Tesla sues Top Gear over rigged race

Are you sure about that?

 

Clarkson and all seem to spend a great deal of time driving around in pretty exotic cars that most people don't have a prayer of owning, like Jags and such.

The show is just entertainment to get a rise out of watchers.

Who cares if a Prius doesn't handle like a Carrera when you're slogging around town behind a bunch of Civics.

 

As American's we're given the belief that if someone hurts our feeling, we should be awarded millions of dollars. Such a crock of shit. This contributes to our problem of entitlement that so many American youth posess. One Brit on this thread said suing Top Gear would be very "American" of them. That shows you what Brits think of us sueing everyone. Just let it go on record, not ALL Americans think that way. Don't take this as an attack on Americans, since I am a PROUD American. We can offer things no other country can, but this idea that everyone is entitled to a lawsuit is ridiculous. If it hurts sales, then they're targeting the wrong market. They've targeted idiots. I highly doubt that episode convinced anyone NOT to buy an electric vehicle (no, I haven't seen it). Would you discount buying a Prius because Dale Earnhardt Jr. said his car can beat it in a drag race? No, because that's not it's intent. It's common sense.

Likewise, every television show has it's opinion, and should be entitled to it- whether padded to make a point or not. Tesla just need to counterclaim the show's remarks. Is Toyota sueing whatever numbskulls keep spreading the rumor that the Prius does more ecological damage than other cars? NO. Would Lotus be entitled to sue Tom Hanks if he said he'd never buy their car because it's uncomfortable and too hard on gas. No, it's his opinion whether it's true to Lotus or not. I suppose someone could find a reason to sue me for any comments I've made in here. The freedom of speech has been molested by overpaid attorneys in our country, manipulating the law to cover situations it was never intended to do.

Why wouldn't Tesla be entitled to sue Toyota? Since the Prius itself has likely impared the sales of the inadequate Tesla. All electric vehicles are impractical (especially those that require a specific charging station), but the Prius offered a happy medium. There's no doubt that impeded sales.

Hell, let's sue South Park writers, Saturday Night Live, and Jeff Dunham for their comments on the Prius. Not only for impeding possible sales for slandering the Prius, but we could get Jeff Dunham incarcerated for biggotry, since he called it "gay!"

I can appreciate the other American's on this thread supporting the fact that we don't ALL think we are entitled to a lawsuit. But, it's all about the fast money for all too many (especially multi-million dollar companies). Hell, spending $500,000 (attorney fees) to gain $12 million (lawsuit damages) in 2 years sounds like a pretty sound investment, huh? I hope the case is heard in UK. WHich it would ultimately have to be.

 

Frivolous lawsuits are one tactic used by dying companies as a "Hail Mary".

Suing a TV program because they expose your products weaknesses (with a little added showmanship) only serves to give your products weaknesses a wider audience. Doh!

Few will care whether the car had to be pushed into the shop or if it had a few more limp home miles left in the batteries. Many more will care that a $100k+ car sold as a high performance sports car won't make it through a beginners track day on a road course.

Tesla's poorly thought out litigiousness reminds me of...

or

 

I watched the show. It's handling was good by the numbers but it wasn't the precision instrument that most Lotuses are.

 

Hmmmm, wow. That's bad publicity. 2 Roadster owners said reviewer likely didn't charge car in Range mode.

 

That's exactly what I mean. It's embarrassing. There are stories (I don't know of their substance or actual case law), that a burglar fell through a skylight and was injured doing so. Sued the homeowner for his injuries. I'm sure that's a myth of sorts, but that shows the mentality of American Lawyers. A lady burned her crotch and successfully sued McDonald's for it. Well duh, you dumb shit you put scolding hot coffee between you legs the drove off. What did you think the chances were? Every other television commercial (on my local channels, anyways) is an attorney firm asking if your newborn child or you personally suffered such a side effect while on this FDA approved drug. If so call Hupy and Abraham, and we'll sue those drug companies for you! It's ridiculous. They're actually going FISHING for cases! No wonder the cost of medication is so freakin' high in this country. $200 a bottle here. $7.50 if you cross the boarder to mexico. Same drug. Same brand. Same dose. At this I digress, as I've gotten off topic.

 

On the other hand you have cases where publishing false and misleading information causes real damage. This may be one of them. If it is, then Tesla is entitled to compensation. This is the notion behind liable and slander, which apply to both English and U.S. law.

Tom

 

They cleared showed it running out of juice on the track - The sound effect was like an LP record player being unplugged. Showed the car slowing to stop on track, then 3 or 4 guys pushing it into shop.

Still, I wonder how far a Roadster would go full out on a track. No harm for Tesla to give an idea.

 

Yes, and since it really did not run out of juice it was a lie. If they said it could run out after 55 miles in worst case that is one thing, but to show it dying when it did not is unfair. That was one of the central points they hammered over and over to say the car was not usable in the real world.

 

To get down to 55 miles it would have to be consuming 1,000wh per mile. that seems realistic, and compares with an elise consuming 8-10 miles per gallon under the same conditions. that would give the elise a range of 60-100 miles on a track.

It's worth noting the top gear test track is 1.75 miles, and the tesla completed it in 1:27, an average speed of 72mph, which would give you about 45 minutes of full race speed driving.

 

Good! That ought to make them think twice about making another show like that again.

 

No, it was playing loose with facts or lying, depending on your point of view.

 

They would never do that because other than a little showmanship, Top Gear was actually rather kind to the Tesla.

The 55 mile range on the track was about right, whether they faked it being completely dead at 55 miles or not. Does Tesla want a repeat of that except with the car sitting dead on the track after 55.7 miles and the Top Gear people just walking away from it saying they won;t push it off the track because they are afraid they will get sued if they do?

 

Personal opinion would be saying that the Tesla just isn't there yet, or that the lack of range is concerning. Falsifying the test results is not personal opinion.

For example, if I were to state publicly that I find British taxi drives to be insufferably rude, that would be a personal opinion. On the other hand, if I publish a report that states that 98% of British taxi drives are child molesters, that would be libel. Unless, of course, 98% of British taxi drivers *are* child molesters.

Tom

 

It is a grey area. Playing an LP sound as if the plug was pulled is not data, and pushing the car into the garage is not the same thing as specifically saying "the battery is discharged."

By their actions they most certainly intended the audience to think that the car had run out of juice, but is that enough to lose a libel case ? The court will decide, as will public opinion. I say clarkson is undeniably an a**hole.