So Top Gear lied about Tesla?

GerFix said:
I'd rather live in a world where journalists tell me the truth rather than what their (biased) opinion is.
Click to expand...

A company I worked for once had a wonderful review published in a magazine of a product I helped develop. I mean, it gushed. The product was even on the front page of the magazine. We found out from the marketing people it was paid for (one way or another). Advertising, essentially.

Don't trust the related trade press for anything like recommendations, just the measurable facts (number of wheels, engine in front, middle, or rear, etc.).
 
Raitzi said:
To clarify the Finnish magazine track test about Tesla. They said that they did not manage to do a single full lap without power limiter reducing power.(not sportcar material in this respect) Also they said that if power limiter would not have kicked in, Tesla could have managed a similar time with new Z4(the heavy car with foldable metal roof).
Click to expand...

Not sure about that. Even with all the nonsense on TopGear, they managed to run a second a lap faster than the Z4, and the Tesla was running in the wet.
 
epp_b said:
So what? It's entertainment presented in a way that is very plausible and believable, but not wholly satirical.

Unless you're sarcastically-impaired, you know when Top Gear is dicking around and when they're being serious. Sorry, but the Tesla segment just did not carry a sense of satire to make one believe that the whole breaking-down thing was just a gag.

So, basically, this:
Click to expand...

Fact of the matter is that Top Gear has gotten to a point where one can only assume that most of the things featured are for satirical purposes. Let's face it, the show's informative credibility died long ago.
 
Hippo said:
Let's face it, the show's informative credibility died long ago.
Click to expand...

What's taken a lot of the enjoyment of the show away for me is my constant questioning if the challenge, race, car review I'm watching is legit or not. If the Polar Special were to air today I'd probably spend the whole time wondering if they were really in the Arctic or sitting in front of a blue screen in Milton Keynes.
 
PWooster said:
What's taken a lot of the enjoyment of the show away for me is my constant questioning if the challenge, race, car review I'm watching is legit or not. If the Polar Special were to air today I'd probably spend the whole time wondering if they were really in the Arctic or sitting in front of a blue screen in Milton Keynes.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.

I watched a Youtube video of the show's mistakes/errors about a year ago and it's been constantly bugging me. When they crack jokes in the studio and make smart comments to/about each other I used to think "Wow, Clarkson is a really funny guy". I now sit there and think, "Wow, the script writers were on the ball with that one".

Still, I love the show to bits, and set up or not its still a great watch. Though now I'll always question the authenticity.
 
When they crack jokes in the studio and make smart comments to/about each other I used to think "Wow, Clarkson is a really funny guy". I now sit there and think, "Wow, the script writers were on the ball with that one".
Click to expand...

Yes, but they are the scriptwriters
 
Hippo said:
When they crack jokes in the studio and make smart comments to/about each other I used to think "Wow, Clarkson is a really funny guy". I now sit there and think, "Wow, the script writers were on the ball with that one".
Click to expand...

Jeremy writes the script by himself, which is -- pretty much -- a basic outline of what will be in the show; he doesn't tell James or Richard what to say. It's edited by Richard Porter, and I doubt he changes Jeremy's words.
 
PWooster said:
What's taken a lot of the enjoyment of the show away for me is my constant questioning if the challenge, race, car review I'm watching is legit or not. If the Polar Special were to air today I'd probably spend the whole time wondering if they were really in the Arctic or sitting in front of a blue screen in Milton Keynes.
Click to expand...

What part of "Entertainment show with cars in it" is it that you dont understand?
 
Hippo said:
Fact of the matter is that Top Gear has gotten to a point where one can only assume that most of the things featured are for satirical purposes. Let's face it, the show's informative credibility died long ago.
Click to expand...

I dont think they were looking for credibility, i think they are trying to make fun films about cars among other things while throwing in some honest facts once in a while.

PWooster said:
What's taken a lot of the enjoyment of the show away for me is my constant questioning if the challenge, race, car review I'm watching is legit or not. If the Polar Special were to air today I'd probably spend the whole time wondering if they were really in the Arctic or sitting in front of a blue screen in Milton Keynes.
Click to expand...

so, i have a solution, stop questioning and just watch and have fun. its not very hard. For things like the Polar Special, well, i dont fucking care if it was filmed in my living room, it was a blast to watch and i bet it was fun to create and it also looked awesome. that part in the south america special where jezza was hanging a wheel on the edge of that cliff, yea, im sure it was staged (i really dont think it was) but even if it was it still looked scary as shit and even though i knew he wasnt gonna die i was still worried. thats what films like that do, they challenge your emotion.

except for one season when the scripting (oh shit, i said scripting again!) was bad and even Andy admitted it went kinda stale, i was watching and having fun, shit, even then it was fun with a little predictability. basically, you guys need to lighten up and just enjoy this great show for what it is.
 
Yeah but you have to admit that we are in an age of "reality television" and that's kinda what people want. When it came to the Polar Special, you can tell that some of it was rehearsed and most of it was legit. I watch the show because I want those facts about what the manufacturers are doing to their newest cars. I don't want lies and deceit. Give me the facts and throw in a few good jokes and I'd be OK with that.
 
kurthest said:
What part of "Entertainment show with cars in it" is it that you dont understand?
Click to expand...
It used to be a "car show with entertainment in it", that's the actual problem.
 
Wish I had noticed this thread a few weeks ago. There were a few things on the test that were actually very positive and a few other that actually were pretty good at showing the limitations and a few things that showed that Tesla actually did some thing quite nicely. The one thing that actually shows they got it right was the reduced power mode or the overheat. On ev's if you pull too much power you can easily cook the batteries, the controller, or the motor. Usually it's the controller that ends up looking like someone took a plasma cutter to it. And what most people will find not right is that you actually do the worst damage when batteries are low as you pull more amps. The higher end controllers are liquid cooled and I assume the acs setup on the Tesla is. You can only cool them so much so when they hit the thermal limit you either shut down or burn up. The brakes are regenerative so these act like a generator and feed power back into the batteries. Same problem with overheating as this is fed back through the same controller. Pop a fuse and you would have fairly weak brakes.I've wondered if they (TG) wasn't sure they should drive it at that point as they just didn't know. It's easy to say something in the dub but I wonder if at the time they figured it might be better to be careful and push it in and then after Tesla let them know better.

I was fortunate enough to work on a fuel cell powered conversion a few years ago. Alcohol fuel cell and ultra capacitors. No batteries at all and a liquid fuel. Unfortunately it was a old Sebring citcar. So given the state of the art mid 70's golf cart suspension at anything over above 30mph it got interesting. I'd love to see the Stig run that one around the tg track. His suit would slowly fill up and poo would come out of his visor.

I still love electrics, they are the past and the future but I'm not convinced they are ready for the public quite yet. When I win the lotto I'm still planning on a nice red v12 Ferrari. ;-] This whole thing reminds me of a SLAP lawsuit on Teslas part. I just don't see the damages. Does anyone know if they filed this in the Us or the UK? Huge difference in liability law.
 
Let's face it, it was decided before test even began that the review was going to be a negative one.
 
Last edited:
Yeah well it ain't the first time

Yeah well it ain't the first time

It's hardly the first time Top Gear have, erm, gotten their facts a little muddled. Like with most of what Jezza ever told about the Toyota Prius on the show.

He claimed in S05E07 it had made only 45 mpg, which was worse than what standard Diesels did. That was the second generation Prius which I know for a fact consumes less petrol than the first one, and we've been running a Prius I in the familiy since 2002. I've never for the life of me managed to push it above 5.5 l/100 km, and not for lack of trying.

Once I took both my fat old parents to their holiday destination in it. Full luggage for their three-week stay, German Autobahn, halfway through the country, pedal to the metal ALL the way to Hamburg and beyond.

Driving sanely, it usually stays well below 5.0 Liters / 100 km, and that's without the driver making any sort of conscious effort to save petrol. That's 52.3 and 56.4 mpg - in imperial miles and gallons.

I suppose the error resulted because nobody at Top Gear figured out that the mileage display of the onboard computer is in American miles and gallons.

All of this in a car of usable size - the Prius II has nearly as much space inside as the Avensis, so the comparison to the VW Lupo doesn't really make sense. And regarding Diesels and environmental credentials, TG conveniently forgot to mention nitrous oxides, which are a real pain to get cleaned out of diesel exhaust while petrol engines hardly produce any in the first place.

Also, about the supposed danger to pedestrians because of the quiet drive, it's a well known fact that at 30 mph, most of the noise of a car comes not from the engine but from the tires, so on the outside, Hybrids are only really quieter than standard cars up to about 10 to 15 mph.

Just my .02 Euros.
 
Last edited:
It's been a long time coming, but the case is now being heard. Round one to Top Gear.

http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/19/top-gear-not-libel-tesla

Electric sports carmaker Tesla Motors has lost a major part of its high court libel claim against the BBC's Top Gear programme, but is still suing the corporation for malicious falsehood over an episode that showed the company's Roadster model running out of battery in a race.

Ruling at the high court in London on Wednesday, Mr Justice Tugendhat said that no Top Gear viewer would have reasonably compared the car's performance on the show's airfield track to its likely performance on a public road.

The hearing continues on other grounds, including Tesla's claim that the Top Gear presenters maliciously made five other false statements about the Roadster.

Tesla launched the legal action against the BBC in 2008, after the show was first broadcast. The company's complaint centred on Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson, who said in the programme that the Roadster ran out of battery after 55 miles on its track ? far short of the 200 miles that Tesla claimed it could achieve.

Tugendhat said: "In my judgment, the words complained of are wholly incapable of conveying any meaning at all to the effect that the claimant [Tesla] misled anyone.

"This is because there is a contrast between the style of driving and the nature of the track as compared with the conditions on a public road [?] are so great that no reasonable person could understand that the performance on the [Top Gear] track is capable of a direct comparison with a public road."

The judgment was handed down verbally by Tugendhat shortly before lunchtime on Wednesday in the full-day hearing.

Tesla has accused Top Gear of using "staged" footage to create the impression that the Roadster had run out of battery. The US carmaker also complained that Top Gear characterised a blown fuse as a brake failure, and that the model became immobile as a result of overheating.

In its skeleton argument, Tesla says it has seen a "continuing impact" of the 2008 Top Gear episode on its reputation, resulting from its availability on the BBC iPlayer video-on-demand service, DVD, and syndication of the original programme to other broadcasters including the digital channel, Dave.

The BBC contests that the entire claim should be struck out.


Sorry - link appears to be broken, so I've pasted in the main text instead. Source: The Guardian 19th October 2011
 
Last edited:
I can't believe this is still going on... I thought the review was a fair one. I've read plenty of material on the Tesla Roadster from various other sources and the general consensus is that while it's a nice try it doesn't quite stack up, particularly under performance driving.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, yes, the review is negative but it isn't one that sums up the whole story, there's plenty of driving and experience with the car before the 5-6 minute film you see is made.

Bottom line is that the Tesla Roadster got a negative review on Top Gear like so many other vehicles did before it and yet the media effect of the EV sports car is still around, what exactly did it do to be worthy of this much defense?

I don't recall Vauxhall shifting the world backwards because Top Gear criticized their Vectra despite it getting much worse a description. They just said that some of the sales were affected and moved on. Plenty of other manufacturers have had issues of a similar matter or does everybody in the world think that the BMW 535d only does 12 mpg?
 
The funny thing is a few weeks ago I tested a number of EVs at a show and what came across from all the manufacturers was that the issues TG applied to the Tesla actually did apply to their vehicles; charging time, the cost of installing home charging points, and especially the fact that if you drive them hard the range drops dramatically (even Nissan's figures for the LEAF suggest that if you drive it at motorway speeds you'll lose a third of the range, and that if you do that under real world conditions rather than perfectly controlled ones, the situation is even worse). The funny thing was, when I drove the i-Miev (which I actually really liked, though I'll grant you it's not a sports car by any stretch of the imagination - but it is very entertaining if you want it to be), my reaction was a lot like Jeremy's initial reaction to the Tesla - EVs are nippy and torquey and that makes them a proper laugh to drive. But just when you're really having fun, you have to stop and plug it back in :(

I think the body of evidence about EVs is going to be broadly in TG's favour at this point, and given that technology tends to move forwards, and the issues they illustrated with the Tesla are pretty much the norm now (apart from the blown fuse/brake issue, and we've seen Andy's response to that months ago), the review really wasn't as unfair as some people have said. And from where I was standing, Tesla didn't seem to be having too much trouble getting people interested and enthusiastic. I'd say that far from doing any harm, most people here know about Tesla because of Top Gear, and it didn't seem to have put them off at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top