Hacker News Reader

Comment by tonylemesmer | Hacker News Reader

The underlying issue here seems to be that electric cars are not the same as petrol ones. Yes, car users need to change their expectations of what a car will be in the future if it is not gasoline powered. However, when paying double or triple the price for a new version of an existing product, we expect some improvement in the experience, not potentially crippling and extreme inconvenience. If Tesla hadn't done similar tests in their validation programme as the ones done on Top Gear and then said to themselves "How could this look bad on Top Gear?" then they are foolish.

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

View on HN

Just a recommendation, but maybe you should actually read something before you respond to it: In the article you are commenting on " 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." " 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.

Er, no.

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.

Just a recommendation before you make accusations, perhaps ask me if I had read it rather than going: you haven't read it.

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.

I don't know. Continue reading. Take point 3, for example:

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.

Exactly right, in that eletric and petrol cars are not the same. They have a different feature set. Electric cars will be worse in some areas, and better in others. A lot of people have a hard time estimating the value of electric cars, because they are very different from what they are used to. And people usually don't like different.

"A lot of people have a hard time estimating the value of electric cars"

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com