31–40 of 123 posts
Earlier 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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".
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…
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...).
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…
« 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".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI2MpcIiO6A&feature=youtu...
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
you can make hydrogen via other means, directly from sunlight, for example, although admittedly that technology is not here yet.
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…
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.