Top Gear did not libel carmaker Tesla, high court rules
59 replies, posted
[quote]
Electric sports carmaker Tesla Motors has lost a major part of its high court libel claim against the BBC's Top Gear programme, but is still suing the corporation for malicious falsehood over an episode that showed the company's Roadster model running out of battery in a race.
Ruling at the high court in London on Wednesday, Mr Justice Tugendhat said that no Top Gear viewer would have reasonably compared the car's performance on the show's airfield track to its likely performance on a public road.
The hearing continues on other grounds, including Tesla's claim that the Top Gear presenters maliciously made five other false statements about the Roadster.
Tesla first made a complaint against the BBC in 2008, after the show was originally broadcast. The company's complaint centred on Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson, who said in the programme that the Roadster ran out of battery after 55 miles on its track – far short of the 200 miles that Tesla claimed it could achieve.
Tugendhat said: "In my judgment, the words complained of are wholly incapable of conveying any meaning at all to the effect that the claimant [Tesla] misled anyone.
"This is because there is a contrast between the style of driving and the nature of the track as compared with the conditions on a public road […] are so great that no reasonable person could understand that the performance on the [Top Gear] track is capable of a direct comparison with a public road."
The judgment was handed down verbally by Tugendhat shortly before lunchtime on Wednesday in the full-day hearing.
Tesla has accused Top Gear of using "staged" footage to create the impression that the Roadster had run out of battery. The US carmaker also complained that Top Gear characterised a blown fuse as a brake failure, and that the model became immobile as a result of overheating.
In its skeleton argument, Tesla says it has seen a "continuing impact" of the 2008 Top Gear episode on its reputation, resulting from its availability on the BBC iPlayer video-on-demand service, DVD, and syndication of the original programme to other broadcasters including the digital channel, Dave.
Tugendhat reserved judgment on Tesla's malicious falsehood claim. The judge is expected to return a verdict within weeks. The BBC contests that the entire claim should be struck out.[/quote]
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/19/top-gear-not-libel-tesla?CMP=twt_fd[/url]
And Tesla.......
[img]http://site.laviemegan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/topgearloser.gif[/img]
Stop being so fucking butthurt.
I understand how Tesla could feel like their reputation is being brought down a little.
But the Top Gear team isn't really at fault.
Glad to see the Top Gear guys are off the hook.
Still, though, I do agree that their portrayal was a little unfair. It takes a long time to lay down 55 miles on their track, and the way they edited it gave the impression that it ran down almost immediately. Fair criticism if you intend to drive only on a track, but for actual road use you'll get a lot more driving time than was portrayed. Clarkson could have at least added a disclaimer line like "Now, in normal driving conditions on a road, the range wouldn't be quite so [i]pathetic[/i]".
Anyway, glad Tesla lost. They weren't blatantly lying, just trying to illustrate the shortcomings of all-electric cars. And I remember they had nothing but praise for how fast it was.
[quote]Tesla first made a complaint against the BBC in 2008, after the show was originally broadcast. The company's complaint centred on Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson, who said in the programme that the Roadster ran out of battery after 55 miles on its track – far short of the 200 miles that Tesla claimed it could achieve.[/quote]
[quote]Tesla has accused Top Gear of using "staged" footage to create the impression that the Roadster had run out of battery. The US carmaker also complained that Top Gear characterised a blown fuse as a brake failure, and that the model became immobile as a result of overheating.[/quote]
there's something that reeks of bullshit right here
I think Tesla are perfectly entitled to complain if Top Gear really did this on purpose (the range almost being quartered, and the other stuff), electric cars have a bad enough rep without actual lies being propagated about their efficiency and safety
I mean, come on, I like TG as much as anyone else but they need to be fair and open about these things
if there wasn't anything funny going on and the car really did fall short of expectations then fair enough
They did stage the footage. They admitted to it.
How Tesla lost this case, I have no idea. Top Gear is funded by shell and the host hates electric vehicles.
The Tesla roadster is insanely powerful and should by all accounts, utterly destroy virtually anything else on the road. Which is why they risked giving top gear a chance to test it out.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32893936]They did stage the footage. They admitted to it.
How Tesla lost this case, I have no idea. Top Gear is funded by shell and the host hates electric vehicles.
The Tesla roadster is insanely powerful and should by all accounts, utterly destroy virtually anything else on the road. Which is why they risked giving top gear a chance to test it out.[/QUOTE]
theres a reason why he hates electric cars.
because they dont work
it's Top Gear, not a serious car show
[QUOTE=beanhead;32895683]theres a reason why he hates electric cars.
because they dont work[/QUOTE]
Except they do, and it did, and Top Gear lied about what happened
This was clear cut libel, I have no idea why Tesla lost
Topgear is amazing and some people can't take a joke.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32896444]Except they do, and it did, and Top Gear lied about what happened
This was clear cut libel, I have no idea why Tesla lost[/QUOTE]
The judged ruled that no person with a brain would really think that racing the car around would equal road efficiency, thus it's not libel, it was just a light-hearted stint which the show revolves around, they get tanks out and test tractors against each other, it's not really to be taken seriously
I love Top Gear. I love Tesla. What do I do?
They actually mentioned they did not hate electric cars and that they were not specifically against alternative fuels/electric cars in a different episode, it is just that the concept is flawed and having to charge a car up for upwards of 5-10 hours and the limited range associated with electric cars really inhibit their potential.
They also said hydrogen powered cars would be much better, but then they started discussing how they will have to change the program to cattle gear in a short time and how they will have to race different cows around so it was not entirely serious.
[QUOTE=beanhead;32895683]theres a reason why he hates electric cars.
because they dont work[/QUOTE]
As Zeke said, it did work. Then they lied about it.
It was libel.
[QUOTE=Ihazard;32896528]The judged ruled that no person with a brain would really think that racing the car around would equal road efficiency, thus it's not libel, it was just a light-hearted stint which the show revolves around, they get tanks out and test tractors against each other, it's not really to be taken seriously[/QUOTE]
Believe it or not, Top Gear is actually a fairly serious car show. They load it up with lots of humour, but they present themselves as knowledgeable so when they go over the pros/cons of a vehicle people listen.
[QUOTE=Fetret;32896988]They actually mentioned they did not hate electric cars and that they were not specifically against alternative fuels/electric cars in a different episode, it is just that the concept is flawed and having to charge a car up for upwards of 5-10 hours and the limited range associated with electric cars really inhibit their potential.
They also said hydrogen powered cars would be much better, but then they started discussing how they will have to change the program to cattle gear in a short time and how they will have to race different cows around so it was not entirely serious.[/QUOTE]
They are wrong.
Hydrogen doesn't provide the same power density, is extremely difficult to store, and takes considerable amounts of energy simply to harvest.
Internal combustion engines are not efficient or very powerful. Electric motors have the benefit of being nigh indestructible, far more energy efficient, a MUCH better power curve, and a max RPM limited only by how much energy you can throw at it and the quality of its construction.
Provided you can produce batteries capable of storing the charge relatively efficiently, and we are getting there, you can then draw all of your power from the grid. If the grid is running on wind, solar, hydro, or nuclear power, then you have an extremely low impact motor vehicle that can accelerate so quick that it has to be electronically limited in order not to immediately snap the axle upon pushing the gas.
tl;dr: Internal combustion, in any form, is not sustainable or efficient.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32897099]
Hydrogen doesn't provide the same power density, is extremely difficult to store, and takes considerable amounts of energy simply to harvest...
...Provided you can produce batteries capable of storing the charge relatively efficiently[/QUOTE]
Hydrogen fuel cells might be a good way to supplement our shit batteries in the mean-time though
Great. Let's piss off the good guys in this conflict.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32897233]Hydrogen fuel cells might be a good way to supplement our shit batteries in the mean-time though[/QUOTE]
Yeah they make more sense, as the conversion from hydrogen into propulsion is ultimately, if I remember correctly, much much better than simply using it in an internal combustion engine.
Very good point.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32897233]Hydrogen fuel cells might be a good way to supplement our shit batteries in the mean-time though[/QUOTE]
That [B]MIGHT[/B] actually work well.
[QUOTE=Van-man;32897420]That [B]MIGHT[/B] actually work well.[/QUOTE]
Aside from the fact that, uhm, your hydrogen will run out fairly quick, it's expensive to implement into cars and not very weight nor energy efficient and without an expensive infrastructure of hydrogen chargers and highly pressurized tanks ready you aren't going to go to far with it
At the moment efficient hybrid-gas vehicles like the Aptera 2h and continual improvement of battery capacity is the best hope we have imo
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;32898309]Aside from the fact that, uhm, your hydrogen will run out fairly quick, it's expensive to implement into cars and not very weight nor energy efficient and without an expensive infrastructure of hydrogen chargers and highly pressurized tanks ready you aren't going to go to far with it
At the moment efficient hybrid-gas vehicles like the Aptera 2h and continual improvement of battery capacity is the best hope we have imo[/QUOTE]
Hence MIGHT.
Never said it was the solution to all our problems.
Hybrids have a massive impact on the environment.
The current methods of producing their batteries coupled with their low service life and the lightweight alloys that cause untold industrial waste, make hybrids less healthy for the environment than an H2. H2's are made almost entirely out of mild steel, which is relatively easy to make and can be recycled very easily. This offsets their carbon emissions quite nicely once you take into consideration that they have a long expected service life. Far longer than that of most hybrids.
Hybrids are not, and will never be, the answer.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32896444]Except they do, and it did, and Top Gear lied about what happened
This was clear cut libel, I have no idea why Tesla lost[/QUOTE]
Shell owns the court too.
Rule of law for all unless you make more money.
[editline]21st October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=beanhead;32895683]theres a reason why he hates electric cars.
because they dont work[/QUOTE]
theres a reason why the rich hate taxes
because they 'dont work' (hint, this statement is bullshit)
[editline]21st October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;32898309]Aside from the fact that, uhm, your hydrogen will run out fairly quick, it's expensive to implement into cars and not very weight nor energy efficient and without an expensive infrastructure of hydrogen chargers and highly pressurized tanks ready you aren't going to go to far with it
At the moment efficient hybrid-gas vehicles like the Aptera 2h and continual improvement of battery capacity is the best hope we have imo[/QUOTE]
Not to mention our most efficient ways of obtaining gaseous hydrogen in decent quantities results in even more CO2, as it's extracted from hydrocarbons.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32898359]Hybrids have a massive impact on the environment.
The current methods of producing their batteries coupled with their low service life and the lightweight alloys that cause untold industrial waste, make hybrids less healthy for the environment than an H2. H2's are made almost entirely out of mild steel, which is relatively easy to make and can be recycled very easily. This offsets their carbon emissions quite nicely once you take into consideration that they have a long expected service life. Far longer than that of most hybrids.
Hybrids are not, and will never be, the answer.[/QUOTE]
I'm just saying that once we do reach a point where we can produce batteries economically, the efficient lightweight hybrid solves the simple problem of running out of juice rather well because we already have a gasoline infrastructure. It's doubtful that we could spare the expenses of a major, major infrastructure overhaul into hydrogen without some huge world events happening, either.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;32898417]By that same logic, electric cars will never be the answer because all the flaws of hybrid cars are even [I]more[/I] pronounced in electrics due to their larger battery capacities. I'm just saying that once we do reach a point where we can produce batteries economically, the efficient lightweight hybrid solves the simple problem of running out of juice rather well because we already have a gasoline infrastructure.[/QUOTE]
Not really, electric cars don't have the same problems that hybrids do.
Hybrids carry around an internal combustion engine, gas for it, an electric motor(s), and batteries for the electric motor. In order to offset the problem of hauling around two complete engine systems, the frame has to be ultra light. That ultralight frame is a large part of the problem as it is very difficult to make and even more difficult to effectively recycle.
Electric vehicles just haul around batteries. Their frame can be much more conventional, and due to the electric motors in it being given more space and the removal of a complicated miniature internal combustion engine, their service life can be MASSIVE. You only need to replace the batteries. The benefit here is that you can then ride the advancement of battery tech without needing to replace your vehicle. So every five years or however long you need in between replacements (Which would be recycled, again lowering the impact) you would likely replace your battery with a slightly better version, or simply one that is less damaging to make. And again, no inefficient internal combustion engine producing emissions, you draw all your power from the infinitely more efficient power grid.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32893936]Top Gear is funded by shell and the host hates electric vehicles.[/QUOTE]
No it's not. most of it is funded by the production company Clarkson and Andy Wilman own.
They also don't hate electric cars and are fully aware we will run out of petroleum one day.
The focus by manufacturers is what they hate.
Why design all cars like lunchboxes, and why bother making a car to replace petrol that is (relatively) easy.
Running out of fuel is a difficult problem, so they simply argue that the solution cannot be so easy.
Not sure what they think of hydrogen. I remember May driving a Honda that did the same distance as a petrol car, much cheaper and said the only limitation was storage and transportation due to it being highly unstable. There's your difficult solution!
[QUOTE=GunFox;32898519]Not really, electric cars don't have the same problems that hybrids do.
Hybrids carry around an internal combustion engine, gas for it, an electric motor(s), and batteries for the electric motor. In order to offset the problem of hauling around two complete engine systems, the frame has to be ultra light. That ultralight frame is a large part of the problem as it is very difficult to make and even more difficult to effectively recycle.
Electric vehicles just haul around batteries. Their frame can be much more conventional, and due to the electric motors in it being given more space and the removal of a complicated miniature internal combustion engine, their service life can be MASSIVE. You only need to replace the batteries. The benefit here is that you can then ride the advancement of battery tech without needing to replace your vehicle. So every five years or however long you need in between replacements (Which would be recycled, again lowering the impact) you would likely replace your battery with a slightly better version, or simply one that is less damaging to make. And again, no inefficient internal combustion engine producing emissions, you draw all your power from the infinitely more efficient power grid.[/QUOTE]
...Except by the time you replace the battery for the second time, you have worn running gear, worn interior, worn exterior, and a frame outdated in safety requirements, efficiency and styling. Add to that the fact that there is absolutely no guarantee that you can find a battery for a ten year old car, and you pretty much might as well just replace the entire car (by which times you will have gone through two sets of very expensive, very large batteries for an electric car).
Just because electric cars have the potential to be built modularly and like tanks doesn't mean the entire thing won't be obsolete by one or two battery changes nor that they will live up to their full design potential. Your car is going to be rendered old and crusty by ten or fifteen years anyway, so you might as well just buy a normal car with a lesser quantity of batteries which doesn't have the critical flaw of having to charge after depleting its battery.
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;32896711]I love Top Gear. I love Tesla. What do I do?[/QUOTE]
You use the power of reasoning to consider the evidence and side with whoever you thought was in the right.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32898519]Not really, electric cars don't have the same problems that hybrids do.
Hybrids carry around an internal combustion engine, gas for it, an electric motor(s), and batteries for the electric motor. In order to offset the problem of hauling around two complete engine systems, the frame has to be ultra light. That ultralight frame is a large part of the problem as it is very difficult to make and even more difficult to effectively recycle.
Electric vehicles just haul around batteries. Their frame can be much more conventional, and due to the electric motors in it being given more space and the removal of a complicated miniature internal combustion engine, their service life can be MASSIVE. You only need to replace the batteries. The benefit here is that you can then ride the advancement of battery tech without needing to replace your vehicle. So every five years or however long you need in between replacements (Which would be recycled, again lowering the impact) you would likely replace your battery with a slightly better version, or simply one that is less damaging to make. And again, no inefficient internal combustion engine producing emissions, you draw all your power from the infinitely more efficient power grid.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention you could use hub mounted electric motor & brake combo at all four wheels.
Thus leaving more inboard space for the rest.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;32898793]...Except by the time you replace the battery for the second time, you have worn running gear[/QUOTE]
And? just replace it
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;32898793]
worn interior, [/QUOTE]
reupholster it
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;32898793] worn exterior,[/QUOTE]
If properly cared for and maintained, then the worst is wall-mart scratches.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;32898793] and a frame outdated in safety requirements, efficiency and styling. [/QUOTE]
Because cars TOTALLY aren't incredibly safe nowadays, and we're SURELY not reaching the limits in efficiency quickly.
And I (and many others) like the looks of older cars
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;32898793]
Add to that the fact that there is absolutely no guarantee that you can find a battery for a ten year old car, and you pretty much might as well just replace the entire car (by which times you will have gone through two sets of very expensive, very large batteries for an electric car).[/QUOTE]
IF there's a market for replacement & refurbishing battery packs, then there'll be several businesses doing that.
And trust me, there WILL be.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;32898793]
Just because electric cars have the potential to be built modularly and like tanks doesn't mean the entire thing won't be obsolete by one or two battery changes nor that they will live up to their full design potential. [B]Your car is going to be rendered old and crusty by ten or fifteen years anyway[/B], so you might as well just buy a normal car with a lesser quantity of batteries which doesn't have the critical flaw of having to charge after depleting its battery.[/QUOTE]
Only if it's [I]defective by design[/I]
Nigga please, not everyone wants to buy a new car just as often as they buy a new jacket
Didn't Top Gear do a test on how electric cars aren't the future(in the state they are now)?
The problem was that you had to plan your trips carefully, since not every gas station had recharging equipment. The battery takes 13 hours to recharge when it's more or less empty. There are ways to recharge it faster, but then the battery deteriorates faster. You'd have to chance battery after 3 years, which is really uneconomic(even if you don't have to pay congestion charges).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.