Clarkson finally comments on Tesla review
Click above to watch the video
The internet has been abuzz ever since Top Gear aired an episode where the electric Tesla Roadster was put through its paces. At this point, it's prbably redundant of us to recap the whole story, but we'll do it really quickly anyway. Jeremy Clarkson's review strongly suggested that the Roadster had run out of juice during testing - something vehemently denied by Tesla Motors, and indeed it had not. The other issue surrounded a brake failure of the second Roadster, which Tesla said was caused by a blown fuse. We don't think it matters how or why the brakes failed, and Clarkson agrees, saying, "Nobody gives a flying **** how the brakes failed. Whether it was a blown fuse or not, they were still not working." All righty then, moving along...
So, what about the capacity of the battery pack? "We never said once that the car had run out of power. The car had to be pushed into the warehouse because you are not allowed to drive cars into a building. We calculated that it would have run out of power after 53 miles but they can't argue with that because that is a fact." Fair enough, right? We're still unconvinced... after watching the video again, it's clear to us that it was strongly implied that the battery had died. In any case, this story may finally Rest In Peace, 'cause Clarkson's done commenting on it.
[Source: Telegraph]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tom 3:23PM (12/25/2008)
Clarkson is entertaining as hell, I love watching his show, but no one should take his show as any kind of definitive review or testing of vehicles or his so-called analysis of the practicality of a vehicle as anything other than entertainment.
While it seems that everyone is focusing on his pushing the car into the warehouse or the brake failure what is missing in a critique of his review of the Tesla is that he seemed less interested in an honest description of how the way he was driving the car affected its performance than in simply finding a way to dismiss it as unready for market (which he ultimately did).
Note to Clarkson, the car is a specialty sports car, not a standard consumer car, it is designed for a specific market for a specific reason. Your review needed to reflect that, not treat it as "not ready" because the average consumer couldn't buy one. Also, the way it was driven on the show was as a race car, hard acceleration, hard cornering and a few drag races. It's no wonder the range was reduced, the same would be true of a gas car (though not to the same extent). An honest review would have noted that discrepancy.
You cannot test a car like a race car and then claim that data gives any indication of how it would operate in normal driving conditions. That would be like drag racing a Prius all morning long and than noting that it really doesn't get very good gas mileage after all. Well no it wouldn't if you ran the engine flat out with the accelerator floored.
He also failed to note that the car dropped its speed because of overheating as a safety feature but that it was still drivable, just not as a race car. When an ICE car overheats you're essentially screwed, just wait for the tow truck.
So all in all an entertaining show from Clarkson as usual (my favorite is still his race with a corvette in the shopping mall) but not in any way an honest review of a vehicle. He isn't in the business of being Consumer Reports. Accuracy and honesty isn't his game, showmanship is.
Reply
mmstowes 6:08PM (12/25/2008)
It's funny how Clarkson is called "dishonest" for giving a rather straight-forward and honest assessment of the car that doesn't agree with the testicle-suckling reviews of a few other people who think they have a meaningful opinion. Yet you folks don't seem bright enough to discern the difference between how Top Gear tests a family car and how Top Gear tests a "sports car".
Honestly, have you ever seen the Stig test a Renault MPV around the TG test track to see if it was faster than Enzo? No. You know why? Because Renault, Top Gear and the audience understand Renault didn't build an upright, spacious multipassenger vehicle to be a sports car. Maybe they gave it a "sport suspension". In case you didn't know, there's a big difference between the two. Renault, Top Gear and the audience also understand there's absolutely no need for any objective testing unrealistic to the car's original design purpose (by objective testing, I don't mean Range Rover's outrunning tanks or Clarkson being shot at by snipers). Tesla designed the Roadster to be an unpractical, expensive two-seater that takes 4 hours or more to charge. It's purpose is to "save the world"...
Pay attention kiddies; Tesla likes to make this confusing because they obviously think we're all complete morons tuat can easily be manipulated with their marketing bullsh*t (well...at least some of us aren't...). Their website clearly characterizes the Roadster as a "sports car" (it's called the "Roadster" for cripes sake). Therefore, it can be logically surmised, it IS in fact okay to test a sports car (in this case, the "Roadster") differently than say, the Model S family sedan, which ironically, WOULDN'T have been tested this way and probably favored by TG for doing what Tesla would market it to do. But wait...it's been delayed, possibly indefinitely if the company doesn't get the money it arrogantly thinks it's entitled to.
Back to the two-seat, unpractical, expensive non-family sedan thingy...as I've said before, the car should be expected to behave relative to how Tesla characterizes it, which they themselves say is the same or better than similar gasoline-powered sports cars. For this reason (and a long list of others), Top Gear's testing was absolutely within the limit of the genuine expectation we SHOULD have of the Roadster. All of the previous reviews were done essentially on backroads. Doesn't matter how hard you push in those conditions, a backroad is not a closed road circuit or test track. Neither is a parking lot (Youtube it). Previous to the TG review, every other reviewer talked about how far you could go if you drove the car like a family sedan or that Renault MPV, even though it's not a family sedan or that Renault MPV. Tesla's been milking this for all it's worth.
But here's the rub: Tesla can't have it both ways. Either, the car should be called something other than a sports car and tested as such, or perhaps *gasp* Tesla needs to make a better sports car. One that doesn't make the limitations of a battery driven electrical system so glaring. Until then, however, maybe they shouldn't cry like little children when someone doesn't necessarily agree with their elitist opinion of their own product, caused by the Silicon Valley drinking water.
And this thing with the brakes....good God people, grow the hell up. The BRAKES stopped functioning. It doesn't matter whether it was the pads or the fuse, they STOPPED FUNCTIONING. Is nobody else--aside from TX CHL Instructor --smart enough to see the problem in that?
Fine, Top Gear is entertainment. Sure, perhaps something was slightly exaggerated for dramatic effect. But that in no way makes Top Gear wrong for disagreeing with Tesla's opinion of its own product. So once again, pull Tesla's loins from your mouths and stop drinking their PR Kool-Aid. It's a flavor called "tears" and it's produced in the valley of "whining when you're knocked off your own high horse".
By the way, I'm only a jackass when I'm right...
Merry Christmas folks.
anon 12:40PM (12/26/2008)
RE: Tom @ 12-25-2008 @ 3:23PM
"Also, the way it was driven on the show was as a race car, hard acceleration, hard cornering and a few drag races."
Seeing as how you're familiar with the show, I'm surprised to hear you say this.
On TG they have a segment called "Star in a reasonably priced car". They put a TV/movie actor in a Chevrolet Lacetti (Suzuki Forenza in the U.S.) and see how fast she/he can go around the track. This involves hard acceleration, hard cornering, and a few drag races but in a bargain basement 4 door sedan.
Sometimes the star in question will lose control, cut a corner, run right over a sign, or spin off into the weeds and the dirt. But, camera still rolling, they find their way back onto the track and keep going. I don't think I've ever seen a Chevrolet Lacetti break down on the show.
It's true that TG puts cars through extreme conditions but this is exactly the sort of testing that Tesla should be doing anyway to make better cars. Honda and Toyota make great cars not because they design their cars to be babied but because they design them for how people actually use them, regular use under difficult conditions with occasional abuse.
"It's no wonder the range was reduced, the same would be true of a gas car (though not to the same extent)."
Two points:
1) TG are not the only testers who've not gotten the range that Tesla claims. Way back in January of this year, Autoweek got only 93 miles.
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080124/FREE/398811820/1024/FREE
2) TG has made no secret of the poor mileage cars get when they're flogged around the track. Recently, they had a race between 5 exotic cars each on a gallon of gas. Not one got over 5 MPG. And yes they showed them slowing to a stop as they sputtered out of gas. Of course, refilling the tank doesn't take a 3.5 hour fast charge.
Finally...
"He also failed to note that the car dropped its speed because of overheating as a safety feature..."
A safety feature? If only British Leyland could've gotten away with this excuse in the mid-70s. Maybe then they'd still be around.
TX CHL Instructor 3:23PM (12/25/2008)
Brakes can fail in a Tesla because of a BLOWN FUSE??? Holy crap. I'm definitely not going to be interested in ANY EV that doesn't have a fail-safe brake mechanism.
The engineer who designed that braking system should be immediately fired.
--
www.chl-tx.com Liberals (capital L) are trying to make the US Constitution into a Dead Letter. They are close to succeeding.
Reply
Robert 8:54PM (12/25/2008)
Most of the news out of Tesla indicates that the engineer was already fired, though for internal politics rather than performance ;)
boo 2:53PM (12/26/2008)
lol the brakes didn't fail! The fuse that blew just made the auto assist braking turn off which just mean you have to push a tiny bit harder on the brake to stop the car.
TX CHL Instructor 2:58PM (12/26/2008)
I had wondered about that. But the article quoted a Tesla rep as stating the braking system had failed. Just inaccurate reporting (nothing new for ABG)
BlackbirdHighway 3:33PM (12/25/2008)
Brakes are normally hydraulically operated and don't need any electric power, so how exactly did a blown fuse cause the brakes to fail?
Maybe the brakes lights failed, or maybe the regenerative braking failed, but if you could not actually stop the car by pressing on the brake pedal because of a blown fuse, then Tesla has some explaining to do.
Reply
Chris M 5:08PM (12/25/2008)
TX CHL Instructor, BlackbirdHighway:
The fuse was on a circuit that powered a pump that provided power assist for the hydraulic brakes. The hydraulic brakes still worked, but without the power assist requires more force on the brake pedal. Regenerative braking was unaffected.
Like most cars, the Tesla Roadster has more than one braking system, redundancy is a good thing for such an important safety feature. Besides, regenerative braking is less effective at very slow speeds and doesn't work for holding a car still at a stop, so hydraulic friction brakes are still needed.
Some Dipshit 6:31PM (12/25/2008)
Clarkson and the rest of the crew at Top Gear are the WWE equivalent in automotive journalism. Nuff said!!!
Reply
Tom 6:32PM (12/25/2008)
Well in that case mmstowes, you're definitely not a jackass.
Hmmm, so the Tesla is designed to be driven on the track? That would be news to Tesla.
The Tesla, performance sports car or not, is designed to be driven on public roadways which, in the US at least, have speed limits and restrictions on the kind of driving Clarkson was doing.
He lied about it running out of power and needing to be pushed in the warehouse ("we're not allowed" is a pretty sorry excuse for what was basically a lie for dramatic effect), and his calculation of the range was based on driving that would not occur in 95% of real world driving conditions for the majority of Tesla owners.
Generally mmstowes, when someone has to resort to the kind of juvenile prattle you filled your post with it has to do with needing that sort of noise to make it seem like your POV has more justification than just a bad attitude.
There are plenty of reasons the Tesla is an impractical vehicle but it is light years ahead of any other existing vehicle technology, it was developed by a few visionaries with not much money (compared to any large automaker) and with enough imagination and foresight that they have pretty much single-handedly changed the way the auto industry looks at electric vehicles. That's no small feat. Remember, GM has essentially said that the existence of Tesla and their success at designing and selling their car in such a short time basically shamed GM into completely reversing their opinion of electric vehicles because it a "couple of guys in a garage in California" could create something like that it makes GM look pretty incompetent. (something for which GM needs little assistance to do)
Reply
Peekoyle 7:18PM (12/25/2008)
Hmm,
I'm one of those TG fans who now that TG and Clarkson are all about entertainment.
Do I think they lied ... no. Do I think they are biased .... yes.
There is a difference.
Reply
Jharlan 1:49AM (12/26/2008)
To be honest, it's not much car for the money. I love the concept, but a 100K car purchased as a toy for the rich isn't going to make much impact. We need an affordable car for the guy or gal making a daily commute to work. I'm talking 20k here. 100K! who cares!
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 7:35AM (12/26/2008)
Well, if the the driver could still press the brake pedal and stop the car, then I would not call that a brake failure. If the power assist failed, I would call that a power assist failure, not a brake failure.
mmstowes, I think you are confusing "sports car" and "race car". From the Wikipedia: "A sports car is a term used to describe a class of automobile. The exact definition varies, but generally it is used to refer to a low to ground, light weight vehicle with a powerful engine. Most vehicles referred to as sports cars are rear-wheel drive, have two seats, two doors, and are designed for more precise handling, acceleration, and aesthetics. A sports car's dominant considerations can be superior road handling, braking, maneuverability, low weight, and high power, rather than passenger space, comfort, and fuel economy."
So, how about that? The Tesla is low to the round, light weight, and has a powerful motor. It is rear wheel drive, has two seats, two doors, precise handling, acceleration, and is aesthetically pleasing. It does not emphasize passenger space or comfort. Sounds exactly like a sports car to me.
Nothing in the description of a sports cars says it is designed to be used on tracks rather than public roads. Testing a sports car on backroads is entirely appropriate and it is not at all necessary to test it on a track. Track testing is interesting, and I'm glad they did it, but that does not represent how most sports car drivers will use their cars. There are many thousands of sports cars on the roads, and very, very few of them will ever see a track day.
Top Gear failed to mention that when the thing "ran out of charge" it still had 20% charge remaining, and was still operating, and that when the "brakes failed", the brakes still worked. Bad Top Gear!
Reply
mister nomer 12:42PM (12/26/2008)
RE: BlackbirdHighway 12-26-2008 @ 7:35AM
"Nothing in the description of a sports cars says it is designed to be used on tracks rather than public roads."
I don't think TG is arguing that flogging a car around their track use is normal use.
But, then again, all the cars on the show get flogged around the track. Even the really cheap ones.
TG has a segment called "Star in a reasonably priced car". They put a TV/movie actor in an econobox and see how fast she/he can go around the track. Same track as the Tesla, same aggressive driving, but in a bargain basement 4 door sedan: a Chevrolet Lacetti (Suzuki Forenza in the U.S.).
I don't recall ever seeing a Chevrolet Lacetti break down on the show.
So, yes, it's true that TG puts cars through extreme conditions but this is exactly the sort of testing that Tesla should be doing on its own to make better cars.
Honda and Toyota make reliable cars because they design their cars for how people actually use them: regular use under difficult conditions, with occasional abuse.
I'm pulling for Tesla, I really am. And I think that in the end this whole brouhaha will be good for Tesla and other EV startups because it will help establish what the expectation levels really are.
nick 12:36PM (12/26/2008)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718900859924733158
Clarkson hated the Prius(he only got 45 mpg), so I think in comparison the Tesla got a pretty fair review.
Reply