

UK Court of Appeal rejects Tesla's appeal in BBC/Top Gear case - grabeh
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/152.html

======
tonylemesmer
The underlying issue here seems to be that electric cars are not the same as
petrol ones. Yes, car users need to change their expectations of what a car
will be in the future if it is not gasoline powered. However, when paying
double or triple the price for a new version of an existing product, we expect
some improvement in the experience, not potentially crippling and extreme
inconvenience. If Tesla hadn't done similar tests in their validation
programme as the ones done on Top Gear and then said to themselves "How could
this look bad on Top Gear?" then they are foolish.

I'm not really liking Tesla's approach to PR here, they could be engaging in a
much more positive way instead of lashing out at the media. Somewhat of an own
goal on this one.

Slightly irrelevant video of a Ferrari test driver destroying an engine:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La03k7FzlZA>

~~~
JPKab
Just a recommendation, but maybe you should actually read something before you
respond to it: In the article you are commenting on " In paragraph 7 of its
particulars of claim Tesla also alleged that the film was false in the
following respects:

"(1) The first Roadster shown (which was silver in colour) did not run out of
charge; (2) The first Roadster did not have to be pushed back into the hangar
as a result of running out of charge; (3) At no point were the brakes of the
first Roadster broken; (4) The second Roadster (which was grey in colour ) did
not become immobile as a result of overheating. (5) There was no time at which
neither Roadster was available for driving." " The lawsuit isn't over a bad
review. It is over a scripted "failure" of the vehicle. The vehicle didn't
die. It's batteries didn't run out, and the Tesla engineers found the script
for the scene as the test drive was beginning.

Tesla has every right to respond to having their product used as a prop for a
scripted jab at electric vehicles.

~~~
gadders
Er, no.

1) & 2) "Tesla admitted that the range of the Roadster on the test track was
about 55 miles and that if it ran out of charge it took several hours to
charge it up again. "

3) A fuse broke that meant power-assistance of the brake failed. So the brakes
clearly weren't working correctly. I don't think Top Gear should do fault
finding on review cars.

4) TG claimed it had reduced power, not that it was immobile.

------
gadders
Also, slightly offtopic, but when you read the actual text of these judgments,
you really get to see the depth of the analysis that is put in before a
decision is made. It's not just a bang of the gavel and "Next case!".

It almost reads like a code review, the way the text is parsed ;-)

------
JohnLBevan
Why go the lawsuit route - that just brings attention back to a bad review. If
the claims of the BBC are false, play the media - suggest a rematch, ensure
the terms are fair but supportive of your case, and use the latest model to
blow them out of the water.

~~~
meaty
It's Top Gear. From a journalistic point of view, they are akin to the Daily
Mail or Harry Potter. The outcome is decided up front.

They won't win a rematch, even if they do.

~~~
alan_cx
Please don't make stuff up. Cars have already failed, taken TG's advice, been
back, been improved, and Top Gear have been more than happy to say so.

The outcome was not decided up front, you made that up. That is known as
lying.

Problem now, is that Tesla kicked off accusing TG of being dishonest, and then
completely lost in court. So why would TG want them back for a rematch? So
they can sue again if they don't like the out come?

Tesla blew it. And very stupidly too as far as the UK is concerned. TG on side
would have been a massive advantage for them. Tesla will get it right in the
end, electric cars will be the future. Even TG know that, and would have been
on side later down the line.

~~~
eksith
TG _was_ being dishonest. They use hyperbole everywhere so Tesla is by no
means getting special treatment in that regard. I've seen them trash perfectly
good cars because of stupid names and/or because the company CEO looks funny,
but in this instance they took an up and coming (read: promising alternative)
and kicked it to the curb :

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/22/bbc_top_gear_tesla/>

    
    
      ...according to the Top Gear spokeswoman, the tested Tesla was filmed being pushed into the shed in order to 
      show what would happen if the Roadster had run out of charge
    

Edit: Straight from the horse's mouth...

[http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2011/04/02/tesla-vs-
to...](http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2011/04/02/tesla-vs-top-gear-
andy-wilman-on-our-current-legal-action/)

This was published when Tesla first sued. And accrording to Andy Wilman, the
executive producer :

"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."

~~~
makomk
If I'm understanding the original case correctly Tesla lost in part because
they couldn't demonstrate that their reputation would be any more damaged by
someone believing that the car actually ran out of charge than they would be
if that person realised it was a dramatization.

Which kind of makes sense - after all, Top Gear could have driven it until it
actually ran out of power and got the same results, and Tesla Motors didn't
dispute that.

------
culshaw
boom. what a colossal waste of money that looks to have been.

~~~
pja
Libel suits in the UK are astonishingly expensive to boot.

Congratulations Tesla, on lining the pockets of Carter-Ruck at your expense
and causing the BBC to spend a small fortune on their own legal costs in
pursuit of this pointless case.

~~~
arethuza
Two QCs on Tesla's side as well....

~~~
raverbashing
What's a QC, for those not familiar with the British Legal System?

~~~
arethuza
Senior barristers, or in Scotland senior advocates. Usually over 10-12 years
at the bar.

We have a system where in higher courts people are represented directly by
lawyers but by barristers/advocates - the theory is that they have a primary
duty to the court and not to the client. A lawyer will instruct a
barrister/advocate to run a case - in more serious cases a QC (senior) will be
used along with a junior barrister/advocate.

NB My wife qualified as an advocate in Scotland - best bit being that when
they are training (mostly following a qualified advocate around for a year as
an unpaid assistant) you are known as an _advocates devil_. The whole process
of training is known as devilling and the advocate training you is your devil-
master. :-)

------
jswinghammer
I don't get the lawsuit route at all. If your car is good then eventually
people will come around to agreeing with that assessment even if the media
likes gasoline cars today. If your car isn't good then you should fix it and
move on with your life.

I realize a lot of money went into development but it seems crazy to sue your
way to success or even think that could work in the first place. I don't think
any of these major media outlets are really afraid of getting sued by Tesla
anyway so if intimidation is the point then it won't work.

~~~
stef25
A negative review in TopGear and the New York Times is pretty serious, I think
it can make a lot of people that are sitting on the fence dismiss buying an
electrical car for another couple years. The impact of these reviews
(regardless of wether or not they are true) are pretty big imho.

