I genuinely didn't feel as though the piece on Tesla was particularly biased though? Sure, they pointed out the flaws inherit to the car (recharge time) and filmed the car being pushed in for entertainment, but overall the piece still came across as pretty positive about the car: at times he was gushing about its performance and how enjoyable it could be to drive.

I'm sure if I were invested in Tesla it's easy to feel that they're "biased" against me, but the review didn't come across as any more negative than 90% of car reviews on Top Gear.

They took a worst case mileage and recharge time and said a specific trip would take you 3 days. Without saying if you actually drove that distance and used a larger power source than a normal wall outlet it would take a few hours. They also pretended one of the cars ran out of power which did not actually happen.

Now, I don't mind making fun of actual issues. And they had some things that actually broke, but making shit up crosses a line IMO.

Have you seen Top Gear?

The Reliant Robin, while obviously a horrible design, does not roll over every time you drive one a half mile (and it is not the primary reason for the decline in population in the Sheffield region in the decades since its release). The Stig is not really "half man, half machine with petrol running through his veins". And a race against a jet or helicopter is not a realistic test of auto performance.

The Tesla episode was cheeky, but no more cheeky than many episodes. It's not a "straight" review show. It is a comedy that happens to have a lot of cars in it. If it is occasionally true, that's just a bonus.

> The Reliant Robin, while obviously a horrible design, does not roll over every time you drive one a half mile

But it is absolutely hilarious when it does.

Reliant Robin show was epic. Only in England.

Agreed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQh56geU0X8

To explain for Americans and non-Brits, A Reliant Robin was a 3-wheeled car that was designed so that it could be taxed as a motorcycle with side car (ie 3 wheels).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliant_Robin

There is a big difference between the outright comedy sections and the supercar reviews though. Much like the parent, I enjoy the show generally but the Tesla piece left a bad taste in the mouth. They intentionally misrepresented what happened - as well as the actual facts about the car - to leverage the stereotype of electric cars being crap/short-ranged. The biggest selling point after not requiring fuel is precisely that it is not like other electric cars. Here, their use of comedy crossed into outright dishonesty - an audience who don't know the facts will definitely be left with the impression of 3 day trips and 50 minute lifespan.

They will probably win the court case, as they were careful not to say anything literally untrue. Yes, if you ram it as hard as possible around a race track for an hour, you will probably need a charge. Yes, if you choose to make a very long journey and only recharge via the slowest means it will take you a while. But that would be idiotic, wouldn't it? Few people - even those who buy sports cars - make those kind of uses. We know it's not for long-distance journeys, but we also know the statistics about the distribution of journey lengths.

Do the Top Gear team mention every fuse that blows? Do they honestly not see it as a huge step forward? I think there is a difference between being cheeky about a Ferrari and Tesla. Top Gear have given positive reviews to previously unfashionable brands in the past, despite the comedy.

They didn't take worst case mileage, they took mileage on their track. They said, quite clearly, in the show, that it would have only gone 55 miles on their track. It was being driven like a maniac, they clearly showed it being driven hard, they're not a walking tesla advert pretending that it'd go 211 miles at top speed.

The 3 day journey reference was debunking claims you could charge it with wind power and again was clearly stated in the segment of the show. It's specifically addressing claims tesla are making, from their own literature:

The Roadster, which consumes no oil whatsoever and plugs into conventional 220-volt sockets throughout Europe, can be charged with solar, hydro or wind energy.

http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-debuts...

See other reviews spouting pie-in-the-sky about how the tesla could be recharged by renewable energy:

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/tesla/2011-tesla-roadster-race-...

Compared to a lot of car reviews on Top Gear, Tesla got off lightly.

Just imagine if it were made in Mexico.

EDIT: For those that don't get the reference, there is a running bit/theme on Top Gear about a so-called Mexican Supercar that was released a while ago. They've been thrashing it, and Mexico, ever since. So much so that the US version of Top Gear has been edited to remove the comments, and the Mexican Government has issued official communications about it.

Just Google "top gear mexico supercar" and you'll see.

It's not like I just randomly slammed Mexicans with this post. That's what the Dutch are for.

Maybe not your FAVORITE guy ever, but I don't know if you can call yourself a motoring enthusiast if you don't derive at least a little bit of guilty pleasure watching them race a jet fighter in a Bugatti.

How that jet got in the Bugatti, I'll never know.

No, the Bugatti driver's other pastime is punching jets on the nose.

I do think Clarkson is a bit over the top anti-conservation; but suing him for that seems like the worst possible response. Something along the lines of a clever rebuttal in the form of a short video could've scored them some goodwill points.

He's over the top because he plays it up.

Its not a documentary. Its a play and the actors play roles to a degree of excess (although tbf their roles are pretty close to their real life personas).

Expecting the Top Gear folks to be fair, sensible or responsible is totally missing the point of the show in my opinion. These are the same guys that do - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjzpx_jUUA0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOvp69lnZbA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMcZH-1FEHo

Consumer Reports and Car and Driver are factual and fair. But they arent entertaining, passionate or engrossing.

Exactly this. Top Gear isn't fair (or balanced). That is what makes the show funny.

As I see it, Clarkson and the team are basing their eco ridicule on the long view. They know that if they praise the current half-baked electric car technology, they'll look quaint and whimsical in 50 years when electric cars are practical. Better to be insightful and honest about just how far short the current offerings fall when compared with mature fossil-fuel powered vehicles, surely?

You can't blame Clarkson. Top Gear's reviews aren't necessarily based on some objective standard. They rate a driving experience. For them, electric cars haven't provided the same experience that they are used to and it will be a while before mass-market electric cars do that.