This time, the truth they've stretched implies that something is not fit for purpose. That is damaging to Tesla's reputation.

like hayesey says here if you have to drive it 'mindfully' then what use is it as a sports/track car, which is what it's being putted to us as by Tesla. surely this does make it unfit for the purpose it's being sold for?

It argued that because the car was "driven aggressively" on Top Gear the charge didn't last as long, but that if driven "mindfully" charges could last for 313 miles.

is pretty funny because if they really said that and they seem to be pushing this car as a sports/track car then surely it's not fit for purpose if you can't drive it aggressively?

That episode gets shown all over the world repeatedly by the BBC and other channels. It's probably been on Dave in the last week.

/your argument.

So your suggesting that Tesla gave them a review car and never bothered to find out what they thought? No way had anyone in the UK bought one at that point. I am 100% sure they are suing to get some money, probably because not enough people bought their cars.

Tesla will have given them a car to review. Ordinarily the first time manufacturers get to see a road test for the first time when it's in print, or shown on TV in Top Gear's case. Otherwise journalists would spend all their time tweaking copy to make manufacturers happy.

Put yourself in Tesla's shoes. Let's assume they get a partially charged car back, with functioning brakes. Then the show comes out and they're being accused of incredibly low range and poor mechanicals.

Of course nobody would've bought one back then, it was probably filmed before the car was released. However, lots of potential buyers would've tuned in to see how the car performs. Top Gear says it's unreliable and unfit for purpose. Would you buy an expensive car based on that?

Look, for example, I drove the Nissan Leaf yesterday. Another EV. I wrote in my review that the steering and suspension are too soft, which I think they are, and that the range won't suit everyone. These are my opinions, not cold hard facts. If I said I'd got 200 yards from the start of the test route and the motor had exploded, so go and buy a diesel Golf instead, I think Nissan would be similarly unhappy.

This whole thread is getting silly now. The fact of the matter is Top Gear have, supposedly falsely, shown a flaw with the Tesla that doesn't exist and it's been seen by millions. That's defamation, and Tesla have a case. You can argue for pages and pages about whether it's right or wrong, but legally they've got good grounds to sue over this and that's why they are.

This time, the truth they've stretched implies that something is not fit for purpose. That is damaging to Tesla's reputation.

like hayesey says here if you have to drive it 'mindfully' then what use is it as a sports/track car, which is what it's being putted to us as by Tesla. surely this does make it unfit for the purpose it's being sold for?

Same thing again. Whatever car you take around a track will have a range, and this will be limited by how hard you're driving. If you run out of petrol on a track maybe you should've watched the fuel gauge a bit closer. The issue here is Tesla are saying the car has a higher range, and that Top Gear filmed a segment which said it was lower than they're claiming.

Yes, if you nail a Tesla around a track for a day you might run out of charge. But if you nail an Elise around a track you might run out of fuel. Electric technology is still very new, and consumers haven't come around to it fully yet. Top Gear are backing up old myths about impractically low range, which is incredibly damaging.

Look, I'm not trying to be a cock and I'm not defending Tesla, though it may sound like the contrary.

As a journalist you have to be very careful about what you say, and how you say it. I've known magazines that have been sued for considerably less than this, and I mean stuff most normal people wouldn't even think was defamatory. Stuff that's so far detached from reality that it's amazing they'd even challenge it.

But if they can prove it's got the potential to damage their reputation or livelihood, you're fucked.

i see where your coming from but i think they will struggle to win, after all top gear have the best lawyers my licence fee can buy, and ultimately that's normally what it comes down to, who has the best lawyers

whats a licence fee?

pay for my sky subscription so aint paying twice

i see where your coming from but i think they will struggle to win, after all top gear have the best lawyers my licence fee can buy, and ultimately that's normally what it comes down to, who has the best lawyers

One of the cases I'm talking about above was a single, not very well off young woman against a global media corporation.

I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as you think.

I really wish I could discuss it properly, but I can't.

Wow tricky arguement here!

Dont want to sound like a brown noser but alex has a point, I LOVE top gear and always have, i'll defend it to the hilt and have done on many an occasion, I admire the outspoken nature of jeremy clarkson and the fact that he isnt afraid to actually perform his god given right of "having an opinion," he is one of the few people left who dont give two shits about political correctness and conforming to what people deem to be "appropriate" behaviour, and love him or hate him...there are many people who share this view.

HOWEVER....He and top gear have deliberatly misguided the public and have led them to believe something that "supposedly" isnt true e.g nackered brakes, and empty batteries, whether they did it as a joke or an exaggerated example of what could or could not happen to an electric car, top gear is viewed by millions and as has already been mentioned, top gear often gets quoted and some people do take what they say as fact, rightly or wrongly so.

Tesla have a case i reckon providing they can prove that what top gear has said is in fact a lie, Thats my two pence worth anyway :)

Surely Tesla should've seen it coming handing over an electric sports car to jeremy clarkson? What did they expect him to say.

At the end of the day when does Jezza take anything seriously for this matter to upset him hahah! Pathetic!

Jamesy

think topgear isnt against electric cars,just that there not quite there yet in range,and there not tested over a long time

and its a petrols heads show,hard to push electric cars on people if they dont cater for all

remember the bmw m5 review,the most annoying car in the world,but with a flick of a button? didnt see bmw with a lawsuit because they claimed the satnav woman wouldnt shut up

the latest zonda,cant be driven on the road,and cant be driven on the track because its too loud,but is an epic car? no lawsuit

from a country that has only invented a rotary washing line,what a car the manaro is? same

boring saab,shows up supercars in the midrange though???

its a motoring show that caters for all imo,fun,bizzare,and factual

and there saying electric cars arnt at the everyday,motorway,fast,reliable level yet,its a new technology ie raise the game

Don't like Top gear, because i can't stand Clarkson. He's the archetypical self-opinionated pr*ck!

The pity is that an awful lot of people don't share my view.

Cuz no one gives a shit mate.

Don't like Top gear, because i can't stand Clarkson. He's the archetypical self-opinionated pr*ck!

The pity is that an awful lot of people don't share my view.

Cuz no one gives a shit mate.

:lol:

Don't like Top gear, because i can't stand Clarkson. He's the archetypical self-opinionated pr*ck!

The pity is that an awful lot of people don't share my view.

An awful lot of people don't share your view because he is entertaining, that is what Top Gear and TV in general is about.

I agree. But I personally do not find dropping pianos on Morris Marinas, Lancia Delta Biturbos, dropping Beetles from a helicopter or Clarkson deliberately turning Reliant's over particuarly entertaining. Yes. the Marina was an awful car and yes Biturbos rotted away before your eyes, but was a wonderful driver's car. However the Beetle was one of the classic light car designs The reliant was an anachronism left over from the dismal days of austerity after the 2nd World War, but none of them deserved to be wrecked on screen in the name of entertainment. hat's the sort of thing that happens only in comedy programs. Or have I misconstrued Top Gear?

By the way, I owned a Robin in the early 80's as a rat and never turned it over once. Got stopped speeding it it one night 72mph in a 50 limit. The traffic cop wasn't impressed whwn I asked him if he was booking me or giving me a medal! Eventually blew it up on the motorway.

saw a nissan leaf, did you know the CEO of tesla once branded the leaf "primitive" but yeah whatever. it probably will do 211 miles same as a prius will do 70 mpg but if i drove it round a track i doubt it would achieve those figures. Shit happens, tesla and the BBC should get over it

remember the bmw m5 review,the most annoying car in the world,but with a flick of a button? didnt see bmw with a lawsuit because they claimed the satnav woman wouldnt shut up

That's an annoying feature, it's not the same as saying it's got a 50 mile range or a faulty brake system.

Also, the word 'annoying' is subjective. An over-chatty sat nav could also be 'useful' if you've got zero sense of direction.

So not the same as the Tesla thing.

Light hearted fun-poking is fine, as it's opinion based. So saying the Tesla looks like it's been shat out of an elephant isn't defamatory because that's the journalist's opinion. Saying that each Tesla sale funds global terrorism is a different matter.

Do you get me?

GLOBAL TERRORISM?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? lets hope TG win the case or (insert generic terrorist group here) will kill lots of innocent people.

or is it the new world order

Awesome- good on Tesla. Hopefully this will be a short step in Top Gear returning to a factual show, instead of 'I'm a balding 50 year old trying to drift any car' reviews, which spout utter shite, and really don't help anyone looking to buy the feature cars.

Having said that, I still watch it.

Thing is, if that happens to topgear, ratings will drop stupidly and BBC will pull it.

Every sale from tesla funds terrorism? God damn, i almost feel like i should share this with facebook.

I heard they also imported slave children from angola to build the electrics systems cheaply?

Please stop repeating the terrorism thing! I'm getting scared now!

I'd like to make it clear, in case Tesla are reading this, that the above was an example. Please don't sue me too!

What do you mean tesla are in the process of hunting down and killing anyone who disagrees with their PR machine?

Are we talking cold-war russia style people disappearing? My god thats terrible! Someone should do something!

Disclaimer: I'm a retard believe nothing i say

Edited 1 April, 201115 yr by skatty_01

It's been nice knowing you all...

THE SS are coming or the KGB, i don't know which is scarier, all we know is Gaddafi is best mates with the CEO

Look, for example, I drove the Nissan Leaf yesterday. Another EV. I wrote in my review that the steering and suspension are too soft, which I think they are, and that the range won't suit everyone. These are my opinions, not cold hard facts. If I said I'd got 200 yards from the start of the test route and the motor had exploded, so go and buy a diesel Golf instead, I think Nissan would be similarly unhappy.

Did you get to put some decent mileage on it to get a feel for its true range?

I got to take one out for 30 mins around Geneva when I was at the motor show last month. I'd been spending most of the time giving test drives in our EV, or being the tech geek on our stand, so it was a nice change to try someone else's product. They've done a very good job of building a proper EV, though I definitely agree on the steering.