Top Gear Gets Caught By CarWings

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
GeekEV said:
evnow said:
I very well know the difference between comedy and fraud.

If you believe everyone thinks/knows it is just a comedy show - you tell me why all the EU investors were asking Musk about the show and were doubtful of Roadster capabilities based entirely on that show.
I'd have to argue that anyone who doesn't know its a comedy show is either and idiot or has no sense of humor. If the EU investors were using Top Gear as a source of intel then they're just rich idiots... I really don't get it. These same people probably think Monty Python and the Holy Grail was a historical documentary. :lol:
You can argue whatever you want - what matters is the actual effect on realworld - not your imaginary world where everyone knows Top Gear shouldn't be taken seriously.

Important difference between Monty Python & this is that - Top Gear is reinforcing prejudices & stereotypes - whereas Monty is making a very contrarian point.

I think several people on this thread who like Top Gear (and EVs) are having a hard time accepting that Top Gear is using their megaphone to push their anti-EV agenda.

BTW, if in every EV segment all the "comedy" they can think of is running out of charge quickly, they need better writers. Looks like they have Jay Leno as their writer.
 
It would have been even better had Nissan planted a hidden camera in the LEAF they loaned Top Gear, you know for security purposes ;). Then posted the video of the Top Gear crew running the car down before they headed out. Nothing is more powerful than a damning video going viral over the Internet. I suspect this latest stunt by the BBC show will be used as evidence in the Tesla suit.
 
surfingslovak said:
Top%252520Gear%252520dash.png
I just realized that shows the energy economy in kWh per mile... My Leaf shows miles per kWh. That's kinda strange.
 
Smidge204 said:
Humor relies on the contrast between expectation and appearance. By "playing into the fears" of EV range and performance, they are actually reinforcing them. YOU think it's funny because you know the truth. The general public just sees it as validation for their preconceptions.

Point well taken. While it's safe to assume the general public might sit back and say "yes, see, that's why I'm not going to buy an EV," Clarkson's heavy damning of the Prius did nothing to stop it's sales.

Smidge204 said:
Crucial difference: The Reliant Robin is no longer manufactured or marketed. There is nothing to lose in terms of market potential or public opinion by mocking it. It's also an absurd vehicle on its face.

Now how about they take the latest Lexus or BWM that's only just getting to market and do a gag bit about it breaking down. I'm sure that will go over well with the manufacturer.

Correct, the Robin was a poor example of how he can damage a new car, but it goes to show the lengths the show will go to be absurd for the sake of entertainment. Yet, I have to wonder, you don't watch a lot of Top Gear, do you? They do that all the time to new cars. Whether it's a 130i review where he complains about having so many warning lights on that he feels like Jack Lemmon in "The China Syndrome," (and all the cockpit shots show nothing of the sort) or my favorite quote regarding the then new E37 M Coupe "BMW's...built by fanatical engineers, and driven by tossers." He's an opinionated windbag, who describes driving a lorry as "change gear, check mirrors, change gear, change gear, murder a prostitute." He gets in trouble often for running his mouth, and anyone who watches the show with any sort of regularity knows to take what he says with a grain of salt.

Plus, at the end of the day, British Motoring Journalism doesn't have the best reputation for sticking to the facts, no matter what media it's found on.

evnow said:
I think several people on this thread who like Top Gear (and EVs) are having a hard time accepting that Top Gear is using their megaphone to push their anti-EV agenda.

And their Anti BMW agenda, and their anti small car agenda, and their anti road tax agenda, and their anti front wheel drive agenda, and their anti American agenda, and their anti green movement agenda, and their anti hybrid agenda, etc. The list goes on and on and on with that show, so I simply cannot get offended because one of their agendas hits close to home.

Nissan is going to have a sales success with the LEAF regardless of what JC says. Sure they'll save face by suing like Tesla did, but having watched that show since the late 1990's, I've learned to enjoy it without getting my feathers ruffled.
 
Top Gear pull fake EV stunt
Nissan provide the facts to media

Voila - plenty of free publicity, including a golden opportunity to correct common misconceptions.

Nissan benefit even more due to the ongoing legal battle between Top Gear and Tesla. It's a popular story and so anything Nissan have to say on the matter is widely reported. You can't buy PR this good.

I sided with Tesla in their lawsuit but at this point any further shenanigans by Top Gear in this vein only serve to popularize EVs, especially when the lie is as bald-faced as this latest one.
 
Quite right. I am still having the last laugh when I see people pulling into gas stations to fill up their ICE cars. I rarely look at the price at the pump and am bemused when I hear ads on the TV/radio talking about *new* cars getting 30 mpg! Which decade are these people living in? If the masses are dissuaded by a windbag from buying an amazing car, its their loss. At some point people are going to be fed up paying $4, $5, ... $10/gallon for gasoline and will come running to buy EVs. Enjoy the exclusivity while it lasts.


BrendanDolan said:
Smidge204 said:
Humor relies on the contrast between expectation and appearance. By "playing into the fears" of EV range and performance, they are actually reinforcing them. YOU think it's funny because you know the truth. The general public just sees it as validation for their preconceptions.

Point well taken. While it's safe to assume the general public might sit back and say "yes, see, that's why I'm not going to buy an EV," Clarkson's heavy damning of the Prius did nothing to stop it's sales.

Smidge204 said:
Crucial difference: The Reliant Robin is no longer manufactured or marketed. There is nothing to lose in terms of market potential or public opinion by mocking it. It's also an absurd vehicle on its face.

Now how about they take the latest Lexus or BWM that's only just getting to market and do a gag bit about it breaking down. I'm sure that will go over well with the manufacturer.

Correct, the Robin was a poor example of how he can damage a new car, but it goes to show the lengths the show will go to be absurd for the sake of entertainment. Yet, I have to wonder, you don't watch a lot of Top Gear, do you? They do that all the time to new cars. Whether it's a 130i review where he complains about having so many warning lights on that he feels like Jack Lemmon in "The China Syndrome," (and all the cockpit shots show nothing of the sort) or my favorite quote regarding the then new E37 M Coupe "BMW's...built by fanatical engineers, and driven by tossers." He's an opinionated windbag, who describes driving a lorry as "change gear, check mirrors, change gear, change gear, murder a prostitute." He gets in trouble often for running his mouth, and anyone who watches the show with any sort of regularity knows to take what he says with a grain of salt.

Plus, at the end of the day, British Motoring Journalism doesn't have the best reputation for sticking to the facts, no matter what media it's found on.

evnow said:
I think several people on this thread who like Top Gear (and EVs) are having a hard time accepting that Top Gear is using their megaphone to push their anti-EV agenda.

And their Anti BMW agenda, and their anti small car agenda, and their anti road tax agenda, and their anti front wheel drive agenda, and their anti American agenda, and their anti green movement agenda, and their anti hybrid agenda, etc. The list goes on and on and on with that show, so I simply cannot get offended because one of their agendas hits close to home.

Nissan is going to have a sales success with the LEAF regardless of what JC says. Sure they'll save face by suing like Tesla did, but having watched that show since the late 1990's, I've learned to enjoy it without getting my feathers ruffled.
 
DarkStar said:
I just realized that shows the energy economy in kWh per mile... My Leaf shows miles per kWh. That's kinda strange.

Nearly all of Europe uses kWh/km (or litres/100km for ICE cars). Except the UK who sadly stuck with miles, but they do use energy/distance instead of distance/energy.

With energy/distance it is easier to calculate the energy cost for a given distance, while distance/energy makes it easier to calculate range. Petrol (and electricity) is more expensive here, so we are more concerned about cost than range I guess.
 
BrendanDolan said:
Point well taken. While it's safe to assume the general public might sit back and say "yes, see, that's why I'm not going to buy an EV," Clarkson's heavy damning of the Prius did nothing to stop it's sales.

Citation needed.

I'll bet that Clarkson is personally responsible for preventing at least 1000 Prius sales (likely much more).
I've talked to two separate people who were surprised that the Prius got better then 30 MPG after watching the the Top Gear segment.

Top Gear reinforces misconceptions, and they play it straight.

When you're "joking" and use phrases such as "that's actually true", and "no, seriously" you undercut your ability to weasel out by donning the "I was only joking" banner.

It reminds me of global warming deniers who have been hoodwinked by a relatively small PR campaign.
It's always easier to reinforce inaccurate preconceptions, then to enlighten people.
This is especially true when considering the system justification effect causes people to reject life style changes, and admitting your lifestyle is causing harm is difficult for people.

Thanks!
 
mywaracfirfoyff said:
I'll bet that Clarkson is personally responsible for preventing at least 1000 Prius sales (likely much more).
And since the Prius recently passed 1 million sold in the USA alone, his comments (assuming that's true) amount to a scant 0.001% of US market sales - less if you factor in worldwide sales. The fact is, for a mass market car his comments simply don't matter (in the grand scheme of things). For a rare and exotic car where sales are are orders of magnitude less (such as a Tesla) they would certainly have more weight...
 
GeekEV said:
mywaracfirfoyff said:
I'll bet that Clarkson is personally responsible for preventing at least 1000 Prius sales (likely much more).
And since the Prius recently passed 1 million sold in the USA alone, his comments (assuming that's true) amount to a scant 0.001% of US market sales - less if you factor in worldwide sales. The fact is, for a mass market car his comments simply don't matter (in the grand scheme of things). For a rare and exotic car where sales are are orders of magnitude less (such as a Tesla) they would certainly have more weight...

Fair enough. I just made up 1000, since I don't know where to get data on that.

On this note, are your arguing that a celebrity reinforcing negative misconceptions from a position of assumed authority isn't a bad thing?

From my point of view, It seems a like a pretty crappy thing to do.

Thanks!
 
JohnnySebring said:
4 power dots for 27 MPH? Going uphill I guess.
Clarkson just finished passing his co-host James May on the A46. This strech of the road was fairly flat, but he was not driving in ECO mode. Everything we see on the dash snapshot is plausible and consistent with their journey to Cleethorpes.

clarkson_passing_may.png
 
wwhitney said:
That would be 10 in a million. I think you mean 0.1% or 0.001.
Oops, yep. Rookie mistake, I forgot to multiply by 100 after dividing 1,000/1,000,000...
mywaracfirfoyff said:
On this note, are your arguing that a celebrity reinforcing negative misconceptions from a position of assumed authority isn't a bad thing?

From my point of view, It seems a like a pretty crappy thing to do.
Oh sure, I wish they would do that too - particularly for something as paradigm shifting as the new crop of EVs. But I view it as no more of a bad thing than a standup comedian making fun of their wife, girlfriend, kids, parents or various ethnicities, religions, etc. - which they do all the time. I guess the main difference is there's no way for you not to know your watching a comedian when you go to a comedy club.
 
GeekEV said:
Oh sure, I wish they would do that too - particularly for something as paradigm shifting as the new crop of EVs. But I view it as no more of a bad thing than a standup comedian making fun of their wife, girlfriend, kids, parents or various ethnicities, religions, etc. - which they do all the time. I guess the main difference is there's no way for you not to know your watching a comedian when you go to a comedy club.

Fair enough.

That was my main disappointment with them.
If they would have explained why what they were doing was ridiculousness, then almost nobody would have cared.

I guess they'd get less press as well, which might be the root of the issue. :)
 
walterbays said:
It appears that Nissan is taking good advantage of all the free publicity from the Top Gear stunt. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ic-motoring--charge-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=956ff43f-a334-4bb3-8a0f-ede158a8ce18

The fallout from Nissan's accusations that Top Gear misled its viewers -- or at the very least didn't give the Leaf EV a fair shake -- continues to shake out. While we have no intention of covering it ad nauseam, this last bit is too good to pass up:
 
I didn't see this response from TopGear posted yet...

http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2011/08/02/electric-cars-charges-answered/

I’d like to put a few facts straight regarding a story in today’s Times about our recent road test of two electric cars, the Nissan Leaf and the Peugeot Ion, which was shown on Sunday’s programme. The Times’ headline reads: ‘Clarkson didn’t give our electric cars a sporting chance, says Nissan.’

Further into the story it says that the film was embarrassing for Nissan, because it shows that electric cars cannot be trusted to get you to your destination. The writer, Ben Webster, the media editor, then goes on to suggest that actually ‘it is Top Gear, not the car, that cannot be trusted.’ Mr Webster’s logic for this centres on the fact that when the film started the cars were not fully charged, and were therefore destined to run out at some point along the way, thus giving a false impression of the ability of the vehicles.

In response, I’d like to say:


1) We never, at any point in the film, said that we were testing the range claims of the vehicles, nor did we say that the vehicles wouldn’t achieve their claimed range. We also never said at any time that we were hoping to get to our destination on one charge.

2) We never said what the length of the journey was, where we had started from, nor how long we had been driving at the start of the film. So again, no inference about the range can be gleaned from our film.

3) We were fully aware that Nissan could monitor the state of the battery charge and distance travelled via onboard software. The reporter from The Times seems to suggest this device caught us out, but we knew about it all the time, as Nissan will confirm. We weren’t bothered about it, because we had nothing to hide.

4) The content of our film was driven by the points we were trying to explore. As James stated in the introduction, you can now go to a dealer and buy a ‘proper’ electric car, as in one that claims to be more practical and useful than a tiny, short-range city runabout. That’s what the car company marketing says, and that’s what we focused on in our test: the pros and cons of living with one as an alternative to a petrol car.

So yes, when we set off, we knew we would have to recharge at some point, because that was an experience we wanted to devote part of the film to. Now granted, James and Jeremy’s stopover – which included brass rubbings, adult scrabble and tattoos – was more knockabout than an average motorist would experience, but the consumer points coming out of the film were quite clear:

1) Electric cars are still very expensive.

2) The recharging infrastructure is patchy.

3) The range readout varies enormously, unlike the information given by a petrol gauge.

4) The Leaf is a very good car per se, and there’s nothing wrong with electric motors, but the battery, in our view, remains the Achilles’ heel of the whole package.

In the story in The Times Andy Palmer, Nissan’s Executive Vice President, was quoted as saying that our film was misleading. Well with respect to Mr Palmer, Nissan’s own website for the Leaf devotes a fair amount of space to extolling the virtues of fast charging, but nowhere does it warn potential customers that constant fast charging can severely shorten the life of the battery.

It also says that each Leaf battery should still have 80 percent of its capacity after five years’ use, and that, to a layman, sounds great. But nowhere is it mentioned that quite a few experts in the battery industry believe when a battery is down to 80 percent capacity, it has reached End Of Life (EOL) status. Peugeot, for example, accepts 80 percent capacity as End Of Life.

Now I also know, to be fair to Nissan, that when you go to buy a Leaf they do warn you about the pitfalls of constant fast charging. But the website is the portal to the Leaf world, it’s their electronic shop window. Is it misleading not to have all the facts on display? I’m only asking.

In conclusion, we absolutely refute that we were misleading viewers over the charge/range, and we stand by the consumer points raised in the film.

Andy Wilman is the Executive Producer of Top Gear
 
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=956ff43f-a334-4bb3-8a0f-ede158a8ce18

Love it!!! That is the very best way to show that EV's ARE the future! We saw the TG/Clarkson standing around helpless approach to EV's... I couldn't find an outlet... the cord won't reach... the cars are rubbish! OR the EV/Nissan way... just fix the problem! Priceless if it was two L3 stations!
 
Answer to all those who say "everyone knows TG is a comedy show"

http://www.uberreview.com/2011/08/shocked-nissan-leaf-owners-might-be-faced-with-30-000-bill-to-replace-the-batteries.htm

Nissan claims the battery pack will last as long as the car, but the chaps at Top Gear, beg to differ, and to car enthousiasts, Clarkson, May and Hammond have more credibility than anyone from Nissan. Regardless of what Nissan’s spokesmodels will say.
 
Back
Top