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

71–80 of 123 posts

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#71

Post by lancefisher »

subway wrote: post #43
reitzensteinm wrote: post #23

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.

Hydrogen is not an energy source, but a means by which to store energy. You know, like a battery.

Like oil stores energy from the sun.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#72

Post by xiaoma »

burgerbrain wrote: post #29
timthorn wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.)

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#73

Post by elvirs »

motters wrote: post #48

My question is: how did this get to the top position on HN? I could hardly care less about Jeremy Clarkson's opinions, or TV shows such as Top Gear.

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.

cheers

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#74

Post by latch »

adriand wrote: post #65
KaeseEs wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#75

Post by nettdata »

olivercameron wrote: post #28
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…

Compared to a lot of car reviews on Top Gear, Tesla got off lightly.

Just imagine if it were made in Mexico.

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.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#76

Post by [deleted] »

adriand wrote: post #65
KaeseEs wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#77

Post by robryan »

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.

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.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#79

Post by mryall »

subway wrote: post #43
reitzensteinm wrote: post #23

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.

Hydrogen is not an energy source, but a means by which to store energy. You know, like a battery.

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.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#80

Post by mryall »

reitzensteinm wrote: post #23
blhack wrote: post #9

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.

> Why they didn't go all the way and advocate fusion powered cars is beyond me.

Isn't that what the hydrogen is for?

Post reply on HN