Top Gear Fights Back At Tesla 369
An anonymous reader writes "Top Gear's producer Andy Wilman responds to Tesla's lawsuit: 'We never said that the Tesla's true range is only 55 miles, as opposed to their own claim of 211, or that it had actually ran out of charge. In the film our actual words were: "We calculated that on our track it would run out after 55 miles."' Interesting points, and as far as I can remember also correct. But I'm assuming Tesla is going the get the PR they want on this regardless of any court rulings."
"is going the get"???? (Score:2, Funny)
Really?
Tesla (Score:5, Funny)
It's about time that Nikolai stands up for himself and goes after the use of some of his inventions. Poor guy - if he doesn't he's likely to end up broke, broken, and dead in a hotel on 34th Street in NYC.
Driving in circles (Score:2)
You might think a 60+ mile per gallon Kawasaki Ninja 250 with a 4.8 gallon fuel tank will have a range of over 200 miles but it seems if I drive around in circles in my driveway it only has a range of a few hundred feet.
Re: (Score:3)
You might think a 60+ mile per gallon Kawasaki Ninja 250 with a 4.8 gallon fuel tank will have a range of over 200 miles but it seems if I drive around in circles in my driveway it only has a range of a few hundred feet.
Based on my analysis, the problem is that you need a bigger driveway. Clearly a larger driveway results in better gas mileage and should be included with any new vehicle purchase to allow for optimal MPG.
55 miles is pretty good, and not the point (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of the reporting seems to focus on claim it would only go 55 miles. As far as track cars go, that's pretty good. The Ford GT would only go about 60 before it would empty it's tank. A series earlier, they figured a Ferrari 599 only got 1.7 miles per gallon on the track.
Apart from reliability issues (both Tesla cars broke in various ways), the biggest flaw the cars had was that while the range was on par with regular track cars, when you ran out of fuel in the other cars, you took a few minutes to fill up and could go back out. The Tesla, on the other hand, was done for the day as it took something like 12 hours to recharge.
That was the damning conclusion of the Top Gear episode, and it was entirely accurate. Even if Tesla has improved the recharge time, it's still hours long. Tesla is just trying to distract from that fundamental fact - despite the fact it's marketed as a sports-car, it's not suited to track use. Even if people have no plans on taking it to the track, it's allure is tarnished by that fact.
Re:55 miles is pretty good, and not the point (Score:4, Informative)
A lot of the reporting seems to focus on claim it would only go 55 miles.
A claim whose figure was from Tesla's staff. Should be interesting court.
Top Gear was spot on about the real world implications - refueling time is one area electrics need to improve to be viable replacements, as opposed to short trip around town, vehicles.
Re: (Score:3)
Top Gear's tests cover the real-world driving conditions of very few people. Sure, there are people who flog exotic and sportscars on the street and people who have been to the fun side of 185mph, but it doesn't reflect the the expectations of 99.5% of the driving population (except maybe in Germany and Italy), so based on the people criticizing Top Gear, why bother watching the show at all?
That show shows what cars are capable under very demanding driving conditions - as in driving the car flat out. I hav
Re:55 miles is pretty good, and not the point (Score:4, Informative)
I would really like them to go one step further, and divide the battery into about 4 separate packs, so they could be lifted by a single person, but just as importantly so you can only carry 1 or 2 packs if that's all you need. It would greatly reduce the weight of the car, increasing efficiency and performance. My commute is only 20 miles round trip, which is about the national average IIRC.
Re:55 miles is pretty good, and not the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and the Tesla battery pack weighs around 450 kilos (about 1000lbs). And costs U$ 36000 (yes, that's 36 thousand US dollars)
Unless there was some sort of lease system and an automatic quick change system (park your car over the sensor, battery packs get changed) then changing battery packs is not a viable option.
Re:55 miles is pretty good, and not the point (Score:5, Funny)
You'd waste your money on extra Tesla cars. When one stops working for whatever reason, just hop into the next one.
I think some people have no clue on how to be rich properly. Just give me a billion or two and I'll show you how it's done
Re: (Score:2)
Your mom is a racing driver?
Re: (Score:2)
The "S" in Model S is for "sedan".
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I figure it'd be more like getting gas at a full-service station. Attendant pops your hood, swaps a cell or two, and you pay for the power charge. Only as a bonus, if you're not driving a ton, you can just fill-er-up at home, or while you're at work, if you've got a spot with an outlet.
Re: (Score:3)
Oddly enough, there are still countries where it is unlawful for you to fill your own vehicle tank. Every time I go to SA on holiday, I'm normally out of the car and heading for the pumps while a horde of attendants bear down on me before I remember I'm not allowed to fuel my rental car :)
That only tends to happen once per trip before I start remembering :)
Re: (Score:2)
true dat
as I wrote above, 450 kg, USD 36.000
Re:55 miles is pretty good, and not the point (Score:4, Interesting)
An issue, yes, an insurmountable issue, no, and an issue that was only in the minds of the Top Gear hosts rather than reality.
Running out of charge and pushing the car to the shop was a stunt, a hoax, it was fake, neither car ran out of charge [crunchgear.com].
I like watching most of the Top Gear shows but I expect them to flog cars not their egos and stubborn pride.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An issue, yes, an insurmountable issue, no, and an issue that was only in the minds of the Top Gear hosts rather than reality.
Running out of charge and pushing the car to the shop was a stunt, a hoax, it was fake, neither car ran out of charge [crunchgear.com].
I like watching most of the Top Gear shows but I expect them to flog cars not their egos and stubborn pride.
They never claimed the car DID run out of charge, as in "why is it suddenly not moving anymore". The exact words from the film were "we calculated that on our track it would run out after 55 miles". And that number came from the Tesla technicians themselves (see the linked article). Yes, they showed the car stopped on the track, maybe a cheap shot to show "this is what WOULD have happened", but nobody from Top Gear stated that a car actually stopped on the track - neither due to a flat battery, nor due to t
Re:55 miles is pretty good, and not the point (Score:4, Informative)
They didn't say "this car ran out of charge", but they showed the car stopping on the track, accompanied by the sound of the engine dying... they heavily implied it and it is disingenuous and weasely to pretend they didn't mean to show the car running out of charge.
Re:55 miles is pretty good, and not the point (Score:5, Insightful)
If you watch Top Gear for responsible journalism, you are doing it wrong. This same show recently did a comparative review of a Rolls-Royce, a Bentley, and a Mercedes Benz, but the Bentley was actually a Yugo, because Bentley didn't loan them the real car. It's an entertainment show. They had a point to make, that once you ran the batteries down on a Tesla roadster, you are stuck until it has time to recharge, which takes several hours. It's the biggest fundamental limitation of electric cars. It's what keeps me from wanting to purchase one, that's for sure. The fact that the car did not actually run out of juice during the limited time they were filming doesn't make it any less of a legit complaint. Filming for a series like Top Gear has a very tight schedule, especially filming on the track because you are limited to a narrow window when the sun is in the right spot to get the shots you want. So they faked it, the same way their races are fake (you don't think it's odd they somehow have cameramen in just the right places everytime? How every race comes down to a close finish?) It's television.
Tesla is full of shit, because instead of addressing the fact that what Top Gear said is true, they are trying to cover it up by claiming the means Top Gear used to say it are wrong. They took their car to a show that uses dramatics and hyperbole to make their points, and they are surprised that's what they got? I saw the episode when it came out and thought it was much more positive then I would have expected.
Re: (Score:3)
I consider it an act of "electrochemical empathy" that they did not run the battery so flat that the car would not move to make their point. Whether the battery was in-fact dead or not is irrelevant, they certainly could have run it flat, everybody knows that.
I find it reprehensible that Tesla is using the court system for free PR, and if I were the judge, I would fine them punative court costs to the approximate amount of the PR value they have received. Even when they win on appeal, it would hopefully d
Re: (Score:2)
I like watching most of the Top Gear shows but I expect them to flog cars not their egos and stubborn pride.
I've only watched a handful of TopGear episodes in the past few years, but they ALL seemed to focus on flogging the host's egos and pride.
Re: (Score:2)
not only that, but in track use you are likely to have a higher average speed than 55 miles an hour, meaning that your time of playing around is mighty limited if you don't actually live ON the track. Driving there and home again is a no-go. Heck, only being able to drive on the track for just around 50 minutes would suck! The fuel sucking monsters like the Ford GT can be refueled in minutes, the Tesla takes hours (and hours and hours)
I hope alternative fuels get worked out so that they become usable, but s
Re:55 miles is pretty good, and not the point (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as the Tesla, the review painted the roadster as a car that goes "whoops! ran out of electricity without warning" which is stretching it.
No, the review didn't paint any such image. I've seen this opinion expressed repeatedly, and it's just not the case. In the episode, both cars broke down, with the brakes failing on one and the engine overheating in the other. That was explicitly stated. They gave the Tesla an entirely fair shake in the episode.
Re:55 miles is pretty good, and not the point (Score:5, Insightful)
>Add to this the fact that the review was 100% track based, it wasn't accurate as to point that many of these cars will become daily drivers which never see the track.
During the review, Clarkson mentions that a trip from the south of England to the north of Scotland (a realistic trip for an Englishman) would take over 72 hours if you had to charge from a wall socket. The trip itself is ~12 hrs at most if you don't have to stop, but because it's over 700 miles, you have to charge it at least 4 times, taking ~16 hrs from a wall socket (as there are no fancy charging stations along the route, and even then you're still talking about many hours per charge). This is using Tesla's value of 200 miles per charge. Even if a gas powered car could only go 60 miles per tank, it'd still finish in ~16 hrs, including time taken to find a gas station off the main road and fill up eleven times.
And that is the main thrust of their problem with the car. One which Tesla simply has no defense for.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, okay. The Tesla would be horrible if you're going to do a road trip in excess of its range. You're right, Tesla has no defense for that.
The thing is, you just don't need that sort of range for everyday use. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the average American travels only 29 miles a day [bts.gov]. Even at the 55 mile range, that's almost twice as much as is needed.
One of my good friends (and a lot of his friends) are really, really into cars. He's barely 30 and he's been through almost 20
Re: (Score:2)
It's fun to bash Yanks and all, but are you kidding? In the US, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove a statement was defamatory, not the defendant to prove that it wasn't; also, truth is an absolute defense against a defamation claim. Not so in the UK [guardian.co.uk], with England being known as "the libel capital of the world".
Re: (Score:3)
The Ford GT and the Ferrari 599 are both road-legal cars.
There is a much more important quote (Score:5, Insightful)
This: "The second point is that the figure of 55 miles came not from our heads, but from Teslaâ(TM)s boffins in California. They looked at the data from that car and calculated that, driven hard on our track, it would have a range of 55 miles."
So they are suing the BBC over a claim they themselves fed to the Top Gear producers which was only relayed in the show.
Yeah, really, I can see how Top Gear acted in bad faith here. How dare they trust the information from the manufacturer!
Re: (Score:3)
I think that part of the problem is a culture clash. Telling outrageous lies is a common form of humor in Britain, and Clarkson is a master. But this kind of
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen the show in question.
Booooo. That's almost as bad as claiming to have read TFA.
Re: (Score:2)
This: "The second point is that the figure of 55 miles came not from our heads, but from Teslaâ(TM)s boffins in California. They looked at the data from that car and calculated that, driven hard on our track, it would have a range of 55 miles."
So they are suing the BBC over a claim they themselves fed to the Top Gear producers which was only relayed in the show.
Yeah, really, I can see how Top Gear acted in bad faith here. How dare they trust the information from the manufacturer!
Absent a transcript of the actual communications between Top Gear and Tesla's "boffins", the substance of the above claim is entirely unclear. It would not surprise me, for instance, to find out that what actually happened was that TG emailed Tesla to ask, "Could your car make it 55 miles on our track?" If Tesla's techs replied, "Sure!" TG could then claim that "Tesla's boffins" gave them a range of 55 miles on their track.
What IS abundantly clear is that TG did NOT themselves drive the Tesla they "tested"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hurrah for BBC! (Score:4, Informative)
It is great to see the BBC not succumbing to pressure from fools.
I for one would not have been able to use a Tesla as a daily driver once in the last 15 years: between driving to work and travel during the day, 250 miles is not enough range. I would have been stuck someplace I could charge for the night at least half the time. And if anyone tells me I can fully charge an electric car on 120v US standard household current in 30 minutes I will call you a liar at this time in their development.
The cars stopped functioning normally. That means "broken." If you have an internal combustion engined car with 2 of 4 spark plugs fouled and not firing is your car still fine but just operating with reduced power? No. It is broken and needs to be fixed. Next question!
And the brakes were broken, end of story. How easy the fix was is irrelevant: the brakes broke. Done.
As for a previous comment including Motor Trend as an example of "honest" reporting- seriously? That comment alone makes everything else you say suspect by association, man.
If you watch the Top Gear segment remembering who is doing it- an entertainment show that loves fast cars that handle well, you will actually see that they LIKE the car but don't feel it (or any other pure electric) is ready for use by most of the motoring public.
Which is a very accurate assessment.
For the money, a Lotus (which the Tesla was based on) is a far more practical, useful and reliable vehicle and leaves plenty of money left for fuel and purchasing "carbon credits" for those who so desire.
And yes, it goes faster too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I for one would not have been able to use a Tesla as a daily driver once in the last 15 years: between driving to work and travel during the day, 250 miles is not enough range.
Wow... What do you do, and do you realize that the average driving distance in the USA is only 15K miles a year? At 50 weeks/year 5 days a week*, that's 60 miles a day. Or the Roadster having 4x the needed 'average' range. By my calculation - you're driving an estimated 62k miles a year(250*50*5). Or four times the average.
Now, I'm going to flip this on you a bit: You've been hurting from the gasoline prices lately, yes? Pretty much everybody is. Do you realize that if we get like 50% of the city dw
Electric "fuel" far more expensive (Score:5, Informative)
Now, I'm going to flip this on you a bit: You've been hurting from the gasoline prices lately, yes? Pretty much everybody is.
Sorry to burst your bubble but, according to wikipedia [wikipedia.org] the battery pack for the Tesla model in question costs $36k and has a lifetime of 100k miles which is 36 cents/mile travelled to which you can add about 3 cents/mile in electricity costs (86kWh per full charge at 200 miles/charge and assume 7 cents/kWh). Current US petrol prices seem to be about $3.55 per US gallon [doe.gov] so for a petrol car to have the same fuel costs as the Tesla it would need to have a fuel consumption worse than 9.1 miles per gallon...which is about comparable to a hummer [wikipedia.org].
So, unless the cost of petrol gets very significantly higher (by x3-4) or the cost of batteries drops considerably the fuel cost of an electric vehicle is significantly higher than a petrol driven one. I wish that were not the case but sadly, for now, it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me who's more foolish, the skeptic or the sycophant?
The AC.
that it had actually ran out of charge (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, i remember them saying something along the lines it had to be pushed back into the garage due to a dead battery. Perhaps it was not 'real' but it still eluded to it being.
I know they do things for entertainment and there is a LOT of satire on the show, but i do hope they get their hands slapped for this as i have seen them do similar to others and some people actually take it seriously.
A lop of people seem to be forgetting something (Score:5, Informative)
A little disclaimer: I'm an environmentalist, I work for an international environmental organization, bicycle commuter, haven't owned a car in over 15 years, and spend my vacations volunteering at animal rescue facilities.
I've been reading a lot of "the Top Gear guys are petrolheads who only care about big petrol engines" and such comments. One thing a lot of people seem to be forgetting about this case is that, on the same episode where they tested the Tesla, they also tested the Honda Civic Electric Fuel Cell. And guess what? They had nothing but high praise for the Honda.
One may argue that they didn't push the Honda nearly as hard as they pushed the Tesla, but that is because they were holding each car to the candle of what each manufacturer claims. Honda claims their car is just a Honda Civic. Reliable user-friendly everyday transportation. So that's how it was tested it. Just like every other reliable user-friendly everyday transportation vehicle they test on the show. The Tesla on the other hand describes their car as a supercar. So they did the tests the same way they do all other supercars. On the track at high speeds. The Honda succeeded as reliable user-friendly everyday transportation. Yet the Tesla failed miserably as a supercar. That is all there is to it.
So no, this has nothing to do with Clarkson being a petrolhead. Yes, he is a petrohead and an ass. Vey funny, but an ass nevertheless. I highly disagree with most of his opinions about just about anything. But I think both tests were spot on.
Re: (Score:2)
And in terms of helping the environment, fuel cell cars are essentially useless. If you're in the very small portion of the population that lives near a fueling station, great, more power to you. Most of us don't. However, we do all have electricity in our homes. We've spent too long sitting on our hands wrt. climate change and
Re: (Score:2)
I think you think electric cars are far greener than reality would suggest.
never mind that you're dismissing a large portion of the population that may need to drive more than a few dozen miles in a day, or who need the car to operate at an odd schedule that would not allow for full charging (let's say someone works 8pm-4am, and then car is used to take kids to school, grocery shopping every several days -- pattern of use that simply doesn't work with an electric).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm not sure that the roadster really fits into that niche anyway. I mean, it's essentially a toy for rich people. It's a great way to start developing the technology, as some of those people will want to adopt it. I'm not sure that that person would fit your description.
And with hydrogen, it really depends on where the hydrogen comes from. If it's from electrolysis, it's still derived from electricity, which could be useful or might not be. (Though there are other sources too, of course.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I sincerely disagree with our supposed tree-hugging friend. There was definitely an anti-carbon free energy theme to the show, try starting right after they slam the Tesla for having a long charge time at 5m30s:
"Before people green people say that's a price worth paying, lets not forget where that electric comes form"
- cue ominous music -
-- cut to a picture of a nuclear power plant--
- switch to car parked in-front of an e
Watch it for yourself and see what is said... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh please... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Tesla is a "statement car" - it is intended to show that electric power is not just for smug twits who enjoy the smell of their own farts. [youtube.com]
Apparently, the people at Tesla have spent too much time with their noses firmly planted between their own butt cheeks.
Top Gear Some important information (Score:3)
Top Gear is a comedy show. It contains British Satire. They rip the pish out of stuff. This is a national sport in which the British have no equal (re: Gervais Golden Globes http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=1Ryr5EqURkQ [youtube.com]).
And why not? It's funny!
Oh for the benefits of a classical education.
The broken brakes would make it fail MOT (Score:2)
PR that tesla want (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Doesn't pass the bullshit test (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree, I used to do some acting, and it could take an enormous amount of time to get a short segment filmed. It's not uncommon for a 5 minute piece to take an entire day to film, or at least several hours. And if you're inside or on a sound stage it's not that big of a deal, but if you're having to restrict yourself to the portions of the day that have light, you're in a much less predictable situation. Even the sun going behind the clouds can make shooting a cohesive scene impossible until it returns.
Most of the rest of it is going to be pretty easy to determine and should largely be settled by the time this goes to trial. If Tesla's employees gave them the estimate that will quickly be determined. And Tesla did eventually admit that the breaks had failed, at least in the way that a consumer would call broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Faking results isn't a legitimate tactic in my books.
Battery didn't go flat and the car didn't have to be stopped while the engine was reading hot, but the footage suggested it should.
The brakes issue is legitimate but I don't consider 1/2 a pass.
Nobody from Top Gear ever said that the battery went flat. What they said was that the battery WOULD go flat after 55 miles of driving, and this number came from the Tesla people who were at the track on that day. same for the engine - nobody from Top Gear said that the car had to be stopped, they said that it only drove with "reduced power". Which was true.
Re:Doesn't pass the bullshit test (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody from Top Gear ever said that the battery went flat.
So Jeremy looking confusedly at the dashboard then cutting to a scene of crew members pushing the Tesla off the track was meant to imply what, exactly?
Without any other clues as to what actually happened, it is up to the viewer to infer that the batteries had run flat.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If the battery would have gone dead after 55 miles, and they drove it 25, of course they stopped before the battery was dead -- the purpose was to demonstrate to the audience in a visceral and entertaining way what would happen when the battery went dead, which would have been after 55 miles of use. There is no need to actually drive it to those 55 miles unless you're trying to verify things, but that figure was given to them BY Tesla. Who are they to argue with the manufacturer when the manufacturer is h
Re:Doesn't pass the bullshit test (Score:4, Insightful)
You still didn't answer his question.
Here, I'll repeat it in case you forgot:
Re: (Score:3)
How is that deceptive?
Do they push every car off the track to demonstrate what happens when fuel runs out?
Re:Doesn't pass the bullshit test (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't have to -- with every other car, if it runs out of fuel, someone grabs a gallon canister and trots over, drops in enough fuel to get it off the track, and there you have it.
now, they may push it in to the warehouse regardless.. but running out of gas on the track is not a big issue for an IC car. An electric? Yes, you would need to push it.
There's a huge difference between running out of juice in an IC car and an electric. I've run out of gas before. Hell, I ran out of gas the first time in 1998 -- note the year, cell phones weren't huge. It was a 3 mile walk for me to my buddy's house, but after that -- after they all had their chuckles -- we just nabbed their car and the gas for his lawnmower, threw about a half gallon into my tank, problem solved. Had I been in an electric car, it would have needed to be towed.
It's a not-very-subtle distinction between the two that I think was well-illustrated by the scene in question. What actually happened to them is irrelevant -- they were demonstrating what actually would happen to you, and in THAT light, the whole shebang is accurate.
Re: (Score:3)
... portable, really?
Still hundreds of pounds.
If there was a portable system which could rapidly transfer a charge to a battery, that did not weigh as much as that battery, we'd be using it instead of the battery. Think about what you're saying. The Tesla's battery weighs 1,000 pounds. A portable system to transfer 1/10 of the battery pack's capacity would weigh... about 1/10 of the battery. 100 pounds. That's about the same as what, a gallon and a half of gas? Which weighs maybe 10 pounds?
There's al
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that it did run out at some point in the day. They probably weren't being that careful with it and were doing the typical hooliganism that they do on their test track (best part, IMO). It ran out and they did some napkin math to figure out how much that would be normally (my guess is that it ran out in less than 55 miles due to numerous 0-60 filming takes. They then probably calculated it out to roughly 55 miles of hard driving.
The same thing happened with the Prius that Fifth Gear tested.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or you, y'know, swap out the batteries. I seem to recall something about that being a planned feature of the Tesla, have they abandoned that idea?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they are removable at the moment. Apart from anything, the battery packs cost $36,000 [wikipedia.org] so I doubt many cars would be kept with several spares. Interestingly Wikipedia lists the recharge time as about 4 hours, but that still makes the car pretty much useless on the track.
The recharge time is less than "overnight" if you have a special super extreme power outlet in your garage.
Re: (Score:2)
that is not something that you or I, the average Joe Schmoe, will ever do on our own. These battery packs are heavy. Think less "swap the battery in my phone" and more "swap the whole engine out in my IC car".
Now, sure, the actual removal and replacement would be easier -- more in and out, less bolts and cables all over -- but the weight? close to the same.
Re: (Score:2)
They have done drives from Lands End to John O'Groats in the past. For example they raced a car against first class mail (Royal Mail won that race). As they comply with speed limits when doing the driving, both cars would get there with pretty much exactly the same road time, bar a small amout of difference in acceleration, but the refueling time for the electric car would be much greater, and it might need to take a longer route to find charging stations along the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Petrol and diesel powered cars had not yet been invented 100 years ago, whereas electric cars had been in existence for 83 years at that point. This isn't the new fangled emerging technology a lot of people think it is. It was invented 183 years ago and is now obsolete.
Re: (Score:3)
If they wanted to show the limited range Clarkson should have driven from London and tried the make it to Northern Scotland and let it run out of juice. The problem is he knows under normal driving conditions it'd do better than 200 miles and it might actually impress some people.
London to the north of Scotland? Dream on.
They could get from London to York by driving carefully. There's still a lot of England left before you even reach Scotland, Edinburgh's in the south of the country and York's only halfway to Edinburgh.
They could have demonstrated how fucking useless the car is for travelling from London to Scotland but that would've been a waste of their time, and they actually did use a comparable trip to demonstrate how pointlessly inconvenient another electric car was.
They also seem to be the only ones making the 55 mile range claim and they never bothered to actually test the range. I always considered the episode biased but I got upset hearing it was mostly scripted ahead of time. As I said in an earlier post it calls into question every review they have ever done.
Read the f
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC they liked the diesel Corolla better than the Prius.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rubbish. They've "reviewed" plenty of TDi cars over the year, and raced them too. The reality is most diesels are dull old man cars, whereas top gear concentrates on fast sport and supercars. And yes, they did take the piss out of BP's mess. You're a deluded fool if you think BP are behind Tesla's shit. The reality is their car is rubbish, and they tried to sell a rich boy's toy in the middle of a global recession. Had they built it from scratch and not used an old Lotus design, then tripled the price, the
Re:British Greasers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you clicked the link I helpfully included you'd see plenty of sponsorship of Top Gear along the lines you mention.
Re: (Score:3)
Of the TV program or of different events outside the TV program?
Sorry. The TV program is not sponsored, and they have made fun of the BP disaster. You are usually pretty well-informed, but on this issue you need to either watch more Top Gear or shut up.
Re: (Score:3)
Stick your dumbass Yankee whining up your arse. One word for you: Halliburton [huffingtonpost.com].
Re:British Greasers (Score:4)
Thanks for the original BS logic that because you failed to find Top Gear criticizing BP on Google that there was some conspiracy to protect the shareholders (a large proportion of whom are Americans). You are just a total fuckwit with some ridiculous trans-Atlantic chip on your shoulder. Now do yourself a favour and see if you can actually use Google to look up why BP is not, and has not been for a long time, British Petroleum. That's if you can remove your head from your enormous arse.
Re: (Score:3)
FWIW, I see no sign [google.com] that Top Gear ever mentioned BP ("British Petroleum") in connection with its poisoning the Gulf of "Mexico" last year, but plenty of evidence of BP's ongoing sponsorship of that show.
Not sure how you managed that. The BBC is publicly funded, paid for by the TV license (mandatory for anyone owning a television in the UK). They do not charge a subscription, nor do they accept advertising including program sponsorship.
Re: (Score:2)
I see no sign [google.com] that Top Gear ever mentioned BP ("British Petroleum") in connection with its poisoning the Gulf of "Mexico" last year, but plenty of evidence of BP's ongoing sponsorship of that show.
Dumb fucking Yank. BP do NOT sponsor the TV show. NOBODY sponsors the TV show. It is fully funded by the British TV Licence payer and the money they make selling the programme around the world. BP sponsor a once a year 3 day long live event held at a car show at the Birmingham NEC.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I would expect if they said "calculated" and then showed the car running out of juice that they had actually tested the car and run out of charge at 55 miles rather than pulled a "calculation" out of their butt and then made it look like it was based on actually driving the car. I think there is a simple solution. Actually run the car at track speeds until it runs out of juice. If I were on a jury I would want to see those results. If TG was right about 55 miles, plus or minus 10 miles then they win. I
Re: (Score:2)
55 miles wasn't TG's number -- RTFA ;)
Tesla gave TG that range for their track, so it's not much of a jump to presume the maker of the car is correct
Re: (Score:2)
It does add an interesting twist to the story to hear TG claim that Tesla engineers told them 55 miles. But that is not what they said in the episode. According to the clip I saw they portray the driver running out of charge (which didn't actually happen) and then they say that "we worked out that on our track it would run out after just 55 miles".
I think the only thing that really matters is if around 55 miles is an accurate number for its range at track speeds or not. I think it is crap that TG didn't
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla themselves gave them the numbers.
Should TG have not trusted them?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, sorry they said "worked out" not calculated just after they portrayed the driver losing power on the track. The meaning is clear and the meaning was misleading. But like I said just run the car at its top speed and see how far it goes. Would take less time than talking about it on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
No, in a single word, "everything." TG's track is pretty much worst-case scenario. You are never going to drive a car in anything resembling that fashion in real life. It's like the difference between saying "most people will get 4 hours out of their laptop battery," and then someone coming along and running 5 video cameras off it while playing Crysis over a 4G stick, with 5.1 speakers, and then going "Yeah, it'd last about 5 minutes." Their results are still accurate, but hardly fucking useful.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a high end sports car. You are supposed to take it out on the track, accelerate and brake hard. Driving the car as it is designed to be driven will get you all of 50 miles or so on the battery. Driving the car as a typical commuter will get you over 200 miles on the battery.
Following with your laptop comparison, think of this as a big 'desktop replacement'. Running Crysis, with the quad core processor and memory at full speed, 17" monitor at full brightness, powering your big surround headphones
Re: (Score:3)
Running for your very life, and jamming it full throttle to the floor isn't sporting. It's racing, where you try to keep your vehicle in front of all the others.
Sporting is going down US1 between SF and LA and getting to Santa Barbara in 3.5hrs. Racing, and chancing becoming cliff decoration can be done in 2.5.
I find doing a video where you make a viewer presume you ran out of fuel when you didn't is disingenuous. Being red-faced hopping mad when you ran out at 57 and they told you 55 could be understood, a
Re: (Score:3)
I assume while it's on the track they're flooring it to autobahn-esque speeds. Standard ranges (the ones you'd find on a car sticker) don't usually assume you're going beyond the posted speed limits.
Re:fucking brits (Score:4, Insightful)
fucking semantics. what is the real difference between claiming that you calculated that on your track it would run out after 55 miles, and saying that it's range is only 55 miles?
I don't know - is that the same difference as claiming they claimed they calculated it, or that they claim Tesla themselves calculated it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In Tesla's defense, it's not like actually driving the 55 miles would have taken that long. An hour, tops.
What?!? What are you talking about?
FTFA:
The second point is that the figure of 55 miles came not from our heads, but from Tesla’s boffins in California.
Top Gear said that it would run out after 55 miles according to the way they were driving it.; which, Tesla gave them that figure.
So, you're defending Tesla's obfuscation and attempt to hide the truth?
The GP is right: they're suing to shut up the Top Gear people. But, it's just going to be the Streisand effect and it's really going to bite Tesla in the ass.
I'd like to point out that Tesla was founded by PayPal's founder, Elon Musk - I'll leave it at that.
Re: (Score:2)
Your "empire" has been gone for quite a long time. Certainly since before your lifetime began.
Re:Protection (Score:5, Insightful)
In Tesla's defense, it's not like actually driving the 55 miles would have taken that long. An hour, tops.
Too bad that of the two cars, one had an overheating motor and couldn't be tested at anywhere near full speed, and the other one was taken out of the race by Tesla because of a break problem.
Re:Frosty Piss??? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Tesla wants to be innovative then they damned well better appeal to a broader audience rather than calling Coca Cola champagne.
Tesla is like Segway. They create a luxury product because that makes money and they use the income to scale up and create more mainstream products, like Tesla's upcoming consumer grade sedan. They are the closest thing to an innovative car company the US has left and to my mind instead of bailing out the big players we should have taken the public share in them after the unions refused to take control and handed it over to Tesla and let someone actually doing something smart have a shot at turning the US auto industry around.
Re: (Score:2)
we did bail out tesla, and that was a mistake
company just isn't going to make any money. end of story. all electric vehicles? not ready for prime-time. the tesla is a car to sit in a showroom, or to ferry yourself to a luxurious event. it's not going to translate into a production vehicle for general use -- the market is abysmally small, and made up almost entirely of people living in dense urban areas. You know, the sorts of people that aren't as likely to own a car. It's a car for people who don't
Re: (Score:3)
all electric vehicles? not ready for prime-time.
Sure they are, but the US infrastructure isn't ready for them. That's the point of starting with the luxury market.
it's not going to translate into a production vehicle for general use -- the market is abysmally small, and made up almost entirely of people living in dense urban areas. You know, the sorts of people that aren't as likely to own a car.
Your assertion is ignorant. The vast majority of the US market is multi-car homes where at least one car is used for local commuting much less than 250 miles a day. Electric cars fit perfectly for that application.
If you don't need a car for 18 hours a day, you probably don't need a car.
Yeah, because nobody commutes to and from work as 90% of their driving? Well, except fricking everyone!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla is like Segway. They create a luxury product because that makes money and they use the income to scale up and create more mainstream products, like Tesla's upcoming consumer grade sedan.
When you look at the history of the American automobile, the "driving force" has always been the mass-matrket car.
That is where the money is.
When you put 20 million cars on the road, as Henry Ford did, you generate truckloads of cash that can be pumped into R & D.
No matter how matter how good the impression your electric or steamer made on the streets in 1905 you are not going to be able to compete against that kind of investment in alternative techologies.
Re: (Score:2)
When you look at the history of the American automobile, the "driving force" has always been the mass-matrket car.
It takes a huge up front investment to enter that market, so it is not practical for a smaller company, the way the luxury/performance car market is. Economy of scale is hugely important in the mainstream market and basically does not apply at all to the luxury market. It is just the same as Segway, gyroscopic systems are very expensive, but people will pay it for a cool toy. Once you're making enough from the toys, you scale up and can make affordable systems for the handicapped.
Re:Calculations are fun! (Score:4, Insightful)
No it was not. They clearly said, that this would be the range interpolated from their driving test on their track. Anyone who has ever watched this show knows how they drive on their track and that this can't be a realistic range. I vaguely remember the episode and I believe the "on our track" part was even emphasized.
I don't know your mental capacity, but I am sure that most people got that right.
Re:Calculations are fun! (Score:4, Interesting)
...and one of the reasons they used their track, and track driving for this range estimate is that the Tesla is marketed as a... wait for it... sports car. Furthermore, the Tesla is based on a VERY popular car used for track days.
The verdict is that the Tesla is not very good at fulfilling its intended purpose and will give an owner who wants to play on a track less than an hours enjoyment, provided that he brings the car to the track on the back of a lorry and takes it out that way too.
So, if the car is driven hard, then range goes down. That's just normal. What makes it so bad for the Tesla is that topping up the tank takes the rest of the day.
Drive to track - 50 miles
Drive from track - 50 miles
That's almost half the Tesla's range at economic driving speeds.
That leaves maybe 25-30 miles of trackday fun.
Drive normally (and normal in a sports car is not te same as normal in a minivan) and range will probably not be 250 miles to begin with. Batteries also degrade pretty fast. All in all, the Tesla is probably great fun, looks great, but isn't even practical as a sports car.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that he says it would take "3 days" to drive to the northern end of Scotland from their studios. Given the charge time Clarkson mentioned, that's only possible using the 200 mile range figure from Tesla.