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]
Top Gear responds to Tesla
21–30 of 123 posts
Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla
#22First, 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…
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.
Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What part of it did you think was misleading? At least according to this article, everything they said in it was true (and was supported by Tesla)
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.
Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla
#24First, 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…
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.
Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Actually, the papers they've filed with the courts specify damages http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/tesla_-_claim...
Oh, that's interesting. And yes, boggles the mind why they'd bother.
Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla
#27Jeremy 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.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/art...
Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 fee…
Compared to a lot of car reviews on Top Gear, Tesla got off lightly.
Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'd like to see references for that. Truth is an absolute defence against libel.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/20/richard-dawkin...
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.
edit: spelling
Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'd like to see references for that. Truth is an absolute defence against libel.
IANAL, but it doesn't just have to be true -- it's on you to prove it to the court with a high degree of certainty.