High Court Rules In Favor of Top Gear Over Tesla Remarks 328
esocid writes "In 2008, BBC's 'Top Gear' aired an episode featuring the Tesla Roadster. One of the show's car reviewers, Jeremy Clarkson, gave a less-than-flattering analysis of the vehicle, sparking a legal case with the automaker that doesn't seem to be working out in Tesla's favor. Now, it looks as though Tesla is losing this battle after a full-day hearing yesterday at the high court in London. 'In my judgment, the words complained of are wholly incapable of conveying any meaning at all to the effect that the claimant [Tesla] misled anyone,' said [Mr. Justice] Tugendhat. 'This is because there is a contrast between the style of driving and the nature of the track as compared with the conditions on a public road [...] are so great that no reasonable person could understand that the performance on the [Top Gear] track is capable of a direct comparison with a public road.' The hearing now continues on Tesla's claim that 'Top Gear' made five other false accusations about the Roadster. Tugendhat has postponed judgment on Tesla's malicious falsehood claim, and is expected to deliver a verdict in the coming weeks."
Tesla (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't seem to realise that Top Gear is a comedy show.
Re:A bit thin-skinned... (Score:5, Insightful)
It was nothing about the track or the cars actual performance. Clarkson hates electric cars and is the sort of dimwit that thinks hydrogen power is going somewhere. He will use any reason real or imaginary to knock any electric car. They should have known that going in.
Re:Tesla (Score:2, Insightful)
Nor do many of its viewers.
Follow Koenigsegg (Score:5, Insightful)
Koenigsegg put a super car on Top Gear. It was not good enough. There was not enough down force in the rear, the car lost control, and it crashed. Top Gear said, "This thing REALLY needs a spoiler."
Koenigsegg sued Top Gear. Just kidding, they put a spoiler on it and sent it back to Top Gear. They took it around the track again and it got an amazing time. No crashes.
No, I'm not saying that Top Gear can instantly diagnose car problems and their words should be heeded at all times. What I'm saying is that Koenigsegg made off with massive good PR by taking criticism from some of the most watched television personalities in the world, improved their car, and, showing no hard feelings, gave the car back to them. They didn't call mommy and daddy claiming their driver crashed their car. They didn't claim slander. They knew that they had the opportunity to show how dedicated they were to making an amazing car and took it.
Tesla, well... We breed them litigious here.
Re:Your tax dollars at work (Score:5, Insightful)
I've worked in many jobs over the years, mostly private sector, some public sector. In my experience the private sector is far less efficient than the public sector. Your misconception is common and comes from confusing efficiency with making a profit.
The private sector's objective is to make a profit, and they'll tend to limit themselves to those activities that can make a profit. The public sector deals with those things that still need doing regardless of whether there's money to me made.
Lies / Truth (Score:4, Insightful)
Tesla used the truth to tell lies.
This whole thing is ridiculous.
Re:What Tesla doesn't get is Marketing (Score:4, Insightful)
It wasn't just what Clarkson said, it's also what was shown: a Tesla being pushed into a garage, ostensibly running out of power mid-test. I was very disappointed with Aunty when I learned this was staged*. Between that, the overly farcical "accidents" and a dearth of tests on normal cars I could ever buy I just stopped watching.
*I'm not a complete idiot; I know batteries run out, but was an accurate portrayal of the car's range really too much to ask?
Re:What Tesla doesn't get is Marketing (Score:4, Insightful)
I saw the episode when it first aired. He said "[we wanted to do some more shots] but look what happened" in the VO that showed the car being pushed into the garage by hand, strongly implying that the battery was flat when it could easily have driven off the track under its own power, since it had 20% left.
They faked the battery being flat, in other words. They just didn't *say* "the battery went flat", which seems to be have all they needed to do to ensure they were legally "not lying".
Re:Tesla Roadster, car by weasels (Score:5, Insightful)
They know they produce an inferior car to most well below their price points in terms of performance...
Any car that costs more than about $50,000 is well into diminishing returns on the price. Nobody buys a $100,000 car because it is a rational economic decision. You are well into conspicuous consumption territory which has nearly nothing to do with any reasonable evaluation of performance per dollar.
As far as I have seen, their strongest ad campaign has been through drag races against the Dodge Viper and the Porsche GT and those are very apples-to-oranges races. The Porsche and Viper are 180mph+ cars and are geared to do so; the Roadster is geared to do about 125mph.
I have a truck that is geared to do about 125mph but I'm pretty sure it won't beat a Viper in any race. Fact is that electric motors should be very good at drag races and the Tesla bears this out. And frankly who the hell cares if a car can go 180mph? You will never, ever drive it that fast. In fact I'd wager to say that close to no one who reads this has been much over 140mph unless they actually race cars or live in Germany. I guess it makes for good marketing but it's a retarded statistic. Like buying a first generation Hummer when you live in the suburbs - it makes no sense whatsoever.
Re:Negative reviews are not slander. (Score:5, Insightful)
Reviews that lie about a product can be slander. Let's say you own a restaurant. I don't like you, so I buy a few cockroaches, smuggle them in, plant them in the meal I order, and then film myself "finding" them in my food, and post the results for millions of people to see.
That's not a negative review anymore. That's slander and fraud, and you have every right to sue me to make up for all the business you lose. You can't "swallow your pride and make improvements" on a problem that doesn't actually exist.
That's what Top Gear did. They faked serious problems to discourage people from buying the car. I like the show, but what they did was inexcusable.
Re:Tesla (Score:5, Insightful)
Top Gear USA can't piss off their (car company) sponsors *too* much. Top Gear UK is funded by the BBC, so they don't give a rat's ass about making fun of or otherwise demeaning the car companies. It's what gives them their power.
Re:Tesla (Score:5, Insightful)
Score one for publicly funded broadcasters (also known as "damn left-wing, socialist, state-controlled media" to the Murdoch media empire and those who share their views).