Top Gear doesn't get a pass here for being a comedy show. 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. That's precisely what libel laws exist to protect against.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
but the visual portrayed is that of Clarkson actually being
surprised by a dead battery followed by the hanger scene.
My guess is that was live footage-- not a staged shot. He appeared to still be moving under power, and had power steering. When the Roadster's battery runs low, it drops into a low power mode, with a dramatically lower top speed and crippled acceleration. You'd have to endure "limp home" mode for a couple dozen miles before the cell-protection circuits kick in and shut everything down.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 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.
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.
> 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.
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.