Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Top Gear responds to Tesla

transmission.blogs.topgear.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 123 posts

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#61

Post by dman »

c2 wrote: post #60
dman wrote: post #3

Earlier 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 think you are VASTLY overstating the importance of Top Gear, which is essentially an entertainment talk show which happens to talk about cars.

Name another entertainment show which talks about cars and has Top Gears global reach.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#62

Post by SwellJoe »

Retric wrote: post #45
estel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Have you seen Top Gear?

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.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#64

Post by kwis »

blhack wrote: post #9
kwis wrote: post #5

Earlier 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)

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.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#65

Post by adriand »

KaeseEs wrote: post #31
timthorn wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see references for that. Truth is an absolute defence against libel.

In America, yes, truth is an absolute defense against libel claims; in Britain, truth is no defence, yet: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/15/libel-law-reform...

I believe the same is true of Canada - a court can find you guilty of libel if you tell the truth with malicious intent.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#67

Post by spullara »

Cherad wrote: post #26
redthrowaway wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the intent of the lawsuit is to stop that episode from continuing to air rather than get damages.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#68

Post by ascendant »

d2 wrote: post #22
akashs wrote: post #12

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…

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.

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.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#69

Post by 6ren »

jimmyjim wrote: post #40
cormullion wrote: post #34

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 video in question is here: http://www1.peteava.ro/id-641316-top-gear-uk-season-12-episo... Tesla's review starts at about 17:29. 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…

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.

btw: the caravan jump is at 12:05 in part 2 (http://www1.peteava.ro/id-641379-top-gear-uk-season-12-episo...)

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#70

Post by mattmanser »

Retric wrote: post #45
estel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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.

http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-debuts...

See other reviews spouting pie-in-the-sky about how the tesla could be recharged by renewable energy:

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/tesla/2011-tesla-roadster-race-...

Post reply on HN