So Top Gear lied about Tesla?

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
7,839
Location
near Cologne
Back to the topic at hand. If Tesla think they got it bad from Top Gear, they should talk to the folks who make the G-Wiz. :D
...or Vauxhall, ask them about the Signum review.
 

Trollbooth

Active Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
144
Telsa has to bring the suit forward because there's so much misinformation out there about the Roadster because of the Top Gear review.

1)The first Tesla shown did not run out of charge.

True, it went in safe-mode and had to be recharged for 3 hours (on an industrial line) or 16 hours (on a standard line) after 55 miles of track driving. So the Tesla Roadster has a somewhat bad range/recharge time ratio and doesn't seem to work well as a track-day car (or maybe even a week-end sports car, if you have a heavy foot).

2)The first Testla shown did not have to be pushed into the hangar as a result of running out of charge. See point 1.

True, it got there in safe-mode and had to be recharged after 55 miles of track driving. The Tesla Roadster is still not a good sports

3)At no point were the brakes of the first roadster broken.

True, the brakes were still working, because the problem they had, while being quite annoying and slightly dangerous, didn't stop the brakes from working.

4)The second Roadster did not become immobile as a result of overheating.

True, it got in safe mode and had to go back to the garage to prevent any possible damage.

5)There was no time at which neither Roadster was available to drive.

True. While both cars had problems on their own, there was a car always available.

The car did not go into "safe mode" due to low battery level. "Safe mode" is what happened when the electric motor's temperature got close to the high end of what was safe for the motor. "Safe mode" limits the motor's power which results in a reduced top speed of about 100mph. A still very usable, very reviewable car even in "safe mode".

Furthermore the 55 mile range was for hard driving on the track. As I've previously mentioned, a Ferrari 599 on a full tank has a LOWER range than the Tesla. The Tesla's range is about average for a supercar being driven hard on the track.

The problem is Top Gear styled the review in such a way that it misleads viewers on what the actual performance of the car is like.

- (1,2) The range of the Tesla is comparable to a petrol supercar with a full tank
- (1,4) Even in "Safe mode" the Roadster can be driven well above motorway speeds.

But if you watch the review you would think the opposite. That's why Tesla brought about the lawsuit. The misinformation within this very forum is proof enough.
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,148
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
The car did not go into "safe mode" due to low battery level. "Safe mode" is what happened when the electric motor's temperature got close to the high end of what was safe for the motor. "Safe mode" limits the motor's power which results in a reduced top speed of about 100mph. A still very usable, very reviewable car even in "safe mode".

Ok, I will aknowledge to that too. The Tesla told the driver it was out of charge. Don't call it safe-mode, call it what you like, but on a track the range is still around 55 miles.

The engine went in safe-mode only on the second Tesla, and 100 mph is still a good speed, if you are not on a track. But if you are not on a track, I doubt it would have overheated in the first place. Moreover, the Tesla Roadster is an electric Lotus Elise, ti should do what the Elise do. That is the benchmark.

The facts remain that it can do 55 miles every 4 hours (including driving time) and that it can overheat if driven on a track.

Furthermore the 55 mile range was for hard driving on the track. As I've previously mentioned, a Ferrari 599 on a full tank has a LOWER range than the Tesla. The Tesla's range is about average for a supercar being driven hard on the track.

As I said, the benchmark for the Tesla Roadster is the Lotus elise, not the Ferrari 599. However, if you still want to compare the Ferrari 599 with the Tesla, then yes, the Tesla has a better range. But the 599 can be refuelled in 5 minutes, while the Tesla needs 3 hours at best.

The problem is Top Gear styled the review in such a way that it misleads viewers on what the actual performance of the car is like.

- (1,2) The range of the Tesla is comparable to a petrol supercar with a full tank

But the recharging times aren't.

- (1,4) Even in "Safe mode" the Roadster can be driven well above motorway speeds.

But not track speed.

But if you watch the review you would think the opposite. That's why Tesla brought about the lawsuit. The misinformation within this very forum is proof enough.

That ia not what Tesla reproached to TG, Tesla motors put the attention on other things: that there was at least one car available at any time, that the Roadster did not stop when it overheated or needed to be brought back by pushing it when the charge was low, that the brakes were not "broken" and that the car did not become immobile. They agree, however, that the car did overheat, that it did have brake problems (a fuse), that its charge was pretty much over after less than 60 miles. They agree on that because if they didn't, these would be the main points of their critics on TG, not the difference between broken brakes and malfunctioning brakes.

Top Gear has been hard on many cars several times: do you remember Jeremy out of fuel on the Lamborghini, unable to open the fuel cap and trying to read the italian manual of the car? Do you really think the fuel cap was truly inoperable and the car manual of a Lamborghini is only in italian and is not available in english or german when you buy it? What about James in the track-prepared Jaguar with no air-con? Or Richard faced with the dodgy handling of the Dodge Challenger? What about the joking on the 1.7 mpg of the Ferrari 599? Why should it be different with the Tesla?
 
Last edited:

the Interceptor

I LUV MY PRIUS!!!
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
6,041
Location
ze Vaterland
Car(s)
VW Diesel of Death
I think you're misinterpreting Tesla's intentions here. They are not trying to somehow prove via a court that their car is a good car. They are simply opposing the "facts" shown and spelled out in the TG Tesla piece which were either fabricated or misrepresented. They will not disagree with the rest of the piece because there is nothing to disagree, at least nothing worth to make a court case of.

And yes, TG has been hard on many cars on many occasions. But being hard on a car and deliberately faking things are two pair of shoes.

Do I believe the non-opening fuel filler cap and the Italian manual on the Lambo? Yes, I do. TG ordered the car at Lamborghini, and they were provided with one. Jeremy knew how to open the filler cap, he didn't expect it to malfunction. He's just a man. Do you think anyone bothers to check the language of the manual before or after the car is delivered?

Do I believe James not thinking he'd need an aircon in the Aston N24? Yes, I do. He was playing his man card. "You are wusses, I'm in the only real driver's car here.". Men do these things. Who would, in that situation, not say to himself that he'll show'em and somehow live without a gay aircon?

Do I believe the dodgy handling of the Challenger? Yes, I do. The man loves big muscle cars. He simply ended up in a situation where the other two happened to be sportier and was forced to drive his Challenger faster than he feld comfortable with. That happens.

I'm sure TG has faked a lot of things over time. Hey, it's television. But faking is a risky business. And when you fake things to discredit a car of a small company which very much depends on reviews, you might see it firing right back at you.
 
Last edited:

kurthest

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
703
Location
Norway
Car(s)
2008 BMW 335i Coupe (e92)
I can only hope the first episode of the next series will make fun at Tesla and their ridiculous appliances.
One could only wish TG had the power to drive that company into bankruptcy.
It's an entertainment show with cars in it. Manufacturers should expect BBC to do whatever and say whatever they like, true or false or right out lies, about whatever car they "review".
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,148
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
I think you're misinterpreting Tesla's intentions here. They are not trying to somehow prove via a court that their car is a good car. They are simply opposing the "facts" shown and spelled out in the TG Tesla piece which were either fabricated or misrepresented. They will not disagree with the rest of the piece because there is nothing to disagree, at least nothing worth to make a court case of.

But the image of Tesla Motor has been damaged more by what the Tesla Roadster is than by four blokes pushing it into the garage. What Tesla Motor is doing is nonsense because what they have asked for is an aknowledgement that their car is as bad (and good, the review wasn't just bashing the Tesla) as TG showed, but it didin't stop dead.

After 55 miles in 4 hours (at the very least), what damage to their image could be done by pushing it in instead of parking it?

And yes, TG has been hard on many cars on many occasions. But being hard on a car and deliberately faking things are two pair of shoes.

What is faked? The core facts about the Tesla are still there, and Tesla Motors agrees. What is being talked about are details.

Also:

Do I believe the non-opening fuel filler cap and the Italian manual on the Lambo? Yes, I do. TG ordered the car at Lamborghini, and they were provided with one. Jeremy knew how to open the filler cap, he didn't expect it to malfunction. He's just a man. Do you think anyone bothers to check the language of the manual before or after the car is delivered?

On the same logic as Tesla Motors, Lamborghini should sue TG for not telling that the italian car manual was only on the car they've provided for the test, and that the others are equipped with whatever language the customer will want, and the fuel cap was just a defective piece. It's the same story: all Lambos have faulty fuel-caps openings? No. All Lambos have italian-only car manual? No. Did Jeremy really need the car manual to understand the fuel cap? No. Do you even think he stop because he had no fuel left? No, the whole part was staged to show the fuel cap problem. So, has TG lied? Not at all. The facts are still there, with the addition that every car, even supercars, can have problems, even silly ones.

Again:

Do I believe James not thinking he'd need an aircon in the Aston N24? Yes, I do. He was playing his man card. "You are wusses, I'm in the only real driver's car here.". Men do these things. Who would, in that situation, not say to himself that he'll show'em and somehow live without a gay aircon?

He knew in advance that the car had no air-con and that he would have suffered hot temperatures. And they showed what happens in a car like that. If we apply Tesla logic, that Jaguar is only for the track, so they were wrong to show how hot it gets the inside in summer if you use for what it wasn't meant to be used. They should have used them on a track, where the Stig wouldn't have noticed the temperature. Just like Tesla Roadster's charge would last longer if used as a normal car and not as a sports car.

Did TG do something wrong in mocking a track-day car because it lacks air-con? I think not.

Do I believe the dodgy handling of the Challenger? Yes, I do. The man loves big muscle cars. He simply ended up in a situation where the other two happened to be sportier and was forced to drive his Challenger faster than he feld comfortable with. That happens.

Of course, and was he exagerating? Yes. Is the Challenger really so bad? No, it's better than that, but the fact is it hasn't a good chassis. What should Dodge do? They knew what would happened. They knew TG wouldn't be kind. They even tried to refuse Hammond the car!

I'm sure TG has faked a lot of things over time. Hey, it's television. But faking is a risky business. And when you fake things to discredit a car of a small company which very much depends on reviews, you might see it firing right back at you.

As I said, consider what has been faked:

the car didn't stop dead when the charge was over
the car didn't have broken brakes, only malfunctioning
the car didn't stop dead because of overheating (and the sentence is written so that it might well be that it stopped dead for other reasons...)
there were at least one of the cars always available

Now consider what has NOT been faked:

the car has not a great range
the car needs 3 or (more likely in our world) 16 hours to be recharged
both cars malfunctioned - one overheated, the other blew a fuse
the car is heavy as a battleship
the car has just a decent handling
the car costs thrice as much as a normal Elise

Which of those two lists dows more damage to Tesla? What is the relative importance of these two lists?

After that, Tesla can surely sue TG, but the effect is a bunch of angry lawyers and marketing experts trying to get through chatters what their R&D can not achieve. And that's a pity, because I liked the Tesla Roadster very much; I was really thinking they could finally make the first really good electric car. And that was after and thank to the TG review. My idea was: hey, it exists, it is on sale and it works, though it's heavy and cursed with the battery problems of all electric cars. But maybe they will get it right because they are selling a kind of car for people who can spend lots of money. I was wrong, instead what they do is nit-picking on a 10 minutes review because the car wasn't pushed. Right, that was just what I got from the review, that the car was pushed into the garage... If that was the center of TG's review, I would have been done with watching TG for a long time now.
 
Last edited:

MattD1zzl3

2 Slow 2 Noisy
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
3,736
Location
Miamishire
Car(s)
1996 & 2003 Mazda Miatas, 1995 Chevy Camaro Z28
Since when is 200 miles not a great range?

Lets say they are total liars and its actually 100 miles. Thats more mileage than i need in 4 or 5 days, easy. People are spouting off about "it takes X hours to power an empty battery". Well guess what, the battery WONT be empty. You could drive to work and back and only have to charge it 15 or 20 percent, even on a longer commute, which will take no time flat.

If you buy an electric car you need to consider the implications of how this will effect your commute. Top gears lazy "we need more of the same in the future" is just crap reasoning, and underestimates our adaptability to new things.

Its like someone in 1898 saying "These new "Cars" need to run on oats and hay, otherwise they will never hope to catch on" or "They only do 10 miles an hour, why would someone ever buy a car if they will only ever do 10 miles an hour"?
 
Last edited:

thevictor390

Teen Wankeler
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
11,894
Location
Massachusetts
Car(s)
'17 Mazda MX-5 RF, '89 Toyota Blizzard SX5
And in 1898, cars were a couple of decades from really catching on.

Using myself as an example, a 200 mile range would be fine most of the time. A 100 mile range would be a bit limiting as I use 60 of that in a regular commute. It still would be ok most of the time. But it would be quite frustrating to not be able to go somewhere for hours because my car needs charging. So currently, most electric cars would mean decreased quality of life (I know that's an exaggeration, but not sure how else to put it). As soon as that problem is resolved within reasonable limits, I see no problem with the personal use of an electric car (whether the power grid can take it is another matter and out of my control). Chevy had a pretty great idea with the range-extended Volt but their execution is iffy.... someone else do it properly and I'm on board.

As Tesla has proven, there's no reason one can't have an electric sports car. The Tesla itself may not be ideal but it's a proof of concept.

EDIT: cost of entry is another current limitation, the Tesla is in supercar territory and the Leaf/Volt are still more than I can afford. On a related note, I hope those battery packs last a long time because they will be expensive to replace. So I have to add another stipulation: the difference in initial cost + running cost needs to be low enough that it can be overcome with fuel savings.
 
Last edited:

MattD1zzl3

2 Slow 2 Noisy
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
3,736
Location
Miamishire
Car(s)
1996 & 2003 Mazda Miatas, 1995 Chevy Camaro Z28
But you can accept for a not-at-all-limited market of "People who dont commute 30 miles to work", a Tesla roadster would make a perfectly acceptable daily driver?
 

thevictor390

Teen Wankeler
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
11,894
Location
Massachusetts
Car(s)
'17 Mazda MX-5 RF, '89 Toyota Blizzard SX5
$100,000 asking price puts it firmly out of the "daily driver" category for the vast majority of commuters.
 

That American Girl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
4,581
Location
Columbus, Ohio
Car(s)
None, right now. Bye Bye Mustang. :-(
I'm still trying to understand all of this. And forgive me, I just worked another 15 hour shift so my brain is fuzzier than normal.

I Googled "Tesla sales Figures" and these are a few of the articles that came up. I did the lazy approach and just picked one at random, so bear with me. Some of my data might be too far out of date to be valid, but here goes:

To begin with: Top Gear aired the original episode in December 2008.

First article I saw that caught my eye:
Company warns of looming EPA changes

If I read this right, in 2008 Tesla had barely squeaked out the first batch of about 800 cars for the year.

Then in that December Top Gear gave their 'horrendous' review that killed it all according to the owner.

Yet, in 2009, Tesla saw a huge increase in sales. At least 1200 cars just by June. They were on schedule to sell 4 times as many cars in the year following the 'terrible' review. Yunno, the one that make them look like crap, but for some reason obviously made people want it more.

But, there was one more possible issue, this time from the EPA themselves.

"From the article"
"However, the 10-Q reveals that Tesla faces a bit of a public relations blow with the Roadster, as well. Tesla believes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, will revise the Roadster's driving range of 220+ miles after new testing, which could lead to it being reduced by as much as 30 percent.

The all-electric drivetrain is a key part of the car's "green" image, but the EPA's previous test cycle only gently drove the vehicle and did not push the electric motor to the full extent of its capabilities. A more aggressive test cycle is planned, and the result will likely be that Tesla's advertisable range will be greatly reduced."


So even Tesla originally did the EPA testing while gently driving the car, and not really pushing it to get that kind of range, and yet...The EPA might still come back and tell them to do a Clarkson.

Meaning...driving like a granny is one thing, but if this supposed to be some kind of sports type car...lets see what this baby can do!



Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the electric car...yet. But when I was watching that episode, I kept thinking:

"Yunno...if I knew I could make that range work for me, and it would be close, but not really impossible for me, and yes sometimes you just make do. Maybe bribe my neighbor to let me use his garage to charge it... Or sneak it back to the mechanics shop at work... Because that car is absolutely gorgeous! If it worked even 95% of when I needed it...that speed and those looks could win me over. And I hate electrics! :p All that being said, then this would defiantly have to be on my exceedingly short list of electric or hybrid type car I might go for."


I knew the review would end with what Tesla would be unhappy with, but yunno? I think that it was at it's core, the best review of an electric car to date.
 

the Interceptor

I LUV MY PRIUS!!!
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
6,041
Location
ze Vaterland
Car(s)
VW Diesel of Death
But the image of Tesla Motor has been damaged more by what the Tesla Roadster is than by four blokes pushing it into the garage. What Tesla Motor is doing is nonsense because what they have asked for is an aknowledgement that their car is as bad (and good, the review wasn't just bashing the Tesla) as TG showed, but it didin't stop dead.

After 55 miles in 4 hours (at the very least), what damage to their image could be done by pushing it in instead of parking it?
It may not make a difference to you, but a potential buyer might be interested in the difference between

a) the car telling him that "the battery needs to be charged" and that the car now is in a "limited speed mode to extend the range"
b) the car just stopping dead and needing to be pushed

If that's the same thing for you, be my guest. For me it isn't, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

On the same logic as Tesla Motors, Lamborghini should sue TG for not telling that the italian car manual was only on the car they've provided for the test, and that the others are equipped with whatever language the customer will want, and the fuel cap was just a defective piece. It's the same story: all Lambos have faulty fuel-caps openings? No. All Lambos have italian-only car manual? No. Did Jeremy really need the car manual to understand the fuel cap? No. Do you even think he stop because he had no fuel left? No, the whole part was staged to show the fuel cap problem. So, has TG lied? Not at all. The facts are still there, with the addition that every car, even supercars, can have problems, even silly ones.
I don't think it was staged, therefore there is nothing for Lamborghini to sue about.

He knew in advance that the car had no air-con and that he would have suffered hot temperatures. And they showed what happens in a car like that. If we apply Tesla logic, that Jaguar is only for the track, so they were wrong to show how hot it gets the inside in summer if you use for what it wasn't meant to be used. They should have used them on a track, where the Stig wouldn't have noticed the temperature. Just like Tesla Roadster's charge would last longer if used as a normal car and not as a sports car.
The Aston Martin N24 is a track car. And yet, Captain Slow deliberately chose it for the road and paid the price. There is nothing to protest here for Aston Martin, because the situation was shown the way it happened.

Of course, and was he exagerating? Yes. Is the Challenger really so bad? No, it's better than that, but the fact is it hasn't a good chassis. What should Dodge do? They knew what would happened. They knew TG wouldn't be kind. They even tried to refuse Hammond the car!
Again, the car was not misrepresented.

As I said, consider what has been faked:

the car didn't stop dead when the charge was over
the car didn't have broken brakes, only malfunctioning
the car didn't stop dead because of overheating (and the sentence is written so that it might well be that it stopped dead for other reasons...)
there were at least one of the cars always available

Now consider what has NOT been faked:

the car has not a great range
the car needs 3 or (more likely in our world) 16 hours to be recharged
both cars malfunctioned - one overheated, the other blew a fuse
the car is heavy as a battleship
the car has just a decent handling
the car costs thrice as much as a normal Elise

Which of those two lists dows more damage to Tesla? What is the relative importance of these two lists?
This is a very crucial difference I can only kindly ask you to try to wrap your head around: the point is not whether they like a car or not, nor whether they are mean to it or not. The point is that in the Tesla film, happenings were shown which were fabricated, and which do not apply to the product in the real world. Whether you find them important or not and what you think of the car has no bearing on this at all. A product was deliberately misrepresented, and the manufacturer sues the reviewer over it. Full stop.

After that, Tesla can surely sue TG, but the effect is a bunch of angry lawyers and marketing experts trying to get through chatters what their R&D can not achieve. And that's a pity, because I liked the Tesla Roadster very much; I was really thinking they could finally make the first really good electric car. And that was after and thank to the TG review. My idea was: hey, it exists, it is on sale and it works, though it's heavy and cursed with the battery problems of all electric cars. But maybe they will get it right because they are selling a kind of car for people who can spend lots of money. I was wrong, instead what they do is nit-picking on a 10 minutes review because the car wasn't pushed. Right, that was just what I got from the review, that the car was pushed into the garage... If that was the center of TG's review, I would have been done with watching TG for a long time now.
So you are disappointed that Tesla waves the lawyer card. You have every right to, do whatever you like. But your opinion on this matter is, with all due respect, irrelevant for whether Tesla does something about the review or not. But I can guarantee you that you would think different if you head a small company, and a well-respected group of journalists would go bananas on one of your few products.

I'm still trying to understand all of this. And forgive me, I just worked another 15 hour shift so my brain is fuzzier than normal.

I Googled "Tesla sales Figures" and these are a few of the articles that came up. I did the lazy approach and just picked one at random, so bear with me. Some of my data might be too far out of date to be valid, but here goes:

To begin with: Top Gear aired the original episode in December 2008.

First article I saw that caught my eye:
Company warns of looming EPA changes

If I read this right, in 2008 Tesla had barely squeaked out the first batch of about 800 cars for the year.

Then in that December Top Gear gave their 'horrendous' review that killed it all according to the owner.

Yet, in 2009, Tesla saw a huge increase in sales. At least 1200 cars just by June. They were on schedule to sell 4 times as many cars in the year following the 'terrible' review. Yunno, the one that make them look like crap, but for some reason obviously made people want it more.
This is portrayed in a wrong way. Tesla is suing the BBC only now because the review of the Roadster is beginning to become more popular in the US due to TG:US and the reruns of the British original in America. The review didn't have that much of an impact after it was aired, thus it wouldn't have affected sales figures significantly at the time, at least not more or less than a review in a US car magazine.

But, there was one more possible issue, this time from the EPA themselves.

"From the article"
"However, the 10-Q reveals that Tesla faces a bit of a public relations blow with the Roadster, as well. Tesla believes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, will revise the Roadster's driving range of 220+ miles after new testing, which could lead to it being reduced by as much as 30 percent.

The all-electric drivetrain is a key part of the car's "green" image, but the EPA's previous test cycle only gently drove the vehicle and did not push the electric motor to the full extent of its capabilities. A more aggressive test cycle is planned, and the result will likely be that Tesla's advertisable range will be greatly reduced."


So even Tesla originally did the EPA testing while gently driving the car, and not really pushing it to get that kind of range, and yet...The EPA might still come back and tell them to do a Clarkson.

Meaning...driving like a granny is one thing, but if this supposed to be some kind of sports type car...lets see what this baby can do!
What type of car you drive should be irrelevant for fuel consumption testing, as tests are standardized. Thus, a Tesla Roadster should be run through the same cycle as a Chevy Aveo and a Bugatti Veyron. I know it's not realistic because these vehicles will be used very differently by their owners. But in order to compare fuel consumptions, you need identical tests for all cars.
 
Last edited:

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,148
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
It may not make a difference to you, but a potential buyer might be interested in the difference between

a) the car telling him that "the battery needs to be charged" and that the car now is in a "limited speed mode to extend the range"
b) the car just stopping dead and needing to be pushed

If that's the same thing for you, be my guest. For me it isn't, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

If I was to buy a Tesla, TG wouldn't be my source of information about how the low-battery mode works. Just to say that I would ask Tesla how it works or just assume the car warns you (what car doesn't warn you?)

I don't think it was staged, therefore there is nothing for Lamborghini to sue about.

So you think Jeremy did actually completely run out of fuel in the middle of a densely populated area of western Europe and with a whole crew filming and assisting him and two more cars?

What happened is the first time Jeremy stopped to refuel, they noticed the faulty fuel-cap, so they staged the "stranded-in-the-middle-of-nowhere-with-an-italian-only-car-manual" thing. It's just like Tesla. The fuel cap was faulty on that exact car, but it didn't stop dead on a mountain road.

The Aston Martin N24 is a track car. And yet, Captain Slow deliberately chose it for the road and paid the price. There is nothing to protest here for Aston Martin, because the situation was shown the way it happened.

James in underwear pouring water onto himself and growling "haaaarrr" doesn't leave a good impression on a customer, who will drive in it with a full driving suit and helmet...

This is a very crucial difference I can only kindly ask you to try to wrap your head around: the point is not whether they like a car or not, nor whether they are mean to it or not. The point is that in the Tesla film, happenings were shown which were fabricated, and which do not apply to the product in the real world. Whether you find them important or not and what you think of the car has no bearing on this at all. A product was deliberately misrepresented, and the manufacturer sues the reviewer over it. Full stop.

Yes it has, and yet I still can't say it has; because I don't usually determine whether a car warns you when the batteries are low or just stop dead in the middle of the road by some footage in a car show, particularly when the spoken line tells differently and the accent is not put on that occurrence. Ironically, I never thought about this problem until this thread and the Tesla Motors' complaints. Following that, Tesla's requests appear to me as silly. But we already settled that we have different opinions.

So you are disappointed that Tesla waves the lawyer card. You have every right to, do whatever you like. But your opinion on this matter is, with all due respect, irrelevant for whether Tesla does something about the review or not.

Yes! :) And so is yours! :) But I am still free to consider Tesla Motors as silly, particularly after I explained my ideas thoroughly. Also, you are not forced to agree with me. We are on a forum: I just like to discuss things because I like to see what other people's ideas are built upon.

But I can guarantee you that you would think different if you head a small company, and a well-respected group of journalists would go bananas on one of your few products.

Particularly if the car I produce is not so good, after all.
 
Last edited:

Gyvon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
560
Location
Houston, Texas
But you can accept for a not-at-all-limited market of "People who dont commute 30 miles to work", a Tesla roadster would make a perfectly acceptable daily driver?

The problem with that is, the Tesla was designed, built, marketed, and priced as a sports car, not a daily driver.
 

Silverstar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
1,246
Location
Marion, Iowa
Car(s)
'11 Impreza STI Sedan
Tesla CEO taking a stab-

Wired.com's Autopia said:
Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk reportedly dropped an f-bomb on the blokes at Top Gear and says the popular BBC motoring program?s test of two Roadsters was ?completely phony.?

Link
 

MattD1zzl3

2 Slow 2 Noisy
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
3,736
Location
Miamishire
Car(s)
1996 & 2003 Mazda Miatas, 1995 Chevy Camaro Z28
The problem with that is, the Tesla was designed, built, marketed, and priced as a sports car, not a daily driver.

Im honestly not tying to be difficult, but why cant you daily drive a sports car? Ive been doing so for years now.


As far as the price thing goes, people daily BMWs, audis and mercades that cost the same amount the same distance and nobody bats an eye.
 
Last edited:

thevictor390

Teen Wankeler
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
11,894
Location
Massachusetts
Car(s)
'17 Mazda MX-5 RF, '89 Toyota Blizzard SX5
Im honestly not tying to be difficult, but why cant you daily drive a sports car? Ive been doing so for years now.


As far as the price thing goes, people daily BMWs, audis and mercades that cost the same amount the same distance and nobody bats an eye.

Yes but it still is a niche product. It's not viable as an everyday alternative to most people. Cheaper, commuter alternatives don't have nearly as much range, and are still unproven long-term. We'll get there.
 

the Interceptor

I LUV MY PRIUS!!!
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
6,041
Location
ze Vaterland
Car(s)
VW Diesel of Death
If I was to buy a Tesla, TG wouldn't be my source of information about how the low-battery mode works. Just to say that I would ask Tesla how it works or just assume the car warns you (what car doesn't warn you?)
Acknowledged, but try to see it from the view of the company. They must assume that any potential customer is going to read and watch the reviews he will be able to dig up. Unfortunately, not everyone knows Top Gear well enough to understand how it works. At the same time, their review is very easy to find. Thus, this piece can easily be damaging to Tesla Motors.

So you think Jeremy did actually completely run out of fuel in the middle of a densely populated area of western Europe and with a whole crew filming and assisting him and two more cars?

What happened is the first time Jeremy stopped to refuel, they noticed the faulty fuel-cap, so they staged the "stranded-in-the-middle-of-nowhere-with-an-italian-only-car-manual" thing. It's just like Tesla. The fuel cap was faulty on that exact car, but it didn't stop dead on a mountain road.
Let's assume they noticed the broken fuel filler cap and the Italian manual on a petrol station and reenacted the happenings on the mountain road. That still is not the same as the Tesla case, because it is a reenactment of something that has actually happened.

James in underwear pouring water onto himself and growling "haaaarrr" doesn't leave a good impression on a customer, who will drive in it with a full driving suit and helmet...
"Doesn't leave a good impression" doesn't make a court case. James may have overacted on the no-aircon-thing, but they still didn't show anything that hasn't happened as such.

Yes it has, and yet I still can't say it has; because I don't usually determine whether a car warns you when the batteries are low or just stop dead in the middle of the road by some footage in a car show, particularly when the spoken line tells differently and the accent is not put on that occurrence. Ironically, I never thought about this problem until this thread and the Tesla Motors' complaints. Following that, Tesla's requests appear to me as silly. But we already settled that we have different opinions.
Actually, the spoken line didn't tell different. Jeremy said from the off "We worked out that on our track, it would run out after just 55 miles. And if it does run out, it's not a quick job to charge it up again.". At the same time, they showed Jeremy looking puzzled in the car which was getting slower and soon ultimately stopped on the track. In the next scene, they pushed it into the hangar.

Yes! :) And so is yours! :) But I am still free to consider Tesla Motors as silly, particularly after I explained my ideas thoroughly. Also, you are not forced to agree with me. We are on a forum: I just like to discuss things because I like to see what other people's ideas are built upon.
Yes, my opinion is just as irrelevant. And you are of course free to consider Tesla Motors everything you like. Unfortunately, that's not what we're discussing here. You brought forward that Tesla's points are minor, even if they are major enough for a court case. You brought forward other examples of which you say they are the same, but actually they aren't. That's not opinion or taste, those are facts either being believed or denied.

Particularly if the car I produce is not so good, after all.
... which is still completely irrelevant. That said, one can come to the conclusion that we are having this discussion because you don't like the car and are deliberately trying to find arguments to make their manufacturer seem butthurt.
 
Last edited:
Top