I just can't see how Tesla can win this case in court. As anyone who has ever watched Jeremy Clarkson will tell you, you know he would rather resign from Top Gear than apologise for this.
I'm sure if I were invested in Tesla it's easy to feel that they're "biased" against me, but the review didn't come across as any more negative than 90% of car reviews on Top Gear.
Now, I don't mind making fun of actual issues. And they had some things that actually broke, but making shit up crosses a line IMO.
The Reliant Robin, while obviously a horrible design, does not roll over every time you drive one a half mile (and it is not the primary reason for the decline in population in the Sheffield region in the decades since its release). The Stig is not really "half man, half machine with petrol running through his veins". And a race against a jet or helicopter is not a realistic test of auto performance.
The Tesla episode was cheeky, but no more cheeky than many episodes. It's not a "straight" review show. It is a comedy that happens to have a lot of cars in it. If it is occasionally true, that's just a bonus.
But it is absolutely hilarious when it does.
They will probably win the court case, as they were careful not to say anything literally untrue. Yes, if you ram it as hard as possible around a race track for an hour, you will probably need a charge. Yes, if you choose to make a very long journey and only recharge via the slowest means it will take you a while. But that would be idiotic, wouldn't it? Few people - even those who buy sports cars - make those kind of uses. We know it's not for long-distance journeys, but we also know the statistics about the distribution of journey lengths.
Do the Top Gear team mention every fuse that blows? Do they honestly not see it as a huge step forward? I think there is a difference between being cheeky about a Ferrari and Tesla. Top Gear have given positive reviews to previously unfashionable brands in the past, despite the comedy.
The 3 day journey reference was debunking claims you could charge it with wind power and again was clearly stated in the segment of the show. It's specifically addressing claims tesla are making, from their own literature:
The Roadster, which consumes no oil whatsoever and plugs into conventional 220-volt sockets throughout Europe, can be charged with solar, hydro or wind energy.
http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-debuts...
See other reviews spouting pie-in-the-sky about how the tesla could be recharged by renewable energy:
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/tesla/2011-tesla-roadster-race-...
EDIT: For those that don't get the reference, there is a running bit/theme on Top Gear about a so-called Mexican Supercar that was released a while ago. They've been thrashing it, and Mexico, ever since. So much so that the US version of Top Gear has been edited to remove the comments, and the Mexican Government has issued official communications about it.
Just Google "top gear mexico supercar" and you'll see.
It's not like I just randomly slammed Mexicans with this post. That's what the Dutch are for.
Its not a documentary. Its a play and the actors play roles to a degree of excess (although tbf their roles are pretty close to their real life personas).
Consumer Reports and Car and Driver are factual and fair. But they arent entertaining, passionate or engrossing.
But whatever, I'm still excited about the Model S.
1) The way they quoted the 55 mile range made it sound like the 55 mile range was more representative of normal use than the 200 mile figure. I don't recall them ever saying something like "Toyota claims it gets 20mpg, but we've worked out it only gets 3mpg on our test track". Maybe they have (perhaps they mentioned the Veyron's fuel consumption at full throttle), but it's certainly not a normal part of a review.
2) They quoted the charge time from a standard power socket, when nearly all charges would be done at a higher-power charging station at much shorter time. They didn't quote the faster charge time.
3) While watching, I seriously thought the one Tesla's engine had completely quit.
4) While watching, I seriously thought that the other Tesla's battery had gone completely dead without enough warning for them to drive it into the garage.
5) They implied that the environmental impact from the power plants is roughly the same as the environmental impact of gas anyway. (oddly showing nuclear cooling towers while talking about power plants causing global warming.) Power generation obviously has an environmental impact no matter where it's done, but the nuclear scare plus polar bear mention just felt bizarre.
6) They implied that somehow hydrogen was magical and had no environmental power generation issues.
I don't disagree with their defense, but the piece felt very political in that it seemed designed to say things that are technically true, whilst leading viewers to conclusions that are false. All-in-all, I felt like I was watching Clarkson on an anti-environmental soapbox more than I was watching either a piece of entertainment or an automotive review.
I love Top Gear, but I was annoyed by the piece, and it won't bother me a bit if Clarkson has a few obnoxious days because of it.
The review would've been 1000x better if Hamster or Slow had done it.
They actually kind of did for Toyota Prius here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTOyiKLARk
The other thing they said though does make you pause to think, and I quite liked it: Rather than selling your fuel guzzling vehicle now, it's quite possibly much better for the environment if you keep driving it, but drive it slowly. Making a brand new car has a huge environmental impact, so large that the difference in fuel consumption would take a pretty long time to overcome it. In the case of a Prius it's even more complicated as the batteries are particularly environmentally unfriendly - and there's a lot of those in a Hybrid.
I do love Top Gear, though, and Tesla should have known better than to hand their car to them.
What I view as auto fans mistake in judgement is to portray electric cars through the lens of mistrust in the new design. Someone who has only driven IC cars will keep trying to find fault with a one that is not. Tesla is the new toy a boy can play with. Clarkson has been living with old habits and 'old' cars to question his own assumptions about car technology. This is what I had found when speaking with people in the automotive industry.
Yet, electric cars require a lot of future development to meet the high standards that they will be judged by.
I'm sure in some places you'll be fine, like LA or San Francisco where I suspect they have more charging stations than the average town.
And this is an obvious chicken/egg problem and if you explain it, people will understand.
Maybe I should add, the same chicken/egg problem exists for the Hydrogen car which was shown later in the show.
To be honest hydrogen is a nice idea but just looking at one item, compressing, hydrogen just seems like loss of energy. I don't know if it will ever work.
Just know one thing that electric 'engines' are the future, I don't know where the power will come from though.
*edit.. don't mean to be a dick, I just don't think this fact helps their case much. I watched the episode, and it irritated me quite a bit even though I think Top Gear is normally pretty fun.
They point out that the power for electric batteries has to come from somewhere, and completely gloss over that for hydrogen.
Why they didn't go all the way and advocate fusion powered cars is beyond me.
Isn't that what the hydrogen is for? <g>
So question is, are we storing new energy, or converting previously-stored energy to a different format? The latter is an externality as obviously oil, uranium etc were around long before humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place
Israel is the first nation in the world that partnered with Better Place
to have an all-electric car infrastructure. Shai Agassi believes that
in Israel by 2016, plus or minus a year, more than 50% of cars sold will
be electric and that by 2020, Israel will achieve oil independence.
The Baran Group signed an agreement with Better Place to build
51 battery switch stations over the course of 2011 to cover all of Israel.Please don't post quotes using pre-formatted text. It forces the browser to use the full width. That, in turn, puts a horizontal scrollbar on my browser, so I have to scroll back-and-forth to read any of the comments.
I find it works much better to quote using asterisks. (We could also lobby pg for a BLOCKQUOTE feature)
For cars that don't implement batteries this way, I'm wondering how they allow for non-floor-mounted installations preventing the batteries from destroying their handling.
Further, how are the filling stations expected to deal with the variety of non-standard battery types on the market?
Hydrosol-2 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrosol-2) is an example of solar hydrogen production with no electric current intermediate - it involves high temperatures, so I'm not sure how much energy is lost maintaining that temperature compared to captured producing hydrogen, but it could theoretically be more efficient.
Just about EVERY "review" they do on cars is heavily biased, and in more than a few cases, outrageously so.
Anyone who watches the show without understanding that it is entertainment, first and foremost, needs to lighten up, get a sense of humour, and not take themselves so seriously.
Those are the types that TG go out of their way to ridicule on the show.
However, the review is clearly heavily scripted (do Teslas really just run out of power and then require pushing down the road?). In the UK, the powers-that-be at the BBC have recently taken a dim view of this sort of constructed TV posing as reality (after "Socksgate" and "Sachsgate", an explanation of which is probably beyond the scope of this discussion...).
Even if there was nothing wrong with the car. What Tesla should have done is, take it on the chin, say something in the lines of 'we will correct and make it better', even though nothing is wrong, and then do a retest, and simply have that test on their terms. And then really, they could have gone from good to great.
Imagine I contacted someones workplace and business partners and told them about a drug conviction that occurred 22 years ago. Or if I took a statement you make after a some drinks in the pub and stuck a print out on poles all around your business.
There are cases where suing someone for libel even if what they say is true doesn't seem demonstrably wrong.
As Top Gear is a big winner for BBC Worldwide (commercial, not-license fee funded), it's been frequently the case in the past that they will fund any legal action should that become necessary.
I'm a fan of electric cars, but I am disappointed by Tesla on this... using the legal system like this leaves a bad taste.
If I distribute pamphlets that say "John Smith is gay", even if true, its libel because it isn't information that serves the public's interest.
If, however, I distribute pamphlets that say "Smith Jones is a convicted pedophile", then I'm on much safer footing (assuming it's true) because it can (and has) been argued that such information does serve public interest.
Simon Singh has since won that case last I heard, but it was by no means a given. That it took so long for him to get off for saying fucking chiropractors of all people "quacks" (if they aren't, who possibly could be?) should say a lot about the extent to which correctness or belief in correctness is a real defense.
edit: spelling
You're mis-informed. Chiropractic treatments are very useful for certain problems. Some quacks say it will treat any and all illness, but most licensed chiropractors I've dealt with have been highly professional.
I have first-hand experience. After a knee injury playing on my high school basketball team, I suffered from mild swelling in my right knee. As a result it was difficult for me to fully bend it. This condition persisted for 4 months, despite icing, anti-inflammatories and several treatments by multiple physicians. Eventually, one referred me to a chiropractor. It took him about 10 minutes to find the problem, and he was able make the proper adjustment. Within two hours, the swelling was gone and the range of motion was back to normal.
Many whiplash victims are also referred to chiropractors. (FYI, my mother is an MD. I'm hardly a healing crystal using homeopathy enthusiast.)
The extent to which chiropractics can alievate back pain, the only sort of thing they can have a positive impact on in scientifically executed trails, they are only acting as (often unlicensed) physical therapists. IF this is what you go to the chiropractic for, and IF they are a licensed physical therapist, then call them your physical therapist. If on the other hand, they're not licensed, then do yourself a favor and go find one that is.
"Many whiplash victims are also referred to chiropractors."
The industry itself doesn't seem to agree that whiplash is among the defensible things they treat:
"If you have a website, take it down NOW.
"REMOVE all the blue MCA [McTimoney Chiropractic Association] patient
information leaflets, or any patient information leaflets of your own
that state you treat whiplash, colic or other childhood problems in your
clinic or at any other site where they might be displayed with your contact
details on them. DO NOT USE them until further notice."
This all said, even IF chiropractics can effectively treat a subset of the things the claim, they are still quacks for daring to claim the rest.
What I didn't agree with was your cursing proclamation that chiropractors are quacks. Had fewer people held that general belief, I probably wouldn't have suffered as long as I did before being referred to one.
And your personal anecdote is meaningless. I know an elderly lady who swears she's met aliens. Nice lady, not trying to get on the local news, no reason to lie. I honestly think she believes it. Doesn't mean alien encounters aren't bullshit.
Unreproducible anecdotes are not how science works.
EDIT: There seems to be a believe in some circles that chiropractors are just a type of legitimate "back doctor". This is the most important misconception that needs to be stopped in it's tracks, the rest would really just be icing on the cake.
A 2010 systematic review found that most studies suggest spinal manipulation achieves equivalent or superior improvement in low back pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up.
Dagenais S, Gay RE, Tricco AC, Freeman MD, Mayer JM (2010). "NASS Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care: Spinal manipulation therapy for acute low back pain".
Many, many other citations of relevant research can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinal_manipulation#Effectivene...
Funnily enough I might have wholeheartedly agreed with you before my wife, who suffered from back pain which numerous conventional health care professionals have failed to correct, was recommended by a friend to see a chiropractor. She did, with immediate and excellent results; her back problems are now largely a thing of the past.
Yes, another "meaningless" personal anecdote, I don't expect to convince you. But it's caused me to examine my former blind belief in "the science", especially when it comes to health.
I've never even been to a chiropractor but I have seen a Reiki master do work that was impossible to do for the best surgeons in an excellent German hospital. What baffles me is how western medicine is able to ignore things that quite obviously and for all to see work, and ridicule them as "quacks".
IMO quacks are the ones prescribing Ritalin to kids to stop them from running around. Those are the quacks.
Does anyone know the jurisdiction for this legal action? I suspect treatment of the case in the UK will differ to that in the US.
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/tesla_-_claim...
That said, this public débâcle has not played out in Tesla's favor to this consumer. It seems to me that they got an unfavorable review and aren't happy with it, and it seems that Top Gear is winning the war of public relations.