Roadster on Top Gear

[JRP3]

Legal question, we know that people have been turned off to the Roadster directly because of the TG segment. Is there anyway to prove it other than witnesses going into court and saying as much? Is Tesla hurting it's own case by claiming real damages but limiting the actual amount to such a small figure?

 

[vfx]

L Is Tesla hurting it's own case by claiming real damages but limiting the actual amount to such a small figure?

If they are ultimately asking for a retraction of further misinformation, that should show they are sincere.

 

[dpeilow]

They have to settle for nothing less than no retransmission of the segment and removal from the DVDs, because if they just get damages it might make page ten of a paper but the review will continue to do damage.

 

[vfx]

Top Gear is set on my Tivo to record from BBC America. Today they added category /description/ keywords for the show.

The words used to describe TOP GEAR?

AUTO, EDUCATIONAL

 

[Arnold Panz]

Legal question, we know that people have been turned off to the Roadster directly because of the TG segment. Is there anyway to prove it other than witnesses going into court and saying as much? Is Tesla hurting it's own case by claiming real damages but limiting the actual amount to such a small figure?

Assuming UK law works the same as US law on the question of damages, I think it was the most clever move by Tesla not to claim tons of damages. Then the case quickly becomes about finding people who would have bought the Roadster "but for" the TG segment, but how can you even prove that? Then, what about all the people who bought the Roadster despite having seen the TG segment? Rather, now it's purely and properly focused on the fact that they made knowingly untrue statements about Tesla and the Roadster, and continue to do so, and damages are not the focus.

In other words, there's the fact of committing libel, and the specific damages that libel may have caused. The hardest part of most libel claims is proving damages. Non-public figures, for example, almost can't prove them because who cares if negative things are said about a random person in a public space? That's why most individual cases are limited to movie stars where, e.g., hearing a story about a gerbil being put in unholy places (Richard Gere) can actually affect how much he gets paid for a movie, or whether he gets hired altogether. But by Tesla basically only seeking nominal damages and focusing on an injunction to stop the continued distribution of the segment, they only have to prove that the libel occurred, and they basically automatically win.

 

[bonnie]

Reputation has been impacted at the very least, which may have affected Roadster sales - and could impact future sales. On my way out of work this evening, one of the engineers who lurks nearby (I think hoping to get a ride) asked me about range - and expressed surprise at my answer, saying 'On a Top Gear episode, it ran out after 55 miles, you know.'

 

[doug]

Tesla responds to Andy Wiliam:
How We See It - Top Gear Lawsuit | Forums | Tesla Motors

How We See It - Top Gear Lawsuit
Tesla | April 4, 2011 - 9:41pm
[View]

On March 29 2011, Tesla filed a lawsuit to stop Top Gear’s continued rebroadcasts of an episode containing malicious falsehoods about the Tesla Roadster. Top Gear’s Executive Producer, Andy Wilman, has drafted a blog to present their side of the story. Like the episode itself, however, his proclamations do more to confound than enlighten.

Mr. Wilman admits that Top Gear wrote the script before filming the testing of the Roadsters. The script in question, concluding with the line "in the real world, it absolutely doesn’t work" was lying around on set while Top Gear was allegedly "testing" the Roadsters. It seems actual test results don’t matter when the verdict has already been given -- even if it means staging tests to meet those predetermined conclusions.

Now Mr. Wilman wants us to believe that when Top Gear concluded that the Roadster "doesn't work," it "had nothing to do with how the Tesla performed." Are we to take this seriously? According to Mr. Wilman, when Top Gear said the car "doesn't work," they "primarily" meant that it was too expensive. Surely they could have come to that conclusion without staging misleading scenes that made the car look like it didn’t work.

Mr. Wilman's other contentions are just as disingenuous. He states that they never said the Roadster "ran out of charge." If not, why were four men shown pushing it into the hangar?

Mr. Wilman states that "We never said that the Tesla was completely immobilized as a result of the motor overheating." If not, why is the Roadster depicted coming to a stop with the fabricated sound effect of a motor dying?

Mr. Wilman also objects to Tesla explaining our case, and the virtues of the Roadster. Top Gear has been re-broadcasting lies about the Roadster for years, yet are uncomfortable with Tesla helping journalists set the record straight about the Roadster’s revolutionary technology.

Mr. Wilman seems to want Top Gear to be judged neither by what it says, nor by what it does. Top Gear needs to provide its viewers, and Tesla, straightforward answers to these questions.

 

[Norbert]

Tesla responds to Andy Wiliam:
How We See It - Top Gear Lawsuit | Forums | Tesla Motors

Good response. I'm glad I'm on Tesla's side.

It's interesting how TG/Wilman emphasize the need to recharge, but without directly connecting it to their conclusion, in this case even in the same paragraph, but not logically connected with words. They only use reasons which appear specific to the Roadster (price,reliability), perhaps trying to appear to say it's not a good EV, as opposed to that EVs are not good, but perhaps really meaning that even the best EV is not good enough to change their minds about EVs in general. Maybe that's where their minds started twisting, because they would have liked to find stronger reasons than they actually found, in order to back up that implication. Or something like that. Meanwhile, we have the year 2011, and apparently they try to play the same game.

 

[Jaff]

Words are words...they have specific meanings in most cases...one should always say what one means...

When one says

"Now Mr. Wilman wants us to believe that when Top Gear concluded that the Roadster "doesn't work," it "had nothing to do with how the Tesla performed." Are we to take this seriously? According to Mr. Wilman, when Top Gear said the car "doesn't work," they "primarily" meant that it was too expensive",

it makes on wonder why they didn't have the brains or balls to just come out and say that they felt the Roadster was too expensive!

Wilman's excuse (explanation) makes one wonder if he has any formal education at all...it's utter tripe!

 

[ckessel]

I really enjoy Top Gear and it's brought me many hours of entertainment over the years. It's not an evil show and I don't really care if they have a petrol bias. Given how much they love to drive long distances and the sponsors such a show would attract, it's a bias I'd expect. And it's clear much of it is scripted and full of silly setups (no one gets into that much trouble all the time). Despite all of that, they obviously misrepresented the Roadster. Hopefully they'll come clean and be done with it.

 

[siry]

The problem with this strategy is Tesla can win the battle but not the war when it comes to Top Gear. Even if they force a retraction (i.e. stop distributing the original show or edit it) you can be absolutely sure that TG will do a new show in the near future "testing" a roadster in a "factual" way but still designed to highlight shortcomings. No lawsuit can prevent them from criticizing in the future, and TG does not need permission from Tesla to test a Roadster (they can borrow one from a fan or buy one then sell it.) Journalists and entertainers have thin skin.

My guess is they:

1) run a Roadster flat out on the autobahn along with an ICE car and see what happens (it wont be good)
2) race a roadster around a racetrack against the same car but for an extended time and see what happens (it won't be good)
3) focus on the interior appointments and comforts in a negative way.
4) use stock tires and suspension setup.

Of course all of these are specifically situations designed to highlight shortcomings, but they would be factual and there is no legal requirement for reviewers to be fair and balanced.

When is the new season scheduled to begin?

 

[vfx]

We could all add to Siry's list which does even begin to address the FUD on Electric Cars. One rule to follow if you are a celebrity. Never criticize a comedian. You will never ever, ever win.

How about this? The US Top Gear show has at least once showed (TV) excitement for the Model S. How about Tesla pitching a Made in USA (already the theme of the US TG show) Tesla Roadster pro-features segment. This would be a great counter to have out there.

Off the top of my head here are some fascinating funny ways to tell the Tesla highlights:

• Show a cop sleeping in his cruiser. A Roadster zooms by winning a race. Seconds later a Ferrari roars by and the lights go on -cut to Ferrari getting a ticket.
• Include the Bugatti Veyron race mentioned above.
• A cross town race in LA featuring Tesla's HOV lane advantage equaling top up 50 mile fill-up times
• Show pricing $100K VS 1/4 million 0-60 time, mention gas guzzler discounts, tax incentives and registration rebates also driving for free on home solar
• Show two depressed guys in their garages. The ICE guy starts his car...
• Show how eco cred works with the beautiful girls and that V12s really only interests other guys. (it's true!)

Tesla and US Top Gear can feel free to contact me for more.

 

[Norbert]

Anything EV has to deal with criticism all the time, and there will be lots of critical reviews in the future in any case. That's fine and part of how things work. But there also seems to be some thinking (speaking in general) that it would be fair game to use fabrications against EVs, and that's much more difficult to deal with because it creates a mindset that is not open to reasoning and new developments.

 

[siry]

[*]Show how eco cred works with the beautiful girls and that V12s really only interest other guys. (it's true!)[/LIST]

.

Ha ha! Very true...

 

[TEG]

...
Off the top of my head here are some fascinating funny ways to tell the Tesla highlights:

• Show a cop sleeping in his cruiser. A Roadster zooms by winning a race. Seconds later a Ferrari roars by and the lights go on -cut to Ferrari getting a ticket.
  ...
• A cross town race in LA featuring Tesla's HOV lane advantage...

I can totally see that working in the Top Gear USA show.
I can see the characters on the show debating afterwards how unfair it was but with a hint of envy and respect.
But, I wonder if TM will ever trust them with one of their cars again...

 

[siry]

But, I wonder if TM will ever trust them with one of their cars again...

They'll borrow from an owner or buy a used one and resell it. Before the cars were in production they could tightly control access but those days are gone.

 

[Jaff]

There are other possibilities of course...after TG's admission of scripting and a proper admonishment from the legal establishment, you could simply have certain manufacturers forbid any of their vehicles from being used by TG (under threat of action)...a backlash that could force a change in TG forcing it to either become a credible reviewer of automobiles (preferred), or forcing it off the air.

Same question as before...why, knowing your product may be portrayed unfairly, would you allow TG to "review" your product?

 

[siry]

@Jaff - Because no manufacturer has any power to forbid anyone from reviewing their product once it is owned by another private party. All they can do is not help the process by directly furnishing a car to them. Consumer Reports routinely reviews and thrashes (or praises) cars with no participation from the manufacturer.

 

[Jaff]

I highly doubt that TG would be able to find a current Roadster owner that given TG's outright lies about the Roadster, would lend their vehicle to TG for another "review."

If they bought a used Roadster to review and did not disclose it as such, TG would again find themselves in hot water...and, I believe, some more of their viewing audience would turn them off for good...

They'll borrow from an owner or buy a used one and resell it. Before the cars were in production they could tightly control access but those days are gone.

 

[JRP3]

Not sure if anyone would really care if they bought a used car to review, I'm sure they've done it before.