Prime

I like Top Gear, I really do. And normally when they bash on a car, I take it with a shaker instead of a grain. But on this one, they outright LIED. They deserve it, and anyone who believes different needs to look at the big picture. Especially concerning a company like Tesla. Our hobby needs cars like that to succeed.

Walperstyle

You realize the time it was posted to the server may have been behind the time zone of the person posting it?

Or yeah, this is totally true

__________________
KA-T ORG-Function over Flush

nathanong87

Lol top gear is for pure entertainment value. To believe otherwise is pure idiocy

__________________
IG @nathanong87 --- Night ★ Life
natelife.tumblr.com

bb4_96

Tesla suing Top Gear is like some butt hurt noob suing Zilvia. Nobody at Top Gear said the Tesla died they just showed with that scene that with only 60 miles range it's going to be a drawback. Maybe they can sue for all three units they didn't sell as a result and all 5 units they won't sell because of it.

ronmcdon

Yes, I believe that has already been said more than few times, lets move on please.
(not saying this to you in particular but everyone regurgitating the obvious)

axiomatik

Just because it is an entertainment show doesn't mean that they can outright lie about a company's products.

The Daily Show can't go on air and declare "Eating Jolly Ranchers gives you cancer". Even though it is an entertainment show, outright lying about a company or product is subject to libel.

Yes, much of the US legal system was derived from UK laws and practices, libel has a long history in the UK.

Doesn't mean entertainers are allowed to lie about companies/products. When they do, those companies have the right to charge libel.

__________________

daryl337

The most interesting part is that, for all intents and purposes... Top Gear did not stretch the truth by a whole lot.


They drove the car 50 miles, and then portrayed them pushing it in as if it was out of batteries. Tesla QQ's and says "You still had 25% battery power left!!!"


25%. 25% of battery power. Its not like the car was able to go another 100+ miles on this charge. Top Gear drove the car fast, and saw it was almost out of a charge.
If you were to drive a car that used up 3/4 of the entire gas tank of a vehicle in 50 miles, you would immediately note "man, you don't really get a whole lot of mileage out of this thing". Sure, perhaps they were pushing on the car purely for flare. But assuming they continued the test until it did run out, they would have travelled a total of an additional 16.6 miles. Whoopdy do. Suing over libel over an additional 16 miles will be much harder to prove.

If Tesla wanted the review to reflect their claimed 200 mile charge, they should never have agreed to have them test it on the test track under (practically) 100% WOT.

__________________
This is my clever and witty signature.

dsastr_clan

i think Top Gear is a great show, look how many countries out there have shows that are trying to mimic Top Gear that must mean something

1337

fact, estimated gas mileage is under optimal conditions. that is why they revised the system to reflect closer to real world driving. but even then it is off. of course racing a car is going to kill efficiency.
Tesla's Roadster rolls 241 miles on single charge, annoys petrol pumps -- Engadget time to sue engadget.

slowvia

I hear you, but thats an entirely different situation. In that scenario The Daily Show would actually be causing a panic (this is America, yes people would shit bricks). Whereas Top Gear is really just stretching the truth in order to create a more humorous situation. Is it lying? Sure. But what TV show hasnt exaggerated to make something sound more interesting?
You want a real incident where JOURNALISTS have been caught lying? Look no further than Fox News. Fair and balanced my ass.
YouTube - Fox News BUSTED 'For Lying Yet AGAIN!... Now with Anti-Gaddafi Propaganda!!!

Imola_s4

^^^ Exactly!!!!.... top gear is for shits and giggles....

__________________
KA-T S14

axiomatik

Notice how the sentence is written:

"you'll probably only get around 125 miles out of it before things slowly grind to a halt."

It is written as a guess, not a statement of fact. Beyond that, the article goes on to discuss how far the car actually traveled (much farther) in a recent event. Engadget could be sued for libel if it stated "The Tesla can only drive 125 mile before dying." That is stating something false as a fact.

Don't' focus on the potential panic, libel deals with false statements. So instead of my jolly rancher example, consider this statement: "Apple's Ipods are assembled by 8 year old orphans in Vietnamese labor camps". If that statement were declared on television, regardless if it's an entertainment or news show, there is a case for libel. Such a statement would damage the reputation of the company/product, and could hurt sales.

Apple could also sue if a program said they visited the factory where Ipods are assembled, and then cut to a faked scene where kids are assembling ipods. The scene is implied to be factual, and is damaging to the company's reputation.

However, if the television program stated "We have been told that Apple's Ipods are assembled by 8 year old orphans in Vietnamese labor camps", there is no case for libel. The program isn't stating it as fact. "We have been told" informs the viewer that the information is secondhand, and that it has not been verified. Obviously, in such a scenario, Apple would respond to such an accusation with a press release, or a video of their actual manufacturing facility to refute the claim, but they couldn't sue for libel because the claim wasn't presented as a fact.

Not really pertinent, though I suppose Gaddhafi could sue Fox for Defamation. That isn't a case where the reputation of a company or product is being harmed.

__________________

BustedS13

look guys the point is you can't sue people who talk in that sexy accent. sue fox news instead.

__________________

Camille Waner

Did you know that there's an issue about Nissan and Top Gear. In the news they have mentioned that The hosts of “Top Gear,” the favored British car show, are famous for courting conflict. They also seldom have anything good to claim about electric vehicles. The Nissan motor corporation is not amused by a recent report on the Nissan Leaf that the show broadcast recently.Top Gear starts new electric car quarrel over Nissan Leaf. Most of what we saw on T.V. is typically scripted. Before the show was aired on Television, the presenter of the show is given scripts to memorize then when the show starts that the time where he or she will present.But, in the this case the presenter of the Top Gear presents a negative script about Nissan leaf. Through this, he must be sued of defamation.

LoneStarSilvia

What? I watched their road test of the Leaf, I don't remember them saying too many negative things about it other than the fact its expensive as hell and takes an insane amount of time to fully charge, and like everything these days, batteries lose their charge over time and need to be replaced.

__________________

nathanong87

whoa blast from the past.... but yea. if i were to believe everything that top gear presented as the truth, essentially all british cars are supreme, and all german cars suck.

car companies are mad*.

how many dudes watch top gear for their car reviews and then BUY the car they are reviewing.... teslas are like 100k+ or more? clarkson doesn't review peasant mobiles on the reg.

__________________
IG @nathanong87 --- Night ★ Life
natelife.tumblr.com

dontxploitme

Top Gear is awesome lol but if you watch it to learn facts about cars you're an idiot. That show is all about entertainment despite anyone. It's just like Family Guy or South Park getting sued for saying something false about a celebrity.

Seems only good shows get sued haha

DS562

the american tour through the south was pretty funny. james wrote "nascar sucks" on the side of his pick up and almost got lynched at a gas station

__________________
Zeeeeeeeee32

BustedS13

yeah, that wasn't 100% fabricated or anything.

__________________

DS562

i know, right?

its funny because thats exactly what would happen if you were shit talk nascar in florida.

__________________
Zeeeeeeeee32

BustedS13

spoken like a true nineteen year old.

not like a sagely 26 year old like me.

__________________

lucky7

Wow, this thread is still going? I remember that episode, and I'm still really surprised that Clarkson even bothered with an electric "sports car". I sure as hell wouldn't.

I was talking about this sort of thing with a friend of mine yesterday. We're both in our late twenties, and talking about the old school guys, the ones that think that carbs are still the way to go. The ones that think big blocks and straight lines are what cars are about, and that new cars are ruining that. They're traditionalists - all the things that they like are relevant to their generation. As younger guys, my friend and I own, and have owned FWD, 4 cylinder, turbo cars, etc. But we both feel strongly that all cars should come with a manual transmission, and should all be gas powered. I could not even fathom myself even buying a hybrid, let alone a full out electric car. That just sounds silly. And the thought of "electric sports car" is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard of.

As far as going back to topic here, I believe I've mentioned it once before in this thread, but shame on you Tesla. You should have done your homework. Anyone that's seen a few shows could see exactly where that one was going to go. If anything, i think they were much nicer than I imagined they'd be reviewing that car. Lol, Tesla....

__________________
-Dane