stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Finally watched it by going to final gear, but then it's also on youtube now.
Some spoilers below and sorry for long post:
For the positive things, it did start off quite positive, showing off the performance and engineering triumphs (also didn't make a big deal over the top speed). Overall I felt satisfied with the lap time, given it was wet, and they did mention the eco-tires which might have affected the lap time, but still a good lap time.
Negative thing was they had that "long tailpipe" argument which even showed the path to the power plant. Wouldn't mind it so much if they made the same point of the Clarity, but they didn't (if they did, ironically the tailpipe would have traced the hydrogen to an electrolyzer installed in the LA hydrogen station, and then through the same path to the power plant, which meant it would have been drastically less efficient).
Then there was the issue of the charge time and renewable energy. They made the issue with the small windmill, and of course ignored other sources of renewable energy. Then also no mention of rapid charging, but of course since they aren't a green program, don't expect them to know that (I wonder if they will review the Lightning GT which does focus on rapid charging).
Overall the end segment made it seem like the Clarity was the way to go, and the Tesla Roadster was "irrelevant" as they said (as many anti-Tesla people say, so now more of the viewers of Top Gear will now echo this position, judging by responses in the Final Gear forums). I will concede that the Clarity is attractive for it's fast refueling, but besides from that, it really isn't as viable. None of these negatives for hydrogen were mentioned (though they hit all the negatives basically for BEVs): the Clarity costs 5-10x more to make than even a Tesla Roadster (which they made a point of saying how expensive it was, but notice no mention of price of Clarity), same long tailpipe & even less efficient, and expensive cost to build basically non-existent infrastructure for refueling.
The initial very positive showing of the Tesla and then the subsequent piling on of the negatives made the Tesla segment seem balanced, and it would be if that was the end of it. However, the Clarity part which focused basically on ALL positives with NO negatives or even simple questioning of viability like they did with the Tesla, made it completely biased. Yet most normal viewers would not pick that up, because they don't know as many of the facts of hydrogen, & the first segment seemed balanced given their hatred of EVs before.
Edit: more to tack on: The reliability bit is kind of bad because sites like TTAC will make a big deal of it. I know the overheating part was just standard stuff, but how the brakes were broken seemed kind of like it could have been avoided. On the Final Gear forums I already saw a comment saying "reliability my *ss" in regards to the Roadster. It is a blow to Tesla's push to show the reliability of an EV & more of a blow toward the public's image of the company (esp. the "vaporware" view).
Some spoilers below and sorry for long post:
For the positive things, it did start off quite positive, showing off the performance and engineering triumphs (also didn't make a big deal over the top speed). Overall I felt satisfied with the lap time, given it was wet, and they did mention the eco-tires which might have affected the lap time, but still a good lap time.
Negative thing was they had that "long tailpipe" argument which even showed the path to the power plant. Wouldn't mind it so much if they made the same point of the Clarity, but they didn't (if they did, ironically the tailpipe would have traced the hydrogen to an electrolyzer installed in the LA hydrogen station, and then through the same path to the power plant, which meant it would have been drastically less efficient).
Then there was the issue of the charge time and renewable energy. They made the issue with the small windmill, and of course ignored other sources of renewable energy. Then also no mention of rapid charging, but of course since they aren't a green program, don't expect them to know that (I wonder if they will review the Lightning GT which does focus on rapid charging).
Overall the end segment made it seem like the Clarity was the way to go, and the Tesla Roadster was "irrelevant" as they said (as many anti-Tesla people say, so now more of the viewers of Top Gear will now echo this position, judging by responses in the Final Gear forums). I will concede that the Clarity is attractive for it's fast refueling, but besides from that, it really isn't as viable. None of these negatives for hydrogen were mentioned (though they hit all the negatives basically for BEVs): the Clarity costs 5-10x more to make than even a Tesla Roadster (which they made a point of saying how expensive it was, but notice no mention of price of Clarity), same long tailpipe & even less efficient, and expensive cost to build basically non-existent infrastructure for refueling.
The initial very positive showing of the Tesla and then the subsequent piling on of the negatives made the Tesla segment seem balanced, and it would be if that was the end of it. However, the Clarity part which focused basically on ALL positives with NO negatives or even simple questioning of viability like they did with the Tesla, made it completely biased. Yet most normal viewers would not pick that up, because they don't know as many of the facts of hydrogen, & the first segment seemed balanced given their hatred of EVs before.
Edit: more to tack on: The reliability bit is kind of bad because sites like TTAC will make a big deal of it. I know the overheating part was just standard stuff, but how the brakes were broken seemed kind of like it could have been avoided. On the Final Gear forums I already saw a comment saying "reliability my *ss" in regards to the Roadster. It is a blow to Tesla's push to show the reliability of an EV & more of a blow toward the public's image of the company (esp. the "vaporware" view).
Last edited:
Utterly ridiculous.
