Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Motors Loses Appeal Against BBC's Top Gear
TrueSatan writes "In a highly detailed decision, the UK Court of Appeal has rejected Tesla's appeal against an eartlier ruling by a lower court that, too, rejected Tesla's case. Reading through the decision it is clear that the judge saw Tesla's case as lacking sufficient detail and specific instances of proof to support each claim. The judge stated that that Tesla's chances of a successful appeal, should the case have gone to trial, were insufficiently high to justify holding a trial. He stated that Tesla's case had no real chance of success and in many notes picked appart Tesla's legal team's arguments. That said, he did not say that Top Gear were right or justified in portraying Tesla's vehicle in the way they did — merely that there wasn't a legal case for an appeal. One of the key flaws in Tesla's case, according to the judicial decision, was Tesla's inability to show that actual pecuniary harm, with detailed financial figures, had occurred."
All companies get a hammering on top gear at some point, even the most prestigious on the planet. If the pricks at Tesla thought their overweight lotus mod would be a free advert, they deserve to be fired.
Tesla don't make the news for their product, they make it from the constant whining. It's no wonder no one buys their cars.
With some of the costs paid by the UK taxpayer and the BBC license fee payers, Tesla really got lots of mileage (see what I did there?) out of this one.
I agree that the amount of pecuniary harm this did them is probably zero - they were already selling out their full production capacity of Roadster vehicles. Top Gear was not limiting their profits, their production capacity was.
But now their product and brand has had a great deal more exposure.
I fail to understand why pecuniary harm is relevant.
Because that's all it is really. And to a certain extent I sympathise with Tesla somewhat - Top gear did represent the car as a bit of a dud whereas in fact they weren't 100% truthful with what happened. But then I suppose if you let your car be tested on what is effectively a car based comedy show you shouldn't expect unbiased reviews.
The people at Tesla should have watched an episode of Top Gear before they let those guys drive their car. Clarkson trashes anything he disapproves of -- that means most American cars, Japanese cars, and anything 'eco-friendly.' It was obvious they were exaggerating when it came to the Tesla but they had a valid point. You can't drive that thing balls-to-the-wall around the track without running out of juice super quick, and it takes a long time to recharge. That makes it a no-go for track enthusiasts, precisely the crowd it could appeal to.
For most people, going to the track is an expensive and time-consuming activity. They don't have time to wait for their electric car to recharge, they want to get the most out of their weekend at the track as possible. A muscle car or Italian super car may go through fuel like mad, but filling it up takes mere minutes. That's the point Top Gear was making, they were just being real mean about it. Anyone who thinks that Clarkson and the boys don't bullshit for the sake of entertainment just haven't seen the show. It's pretty obvious when they are exaggerating or staging something. In the end, the opinions they give are genuine, however full of bias they may be.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Say anything negative about them, and they may sue! Sadly, most electric car people are whiny holier-than-thou cultist types. I drive a Volt and I've had LEAF people walk up to me in parking lots, unsolicited, to tell me that my car isn't really an electric car or to gloat about their "all electric" car. I'm embarrassed to be part of the "electric car" community.
If only the same decision was made when consumer reports told us that the Suzuki was unsafe to drive. Gain, an objective but not necessarily unbiased publication that stated the test methods and results. If only the courts did not believe tests results bought by Suzuki. While at the time all SUVs were dangerous, and people were not yet used to driving them, I cannot tell you how many SUVs I used to see toppled over on the side of the street where they were turning too fast into a driveway, Of course at the end of last year, after many people died in unsafe Suzuki's, they filed for bankruptcy in the US.
There is no reason that companies should not be allowed to make unsafe or subpar products, or that people should not be allowed to buy them, but we at least need to have the right to state that products are not up to par, and why we think so.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
How does one prove, even with data, that sales that might have happened didn't happen?
All Tesla was doing was whining that they were 'environmental' (whatever that means) and so they ought to be allowed to have a clear shot at people's wallets.
Electric cars are a walking disaster area - they don't even do what they claim, and what they claim isn't what people want. That's why so few get sold - they are only bought by rich lefties who want to make up their environmental street-cred with other lefties.
In fact, the whole 'environmental' movement is slowly slipping into the sea, as people start to realise that most of it is a big scam, like Global Warming, and what isn't a scam is highly exaggerated. It's a strange mixture of fascism and Luddism, constantly preaching despair and catastrophe in a future which never seems to come, and I, for one, will be happy to see the back of it. I remember the predictions for a collapsed world made in the 1970s - by now we should be knee-deep in corpses. They don't exists, but that doesn't stop environmentalists continually spouting lying made-up statistics while feathering their own nests.
A show that has run its course. I even went to bed early and didn't even finish last nights episode. It's really not been very entertaining the last 2 seasons and it seems forced.
with all these "they slated our car, lets sue them" lawsuits
simply nobody is ever going to objectively review their cars again !, they forget their friends are supposed to be the auto press, right now they are enemies and the journalists will be digging for dirt, what else do have Tesla to hide if they do this so early into their career ?, dig deeper
Don't mess with Jezza. (ask Piers Morgan)
That is all.
Where, precisely is this "legislate their profits" coming from?
Someone makes shit up (faked, lies, whatever you want to call it) to pretend a car is less useful than it is.
And you think stopping lies is "legislating their profits2??? Sorry, unless Tesla are making you BUY their cars by having it mandated by law, they aren't doing that. They're trying to get redress for lies against them.
Is the problem that they don't burn petrol?
(if I could afford it) even if all of the "bad" publicity was based on truth. The sheer automotive sex appeal of this car could smash through far more (so-called) negative publicity than this car has seen, so based on that I think the judge was correct in denying the appeal. If anything, anyone familiar with the car who is in the position to buy the car and who has heard the negative publicity (from TopGear, or more recently the NYT) has also heard the flip side of those stories and knows that they are (or could be) bogus. Tesla aren't losing any money because of this, and as others have pointed out, they are getting a lot of free (actually, not so free since instead of letting things go they decided to pay some lawyers to go to court) advertising.
Tesla enabled logging in the car and it more than confirms their version of events. Given how some journalist's have it in for Tesla this seems like a sensible move by them. The journo was lying through his teeth and was caught in his lie.
What's worse is the submitter assuming we know that he's talking the exchange between Musk and the NYT. O doubt anyone outside Britain even heard of the first lawsuit, but it isn't mentioned until almost the last sentence. That's really REALLY bad writing, TrueSatan. You'd have been better off (and more true to your username) if you'd just plagairized the first sentence of TFA.
Tesla is getting the shaft. They're doing some interesting things, and there was a point I could actually afford and want one of their cars... but I live in an area without lots of charging options.
On one hand, that newspaper review was borderline libel. They have the records backing them up and proved the newspaper reporter was a liar... though somehow the writer is trying to defend himself.
But Top Gear... I only watch it every now and then and it's pretty clear that a lot of their "reviews" are a bit sensationalized / comedic / petty. My "favorite" was when they found out the Cadillac CTS-V was actually a decent sports car... so they had to harp that the bell constantly chimed when the door was open. He showed the bit like 5+ times throughout the review and whined that "yes we know the door is open." Yet they failed to mention they left their KEYS in the ignition so the bell/chime was really saying "dude you left your keys in a car with an open door" At least the guy had to say "I can't believe I am going to say this, but this car is actually decent"
There have been others. The guys often have their minds made up about how much they dislike a car/company early on and decide to do comedy bits about this-or-that.
So really, you can't really be surprised that Top Gear decided to mock the Tesla for no reason. It's like if you decided to appear on on one of those old day talk shows like "Jerry Springer" and are surprised they decided to hit you with a "gotcha" or surprise pregnancy... what did you THINK was going to happen?
My kingdom for a mod point....
No, it's not an exaggeration, it is the exact fact, the figure of 55 mile on the track came from Tesla themselves.
The claim from Tesla came from a willful misinterpretation of the *FACT* Clarkson stated. The claimed that Clarkson had implied that the car would only go 55 miles on the road.
The judge look at it and said no. 55 miles on the track is not 55 miles on the road and nobody would confuse the two.
They had no case, the lawsuit was simply to attempt to suppress bad reviews. Top Gear won and would never have lost.
To Gear response to Elon Musks attack on them:
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1057825_top-gear-responds-to-tesla-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”."
Elon Musk had tried to raise a straw man to knock down.
"We never said that the Tesla was completely immobilized as a result of the motor overheating. We said the car had “reduced power”. This was true."
Indeed it was true.
"Tesla claims we were lying when we said the brakes were “broken”. They now say that all that had happened was that the fuse to the vacuum pump had failed, which meant that the brake just had to be pushed down much harder than usual. Well – to my mind, if the brakes are broken, then they’re broken, and if this happened to your car, you’d take it to the garage to get it fixed. Odd it seems so trivial to Tesla now, because on the day of filming they insisted on repairing the fuse before we could carry on driving the car."
You know, many of you swallow the straw man arguments Elon Musk puts forward as if they are true. They're not, he *pretends* a critic has made claim X, because claim X is easier to knock down, than the unpleasant truth they actually said.
I see a pattern here. Poor Tesla; such bad luck that journalists always pick on them.
Never seen such a spoiled brat in business in all my life. Its like he just assumes he has created the best product in the world and then anybody that doesn't think so needs to be sued out of existence.
First, Tesla may have created a nice looking vehicle but it is completely priced out of the range of the average person and so has no real world testing and performance numbers. Driving it in the "most ideal way" possible is not the way the average driver will drive this car, and until Tesla gets several hundred thousand vehicles on the road they have no right to claim the performance numbers they do. Instead of attacking people for claiming that it doesn't perform according to your website, embrace the criticism and start working on Gen 2 products that will meet, and better yet exceed, real life expectations.
Second, Musk needs to grow a set of big brass balls because people are going to criticize his car and company and he is just going to have to learn to take it. Shows like Top Gear don't like any car in existence, particularly electric vehicles, the show is built around the idea of ripping all cars to shreds. Top Gear is not a real car review show anyways, its a comedy show that involves cars.
Musk is going to have to realize he created a very expensive commuter vehicle. The argument made by Top Gear is that all electric vehicles have poor range and if you don't happen to be near one of those rapid charge stations when you are running out of power then you are spending hours charging your vehicle to get only another few hundred kilometers range. Whether that number is 400 or 300 or 200, it's irrelevant, it's still a limited amount of range compared to gas powered cars and therefore is not a valid alternative to gas powered cars unless all you are doing is running errands or driving to work.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Uh.. Yeah. Data logs from the car and subsequent tests by other papers and tesla owners proved you narrative is a complete crock of shit, weeks ago.
At best, the reporter lied to make a controversial story. More likely he's on the take from the oil industry and is in gross violation of journalistic ethics.
It's a good thing you posed AC, huh?
Always a good thing. Nobody was forced into believing anything. Libel and slander laws must be abolished. It is the action taken in bad faith that must be sanctioned, or at least ridiculed.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
No, Elon Musk didn't deny any of the key facts at all. He raised straw men and knocked them down.
You have not stated on single item of the key points that is wrong in any way.
Did it not lose charge overnight? Did the Tesla man not clear them after 1 hour of charge? Did they not supply it fully charged? Did it not say 247 miles range? Was it not shut down, with its brakes locked when they towed it?
All of these things are true. The car really did that.
Then there was this:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/18/fleet-of-tesla-s-owners-set-out-to-debunk-nyt-report/
"A small group of Tesla fans decided to see for themselves. Meeting in DC over the weekend, seven drivers from the Tesla Motors Club forums banded together to recreate the reporter's infamous trip to Tesla's Milford Connecticut Supercharger, minus the Manhattan detour. "
Also minus the overnight rest stop in the cold. And with warm clothes, but that's not what bother me the most, its this:
"The long and short? The team made the trip successfully, albeit with some minor hiccups. Most of the drivers had no trouble topping off their Tesla's at max range, ensuring they had enough charge to complete each leg of the trip -- but one car stubbornly refused to top off at a Delaware Supercharger....After about an hour of troubleshooting, Tesla pushed a firmware update to the vehicle, found and diagnosed another bug and got the car back on the road."
A bug that only affected on car and stopped it reaching the topped off state? No, Elon I don't believe it, I think the firmware stopped the car going on the 'range' overcharge state because the battery condition wouldn't permit it.
Avry body knows it's Furlongs per Fortnight o're here!
Cheers
Is it so mysterious? Does no one understand the question mark?
According p. 67 of the auto issue, "Look for a full test [of the Tesla Model S] in a forthcoming issue." Their test track is in Connecticut, and hopefully they will have done some tests in chilly weather.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
On the other hand, I have stopped watching Top Gear (BBC and US shows) entirely. Even dropped both cable channels.
Err.. Top Gear is a show. You don't use those 3 idiots (the little one, captain slow and that idiot clarkson) advices for your car buying decision. If you do, then you probably ended up buying the most ridiculous most-expensive car, or porsche 911, or worse, a jaguar racing car for your daily commute.
It IS a SHOW MIMICKING A CAR SHOW. Just relax and enjoy. That's what Top Gear shows is all about.
As for that idiot clarkson. He manage to flip over a reliant robins on EVERY turns. Successfully emptying the mustang fuel tank just by driving it in Top Gear tracks. Successfully burn out 2 brand new tires from Mercedes AMG-SLS. Manage to mock up people from all over the world (including USA. Not only asian countries, latin countries, Greeks, Albania, Russia, Afrika and just about everybody on this universe not just planet earth). Need we continues on and on?? That's what Clarkson do. There's a lot of video on Youtube about clarkson, if you see some of them, you'll know what i means.
So Tesla should cheer up. That 3 idiots wouldn't change their attitude. That's what makes Top Gear different from the other "car shows". And that's why i love to watch that show..
The Grauniad article has been though a spellchecker, so he's making up for it for old times' sake.
No, the logs allowed Elon to contest minor details, he didn't dispute the main points.
No, it's not a conspiracy against Tesla by the oil companies. The electric car doesn't change the source of US energy, it just stores it differently.
No, Tesla owners did not prove the narrative was a crock of shit. They did a different test (without the cold stop, and with the range overcharging and with warm clothes) and one car even failed that test. Was that failure a conspiracy against Tesla too?
...question mark?
So Tesla does not like the truth about their cars having lower mpg distance, breaking down, or taking hours just to charge the damn car. I seen that episode. Only rich idiots buy these ridiculous overpriced shithole cars.
They said that the Tesla would only do 55 miles (on their track run as a race). But their Bugatti or DB5 won't do more than 55 miles that way either. So their complaints are still only based on their hate for electric cars.
So if its all lies, where's the lawsuit? That was the whole point of their post that you conveniently dodged.
You see that bit where they pushed it? Saying it needed pushing because it ran out of power? It hadn't.
That is called "lying".
"This car is absolutely horrible.... yet somehow it's brilliant!"
Apple today announced plans to sue Blendtec's Tom Dickson, for unfair portrayals of their products during his review.
Film @ 11.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If it wasn't libellous (or whatever you'd call it when it's performed on stage as an act but presented as fact), why did they have to fake pushing it to the garage?
Elan Musk is a cock. Jeremy Clarkson is a dick. So, let them fuck around. Why is this even a news for the nerds.
Weight in the middle is excellent. Weight at one end means that the other will tend to lose traction, possibly causing a deadly spin. (pick-up trucks suffer from this when the bed is empty or overloaded) Weight at both ends is kind of like weight in the middle, but with a higher moment of inertia. It's harder to turn, and thus more likely to lose grip (leading to deadly spin) when you do.
Batteries are usually mounted low, which is even better. The center of gravity drops, making the car less likely to tip.
BTW, hydrogen was Bush's way to distract voters while divirting money to near-pointless research. It's not going to happen.
The BBC was created as the public-facing propaganda arm of MI5 (although MI5 wasn't called that at the time, and strictly speaking isn't called that today, but the term is widely accepted as a blanket description of Britain's domestic basket of intelligence agencies).
Every journalist that works for the BBC (and most senior managers) have to be vetted by MI5 (who have permanent offices in the larger BBC facilities). BBC foreign correspondents are all agents of MI6. The BBC 'World Service' is, of course, an MI6 operation, and was directly responsible for creating the West's fake Muslim 'news' service Al Jazeera (originally formed from the Arab division of the 'World Service' in another 'Lawrence of Arabia' type operation). Today, Al Jazeera operates from Britain's intelligence bases in Qatar.
The end result of all this is several-fold. Firstly the BBC was given a COMPLETE monopoly over all the broadcast airwaves (Radio and TV) for the longest time, starving the British people of any form of variety in their entertainment. This monopoly was not fully broken until the emergence of satellite TV in the 1980s, and then only because the BBC plans to monopolize satellite as well collapsed due to extreme incompetence.
Today, British people still have to pay for an exorbitant TV 'license', with enforcement of this tax involving a vast army of vicious thugs who gleefully infringe the privacy and rights of anyone who lacks a license, regardless of whether they legally need one. The law requires a license ONLY if a person watches broadcast video (via any equipment including the Internet), so convictions almost always require a 'confession' since any equipment, including TV sets, have none infringing uses. The BBC thugs specialise in extracting confessions from the most vulnerable people in society.
The BBC has always been the richest national TV broadcast service, but rarely does this fact show itself onscreen. Instead, the vast sums of money raking in by the BBC traditionally pay for the highest salaries and pension pay-outs in the business. During the 60s and 70s, when the BBC was rolling in cash, BBC's TV output (in production values) was some of the shoddiest on the planet. As a consequence (and to meet union demands that TV shows had very few repeat transmissions) the BBC notoriously deleted the vast majority of its archives just before the VHS home renting market emerged, costing the BBC hundreds of millions in lost revenue. The people responsible were promoted.
The corruption and lack of public accountability make the BBC a playground for every kind of ambitious pervert. The biggest BBC star across more than three decades was Jimmy Savile, a vicious, violent, repulsive child rapist, and general sex criminal. The BBC provided Savile with a regular salary, regardless of output, and 'private' facilities wherever he worked, so he could abuse kids more easily. Complaints against his behaviour were continuous across his career with the BBC, but BBC senior management made it clear that Savile was 'untouchable'. Savile was a personal friend and confidant of Prince Charles and Margret Thatcher. It should also be noted that Savile famously spoke in the Israeli parliament, demanding that the Zionist government kill more Palestinians, and steal more land. Since the 60s, the BBC is frequently known as the 'Israeli Broadcasting Corporation'.
Every form of disgusting scandal has happened at the BBC. The growth of the pay-to-play phone-in competitions allowed BBC staff to run all kinds of scams, including on their famous charity 'telethons'. The BBC 'royal' charter puts its staff above the law (remember the MI6 connection) except on rare occasions.
The BBC reputation for 'truth' and 'honesty' exists only in the minds of uniformed morons. All this being said, a show like 'Top Gear' is crafted for entertainment only, with the assumption that every word uttered is a fictional as a line in 'Star Wars'. When it comes to actual products, the car biz has to see the show as a PR positive for their indust
In the UK, a libel suit is the easiest thing to win. Anytime somebody says anything bad about a UK person or corporation, they go to court and win.
Telsa is not a UK company. They were suing a UK quasi-governmental entity. They lost.
Honest question... everyone keeps saying that Top Gear is a comedy/entertainment show, so why does it show up as a 'factual' show in many places? On BBC's site it says:
It also won four awards in the "Most Popular Factual Programme" category of the National Television Awards (2006, 2007, 2008, 2011). Wouldn't it being a comedy/entertainment show disqualify it?
It also says on their site: '“Top Gear” takes extraordinary and ordinary cars to the limit and beyond to find out if they’re half as good as manufacturers claim.'... isn't this misleading if they don't actually test a manufacturer's claims? Lots of mention of testing cars, which now looks more like 'testing'. I'm confused.
Post anon so as not to undo moderation.
I discovered Tesla's car by watching the Top Gear, without this show it would prolly take me some more time to hear about it. And to be honest, I do not remember how exactly they bashed the car and if they even did. What I recall is that I liked it and I found it's quite cool niche car.
I love those three pillocks, but TG straight-up *lied* for entertainment I suppose, but also for their quixotic defense of all combustion internal.
And here I thought the UK was legendary for their wicked-strong libel laws; guess it doesn't apply to US companies.
that's always a good one and reminds me of Bush and his gang of thugs who kept insisting that Saddam Hussein prove he didn't have weapons of mass destruction. So Tesla would have to prove they didn't get sales because of damaging false 'entertainment' by Top Gear TV. And when you are a startup, your sales are all over the map because of limited market penetration and marketing or brand recognition. A win for Top Gear TV who went out of their way to give gasoline sniffing muscle heads a chuckle seeing an electric car getting pushed around.
And Justice prevails!
Nice to know that Tesla is failing to bully the British legal system.
Tesla- a company with great potential as a technology and/or car company but clueless where marketing or legal ramifications are concerned.
I would not have known or believed that if it weren't for them attacking the press.
dumb move, Tesla.
-badford
I love having no idea what this post is about until the last sentence
Both Top gear and the NY times pointed out that electric cars will run out of juice and need to be towed if dead. NY times actually had a car run out, whereas top gear just stated that driving a car marketed as a sports car on track would have a low range.
Any critism of Tesla's products leads to Elon Musk either sueing someone or taking to the airwaves to talk about biases against him or electric cars. Why is pointing out any shortcoming about Tesla's products so offensive to some people? Are we all supposed to just automatically cheer them on?
Having tested electric vehicles for many years, the Top Gear results match up well with my experiences. The advertised driving ranges are typically double reality, and if you have any fun with the pedal on the right, expect just over 1/3 advertised distance. The temperature of the battery pack is directly proportional to the discharge / recharge rate, and the efficiency of the battery is proportional to its temperature. Once the temp gets over 170F, it will climb quickly to whatever cut-off temp the controller is set to, generally between 200-250F (any higher and its bye bye battery, hello to melted solder and plastic fumes). So for me, seeing the car perform magnificantly right up until cut-off, check. Needing battery cool down time after max accel and top speed tests, check. Getting between 1/3 and 1/2 claimed distance from a full charge during a day at the track, check. All exactly as expected.
It's all about the battery controller, and I have yet to see any purely electical drive vehicle manufacturer get it right. The Prius and other hybrids can cheat: turn on the motor during conditions that may cause or did cause battery problems in the past. All the pure electrics can do is slow down or cut-off completely.
If you look at the competition for $90k+ sports sedans (BMW M5, Mercedes CLK, Porsche Panamera), the Tesla performs competitively. They're selling high-end cars now to help fund the scale-up for the more common-end cars later.
Tesla Motors holds the key to solving US aviation industry's recent problems with advanced rechargeable batteries and that is an extremely crucial aspect. Britain is messing with Tesla Motors, therefore Britain has become an enemy of US interests. Therefore Britain is not going to receive F-35 fighters because of a US arms export embargo. Let's see what Blighty has at its disposal to stop russian Tu-160 bombers from criss-crossing its airspace? Downing Street 10 better apologize to Tesla Motors!
Top Gear isn't a journalistic endeavor - it's entertainment.