Top Gear's Jeremy Clarkson with the Tesla Roadster

Top Gear's Jeremy Clarkson with the Tesla Roadster

We learned earlier this week that Tesla Motors is suing our favorite TV show Top Gear for “libel and malicious falsehood” regarding the show’s review of the company’s Tesla Roadster. Tesla claims that during the episode, the Tesla Roadster is shown suffering some critical ‘breakdowns’ during track driving – saying that it was all staged.

Well, Top Gear has been quite about the case… until now.

Executive Producer Andy Wilman has posted about the matter on Transmission: The Top Gear TV Blog to give us some insight as to what his crew is thinking.

“The normal procedure for the BBC in a legal case is to acknowledge receipt of the other party’s claim, and then say no more and get on with preparing its defence for court,” Wilman said. However, he went onto point out just a thing or two (or more) to Top Gear fans.

Hit the jump to read Wilman’s points – but before you do that check out our original post on Tesla vs. Top Gear here.

1. We never said that the Tesla’s true range is only 55 miles, as opposed to their own claim of 211, or that it had actually ran out of charge. In the film our actual words were: “We calculated that on our track it would run out after 55 miles”. The first point here is that the track is where we do our tests of sports cars and supercars, as has happened ever since Top Gear existed. This is where cars are driven fast and hard, and since Tesla calls its roadster “The Supercar. Redefined.” it seemed pretty logical to us that the right test was a track test. The second point is that the figure of 55 miles came not from our heads, but from Tesla’s boffins in California. They looked at the data from that car and calculated that, driven hard on our track, it would have a range of 55 miles.

2. We never said that the Tesla was completely immobilized as a result of the motor overheating. We said the car had “reduced power”. This was true.

3. Tesla claims we were lying when we said the brakes were “broken”. They now say that all that had happened was that the fuse to the vacuum pump had failed, which meant that the brake just had to be pushed down much harder than usual. Well – to my mind, if the brakes are broken, then they’re broken, and if this happened to your car, you’d take it to the garage to get it fixed. Odd it seems so trivial to Tesla now, because on the day of filming they insisted on repairing the fuse before we could carry on driving the car.

The above points will be argued over in the near future by brainy people wearing wigs, but in a layman’s nutshell, this is where we stand on the matter. Before I finish though, I must clear up one important issue: scripting. It’s alleged by Tesla that on the day of filming one of their employees caught sight of a script that had been written, before the car had even been driven, already containing the verdict that in the “real world” the Tesla doesn’t work. This, they say, proves our guilt, because we’d condemned the car in advance. May I just say in reply:

a) The truth is, Top Gear had already driven the car prior to filming, to enable us to form a view on it in advance

b) Our primary reasoning behind the verdict had nothing to do with how the Tesla performed; our conclusion was based primarily on the fact that it costs three times more than the petrol sports car upon which it’s based, and it takes a long time to recharge; you can’t use it as easily as a petrol sports car for the carefree motoring journeys that are a prerequisite of sports car driving. You can actually reach conclusions based on them without driving the car. As it happens, when it did come to the subjective area of how the car drove on the track, we were full of praise for its performance and handling

c) Just so you understand there’s nothing devious going on, you need to know how this filming business works. When you film a car review, the reviewer is only the tip of the iceberg. Behind the lens is a film crew, and only a day’s worth of light to shoot the eight minute film. This means we have to prepare in advance a treatment – a rough draft of a script so that the director and film crew can get to work right away, knowing what shots they will need to capture. It will contain the facts about a car, and what we think of its looks and so on, but how well the car actually drives is added on the day. If we’ve driven it ahead of filming, as we do with most cars, we will also have an idea how it feels to drive. But, and this is crucial, as we uncover fresh information about a car whilst filming it, it is entirely normal for the treatment to be modified as the day unfolds. Jeremy is always tweaking the scripts to reflect what his driving experience has actually been on the day.

There you go. I’ve said my bit, and now we’ll hopefully shut up and prepare for our day in court.

- By: Omar Rana

Source: Transmission


Share |  Email  Print |

Tags: , , , , ,





Subscribe & Connect

Connect with us on any of our social profiles below.

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

  • http://twitter.com/blueandgold63 kent beuchert

    Top Gear’s explanations defy logic. I would love to be the attorney for Tesla – I would
    have the tapes sliced,diced and ready to make TopGear’s Clarkson look like the imbecilic British fool that we all know and love. But this time it will cost him. Funny how TopGear ignored two years of complaints from Tesla without saying a word. For mules, you sometimes have to bop them over the head to get their attention. A lawsuit will serve the purpose here. Arrogance like that displayed by Clarkson, followed by his pathetic and ridiculous explanations not only will be a losing strategy legally. Finally Clarkson will have to admit that he’s the brainless loser we all know him to be. TopGear is a yet another pathetic BBC joke.

  • desertwind

    Wasn’t there another lawsuit between Tesla and one of its founders? Nasty business. Nasty product. Nasty company. The bottom line is that electric sports cars are an oxymoron and when subjected to similar road tests other sports cars have to endure they come up short. The solution would have to be a ‘special’ test for electric sports cars in which reduced parameters are considered. or alternately, just bring in the lawyers from the beginning so as they can agree (if possible) as to what, how, when, who can be said or shown, but that could contradict with the freedom of opinion that most western media enjoy, so what gives? Usually, common sense prevails, but in this case it seems that this is headed to an uncertain legal showdown that may have nasty ramifications to Top Gear’s future. As far as Tesla is concerned, as a company, it wouldn’t even exist commercially if it were not for the largesse of Government funding (that it is unlikely to ever repay).

  • Battaup09

    I believe everything Top Gear says about the cars they test and its not a far stretch to say that the first production electric sports car made by a twobit company out of 6 million laptop batteries has a few electronic issues when driven hard for a long time. And Elon Musk isnt doing his start up company thats financed to the neck any favors by burning the bridge with Top Gear who could sway success of the company either way with its reviews or lack of reviews if it gets bad.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bryant.rydberg Bryant Rydberg

    Gimme a break. Top Gear is becoming more of a entertainment show than a truly informative car show. And if you believe everything Top Gear spouts then good luck to you! I personally like Top Gear UK but I never learned anything from it and just pure bullocks. Top Gear unfairly portrayed Tesla and that is not cool. Any car company would have been up in arms after that clip!

  • Wbd93003

    British TV failed to mention the biggest truth about Tesla , Hybrids, and all cars with electric primary drive MOTORS. They cripple and maim pedestrians

    Tesla’s own ads tout the 100% TORQUE from zero miles per hour, they Tesla, Hybrids, and all cars with electric primary drive MOTORS, cripple and main pedestrians.
    All that Electric Primary Drive TORQUE 100% from start of motion, causes stop sign to cross walk IMPACT 5 or 6 TIMES greater than the most powerful gasoline engine car.

    I know because I was hit by an extreme torque car and got a judgment in court but I’d rather be able to walk normally.

  • Naboo

    Interesting that Mr. Rana fails to address the unkindest cut, which was creating the impression that the vehicle had run out of charge and had to be pushed, and that both cars were “broken” when in fact Top Gear was never without an operating Roadster. We will see what the wigged ones have to say but in my opinion Top Gear went too far. I do enjoy the show however, and I understand that not ALL Albanians are car thieves. :)

  • howard444

    Driving a vehicle at mad speed around a race track or disused airfiled IS NOT NORMAL DRIVING !!
    Petrol cars also use up far more petrol when in race mode their range too drops when driven by
    lunatics in a nutcase way for no reason. Normal driving is the only honest reflection.

  • howard444

    Yes the Roadstar is full of laptop batteries !! DO YOU KNOW WHY ? Because the proper automotive electric car batteries capable of being developed for much longer range than ANY
    petrol car are locked in a feudalist neo-totalitarian corporate prison.That is the CHEVRON OIL
    PATENT on EV BATTERIES. There is NO engineering obstacle to achieving an ALL ELECTRIC
    SUV with 1200 miles range on a single charge !! The only obstacle is legal and political. CHEVRON OIL have the technology in a anti-development prison. A decade ago the executives at GENERAL MOTORS handed over the RIGHTS to the electric car battery to TEXACO who was then bought
    out by CHEVRON who rewrote the PATENT making it even more severe an obstacle. PANASONIC made an improved NIMH battery for TOYOTA ..CHEVRON took PANASONIC to a corporate star-chamber abritration hearing where a pro CHEVRON judge not only found in the OIL MAFIA;’s favour
    but punishment PANASONIC with a penality of $30million for the crime of making a better EV battery. That TESLA engineers can get around this by using the insane alternative of the same
    chemical units in laptop batteries is an awesome achievement.

    The world needs to demand the abolishment of the CHEVRON PATENT or simply total defiance.
    In the 90′s Brazil told the Cinton admin to F! OFF when they tried to stop them from making low-cost generic copies of AIDS drugs to save their people in defiance of the corporate property rights !!

    South Africa and Russia did not and they became ravaged with AIDS.

    Same principal here the needs of humanity matter more. These batteries that are in the CHEVRON
    prison run by corporate lawyers are not only essential for electric cars but to power homes, farms,
    and to store solar and wind energy. They are the essential key for the essential global transformation of society into sustainable model.

    Howard Simon Marks
    0161 798 4643 Manchester UK
    cinema2008@europe.com

  • Anonymous

    You are greatly misinformed. Cobasys was sold to Bosch/Samsung in 2009 and is now known as Ovonics. The patents no longer belong to Texaco/Chevron and the NiMH technology is being developed for vehicle use.

    http://www.energyconversiondevices.com/battery.php

     

  • howard444

    CHEVRON STILL RETAINS A VETO DESPITE SALE !