4 ms·

If you watch the show and listen to what is said you will see that there was no libel. Tesla are wrong and probably just hungry for some publicity - they have n

by bdfh42 16y ago

If you watch the show and listen to what is said you will see that there was no libel. Tesla are wrong and probably just hungry for some publicity - they have not been getting much of that recently - the "saviour" of the US car manufacturers have found you have to ship a quality product in volume and thats hard. The program clearly says that it was their "calculation" that on the Top Gear test track the car would only manage 55 miles. The other "issue" is that J.C. said on the show that the brakes had failed on one of the test cars - I suspect that was not something they made up but was a real (perhaps transitory given how the braking system works) problem.

redthrowaway 16y ago
It's been a while since I've seen the episode in question, but who's in the right depends entirely on whether the claims were falsified. If the brakes did fail and the motor did overheat, then it doesn't make much sense for Tesla to sue. Either way, I suspect we'll find out.
- eli 16y ago
  UK's libel laws are infamously plaintiff friendly. Tesla may well prevail in court even the review was truthful. Not sure it'll help their public image any, though.
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    It won't stop the episode airing, the retraction will likely be released on the BBC website, there'll be a press release but even BBC news won't cover it and there'll probably be a mention in an upcoming top gear, which will likely have Clarkson just take the piss out of Tesla for being little bitches that can't take a review. I don't even know why Tesla would want their vehicle reviewed by Clarkson. He's brutal on Diesel vehicles, even when they compare on-par with gasoline. From what I remember, Clarkson was incredibly pro-tesla as I half expected him to say "It's electric," look at another camera and carry on the show like they'd just asked him to test out a golf cart. > The company says that if the episode had been broadcast in 2008, and not rebroadcast repeatedly it would not have sued. Are these people complete utter retards, what fucking planet do they live on that they don't understand that TV episodes rebroadcast repeatedly. Reruns of friends episodes 17 years after their initial run doesn't give someone a clue that TV has reruns? I wouldn't buy a roadster simply for the utter idiocy of this comment from the company. I'd question whether they have a simple employee capable of fastening a damn nut to a bolt because their management can't comprehend that TV shows have reruns. It's not like there's entire TV stations based around reruns... oh wait, but there is!
    - redthrowaway 16y ago
      Where libel law is concerned, repetition of the supposed libel is a big deal, as it cements in the viewers' minds the supposed drawbacks of the product. One-time damage from a flippant statement is one thing, but repeating that statement ad nauseum around the world is another.
      - electromagnetic 16y ago
        It's the libeled parties responsibility to promptly file a motion, not wait years and dozens of repeats just to boost the settlement size to the biggest you think you can get. They willingly allowed their image to be damaged by not filing a motion immediately.
fossuser 16y ago
They did say 'calculation' which may cover what was simply a made up statement. As far as the breaks dying, Tesla said the power breaks stopped working because of a fuse with one of the two cars they gave them to test. They said this doesn't prevent the car from being drivable at all (since it has to pass breaks standards with the power breaks and without) and at no point did the car have to be pushed into a garage for any reason. Telsa also said neither car was reduced beyond 75% power. I think the show was dishonest with how they represented the test and considering Tesla was a new company struggling to do something different and do it well it was a nasty thing to do.

by bdfh42 16y ago

redthrowaway 16y ago

It's been a while since I've seen the episode in question, but who's in the right depends entirely on whether the claims were falsified. If the brakes did fail and the motor did overheat, then it doesn't make much sense for Tesla to sue. Either way, I suspect we'll find out.

eli 16y ago
UK's libel laws are infamously plaintiff friendly. Tesla may well prevail in court even the review was truthful. Not sure it'll help their public image any, though.
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  It won't stop the episode airing, the retraction will likely be released on the BBC website, there'll be a press release but even BBC news won't cover it and there'll probably be a mention in an upcoming top gear, which will likely have Clarkson just take the piss out of Tesla for being little bitches that can't take a review. I don't even know why Tesla would want their vehicle reviewed by Clarkson. He's brutal on Diesel vehicles, even when they compare on-par with gasoline. From what I remember, Clarkson was incredibly pro-tesla as I half expected him to say "It's electric," look at another camera and carry on the show like they'd just asked him to test out a golf cart. > The company says that if the episode had been broadcast in 2008, and not rebroadcast repeatedly it would not have sued. Are these people complete utter retards, what fucking planet do they live on that they don't understand that TV episodes rebroadcast repeatedly. Reruns of friends episodes 17 years after their initial run doesn't give someone a clue that TV has reruns? I wouldn't buy a roadster simply for the utter idiocy of this comment from the company. I'd question whether they have a simple employee capable of fastening a damn nut to a bolt because their management can't comprehend that TV shows have reruns. It's not like there's entire TV stations based around reruns... oh wait, but there is!
  - redthrowaway 16y ago
    Where libel law is concerned, repetition of the supposed libel is a big deal, as it cements in the viewers' minds the supposed drawbacks of the product. One-time damage from a flippant statement is one thing, but repeating that statement ad nauseum around the world is another.
    - electromagnetic 16y ago
      It's the libeled parties responsibility to promptly file a motion, not wait years and dozens of repeats just to boost the settlement size to the biggest you think you can get. They willingly allowed their image to be damaged by not filing a motion immediately.

fossuser 16y ago

They did say 'calculation' which may cover what was simply a made up statement. As far as the breaks dying, Tesla said the power breaks stopped working because of a fuse with one of the two cars they gave them to test. They said this doesn't prevent the car from being drivable at all (since it has to pass breaks standards with the power breaks and without) and at no point did the car have to be pushed into a garage for any reason. Telsa also said neither car was reduced beyond 75% power. I think the show was dishonest with how they represented the test and considering Tesla was a new company struggling to do something different and do it well it was a nasty thing to do.