Tesla 'accuse' Top Gear of being 'lying b'stards'

TomCat said:
I'm more inclined to believe the tiny car company who are probably never going to become very rich, then Jeremy Clarkson who's making money hand over fist on TopGear.
Click to expand...

This doesn't actually make any sense, if you think about it.

Tesla needs the roadster to be perceived as good in order for them to make money. Tesla has much more to lose in this situation, so they're more likely to make a statement, or even fudge the facts a little, in order to ensure people still trust them and their product. If people think their product is going to break easily, they won't buy it, and they'll go out of business. It is in Tesla's best interests to ensure people still trust their product.

Clarkson, by contrast, has nothing to gain or lose in this situation. If TG would have just aired the positive parts of the segment, he would have gone home with just as much money. Actually, in that case, he would have had an episode where even environmentalists are happy and nobody could write a big long screed about how much he hates baby polar bears and/or prostitutes.

Sorry to say it, but I think you've become so obsessed with the idea of TG selling out that you can't actually form a logical opinion on any subject related to it.
 
I doubt Tesla has much to worry from TopGear, so your logic is flawed.

Jeremy hates the Toyota Prius, for example. They hate that car... and yet, it sells like hotcakes. And as much as Jeremy may want everyone to think it's a horrible waste of money, it's still a good car that gets good fuel economy.

How many times has Jeremy ran out of gas on the test track? Besides that 1 gallon supercar economy test, I can't remember a single time. And most of those supercars have an even worse range then what Jeremy claims the Tesla has. Jeremy never ran out of gas before, because the cars have fuel gauges, so he knows when to go fill back up. The Tesla also has a fuel gauge, for the battery capacity.

The only reason he may have run out of electricity, is because he wanted to run out of electricity. Which leads me to wonder what he would do or say to emphasize that point. I still love the show, but I'm not a clueless fanboy. Tesla is an American company and in America, slander and false advertising can get you in deep trouble if someone takes you to court. The BBC obviously cares very little about what Clarkson says anymore.
 
^ The Ford GT did run out of gas on the track.
 
I think most reasonable people recognise that TG is a bit of fact and a bit of fiction. Removing the blatent idiots from the picture, people are not going to go out and buy a car just based on what JC, JM & RH have to say. On the other side, negative reviews by the boys also aren't going to discourage people from buying a particular car (heavens - there are enough people that actively hate TG that they would go and buy the car just to spite TG). The fact that these electricity powered cars are making it onto film and into the consciousness of the mainstream purchasing public is opening them up to the options available. They can then conduct their own research from that point and make a properly informed decision.

And the idiots - if they want to go and spend huge amounts of money based on the opinion of three blokes on the telly, they get what they deserve.
 
After watching the episode again, I noticed exactly how Jeremy said something:

Jeremy doesn't say "It ran out after 55 miles" but rather:
Although Tesla say it would do 200 miles, we worked out that on our track it would run out at just 55 miles.
Click to expand...

Who did that math? That doesn't say anything about what they actually did to the car, or even if they started with a full charge (heck, it could have been driven there for 190 miles before they started shooting).

Couple other things that bugged me:
How can a car that has short track-matching performance of a Porsche GT3 but costs at least ?10K LESS than said Porsche can somehow have a price that's "madness" as Clarkson put it?

Charging the Tesla for 10, 14, 16,18, or 3.5 hours is what it would take to charge it to a FULL charge from being completely discharged. Since your "gas station" is in your house and you don't have to make a special trip to the gas station just to fill up, couldn't you just plug it in every night and maybe...MAYBE once a week have to let it fully charge for 16 hours, as those 8-12 hr supplemental charges will keep it from dropping too low? You wouldn't even need a special charger then. Even if your charge doesn't fully charge it, you're still taking zero time out of your day to drive to a gas station, to fill up while waiting the 2-3 minutes to refuel. You get out, hook it up, and leave. Then, when you're going to drive again, you just unhook, and go. No waiting, no special stops...which to me sounds pretty cool. No standing in the cold or the wind, waiting for your car to fill up, or hopping back into your car hoping you don't built up enough static electricity to start a fire when you get back out and grab the nozzle.

Look at how huge of a step an electric car like this is compared to anything else on the market, and realize that something this revolutionary won't work for every single person on the planet. Even the harshest critics of the car still (reluctantly) admit that it's a pretty darned stunning engineering achievement. This car isn't meant to replace every possible car someone could possibly own. But it does a darned good job at most everything it's made for (which does not include the infrequent interstate road trips, or track days.)
 
TomCat said:
I doubt Tesla has much to worry from TopGear, so your logic is flawed.

Jeremy hates the Toyota Prius, for example. They hate that car... and yet, it sells like hotcakes. And as much as Jeremy may want everyone to think it's a horrible waste of money, it's still a good car that gets good fuel economy.

How many times has Jeremy ran out of gas on the test track? Besides that 1 gallon supercar economy test, I can't remember a single time. And most of those supercars have an even worse range then what Jeremy claims the Tesla has. Jeremy never ran out of gas before, because the cars have fuel gauges, so he knows when to go fill back up. The Tesla also has a fuel gauge, for the battery capacity.

The only reason he may have run out of electricity, is because he wanted to run out of electricity. Which leads me to wonder what he would do or say to emphasize that point. I still love the show, but I'm not a clueless fanboy. Tesla is an American company and in America, slander and false advertising can get you in deep trouble if someone takes you to court. The BBC obviously cares very little about what Clarkson says anymore.
Click to expand...
The Tesla is targeted towards enthusiasts, the Prius is...not. So the Tesla could stand to gain or lose from TG exposure, moreso than any Prius. Besides which, as a small car company, Tesla needs to ensure that people buy their first run, 'beta' cars in order to finance development on future models and bugfixes.

Aside from which, since lately I can tell exactly what you're going to say whenever I see your name beside a post - some sort of screed about selling out, generally - I'd agree that you're not a fanboy. But being an anti-fanboy is no better.
 
2Billion said:
The Tesla is targeted towards enthusiasts, the Prius is...not. So the Tesla could stand to gain or lose from TG exposure, moreso than any Prius. Besides which, as a small car company, Tesla needs to ensure that people buy their first run, 'beta' cars in order to finance development on future models and bugfixes.
Click to expand...
Again, I think you're overestimating the influence of TopGear.

Even thought the Tesla is as fast as 911 GT3 around a track and faster in a straight line, it takes a very special sort of "enthusiast" to actually buy one over a 911 GT3. Mostly rich people who want others to think they care about the environment, most likely. Not the sort of people that would watch TopGear and believe everything they see without question or consideration.

2Billion said:
Aside from which, since lately I can tell exactly what you're going to say whenever I see your name beside a post - some sort of screed about selling out, generally - I'd agree that you're not a fanboy. But being an anti-fanboy is no better.
Click to expand...
I don't get it, I said I still love the show. Being an Anti-fanboy would imply that I hate it. I like the show for what it is, but I also happen to know what it isn't. Even when TopGear was all about cars, cars, and more cars, they still didn't like the dry boring facts. Clarkson would even make jokes about how pathetic people who're that obsessed with stats and knowing how systems operate are. But nowadays the show is even less about facts. Compared to today's episodes, the old ones are boring fact based snore fests. The show isn't about being factual anymore, that's the plain simple truth. I don't hate the show for it, or condemn the boys for collecting their much deserved paychecks, but I'm not going to blindly believe everything I see on TopGear.
 
TomCat said:
Even thought the Tesla is as fast as 911 GT3 around a track and faster in a straight line, it takes a very special sort of "enthusiast" to actually buy one over a 911 GT3. Mostly rich people who want others to think they care about the environment, most likely.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true at all. No one is going to buy the Tesla honestly thinking they are saving the planet. Most of the people who have purchased the Tesla Roadster are people in the Tech industry...gadget freaks. People who waited in line for an iPhone when they came out (or paid someone to do it). Not because it has arsenic-free glass, or a recyclable cardboard box...but because it's a cool new crazy gadget that's unlike anything else. The last car like this was the Venturi Fetish, and that was three times the price of the Tesla, and had the exact same 0-60 performance.
 
Last edited:
NecroJoe said:
I don't think that's true at all. No one is going to buy the Tesla honestly thinking they are saving the planet. Most of the people who have purchased the Tesla Roadster are people in the Tech industry...gadget freaks. People who waited in line for an iPhone when they came out (or paid someone to do it). Not because it has arsenic-free glass, or a recyclable cardboard box...but because it's a cool new crazy gadget that's unlike anything else. The last car like this was the Venturi Fetish, and that was three times the price of the Tesla, and had the exact same 0-60 performance.
Click to expand...

You're probably right. But I'm still imagining lots of hollywood stars buying them to park in between their Toyota Prius's and Bentley Continental GT's.
 
TomCat said:
You're probably right. But I'm still imagining lots of hollywood stars buying them to park in between their Toyota Prius's and Bentley Continental GT's.
Click to expand...

:lol:

I'm guessing they sold their Land Rover Sports, then? :p
 
NecroJoe said:
:lol:

I'm guessing they sold their Land Rover Sports, then? :p
Click to expand...

I was going to say their Merc SL's with aftermarket 24"s, but it's been a while since I last watched MTV Cribs, so I might be out of touch with the mainstream. :p
 
doigal said:
On the brakes issue, heres the full quote from tesla:

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2008/12/15/top-gear-reviews-the-tesla-roadster/ Post #42

The ?brake failure? Clarkson mentions was solely a blown fuse; a service technician replaced the Roadster?s pump and it was back up and running immediately.
Click to expand...
So, if it was a simple fuse failure like they say, what the hell were they doing with the pump?
Click to expand...
That's an interesting question. Unfortunately, there's no more details about that. What I did find in the roadsters manual is a list of fuses. Fuse #22 is for "Brake Pump", whatever that means:



At first, I thought they mean the hydraulic pump for the brake fluid. Seeing how easy it is to change that fuse however ...



... it occured to me that changing a hydraulic pump would take much longer and be much more complicated. Also, there seems to be no connection between this pump and the battery charging system, so one has to wonder why this thing would go out during charging. Questions and more questions, but no answers ... :(
 
Last edited:
I think I see where they're getting at. When you run out of petrol in a normal car, you at least have the chance to have a few liters of "emergency petrol" in a canister, or you can walk to the next gas station and get some. In an EV however, when you run out you run out, which is a drawback.

However, I wonder why they need to fabricate an empty battery to tell us that, instead of just saying it. Also, you'd have a similar problem with a hydrogen powered car, which is why I wonder why they put emphasis on the disadvantages of the Tesla Roadster artificially, but don't lose a word about the disadvantages of the Honda FCX Clarity.
 
Last edited:
since this thread is still going.....

recently i asked my dad about the charging required for these electric cars (hes retired power company employee), and he mentioned how they (the power company) had planned out that there would be recharging stations at places you'd park your car for any given amount of time. and would be "free of charge" (no pun intended).

as example, you drive to the local shopping mall. and they have a bunch of parking rows with chargers next to em. so you park there, and while you're shopping your car would be topped-off.

..course that still doesnt provide a solution to those of us who hate shopping. :p
 
This isn't the first time TopGear has done this kind of thing and if they continue to do it the companies may decide not to let the show borrow their vehicles for testing and filming.
 
If by "this kind of thing" you mean "give a strongly positive review of a niche product from a company in financial trouble with some serious practical limitations" then yes - I suppose if Tesla goes bankrupt it will limit their ability to lend TG another car.

On the other hand if 200 million people see a review where the car beats a Lotus Elise around the track, the car beats the time of a Porsche GT3 on the lap board, the (in)famous main presenter says "the volt-head beats the petrol head" then perhaps Tesla should be damn grateful that TG said after they went back to the studio that they were sure volume would improve the cost and reliability.

I agree "pushing the car" was misleading however I'm stunned at the pounding Clarkson is taking over this review for what was a very strong review for Tesla. Despite all the blather about the home fast charge kit not being mentioned, and the 55 mile range not being realistic, you still can't stray more than 100 miles from home without at least a 3 hour stop and that is a serious limitation compared to any other car on the road today. And heaven forbid if you want to drive and visit someone 150miles away because when you get there it will need 16 hours in their garage which doesn't have a super charger and that's too long even for an overnight stay.

Finally, it doesn't matter if it was just a fuse or not. If you had parked at your friend's house/family's house/at a hotel and you could make do with a 10 hour top up, if next morning when you came to leave there was a warning light on the dash that said "do not drive, brake error" then you are stranded for a call out or recovery to the nearest dealer. Doesn't matter if it's a 30 second 1 fuse fix or not, if you don't know that and/or don't have a spare fuse in the car then your day is buggered.

Given all this, I still came out of watching that review wishing I could buy one if I hit the lottery as my daily commute is 45miles each way and if I could afford the Tesla I could afford another car for the longer trips. Tesla should be thanking their deity of choice for the publicity this will bring them, assuming company and product survive - and I really hope they do.

The sheer ability of this thread, Robert Llewelyn, the Ecobunny blog and goodness knows what else has been referenced here to see a bunch of famous petrol heads take a look at 2 electric vehicles and say "hey - look - these are cool and could be the future" and call them shameful for this public behaviour is nuts.

and I guess that's my rant over :lol:

Cheers

Crash
 
Last edited:
Crash Biker said:
On the other hand if 200 million people see a review where the car beats a Lotus Elise around the track, the car beats the time of a Porsche GT3 on the lap board, the (in)famous main presenter says "the volt-head beats the petrol head" then perhaps Tesla should be damn grateful that TG said after they went back to the studio that they were sure volume would improve the cost and reliability.

I agree "pushing the car" was misleading however I'm stunned at the pounding Clarkson is taking over this review for what was a very strong review for Tesla. Despite all the blather about the home fast charge kit not being mentioned, and the 55 mile range not being realistic, you still can't stray more than 100 miles from home without at least a 3 hour stop and that is a serious limitation compared to any other car on the road today. And heaven forbid if you want to drive and visit someone 150miles away because when you get there it will need 16 hours in their garage which doesn't have a super charger and that's too long even for an overnight stay.
Click to expand...
This in itself carries a very important point: while being a quick car, the Tesla Roadster still faces the problems of an EV: need for a power outlet, hour-long charging times even at the quickest rate, and so on. That said, I can gather everything I've been trying to establish in this thread in one question:

Why did they deliberately make it look even worse?

For the sake of the argument, let's assume they had been true to life: Jeremy had run out of power after 55 miles, but he would have returned to the hangar in some slow get-you-home mode. He would have shown how to charge it, but also mentioned the option of quick charging. He would have used the other car and get an overheated engine (which can happen on the track as I've shown earlier), but could have been pounding on after letting it cool down for some time. He would have got back into the silver car, discover the "brake failure", have it fixed and pound on with that one.

So after all, he would have shown that despite being quick, there are plenty of things to address and problems to overcome with this car. Nevertheless, for some reason they decided they had to fabricate more and bigger problems. Why? I don't get it, I just don't...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top