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

111–120 of 123 posts

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#111

Post by enko »

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…

You invoke "the science" as if it is some infallible magic spell which always shows truth. Unfortunately, "the science" is too often a set of results commissioned by imperfect humans juggling budgets, grant proposals, biases and conclusions they are expected to reach. It has been very wrong before and no doubt will be again.

Funnily enough I might have wholeheartedly agreed with you before my wife, who suffered from back pain which numerous conventional health care professionals have failed to correct, was recommended by a friend to see a chiropractor. She did, with immediate and excellent results; her back problems are now largely a thing of the past.

Yes, another "meaningless" personal anecdote, I don't expect to convince you. But it's caused me to examine my former blind belief in "the science", especially when it comes to health.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#112

Post by dagw »

stuhood wrote: post #84

Why would Top Gear use a calculated track capacity number (55 miles), given that they could have measured an actual number? I understand that 30 minutes of hard driving can be exhausting, but how exactly could they have calculated an accurate value? Say what you will about EPA numbers, but at least they involve standardized measurement.

Why would Top Gear use a calculated track capacity number (55 miles), given that they could have measured an actual number?

Probably because they had a show to shoot. They where apparently already having trouble getting all the shots they needed due to the short battery life, combined with the break problems. I'm guessing they simply didn't have the time to take the car out again and run it until the battery died.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#113

Post by CWuestefeld »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #59
timthorn wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point about hydrogen is that you can fill up in a traditional manner (quickly), rather than having to charge a battery.

At battery changing stations, empty batteries can be swapped for fully charged ones. That takes about the same time as it would to fill a fuel tank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place Israel is the first nation in the world that partnered with Better Place to have an all-electric car infrastructure. Shai Agassi believes that in Israel by 2016, plus or minus a year, more than 50% of cars sold will be electric a…

Meta-comment:

Please don't post quotes using pre-formatted text. It forces the browser to use the full width. That, in turn, puts a horizontal scrollbar on my browser, so I have to scroll back-and-forth to read any of the comments.

I find it works much better to quote using asterisks. (We could also lobby pg for a BLOCKQUOTE feature)

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#114

Post by CWuestefeld »

sliverstorm wrote: post #52
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.

Maybe not your FAVORITE guy ever, but I don't know if you can call yourself a motoring enthusiast if you don't derive at least a little bit of guilty pleasure watching them race a jet fighter in a Bugatti.

How that jet got in the Bugatti, I'll never know.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#115

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Lennie wrote: post #109
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 f…

Hey, there's another article recently on HN about an MIT professor's "artificial leaf" meaning a solar cell that produces hydrogen directly. So now we know when that will happen.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#116

Post by flojo »

dman wrote: post #3
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.

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 could not agree with your more.

Even if there was nothing wrong with the car. What Tesla should have done is, take it on the chin, say something in the lines of 'we will correct and make it better', even though nothing is wrong, and then do a retest, and simply have that test on their terms. And then really, they could have gone from good to great.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#117

Post by dotBen »

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…

To explain for Americans and non-Brits, A Reliant Robin was a 3-wheeled car that was designed so that it could be taxed as a motorcycle with side car (ie 3 wheels).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliant_Robin

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#118

Post by flipbrad »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #114
sliverstorm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not your FAVORITE guy ever, but I don't know if you can call yourself a motoring enthusiast if you don't derive at least a little bit of guilty pleasure watching them race a jet fighter in a Bugatti.

How that jet got in the Bugatti, I'll never know.

No, the Bugatti driver's other pastime is punching jets on the nose.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#119

Post by coffie »

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…

A lot of people that like cars have been emotionally connected to the internal engine. These "car enthusiasts" enjoy everything about cars, albeit frequently do not analyze emerging technologies with a long-term vision. They like the sound the engine makes and the thrill of acceleration. That is nice and I can respect their decisions. That sentiment of connection to the internal engine has been challenged first by Tesla Roadster.

What I view as auto fans mistake in judgement is to portray electric cars through the lens of mistrust in the new design. Someone who has only driven IC cars will keep trying to find fault with a one that is not. Tesla is the new toy a boy can play with. Clarkson has been living with old habits and 'old' cars to question his own assumptions about car technology. This is what I had found when speaking with people in the automotive industry.

Yet, electric cars require a lot of future development to meet the high standards that they will be judged by.

Re: Top Gear responds to Tesla

#120

Post by BrandonM »

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.

Agreed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQh56geU0X8
Post reply on HN