...or Vauxhall, ask them about the Signum review.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.
...or Vauxhall, ask them about the Signum review.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.
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.
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.
It may not make a difference to you, but a potential buyer might be interested in the difference betweenBut 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?
I don't think it was staged, therefore there is nothing for Lamborghini to sue about.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.
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.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.
Again, the car was not misrepresented.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!
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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!
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.
I don't think it was staged, therefore there is nothing for Lamborghini to sue about.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.?
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.
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.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?)
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.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.
"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.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...
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 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.
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.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.
... 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.Particularly if the car I produce is not so good, after all.
OK, he's made his point and he's suing. This would be the time to take a step back.Tesla CEO taking a stab-