Tesla sues Top Gear for libel re Roadster review(teslamotors.com)
teslamotors.com
Tesla sues Top Gear for libel re Roadster review
http://www.teslamotors.com/teslavstopgear
68 comments
Reading the script in the complaint (http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/tesla_-_claim...) it looks like Top Gear staged pushing the car into the hanger as part of a fictional story about running out of charge after 55 miles of driving. That fictional story is based on their calculation that on the track it would have run out after 50 miles.
Top Gear's show seems to be saying this: if you actually tried to drove this car for 55 miles at high speed on our track, it would run out of power and you would need to push it into the hanger to recharge. Because you would have intentionally driven it until it ran out of charge. They do NOT make the claim that it suddenly and surprisingly ran out of charge. But I can see how it might appear that way to the viewer.
I don't know if this counts as libel. The actual lie here is that Top Gear didn't go through the exercise of actually running the battery down.
Not sure what to make of the claim that the brakes didn't die. That seems more like a he-said-she-said deal at this point.
Top Gear's show seems to be saying this: if you actually tried to drove this car for 55 miles at high speed on our track, it would run out of power and you would need to push it into the hanger to recharge. Because you would have intentionally driven it until it ran out of charge. They do NOT make the claim that it suddenly and surprisingly ran out of charge. But I can see how it might appear that way to the viewer.
I don't know if this counts as libel. The actual lie here is that Top Gear didn't go through the exercise of actually running the battery down.
Not sure what to make of the claim that the brakes didn't die. That seems more like a he-said-she-said deal at this point.
In this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DfHyGD7_pM&t=4m45s), the narration is heard as they "worked it out" that the car would fully discharge at around 55 miles, but the visual portrayed is that of Clarkson actually being surprised by a dead battery followed by the hanger scene. While they could claim that the narration never says they ran out of charge, I would describe the scene as extremely deceptive at best.
The 55 miles is still at odds with Tesla though. On their website (http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/roadster-efficiency-and-rang...), at the bottom of the article they display a chart that claims a range of 75 miles even if the vehicle is topped out at 125mph for the entire charge.
I'm not very familiar with British libel law, but from what I've heard, the defendent tends to be at a disadvantage which might put Tesla on very good footing going into this case.
Edit: After another viewing, I would say that the narration would also go very well with the actual experience of running out of power. So it might not be an out for BBC after all. With a little more careful wording, they could have probably avoided this whole fiasco.
The 55 miles is still at odds with Tesla though. On their website (http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/roadster-efficiency-and-rang...), at the bottom of the article they display a chart that claims a range of 75 miles even if the vehicle is topped out at 125mph for the entire charge.
I'm not very familiar with British libel law, but from what I've heard, the defendent tends to be at a disadvantage which might put Tesla on very good footing going into this case.
Edit: After another viewing, I would say that the narration would also go very well with the actual experience of running out of power. So it might not be an out for BBC after all. With a little more careful wording, they could have probably avoided this whole fiasco.
but the visual portrayed is that of Clarkson actually being
surprised by a dead battery followed by the hanger scene.
Which would be bad.
Lithium ion cells are twitchy, excitable beasts at the best of times, and like to burst into flames when abused. The Roadster's battery is liquid cooled, and if the pack is completely discharged, then the coolant pump will stop running, which could result in the entire thing going Fukushima. Just completely discharging a pack will dramatically shorten its lifespan, (The Roadster's is only rated to 100k miles) which isn't something Tesla wants to be done to US$109,000 worth of car which the BBC did not, in fact, own.
So it dropped into low power mode, and they switched cars, and they had a nice dramatic shot of it being rolled into a garage, something that would be unpleasant enough for a gasoline car, but would almost certainly be a multi-thousand dollar maintenance catastrophe for an electric one.
That's all fine and good - but watching the show segment, it very clearly gives that they suddenly ran out of power and had to push it into the garage.
One can argue the details of what really happened - but even knowing how those things work, that segment very strongly makes it look like the Tesla Roadster will simply DIE without warning, requiring you to push it into the garage.
One can argue the details of what really happened - but even knowing how those things work, that segment very strongly makes it look like the Tesla Roadster will simply DIE without warning, requiring you to push it into the garage.
> The 55 miles is still at odds with Tesla though. On their website (http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/roadster-efficiency-and-rang...), at the bottom of the article they display a chart that claims a range of 75 miles even if the vehicle is topped out at 125mph for the entire charge.
You have to remember though, it would probably spend more energy braking and speeding up again than it would going top speed steadily.
You have to remember though, it would probably spend more energy braking and speeding up again than it would going top speed steadily.
Exactly. An interesting feature of electric motors is that they use very little electricity at high RPMs. Thus, the only energy spent would be that lost to mechanical friction, and that used to overcome air/tire resistance (which gets significant at higher speeds). So, whereas a Bugatti Veyron could be emptied in 15 minutes at full throttle, the fastest way to empty the charge on an electric vehicle is rapid and extreme changes in velocity (like those seen on a track), where juice-hungry torque is in high demand.
For a more familiar example, a cordless drill will die far faster by driving screws into hardwood than by drilling holes in softwood at high speed. The same is not true of internal combustion engines.
For a more familiar example, a cordless drill will die far faster by driving screws into hardwood than by drilling holes in softwood at high speed. The same is not true of internal combustion engines.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not sure it'll help their public image any, though.
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!
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!
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.
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.
They willingly allowed their image to be damaged by not filing a motion immediately.
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.
> There's a difference between satire and making false claims about a product with the intention of tarnishing it and the company that produces it.
You need to be careful about the wording here. I believe that there is a difference under UK libel law between making false claims and making false claims with an intention to tarnish the company. The second attributes malice which removes certain possible defences.
I don't think there is any suggest here that the TG were intending to tarnish the product. I think they were making a (validish) point about electric cars and maybe getting a cheap laugh - legally that may be a different thing.
You need to be careful about the wording here. I believe that there is a difference under UK libel law between making false claims and making false claims with an intention to tarnish the company. The second attributes malice which removes certain possible defences.
I don't think there is any suggest here that the TG were intending to tarnish the product. I think they were making a (validish) point about electric cars and maybe getting a cheap laugh - legally that may be a different thing.
The accusation that a script was sighted containing both the pushing-into-hangar scene and the "It's just doesn't work in the real world" conclusion before the cars had even been driven certainly goes to this point.
Right, but given Clarkson's well-known antipathy towards anything green, Tesla probably could argue in court that the libel (if there was any) was intentional. It might not be true, but it would be easier to show for Clarkson than for arbitrary journalist X.
[deleted]
The big thing there is if. Doesn't seem to be much unbiased information out there. But basically the BBC seems to be saying they're sticking by their claims.
The segment's online, this doesn't seem to be a review for comedic value: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DfHyGD7_pM
Clarkson (the presenter) seems to have clarified what actually happened on the day here (2 pages, starts near bottom of 1st):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/art...
There is an especially strong claim in the article:
Tesla could not complain about what was shown because it was there... Tesla, when contacted by reporters, gave its account of what happened and it was exactly the same as [Top Gear's]. It explained that the brakes had stopped working because of a blown fuse and didn’t question at all [Top Gear's] claim that the car would have run out of electricity after 55 miles.
So either Clarkson's grossly misrepresenting Tesla's behaviour so far, which would be very odd, or Tesla's suddenly done an about turn and thinks it can get the BBC to say something else.
But the BBC's not playing ball with Tesla at all: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12907367
The segment's online, this doesn't seem to be a review for comedic value: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DfHyGD7_pM
Clarkson (the presenter) seems to have clarified what actually happened on the day here (2 pages, starts near bottom of 1st):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/art...
There is an especially strong claim in the article:
Tesla could not complain about what was shown because it was there... Tesla, when contacted by reporters, gave its account of what happened and it was exactly the same as [Top Gear's]. It explained that the brakes had stopped working because of a blown fuse and didn’t question at all [Top Gear's] claim that the car would have run out of electricity after 55 miles.
So either Clarkson's grossly misrepresenting Tesla's behaviour so far, which would be very odd, or Tesla's suddenly done an about turn and thinks it can get the BBC to say something else.
But the BBC's not playing ball with Tesla at all: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12907367
"So either Clarkson's grossly misrepresenting Tesla's behaviour so far, which would be very odd"
Not exactly, Clarkson is notorious for letting its biased feelings cloud all forms of objectivity. See e.g the Civic Type-R 2008 review which is a complete joke when the Stig review is the direct opposite. Either a car is a lemon or a gem but it can't be both. Whether Clarkson is genuine or stages such opinionated behavior remains unclear and part of the myth. It's a fun show, but a show nonetheless.
"this doesn't seem to be a review for comedic value"
Comedic, no, but creating a sense of drama, yes. in both cases the goal is to generate emotion. Either way, I felt like it was emphasized when I watched it some time ago.
Besides, complaining a 200+ miles casual range shrinks to 55 when you're beating crap out of the car is nothing short of ridiculous. Did they complain that the Veyron 100L tank burns in less than 15min at 400+kph? That's a 60 miles range! Heck, no pure electric production car, let alone electric sports car, matches the Tesla range today.
Not exactly, Clarkson is notorious for letting its biased feelings cloud all forms of objectivity. See e.g the Civic Type-R 2008 review which is a complete joke when the Stig review is the direct opposite. Either a car is a lemon or a gem but it can't be both. Whether Clarkson is genuine or stages such opinionated behavior remains unclear and part of the myth. It's a fun show, but a show nonetheless.
"this doesn't seem to be a review for comedic value"
Comedic, no, but creating a sense of drama, yes. in both cases the goal is to generate emotion. Either way, I felt like it was emphasized when I watched it some time ago.
Besides, complaining a 200+ miles casual range shrinks to 55 when you're beating crap out of the car is nothing short of ridiculous. Did they complain that the Veyron 100L tank burns in less than 15min at 400+kph? That's a 60 miles range! Heck, no pure electric production car, let alone electric sports car, matches the Tesla range today.
I agree with you on the last points, but they're clearly burning it round the track, not driving in suburbia so Tesla's moaning about the figure is a bit moot.
If Tesla want to stick to the 211 claim on a track it's a whole different matter. From the press release Tesla seem to be saying that Top Gear lied about how far it would have gone on the track, which is nonsense.
After all they knew exactly where Top Gear was taking it, all cars go there.
Overall I thought that Top Gear were positive about the car in terms of raw performance, just as something you'd drive it's not practical even as a sports car.
If Tesla want to stick to the 211 claim on a track it's a whole different matter. From the press release Tesla seem to be saying that Top Gear lied about how far it would have gone on the track, which is nonsense.
After all they knew exactly where Top Gear was taking it, all cars go there.
Overall I thought that Top Gear were positive about the car in terms of raw performance, just as something you'd drive it's not practical even as a sports car.
Except the 55 mile number was just straight made up, the two cars they had to test weren't even reduced by 25% capacity.
No. The first car was reduced by 80%.
"The company claimed it could run, even if driven briskly, for 200 miles, but after just a morning the battery power was down to 20% and we realised that it would not have enough juice for all the shots we needed."
"The company claimed it could run, even if driven briskly, for 200 miles, but after just a morning the battery power was down to 20% and we realised that it would not have enough juice for all the shots we needed."
I could be mistaken, but I think Tesla said that neither car was reduced by more than 25% (maybe it was below 25%). The roadster keeps a large amount of data store about it's usage so it'd be easy to determine who was telling the truth. Either way pushing the car into the garage was never necessary and was done on purpose, I'm not sure the intent.
the key is driven briskly = o(trashing it on a track)
To be fair, the Ford GT ran out of gas while Clarkson was driving it on the show. They included it in the show and pointed out the ridiculously poor fuel mileage.
He also bought one, then was never able to drive it due to constant breakdowns. In that case, however, the breakdowns were legit, and he never caught any flak from Ford.
Great point. He also wrote about that very publicly.
The greater point is that Clarkson doesn't pull any punches, regardless of the make/model/drivetrain. He likes what he likes and speaks his mind about it.
The greater point is that Clarkson doesn't pull any punches, regardless of the make/model/drivetrain. He likes what he likes and speaks his mind about it.
They didn't catch flak from Ford, sure, but then Ford isn't building a company (and helping build a new industry of electric cars) around a single model.
Another important point you make is that Clarkson is indeed notorious for being opinionated and biased. The viewer must accept that to watch Top Gear. I think Tesla is over-reacting. Clarkson is not a friend of the environmentalists; they should have known that going into it.
Their contention, echoed in Clarkson's original statements, were that the Roadster was the first electric car you might actually want to buy. Their goal in having it reviewed on TG was likely to show that it was a driver's car first and foremost, and that it being electric was an added bonus.
[deleted]
> Top Gear doesn't get a pass here for being a comedy show.
Actually, if it were a comedy show it would get a pass. Satire is a valid defence in law - it's why comedians aren't being sued all the time.
The issue they have is that Top Gear takes a basis in fact (particularly in the reviews) and certainly isn't out and out comedy so the defence probably doesn't apply.
Actually, if it were a comedy show it would get a pass. Satire is a valid defence in law - it's why comedians aren't being sued all the time.
The issue they have is that Top Gear takes a basis in fact (particularly in the reviews) and certainly isn't out and out comedy so the defence probably doesn't apply.
Have you ever watched Top Gear?
I've watched probably 80% of the episodes, for what it's worth. I haven't seen series 1-4, but I'm working my way down to them.
I am a fan of both Top Gear (seen every episode, save for the most recent series) and Tesla (would kill for a Roadster or Model S).
The Tesla Roadster review seemed to be fairly typical of Top Gear; with Jeremy Clarkson pointing out his likes and dislikes in fairly equal proportion. Clarkson in fact seemed very impressed with the Roadster’s performance and I believe the official lap time placed it somewhere around a comparable Porsche 911. The breakdowns seemed believable, especially for a supercar; as Richard Hammond pointed out in a later episode within that series (wherein a Pagani Zonda breaks down within the first few test laps on the Top Gear track) that it’s the nature of supercars to "explode immediately" on use. Tesla didn’t seem to receive a harsher treatment than any other car manufacturer.
The Tesla Roadster is an amazing product, but it -like every machine made before it- has a few bugs to be worked out. Nothing out of the ordinary.
The Tesla Roadster review seemed to be fairly typical of Top Gear; with Jeremy Clarkson pointing out his likes and dislikes in fairly equal proportion. Clarkson in fact seemed very impressed with the Roadster’s performance and I believe the official lap time placed it somewhere around a comparable Porsche 911. The breakdowns seemed believable, especially for a supercar; as Richard Hammond pointed out in a later episode within that series (wherein a Pagani Zonda breaks down within the first few test laps on the Top Gear track) that it’s the nature of supercars to "explode immediately" on use. Tesla didn’t seem to receive a harsher treatment than any other car manufacturer.
The Tesla Roadster is an amazing product, but it -like every machine made before it- has a few bugs to be worked out. Nothing out of the ordinary.
Same story:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2386692
There are probably more. This one has lots of comments.
There are probably more. This one has lots of comments.
News is not a bug report. History repeats itself.
The show definitely gives a reasonable normal viewer the impression that the car is a dud with a range far less than what is claimed and prone to numerous and frequent breakdowns, and that the failures were so catastrophic they car had to be pushed into the garage.
So now the BBC is saying that it was done for effect or some such and is claiming it didn't break down after 55 miles or such. So they are admitting they deliberately made a misleading review which obviously damaged the reputation of the car because of the misleading claims.
Whether that is libel, don't know. But it is disappointing. I had not realized Top Gear did this and will no longer take the show seriously. I will also be reviewing my formerly positive opinion of the BBC's credibility given their CYA response.
So now the BBC is saying that it was done for effect or some such and is claiming it didn't break down after 55 miles or such. So they are admitting they deliberately made a misleading review which obviously damaged the reputation of the car because of the misleading claims.
Whether that is libel, don't know. But it is disappointing. I had not realized Top Gear did this and will no longer take the show seriously. I will also be reviewing my formerly positive opinion of the BBC's credibility given their CYA response.
Did they file in the UK? British libel laws are so bad that the BBC is doomed, if they did.
Take a look at the Simon Singh vs British Chiropractic case for a good idea of how bad it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh#Chiropractic_lawsui...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh#Chiropractic_lawsui...
Isn't it just England, not the UK? And the amount of lawyers you can field still makes a difference, even in the UK. So I guess the ol' boys at the BBC won't be shaking in their Savile Row suits.
Just a few weeks ago a reform of the libel law went one step further, although I don't know if that would apply here. As far as I remember it was mostly to prevent suing people who weren't UK residents, which certainly won't help the BBC.
Just a few weeks ago a reform of the libel law went one step further, although I don't know if that would apply here. As far as I remember it was mostly to prevent suing people who weren't UK residents, which certainly won't help the BBC.
Certainly Scots law is fairly different in this area from England & Wales (e.g. we don't have the separate concepts of libel and slander).
It's one thing to make fun of the Tesla car in a humorous way, it's another thing to write a script (and follow through with it) claiming it broke down, overheated and ran out of fuel before they had even driven the car.
"But in the real world, it doesn't seem to work" was already decided before the cars were even delivered. It's cool to make fun of flaws, it's not cool for something perceived as a review show to decide something is flawed and write the script about how flawed it is before they have even tested it.
"But in the real world, it doesn't seem to work" was already decided before the cars were even delivered. It's cool to make fun of flaws, it's not cool for something perceived as a review show to decide something is flawed and write the script about how flawed it is before they have even tested it.
I just watched the video, and can't figure out where the malice is. Its a relatively new build of car, and a car based on a Lotus, the chances of there being reliability issues are pretty good, this type of car isn't built for being the go to commuter car, its built to zoom around in. As far as the vastly less miles per charge claim, they were running it on a race track, take any car you want, under any form of power you want, and drive it hard like that, its not going to get best case efficiency. This sure seems like a lot of noise, about nothing surprising. I think I agree it might be for publicity or inspired by some other rationale than just libel.
In the show, after making the 55 mile range claim and pushing the car into the garage, he plugs it in for a recharge and says that recharges take 16 hours. He then says because of this it would take "more than three days" to get from where he is, Dunsfold Aerodrome in Surrey, to northern Scotland. The furthest point he could go to is the John O' Groats campground in Wick. Google Maps reveals that is 704 miles or 12 hrs and 45 minutes of travel.
So let's compare whether he is claiming the 55 mile range or the 211 mile range is the one he accepts for non-track driving.
211 miles on the various roads would take at least 4 hrs, then 16 hours to recharge.
Start: 0 hrs
Drive to 211 mile pt: +4 hrs
Recharge: +16 hrs = 20 hrs elapsed
Drive to 422 mile pt: +4 hrs = 24 hrs elapsed
Recharge: +16 hrs = 40 hrs elapsed
Drive to 633 mile pt: +4 hrs = 44 hrs elapsed
Recharge: +16 hrs = 60 hrs elapsed
Drive to 704 mile pt: +1.5 hrs = 61 hrs elapsed
So that is about 2.5 days, less than the more than 3 days he claims.
At 55 mile range though it would be substantially longer than 3 days though. That would be about 17 hours per 55 mile leg, 12 legs at 17 hrs, 204 hours or 8.5 days.
So Clarkson, through his claim of more than 3 days to travel to the north of Scotland, is suggesting the range is more than 55 but less than 211 miles.
So let's compare whether he is claiming the 55 mile range or the 211 mile range is the one he accepts for non-track driving.
211 miles on the various roads would take at least 4 hrs, then 16 hours to recharge.
Start: 0 hrs
Drive to 211 mile pt: +4 hrs
Recharge: +16 hrs = 20 hrs elapsed
Drive to 422 mile pt: +4 hrs = 24 hrs elapsed
Recharge: +16 hrs = 40 hrs elapsed
Drive to 633 mile pt: +4 hrs = 44 hrs elapsed
Recharge: +16 hrs = 60 hrs elapsed
Drive to 704 mile pt: +1.5 hrs = 61 hrs elapsed
So that is about 2.5 days, less than the more than 3 days he claims.
At 55 mile range though it would be substantially longer than 3 days though. That would be about 17 hours per 55 mile leg, 12 legs at 17 hrs, 204 hours or 8.5 days.
So Clarkson, through his claim of more than 3 days to travel to the north of Scotland, is suggesting the range is more than 55 but less than 211 miles.
I wish I could do the same to all my reviewers for my iPhone app.
- You use Top Gear reviews as a major factor to buy a +$100K electric sports car.
- You haven't seen their show enough to know what Clarkson's views of green-tech are.
- You haven't looked at corroborating evidence on forums a real drivers, etc.
You probably aren't good at this car buying thing.
You probably aren't good at this car buying thing.
Wonder if future reviewers of tesla products will insist on a legal waiver before touching their products.
Also somewhere somethings being lost in translation. Top Gear has been about Three guys getting together for a laugh and doing irresponsible things. If Tesla Co didn't know this when they handed Top Gear the car then they missed out on the due diligence. In car circles this lawsuit is akin to suing Santa Claus.
That's the end of caring about Tesla for me. Resorting to a lawsuit over a comedy program means your company's ethics are out of touch with reality, and it's time for you to die. It's the adult equivalent of bringing your guns to school and killing everyone because some kids made fun of you at lunch. Yeah, they shouldn't have done that, but your solution was worse than the problem.
Why must Tesla murder schoolchildren?
Why must Tesla murder schoolchildren?
Do you have a source that it is a comedy show? Their web site seems to be rather misleading regarding this as it appears to be a car review show not a comedy show - http://www.topgear.com/uk/
Perhaps you are thinking of some other top gear show which is a comedy revue or variety hour with singing and dancing?
Perhaps you are thinking of some other top gear show which is a comedy revue or variety hour with singing and dancing?
following this logic it is time for Russia to launch a nuclear war against Great Britain.
(note: Lada Kalina is the newest and most advanced Russian car and the producer of the car is heavily supported and promoted by government:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGs_5gDXFn8&feature=relat...
(note: Lada Kalina is the newest and most advanced Russian car and the producer of the car is heavily supported and promoted by government:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGs_5gDXFn8&feature=relat...
I'm rather excited to see how hard it is for Jeremy Clarkson to refrain from making light of this situation. I love the man, should be entertaining.
Also, the BBC has an enormous amount of money and power (not to mention it operates under a Royal Charter), I don't imagine this lawsuit being very easy.
Also, the BBC has an enormous amount of money and power (not to mention it operates under a Royal Charter), I don't imagine this lawsuit being very easy.
What a perfect way to give something legs.
I had never seen this Top Gear episode, but I am definitely going to watch it now!
This is a tough spot to be in. Sue BBC and try and get a correction (and give it publicity) or ignore it and risk reputation damage silently with fewer people.
I had never seen this Top Gear episode, but I am definitely going to watch it now!
This is a tough spot to be in. Sue BBC and try and get a correction (and give it publicity) or ignore it and risk reputation damage silently with fewer people.
How awesome. No option to comment on their website. They could have turned it into an awesome opportunity to talk with the customers.
Lets see how far this lawsuit gets. Interested in the development of it.
Lets see how far this lawsuit gets. Interested in the development of it.
There is. You need to look further.
Good on Tesla for having the balls to stand up for what's right (and for their company).
Innovation requires courage. Especially in their industry.
Innovation requires courage. Especially in their industry.
This will not end well for Tesla. Clarkson is a masterful grudge-holder and nothing they produce will ever receive a fair review ever again.
April Fools?
[deleted](1)
> The company says that if the episode had been broadcast in 2008, and not rebroadcast repeatedly it would not have sued.
FYI Tesla, TV has these things called reruns, they've been around forever. Reruns of Three's Company has outlasted John Ritter (sadly).
Honestly, if this idiocy is an example of the collective intelligence of Tesla's management, then that comment alone will make me not buy anything Tesla. At least every other American car manufacturer doesn't bitch and moan at a comparably great review from Clarkson (it's an electric vehicle, it's a miracle he even did a segment on it. He rags on diesel even when it's comparable to a gas, and he was actually enthused about the roadster). Honestly, it just shows me that North America will never make another great car, because North America can't get intelligent car manufacturers.
FYI Tesla, TV has these things called reruns, they've been around forever. Reruns of Three's Company has outlasted John Ritter (sadly).
Honestly, if this idiocy is an example of the collective intelligence of Tesla's management, then that comment alone will make me not buy anything Tesla. At least every other American car manufacturer doesn't bitch and moan at a comparably great review from Clarkson (it's an electric vehicle, it's a miracle he even did a segment on it. He rags on diesel even when it's comparable to a gas, and he was actually enthused about the roadster). Honestly, it just shows me that North America will never make another great car, because North America can't get intelligent car manufacturers.
Viewers of Top Gear understand that the challenges and races are staged, but there isn't a similar understanding that the car reviews are staged, and that the presenters will claim cars have defects that they don't have for the purposes of entertainment. If the claims made by Tesla are true, then Top Gear doesn't have a leg to stand on.