Top Gear responds to Tesla

http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2011/04/02/tesla-vs-top-gear-andy-wilman-on-our-current-legal-action/

by vaksel • 15 years ago

271 118 15 years ago

transmission.blogs.topgear.com

I just can't see how Tesla can win this case in court. As anyone who has ever watched Jeremy Clarkson will tell you, you know he would rather resign from Top Gear than apologise for this.

dman3• 15 years ago

I think any victory in courts is going to be a pyrrhic one. Ive said it before on earlier threads and I will say it again here - Tesla is alienating a large section of auto enthusiasts by going after Top Gear. It might be that some marketing guru has figured out that suing Top Gear is a cheaper way to get headlines than running a campaign. But they have picked the wrong target - Top Gear is at the heart and centre of Auto culture worldwide. Also not a good sign when a tech company starts using the courts instead of the market and their product to win points.

trafficlight• 15 years ago

Just look how it turned out for Morris Marina fans.

kwis2• 15 years ago

I've got a deposit down on a Model S, and I don't think I could care less one way or the other. I thought the review was misleading and stupid, and I think the lawsuit is a stupid response.

But whatever, I'm still excited about the Model S.

machrider• 15 years ago

I don't know, I think if you're an enthusiast who cares about the environment, Clarkson isn't your favorite guy ever. I felt like the piece on the Tesla was pretty offensive in how biased it was, and I normally like the guys on Top Gear.

lyso• 15 years ago

I suspect it is about headlines. They have even taken out a google ad on the search "tesla top gear" pointing to teslavstopgear.co.uk

However, the review is clearly heavily scripted (do Teslas really just run out of power and then require pushing down the road?). In the UK, the powers-that-be at the BBC have recently taken a dim view of this sort of constructed TV posing as reality (after "Socksgate" and "Sachsgate", an explanation of which is probably beyond the scope of this discussion...).

c2• 15 years ago

I think you are VASTLY overstating the importance of Top Gear, which is essentially an entertainment talk show which happens to talk about cars.

flojo• 15 years ago

I could not agree with your more.

Even if there was nothing wrong with the car. What Tesla should have done is, take it on the chin, say something in the lines of 'we will correct and make it better', even though nothing is wrong, and then do a retest, and simply have that test on their terms. And then really, they could have gone from good to great.

Cherad3• 15 years ago

While I'm sure Tesla wouldn't accept just an apology from Jeremy Clarkson, there'll be "lost sales" damages in the squillions, this is very true. Clarkson's offended entire countries without remorse and everyone involved moves on and gets on with their lives.

Does anyone know the jurisdiction for this legal action? I suspect treatment of the case in the UK will differ to that in the US.

redthrowaway• 15 years ago

Actually, the papers they've filed with the courts specify damages <100k GBP. Which further makes one wonder why they would bother.

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/tesla_-_claim...

joeguilmette• 15 years ago

I dont watch Top Gear and while I follow tech news and new technology, I'm not a car person.

That said, this public débâcle has not played out in Tesla's favor to this consumer. It seems to me that they got an unfavorable review and aren't happy with it, and it seems that Top Gear is winning the war of public relations.

eli2• 15 years ago

Are you familiar with British libel law? It's infamously plaintiff friendly. People have lost even though the statements in question were, in fact, truthful.

timthorn2• 15 years ago

I'd like to see references for that. Truth is an absolute defence against libel.

mc2k2• 15 years ago

I doubt the BBC's legal team would have allowed it to broadcast if they didn't think it would end up in their favour. The losers in this are the British public, who are presumably paying to defend the broadcaster from some car manufacturer who didn't like a review.

samh• 15 years ago

That's not as surprising as you may think. "Truth is not a complete defense against libel".

Imagine I contacted someones workplace and business partners and told them about a drug conviction that occurred 22 years ago. Or if I took a statement you make after a some drinks in the pub and stuck a print out on poles all around your business.

There are cases where suing someone for libel even if what they say is true doesn't seem demonstrably wrong.

CoffeeDregs• 15 years ago

Seems as though a better plan would be to challenge Top Gear to a rematch of some sort. Make something fun out of this and get the auto enthusiasts cheering.

Southwest did this perfectly: got sued, took it to the ring, arm wrestled over it, got crushed, paid the other guy, laughed all the way to the bank and everyone cheered them on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwU9m4oCtRE&;

Klinky• 15 years ago

Suing over a stolen slogan is a bit different than suing over slander/libel. When you read this excerpt from the article it does sound like Tesla is trying to either force Top Gear to give a better review or give them more publicity:

Why even last night the Top Gear office accidentally received an email sent from a Public Relations firm to The One Show, asking if it would like to have the Tesla spokesperson on their programme to talk about the case. It says: “PHA Media represent Tesla and this could make for a fantastic interview.” And the PHA man’s not finished there. “The presenters could have some fun with this.” He adds. “Matt and Alex could even take the Tesla for a spin and test it out, reaffirming its virtues?”

elliottcarlson• 15 years ago

Since I grew up in Europe, I wasn't familiar with this story. Here's some additional information for people unfamiliar as well:

http://www.adslogans.co.uk/ww/prvwis09.html

akashs2• 15 years ago

First, Top Gear is testing on track conditions, and that will certainly give different results than the 220 mile range found on the EPA's ideal testing conditions. Top Gear has previously shown that a BMW M3 gets better mileage than a Prius in track conditions, but I don't think anyone believes this is representative of the cars on the whole.

Second, there's very few data points on the range aside from Tesla's press releases that I can find, but the two I can find are much closer to Top Gear's number and were also from less aggressive testing than what Top Gear did: 93 miles: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20080124/green/398811820/163...

95-120 miles (says 105-120, but I think there's a math error on the writer's part): http://green.autoblog.com/2008/01/29/so-whats-the-downside-t...

Third, Top Gear says Tesla calculated the 55 mile figure themselves, so not sure how they can sue them for that claim.

d22• 15 years ago

Tesla's corporate officers have a fiduciary duty to respond to something that hurts their brand this badly. Top Gear is the most popular car review show globally with around 350 million viewers world-wide.

Apparently a lawsuit is the best response they could come up with.

ascendant• 15 years ago

Apparently their fiduciary duty also includes waiting almost 3 years after the review to finally do react. Seems like well-timed headline grabbing to me. I'm sure in 3 years they'll sue me for saying that.

nl• 15 years ago

So they'll be suing themselves now? Because this lawsuit is hurting their brand a lot more than the Top Gear review did.

I remember seeing it when it came out, and thinking how positive it was. Sure, Jeremy ridiculed it for running out of power, but at the same time he spent a long time talking about how fast it was. From memory he said something like "if this is the future, bring it on"

By your logic, what should Audi do when he said (paraphrasing): "All Audi drivers are cocks"?

teamonkey• 15 years ago

The main problem I think is that the episode showed the Tesla apparently out of juice, being pushed into a hanger by the crew. Clarkson's closing comments were along the lines of 'it doesn't work' (before hailing fuel-cell cars as the future because they can go further without a charge).

Tesla are arguing that this event was staged and in the script produced the day before the road test was filmed, that the car didn't actually run out of power on the test track, and that the episode unfairly paints the vehicle in a bad light.

It's worth remembering that the modern Top Gear is an entertainment show that happens to be about cars. It hasn't been about accurate consumer reviews for many years, it's very scripted and not at all unbiased.

akashs2• 15 years ago

So first, the 55 mile claim was one of the 5 main points of the suit, which is why I brought it up.

And while I agree that much of new Top Gear is entertainment, I'm just saying that based on other information available, Top Gear doesn't look so outrageous. Autoweek also stated that their car died down well before the 220 mile range and went into a reduced power mode.

Moreover, Top Gear isn't the first to point out mechanical or electrical problems on a Tesla (couple examples below). The car itself was delayed because of such problems. And I along with most people also be worried if some fuse controlling my brakes was busted.

And in the episode, they don't hail fuel-cells because they go further without a charge, they hail them because they fit with the model of car ownership that we're used to, allowing you to drive however long you want and just fill up intermediately.

Perhaps I had a poor choice of words, but I certainly understand what Tesla is claiming. I'm more just confused that they would file suit like this especially given that from what I can tell, Top Gear's claims seem valid given not only the accounts of the situation, but also reviews from other publications.

[1] http://www.greenpacks.org/2009/05/29/half-of-tesla-roadsters... [2] http://www.thestreet.com/story/10877793/1/tesla-initiates-vo...

Edit: Speaking of fiduciary duty, Tesla's apparently asking for "not more than £100,000" in damages, so I'd say this is a waste of the shareholders' and taxpayer money (given its $0.5B bailout). http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1057705_tesla-vs-topgear-...

bron2• 15 years ago

Not quite sure where Tesla is expecting this to be headed towards? Are they expecting the compensation to cover their sales? Or better sales after the suit? Or do they really want not to have anymore review coverage? Or someone in Tesla really hates Top gear/Stig/Clarkson?

sliverstorm2• 15 years ago

Considering the tenuous relationship between the presenters and the studio as portrayed in the show, it's pleasing to see the rest of the company getting behind Top Gear and providing a united front.

d22• 15 years ago

This is an incredibly well written blog entry. Having followed the accepted pre-court etiquette that Andy mentions in the past, this inspires me to take a different approach next time around and have my say in hopefully as professional a manner. [...In close consultation with my legal team as I'm sure Andy did]

Cherad3• 15 years ago

Jeremy Clarkson's column in The Sunday Times shortly after the Top Gear review is an interesting read and covered most of the points made in this article back in 2009.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/art...

Lennie2• 15 years ago

The article was mostly ok until all the way at the end.

Where he completely messes up and mentioned that hydrogen cars are "completely green".

Just a few sentences before that he says the car from Tesla is powered by "so-called green power" (electricity) from "dirty great power station".

Mr. Clarkson where do you think most of the hydrogen comes from ? Or the power to compress the hydrogen to make it compact enough for use by a car ?

Yes, there is a possibility someone will find a good way to produce to create hydrogen from algae. Or some breakthrough in the science of nuclear fission. We really don't know what will happen.

Anyway the real problem is efficient storage of energy and efficient conversion from storage to action/motion if I can call it that.

Batteries seem to be the current solution. But if we want to talk about environmentally friendly I don't know if they really are. I just know that batteries, like hydrogen use materials which come from nature which are just as finite as oil or matterial needed for fusion for that matter.

Although on Wikipedia it says:

'In addition, new Nickel-metal hydride and lithium batteries are non-toxic and can be recycled, and "the supposed 'lithium shortage' doesn’t exist"'

I don't know if that is true.

JoeAltmaier• 15 years ago

Hey, there's another article recently on HN about an MIT professor's "artificial leaf" meaning a solar cell that produces hydrogen directly. So now we know when that will happen.

Joshhannah• 15 years ago

The tesla roadster is unfortunately just not competitive with other internal combustion performance cars if you don't want to give it credit for either (1) being a super innovative EV or (2) being environmentally friendly.

Top Gear (and all the car mags) basically review it as a cool, fun novelty. But if you measure on looks + performance, as car enthuiasts do, it's just fundamentally not competitive in its price bracket.

Suing is obviously a mistake. Hoping Top Gear, Evo, Road & Track will push it is just naive. Tesla listens too much to their own marketing.

cormullion• 15 years ago

I'd forgotten just how much Clarkson sings the praises of the Tesla in the first half of the review. The electric Tesla thrashes the petrol Lotus Elise in a drag race. Clarkson is obviously amazed - "God almighty:, "this is biblically quick!" - "this car is electric, literally!". "Wave goodbye to dial-up, welcome to broadband motoring!". Then he says how much torque it produces, how quick it is from 0 to 60, and then: "it's even more 'not bad' when you start looking into the costs": £40 to fill the petrol Elise, electricity just £3.50. Wind noise is a problem, but "a small price to pay when you consider the upsides". "And I haven't even got to the big upside yet: 200 miles between trips to the plug." Some adverse comments about the handling, but then he waves goodbye as "the volt head" cruises past the "petrol head". "It is snowing in hell!". "This car was shaping up to be something wonderful..."

After a pretty positive first half, Clarkson does indeed go on to make fun of the car's electrical problems, and then is unimpressed by the practicalities and ecological claims of electric vehicles. Even with a range of 250 miles, and a 16 hour recharge cycle (if you're not throwing it around a track), it's just not - yet - a practical car for many people, or a supercar to compete with the likes of Ferrari or Porsche.

Clarkson's final words on the Tesla: "Incredible - but irrelevant [in the light of the hydrogen car reviewed later]".

As Top Gear and Clarkson reviews go, I thought it wasn't overly biased. I mean, he could have dropped a piano on it, or set it on fire...

I suspect Tesla are just in the need for some publicity at the moment.

kalleboo• 15 years ago

« I mean, he could have dropped a piano on it, or set it on fire...»

Exactly. People have to keep in mind this is a Clarkson review we're talking about. If you want to see how he deals with cars he really doesn't like, just search YouTube for "clarkson perodua kelisa".

bron2• 15 years ago

Here is the link for the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI2MpcIiO6A&feature=youtu...

This is Clarkson we are talking about, not some wuss who kiss up to asses when he gets sued... and seriously imo that is a pretty decent review for the Tesla coming from Clarkson.

jimmyjim• 15 years ago

The video in question is here: http://www1.peteava.ro/id-641316-top-gear-uk-season-12-episo... Tesla's review starts at about 17:29.

The episode seems to be centered around contrasting the Tesla with Honda's FCX Clarity. Here is the 2nd part: http://www1.peteava.ro/id-641379-top-gear-uk-season-12-episo... At about 21:10, James reviews/introduces Honda's FCX Clarity and finishes by calling it "The car of the next 100 years"

James doesn't stop with the praises; and I think he was perhaps disingenuous in glossing over big details.

The processes for getting Hydrogen to be in usable form requires energy by itself. Whereas Tesla's batteries directly give it electricity, there is a system present in the Clarity that converts the hydrogen fuel into electricity. The only emission is... water. Fantastic, rainbows all around.

Hydrogen is indeed abundant throughout this universe, but it is mostly found in compound forms - water, natural gas, etc. There is a certain ratio 'EROI' -- (Energy return on investment) -- which is defined to be: (quantity of energy supplied / quantity of energy used in supply process.)It turns out that in summing the energy required by the very initial processes of getting Hydrogen to be in usable form, packaging it, and delivering it to the user, the EROI for Honda's FCX Clarity is VASTLY higher than it is for electric vehicles, like the Tesla's.

If the episode's central critique was in the basis of comparing the Tesla's efficiency vs. Clarity's (which, to me, felt that an element of it in fact was), it was dishonest of James to gloss over the known inefficiencies of hydrogen fuel cells. As hard as it is for me to say it, as I'm about the biggest James' fan, but I really do think this episode was a little iffy for more than a few reasons.

6ren• 15 years ago

Well, the marketing ploy got me to watch the review, anyway...

The massive fuel savings makes me think a shorter-range, lower performance vehicle would be more popular (for city commutes). But I'm guessing the real problem Tesla faced was that the batteries would be ridiculously expensive even for that - so targeting a premium performance, upscale market, where other qualities of an electric car (torque) can come into play. Presumably, they would go down market over time, as battery technology improves. Which seems to be on an extraordinarily slow trajectory (esp. in the context of silicon).

Jeremy suggests two Teslas (while one's charging), but you just need two batteries. Reminds me of early razor technology (before Gillette's safety razor), when sending in a razor to be sharpened was a popular option - but you needed to have two.

Fun fact: electric cars were fairly popular over 100 years ago (for trucks mainly IIRC), with batteries being the problem even then. Edison worked on their batteries for a while.

btw: the caravan jump is at 12:05 in part 2 (http://www1.peteava.ro/id-641379-top-gear-uk-season-12-episo...)

Tycho• 15 years ago

Bathos is Clarkson's style though. Or inverse bathos. He'll spend say half the review mocking a car, and then he'll stop and say 'and all that is true, but there's just one other thing you've got to consider: it's the most fun you've had since Woodstock '68.' Basically goes to extremes, then changes the complexion of the whole piece in an instant.

bugsy• 15 years ago

With this response, it sounds like both sides are now in complete agreement and there is no remaining dispute.

motters• 15 years ago

My question is: how did this get to the top position on HN? I could hardly care less about Jeremy Clarkson's opinions, or TV shows such as Top Gear.

elvirs• 15 years ago

exactly, and why this comment gets downvoted? I dont give a crap, its like following those lawsuits Calacanis filed against Arrington, and Arrington filed agains JooJoo guys.

This is soap opera, and you make fun of soap opera when there are is love, cheating and stuff involved but you discuss it as a serious issue because in this case the auto show and very techy electric car manufacturer is involved. feel free to downvote me too but I think smart and talented people of HN community (which I observed them to be) must have better things to discuss.

cheers

PagingCraig• 15 years ago

People like things you don't. What else is new?

nikcub• 15 years ago

> how did this get to the top position on HN?

I'm going to take a wild guess and say because 173 people clicked on the 'vote up' button

jrspruitt• 15 years ago

I like what the Tesla company is doing, in regards to attempting to make alternative fuel cars, I'm all for such things. And yes, its an up hill battle, which I'm sure the internal combustion engine faced, while trying to oust horses for a viable mode of transportation. Not only is the technology not up to par/cost effective on a mass scale, there is the issue of charging station locations, and the nay sayers like the host of Top Gear, who isn't the only one that grumbles at the thought of electric or "eco-friendly" read Hot Rod magazine sometime. Which seems to be what Tesla wants to answer, electric cars can go fast to. But this lawsuit seems like its disingenuous, more like they are playing off a couple social issues for their benefit. 1 "Environment" is an emotional trigger second only to stuff like racism and sexism level stuff, its got some emotional appeal just by saying the word, either for or against. So claiming foul on someone who is notoriously pro fast powerful cars, who inherently isn't going to like commuter based cars, really nails that emotion. 2 Taking it to the media, to hit a full scale marketing campaign about it, years after it happened, to help fuel that emotion and go after the media justice that seems to easy to do, like O.J. we all "know" he did it, but was proven innocent pretty much. Enough press coverage to one side, and we all start forming our own judgments. I think these are dirty tricks, that only add fuel to the opposition's fire. Like the scientists who were busted with bad data on global warming. Regardless if the position is true, getting caught doing dirty tricks, is going to make you look bad regardless, doing more harm than good. Just because I agree with their environmental position, doesn't mean I have to look the other way, when they break other beliefs of mine. I'm angered cause of the damage this could do for environmentalism, which I believe in first, their company second.

johnconroy• 15 years ago

I enjoy Top Gear but their (ie Clarkson's) animosity towards hybrids, electrics etc. is pretty pathetic, epically antiquarian.

cl8ton• 15 years ago

Clarkson is a bit of a prick when it comes to favoritism on cars (you know, kinda like some top tier tech blogs)

He is a 98% octane gear head and will not tolerate electric cars, so his review did not surprise me much when I watched it.

I'm a long time Porsche owner and will never forgive him on an episode when he dropped a Piano on an older 911 or when he totally disrespected the Porsche GT for comparing its composite disk rotors to anti-acid.

Guess I will never get British humor.

rlfromm2• 15 years ago

I agree with top gear. UK top gear rules, hopefully the US crew can get their show together.

rlfromm2• 15 years ago

So what is the issue? Pure electric is cool in 55 minute segents. ;)

CornishPasty• 15 years ago

did they deliver the legal case via a tesla roadster? seems that way given how long it's taken...

jrockway• 15 years ago

PS: As this is going through the courts right now, we’re afraid we’ve had to turn off comments on this one, but we wanted to let you all know how we see it.

Good thing that you can't comment on articles elsewhere on the Internet. Their legal strategy is saved!

stuhood• 15 years ago

Why would Top Gear use a calculated track capacity number (55 miles), given that they could have measured an actual number? I understand that 30 minutes of hard driving can be exhausting, but how exactly could they have calculated an accurate value?

Say what you will about EPA numbers, but at least they involve standardized measurement.

dagw• 15 years ago

Why would Top Gear use a calculated track capacity number (55 miles), given that they could have measured an actual number?

Probably because they had a show to shoot. They where apparently already having trouble getting all the shots they needed due to the short battery life, combined with the break problems. I'm guessing they simply didn't have the time to take the car out again and run it until the battery died.

periferral• 15 years ago

ohhhh the tesla jokes on top gear for years to come from jeremy is something i'll look forward to.

Top Gear responds to Tesla

Related Stories