iam-nobody
Well-Known Member
I can't believe i did this but i watch the ep of the one show on bbc i player and did not see the cars.
Well I watched the OneShow as it went out live on Monday 15th December, to see if Adrian would make some response to 12x07 the previous night ? but nothing was said.
As to transmission with the little cars on the wall, that could have been filmed anytime in the previous week or so before Top Gear filming 12x07 took place on Wednesday 10th December. Probably set up on the 4th December, when Jezza was a guest on the show the week before.
Interesting to see people here saying the Tesla review was fair and honest. I don't think Tesla would think the same
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12/16/tesla-clarifies-some-of-top-gears-mischaracterizations/
"Never at any time did Clarkson or any of the Top Gear drivers run out of charge. In fact, they never got below 20 percent charge in either car; they never had to push a car off the track because of lack of charge or a fault."
"The "brake failure" Clarkson mentions was solely a blown fuse...I'm going to leave out comments as to why the good folks at Top Gear might have mischaracterized the blown fuse as a brake failure, which is was decidedly not."
"The vast majority of people who have taken delivery of their Roadsters (and there are more than 100 of them now) have much faster systems that recharge from dead to full in as little as 3.5 hours."
"The "brake failure" Clarkson mentions was solely a blown fuse...I'm going to leave out comments as to why the good folks at Top Gear might have mischaracterized the blown fuse as a brake failure, which is was decidedly not."
The brakes didn't fail. The fuse was for the system built into the brakes that utilize the friction to generate electricity to recharge the batteries. Water and electricity don't mix. They were thrashing the car in the rain and managed to blow a fuse. I seriously doubt Tesla would design the braking system to rely solely on a single fuse, otherwise you'll careen off the nearest cliff to very un-explosive death.Well, it would eventually be a 'brake failure' if that fuse blows when the car is on the road..
If you click the link, they are very happy with the review and think the cynical Clarkson gave their car very high praise.Still, they should cherish such a positive review..
The brakes didn't fail. The fuse was for the system built into the brakes that utilize the friction to generate electricity to recharge the batteries. Water and electricity don't mix. They were thrashing the car in the rain and managed to blow a fuse. I seriously doubt Tesla would design the braking system to rely solely on a single fuse, otherwise you'll careen off the nearest cliff to very un-explosive death.
If you click the link, they are very happy with the review and think the cynical Clarkson gave their car very high praise.
They were just alittle concerned about all the lies in the review.
The brakes didn't fail. The fuse was for the system built into the brakes that utilize the friction to generate electricity to recharge the batteries. Water and electricity don't mix. They were thrashing the car in the rain and managed to blow a fuse.
And i am a little concerned of you using a big word like "lies" as long as its Tesla's marketing director's word against TG's word. Especially when the marketing person uses a lawsuit-proof wording like "most likely did not run out of juice"....They were just alittle concerned about all the lies in the review.
I don't think this has been mentioned so far, but in the minor trivia department:
Ironlord kindly identified the morse code on page 1 referred to Gary Newman. I am quite sure Stiggy did mean Gary Numan. Mr Numan rose to general fame in the UK in 1979 with two charming little ditties, both #1 hits, "Cars" and "Are Friends Electric?". Somewhat appropriate for the Tesla lap.
I don't think so here. They admit they're happy with the review. They don't say that TopGear and the BBC necessarily "lied" about anything in the review, but apparently what was said in the show and what actually happened are not one and the same. TopGear is no longer concerned about being factual and educational. All TopGear cares about anymore is ratings. The show is 95% scripted now and that also includes the car reviews. They stage accidents and crashes, why not running out of gas or an overheating electric motor? It's not like they actually showed any warning lights on the car saying it was out of juice or overheating...Firstly, i think a green motoring blog quoting Tesla's marketing director might be even more biased than TG.
Do your 30 year old brakes generate electricity under braking that travels back into your cars electrical system?Second, even on my 30-year-old-classic there are no problems with blown fuses in the rain. A blown fuse because of water entering sounds like a much more dramatic failiure for an electric car than some "it's not a supercar if it doesn't break down" brake failiure.
The brakes didn't fail. The fuse was for the system built into the brakes that utilize the friction to generate electricity to recharge the batteries. Water and electricity don't mix. They were thrashing the car in the rain and managed to blow a fuse. I seriously doubt Tesla would design the braking system to rely solely on a single fuse, otherwise you'll careen off the nearest cliff to very un-explosive death.
Considering that every single one of the current crop of hybrids uses regenerative braking to recharge the batteries, and their regenerative braking fuses don't blow in the rain, I'd be even more concerned.
The brakes didn't fail. The fuse was for the system built into the brakes that utilize the friction to generate electricity to recharge the batteries. Water and electricity don't mix. They were thrashing the car in the rain and managed to blow a fuse. I seriously doubt Tesla would design the braking system to rely solely on a single fuse, otherwise you'll careen off the nearest cliff to very un-explosive death
Granted, but why would they make the point that the Tesla Roadster is unreliable when actually it wasn't?Of course the car reviews are scripted, but not to lie, but to make a point.
May I just say that this is exactly the same as with the gearbox of the Nissan GT-R: it will not always break, will it? Where the f*ck does this thought come from? Why do you assume that because a fuse blew on this test car, the fuse will always blow when someone drives a Tesla Roadster in the rain?But you are quite happy for them to design a recharging system that doesn't work when its wet? Why would people pay ?90,000 for a car they can only use when its sunny?
Granted, but why would they make the point that the Tesla Roadster is unreliable when actually it wasn't?
Yep, Jezza might have known better, but what he did was communicate how it would look to the average driver: As if the brakes would not be working properly, just as he said on TV.Ecomentalist blog said:Our take on this is that a blown fuse, while not a big problem and easy to fix, is still an issue and all that the average driver would know is that the brakes aren't working properly. Surely, though, Clarkson isn't the average driver, so perhaps he should have reported on the cause of the brake failure, but whatever.
May I just say that this is exactly the same as with the gearbox of the Nissan GT-R: it will not always break? Where the f*ck does this thought come from? Why do you assume that because a fuse blew on this test car, the fuse will always blow when someone drives a Tesla Roadster in the rain?
Water and electricity don't mix. They were thrashing the car in the rain and managed to blow a fuse
Showed the big flaw in all the arguments about electric cars having enough range for everyday use - it might be good 90% of the time but I can't afford another car for the infrequent but important trips I make that are more than 250 miles, and I'm not going to wait for a 16 hour charge half way.
The future looks scary tbh, if cars are gonna be like that Honda.
Who the hell wants to drive around in a car that doesnt make a glorious noise when you put your foot down?
I think the Tesla is a great car, but it's not perfect. If you drove the thing normally, I'm sure you could get over 200 miles a charge.
The Tesla, after doing some quick math, on a normal drive would get approx. 25 miles to the gallon, give or take. 10 gallon tank, 250 mile range under normal driving.
Under hard driving, sports cars on the Top Gear Test Track get about 5 miles to the gallon. That would effectively give the car a 50 mile range. It ran dead at 55 miles. I don't see the bloody problem.
25 miles to the gallon of what? Electrons?
...novelties owned by aging ecomentalist freezing their butts of from all that "global warming."
The Tesla looks good, sounds scary, drives well straight but not well in corners and is useless if you're going from state to state. It seems to be lost to where it should belong.
Why do people forget that there's a middle step between hardcore track driving, and driving your kids to school? There's this whole middle step of just having an enjoyable drive in something fun. That's where cars like the Tesla are belong. Heck, the DB9 and Maserati Gran Tourismo belong there, too, I think.
The Tesla is a genuinely interesting electric car if not for the fact my old iPod runs longer than it.
Oh, about the water vapour causing greenhouse effect... if one thinks about all the potential energy trapped in water vapour (just think of a steam engine, or a tea kettle), shouldn't it be possible for the car to use up that energy as well, before releasing the water as a simple trickle of liquid water?
I genuinely think he was impressed with it on the basis that it is a car that you can drive and enjoy (partly because it basically is a Lotus Elise). /QUOTE]
That's taking it a bit far...some of it's chassis is based on the platform... That's like saying my cakes are as good as the local bakery's because we use the same flour.
Lastly, the Tesla isn't meant to be a track car, but a sports card for the road.
Even if all those new electric power plants were nuclear what are we going to do with all the toxic waste that lasts for hundreds of years,
I don't think you mean "hundreds" of years.
why didn?t they go "we had to wait quite a bit for this, but now it?s here, and Honda were the first to build one they will sell you"?
Because you can't buy it. You lease it for $600 a month (which is still a loss for Honda) and you have to give it back. You also had to be pre-approved to get one. They would only give it to people who had certain automotive useage requirements.
Both of my petrol powered cars DO have a 500 mile unrefueled range. In fact, the Series III can go 624+ miles on a refuelling. The XJR can get 513+.
My car gets just shy of 300...that means you have a huge tank, or you somehow get better mileage than my 2.5L.
My dad's pick-up had two fuel tanks. Enormous range for that I-6. At some point, though, there's a level of reasonable range, and a point of ridiculousness when it comes to how much "fuel" should the vehicle store. 250-300 is a good level, I think for most everyone.
And, Jeremy said: ''in the meantime though, we hope you have a very happy jul.''
Did he say ''jul''? Because that means christmas in norwegian
I'll bet he said it as "yule." Like a Yule log or "Troll the ancient Yule tide carol." It probably comes from jul, but he probably mentioning the english language's meaning.
The only question that remains is how much water vapour the FCX emits.
1 teaspoon or water for every 15 miles, if I remember correctly...something like that. Anyways, the water vapor created from a fuel cell is still less than the water vapor from the combistion process. I'd be more willing to drink what is collected from a fuel cell car than a gasoline powered car.
I wondered this before if hydrogen fuel cells work out, will airplanes go back to prop driven engines that are powered by electricity?
Why not turbines powered by electricity? (pardon the ignorance, that's a serious question...I don't know the answer. )