It's Top Gear. From a journalistic point of view, they are akin to the Daily Mail or Harry Potter. The outcome is decided up front.
They won't win a rematch, even if they do.
They won't win a rematch, even if they do.
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.
"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?
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.
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's not as if all the other high-end manufacturers are refusing to let Top Gear put their cars on the track is it?
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.
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?