Tesla Suing The BBC over the very misleading Top Gear bias against the Roadster

It is about time somebody took Clarkson et al to the cleaners regarding their stupid remarks and very biased program.

It beat the Elise hands down in a straight race and was even an early car from a very young Tesla.

Top Gear is to driving like Stephen Colbert is to politics...

Unwad your panties and move on with your life!!!

This goes for Tesla as well...

Yeah but no one takes Colbert seriously. Unfortunately the same is not true for Clarkson.

The Colbert Report is NOT a true political news program!?
The next thing you are going to tell me is The Daily Show is a comedy.
Yah right and Fox News is fair and unbiased.

It's about time. The BBC is nothing but lies reporting.

That episode was complete and utter bullshit! I don't understand why they're trying to show electric cars in a bad light towards the public, and the Tesla Roadster at that! It's the best of both worlds! Earth friendly and fast as hell!

I stopped watching TG after that episode aired. Have been telling people that refer to that show that it is full of untruths and biased BS.

There is one a bit more serious car show "Fifth gear" that also tested Roadster. That one didn't give Roadster very high praises either, but it also didn't tell any lies about the car. They just concluded that it does not have a "supercar" performance that Tesla is saying, and I tend to agree with that statement, it lacks the top speed, performance in high speeds and cornering with that heavy mass is not good enough for the title "supercar". Certain X-factor crazyness is missing. It is a high performance sport car, but not supercar.

Top Gear isn't meant to be a serious motoring program, it's an entertainment program.

Fact that the car didn't prove its self against a petrol car is a shame, but with no way of proving anything against Top Gear there is fcuk all that Tesla can do about it.

Tesla will get some publicity out of this though which is probably all they wanted.

cheap tricks Tesla.. tut tut...

Roadster beat Lotus Elise (or was it Exige?) in that show.

If you read what this is all about is that TG plain out lied what this car can do. It was even predetermined in script before they had even driven the cars.

Cars "broke" down, which they didn't, Cars stopped running because they went out of charge which they didn't, car pushed to garage because it was supposedly out of charge when it had 20% of battery still left etc. etc.

That's like driving Bugatti Veyron and telling that it is less reliable than Trabant, and that you can only refill it using a pipette. Any car manufacturer would get angry about such "test drive".

About TG not being serious, tell it to people that take it seriously. Almost all car blogs I have been reading most people take these TG test drives very seriously. Other parts of the show are obviously just a show, but when it comes to testing people apparently expect that there is at least some truth behind what is happening. (of course only driver in show that actually had any skills to drive and really test cars was "The Stig", which later quit the job revealing his real identity partially because just this BBC TG bias against EV:s. Apparently he liked driving Roadster and didn't like at all the treatment it got in the show).

Surely it's up to the court dealing with any action to make a decision about what has gone on here?
Electric vehicles have advantages and so do petrol ones, I drive a large amount of miles for my work and could not as yet live with an electric car, it will benefit us all when the electrics can be charged much more speedily and go further.
One other area is if all petrol cars were off the road and we all used electric where would all the power come from, sometimes boasting about having an electric vehicle is just that, we do not have the infrastructure yet. Will we be building many more nuclear power stations to power the cars, I saw one estimate that we have to open a new power station every two weeks for the next twenty years to replace the energy we get from hydrocarbons, where are they going to be if when none of us will want one by us.
we have to find a way together, Clarkson said some good things about the tesla or has everyone missed this. I have not treated the 2008 show serious and we are not all going to believe everything clarkson says.
some of us have a mind of our own.

Apparently plain out lying about things is no problem to you. It is to me.

As I said, they lied. A lot. Nearly everything about the car capabilities, except the acceleration which even they couldn't twist to something that it isn't.

As for "open a new power station every two weeks for the next twenty years to replace the energy we get from hydrocarbons" guess what uses a lot of electricity? Refineries.

EV:s do not use that much electricity. Also for many renewable energy sources are real alternative with the electric car. If they didn't have solar panels before they install such things for their cars.

Hey Timo youre getting into a position of insults and that just drives people into their corners. I am not against electric cars and will be happy to have one as soon as I can.
If you know the figures for how many new power stations are needed to replace all of our energy needs and its in reality its not huge then please let me know and I will stand corrected.
Getting too het up is similar to the argument that one car is more asthetic than another when it is down to personal disposition.
We need to agree to cut down on our carbon it seems so we need to be able to discuss things without personal insults.
No one really takes TG seriously.

I completely disagree with your statement about building power plants, etc, etc. I just replaced a 40 year old (SEER 6 AC unit to a SEER 16)- one of my requirements to getting the Model S. The energy savings is more than enough to charge the Model S the 300 mile battery over 60 times a year. Not only that, it's actually better for the grid than an old AC unit (bulk draw verses slow steady power draw).
The other requirement was to get rid of a "gaming" tower computer and go with a netbook laptop (went from pulling 800-1200 Watts to about 100 Watts).
Think outside the box- heck, come 2013 incandescent lights are going away so that should save alot of energy too.
You know what is really going to overload the grid- computers. Think about the power needed. 5 years ago, a typical decent work computer had a 200 W or lower power supply. Just looked on a an electronics website, can't find any less than a 300 W power supply (and honestly I would not run Windows 7 on that, of anything less than a 450 W power supply- FYI rule of thumb is take a mid of the line gaming computer and divide power supply by half to get a decent work computer). 100 W more * 8 hrs * 5 days * 50 weeks*100 million people (probably more)= enough to charge over 50,000 300 mile Model Ss. And the kicker is, we as computer users do not see any real gain because of software bloat. (maybe a second here or there, but nothing substantial)

I did not quite understand the lawsuit until I read it. I did not know that Top Gear out right lied. I honestly thought the Roadster's brakes failed. I thought the car went dead after 55 miles of driving. I didn't see any reason for them to lie about it. After reading the entire claim I now realize that many of the statements were actually direct lies or at least seriously misleading.

At the time when I saw that episode of Top Gear on BBC America I decided NOT to purchase an electric vehicle because the tech just wasn't there yet. If Tesla couldn't do it who could? I figured it would need a few more years. I reserved the Model S because by the time production starts things should be better. As it turns out Top Gear lied and the car was probably perfectly fine to start with.
In all honesty I still may not have purchased one because I'm not a big sports car fan but I still may have test drove one.

Yes, Top Gear might be more of a comedy show but they always seemed to give reviews on vehicles in an honest altho exaggerated form. The Roadster was not an exaggerated review it was out right incorrect information.

Yes that's all my opinion.

Those computer power supplies that are rated 400-500W don't actually use that much most of the time. I have 500W one in my computer and according to power meter computer actually draws only about 150W in ordinary use (AMD Athlon 2.something GHz , two high-speed disks RAID 0, CPU 100% usage nearly all of time because background scientific calculations).

Things like ovens, electric stoves, dishwashers etc. use a lot more energy than ordinary computer unless you use it to play those modern high definition graphics games and unless you keep it on all of time.

As for "new power station every two weeks for the next twenty years" if we assume 300MW power station that is 156GW = 3744GWh / day.

Model S energy consumption is about 300Wh/mile so average 40mile trip uses 12kWh. Now to estimate how many trips /day people combined actually drive, in which things get a bit difficult. 750million passenger cars in world, but not all of them are used every day, not even close. If we drop that to 1/3 we get 250million 40mile trips / day. That's 3000GWh / day.

So far that estimate of power plant / two weeks * 20 years looks good, but:

Refining one gallon of gasoline uses about 6kWh of electricity. If you have a 40mpg ICE car replaced with Model S that 3000GWh drops to half. If you replace 20mpg car it drops to zero.

Timo, Can you just tell me that if everyone switched tomorrow to electric that our present system of power supply would cope or if we need more supply how many power stations it would be?
By the way what method of generation of this electricity be produced?
Will wind power or wave power be enough?
Give me some real researched figures that are accurate.

By the way the plastic in the computer you are typing on is part of that hydrocarbon industry, how are we going to replace this, what materials and what impact will this have on the environment?

I would like to see all personal transport taken off the roads and we all have to use shared transport, I am serious when I say bring back trams, horses and turn our major road infrastructure into railways and power the trams, shared transport and trains by electric. The more effecient we are the less damage to the world

Are you willing to give up your Tesla and do the right thing by sharing transport and stopping global warming?

Who on earth has a 20mpg car in the present times!

1) No it could not cope with overnight change. Grid energy demands would change too radically, some places would get too much, others too little. As for how many power plants, not necessarily any. I hope that big enough portion of EV-buyers also invest in green energy sources (solar mainly).

2) I don't care. Any source, even coal, is better than ICE cars for environment.

3) Maybe, but it would require quite a bit more of those than current amount, and I'm against wind power, it is not very effective and it causes local environmental damage. Sea waves would have more than enough energy, but extracting it is difficult. Geothermal where it is practical, solar (same), hydro (same) and nuclear are practical green choices

4) Google yourself. Nobody knows "accurate" figures.

5) There are methods of creating synthetic oils for places that need them, however in that particular use crude oil has its place. Plastics can be recycled and reused, and they don't ruin the atmosphere.

Also with 90% of passenger cars changed to EV:s rest could be powered by biofuels without ruining the planet.

6) Answer would be no, if I had Tesla EV.

7) Many. Unfortunately. Almost all ICE pickup trucks for example have about that or less.

OK with all the above, Timo, except: the biofuels thing, especially ethanol, is a murderous scam. Inevitable draw on the food supply chain, and prices are now double what they were a few years ago for many developing country staples. And some indirectly use more petro-fuel energy to cultivate and refine than they return! BAAAAD news, on steroids.

Don't sweat CO2; it's mankind's gift to plants, which had pretty much drained the supply. Warming isn't resulting, and the seas are steady, despite the BS from the IPCC et al. Economic suicide is unnecessary.

Hi, folks.


bigbumfartypants seems to be just a detractor. No lenghty wattage discussion can obsfucate the fact that


hmm... didn't realize how many OT messages there were. TG lied, there is no doubt about that, it is just plain fact. What remains to be seen what kind of compensation court rules, if any. 10$ / person that could have potentially seen the show would be nice.

@Brian H, our current gasolines have around 10% ethanol, if 90% of cars stop using gasoline completely that ethanol alone is enough to run the rest of the cars. No need to add biofuel production at all.

The Morgan Stanley report on Tesla's stock sends a powerful message. A paradigm shift has happened (IMO last year), and there is no turning back. The EV are here to stay, and Tesla is the leader. The marketplace is accepting it: this is an investment house looking long-term, not a few rich enthusiasts with cash to spare. The investors already reacted positively.

The nay-sayers can still say "nay", but there is no turning back.

I may have drifted from the point, I am not a detractor.
I think still we should go further than electric vehicles when we can and walk, uses horses (would be a shock to me as well) etc.

As with the suing of TG the outcome is up to a court or are you saying we can side step lawful process and have a kangaroo court?

We need to learn from our past mistakes and know the facts about any vehicles before we start evangalising about them too much.
No one knowing the answer is folly

Timo, check out the effects of ethanol on engines. Not pretty. And it's a net energy loser; more in than out. Even The Clueless One, Gore, now admits pushing ethanol was a Big Boo-Boo.

Ethanol is for drinking! As pure as possible:

Who cares about it being net energy loser? If there is a need for ICE vehicles ethanol and other biofuels work just fine. Pure ethanol has effects on current ICEngines , but they can be changed to use it as fuel pretty easily. There are also biodiesels and stuff like that.

@bigbumfartypants, we have right to blame TG for being liars because that is what they did. Court has to rule what kind of compensation is in order, they do not need to rule whether or not the TG lie, that is obvious to everyone that knows the facts.

As for your suggestion to use horses, horse is a worse than EV for environment. Get a bicycle if you are worried about your environmental impact on "too long to walk, too short for a car" distances.

Of course we need to know the facts of any new vehicle, good luck if we learn it from TG. As somebody said above "No one really takes TG seriously." (nudge nudge wink wink).

Anyone who takes top gear seriously obviously knows nothing about vehicles. It just a entertaining show. Nothing they say should sway peoples decisions even a little. However hearing about companies taking others to court seems a bit childish. I would rather a company develop its name through build quality and proven real world results than to have to hear about them in the news suing someone. Congratulations on building a fine vehicle Tesla however you will not find me in one any time soon.
On a side note any published article regarding a product should be taken with "a grain of salt". I know many authors who write and distribute evaluation based articles, many who know near nothing about the items they write about, and are just throwing pretty words designed to grab the attention of the audience.

Uh - I happened to know something about horses. Some of their drawbacks are limited range and long recharge time.

Er... new is that Roadsters did more then 10 million miles, I think in the real world.

An episode of the popular automobile show “Top Gear” has brought on Tesla Motors to sue the BBC for libel. The electric car manufacturer alleges the show made detrimental and false claims during an episode which was intended to put the Tesla Roadster through its paces. The show's hosts are known for being provocative, which is part of the shows' notoriety. The British Broadcasting Corporation denies that Tesla was libeled in any way, shape or form. Here is the proof: BBC and Top Gear slapped with lawsuit by Tesla Motors

@jayt, it doesn't matter if people take it seriously or not, lying is not acceptable.

Even I expected to get some hint of car capabilities from that show, not outright lies. Anyway enough people take it seriously enough that I need to set things straight almost every single time when someone mentions that show. People have some trust on the show, they believe that what they see is what really happens, and not utter BS, even that they exaggerate and argue about things.

When you next time look at the show don't believe anything they say. Nothing in that show is real.

X Deutschland Site Besuchen