Comments on: Tesla Motors Responds to Top Gear Review

By: B-Rad

B-Rad — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:32:49 +0000

Top Gear has disappointed me.

By: tedward

tedward — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:31:38 +0000

Kamm…I didn’t like the CNW study either (no reviewable data means no provable credibility) but my reservations are mostly limited to the fact that they guard their data. If you bother to even look at the study (and I didn’t read the whole thing, not claiming that) it’s pretty clear that the Prius scores so badly because at the point of manufacture so few of the parts are having their environmental costs spread across a wide range of vehicles. It absolutely makes sense that this would have the effect of making the prius more environmentally expensive (but without data…). In this case it’s pretty obvious that the Prius will score better as more vehicles are spun off of that drivetrain. Also, I think they scored the Prius with a very low likely milage in it’s lifetime, don’t remember why, but I would also assume as this number goes up then the car’s score would also improve.

I’m not going to cheerlead this study for the rest of the discussion though (it really isn’t kosher on manufacturing weight imo), but I do want to say that I think it has received far more press than it merits, and that the Prius scoring higher than the HUMMER should really be taken in the context of the Prius being a relatively modern vehicle with little parts sharing. Certainly nothing like a GM truck line.

Also, are you insinuating that MIT had something to do with paying for this study or were you saying that an MIT professor criticized the study, not sure.

By: kamm

kamm — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:25:57 +0000

The way I see it you’re full of it, just like Clarkson.

1. It’s never been the question of building the Prius but the total environmental damage throughout its lifetime of regular vs hybrid cars.

2. The original debate was about hybrid vs H3 and

3. it was done by a paid automotive marketing group (CNW)in 2007 and since then they keep updating their idiotic, corrupt papers: http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

4. It was THROUGHLY DEBUNKED over and over again – remember, CNW is paid to keep this idiocy around – by the US Dept of Energy, the MIT, the Pacific Institute, Rocky Mountain Institute, the blogosphere – it was RIDICULED for using sentences like “perhaps with time we will use technical terms like gigajuelles (!!!) but it just confuses the consumers” etc.
Did I mention these clueless/loser paid mouthpieces of Hummer estimated that the energy used during the car’s operational cycle only accounts for 10% of its lifetime energy use…?

It’s a complete load of BS, an utter piece of junk with ZERO scientific value – perfect feed for thought for clowns like Clarkson.

By: kamm

kamm — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:04:02 +0000

PeteMoran :
December 17th, 2008 at 8:49 am

Well, I stopped watching Top Gear the night Clarkson repeated the internets myth “it does more environmental damage to build a Prius than…..” dribble.

I wrote to the BBC to request a correction (Toyota told me they have given up fighting that myth) and got a response from Top Gear producers; “Jeremy stands by his claim. Go away.” WTF!!!

Tabloid controversy is the name of the game for these guys lately. The recent “kill a prostitute” saga only reinforces my belief.”
*****
Clarkson is your typical everyday drunken Britton: loudmouthed, arrogant yet shockingly clueless.

I think TG is a highly overrated tacky show, with a pretty mediocre host – what reply would you expect from someone still believing the “environmental damage” story of Prius…?

Lame amateurism, nothing else – why bother? Clown has his show, do as I do: don’t watch it, that’s all.

By: John B

John B — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:23:11 +0000

Re: “Just out of curiosity: does Clarkson still refer to amounts of pound-feet of torque as “torques”?”

It’s a joke guys, just a joke. Get it?

By: doug

doug — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:04:07 +0000

Btw, here’s a proper review from Road&Track:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=10&article_id=7297

By: doug

doug — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:02:41 +0000

David, here’s a link to the entire episode that seems to work for the moment: http://www.megavideo.com/?v=ATLOMFAI

There may be some ads that are NSFW. I’m not sure since I have them blocked.

By: David Dennis

David Dennis — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:20:00 +0000

Does anyone have a valid link to the show?

I notice the video was taken off due to a BBC copyright claim.

By: ca36gtp

ca36gtp — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:21:49 +0000

A regular gas powered Lotus wouldn’t be a good choice either for that chore. How about “I once had to haul 1,000lbs of cinder blocks in my F250. A Miata would simply be incapable of stepping up to the plate in those situations that people sometimes find themselves in.” Yes, this is true. So don’t use a Miata for that! The amortized cost of a 700 mile trip would be $200 or more. That’s a ridiculous anecdote to use against the Tesla.

And if someone made an electric pick-up, it STILL wouldn’t be able to make long trips with those same cinder blocks. We’re not comparing cargo and vehicle type, we’re comparing gas vs. electric. No matter what, as TG correctly pointed out, the fundamentals of a purely electric car are BACKWARDS compared to gas engines.

At the very least, any “future of travel” electric car should have the same basic capabilities of a 12-year-old Sentra.

By: Brett Woods

Brett Woods — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:54:48 +0000

Flashpoint – About that claim: “An electric car requires more energy (for production of
electricity, transportation of electricity, and enthropic loss) than regular gasoline cars
do.”

I bet 20:1 (you know how to pre-mix right) that you are parroting and couldn’t find
data or add it up if your job depended on it.

As for transport and “enthropic” loss… between a bucket of electrons vs. a bucket of oil… you shouldn’t even need the back of an envelope. Perhaps you are slightly retharded?

By: chris724

chris724 — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:49:40 +0000

“My father once drove a total of 700 miles to pick up a new dog from a shelter and bring it home. Did the whole trip in a day. A Tesla would simply be incapable of stepping up to the plate in those situations that people sometimes find themselves in.”

By: tesla deathwatcher

tesla deathwatcher — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:47:01 +0000

Darryl Siry used to get on my nerves with his “Tesla can do no wrong” attitude. But he was nothing compared to this Rachel Konrad. I’ll bet she thinks her s**t doesn’t stink.

By: esldude

esldude — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:44:44 +0000

I was actually impressed they got 55 mile range. They don’t usually report mpg during sessions at their test track. You can bet they are at least half, probably more like one third the mpg in normal driving. That makes me think the Tesla would give 100-150 miles range. Considering how much lower the average speed they might even be close to the claimed 200 miles range during plain vanilla type driving.

For most purposes, a Tesla with 100 or more mile range with a bit of spirited driving thrown in doesn’t sound too bad.

The car as configured is clearly possible of meeting or coming quite close to the claims made for it. The issue of course is the cost, and whether they are a real viable company with any real production even at those high initial costs.

By: ca36gtp

ca36gtp — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:42:54 +0000

Sometimes, he uses a different unit every time. Hammond seems to be the only TG presenter who can get it right.

Clarkson’s best moment for me was the Fiat 500 Abarth segment a few weeks ago, when he looked at the MP3 player connector with a “Windows Mobile compatible” sticker next to it and said “There’s a place here for you to plug in your….windows?”

By: psarhjinian

psarhjinian — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:56:32 +0000

Just out of curiosity: does Clarkson still refer to amounts of pound-feet of torque as “torques”?

By: ca36gtp

ca36gtp — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:52:47 +0000

Mmm, I smell delicious damage control.

A brake failure is a brake failure, it doesn’t matter what caused it or how long it took to repair.

Nor does it matter how long an electric car takes to charge regardless of the equipment offered if the answer is greater than 3 minutes. Any more, and the vehicle becomes useless to anyone who needs to travel more than the Tesla’s seemingly-overestimated range. James May made that point very clear in his test of the FCX Clarity.

My father once drove a total of 700 miles to pick up a new dog from a shelter and bring it home. Did the whole trip in a day. A Tesla would simply be incapable of stepping up to the plate in those situations that people sometimes find themselves in.

By: RichardD

RichardD — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:37:03 +0000

“Those who criticize the Tesla’s handling miss the point. Sure it’s heavier than the Elise, but the electric motor has so much torque that it is still faster, even with the extra weight.”

It’s only faster in a straight line (as long as you don’t accelerate for more than 55 miles). The regular Exige (identical to the US Elise) was 0.9 seconds faster and the supercharged Exige was 2.2 seconds faster than the Tesla on the Top Gear track. The Elise tested by Top Gear was the lame 135hp Rover version.

So you might as well just buy a Mustang with an unreliable aftermarket supercharger and you get the same effect. Elise/Exige brakes don’t “blow fuses” on the track. In fact, they’re quite amazing and the Elise/Exige drivetrain is also completely bulletproof in track use thanks to the good folks at Yamaha.

By: t-truck

t-truck — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:02:39 +0000

TG entertaining as always, but did we really learn anything?

It is not a surprise that track cars get lousy mileage and car that you trash the hell out of may actually break down, grand discoveries there!

Overall they seemed to have rather favorable impression of the Tesla, even though they did their best to handicap it like charging it with a lamp socket instead of a 50amp connection that every household has for their cook stove.

A more interesting review would be how it handles in mixed driving and what real life range might be there. Any reviews like that out there yet?

By: argentla

argentla — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:43:10 +0000

I think saying the Tesla’s handling sucks might be a little much. Is it inferior to the Elise? Absolutely. (Although it might be interesting to see some hard numbers on the difference between the low rolling resistance tires and some actual performance rubber.) Compared to most passenger cars, it still seems pretty good. The question I have is how does its handling compare to something like a 370Z or a Corvette?

By: dushenski

dushenski — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:42:18 +0000

I just thought it was interesting that Jeremy critisized the Roadster for failing to meet its range targets in “real-world conditions”. I don’t know about you folks but my drive to work doesn’t look much like the Top Gear Test Track.

Thumbs up for entertainment though.

By: AnalogKid

AnalogKid — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:42:00 +0000

You have to take Clarkson’s biases with a grain of salt. He hates Porsche’s too. Just in this series he compared a 911 GT2 to a Gallardo and totally ragged on the 911’s handling, while ignoring the fact that GT2’s have no traction control at all, by design. He then hid the fact that the 911 had the exact same time around the track as the Gallardo.

Those who criticize the Tesla’s handling miss the point. Sure it’s heavier than the Elise, but the electric motor has so much torque that it is still faster, even with the extra weight.

I love Top Gear, but they did overplay the technical problems. The brake issue is pretty minor and it’s no surprise at all that the range is vastly reduced – that’s not just “sporting” driving they’re doing there, it’s track abuse that would void the warranty of my 335i.

All in all, I think the Tesla did pretty well. Yes, it’s a rich guy’s toy and yes, they hyped it to death but I’m still rooting for these guys. I drive by the Tesla store in LA every day on my way home from work. It’s a pretty car and it would be a blast to drive.

By: tedward

tedward — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:28:12 +0000

Orangutan…yeah, I wondered about that myself as I was writing it. The thing is, I don’t think they’ll ever ramp up to serious mass production (I love the idea of an affordable electric sedan, but they’ll have to show me customers and cars before I believe it). As it stands, they’re a tiny niche-market exotic car manufacturer, so I figure 100 cars could be a significant portion of the cars they end up building. Hope I’m wrong.

By: Orangutan

Orangutan — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:14:58 +0000

I would hardly call a mysterious 100 cars “well into production”, tedward.

By: RichardD

RichardD — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:09:59 +0000

The service Top Gear rendered to the motoring community is this: it revealed Tesla’s two dirty secrets.

One. The range isn’t 200 miles during sporting driving. Anyone with half a brain could have figured this out, but Tesla sales material never mentions the possibility you’d ever see less than 200 miles. And I think the “20% charge” thing is spin. There’s a certain level under which you don’t let laptop batteries drop or they essentially become useless.

Two. The handling sucks. All of the massive PR blitz Tesla did on this car, as documented on TTAC, intentionally avoided allowing anyone to evaluate the handling. It’s obvious that if you take one of the best handling cars on the planet — the Lotus Elise — and stick THREE Oprahs in the passenger seat it’s going to suck.

Has any outlet besides Top Gear or TTAC mentioned these facts? If so, I haven’t seen it. The people who WANT this car to be the greatest invention since the flourescent lightbulb are the ones distorting the truth. I though Jeremy was quite balanced.

By: Durishin

Durishin — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:06:05 +0000

I wonder of the brake pump had to be replaced because it was malfunctioning and caused the fuse to blow.

TG is over the top. But, you know, that’s all part of fair balance on the UK telly.