Top Gear responds to Tesla • Hacker News Board

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#91

Post by jedsmith » Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 4:46 AM UTC

SwellJoe wrote: post #62

Retric wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perfo…

> The Reliant Robin, while obviously a horrible design, does not roll over every time you drive one a half mile

But it is absolutely hilarious when it does.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#92

Post by schwabacher » Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 5:01 AM UTC

bcaulf wrote: post #86

kwis wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 consump…

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.

Maybe only on environmentally friendly cars?

*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.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#93

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 5:28 AM UTC

kwis wrote: post #64

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)

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 consump…

[deleted]

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#94

Post by whatusername » Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 5:32 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #47

dnautics wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can make hydrogen via other means, directly from sunlight, for example, although admittedly that technology is not here yet.

His point was Hydrogen was just another form of battery.

Like Oil.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#95

Post by periferral » Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 6:05 AM UTC

ohhhh the tesla jokes on top gear for years to come from jeremy is something i'll look forward to.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#96

Post by vl » Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 6:34 AM UTC

kwis wrote: post #64

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)

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 consump…

>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".

They actually kind of did for Toyota Prius here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTOyiKLARk

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#97

Post by synx508 » Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 7:40 AM UTC

machrider wrote: post #11

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 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.

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?

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#98

Post by georgieporgie » Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 8:29 AM UTC

vl wrote: post #96

kwis wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 consump…

>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". They actually kind of did for Toyota Prius here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTOyiKLARk

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.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#99

Post by gaius » Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 9:08 AM UTC

mryall wrote: post #79

subway wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#100

Post by nikster » Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 9:34 AM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #82

xiaoma wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 swellin…

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 o…

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.