy and allows it to be transported a significant distance away from a wall socket is going to have a far worse energy-to-weight and energy-to-volume ratio than gas.
A portable generator MIGHT do it - but these are rare nowadays. 1-2 decades from now this might change as EVs become more commonplace and standardized, but not right now.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Yes, the blackouts came from massive market fraud from the likes of Enron. Power was always available. The power problems came from periods where supplies were unwilling to purchase massively inflated and artificially manipulated price as a result of illegal practices.
I was meant to show you what would happen if Tesla wasn't interfering with the testing and prohibiting Top Gear from showing the Car running out of juice. They could have run it down to 0 but weren't allowed too.
Wow, really? They did it out of spite because Tesla was interfering with the tests? That doesn't exactly help their image you know. How do you know this? It wasn't mentioned in the segment.
Nope most of the time when there pointing out a high end exotic's short range it's just left by the roadside as the presenter walks away. Been done many times.
Context is what's most important here, don't you agree? So if you could provide specific examples I could review in context that'd be swell.
=Smidge=
See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech" (because he clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for added security, speed, and even to a degree extra 'anonymity' online):
---
Static vs. Dynamic (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
---
Only thing constantly changing's your "math", 3x ++ or more no less:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686444
and
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686566
as well as this:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686630
---
Hairyfeet's single solutions FAILURES? See inside:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260
---
Your sources vs. mine (AND myself, a source on it):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328
---
Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740
---
The defeat of hairyfeet by APK videos:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536
---
They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student).
APK
P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk
See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech" (because he clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for added security, speed, and even to a degree extra 'anonymity' online):
---
Static vs. Dynamic (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
---
Hairyfeet's single solutions SECURITY FAILURES? See inside:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260
---
Your sources on "security" vs. mine (actual security people) (AND myself, a source on it):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328
---
Only thing constantly changing's your "math", 3x ++ or more no less:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686444
and
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686566
as well as this:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686630
---
Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740
---
The defeat of hairyfeet by APK (video analogy - hilarious, BUT, apt):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536
---
They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student).
APK
P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk