Hacker News Reader

Comment by georgieporgie | Hacker News Reader

"by deliberately running out of charge"

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

I get that your point is that since it’s “entertainment,” they have a blank cheque to do whatever they like to make whatever point they like, and that misleading the viewer about something other than what they want to convey is fine.

Believe me when I say, I understand you, I just don’t agree with you.

The overarching point is that there aren't recharging stations as ubiquitous as the fuel pumps and that it takes anywhere between 30 minutes and 12 hours to recharge the batteries. Was the point proven clumsily, yes, it's Top Gear, they're nothing if not clumsy especially Jeremy Clarkson.

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.

No, you still don't understand me. Or, you want people to be endangered for the sake of... what, running out of electricity a few miles further down the road?

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.

> Which they did in order to show the obvious problem in a safe and entertaining way

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.

And the "obvious" problem is...?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com