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

101–110 of 123 posts

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#101

Post by nikster »

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

The Prius using more fuel than the M3 when driven at the same speed - it's still surprising, even though clearly they hammered the Prius while the M3 was puttering behind slowly. A bit of a ridiculous test.

The other thing they said though does make you pause to think, and I quite liked it: Rather than selling your fuel guzzling vehicle now, it's quite possibly much better for the environment if you keep driving it, but drive it slowly. Making a brand new car has a huge environmental impact, so large that the difference in fuel consumption would take a pretty long time to overcome it. In the case of a Prius it's even more complicated as the batteries are particularly environmentally unfriendly - and there's a lot of those in a Hybrid.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#102

Post by nikster »

jedsmith wrote: post #91
SwellJoe wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Reliant Robin show was epic. Only in England.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#103

Post by samh »

eli wrote: post #17
olivercameron wrote: post #2

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.

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.

That's not as surprising as you may think. "Truth is not a complete defense against libel".

Imagine I contacted someones workplace and business partners and told them about a drug conviction that occurred 22 years ago. Or if I took a statement you make after a some drinks in the pub and stuck a print out on poles all around your business.

There are cases where suing someone for libel even if what they say is true doesn't seem demonstrably wrong.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#104

Post by ElliotH »

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.

It is both. You can use it in a fuel cell form whereby you keep the water produced from its combustion, run electricity through it and get oxygen and hydrogen back. Alternatively though, the way hydrogen is turned into energy works if you just refill the hydrogen and throw away the water.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#105

Post by Chrono »

dman wrote: post #57
machrider wrote: post #11

Earlier 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.

Expecting the Top Gear folks to be fair, sensible or responsible is totally missing the point of the show in my opinion. These are the same guys that do - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjzpx_jUUA0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOvp69lnZbA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMcZH-1FEHo Consumer Reports and Car and Driver are factual and fair. But they arent entertaining, passionate or engrossing.

Exactly this. Top Gear isn't fair (or balanced). That is what makes the show funny.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#106

Post by Lennie »

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 also think it would have been a good idea if they spent the extra 30 seconds talking about how you can have a higher-power charging station to speed up charging, I'm sure they also would point out that they may not exist where you are when you want to use it.

I'm sure in some places you'll be fine, like LA or San Francisco where I suspect they have more charging stations than the average town.

And this is an obvious chicken/egg problem and if you explain it, people will understand.

Maybe I should add, the same chicken/egg problem exists for the Hydrogen car which was shown later in the show.

To be honest hydrogen is a nice idea but just looking at one item, compressing, hydrogen just seems like loss of energy. I don't know if it will ever work.

Just know one thing that electric 'engines' are the future, I don't know where the power will come from though.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#107

Post by nl »

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.

So they'll be suing themselves now? Because this lawsuit is hurting their brand a lot more than the Top Gear review did.

I remember seeing it when it came out, and thinking how positive it was. Sure, Jeremy ridiculed it for running out of power, but at the same time he spent a long time talking about how fast it was. From memory he said something like "if this is the future, bring it on"

By your logic, what should Audi do when he said (paraphrasing): "All Audi drivers are cocks"?

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#108

Post by [deleted] »

nettdata wrote: post #85
dman wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sure, they're the global leaders when it comes to automotive ENTERTAINMENT, but that is precisely because they are entertaining, not journalistic. Just about EVERY "review" they do on cars is heavily biased, and in more than a few cases, outrageously so. Anyone who watches the show without understanding that it is entertainment, first and foremost, needs to lighten up, get a sense of humour, and not take themselves s…

[deleted]

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#109

Post by Lennie »

Cherad wrote: post #27

Jeremy 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...

The article was mostly ok until all the way at the end.

Where he completely messes up and mentioned that hydrogen cars are "completely green".

Just a few sentences before that he says the car from Tesla is powered by "so-called green power" (electricity) from "dirty great power station".

Mr. Clarkson where do you think most of the hydrogen comes from ? Or the power to compress the hydrogen to make it compact enough for use by a car ?

Yes, there is a possibility someone will find a good way to produce to create hydrogen from algae. Or some breakthrough in the science of nuclear fission. We really don't know what will happen.

Anyway the real problem is efficient storage of energy and efficient conversion from storage to action/motion if I can call it that.

Batteries seem to be the current solution. But if we want to talk about environmentally friendly I don't know if they really are. I just know that batteries, like hydrogen use materials which come from nature which are just as finite as oil or matterial needed for fusion for that matter.

Although on Wikipedia it says:

'In addition, new Nickel-metal hydride and lithium batteries are non-toxic and can be recycled, and "the supposed 'lithium shortage' doesn’t exist"'

I don't know if that is true.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#110

Post by xiaoma »

burgerbrain wrote: post #89
xiaoma wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree that the lawsuit is bogus. I also realize that there are some weird alternate care groups in the UK (which somehow get subsidized by tax payers!) What I didn't agree with was your cursing proclamation that chiropractors are quacks. Had fewer people held that general belief, I probably wouldn't have suffered as long as I did before being referred to one.

If chiropractors were not quacks, the science would show it. Unfortunately for them, it shows the exact opposite. And your personal anecdote is meaningless. I know an elderly lady who swears she's met aliens. Nice lady, not trying to get on the local news, no reason to lie. I honestly think she believes it. Doesn't mean alien encounters aren't bullshit. Unreproducible anecdotes are not how science works. EDIT: There…

Once again, you're misinformed and you're still being extremely rude to preach about how science works. I'd be positively shocked if you have as much of a background in the hard sciences as I do. Setting your implications about my ignorance aside for the moment, I'll share some supporting research:

A 2010 systematic review found that most studies suggest spinal manipulation achieves equivalent or superior improvement in low back pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up.

Dagenais S, Gay RE, Tricco AC, Freeman MD, Mayer JM (2010). "NASS Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care: Spinal manipulation therapy for acute low back pain".

Many, many other citations of relevant research can be found at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinal_manipulation#Effectivene...

Post reply on HN