UK Court of Appeal rejects Tesla's appeal in BBC/Top Gear case
bailii.org
bailii.org
I'm not really liking Tesla's approach to PR here, they could be engaging in a much more positive way instead of lashing out at the media. Somewhat of an own goal on this one.
Slightly irrelevant video of a Ferrari test driver destroying an engine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La03k7FzlZA
It is also possible to look an electric cars and decide they aren't relevant to how you personally use cars - I don't drive very much but when I do its generally over 300 miles or so to locations where re-charging will never be practical. I also live in a flat with on street parking.
I hope electic vehicles will be relevant to me at some point in the near future because I would love the choice - but they aren't at the moment and I don't think they will be in the next 5 years.
"(1) The first Roadster shown (which was silver in colour) did not run out of charge; (2) The first Roadster did not have to be pushed back into the hangar as a result of running out of charge; (3) At no point were the brakes of the first Roadster broken; (4) The second Roadster (which was grey in colour ) did not become immobile as a result of overheating. (5) There was no time at which neither Roadster was available for driving." " The lawsuit isn't over a bad review. It is over a scripted "failure" of the vehicle. The vehicle didn't die. It's batteries didn't run out, and the Tesla engineers found the script for the scene as the test drive was beginning.
Tesla has every right to respond to having their product used as a prop for a scripted jab at electric vehicles.
Tesla's explanation was essentially: "whereas what had actually failed was a fuse in the equipment providing power-assistance to the brake pedal"
So, I don't know about you, but something suddenly not working the way it's supposed to work is something I would consider broken.
1) & 2) "Tesla admitted that the range of the Roadster on the test track was about 55 miles and that if it ran out of charge it took several hours to charge it up again. "
3) A fuse broke that meant power-assistance of the brake failed. So the brakes clearly weren't working correctly. I don't think Top Gear should do fault finding on review cars.
4) TG claimed it had reduced power, not that it was immobile.
It did actually fail, the brake assistance system stopped working.
1. I was referring to the fact that a 55 mile range is laughable for a car and that looks bad on TV 2. Also electric vehicles take a long time to charge up, that looks bad when accompanied by item 1.
It almost reads like a code review, the way the text is parsed ;-)
They won't win a rematch, even if they do.
Also, and I could be way wrong here, but the population of the Top Gear demographic is unlikely to be your average Tesla buyer.
It has been (may not be now) one of the most popular shows in the country. Not that that's necessarily saying much, because crappy reality shows (which I just cannot tolerate) are huge too.
It's not as if all the other high-end manufacturers are refusing to let Top Gear put their cars on the track is it?
I'd say your response to a bad Top Gear review should be to go back home, think of something funny, impressive and outrageous, and offer that for a re-run. It'd make a lot more sense than an appeal which just shows you to be dull. Who wants a lawyer car?
EG
"..Tesla admitted that the range of the Roadster on the test track was about 55 miles and that if it ran out of charge it took several hours to charge it up again."
"Finally, although malice was in issue, the judge assumed that if Tesla proved any relevant falsehood, it would also succeed in proving malice (paragraph [30]). He observed, however, that in relation to each statement which Tesla alleged to be false there was a true statement relating to the same matter which was unfavourable to the Roadster (paragraph [32]). "
Not sure that their strategy of suing anyone that says anything bad about them in a review is really working out all that well for them...
"whereas what had actually failed was a fuse in the equipment providing power-assistance to the brake pedal"
It's a bit six of one, half a dozen of the other but Tesla do seem to 'have a way with facts'
> a fuse is exactly where a system should break,
That system being the brakes?
It's a horrible and unsafe experience in a modern car on the road and totally unfeasible on a racetrack.
I was careful with what I said. When you say: "You just have to push the pedal harder." that means you have to change the way you use the breaks. In this case, you have to push harder than you normally would.
They are no longer working as they should. You should not have to push harder. So: Yes. They are broken. They are not operating the way they should operate.
And, I'm sorry, but the brakes not operating like they should is a bad place to have a flaw.
The outcome was not decided up front, you made that up. That is known as lying.
Problem now, is that Tesla kicked off accusing TG of being dishonest, and then completely lost in court. So why would TG want them back for a rematch? So they can sue again if they don't like the out come?
Tesla blew it. And very stupidly too as far as the UK is concerned. TG on side would have been a massive advantage for them. Tesla will get it right in the end, electric cars will be the future. Even TG know that, and would have been on side later down the line.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/22/bbc_top_gear_tesla/
...according to the Top Gear spokeswoman, the tested Tesla was filmed being pushed into the shed in order to
show what would happen if the Roadster had run out of charge
http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2011/04/02/tesla-vs-to...
This was published when Tesla first sued. And accrording to Andy Wilman, the executive producer :
"Just so you understand there’s nothing devious going on, you need to know how this filming business works. When you film a car review, the reviewer is only the tip of the iceberg. Behind the lens is a film crew, and only a day’s worth of light to shoot the eight minute film. This means we have to prepare in advance a treatment – a rough draft of a script so that the director and film crew can get to work right away, knowing what shots they will need to capture. It will contain the facts about a car, and what we think of its looks and so on, but how well the car actually drives is added on the day. If we’ve driven it ahead of filming, as we do with most cars, we will also have an idea how it feels to drive. But, and this is crucial, as we uncover fresh information about a car whilst filming it, it is entirely normal for the treatment to be modified as the day unfolds. Jeremy is always tweaking the scripts to reflect what his driving experience has actually been on the day."
Which kind of makes sense - after all, Top Gear could have driven it until it actually ran out of power and got the same results, and Tesla Motors didn't dispute that.
Yes, if they slate Ferrari or Lamborghini it won't damage their sales too much, but for smaller companies that build cheaper cars a good review goes a long way towards sales. Tesla's cars aren't cheap, but they are affordable, and as a new company having the likes of Top Gear behind what they are doing would have gone a long way towards their marketing. Hell, if they had landed a great endorsement from Jeremy Clarkson or anyone else from Top Gear I'd be willing to bet that they'd be throwing that information around everywhere for years.
Obviously, the average person isn't going to buy a roadster, but £90k is still affordable for some senior-level types. It's more expensive than the usual "posh" cars like the usual BMW's and Audi's out there, but with the added allure of the Roadster being a green car I reckon that £70-90k isn't too high. Since Tesla are a new company and don't have an established range of vehicles it certainly puts them in the range of companies that could be hurt by bad press on Top Gear.
"In paragraph 7 of its particulars of claim Tesla also alleged that the film was false in the following respects:
"(1) The first Roadster shown (which was silver in colour) did not run out of charge; (2) The first Roadster did not have to be pushed back into the hangar as a result of running out of charge; (3) At no point were the brakes of the first Roadster broken; (4) The second Roadster (which was grey in colour ) did not become immobile as a result of overheating. (5) There was no time at which neither Roadster was available for driving." " So Top Gear staged a fake failure of a vehicle, and its Tesla's fault? What universe do you live in?
Congratulations Tesla, on lining the pockets of Carter-Ruck at your expense and causing the BBC to spend a small fortune on their own legal costs in pursuit of this pointless case.
edit: QC = Queen's Counsel. You pretty much have to have one if you're going to plead a case in the High Court IIRC.
We have a system where in higher courts people are represented directly by lawyers but by barristers/advocates - the theory is that they have a primary duty to the court and not to the client. A lawyer will instruct a barrister/advocate to run a case - in more serious cases a QC (senior) will be used along with a junior barrister/advocate.
NB My wife qualified as an advocate in Scotland - best bit being that when they are training (mostly following a qualified advocate around for a year as an unpaid assistant) you are known as an advocates devil. The whole process of training is known as devilling and the advocate training you is your devil-master. :-)
Expensive top flight barristers* with lots of experience (10-15 years minimum) that are recommended and appointed QC by the Lord Chancellor. They take precedence over other barristers and tend to be very expensive, experienced and with a proven case history and reputation. You can tell them because they get to wear silk gowns (sometimes being elected is known as "taking the silk")
Kinda the barrister equivalent of being elected to the National Academy of Sciences or a Fellow of the Royal Society.
* Barristers are one of two types of lawyers in the UK (the other being solicitors) they do most of the court-room advocacy etc.
See Samsung vs Apple, initially Apple didn't have to pay Samsung's fees, but after Apple annoyed the judge with their non-apology apology, the judge ordered that Apple pay [1]:
As to the costs (lawyers' fees) to be awarded against Apple, we concluded that they should be on an indemnity basis. Such a basis (which is higher than the normal, "standard" basis) can be awarded as a mark of the court's disapproval of a party's conduct, particularly in relation to its respect for an order of the court. Apple's conduct warranted such an order.
I realize a lot of money went into development but it seems crazy to sue your way to success or even think that could work in the first place. I don't think any of these major media outlets are really afraid of getting sued by Tesla anyway so if intimidation is the point then it won't work.