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."
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.
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.
I don't know about UK law, but in the US it's only libel if actual harm can be proven.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
It's no wonder no one buys their cars.
Son, you did not just go there. I'm so going to sue you. I'm logging this exchange.
E. Musk
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."
Use "girls" as a pejorative? Really?
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
Well, this counts as free advertising, however, I totally agree, companies like Tesla should stop trying to legislate their profits, which just makes them look like dicks, and put in the work to make the product better.
--
Fire all the lawyers.
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.
Not necessarily true. It depends. Search on this page for "punitive damages".
What's your problem with jeans?
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?
RIAA has never to my knowledge filed a libel suit. Their suits are about copyright infringement, which is neither the same thing nor relevant to the conversation.
You don't.
You proof that, since the Top Gear review, sales have decreased by a noticeable amount.
Or that some of your suppliers/investors raised concern over the issues presented that might hit upon their bottom line.
Or you interview potential buyers anonymously (e.g. through market research companies) and ask if the episode had affected their buying habits.
Basically, anything except go to a court - as an expensive, paid-for professional lawyer who's been told what they need to prove - and whine that you are right without any significant evidence to back up your assertion.
You don't need to prove the impossible. You just need to get off your arse and provide data that suggests there could be some link enough that might, possibly, one-day, in the right mood, convince a jury.
The fact that Tesla didn't probably means that Tesla couldn't, which probably means it didn't happen and Top Gear had nothing to do with their sales at all (i.e. the episode had no effect, or people were already steering clear).
(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.
Wow... you really completely let this one go right over your head.
Top Gear was not objective. At all. Some point to the fact that they are never objective and there was no reasonable expectation for them to be objective. But nevertheless, they aren't objective.
Similarly, the NYT article was sloppy. We expect better from the NYT. When Mr. Broder is sloppy and then mischaracterizes the situation, it does have a material impact. It is completely right for Tesla and Mr. Musk to object when they are mistreated, especially at this critical time. For NYT to be held in a high regard, they have to earn it each and every time. That's the nature of journalism and NYT has to live by that.
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?
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.
Have you seen Jeremy Clarkson in them?
Use "girls" as a pejorative? Really?
Really. Get over it.
She can't. Women do not just "Get over" things.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
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!”
Yet the range of Tesla's cars are within what most people use for running errands and driving to work... If you need something for edge case scenarios (driving a 1000 miles in one sitting or towing a boat), you can rent an appropriate vehicle. It doesn't discount the fact that (as of now) electric miles are 1/5th the cost of a gasoline equivalent and are practical for most urban and suburban uses.
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!
He didn't deny any of the facts, because the facts are not in dispute: the car did, indeed run out of juice. It's the context that is in dispute: driving through Manhattan traffic on an unscheduled detour, failing to fully charge the vehicle, attempting to repeatedly drive well beyond the stated charge, regularly exceeding both posted and suggested speed limits, etc. It ran out of juice due to the incompetence of the driver... whether deliberate or as a result of simple ignorance, each reader will need to decide for him/herself, as the logs fail only to reflect that particular detail.
For my part, that the NYT reviewer has denied all of these charges, in clear contrast of the plain and simple facts, speaks volumes to his intent. I would have a lot more respect for him if he just owned up to it and played the "stupid" card. His choice to instead make up patently false stories about the car and his actions imply a clear bias, IMHO. He should at least be censured by his editor, especially if future NYT test drives go off without a hitch.
You've never had a female manager, have you?
I'm so going to sue you.
3rd time lucky?
Here's a fun exercise: What, exactly, did they lie about?
They calculated the expected range on a track, and said that (and even explained that it was track range, not some other circumstance). And then showed what would happen had they run it out of range to segue into recharge time, which does, in fact, make the thing utterly unsuitable for track use. And a lot of people who watch Top Gear like the idea of buying cars we can take out to a Track Day and have a few hours of fun. That this is entirely unsuitable for such a use is useful information. I'd hate to drop $90k on a car entirely unsuitable for what I wanted to do with it, wouldn't you? If, however, I was buying the car for a daily driver, which is the VAST MAJORITY OF THE MARKET, nothing they said affects that whatsoever. Even flogging it hard, I'd have more than enough range to get to and from work.
So, basically, Tesla (or, more accurately, Elon Musk himself) can't stand any criticism whatsoever of his perfect little creations, which are decidedly not perfect. They have issues, they have disadvantages. It's the same with the New York Times article: The driver made a few mistakes, the car had a fault (I would love for you to explain how the car losing half its charge overnight is anything BUT a fault), and Elon Musk went on a rampage that it was fraudulent. As though real owners wouldn't dare just wait for the charge to be sufficient to reach the next station, instead of waiting an extra half hour (every three hours!) to get back to full...
"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."
Yes, except in the cases where he has sued (even in this one where the case was thrown out) it's still cold hard fact that the people he sued were outright lying.
It's one thing honestly reviewing a bad product as bad, but when you have to lie and invent faults for a product then yes, you deserve to be sued. Fault something for what it genuinely deserves to be faulted for or give it a good review, don't outright make stuff up and lie because you're either too lame to find fault, or there simply aren't any/many.
If you have to lie in a "review" you're not a reviewer, your a propaganda artist.
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."
Thank you early adopters ... for not being me.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
What I don't understand is how anyone could mistake 'Top Gear' for being a car show. I've seen it a few times on BBC America and much like Stephen Colbert mocking right wing punditry, it seem more like three comedians mocking a show about automobiles.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
The funny mod of parent is sadly indicative of how little experience mods here have with women.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Never buy version 1.0 of anything is the old adage. However it's clear the NYT went out of its way to malign the car.
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.
Anyone who has watched more than half an episode of Top Gear knows exactly what Top Gear is. It's something, and it's interesting, and it's highly entertaining, but you certainly wouldn't use it as a major contribution to your vehicle purchase decision unless you're into supercars (in which case you probably could).
The review of the Ford Fiesta was a perfect case in point. The car was tested in a shopping mall on marble floors, and in an amphibious landing with the Royal Navy.
"This car is absolutely horrible.... yet somehow it's brilliant!"
Thank you early adopters ... for not being me.
Obviously you never want the 1.0 of anything. Cars are definitely this way. Even established automakers go through this. Typically there are the most recalls in the first year or two of production of a new model. Sometimes they do create problems later by switching suppliers to save money, though.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
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.
You can "recharge" the Bugatti or DB5 in 5 minutes and do another 55 miles. The Tesla becomes a $100,000 brick for hours after the "tank" is empty.
You didn't watch the episode, or are being deliberately disenginous: Clarkson addressed that specific point. His problem wasn't that it would run out of power after 55 miles, it's that it would take him a couple of hours to recharge the Tesla compared to a couple of minutes with a Veyron or a DB5.
Speak for yourself. I, for one, would like to know how my car will perform in an amphibious landing before I buy.
Your political party doesn't care about your rights and only represents corporate interests.
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.
Hey, Top Gear was once upon a time a motor show - before anyone who actually knew about cars left to form Fifth Gear. Jeremy Clarkson is an ASSHOLE who some how thinks its cool to mock people, to denigrate other cultures, which his puny brain has no ability to comprehend. Its a comedy show or the equivalent of the Sun tabloid on the BBC with a few exotic cars as the page 3 model.
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.
^
FYI, the above post is a helluva lot more fun to read if you imagine it in the voice of Toki Wartooth.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
And they tested cornering of sports cars by having them be shot at.
The car with the fewest hits obviously was the best. Obviously.
Currently they are putzing around in Africa, trying to find the True Source Of The Nile(which can't be Lake Vicoria since it has already been discovered). Since they have no clue where to look they decided to move away from Gibraltar(since that is where the Nile ends up in the ocean, the Mediterranean just being another lake), find some bit of water and declare it the source of the Nile.
What they truly do is dick around, get stuck and show how great the locals are.
20 minutes into the future
Have you seen Jeremy Clarkson in a scuba diving suit? You will prefer the jeans, trust me.
20 minutes into the future
The Audi Q5(a car for morons, I might add) had more than a few issues when it launched. I'd rather buy version 1.0 software than version 1.0 of a car. Or as in the case of Tesla, version 1.0 of new tech.
But I love the idea of the roadster. A nimble, Elise based car with an electric engine. That's very, very cool. If you can life with the downsides then it might be worth a second look.
20 minutes into the future
And according to the US Supreme court since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), they recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." So no money isn't all it has. Ability to make or break contracts with all that comes with that as well as owning property, so they could have very well suffered by being maligned by Top gear. What confuses me is did Elon know Clarkson hated electric cars?
As the AC's pointed out, the gripe was more about recharge time than range alone. Going 50 miles on a charge/tank isn't crippling if there are recharging stations (aka gas pumps) every few miles.
They addressed the point in more detail during a different episode, where they took a road trip in a Leaf and some other car with a funny name. A quick google search tells me it was Series 17 ep 6, and the funny named car was Peugeot iOn (AKA Mitsubishi i-MiEV, AKA Citroën C-Zero.) They were actually fairly gentle with the two cars, and again, the only gripe was finding a publicly available wall-socket for recharging, and then waiting the several hours for the recharge to occur.
They even had a minor epiphany after the test, while playing around in carnival bumper cars, which are electric. We just need a ton of electrically charged chicken wire mesh running atop the freeway to provide constant charging :)
This signature is false.
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.
She was a breeze next to the short man.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
THE MAGIC OF TELEVISION!
That skit was an excercise to illustrate to the viewer the actual and real outcome of running out of power with a Tesla. That is what happens.
They did it in a way that was amusing and elicited laughter, yes. Have you seen the show? That's what they do.
Do you... do you not understand culture at all, or is it just when the Big Bad British Boys are picking on your favorite superhero, excuse me, supercar, that you throw on the blinders and refuse to accept that the turkey that Emeril pulls out of the oven is NOT THE SAME ONE HE JUST PUT IN? FUCKING WHAT A PHONY, HOLY SHIT Y'ALL, WE BROKE THE CASE WIDE OPEN!
Wait, yeah no nobody calls out cooking shows for that bullshit. Your argument, which was Musk's argument, Tesla's argument, and the argument of a thousand other humorless twats with unfortunate cases of head-up-ass-itis, is just stupid. You probably are too.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Holy shit but I can buy a car for under 200 bucks that'll let me get from DC to NYC, *AND* I can fucking speed while doing so.
You can keep the fancy supercar north of 100k that has to be driven like you're a grandma, haha. I mean you really are just making shit sound even worse for the car.
What about the facts regarding the loss of charge in cold weather and the bad advice given to the reporter on how to regain the lost charge? That seems pretty indisputable.
What about the horrible range-killing 0.6 miles that were driven in a parking lot that Musk was jumping up and down over like fucking Yosemite Sam? Seems pretty fucking silly to throw a shitfit over someone looking for a charging station, but then, Elon Musk seems to be pretty fucking silly and nonsensical. I've seen Catholic fathers less concerned with their daughter's virginity, Musk needs to calm the fuck down.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
It doesn't discount the fact that (as of now) electric miles are 1/5th the cost of a gasoline equivalent and are practical for most urban and suburban uses.
Is that before or after you buy a $90k car instead of a $12k one that'll do the job slightly better?
Murdoch? Is that you?
They even had a minor epiphany after the test, while playing around in carnival bumper cars, which are electric. We just need a ton of electrically charged chicken wire mesh running atop the freeway to provide constant charging :)
Steel plating on the ground too.
I know i so wanted a fiesta after that (and I don't drive!) though they didn't show the door Gunner pack option to mount a GIMPY :-)
Oh thats a M240 for out American cousins.
I would not have known or believed that if it weren't for them attacking the press.
dumb move, Tesla.
-badford
Noh, it is called television :)
- Raynet --> .
I actually did buy a Fiesta after watching their Fiesta review. Of course, I was already looking for a small four door hatchback, and I really liked the green color, and I was already looking at the Fiesta, so I probably would have bought one anyway, but I'm sure their show influenced my decision to some extent.
Tesla seem to be out to sue everyone who doesn't give a *positive* review of their car. I wouldn't even consider reviewing it - since I might not find it perfect, and if I published anything other than a glowing review, I could find myself facing a suit.
Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
If that brand of chicken had a greater likelihood of making people sick, it would be entirely reasonable to think someone would script such a scene.
The long recharge time of the Tesla is a downside to the car, and that's what they were showing.
The actual distance it drove wasn't an issue -- its range is pretty typical of a car of its class and during whatever conditions for whatever total range. The time between, though? Refueling, recharging? The Tesla DOES lose out. That was the important part of that bit. It's mind-boggling how you can misunderstand *so hard* that you see a problem.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
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.