Tesla Sues Top Gear

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by DJM83

Tesla need some cement.....

...+1

[Gobes32]

Top Gear taking the mickey out of Tesla = Childish

Tesla suing Top Gear over the incident = Childish

See, no-one wins.............

[Rev28K]

Even with all of it's Paypal money behind it Tesla made mistakes - the initial production team, problems with the batteries and durability of the 2 speed transmission, the weight of the car compared with the Elise and the problems with Fisker.

Despite that I still wish them well and I'd like to see them give Top Gear a bloody nose for their prejudiced, inane, childish review.

After reading about how they screwed over Hawk cars (& others) I think that it's time that Top Gear pulled their head in a bit. No, make that a lot.

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by russellw

YAWNAnyone who thinks the show is other than an overrated version of Men Behaving Badly is deluding themselves.

Finally someone who sees TG for what it is

[Rev28K]

How Top Gear reported on Hawks Statos replica

http://www.stratossupersite.com/foru...?threadid=7683

It may be old news, but I sincerely hope that it is atypical of how they normally operate. I liked the idea behind the Mexican Lotus Elise competitor that they trashed. And apparently the Caparo T1 (a prototype, not the production version) doesn't understeer that badly if you don't back off, lose downforce and then try to go around a corner.

[vztrt]

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...408-1d6xv.html

'Top Gear is phoney', says US car maker
Stephen Ottley
April 8, 2011 - 11:30AM

Tesla accuses Jeremy Clarkson's motoring show of being "********* up", as it engages in a public argument with the show ahead of a legal showdown in court.

US car manufacturer Tesla has accused BBC's Top Gear program of being fake, comparing the show with disgraced musicians Milli Vanilli.

Tesla is suing the popular motoring show for its unflattering review of its Roadster in a 2008 episode. Legal battles are usually played out in the courts with neither side giving much away to the media, but the car maker and program have engaged in a public argument.

The CEO of the electric sports car maker, Elon Musk, said the show's review implied the electric sports car had broken down and run out of charge, claims he denied.
Advertisement: Story continues below

"The fundamental thing with Top Gear is that the show was about as authentic as a Milli Vanilli concert, but the problem is most viewers don't know that," Musk told The Detroit News.

Musk also explained the reason the company had decided to take legal action two years after the show was first broadcast, saying it hurt its bid for European investors.

"For European investors, every single one, except one, specifically asked us why our car broke down on Top Gear," Musk said. "It was ********* up."

He claimed the show had deliberately painted the car in a negative light by pre-preparing the script before filming.

"The script shows our car breaking down, but we only just gave you the car? It was just completely phoney," he said.

But Top Gear executive producer Andy Wilman has launched a public rebuttal via the show's website. He claims the show gave a fair and balanced review.

He argues that the suggestion the car would run out of charge after just 55 miles (88km) on the test track came from Tesla's own engineers.

"Our primary reasoning behind the verdict had nothing to do with how the Tesla performed; our conclusion was based mainly on the fact that it costs three times more than the petrol sports car upon which it's based," Wilman wrote. "It takes a long time to recharge, so you can't use it as easily for the carefree motoring journeys that are a prerequisite of sports car driving."

Wilman also defended Musk's claims that a Tesla employee had seen a script of the review before the piece was filmed.

"The truth is, Top Gear had already driven the car prior to filming, to enable us to form a view on it in advance," he said.

Wilman concedes the public statements makes the case is still headed to court where "brainy people wearing wigs" will decide the winner.

The BBC, which makes Top Gear, said it will defend the show "vigorously" in court.

[BigBlue]

The US$150 000 or so isn't the point here.

It is the same scenario as Microsoft and a few other big companies standing behind Walmart in the US at the moment.

Imagine the VW group and FIAT and FORD siding with Tesla against the the BBC and Clarkson.

All it take is ONE politically savvy UK political group or member of parliament looking to make name for themselves and "No more TG" funded by taxpayer funds and protected by a government (taxpayer) funded broadcaster.

"Plenty of scope there for a bright young man" as a friend of mine likes to say.

Peter.

[2011G6E]

The point is that tesla are selling thier vehicle as a "supercar"...a battery powered one. They shouldn't have been surprised when someone treated it as a "supercar" and drove the wheels off it for an extended period of time. Did they not want the public to realise their baby will go dead a hell of a lot quicker if you aren't just posing to the other Prius owners down the coffee shop as you all toss on about how environmentally friendly you all are?

I'd fully expect one to overheat too if driven to extremes...but hey, you call something a supercar, sooner or later someone is going to try it out and see if it is...

[chevypower]

Oh my goodness. Yes the range is decreased when it is thrashed, but Clarkson also got 6mpg while thrashing a BMW 530d. That didn't seem to get people saying diesels were "rubbish." It is completely obvious that Top Gear was deliberately trying to put Tesla in a negative light, not an accurate one. Was the journalism balanced or fair? If you think yes, then go study journalism or communications. Nobody said this car was perfect for Le Mans 24 hours.
I think I need to add the primary function of the program being an entertainment show, is no defense for slander. If it was, then there would be no need for lawyers, anyone on trial could just use the line "but it was all in good fun..."

[flappist]

Originally Posted by BigBlue

The US$150 000 or so isn't the point here.

It is the same scenario as Microsoft and a few other big companies standing behind Walmart in the US at the moment.

Imagine the VW group and FIAT and FORD siding with Tesla against the the BBC and Clarkson.

All it take is ONE politically savvy UK political group or member of parliament looking to make name for themselves and "No more TG" funded by taxpayer funds and protected by a government (taxpayer) funded broadcaster.

"Plenty of scope there for a bright young man" as a friend of mine likes to say.

Peter.

The flip side of that is that the group or member runs the risk of alienating a HUGE number of TG fans and finding themselves on the outer.

How smart would it be in Australian politics to attack football (of all codes) and try to have it banned from television by taking the moral high ground against the various football related "events" over the last few years....

In the big picture:

TG is British, Tesla is not.
TG is entertainment on a world wide scale, Tesla is a boutique joke.
TG earns $millions upon $millions world wide and provides some of the funding for the "arts" on BBC, Tesla is really just for hoons who are "bi curious"......

[JC]

Originally Posted by flappist

The flip side of that is that the group or member runs the risk of alienating a HUGE number of TG fans and finding themselves on the outer.

How smart would it be in Australian politics to attack football (of all codes) and try to have it banned from television by taking the moral high ground against the various football related "events" over the last few years....

In the big picture:

TG is British, Tesla is not.
TG is entertainment on a world wide scale, Tesla is a boutique joke.
TG earns $millions upon $millions world wide and provides some of the funding for the "arts" on BBC, Tesla is really just for hoons who are "bi curious"......

LOL! Good one!

[shedcoupe]

Regarding the Tesla stuff, both parties need to get a bit of perspective, and it should be obvious by now that Top Gear is entertainment rather than journalism. TG has deteriorated a bit with more seemingly contrived material and some extra nastiness.

I want to see electric vehicles get more mainstream, but they won't until the energy density of the 'fuel tank' improves. You can't avoid the realities of science where even the best lithium batteries are only about 2-3 percent as energy-dense as petrol. Not sure of the exact figure, please correct me if I'm very wrong here .....
Motor and control technology is pretty good now but will still need to be raced / thrashed to improve durability under real-world conditions like every other vehicle concept.

Until electric cars can do 400 km with lights and aircon running they will be just a sideshow for most people unfortunately. The cost of replacing worn-out batteries is an issue to be sorted too. Maybe compressed-air drive motors are a better technology.
It all revolves around the energy source's bang per kilogram and/or cubic meter and overall cost per kilometer in relation to conventional energy sources.

[V8 6I]

$100000,I bet Clarkson carries that in his govebox for spare change.

[billy302]

Well the car did indeed run out of fuel so to speak. (Charge)
But so will any car. The fact that they drive it until it stopped is a given.
What Top gear tried to show is that it didn't have the fuel range expected.
The fact that the show is scripted is a given.
Every time they show May lost there is a camera car in front of him.
Its like survivor they are the only people on the island, except the the film crew the catering staff directors and producers other than that they were indeed alone!!!!!!