Top Gear finally gets its comeuppance

[JohnH]

...but on their track it only managed 55 miles.

Yep, that's the BBC's version of events.

"Tesla said after the race aired that neither of the two Roadsters that it loaned Jeremy Clarkson's team had gone below 20% of charge."
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... e-top-gear

I don't mind the numpties on TG telling us "wot they reckon". But when an unashamed advocate of the oil industry like JC starts fabricating "evidence", and presenting it as fact, then a line has been crossed.

 

[grahame]

...but on their track it only managed 55 miles.

Yep, that's the BBC's version of events.

"Tesla said after the race aired that neither of the two Roadsters that it loaned Jeremy Clarkson's team had gone below 20% of charge."
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... e-top-gear

I don't mind the numpties on TG telling us "wot they reckon". But when an unashamed advocate of the oil industry like JC starts fabricating "evidence", and presenting it as fact, then a line has been crossed.

So, by their own admission, in those conditions it could have managed a "theoretical" extra 20 percent range? 55 x 1.2 = 66 mile range. Still significantly less than the claimed 220 miles, isn't it?

Straying (slightly) off topic, the other thing we MUST remember about electrical cars is that batteries are not a source of energy, they are merely a method of storing energy until it is released. The green credentials of such technology must incorporate the generation and distribution of electricity in the declaration. Electric cars are not "Zero emission" unless thier energy comes exclusively from renewable sources that have not caused any emissions in their construction and operation.

 

[Neil]

...but on their track it only managed 55 miles.

Yep, that's the BBC's version of events.

"Tesla said after the race aired that neither of the two Roadsters that it loaned Jeremy Clarkson's team had gone below 20% of charge."
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... e-top-gear

I don't mind the numpties on TG telling us "wot they reckon". But when an unashamed advocate of the oil industry like JC starts fabricating "evidence", and presenting it as fact, then a line has been crossed.

So, by their own admission, in those conditions it could have managed a "theoretical" extra 20 percent range? 55 x 1.2 = 66 mile range. Still significantly less than the claimed 220 miles, isn't it?

Well two things, there:-

1. If Tesla's claims have any weight, something is wrong in motoring-entertainment-trying-to-be-funny-TV. And they have a claim.

2. Their claims of range would likely have similar profiles of driving to how mpg (and by extrapolation, range) would be advertises / claimed for ICE cars / vehicles.

 

[grahame]

1. Is a very big assumption.

2. I think there's a point there - that's why (for internal combustion engined cars) there is a european standard test for simulated fule economy, done on a rolling road, and you will notice that a common letter to the motoring press is "the figures claim fuel economy of xmpg, I drive carefully but can only achieve x-y% mpg." I think we are seeing the same (or at least a similar) phenomenon for the Tesla.

 

[MikeD]

I think they're on a sticky wicket here. That it lasted 55 miles of track driving is a fact (or at least, I'm assuming that the Beeb would be able to prove it as such). That it "doesn't seem to work in the real world" is clearly an opinion.

Tesla's own blurb is full of speed and handling and "spirited driving" -- it's sold as a sports car. You're patently not going to get the claimed range out of it by driving it fast, any more than you'll get the official MPG figures out of a petrol car by driving fast. The Tesla site even presents "0-60 in 3.7s" and "245 mile range" next to one another as if there's some possibility that it'll do both of those things at the same time.

My considered and entirely unqualified legal opinion is "no leg to stand on - next case please"

 

[Neil]

1. Is a very big assumption.

The sentence starts with "If". But the pantomime horse's rear quarter's hubris kind of backs him into a corner, here.

2. I think there's a point there - that's why (for internal combustion engined cars) there is a european standard test for simulated fule economy, done on a rolling road, and you will notice that a common letter to the motoring press is "the figures claim fuel economy of xmpg, I drive carefully but can only achieve x-y% mpg." I think we are seeing the same (or at least a similar) phenomenon for the Tesla.

That is something of a canard.

It's one thing to not easily be able to meet best-case scenario advertisement claims.

It's another to rag it mercilessly around some track and not be able to meet best-base scenario advertisement claims.

It's entirely another thing to then say:-

"It's just a shame that in the real world it doesn't seem to work."

 

[MikeD]

Ooh, it gets better:

"Engineered for efficiency, the zero-emissions Roadster can drive 211 miles per charge (based on European Electric Vehicle Combined Cycle)."

Hang on, that's not the 245 miles it says on the front page...

Anyway, they seem more concerned about the breaking down bits. Anyone with time to waste may consult the Particulars of Claim:

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/defaul ... _03_11.pdf

 

[Neil]

I think they're on a sticky wicket here. That it lasted 55 miles of track driving is a fact (or at least, I'm assuming that the Beeb would be able to prove it as such). That it "doesn't seem to work in the real world" is clearly an opinion.

Tesla's own blurb is full of speed and handling and "spirited driving" -- it's sold as a sports car. You're patently not going to get the claimed range out of it by driving it fast, any more than you'll get the official MPG figures out of a petrol car by driving fast. The Tesla site even presents "0-60 in 3.7s" and "245 mile range" next to one another as if there's some possibility that it'll do both of those things at the same time.

My considered and entirely unqualified legal opinion is "no leg to stand on - next case please"

In fairness, have they ever ridiculed an ICE car that didn't meet it's best-case-scenario for fuel economy after being ragged around their track?

And if they did, did they try and make any tenuous links to the "real world"?

 

[Neil]

Ooh, it gets better:

"Engineered for efficiency, the zero-emissions Roadster can drive 211 miles per charge (based on European Electric Vehicle Combined Cycle)."

Hang on, that's not the 245 miles it says on the front page...

Well perhaps one is best-case-scenario, one being some standard test?

Anyway, they seem more concerned about the breaking down bits. Anyone with time to waste may consult the Particulars of Claim:

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/defaul ... _03_11.pdf

If you read some of that, it's quite damning.

And no doubt a court will decide, and TG / the BBC will present their own documents / claims.

As it stands, though, on previous form, and given their stage personas, which is more credible - they sexed this up for preferred perspective / already established bias, and maybe some cheap laughs - or they were entirely factual about how they presented the car?

 

[rosstheboss]

Personally I think it's six of one/half a dozen of the other...

Tesla, like every other car manufacturer can't back up their mpg figures, but for some reason they've got the hump about TG for ridiculing them, IN DECEMBER 2008!!! Why have they waited til now to kick off????

The TG team, especially Clarkson, has perhaps(?!) exaggerated the cars shortcomings, to provide greater entertainment.

They're both essentially wrong though really aren't they?!?