3 ms·

Please don't make stuff up. Cars have already failed, taken TG's advice, been back, been improved, and Top Gear have been more than happy to say so. The outcom

by alan_cx 14y ago

Please don't make stuff up. Cars have already failed, taken TG's advice, been back, been improved, and Top Gear have been more than happy to say so. 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.

eksith 14y ago
TG was being dishonest. They use hyperbole everywhere so Tesla is by no means getting special treatment in that regard. I've seen them trash perfectly good cars because of stupid names and/or because the company CEO looks funny, but in this instance they took an up and coming (read: promising alternative) and kicked it to the curb : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/22/bbc_top_gear_tesla/ 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 Edit: Straight from the horse's mouth... http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2011/04/02/tesla-vs-top-gear-andy-wilman-on-our-current-legal-action/ 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."
- makomk 14y ago
  If I'm understanding the original case correctly Tesla lost in part because they couldn't demonstrate that their reputation would be any more damaged by someone believing that the car actually ran out of charge than they would be if that person realised it was a dramatization. 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.
EnderMB 14y ago
This is absolutely true. Despite what people think of Jeremy Clarkson and co the truth is that Top Gear is the most popular car show in the world by a huge scale, and it wouldn't be the first time that it has been said that the kind of power that comes with their popularity means a lot when it comes to car sales. 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.
- gadders 14y ago
  £90k for a car is affordable? Can we swap jobs please?
  - EnderMB 14y ago
    I thought the original Roadsters were only around £70k? Aren't the new signature models the ones that are around £90-100k? 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.
JPKab 14y ago
Tesla blew it? From the text of the article you are commenting on and naturally didn't even read: "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?
- gadders 14y ago
  That is just Tesla's claim. That isn't the facts of the case.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by alan_cx 14y ago

eksith 14y ago

TG was being dishonest. They use hyperbole everywhere so Tesla is by no means getting special treatment in that regard. I've seen them trash perfectly good cars because of stupid names and/or because the company CEO looks funny, but in this instance they took an up and coming (read: promising alternative) and kicked it to the curb : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/22/bbc_top_gear_tesla/ 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 Edit: Straight from the horse's mouth... http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2011/04/02/tesla-vs-top-gear-andy-wilman-on-our-current-legal-action/ 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."

makomk 14y ago
If I'm understanding the original case correctly Tesla lost in part because they couldn't demonstrate that their reputation would be any more damaged by someone believing that the car actually ran out of charge than they would be if that person realised it was a dramatization. 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.

EnderMB 14y ago

This is absolutely true. Despite what people think of Jeremy Clarkson and co the truth is that Top Gear is the most popular car show in the world by a huge scale, and it wouldn't be the first time that it has been said that the kind of power that comes with their popularity means a lot when it comes to car sales. 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.

gadders 14y ago
£90k for a car is affordable? Can we swap jobs please?
- EnderMB 14y ago
  I thought the original Roadsters were only around £70k? Aren't the new signature models the ones that are around £90-100k? 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.

JPKab 14y ago

Tesla blew it? From the text of the article you are commenting on and naturally didn't even read: "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?

gadders 14y ago
That is just Tesla's claim. That isn't the facts of the case.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]