Top Gear caught faking another electric car "failure"
guardian.co.uk
guardian.co.uk
At least this time they're not trying to take down a new company, but the damage they try and cause to electric vehicles' reputation is unfair. The strange thing is that there are some reasons not to get an electric car (if you need to make extremely long trips often, the potential battery replacement issue after ten years) and rather than discuss these they make up reasons and fake failures. For many people electric vehicles are a great option and hopefully the direction manufacturers continue to go in.
Why try to destroy them?
A hundred mile trip is not an extremely long trip, my Dad used to regularly commute that for example. You seem to be forgetting you need to drive back.
Also this article's extremely biased too, quoting from Tesla's press releases and not even mentioning any of Top Gear's rebuttals.
So an article complaining about editorializing to make a better story is, shock horror, editorializing to make a better story. I mean what's all the nonsense at the end about boy racers dying.
But 'Of course I'm not blaming only Top Gear for this'.
Only? He does actually blame Top Gear? Even though the Tesla's a sports car. The guy's a bit of a plonker.
The Guardian's a very left wing paper in the UK, don't think that this is a balanced piece.
I have read into the Tesla piece and the breaks 'going' didn't actually make the car undrivable the pedals were just harder to push. Since they actually had two vehicles there to test it also shouldn't have been an issue.
The 55 mile range the claimed to get was also completely made up based on what 'they determined' to be accurate. The Tesla actually has a 250 mile range so a 100 mile commute would be fine. Few people drive as much as that anyway (http://news.discovery.com/autos/range-anxiety-nissan-leaf-11...) and for most people the range of a Leaf is good enough. Electric vehicle ranges will also only continue to improve.
The Chevy Volt which uses gas to power a generator for the electric motor has an all electric range of 40 miles and then will just use gas to power the generator until the next recharge.
Top Gear's rebuttals from the Tesla issue were weak, whiny and largely ignored Tesla's complaints, this situation with the leaf only serves to show they really are trying to make electric vehicles look bad.
Tesla's rebuttals to the Top Gear complaints were largely the same. They said the brakes didn't fail despite being broken. Power assisted brakes in any vehicle ARE broken if the power assist fails. It doesn't make the car undriveable, it does however make it untestable. You can't have non-power brakes on a high-performance sports car.
IIRC they did use the other vehicle. Because the Tesla needs time to recharge, whilst other vehicles just need a fuel change, one vehicle was for testing and one was for filming. This would provide them enough mileage for the one-day filming they do for a review. However with one vehicle down they used the 'test' vehicle they used to get a feel for the vehicle. This put the car into the recovery mode, which the Top Gear crew made fun of.
Tesla wanted a review. Top Gear isn't a non-biased program, they don't advertise to be. Tesla's vehicle had failures, they got exploited for a show KNOWN for being satirical, humorous and exploitative in its reviews. Tesla gave Top Gear a match, and Top Gear used it to burn them. They supplied their own failure, simple as, because ultimately they provided vehicles that failed. You review the material you have and not some idealistic bullshit green-freaks want to see.
Top Gear has a viewership higher than the population of the US. If you're reaching that many people, get your marketing and advertising execs to fork over some money to give additional vehicles when you're not able to fuel up the vehicle.
Tesla was dumb. Tesla got burned. Sucks to be Tesla.
Edit: Note that Tesla failed to recognize that they had almost a 5-minute spotlight on their vehicle, in front of an audience of approximately 350 million simply for the use of their vehicles (that is top gears only condition, is that the vehicles are provided for testing).
If you think the review is harsh, go watch reviews Top Gear has done for Hummer and for the F150. They make fun of the impracticality of vehicles.
They make fun of other vehicles practicality, but with the Hummer and F150 it's different. Their impracticality and large size are part of their brand and well known by their target market.
Exacerbating minor issues with the Tesla to make it look unusable was mean and unnecessary especially considering the company was new. This alone would have been one thing, but when adding fabricated facts along with it and then doing a similar thing for the other electric vehicle that came out it looks like a pattern of bashing on EVs.
>some idealistic bullshit green-freaks want to see
That isn't necessary, if they just stuck with the truth it would have been good on its own.
Sure you can. The McLaren F1, for instance -- only the world's fastest production car ever -- had unassisted brakes.
Edited to add link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_F1#Brakes
"On March 29 2011, Tesla filed a lawsuit to stop Top Gear’s continued rebroadcasts of an episode containing malicious falsehoods about the Tesla Roadster. Top Gear’s Executive Producer, Andy Wilman, has drafted a blog to present their side of the story. Like the episode itself, however, his proclamations do more to confound than enlighten.
Mr. Wilman admits that Top Gear wrote the script before filming the testing of the Roadsters. The script in question, concluding with the line "in the real world, it absolutely doesn’t work" was lying around on set while Top Gear was allegedly "testing" the Roadsters. It seems actual test results don’t matter when the verdict has already been given -- even if it means staging tests to meet those predetermined conclusions.
Now Mr. Wilman wants us to believe that when Top Gear concluded that the Roadster "doesn't work," it "had nothing to do with how the Tesla performed." Are we to take this seriously? According to Mr. Wilman, when Top Gear said the car "doesn't work," they "primarily" meant that it was too expensive. Surely they could have come to that conclusion without staging misleading scenes that made the car look like it didn’t work.
Mr. Wilman's other contentions are just as disingenuous. He states that they never said the Roadster "ran out of charge." If not, why were four men shown pushing it into the hangar?
Mr. Wilman states that "We never said that the Tesla was completely immobilized as a result of the motor overheating." If not, why is the Roadster depicted coming to a stop with the fabricated sound effect of a motor dying?
Mr. Wilman also objects to Tesla explaining our case, and the virtues of the Roadster. Top Gear has been re-broadcasting lies about the Roadster for years, yet are uncomfortable with Tesla helping journalists set the record straight about the Roadster’s revolutionary technology.
Mr. Wilman seems to want Top Gear to be judged neither by what it says, nor by what it does. Top Gear needs to provide its viewers, and Tesla, straightforward answers to these questions."
I hadn't heard that Tesla calculated that range, the direct quote from the show used the pronoun 'we' and I thought part of the suit was because the 55 mile range statement from top gear defamed Tesla and made them look as if they were lying about the range.
JM2C, of course, we have voting and discussions precisely so that everyone can express their views...
George Monbiot is often like that. Thankfully the article linked to in that paragraph does give Top Gear a fair opportunity for rebuttal.
> He does actually blame Top Gear?
Well, that's generally what is implied by "I'm not blaming only Top Gear". And even if most of those boy racers had sports cars (they don't - think cheap Volkswagen Golfs with ridiculous spoilers, or even worse[0]), sports cars aren't inherently designed for you to break road laws any more than a gun is designed for indiscriminate murder. In any case it's just more wood for Monbiot's Top Gear bonfire rather than anything of real substance.
The show did not just chose to only present certain facts, or just chose to ignore certain opinions/interpretations. They actively mislead. They falsified evidence.
While the line can be pretty fine, there is still a line between editorializing and bare faced deception.
When it comes to subjects like electric cars, or environmentally friendly technology in general, Top Gear has the same ethics as one of Rupert Murdochs tabloids or Fox News.
Taking the guys on Top Gear as legitimate motoring journalists is the same as taking Stephen Colbert as a legitimate Republican.
Top Gear is about three idiots who love cars. Watching Top Gear for car buying advice is like watching Jersey Shore for dating advice.
Glorious reviews? No. But if Jon Gruber were to make a video deliberately faking an Android tablet's battery running down, I would ask questions.
Watching Top Gear for car buying advice is like watching Jersey Shore for dating advice.
That’s worth an upmod right there. Thanks for the smile!
If you want to liken it to The Daily Show, then all of Top Gear is much more like Stephen Colbert's and Steve Carrel's old bits.
Are you referring to his infamous Crossfire appearance?
Yes. I tend to hold bloggers to higher standards than traditional media. If they write something, I expect it to be true to the best of their knowledge. I stop reading and recommending those who fail to keep up. And that's why I ignore traditional media, and TV in particular.
It's sad though, that people no longer seem to expect truth in media. But if we should assume that everything in newspapers/TV news is a bunch of smaller and bigger lies, then why do people bother watching the news?
All this sharpening of the pitchforks over ethics/editorial guidelines/facts is just a red herring to debase a TV show that isn't going to march in lockstep with a car manufacturer's marketing literature, or support the environmentalist's point of view that electric cars are utopia.
Do note this article is in the environmental section of the guardian. Top Gear bashes all cars of all types. They can be downright offensive (there was a somewhat tasteless joke about mexican cars a while back), but when it comes to electric cars, for some reason there is this clamoring for facts/journalistic integrity, etc in the media. These people don't really care for the show, they just care how electric cars are being portrayed in the media.
All they had to do was say, “The Nissan does a good job of warning you not to run low on charge, but we all know how often people in the real world ignore the out of petrol warning on their cars and run out of fuel. Let’s see what happens if we ignore the warnings and try to drive to Lincolnshire anyways.”
Presto, they make their point without maliciously or inadvertantly making another and wrong point.
Which they did in order to show the obvious problem in a safe and entertaining way. It doesn't matter if the battery was going to die in 10 more miles, or 40 more miles on a highway. It would be just as inconvenient and less safe.
"ignoring all of the warnings, and by concealing from viewers that they were ignoring all of the warnings"
What warnings did they conceal? They were talking to each other over radios about how their cars said they were almost out of juice.
Again, you’re entirely missing the point, namely that they decieved the viewer about how this came to be, not whether it was inconvenient to run out of charge. Imagine, for example, that I wanted to demonstrate the catastrophic dangers of Scuba Diving. I go on a tour with a noted guiding company. I am trained in my equipment’s features. I am outfitted with a mechanical gas gauge and an air integrated dive computer. I deliberately breathe my tank down to less than full capacity before submerging, and then I deliberately exhaust air on the bottom to run it out. Instant emergency.
This would be a fine way to discuss the dangers of being out of air at depth, but it would be ludicrous to stage the whole thing as if a diver would actually submerge on less than a full tank of air and would continue the dive even if his air integrated computer were to warn him that he could not complete the dive as planned.
I’ve seen tons of videos showing this kind of thing, but none have suggested anything other than human error is the problem. If what they want to do is say that petrol is more convenient because you can get gas even if you’re a complete idiot, they can make that point easily and entertainingly without deception.
No, you're missing the point that it's a television show. As such, things must be done in a predictable, safe, and visually appealing manner. They can't have the crew sputtering to a stop on a blind crest or busy highway.
The show you want would go like this:
Clarkson: "Welcome to Top Gear. Tonight, our challenge is to drive electric cars from X to Y!
hosts climb into cars
May: "Oh, the on-board computer tells me I can't go that far."
Clarkson: "And on that bombshell, thank you for watching!"
That version communicates exactly the same point, but with zero entertainment.
Your SCUBA example is ludicrous, and completely the opposite of what happened here. i.e. increasing danger.
Believe me when I say, I understand you, I just don’t agree with you.
The point still stands. Also note that Nissan itself says that repeated fast charging of the Leaf's battery will cause it to be unable to hold a full charge. The fast charge option being the 30 minute, 80% charge option which is the fastest you can charge a currently-in-production electric vehicle.
These are the facts and there's no agreeing or disagreeing with them. Top Gear presented them in a clumsy way, but they're still facts.
They didn't mislead the viewer about anything. Did you watch the show? They were very clear about how many miles were left. I fail to see what your problem is, beyond, "they did not promote the things I like, and they focused on issues which I want to ignore."
Edit: upon re-reading what you wrote, it's clear to me that you really don't understand what I'm saying. This isn't about freedom to do whatever they want to prove some point. This is about how a television show is made. Television is produced, deal with it.
And the "obvious" problem is...? The car electronics was showing they had charge for 30 miles. Sat-nav was telling them their destination is 60 miles away. For me the conclusion is that for the math challenged, driving an electric car is an "obvious" problem.
Seriously? The problem is that range is rather limited, but more importantly, refill stations are hard to find and take a very long time to complete, compared to refilling a gas tank.
There is a story arc for the show and car reviews. Nissan may have a well designed system to limit blackouts, but in this case it didn't play well with the entertainment/comedic elements of the show.
Honestly, do you think this is playing to the facts? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrZy87TmDcs
Do you think afterwards they should mention it wasn't real?
They have a narrative, and entertainment/comedy takes priority over car reviews. It only seems to ruffle the feathers of electric car/environmental group - and I posit it has little to do with "presenting the facts" (where is their outrage about the claim that the stig can blink horizontally or is non-human?) and all to do with advancing their agenda.
Just, wow. How does one even reply to a comment so profoundly stupid?
Their test was to loop non-stop around a race track at the Prius' top speed, which is pretty much what the sports car was designed to do.
They neglected to do a round in stop-and-go traffic, which is what the Prius was designed for.
Edit: it probably didn't come across like it, but I think that the show is hilarious and it is one of the very few reasons to own a TV. But a car review show (as in, the source of information on the automotive industry) it is not, and is not meant to be.
Sure, the Passat is a bit of a slug, but light-footed, I made an estimated 50 mpg in Italy, 4 up with luggage, AC on, during an Italy trip, something you couldn't do in a Prius.
They drove the Prius as fast as it would go, because someone who buys a Prius will do that and at that speed it would be less efficient than an M3 which is the "sports car" you mention.
And I agree with that point. If I flog my Civic, it'll return much smaller mileage than if I drive carefully and efficiently. So, again, Top Gear's point is proven in that, people aren't willing to think critically and live in a reality.
I don't think anyone would dispute that a Prius is more fuel efficient than a sports car in stop-and-go traffic and having that segment on Top Gear just wouldn't be possible as it would make the show "fair" to the hybrid and actually about cars which it definitely isn't.
And I think they make these silly claims at times since they know they are so over-the-top that it's hard for anyone to take them too seriously.
That's not how I remember it playing out. They had plenty of warning and made numerous references to the battery meter and its "miles left" estimation. As they were looking for a charging station, James May said something to the effect, "He's running on whatever the electric equivalent of gas fumes is."
If you just read this article, I encourage you to watch the episode before getting all wound up.
1) The Leaf had a full charge when delivered, but it was drained to 40%
2) Clarkson drove around in circles until it died, in Lincoln.
Now I can understand both of these things from a television perspective. Obviously everything in Lincoln was staged, including their arrangement with the university to charge there. Clearly they drained the battery so that it would die in Lincoln, as that's where they had prepared to shoot.
It makes sense from a TV perspective but it's unethical, especially given the direct harm it can have on livelihoods and the effort to transition off fossil fuels. There's no substantive difference between doing what they did, and merely pretending that the car died when it had half a charge left. Top Gear is a comedy show, but it isn't satire. The audience has no reasonable expectation that when the hosts make claims about certain cars, they are being dishonest for the sake of comedy. Sure, we know the challenges are staged, but that's not what this is about. It's as if, in testing the new Ferrari, they replaced the rear tires with winter tires then complained about how the read end was uncontrollable. This crosses the line directly from creating an entertaining narrative to slander. Given JC's very public views on anything to do with the environment, as well as their previous run-in with Tesla, you'd think they would be careful not to give the impression that they will intentionally lie to disparage electric vehicles. With this latest incident, that is exactly the impression they give.
I do think they could go about it differently, and if they had simply added "This is what happens were you to run it dry on a trip" would have smoothed all this out. I do wish they would have done so, as their point will now be lost in the screaming and shouting over their bias.
I do think it's a point worth making. An electric car is only as useful as the distance you want to drive it. As soon as your round trip exceeds the limit, you have to charge it for hours.
I don't think they are out of line by pointing out these problem. I do think they are out of line by staging it without explanation.
It sounds a lot like they couldn't find a trip where the range would be inadequate, so they pretended the range was inadequate.
They were doing it to simply prove a point. They just went about it the wrong way.
I love the show. It's the most entertaining "car show" on television. But I've never had the inclination to take what these guys say to heart. By that I mean, 90% of the time the hosts are reviewing Bugattis, Ferraris and Lambos, which is a world completely disconnected from my own. Can one really expect practical reviews?
Mea Culpa, thanks for raising the point.
I saw this episode when it was broadcast and enjoyed the electric car segment. The programme is an entertainment show and part of that entertainment is that the presenters repeatedly experience various 'disasters' during their filming. I didn't take the various incidents involving range particularly seriously at the time.
When they were discussing the cars slightly more seriously back in the studio, they actually acknowledged the inevitability of electric cars and went over the ways in which the technology was improving. They also correctly pointed out that current technology limits the utility of the models available now, and discussed mitigation ideas such as battery exchange. To be honest I was surprised at the maturity of their analysis! Overall, based on what I know about this area from other sources, I would not consider the piece to have been misleading.
Someone has already pointed out that The Guardian is a fairly left leaning paper and this particular article is a comment piece. Personally I think it's a bit silly for people to get so indignant about something so insignificant. They're just having fun. They're not out to get anyone. I don't believe they have a vindictive agenda. The presenters play caricatures of themselves.
Chill the hell out!
It was quite obvious watching the program that they were aware the battery was running low (they commented on the "miles left" meter several times). They more-or-less willfully ran out of juice in a small town. So what.
The point wasn't that the car can only go 60km versus 100km on a charge, or whatever the numbers. The point was that the car has a range limit, that the limit is not terribly far, that the car takes a while to charge when it dies, and there aren't many charging stations.
Perhaps Top Gear was a bit hyperbolic to make that point (Consumer Reports they are not), but these are all fair points.
I'm sorry. I'm all about calling out bias where I see it, but this just smacks of a car maker trying to spin some largely legitimate complaints with their product.
Not many people could get away with owning a plug-in electric as their only car. Even if it were half as much as a comparable gas car (rather than twice as much). As Clarkson said in the episode, the leaf is actually a really nice ca and electric is obviously the future, but today it is just not practical.
This is actually the myth that Top Gear seems interested in forever perpetuating.
Most people don't drive that far (http://news.discovery.com/autos/range-anxiety-nissan-leaf-11...) I think Chevy determined the average daily driver drives around 40 miles. The range of these new electric vehicles are actually fine for the majority of people's daily drivers and are only going to get better.
For long drives they're not a good choice yet (since the infrastructure doesn't yet exist and without something like battery swap charging takes too long).
>The point wasn't that the car can only go 60km versus 100km on a charge, or whatever the numbers. The point was that the range has a limit, that the limit is not that far...
Was that really the point? You don't see them driving a gasoline powered car near empty and then acting confused when it can't reach it's destination while suggesting that gasoline powered cars are not the future. I think they went past hyperbolic into misleading.
> You don't see them driving a gasoline powered car near empty
It's easy and quick to refill a gasoline car. At least around me, only the very smallest towns don't have a gas station. I can't remember the last time I was more than 20 miles from a gas station. That's the point.
Some day, I suspect (and hope) they will all have recharging stations all over. But right now they don't.
However rather than saying something like this, they exaggerate the situation and act as if you are unable to drive the EV anywhere without unwittingly running out of fuel. That in conjunction with the similar unwarranted bashing they did on Tesla makes people think they have something against EVs.
There are legitimate criticisms they could make, it isn't necessary to fabricate stories or lie about what the cars can do.
Not to be a jerk, but have you actually watched the episode or did you just read the article?
This linked article makes it sounds like they were just driving along and poof the car died. But that's not at all how it looked on TV.
I really do suspect that the numbers would be quite high, at least in many European cities. High density and reliable rail networks reduce the need for long ranged cars and when it’s down to one or two trips per year, renting becomes very viable.
What's the farthest the average person needs to drive in a given month? I bet it's more than the range of an electric car. That presents a problem.
Early cell phones didn't work for everybody either.
Although it surely would have been a cool and useful toy, there are lots of good reasons I didn't buy a cell phone in the 80s.
Maybe in theory, but how many outside wall outlets do you see, and who's paying for the electricity?
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/californi...
It's rather silly to take the total number of parking spaces and multiply it by total possible charge to get your estimate of demand.
Deleted comment
Was that really the point? You don't see them driving a gasoline powered car near empty and then acting confused when it can't reach it's destination
Because that's not such a problem - partly because you can walk to the nearest petrol station, and bring back a can of petrol and get going again, and partly because the UK is small and dense with petrol stations everywhere (try Google Maps UK and search for Petrol Station - 5 miles will probably get you to one, 20 miles almost certainly).
Why not? If an electric car was half the price of a petrol car, then there's no way I would not buy one, and then just rent a car those times i need to drive far.
That episode made me wish I could afford a Leaf, it seemed really well engineered and I knew they were being silly about electric cars on purpose because they are "neanderthal" car dinosaurs that refuse to adapt.
They were trying really hard to find ways to insult the Leaf but fell far short - "range" was all they could come up with. Sad to learn they actually had to fake it though, it's pathetic on their part. I'd still buy it with their demonstrated range - if it was twice that, even better.
But 60mpg+ gas/diesel cars are common in the UK anyway, so the Leaf is less dramatic there. I'd love this one too but they will never let Americans have it:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b40990604...
Part of the entertainment is that it's presented as though it is factual TV. Sure if you look at a lot of their antics you can tell they're staged but a large portion of the viewing public doesn't realize this and their impressions of the car will be tainted by what is essentially a misrepresentation of the facts.
Top Gear to me is like the Tonight Show of cars. It's entertainment.
Top Gear shows like two practical cars per season among all their other silliness (which is what I actually watch it for, the silliness because it's entertaining).
Ironically isn't the fastest car around their track an electric car? The electric version of the Ariel Atom?
I think he also owns a 100 year old electric car, where the motor and battery technology today is really not that far evolved from it, sadly.
(oh here it is http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/jay-leno/vintage/421594... )
I don't feel like they faked it at all. The entire world is ganging up against Top Gear on this topic but here is a list of conditions that need to be met in order to get the maximum range:
The batteries must be new. The car must be fully charged. The car must be driven between normal and gently. The weather must not be excessively cold. To the extent the batteries aren't new, they should not be rapid-charged.
So fast forward half way through your car loan, the car's 2.5 years old, it's had a 70/30 mix of normal/rapid charges, the driver has a heavy-ish foot, and you've got to leave work at noon to pick your sick kid up from school. Oops. Sure, it's a contrived example, but it's really a concern and really truly is a reason that a car like this doesn't make sense today.
All that aside, I agree with you. Their review of the Leaf was glowing. Good for Nissan to play hardball -- they're just multiplying the publicity value of their review. They'll come out looking even better because of it.
Because lithium won't matter if they are new or 4 years old, you'll get practically the same capacity from them.
After 5 years they will drop to 80% capacity and then get worse from there. Lithium is good until suddenly it's not good anymore. I have LiFePo4 on my bicycle and I have to be careful because lithium will happily destroy itself to give you the range you push out of it.
I suspect the leaf is not lithium based though, would be too expensive of a pack. We really need to solve that pricepoint, would change everything if cars could use LiFePo4
Ah, wikipedia to the rescue - it is indeed Lithium based http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf#Battery Well then you will definitely get 5 years out of that unless you drive like a maniac to the end of it's capacity. I'd still feel safer if it was LiFePo4 vs Lithium ion though - LiFePo4 won't explode or burn (but it does take up more space).
This sounds like spyware. I'd love to know if that data was being periodically fed back to Nissan wirelessly or read at the time the car was returned.
I'd love to know if this tracking is fitted in all their cars of this model, or just ones they hand out for review.
Such fine-grained tracking doesn't sound like a good thing at all.
A test vehicle supplied to journalists might have similar diagnostic capabilities turned on. Then again, perhaps every Leaf has this, it's hard to imagine building a modern electric car without including sophisticated computing, and logging data is part of what computers do.
I doubt it's malicious, but as cars get more sophisticated, the possibility of leaking privacy through your onboard diagnostics does become an issue.
Thanks for raising the question.
<snark>Maybe Nissan just left their iPhone inside it.</snark>
All they have to do is say it's for to offer a better product, for roadside rescue and aggregated into a non-personal store after 30 days, and it would probably be fine.
http://www.slashgear.com/nissan-blasts-top-gear-for-misleadi...
If you want a car review show, take a look at Motor Week.
I think these claims of "faking" are ridiculous when you have episodes where cast members "die" (top gear apocalypse), and characteristics are emphasized for comedic effect (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQh56geU0X8).
This article claims because of Top Gear's antics, the public is being misinformed about the benefits of electric cars. It completely misses the point that 1. it is not a car review show, and 2. there is a major poetical component of the show that celebrates automotive history. They like exciting cars and bash boring uninspired ones (except if its remarkably boring). Their reviews emphasize a car's essence, not necessarily a list of facts.
I think this view is coming from a place that has a vested interest in electric cars, and not anyone who really watches the show. Otherwise they'd be attacking all the claims ("Some Say") made about The Stig.
I've never watched the show, but it seems like they're trying to blur the two lines. When they get called on it, they use the excuse "it's just entertainment" as justification for misleading their viewers.
A) It's not particularly hard to get stranded in one of these things. B) When you do get stranded, it's non-trivial to get them recharged.
I think those are both fair points. A lot of people seem to be pointing out that "well if you plan ahead this won't happen", but how many times have you had to use your car to get to something you didn't plan ahead for? Maybe there's an emergency, or maybe I'm late, or maybe I just forgot to charge the thing overnight. Electric cars are cool, but for most people I can only imagine them supplementing a gas car, not replacing it.
* The infrastructure to recharge this thing in the middle of a trip is not there.
* You better be prepared to wait a good number of hours to charge it.
* You better know how far you're going and note how much charge you have left before you head out.
* You will have to replace the batteries after some number of years and it will cost a lot of money.
* Electricity is the future, but these cars are not it. (Yes, they actually said that.)
Which one of these points is all of a sudden not valid?
I'm sorry, the review was spot on.
More generally, a 100 mile range would be fine for me 80% of the time, but the other 20% I need longer range without a 12 hour stopover. Electric cars are just not quite there yet for my needs, and I suspect a lot of other people too.
As long as electric cars are not practical enough to sell themselves, I will enjoy Clarkson's rants about them and everything else PC.
"at no point were viewers told that the battery had been more than half empty at the start of the trip."
So? They're making television. They're showing a valid problem with electric cars. Their review of the cars was actually very positive, aside from the currently inescapable problem of long recharge times and uncommon charging stations. As it is television, you want to do so in a manner which is entertaining and not dangerous. Would the makers prefer that they run out of juice on a busy highway?
The rest of the article degrades into an anti-testosterone rant which has little to do with Top Gear. I was a teenage, aggressive idiot, too, and Top Gear didn't even exist then. They're actually very careful on Top Gear to follow rules of the road, and anyone driving like a fool as a result of it has only himself to blame.
what is it with companies, who expect the media to suspend critical thinking when covering their products.
Electrical cars are great...but the logistics of them still need to be highlighted for consumers to make an informed decision.
to ignore that you are literally up shit's creek if your car runs out of juice...is just intellectually dishonest
Would that be intellectually honest?
As far as the timing belt, that's long term maintenance, and doesn't need to be changed for 80K miles. And even then, it's a $800 service(unless you do it yourself), which is a crapload less than the cost it'll take to replace the batteries of an electric car around that same time.
And Top Gear does this crap with everyone. It's just EV fanboys are light weights who can't take it. How about the 458 Italia, and their gauge clusters? Or how about something 100% exactly the same...the Ford GT clip where it kept running of gas? Or how about the F40 and the 959 that "broke down"?
The point is that Top Gear does this sort of thing all the time, and if people complaining were actual fans who viewed the show regularly, they wouldn't raise so much stink just because someone dared to give a review that didn't proclaim all glory to the hypnotoad.
Long live Clarkson.
Those two descriptions are a matter of opinion, not everyone agrees with that. I'm a huge car guy, yet personally I think Clarkson is a clown. I understand the show is more geared towards entertainment but they use their massively popular show to blatantly lie and misguide people to push their own agendas.