The BBC is being sued by the makers of the electric sports car, the Tesla Roadster, over claims a ra

www.bbc.co.uk...

The BBC is being sued by the makers of the electric sports car, the Tesla Roadster, over claims a race on Top Gear was rigged.

Tesla Motors claims the test set up by Jeremy Clarkson on a 2008 edition of the show was rigged to make it look like the Tesla ran out of power when racing a petrol powered Lotus.

The Tesla Roadster is the world's fastest production electric car.

A Top Gear spokesman said the BBC would be "vigorously defending" the claim.

On the programme Jeremy Clarkson claimed: "Although Tesla say it'll do 200 miles, we worked out that on our track it would run out after just 55 miles."

I found this piece of news interesting, is the BBC guilty of conspiracy here I wonder.

Thoughts?

reply to post by doobydoll


Was reading that this morning from a different source. Apparently in the episode the roadsters ran out of charge too fast, one over heated and seized the engine, and had brake defects.

According to Tesla, and the onboard computers, the cars NEVER ran out of charge, at all. They spent months trying to contact the BBC and have now, reluctantly, gone to the courts.

This is quite important, not just because of the Tesla cars, but because Top Gear is watched by millions and indeed has the power to make or break a car. The car industry hates electrics (watch 'who killed the electric car') and have spent years destroying and delaying the technology.

Tesla is bringing it to market and the Oil industry, which is inevitably tied with auto industry, isn't very pleased at all.

It would not surprise me at all if this is a conspiracy

reply to post by doobydoll


The story is a little misleading. Essentially, what happened is that the Top Gear folks did the math on how long it would take the car to run out of charge when run on a track (where it will be much, much, much less efficient than on the city roads it is designed for) and then, rather than actually damaging the car by allowing that to happen, staged it at the time it would have happened. It's definitely a bit of drama, but Top Gear never pretends it doesn't stage some stuff, and they didn't arbitrarily choose to pretend this would happen. It really is true that if run around the track like that, the car would run out of charge quickly. However, it's also true that absolutely no one would ever buy the car for that purpose, so to me the worst deception lies there, rather than with the staging.

I can say with confidence that the BBC, which really just contracts to the production team, had nothing to do with it. The show itself is produced by big oil -- that is all we need to know right there.

I also find it endlessly amusing that people in the UK think of Top Gear as very lowbrow stuff, whereas by US standards it's pretty brainy.

reply to post by doobydoll


Tesla will get some free press regardless of the truth.

The technology is likely to change over time anyways as these electric cars shift from Lithium Ion sheets to lighter super capacitor packs. there are probably economy modes that would increase range but who buys a Tesla sports model for the economy?

Top Gear has been rigging things for years and practically every scenerio is predetermined all for entertainment and i'm also sure that Top Gear would be like Fifth Gear(good but not as entertaining as Top Gear)if it were genuine.

Top Gear is a good show though.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters

This is quite important, not just because of the Tesla cars, but because Top Gear is watched by millions and indeed has the power to make or break a car. The car industry hates electrics (watch 'who killed the electric car') and have spent years destroying and delaying the technology.

Top Gear does indeed have influence on the consumer, as you say it is watched by millions. There are lots of people who buy cars but know nothing about them performance-wise, myself included, and this show would lead us to believe the Tesla vehicle would leave us stranded after 55 miles.

Who is going to buy it after seeing that?

What is this lawsuit really about?

No car ever achieves its 'tested mileage' on a track...EVER!

If the folks at Tesla have not realized this, then I seriously question their ability to make cars.

On the side, BBC's Top Gear is not the only test group to issue deregotory marks about the Tesla Roadster mileage. In fact, I have yet to read a street test that has even come close to achievin the '200 + miles' that Tesla advertises.

Here is an article that gets 187 miles / charge.
Source 1

Here is Road and Track estimating 160 miles / charge.
Source 2

I find it interesting that Tesla is only interested in Top Gear's claim, and not interested in the rest.

From personal experience (I got to test drive a Roadster in California) I believe their claim of 200+ miles is about as far as the truth can be stretched before being an outright lie.

I was told, that the car I was in "must not have been charged completely" when we had to turn back after less than 25 miles with warning lights flashing. And this was a booked in advance test drive, not just a walk in.

It is a shame though, I had really high hopes for the Tesla Roadster, and more importantly for me, the upcoming sedan.

reply to post by peck420


I'm assuming they're more litigious with Top Gear because the UK has the most complainant-friendly libel laws on the planet, but I don't know for sure the other sources you mention weren't also UK since the sites are .coms.

reply to post by sepermeru


The sites are .com's, however Road and Track publishes inside the UK and would be held under UK laws.

I personally believe this is a vendetta lawsuit, because Top Gear didn't hold back on any of the Tesla's flaws.

reply to post by peck420


I think you may be right. I'm even rethinking the idea that it's a bit unfair to highlight a failure in a mode no one would use it for -- because that's what the show does with every single car. They're not there to measure how well the car meets its own set criteria for success, so much as to see whether it's a good, interesting car to drive -- whether it has any value in terms of art, craft and engineering that make it a CAR rather than a big people-moving box with wheels stuck on. A car that is useless on the track is useless for their purposes, and pointing this out is perfectly fair. That is why the guys will often champion cars that have significant drawbacks or flaws -- because what they lack in perfection they make up for in personality and charm. Anyone who cannot conceive of talking about a car in terms of how much fun it is at the same time as how efficient it is doesn't get the point of the show at all.

Top Gear is a show about motoring and every sports car that goes on it's track it tested to it's limits and they high revved the Tesla and killed the charge in under a half hour.

reply to post by doobydoll


What good is a sportscar if you put your foot to the floor and it runs out of charge within thirty minutes?

If they remove the sportscar labeling and admit that the car can last far longer if driven below a certain speed, fair enough but they have not.

is this the episode in question?

reply to post by sepermeru


Incorrect, many people who buy cars labeled as sports cars buy them to drive and use on a track as well. If that were not the case autocross tracks would not be popular across the U.S. I would not buy a sports car if I could not drive it like a sports car. People buy fast cars to have times of driving fast because it is fun.

If this car cannot handle a track run then it is not the car they claim it to be. What good is a sports car if all you do is city street drive it? If I am going to do nothing but city street drive I might as well buy a Smart Car or some other small econobox or even another wimpy little electric car.

Raist

reply to post by XXXN3O


I agree. A sports car is meant to be driven like a sports car. If you only city street drive the thing you might as well castrate it.

Raist

In reality however, Tesla's real vehicle did not run out of charge. He also had a huge antenna on the vehicle and picked it up wireless. waterpoweredcar.com... It wasn't your standard electric, but based on free energy.

Originally posted by Unity_99
In reality however, Tesla's real vehicle did not run out of charge. He also had a huge antenna on the vehicle and picked it up wireless. waterpoweredcar.com... It wasn't your standard electric, but based on free energy.

Why would they allow the vehicle -- which they do not own -- to actually run out of charge while going around the track? Does that sound like it would even be allowed by Health & Safety? They depicted it as running out at the time they calculated it would have run out if they did let it, which of course they could not actually do for real. It's a stunt. They are always staged, being as how otherwise the landscape would quickly be cluttered with dead television presenters. There's an episode where they stage accidentally setting their own camper on fire. At no point does the show ever, ever pretend there's no staging. And they did not misrepresent how long the charge would last when run around the track.

I know what people are getting at about sports cars should perform like sports cars.

My point was that if I were to consider buying an electric car, this show would put me off buying any electric car, not just the Tesla. When an electric sports model is shown to be such a let down after 55 miles, I would have even less confidence in a city car model and dismiss the idea of buying one.

I'm all for clean and eco-friendly cars but I still don't want to be stranded anywhere if it's going to run out of charge after a few miles.

I guess I don't get the point of the show.

I am female - what do I know about those moving metal thingies called cars anyway

Why is 55 miles (88 km) a let down? On the track?

My weekend car get's a little over 400 km to a 50 litre tank on the streets.

It's good for just over 100 km at the track.

You want the performance, you pay the price, eletric, gas...doesn't matter.

The Tesla getting approx 200 miles (320 km) on street and 55 miles (88 km) on track is very similar in performance to my gas car (it get's better track mileage, but mine is faster)...this is good news.

I was personally dissappointed with how Tesla's employees handled the situation when I took a test drive, more so than the car. If they had told me "I don't know what happened", or "we still have bugs to work out" I would have been 100% okay with that. But, to give me a bs excuse like 'not charged' when it was obviously something else ruined my opinion of them.

reply to post by doobydoll


55 miles on a track is a drop in the bucket to what it will do on the street. On the other hand though if it say it is a sports car I want it to drive like a sports car. I can fill a normal sports car up at the track and keep going. An electric sports car cannot be just filled up it has to be charged. Electric and sports car do not go together in my book.

I would not pay the price they are asking for that car either just to drive it on the streets. I could pick up an older Civic and do some modifications and get great mpg out of it. When it comes to driving a car on a track or even winding back roads for fun I would rather have the sports car appeal though. Sports cars are meant to be driven hard for as long as the driver wishes, again the normal sports car can be filled and take off again.

Electric is fine as long as you are not expecting track style driving for extended periods of time. I guess you could take one to a drag strip, but going fast in a straight line is only fun a few times in a row.

Raist