Tesla sues Top Gear for libel re Roadster review
teslamotors.com
teslamotors.com
Viewers of Top Gear understand that the challenges and races are staged, but there isn't a similar understanding that the car reviews are staged, and that the presenters will claim cars have defects that they don't have for the purposes of entertainment. If the claims made by Tesla are true, then Top Gear doesn't have a leg to stand on.
The program clearly says that it was their "calculation" that on the Top Gear test track the car would only manage 55 miles. The other "issue" is that J.C. said on the show that the brakes had failed on one of the test cars - I suspect that was not something they made up but was a real (perhaps transitory given how the braking system works) problem.
Not sure it'll help their public image any, though.
I don't even know why Tesla would want their vehicle reviewed by Clarkson. He's brutal on Diesel vehicles, even when they compare on-par with gasoline. From what I remember, Clarkson was incredibly pro-tesla as I half expected him to say "It's electric," look at another camera and carry on the show like they'd just asked him to test out a golf cart.
> The company says that if the episode had been broadcast in 2008, and not rebroadcast repeatedly it would not have sued.
Are these people complete utter retards, what fucking planet do they live on that they don't understand that TV episodes rebroadcast repeatedly. Reruns of friends episodes 17 years after their initial run doesn't give someone a clue that TV has reruns?
I wouldn't buy a roadster simply for the utter idiocy of this comment from the company. I'd question whether they have a simple employee capable of fastening a damn nut to a bolt because their management can't comprehend that TV shows have reruns. It's not like there's entire TV stations based around reruns... oh wait, but there is!
They willingly allowed their image to be damaged by not filing a motion immediately.
The segment's online, this doesn't seem to be a review for comedic value: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DfHyGD7_pM
Clarkson (the presenter) seems to have clarified what actually happened on the day here (2 pages, starts near bottom of 1st):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/art...
There is an especially strong claim in the article:
Tesla could not complain about what was shown because it was there... Tesla, when contacted by reporters, gave its account of what happened and it was exactly the same as [Top Gear's]. It explained that the brakes had stopped working because of a blown fuse and didn’t question at all [Top Gear's] claim that the car would have run out of electricity after 55 miles.
So either Clarkson's grossly misrepresenting Tesla's behaviour so far, which would be very odd, or Tesla's suddenly done an about turn and thinks it can get the BBC to say something else.
But the BBC's not playing ball with Tesla at all: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12907367
Not exactly, Clarkson is notorious for letting its biased feelings cloud all forms of objectivity. See e.g the Civic Type-R 2008 review which is a complete joke when the Stig review is the direct opposite. Either a car is a lemon or a gem but it can't be both. Whether Clarkson is genuine or stages such opinionated behavior remains unclear and part of the myth. It's a fun show, but a show nonetheless.
"this doesn't seem to be a review for comedic value"
Comedic, no, but creating a sense of drama, yes. in both cases the goal is to generate emotion. Either way, I felt like it was emphasized when I watched it some time ago.
Besides, complaining a 200+ miles casual range shrinks to 55 when you're beating crap out of the car is nothing short of ridiculous. Did they complain that the Veyron 100L tank burns in less than 15min at 400+kph? That's a 60 miles range! Heck, no pure electric production car, let alone electric sports car, matches the Tesla range today.
If Tesla want to stick to the 211 claim on a track it's a whole different matter. From the press release Tesla seem to be saying that Top Gear lied about how far it would have gone on the track, which is nonsense.
After all they knew exactly where Top Gear was taking it, all cars go there.
Overall I thought that Top Gear were positive about the car in terms of raw performance, just as something you'd drive it's not practical even as a sports car.
"The company claimed it could run, even if driven briskly, for 200 miles, but after just a morning the battery power was down to 20% and we realised that it would not have enough juice for all the shots we needed."
The greater point is that Clarkson doesn't pull any punches, regardless of the make/model/drivetrain. He likes what he likes and speaks his mind about it.
You need to be careful about the wording here. I believe that there is a difference under UK libel law between making false claims and making false claims with an intention to tarnish the company. The second attributes malice which removes certain possible defences.
I don't think there is any suggest here that the TG were intending to tarnish the product. I think they were making a (validish) point about electric cars and maybe getting a cheap laugh - legally that may be a different thing.
Top Gear's show seems to be saying this: if you actually tried to drove this car for 55 miles at high speed on our track, it would run out of power and you would need to push it into the hanger to recharge. Because you would have intentionally driven it until it ran out of charge. They do NOT make the claim that it suddenly and surprisingly ran out of charge. But I can see how it might appear that way to the viewer.
I don't know if this counts as libel. The actual lie here is that Top Gear didn't go through the exercise of actually running the battery down.
Not sure what to make of the claim that the brakes didn't die. That seems more like a he-said-she-said deal at this point.
The 55 miles is still at odds with Tesla though. On their website (http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/roadster-efficiency-and-rang...), at the bottom of the article they display a chart that claims a range of 75 miles even if the vehicle is topped out at 125mph for the entire charge.
I'm not very familiar with British libel law, but from what I've heard, the defendent tends to be at a disadvantage which might put Tesla on very good footing going into this case.
Edit: After another viewing, I would say that the narration would also go very well with the actual experience of running out of power. So it might not be an out for BBC after all. With a little more careful wording, they could have probably avoided this whole fiasco.
but the visual portrayed is that of Clarkson actually being
surprised by a dead battery followed by the hanger scene.
Which would be bad.
Lithium ion cells are twitchy, excitable beasts at the best of times, and like to burst into flames when abused. The Roadster's battery is liquid cooled, and if the pack is completely discharged, then the coolant pump will stop running, which could result in the entire thing going Fukushima. Just completely discharging a pack will dramatically shorten its lifespan, (The Roadster's is only rated to 100k miles) which isn't something Tesla wants to be done to US$109,000 worth of car which the BBC did not, in fact, own.
So it dropped into low power mode, and they switched cars, and they had a nice dramatic shot of it being rolled into a garage, something that would be unpleasant enough for a gasoline car, but would almost certainly be a multi-thousand dollar maintenance catastrophe for an electric one.
One can argue the details of what really happened - but even knowing how those things work, that segment very strongly makes it look like the Tesla Roadster will simply DIE without warning, requiring you to push it into the garage.
You have to remember though, it would probably spend more energy braking and speeding up again than it would going top speed steadily.
For a more familiar example, a cordless drill will die far faster by driving screws into hardwood than by drilling holes in softwood at high speed. The same is not true of internal combustion engines.
Actually, if it were a comedy show it would get a pass. Satire is a valid defence in law - it's why comedians aren't being sued all the time.
The issue they have is that Top Gear takes a basis in fact (particularly in the reviews) and certainly isn't out and out comedy so the defence probably doesn't apply.
The Tesla Roadster review seemed to be fairly typical of Top Gear; with Jeremy Clarkson pointing out his likes and dislikes in fairly equal proportion. Clarkson in fact seemed very impressed with the Roadster’s performance and I believe the official lap time placed it somewhere around a comparable Porsche 911. The breakdowns seemed believable, especially for a supercar; as Richard Hammond pointed out in a later episode within that series (wherein a Pagani Zonda breaks down within the first few test laps on the Top Gear track) that it’s the nature of supercars to "explode immediately" on use. Tesla didn’t seem to receive a harsher treatment than any other car manufacturer.
The Tesla Roadster is an amazing product, but it -like every machine made before it- has a few bugs to be worked out. Nothing out of the ordinary.
There are probably more. This one has lots of comments.
So now the BBC is saying that it was done for effect or some such and is claiming it didn't break down after 55 miles or such. So they are admitting they deliberately made a misleading review which obviously damaged the reputation of the car because of the misleading claims.
Whether that is libel, don't know. But it is disappointing. I had not realized Top Gear did this and will no longer take the show seriously. I will also be reviewing my formerly positive opinion of the BBC's credibility given their CYA response.
On the other hand, who would you guess has the largest libel lawyer team and budget in Britain? Other than the Sun, I mean.
Just a few weeks ago a reform of the libel law went one step further, although I don't know if that would apply here. As far as I remember it was mostly to prevent suing people who weren't UK residents, which certainly won't help the BBC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh#Chiropractic_lawsui...
"But in the real world, it doesn't seem to work" was already decided before the cars were even delivered. It's cool to make fun of flaws, it's not cool for something perceived as a review show to decide something is flawed and write the script about how flawed it is before they have even tested it.
So let's compare whether he is claiming the 55 mile range or the 211 mile range is the one he accepts for non-track driving.
211 miles on the various roads would take at least 4 hrs, then 16 hours to recharge.
Start: 0 hrs
Drive to 211 mile pt: +4 hrs
Recharge: +16 hrs = 20 hrs elapsed
Drive to 422 mile pt: +4 hrs = 24 hrs elapsed
Recharge: +16 hrs = 40 hrs elapsed
Drive to 633 mile pt: +4 hrs = 44 hrs elapsed
Recharge: +16 hrs = 60 hrs elapsed
Drive to 704 mile pt: +1.5 hrs = 61 hrs elapsed
So that is about 2.5 days, less than the more than 3 days he claims.
At 55 mile range though it would be substantially longer than 3 days though. That would be about 17 hours per 55 mile leg, 12 legs at 17 hrs, 204 hours or 8.5 days.
So Clarkson, through his claim of more than 3 days to travel to the north of Scotland, is suggesting the range is more than 55 but less than 211 miles.
You probably aren't good at this car buying thing.
Why must Tesla murder schoolchildren?
Perhaps you are thinking of some other top gear show which is a comedy revue or variety hour with singing and dancing?
(note: Lada Kalina is the newest and most advanced Russian car and the producer of the car is heavily supported and promoted by government:)
Also, the BBC has an enormous amount of money and power (not to mention it operates under a Royal Charter), I don't imagine this lawsuit being very easy.
I had never seen this Top Gear episode, but I am definitely going to watch it now!
This is a tough spot to be in. Sue BBC and try and get a correction (and give it publicity) or ignore it and risk reputation damage silently with fewer people.
Lets see how far this lawsuit gets. Interested in the development of it.
Innovation requires courage. Especially in their industry.
FYI Tesla, TV has these things called reruns, they've been around forever. Reruns of Three's Company has outlasted John Ritter (sadly).
Honestly, if this idiocy is an example of the collective intelligence of Tesla's management, then that comment alone will make me not buy anything Tesla. At least every other American car manufacturer doesn't bitch and moan at a comparably great review from Clarkson (it's an electric vehicle, it's a miracle he even did a segment on it. He rags on diesel even when it's comparable to a gas, and he was actually enthused about the roadster). Honestly, it just shows me that North America will never make another great car, because North America can't get intelligent car manufacturers.