Comment by lloeki | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lloeki | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"So either Clarkson's grossly misrepresenting Tesla's behaviour so far, which would be very odd"

Not exactly, Clarkson is notorious for letting its biased feelings cloud all forms of objectivity. See e.g the Civic Type-R 2008 review which is a complete joke when the Stig review is the direct opposite. Either a car is a lemon or a gem but it can't be both. Whether Clarkson is genuine or stages such opinionated behavior remains unclear and part of the myth. It's a fun show, but a show nonetheless.

"this doesn't seem to be a review for comedic value"

Comedic, no, but creating a sense of drama, yes. in both cases the goal is to generate emotion. Either way, I felt like it was emphasized when I watched it some time ago.

Besides, complaining a 200+ miles casual range shrinks to 55 when you're beating crap out of the car is nothing short of ridiculous. Did they complain that the Veyron 100L tank burns in less than 15min at 400+kph? That's a 60 miles range! Heck, no pure electric production car, let alone electric sports car, matches the Tesla range today.

I agree with you on the last points, but they're clearly burning it round the track, not driving in suburbia so Tesla's moaning about the figure is a bit moot.

If Tesla want to stick to the 211 claim on a track it's a whole different matter. From the press release Tesla seem to be saying that Top Gear lied about how far it would have gone on the track, which is nonsense.

After all they knew exactly where Top Gear was taking it, all cars go there.

Overall I thought that Top Gear were positive about the car in terms of raw performance, just as something you'd drive it's not practical even as a sports car.

Except the 55 mile number was just straight made up, the two cars they had to test weren't even reduced by 25% capacity.

No. The first car was reduced by 80%.

"The company claimed it could run, even if driven briskly, for 200 miles, but after just a morning the battery power was down to 20% and we realised that it would not have enough juice for all the shots we needed."

the key is driven briskly = o(trashing it on a track)

I could be mistaken, but I think Tesla said that neither car was reduced by more than 25% (maybe it was below 25%). The roadster keeps a large amount of data store about it's usage so it'd be easy to determine who was telling the truth. Either way pushing the car into the garage was never necessary and was done on purpose, I'm not sure the intent.

To be fair, the Ford GT ran out of gas while Clarkson was driving it on the show. They included it in the show and pointed out the ridiculously poor fuel mileage.

He also bought one, then was never able to drive it due to constant breakdowns. In that case, however, the breakdowns were legit, and he never caught any flak from Ford.

Great point. He also wrote about that very publicly.

The greater point is that Clarkson doesn't pull any punches, regardless of the make/model/drivetrain. He likes what he likes and speaks his mind about it.

They didn't catch flak from Ford, sure, but then Ford isn't building a company (and helping build a new industry of electric cars) around a single model.

Another important point you make is that Clarkson is indeed notorious for being opinionated and biased. The viewer must accept that to watch Top Gear. I think Tesla is over-reacting. Clarkson is not a friend of the environmentalists; they should have known that going into it.

Their contention, echoed in Clarkson's original statements, were that the Roadster was the first electric car you might actually want to buy. Their goal in having it reviewed on TG was likely to show that it was a driver's car first and foremost, and that it being electric was an added bonus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com