Top Gear - Clarkson, review of the Tesla
- Thread starter BlackICE
- Start date
Mark06GT
GT Owner
Thanks for the post. I’ve been waiting for this one for a long time.
I’m always torn by Clarkson’s show. I enjoy it, but I never like how he skews his commentary more for entertainment purposes than for helpful reporting. I remember when he said his GT only got 4mpg. I can’t imagine how he was driving to achieve that kind of mileage. My daily usage is usually between 18 and 21mpg. Even on the track I get significantly better than 4. Maybe he’s not as good a driver as he claims to be.
Saying the Tesla only gets 50 or so miles on a charge is misleading in the same way. To say that it takes a week to charge it is also misleading since he was intentionally using low amp service to charge it. The brake and heating issues are news to me, but considering the other things that I know he got wrong, I’ll have to go elsewhere for real answers.
I’m always torn by Clarkson’s show. I enjoy it, but I never like how he skews his commentary more for entertainment purposes than for helpful reporting. I remember when he said his GT only got 4mpg. I can’t imagine how he was driving to achieve that kind of mileage. My daily usage is usually between 18 and 21mpg. Even on the track I get significantly better than 4. Maybe he’s not as good a driver as he claims to be.
Saying the Tesla only gets 50 or so miles on a charge is misleading in the same way. To say that it takes a week to charge it is also misleading since he was intentionally using low amp service to charge it. The brake and heating issues are news to me, but considering the other things that I know he got wrong, I’ll have to go elsewhere for real answers.
Mark06GT
GT Owner
From the Tesla owner's web site...
"For the record: Thanks to The Stig’s impressive turn behind the wheel, the Tesla Roadster gets a higher ranking in Top Gear’s performance board than a Porsche 911 GT3. Jeremy Clarkson, a die-hard “petrol head” with a clear bias against green cars generally, said that it must be “snowing in hell” because he had such a great time driving the Roadster and now considers himself a “volt head” thanks to the Roadster’s amazing performance. This is amazingly high praise from Clarkson, whose entire schtick is to savage even his most beloved petrol-guzzling sports cars.
However, I would like to clarify a couple things. Never at any time did Clarkson or any of the Top Gear drivers run out of charge. In fact, they never got below 20 percent charge in either car; they never had to push a car off the track because of lack of charge or a fault. (It’s unclear why they were pushing one into a garage in the video; I’ll refrain from speculating about their motives.)
The “brake failure” Clarkson mentions was solely a blown fuse; a service technician replaced the Roadster’s pump and it was back up and running immediately. They were never without a car, and the Top Gear testing did not put the Roadster’s reliability or safety in question whatsoever. Again, I’m going to leave out comments as to why the good folks at Top Gear might have mischaracterized the blown fuse as a brake failure, which is was decidedly not.
I am also unclear as to why Clarkson said it took 16 hours to recharge the Roadster without qualifying that statement at all. The vast majority of people who have taken delivery of their Roadsters (and there are more than 100 of them now) have much faster systems that recharge from dead to full in as little as 3.5 hours.
However, I really enjoyed Clarkson’s suggestion that, if people want to race Roadsters 24-7, they should simply buy two.
Rachel Konrad
Senior Communications Manager
Tesla Motors Inc."
"For the record: Thanks to The Stig’s impressive turn behind the wheel, the Tesla Roadster gets a higher ranking in Top Gear’s performance board than a Porsche 911 GT3. Jeremy Clarkson, a die-hard “petrol head” with a clear bias against green cars generally, said that it must be “snowing in hell” because he had such a great time driving the Roadster and now considers himself a “volt head” thanks to the Roadster’s amazing performance. This is amazingly high praise from Clarkson, whose entire schtick is to savage even his most beloved petrol-guzzling sports cars.
However, I would like to clarify a couple things. Never at any time did Clarkson or any of the Top Gear drivers run out of charge. In fact, they never got below 20 percent charge in either car; they never had to push a car off the track because of lack of charge or a fault. (It’s unclear why they were pushing one into a garage in the video; I’ll refrain from speculating about their motives.)
The “brake failure” Clarkson mentions was solely a blown fuse; a service technician replaced the Roadster’s pump and it was back up and running immediately. They were never without a car, and the Top Gear testing did not put the Roadster’s reliability or safety in question whatsoever. Again, I’m going to leave out comments as to why the good folks at Top Gear might have mischaracterized the blown fuse as a brake failure, which is was decidedly not.
I am also unclear as to why Clarkson said it took 16 hours to recharge the Roadster without qualifying that statement at all. The vast majority of people who have taken delivery of their Roadsters (and there are more than 100 of them now) have much faster systems that recharge from dead to full in as little as 3.5 hours.
However, I really enjoyed Clarkson’s suggestion that, if people want to race Roadsters 24-7, they should simply buy two.
Rachel Konrad
Senior Communications Manager
Tesla Motors Inc."
ThatPhilBrettGuy
GT Owner
So about the same speed as turning up at a gas station and filling the GT by scooping up gas with a small egg cup....
Neilda
GT Owner
I think the Tesla is a rather delicious side-show. A beautiful little Lotus that runs on batteries (and runs fast) but costs nearly £100,000 and weighs in at half a ton. Not really an option. Even with a 3.5 hour fast charging wagon, it would take you ten hours of charging to travel 600 miles.
The more interesting segment in that show was the hydrogen car from Honda and Jay Leno's intelligent spin on why it's such an important car. In short he said that hydrogen cars would save petrol cars - in the same way that cars saved horses, saved them to be leisure animals to be enjoyed and admired.
The hydrogen Honda doesn't use batteries and is therefore far more sensible for those seeking zero emissions.
The more interesting segment in that show was the hydrogen car from Honda and Jay Leno's intelligent spin on why it's such an important car. In short he said that hydrogen cars would save petrol cars - in the same way that cars saved horses, saved them to be leisure animals to be enjoyed and admired.
The hydrogen Honda doesn't use batteries and is therefore far more sensible for those seeking zero emissions.
Mark06GT
GT Owner
Hydrogen's dirty secret is how much energy it takes to produce and how little energy it stores. The well-to-wheel energy numbers for hydrogen are much worse than for petrol, so it actually consumes more energy in the long run.
Spirit
Heritage GT Owner
fjpikul
GT Owner
Spirit
Heritage GT Owner
It's the future that WILL WORK, unlike the T-Boner's windmills and all the rest of the stupid alternatives being offered up as solutions [my rear they are] to the petro/energy issues.
Mr. Obama wants to rebuild infastructure in an effort to stimulate the economy; well here is an opportunity to make a REAL CHANGE.
Build nuclear power plants, build hydrogen fuel generating/filling stations while re-building our highways and bridges that are falling apart. Create a REAL benefit while stimulating the economy.
Oh, I'm sorry that actually makes sense; let's just spend more tax payers dollars on the idiotic alternatives AND those that are promoting them so they can continue to screw the pooch as they have for years.
OK, I'm now off my soapbox.
For awhile.
Nu Clear plants are the way to go! But like all other power plants, no one wants one next to their homes. If we want cheap abundant low cost energy it is the only real solution for at least the next 50 years and probably much longer. The alternative is high cost, rationed energy with a progressive pricing schedule based on use and income. The use and income already exists here in CA.
I wouldn't want to live next to any power plant, but if I had to a nuclear plant would be preferable to a coal plant.
As for the Tesla it did better than I expected it to do, but only it is only a niche car for the well to do, feel good about the earth types. There are much better alternatives to pollution reduction and transportation needs.
I wouldn't want to live next to any power plant, but if I had to a nuclear plant would be preferable to a coal plant.
As for the Tesla it did better than I expected it to do, but only it is only a niche car for the well to do, feel good about the earth types. There are much better alternatives to pollution reduction and transportation needs.