3 ms·

Just a recommendation, but maybe you should actually read something before you respond to it: In the article you are commenting on " In paragraph 7 of its parti

by JPKab 14y ago

Just a recommendation, but maybe you should actually read something before you respond to it: In the article you are commenting on " 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." " The lawsuit isn't over a bad review. It is over a scripted "failure" of the vehicle. The vehicle didn't die. It's batteries didn't run out, and the Tesla engineers found the script for the scene as the test drive was beginning. Tesla has every right to respond to having their product used as a prop for a scripted jab at electric vehicles.

jasonlotito 14y ago
I don't know. Continue reading. Take point 3, for example: Tesla's explanation was essentially: "whereas what had actually failed was a fuse in the equipment providing power-assistance to the brake pedal" So, I don't know about you, but something suddenly not working the way it's supposed to work is something I would consider broken.
gadders 14y ago
Er, no. 1) & 2) "Tesla admitted that the range of the Roadster on the test track was about 55 miles and that if it ran out of charge it took several hours to charge it up again. " 3) A fuse broke that meant power-assistance of the brake failed. So the brakes clearly weren't working correctly. I don't think Top Gear should do fault finding on review cars. 4) TG claimed it had reduced power, not that it was immobile.
tonylemesmer 14y ago
Just a recommendation before you make accusations, perhaps ask me if I had read it rather than going: you haven't read it. It did actually fail, the brake assistance system stopped working. 1. I was referring to the fact that a 55 mile range is laughable for a car and that looks bad on TV 2. Also electric vehicles take a long time to charge up, that looks bad when accompanied by item 1.

by JPKab 14y ago

jasonlotito 14y ago

I don't know. Continue reading. Take point 3, for example: Tesla's explanation was essentially: "whereas what had actually failed was a fuse in the equipment providing power-assistance to the brake pedal" So, I don't know about you, but something suddenly not working the way it's supposed to work is something I would consider broken.

gadders 14y ago

Er, no. 1) & 2) "Tesla admitted that the range of the Roadster on the test track was about 55 miles and that if it ran out of charge it took several hours to charge it up again. " 3) A fuse broke that meant power-assistance of the brake failed. So the brakes clearly weren't working correctly. I don't think Top Gear should do fault finding on review cars. 4) TG claimed it had reduced power, not that it was immobile.

tonylemesmer 14y ago

Just a recommendation before you make accusations, perhaps ask me if I had read it rather than going: you haven't read it. It did actually fail, the brake assistance system stopped working. 1. I was referring to the fact that a 55 mile range is laughable for a car and that looks bad on TV 2. Also electric vehicles take a long time to charge up, that looks bad when accompanied by item 1.