I'd forgotten just how much Clarkson sings the praises of the Tesla in the first half of the review. The electric Tesla thrashes the petrol Lotus Elise in a drag race. Clarkson is obviously amazed - "God almighty:, "this is biblically quick!" - "this car is electric, literally!". "Wave goodbye to dial-up, welcome to broadband motoring!". Then he says how much torque it produces, how quick it is from 0 to 60, and then: "it's even more 'not bad' when you start looking into the costs": £40 to fill the petrol Elise, electricity just £3.50. Wind noise is a problem, but "a small price to pay when you consider the upsides". "And I haven't even got to the big upside yet: 200 miles between trips to the plug." Some adverse comments about the handling, but then he waves goodbye as "the volt head" cruises past the "petrol head". "It is snowing in hell!". "This car was shaping up to be something wonderful..."
After a pretty positive first half, Clarkson does indeed go on to make fun of the car's electrical problems, and then is unimpressed by the practicalities and ecological claims of electric vehicles. Even with a range of 250 miles, and a 16 hour recharge cycle (if you're not throwing it around a track), it's just not - yet - a practical car for many people, or a supercar to compete with the likes of Ferrari or Porsche.
Clarkson's final words on the Tesla: "Incredible - but irrelevant [in the light of the hydrogen car reviewed later]".
As Top Gear and Clarkson reviews go, I thought it wasn't overly biased. I mean, he could have dropped a piano on it, or set it on fire...
I suspect Tesla are just in the need for some publicity at the moment.
The episode seems to be centered around contrasting the Tesla with Honda's FCX Clarity.
Here is the 2nd part: http://www1.peteava.ro/id-641379-top-gear-uk-season-12-episo...
At about 21:10, James reviews/introduces Honda's FCX Clarity and finishes by calling it "The car of the next 100 years"
James doesn't stop with the praises; and I think he was perhaps disingenuous in glossing over big details.
The processes for getting Hydrogen to be in usable form requires energy by itself. Whereas Tesla's batteries directly give it electricity, there is a system present in the Clarity that converts the hydrogen fuel into electricity. The only emission is... water. Fantastic, rainbows all around.
Hydrogen is indeed abundant throughout this universe, but it is mostly found in compound forms - water, natural gas, etc.
There is a certain ratio 'EROI' -- (Energy return on investment) -- which is defined to be:
(quantity of energy supplied / quantity of energy used in supply process.)It turns out that in summing the energy required by the very initial processes of getting Hydrogen to be in usable form, packaging it, and delivering it to the user, the EROI for Honda's FCX Clarity is VASTLY higher than it is for electric vehicles, like the Tesla's.
If the episode's central critique was in the basis of comparing the Tesla's efficiency vs. Clarity's (which, to me, felt that an element of it in fact was), it was dishonest of James to gloss over the known inefficiencies of hydrogen fuel cells. As hard as it is for me to say it, as I'm about the biggest James' fan, but I really do think this episode was a little iffy for more than a few reasons.
Well, the marketing ploy got me to watch the review, anyway...
The massive fuel savings makes me think a shorter-range, lower performance vehicle would be more popular (for city commutes). But I'm guessing the real problem Tesla faced was that the batteries would be ridiculously expensive even for that - so targeting a premium performance, upscale market, where other qualities of an electric car (torque) can come into play. Presumably, they would go down market over time, as battery technology improves. Which seems to be on an extraordinarily slow trajectory (esp. in the context of silicon).
Jeremy suggests two Teslas (while one's charging), but you just need two batteries. Reminds me of early razor technology (before Gillette's safety razor), when sending in a razor to be sharpened was a popular option - but you needed to have two.
Fun fact: electric cars were fairly popular over 100 years ago (for trucks mainly IIRC), with batteries being the problem even then. Edison worked on their batteries for a while.
Bathos is Clarkson's style though. Or inverse bathos. He'll spend say half the review mocking a car, and then he'll stop and say 'and all that is true, but there's just one other thing you've got to consider: it's the most fun you've had since Woodstock '68.' Basically goes to extremes, then changes the complexion of the whole piece in an instant.
« I mean, he could have dropped a piano on it, or set it on fire...»
Exactly. People have to keep in mind this is a Clarkson review we're talking about. If you want to see how he deals with cars he really doesn't like, just search YouTube for "clarkson perodua kelisa".
This is Clarkson we are talking about, not some wuss who kiss up to asses when he gets sued... and seriously imo that is a pretty decent review for the Tesla coming from Clarkson.
Seems as though a better plan would be to challenge Top Gear to a rematch of some sort. Make something fun out of this and get the auto enthusiasts cheering.
Southwest did this perfectly: got sued, took it to the ring, arm wrestled over it, got crushed, paid the other guy, laughed all the way to the bank and everyone cheered them on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwU9m4oCtRE&;
Suing over a stolen slogan is a bit different than suing over slander/libel. When you read this excerpt from the article it does sound like Tesla is trying to either force Top Gear to give a better review or give them more publicity:
Why even last night the Top Gear office accidentally received an email sent from a Public Relations firm to The One Show, asking if it would like to have the Tesla spokesperson on their programme to talk about the case. It says: “PHA Media represent Tesla and this could make for a fantastic interview.” And the PHA man’s not finished there. “The presenters could have some fun with this.” He adds. “Matt and Alex could even take the Tesla for a spin and test it out, reaffirming its virtues?”
I just can't see how Tesla can win this case in court. As anyone who has ever watched Jeremy Clarkson will tell you, you know he would rather resign from Top Gear than apologise for this.
I think any victory in courts is going to be a pyrrhic one. Ive said it before on earlier threads and I will say it again here - Tesla is alienating a large section of auto enthusiasts by going after Top Gear. It might be that some marketing guru has figured out that suing Top Gear is a cheaper way to get headlines than running a campaign. But they have picked the wrong target - Top Gear is at the heart and centre of Auto culture worldwide. Also not a good sign when a tech company starts using the courts instead of the market and their product to win points.
I don't know, I think if you're an enthusiast who cares about the environment, Clarkson isn't your favorite guy ever. I felt like the piece on the Tesla was pretty offensive in how biased it was, and I normally like the guys on Top Gear.
I genuinely didn't feel as though the piece on Tesla was particularly biased though? Sure, they pointed out the flaws inherit to the car (recharge time) and filmed the car being pushed in for entertainment, but overall the piece still came across as pretty positive about the car: at times he was gushing about its performance and how enjoyable it could be to drive.
I'm sure if I were invested in Tesla it's easy to feel that they're "biased" against me, but the review didn't come across as any more negative than 90% of car reviews on Top Gear.
They took a worst case mileage and recharge time and said a specific trip would take you 3 days. Without saying if you actually drove that distance and used a larger power source than a normal wall outlet it would take a few hours. They also pretended one of the cars ran out of power which did not actually happen.
Now, I don't mind making fun of actual issues. And they had some things that actually broke, but making shit up crosses a line IMO.
The Reliant Robin, while obviously a horrible design, does not roll over every time you drive one a half mile (and it is not the primary reason for the decline in population in the Sheffield region in the decades since its release). The Stig is not really "half man, half machine with petrol running through his veins". And a race against a jet or helicopter is not a realistic test of auto performance.
The Tesla episode was cheeky, but no more cheeky than many episodes. It's not a "straight" review show. It is a comedy that happens to have a lot of cars in it. If it is occasionally true, that's just a bonus.
To explain for Americans and non-Brits, A Reliant Robin was a 3-wheeled car that was designed so that it could be taxed as a motorcycle with side car (ie 3 wheels).
There is a big difference between the outright comedy sections and the supercar reviews though. Much like the parent, I enjoy the show generally but the Tesla piece left a bad taste in the mouth. They intentionally misrepresented what happened - as well as the actual facts about the car - to leverage the stereotype of electric cars being crap/short-ranged. The biggest selling point after not requiring fuel is precisely that it is not like other electric cars. Here, their use of comedy crossed into outright dishonesty - an audience who don't know the facts will definitely be left with the impression of 3 day trips and 50 minute lifespan.
They will probably win the court case, as they were careful not to say anything literally untrue. Yes, if you ram it as hard as possible around a race track for an hour, you will probably need a charge. Yes, if you choose to make a very long journey and only recharge via the slowest means it will take you a while. But that would be idiotic, wouldn't it? Few people - even those who buy sports cars - make those kind of uses. We know it's not for long-distance journeys, but we also know the statistics about the distribution of journey lengths.
Do the Top Gear team mention every fuse that blows? Do they honestly not see it as a huge step forward? I think there is a difference between being cheeky about a Ferrari and Tesla. Top Gear have given positive reviews to previously unfashionable brands in the past, despite the comedy.
They didn't take worst case mileage, they took mileage on their track. They said, quite clearly, in the show, that it would have only gone 55 miles on their track. It was being driven like a maniac, they clearly showed it being driven hard, they're not a walking tesla advert pretending that it'd go 211 miles at top speed.
The 3 day journey reference was debunking claims you could charge it with wind power and again was clearly stated in the segment of the show. It's specifically addressing claims tesla are making, from their own literature:
The Roadster, which consumes no oil whatsoever and plugs into conventional 220-volt sockets throughout Europe, can be charged with solar, hydro or wind energy.
EDIT: For those that don't get the reference, there is a running bit/theme on Top Gear about a so-called Mexican Supercar that was released a while ago. They've been thrashing it, and Mexico, ever since. So much so that the US version of Top Gear has been edited to remove the comments, and the Mexican Government has issued official communications about it.
Just Google "top gear mexico supercar" and you'll see.
It's not like I just randomly slammed Mexicans with this post. That's what the Dutch are for.
Maybe not your FAVORITE guy ever, but I don't know if you can call yourself a motoring enthusiast if you don't derive at least a little bit of guilty pleasure watching them race a jet fighter in a Bugatti.
I do think Clarkson is a bit over the top anti-conservation; but suing him for that seems like the worst possible response. Something along the lines of a clever rebuttal in the form of a short video could've scored them some goodwill points.
Its not a documentary. Its a play and the actors play roles to a degree of excess (although tbf their roles are pretty close to their real life personas).
As I see it, Clarkson and the team are basing their eco ridicule on the long view. They know that if they praise the current half-baked electric car technology, they'll look quaint and whimsical in 50 years when electric cars are practical. Better to be insightful and honest about just how far short the current offerings fall when compared with mature fossil-fuel powered vehicles, surely?
You can't blame Clarkson. Top Gear's reviews aren't necessarily based on some objective standard. They rate a driving experience. For them, electric cars haven't provided the same experience that they are used to and it will be a while before mass-market electric cars do that.
I've got a deposit down on a Model S, and I don't think I could care less one way or the other. I thought the review was misleading and stupid, and I think the lawsuit is a stupid response.
But whatever, I'm still excited about the Model S.
I saw the piece quite a while ago, but I found a bunch of things misleading:
1) The way they quoted the 55 mile range made it sound like the 55 mile range was more representative of normal use than the 200 mile figure. I don't recall them ever saying something like "Toyota claims it gets 20mpg, but we've worked out it only gets 3mpg on our test track". Maybe they have (perhaps they mentioned the Veyron's fuel consumption at full throttle), but it's certainly not a normal part of a review.
2) They quoted the charge time from a standard power socket, when nearly all charges would be done at a higher-power charging station at much shorter time. They didn't quote the faster charge time.
3) While watching, I seriously thought the one Tesla's engine had completely quit.
4) While watching, I seriously thought that the other Tesla's battery had gone completely dead without enough warning for them to drive it into the garage.
5) They implied that the environmental impact from the power plants is roughly the same as the environmental impact of gas anyway. (oddly showing nuclear cooling towers while talking about power plants causing global warming.) Power generation obviously has an environmental impact no matter where it's done, but the nuclear scare plus polar bear mention just felt bizarre.
6) They implied that somehow hydrogen was magical and had no environmental power generation issues.
I don't disagree with their defense, but the piece felt very political in that it seemed designed to say things that are technically true, whilst leading viewers to conclusions that are false. All-in-all, I felt like I was watching Clarkson on an anti-environmental soapbox more than I was watching either a piece of entertainment or an automotive review.
I love Top Gear, but I was annoyed by the piece, and it won't bother me a bit if Clarkson has a few obnoxious days because of it.
The review would've been 1000x better if Hamster or Slow had done it.
The Prius using more fuel than the M3 when driven at the same speed - it's still surprising, even though clearly they hammered the Prius while the M3 was puttering behind slowly. A bit of a ridiculous test.
The other thing they said though does make you pause to think, and I quite liked it: Rather than selling your fuel guzzling vehicle now, it's quite possibly much better for the environment if you keep driving it, but drive it slowly. Making a brand new car has a huge environmental impact, so large that the difference in fuel consumption would take a pretty long time to overcome it. In the case of a Prius it's even more complicated as the batteries are particularly environmentally unfriendly - and there's a lot of those in a Hybrid.
But that was a silly and contrived test, which had absolutely no bearing on the real-world fuel efficiency of the car. If you're choosing a car to drive around a track all day, by all means, avoid the Prius.
I do love Top Gear, though, and Tesla should have known better than to hand their car to them.
A lot of people that like cars have been emotionally connected to the internal engine. These "car enthusiasts" enjoy everything about cars, albeit frequently do not analyze emerging technologies with a long-term vision. They like the sound the engine makes and the thrill of acceleration. That is nice and I can respect their decisions. That sentiment of connection to the internal engine has been challenged first by Tesla Roadster.
What I view as auto fans mistake in judgement is to portray electric cars through the lens of mistrust in the new design. Someone who has only driven IC cars will keep trying to find fault with a one that is not. Tesla is the new toy a boy can play with. Clarkson has been living with old habits and 'old' cars to question his own assumptions about car technology. This is what I had found when speaking with people in the automotive industry.
Yet, electric cars require a lot of future development to meet the high standards that they will be judged by.
I also think it would have been a good idea if they spent the extra 30 seconds talking about how you can have a higher-power charging station to speed up charging, I'm sure they also would point out that they may not exist where you are when you want to use it.
I'm sure in some places you'll be fine, like LA or San Francisco where I suspect they have more charging stations than the average town.
And this is an obvious chicken/egg problem and if you explain it, people will understand.
Maybe I should add, the same chicken/egg problem exists for the Hydrogen car which was shown later in the show.
To be honest hydrogen is a nice idea but just looking at one item, compressing, hydrogen just seems like loss of energy. I don't know if it will ever work.
Just know one thing that electric 'engines' are the future, I don't know where the power will come from though.
In their Prius review Clarkson said there was a big gap between Toyota's stated 65 mpg and the 45 mpg they saw with normal driving on roads. So, they have noted manufacturer mpg exaggerations before although they don't do it as a normal practice.
*edit.. don't mean to be a dick, I just don't think this fact helps their case much. I watched the episode, and it irritated me quite a bit even though I think Top Gear is normally pretty fun.
While it didn't directly involve Tesla, what got me about that episode was the claim that battery cars are totally irrelevent because of 'hydrogen power'.
They point out that the power for electric batteries has to come from somewhere, and completely gloss over that for hydrogen.
Why they didn't go all the way and advocate fusion powered cars is beyond me.
Energy can't be created or destroyed, just transformed from one form to another. So nothing is really an energy source. I'd say "energy source" is the vernacular for stored energy, in terms of where humans source their energy for machinery, electricity, etc.
While you are technically correct, that's not the best model for this. Energy in oil is ultimately stored energy from the sun. But for hydrogen powered cars, we must take one stored form of energy (e.g. fossil, nuclear) and use it to make the hydrogen. Or skip the oil step and use solar.
So question is, are we storing new energy, or converting previously-stored energy to a different format? The latter is an externality as obviously oil, uranium etc were around long before humans.
It is both. You can use it in a fuel cell form whereby you keep the water produced from its combustion, run electricity through it and get oxygen and hydrogen back. Alternatively though, the way hydrogen is turned into energy works if you just refill the hydrogen and throw away the water.
Israel is the first nation in the world that partnered with Better Place
to have an all-electric car infrastructure. Shai Agassi believes that
in Israel by 2016, plus or minus a year, more than 50% of cars sold will
be electric and that by 2020, Israel will achieve oil independence.
The Baran Group signed an agreement with Better Place to build
51 battery switch stations over the course of 2011 to cover all of Israel.
Please don't post quotes using pre-formatted text. It forces the browser to use the full width. That, in turn, puts a horizontal scrollbar on my browser, so I have to scroll back-and-forth to read any of the comments.
I find it works much better to quote using asterisks. (We could also lobby pg for a BLOCKQUOTE feature)
That's a brilliant solution to the problem for cars that aren't Teslas, which has something like 1800 batteries lining its cabin floor. I don't think they'd be easily swapped.
For cars that don't implement batteries this way, I'm wondering how they allow for non-floor-mounted installations preventing the batteries from destroying their handling.
Further, how are the filling stations expected to deal with the variety of non-standard battery types on the market?
The energy has to come from somewhere, but it doesn't have to come from electricity (every conversion means energy is lost, and a light -> electricity -> water conversion is potentially less efficient than a more direct conversion).
Hydrosol-2 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrosol-2) is an example of solar hydrogen production with no electric current intermediate - it involves high temperatures, so I'm not sure how much energy is lost maintaining that temperature compared to captured producing hydrogen, but it could theoretically be more efficient.
Sure, they're the global leaders when it comes to automotive ENTERTAINMENT, but that is precisely because they are entertaining, not journalistic.
Just about EVERY "review" they do on cars is heavily biased, and in more than a few cases, outrageously so.
Anyone who watches the show without understanding that it is entertainment, first and foremost, needs to lighten up, get a sense of humour, and not take themselves so seriously.
Those are the types that TG go out of their way to ridicule on the show.
This is kind of like how we discuss things like privacy concerns on Facebook here where the vast majority don't care. Sure there are real motoring enthusiasts talking about stuff where TopGear is irrelevant, but for the rest of the world, the vast majority, I don't think this is the case.
I suspect it is about headlines. They have even taken out a google ad on the search "tesla top gear" pointing to teslavstopgear.co.uk
However, the review is clearly heavily scripted (do Teslas really just run out of power and then require pushing down the road?). In the UK, the powers-that-be at the BBC have recently taken a dim view of this sort of constructed TV posing as reality (after "Socksgate" and "Sachsgate", an explanation of which is probably beyond the scope of this discussion...).
Even if there was nothing wrong with the car. What Tesla should have done is, take it on the chin, say something in the lines of 'we will correct and make it better', even though nothing is wrong, and then do a retest, and simply have that test on their terms. And then really, they could have gone from good to great.
Are you familiar with British libel law? It's infamously plaintiff friendly. People have lost even though the statements in question were, in fact, truthful.
That's not as surprising as you may think. "Truth is not a complete defense against libel".
Imagine I contacted someones workplace and business partners and told them about a drug conviction that occurred 22 years ago. Or if I took a statement you make after a some drinks in the pub and stuck a print out on poles all around your business.
There are cases where suing someone for libel even if what they say is true doesn't seem demonstrably wrong.
I doubt the BBC's legal team would have allowed it to broadcast if they didn't think it would end up in their favour. The losers in this are the British public, who are presumably paying to defend the broadcaster from some car manufacturer who didn't like a review.
At least we have Loser Pays, so it feels unlikely that the license fee payer will actually lose out.
As Top Gear is a big winner for BBC Worldwide (commercial, not-license fee funded), it's been frequently the case in the past that they will fund any legal action should that become necessary.
True, but if Worldwide end up paying/losing, that means less money paid back to the corporation, therefore a lower budget for other productions (effectively the same thing).
I'm a fan of electric cars, but I am disappointed by Tesla on this... using the legal system like this leaves a bad taste.
I don't think it has to do with malicious intent. It has to do with whether it serves the good of the public to know the information.
If I distribute pamphlets that say "John Smith is gay", even if true, its libel because it isn't information that serves the public's interest.
If, however, I distribute pamphlets that say "Smith Jones is a convicted pedophile", then I'm on much safer footing (assuming it's true) because it can (and has) been argued that such information does serve public interest.
Simon Singh has since won that case last I heard, but it was by no means a given. That it took so long for him to get off for saying fucking chiropractors of all people "quacks" (if they aren't, who possibly could be?) should say a lot about the extent to which correctness or belief in correctness is a real defense.
fucking chiropractors of all people "quacks" (if they aren't, who possibly could be?)
You're mis-informed. Chiropractic treatments are very useful for certain problems. Some quacks say it will treat any and all illness, but most licensed chiropractors I've dealt with have been highly professional.
I have first-hand experience. After a knee injury playing on my high school basketball team, I suffered from mild swelling in my right knee. As a result it was difficult for me to fully bend it. This condition persisted for 4 months, despite icing, anti-inflammatories and several treatments by multiple physicians. Eventually, one referred me to a chiropractor. It took him about 10 minutes to find the problem, and he was able make the proper adjustment. Within two hours, the swelling was gone and the range of motion was back to normal.
Many whiplash victims are also referred to chiropractors. (FYI, my mother is an MD. I'm hardly a healing crystal using homeopathy enthusiast.)
If you read the article I linked, the relating articles, or the original author by Simon, you'd know that he was sued for describing chiropractics treating things like ear infections as "bogus". Things that no poorly executed "scientific" study would ever even dream of asserting chiropractics can affect.
The extent to which chiropractics can alievate back pain, the only sort of thing they can have a positive impact on in scientifically executed trails, they are only acting as (often unlicensed) physical therapists. IF this is what you go to the chiropractic for, and IF they are a licensed physical therapist, then call them your physical therapist. If on the other hand, they're not licensed, then do yourself a favor and go find one that is.
"Many whiplash victims are also referred to chiropractors."
The industry itself doesn't seem to agree that whiplash is among the defensible things they treat:
"If you have a website, take it down NOW.
"REMOVE all the blue MCA [McTimoney Chiropractic Association] patient
information leaflets, or any patient information leaflets of your own
that state you treat whiplash, colic or other childhood problems in your
clinic or at any other site where they might be displayed with your contact
details on them. DO NOT USE them until further notice."
--the McTimoney Chiropractic Association
This all said, even IF chiropractics can effectively treat a subset of the things the claim, they are still quacks for daring to claim the rest.
I completely agree that the lawsuit is bogus. I also realize that there are some weird alternate care groups in the UK (which somehow get subsidized by tax payers!)
What I didn't agree with was your cursing proclamation that chiropractors are quacks. Had fewer people held that general belief, I probably wouldn't have suffered as long as I did before being referred to one.
If chiropractors were not quacks, the science would show it. Unfortunately for them, it shows the exact opposite.
And your personal anecdote is meaningless. I know an elderly lady who swears she's met aliens. Nice lady, not trying to get on the local news, no reason to lie. I honestly think she believes it. Doesn't mean alien encounters aren't bullshit.
Unreproducible anecdotes are not how science works.
EDIT: There seems to be a believe in some circles that chiropractors are just a type of legitimate "back doctor". This is the most important misconception that needs to be stopped in it's tracks, the rest would really just be icing on the cake.
Once again, you're misinformed and you're still being extremely rude to preach about how science works. I'd be positively shocked if you have as much of a background in the hard sciences as I do. Setting your implications about my ignorance aside for the moment, I'll share some supporting research:
A 2010 systematic review found that most studies suggest spinal manipulation achieves equivalent or superior improvement in low back pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up.
Dagenais S, Gay RE, Tricco AC, Freeman MD, Mayer JM (2010). "NASS Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care: Spinal manipulation therapy for acute low back pain".
Many, many other citations of relevant research can be found at
You invoke "the science" as if it is some infallible magic spell which always shows truth. Unfortunately, "the science" is too often a set of results commissioned by imperfect humans juggling budgets, grant proposals, biases and conclusions they are expected to reach. It has been very wrong before and no doubt will be again.
Funnily enough I might have wholeheartedly agreed with you before my wife, who suffered from back pain which numerous conventional health care professionals have failed to correct, was recommended by a friend to see a chiropractor. She did, with immediate and excellent results; her back problems are now largely a thing of the past.
Yes, another "meaningless" personal anecdote, I don't expect to convince you. But it's caused me to examine my former blind belief in "the science", especially when it comes to health.
Please don't defend western medicine, or standpoints that western medicine takes - it's a losing proposition.
I've never even been to a chiropractor but I have seen a Reiki master do work that was impossible to do for the best surgeons in an excellent German hospital. What baffles me is how western medicine is able to ignore things that quite obviously and for all to see work, and ridicule them as "quacks".
IMO quacks are the ones prescribing Ritalin to kids to stop them from running around. Those are the quacks.
While I'm sure Tesla wouldn't accept just an apology from Jeremy Clarkson, there'll be "lost sales" damages in the squillions, this is very true. Clarkson's offended entire countries without remorse and everyone involved moves on and gets on with their lives.
Does anyone know the jurisdiction for this legal action? I suspect treatment of the case in the UK will differ to that in the US.
I dont watch Top Gear and while I follow tech news and new technology, I'm not a car person.
That said, this public débâcle has not played out in Tesla's favor to this consumer. It seems to me that they got an unfavorable review and aren't happy with it, and it seems that Top Gear is winning the war of public relations.
First, Top Gear is testing on track conditions, and that will certainly give different results than the 220 mile range found on the EPA's ideal testing conditions. Top Gear has previously shown that a BMW M3 gets better mileage than a Prius in track conditions, but I don't think anyone believes this is representative of the cars on the whole.
Second, there's very few data points on the range aside from Tesla's press releases that I can find, but the two I can find are much closer to Top Gear's number and were also from less aggressive testing than what Top Gear did:
93 miles: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20080124/green/398811820/163...
The main problem I think is that the episode showed the Tesla apparently out of juice, being pushed into a hanger by the crew. Clarkson's closing comments were along the lines of 'it doesn't work' (before hailing fuel-cell cars as the future because they can go further without a charge).
Tesla are arguing that this event was staged and in the script produced the day before the road test was filmed, that the car didn't actually run out of power on the test track, and that the episode unfairly paints the vehicle in a bad light.
It's worth remembering that the modern Top Gear is an entertainment show that happens to be about cars. It hasn't been about accurate consumer reviews for many years, it's very scripted and not at all unbiased.
So first, the 55 mile claim was one of the 5 main points of the suit, which is why I brought it up.
And while I agree that much of new Top Gear is entertainment, I'm just saying that based on other information available, Top Gear doesn't look so outrageous. Autoweek also stated that their car died down well before the 220 mile range and went into a reduced power mode.
Moreover, Top Gear isn't the first to point out mechanical or electrical problems on a Tesla (couple examples below). The car itself was delayed because of such problems. And I along with most people also be worried if some fuse controlling my brakes was busted.
And in the episode, they don't hail fuel-cells because they go further without a charge, they hail them because they fit with the model of car ownership that we're used to, allowing you to drive however long you want and just fill up intermediately.
Perhaps I had a poor choice of words, but I certainly understand what Tesla is claiming. I'm more just confused that they would file suit like this especially given that from what I can tell, Top Gear's claims seem valid given not only the accounts of the situation, but also reviews from other publications.
Edit: Speaking of fiduciary duty, Tesla's apparently asking for "not more than £100,000" in damages, so I'd say this is a waste of the shareholders' and taxpayer money (given its $0.5B bailout).
http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1057705_tesla-vs-topgear-...
Not quite sure where Tesla is expecting this to be headed towards? Are they expecting the compensation to cover their sales? Or better sales after the suit? Or do they really want not to have anymore review coverage? Or someone in Tesla really hates Top gear/Stig/Clarkson?
Tesla's corporate officers have a fiduciary duty to respond to something that hurts their brand this badly. Top Gear is the most popular car review show globally with around 350 million viewers world-wide.
Apparently a lawsuit is the best response they could come up with.
So they'll be suing themselves now? Because this lawsuit is hurting their brand a lot more than the Top Gear review did.
I remember seeing it when it came out, and thinking how positive it was. Sure, Jeremy ridiculed it for running out of power, but at the same time he spent a long time talking about how fast it was. From memory he said something like "if this is the future, bring it on"
By your logic, what should Audi do when he said (paraphrasing): "All Audi drivers are cocks"?
Apparently their fiduciary duty also includes waiting almost 3 years after the review to finally do react. Seems like well-timed headline grabbing to me. I'm sure in 3 years they'll sue me for saying that.
Jeremy Clarkson's column in The Sunday Times shortly after the Top Gear review is an interesting read and covered most of the points made in this article back in 2009.
The article was mostly ok until all the way at the end.
Where he completely messes up and mentioned that hydrogen cars are "completely green".
Just a few sentences before that he says the car from Tesla is powered by "so-called green power" (electricity) from "dirty great power station".
Mr. Clarkson where do you think most of the hydrogen comes from ? Or the power to compress the hydrogen to make it compact enough for use by a car ?
Yes, there is a possibility someone will find a good way to produce to create hydrogen from algae. Or some breakthrough in the science of nuclear fission. We really don't know what will happen.
Anyway the real problem is efficient storage of energy and efficient conversion from storage to action/motion if I can call it that.
Batteries seem to be the current solution. But if we want to talk about environmentally friendly I don't know if they really are. I just know that batteries, like hydrogen use materials which come from nature which are just as finite as oil or matterial needed for fusion for that matter.
Although on Wikipedia it says:
'In addition, new Nickel-metal hydride and lithium batteries are non-toxic and can be recycled, and "the supposed 'lithium shortage' doesn’t exist"'
Hey, there's another article recently on HN about an MIT professor's "artificial leaf" meaning a solar cell that produces hydrogen directly. So now we know when that will happen.
This is an incredibly well written blog entry. Having followed the accepted pre-court etiquette that Andy mentions in the past, this inspires me to take a different approach next time around and have my say in hopefully as professional a manner. [...In close consultation with my legal team as I'm sure Andy did]
The tesla roadster is unfortunately just not competitive with other internal combustion performance cars if you don't want to give it credit for either (1) being a super innovative EV or (2) being environmentally friendly.
Top Gear (and all the car mags) basically review it as a cool, fun novelty. But if you measure on looks + performance, as car enthuiasts do, it's just fundamentally not competitive in its price bracket.
Suing is obviously a mistake. Hoping Top Gear, Evo, Road & Track will push it is just naive. Tesla listens too much to their own marketing.
I like what the Tesla company is doing, in regards to attempting to make alternative fuel cars, I'm all for such things. And yes, its an up hill battle, which I'm sure the internal combustion engine faced, while trying to oust horses for a viable mode of transportation. Not only is the technology not up to par/cost effective on a mass scale, there is the issue of charging station locations, and the nay sayers like the host of Top Gear, who isn't the only one that grumbles at the thought of electric or "eco-friendly" read Hot Rod magazine sometime. Which seems to be what Tesla wants to answer, electric cars can go fast to.
But this lawsuit seems like its disingenuous, more like they are playing off a couple social issues for their benefit. 1 "Environment" is an emotional trigger second only to stuff like racism and sexism level stuff, its got some emotional appeal just by saying the word, either for or against. So claiming foul on someone who is notoriously pro fast powerful cars, who inherently isn't going to like commuter based cars, really nails that emotion. 2 Taking it to the media, to hit a full scale marketing campaign about it, years after it happened, to help fuel that emotion and go after the media justice that seems to easy to do, like O.J. we all "know" he did it, but was proven innocent pretty much. Enough press coverage to one side, and we all start forming our own judgments. I think these are dirty tricks, that only add fuel to the opposition's fire. Like the scientists who were busted with bad data on global warming. Regardless if the position is true, getting caught doing dirty tricks, is going to make you look bad regardless, doing more harm than good. Just because I agree with their environmental position, doesn't mean I have to look the other way, when they break other beliefs of mine. I'm angered cause of the damage this could do for environmentalism, which I believe in first, their company second.
exactly, and why this comment gets downvoted? I dont give a crap, its like following those lawsuits Calacanis filed against Arrington, and Arrington filed agains JooJoo guys.
This is soap opera, and you make fun of soap opera when there are is love, cheating and stuff involved but you discuss it as a serious issue because in this case the auto show and very techy electric car manufacturer is involved.
feel free to downvote me too but I think smart and talented people of HN community (which I observed them to be) must have better things to discuss.
Why would Top Gear use a calculated track capacity number (55 miles), given that they could have measured an actual number? I understand that 30 minutes of hard driving can be exhausting, but how exactly could they have calculated an accurate value?
Say what you will about EPA numbers, but at least they involve standardized measurement.
Why would Top Gear use a calculated track capacity number (55 miles), given that they could have measured an actual number?
Probably because they had a show to shoot. They where apparently already having trouble getting all the shots they needed due to the short battery life, combined with the break problems. I'm guessing they simply didn't have the time to take the car out again and run it until the battery died.
PS: As this is going through the courts right now, we’re afraid we’ve had to turn off comments on this one, but we wanted to let you all know how we see it.
Good thing that you can't comment on articles elsewhere on the Internet. Their legal strategy is saved!
Considering the tenuous relationship between the presenters and the studio as portrayed in the show, it's pleasing to see the rest of the company getting behind Top Gear and providing a united front.
Clarkson is a bit of a prick when it comes to favoritism on cars (you know, kinda like some top tier tech blogs)
He is a 98% octane gear head and will not tolerate electric cars, so his review did not surprise me much when I watched it.
I'm a long time Porsche owner and will never forgive him on an episode when he dropped a Piano on an older 911 or when he totally disrespected the Porsche GT for comparing its composite disk rotors to anti-acid.
After a pretty positive first half, Clarkson does indeed go on to make fun of the car's electrical problems, and then is unimpressed by the practicalities and ecological claims of electric vehicles. Even with a range of 250 miles, and a 16 hour recharge cycle (if you're not throwing it around a track), it's just not - yet - a practical car for many people, or a supercar to compete with the likes of Ferrari or Porsche.
Clarkson's final words on the Tesla: "Incredible - but irrelevant [in the light of the hydrogen car reviewed later]".
As Top Gear and Clarkson reviews go, I thought it wasn't overly biased. I mean, he could have dropped a piano on it, or set it on fire...
I suspect Tesla are just in the need for some publicity at the moment.