Nissan Calls out Top Gear

[Jesda]

[I hope you realize I'm just teasing you about the lawyer stuff Isaac. ]

[IBCoupe]

Yes, Top Gear has a point when they say, "There's no infrastructure." No, Top Gear's lie about the vehicle's range is not redeemed by the fact that they have a point about infrastructure. They still lied and and that lie still cost an automaker money.

The Leaf is a passenger car in a practical package that's inherently impractical to use. That's the far-reaching, far more important, far more relevant issue here. The rest is lolyers being lolyers, scraping crumbs off the floor looking for a smoking gun.


Outside of a possible legal battle between Nissan and the BBC, who the hell cares? Get your nose off the pavement and look at the bigger picture.

But the Nissan (and Tesla's) point is that it's not always impractical, and lying about the range makes it seem so when it isn't.

And I figured about the lawyer stuff. Nice pants.

[Jesda]

But the Nissan (and Tesla's) point is that it's not always impractical, and lying about the range makes it seem so when it isn't.

And I figured about the lawyer stuff. Nice pants.

The Tesla Roadster is (or was? aren't they replacing it with an electric luxury sedan?) marketed and sold as an exotic toy for the tech-minded with money. It fulfills its role and intended purpose exceptionally well.

Nissan strongly implies that the Leaf is as practical as an electric toothbrush and appropriate for most American households. It isn't. There's half truths all over the place.

A typical coffee maker shouldn't run on gasoline and for 2011, a typical $25,000 car shouldn't rely strictly on the electrical grid for propulsion. That will change one day -- that day is not today.

[IBCoupe]

A typical coffee maker shouldn't run on gasoline and for 2011, a typical $25,000 car shouldn't rely strictly on the electrical grid for propulsion. That will change one day -- that day is not today.

Nissan doesn't market the leaf as a typical $25,000 car, and even if it did: lying about the severity of a car's limitations, causing financial harm to its manufacturers, remains unethical and illegal.

You're still telling me, "I know that they made the LEAF sound worse than it actually performed, but there's a larger point."

Nissan is still building and selling LEAFs, despite the truth of the larger point. Every time you say to me that the infrastructure is lacking, you'll note that I'm not disagreeing with you. That is true, but it's not all that Top Gear said. they can be completely right about one thing and lying asses about another.

[Jesda]

You're still telling me, "I know that they made the LEAF sound worse than it actually performed, but there's a larger point."

That's exactly my point. Aside from that, its a legal issue, and I couldn't care less. The more pressing issue for the rest of us is the Leaf's inadequacy, not Top Gear's exaggeration of it.


"This poop smells bad. Top Gear made it sound as if it was worse than sprayed by a skunk." -- Yes, but it stinks either way.


You can make a genuine argument about how the Leaf was unfairly depicted by Top Gear, and in the end, it doesn't matter. The Leaf is still a four-wheeled gimp without the thrills of a Tesla.

[IBCoupe]

That's the more pressing issue to you. Whatever Top Gear says about the LEAF's range will affect Nissan's bottom line. That's okay. If Top Gear lies, that's not okay, and if you really don't care, then it's kind of curious that you'd spend so much time in this thread when that's what the thread was about. :P

[Encryptshun]

To Z's point from the end of page 1, so what if Top Gear took a brand new, gasoline-powered car on a fuel economy test, filled the tank only halfway up with gas, drove it dry and then made it seem like it only got half the mileage the manufacturer advertises? Would the automaker be justified in taking exception to that?

[IBCoupe]

I'd say so, but I don't think you were asking me.

[Bubba1]

That's the more pressing issue to you. Whatever Top Gear says about the LEAF's range will affect Nissan's bottom line. That's okay. If Top Gear lies, that's not okay, and if you really don't care, then it's kind of curious that you'd spend so much time in this thread when that's what the thread was about. :P

IBC, I must disagree with your conclusion that Top Gears Leaf teasing negatively impacting Nissan's Bottom line. Do you honestly believe that thousands serious Leaf buyers not only watch Top Gear, but also base their entire buying decisions based solely on Top Gear's silliness? Aside from maybe Nala , do you really think Nissan buyers are that naiive and stupid? At the end of the day, it's a comedy show, not a testing service.

[IBCoupe]

All I have to do isfibd one dissuaded customer, and Nissan is out thousands of dollars. Offering opinion is okay. Lying about measurable fact is not.

[Bubba1]

All I have to do isfibd one dissuaded customer, and Nissan is out thousands of dollars. Offering opinion is okay. Lying about measurable fact is not.

Trying to find a naiive Leaf customer that stupid (that also watches the show, which is rare) and that's willing to testify(and isn't lying himself/herself) is easier said than done.

I think it would extremely unwise for Nissan to pursue legal action against the BBC anyway. The bigger the stink Nissan would make about it, the more negativity Nissan would likely generate toward itself for being thin skinned, petty, and whiny over a popular comedy show. You seem too focused on winning a court battle, like a trial lawyer. The problem is, once you factor in the "big picture", even if Nissan wins the case, which is not a guarantee, Nissan would likely end up losing the bigger war ( as in losing even more customers annoyed at them for fighting such a silly court battle in the first place. You can certainly argue about winning a court case like that, but before doing so, and much more importantly, you must first determine if the matter SHOULD go to court at all. The big picture answer is NO.

[Jesda]

That's the more pressing issue to you. Whatever Top Gear says about the LEAF's range will affect Nissan's bottom line. That's okay. If Top Gear lies, that's not okay, and if you really don't care, then it's kind of curious that you'd spend so much time in this thread when that's what the thread was about. :P

You seem to be grasping at straws.


You see, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, thus the jab that you were eager for a case.

[IBCoupe]

I'm not grasping at straws. I'm simply refusing to let yougo off-topic. The presence or absence of infrastructure is immaterial to Nissan's complaint.

[Bubba1]

I'm not grasping at straws. I'm simply refusing to let yougo off-topic. The presence or absence of infrastructure is immaterial to Nissan's complaint.

Could it be it's not a case of you refusing to let go off topic but more a case of you dismissing the big picture in order to win a minor point?

[IBCoupe]

A minor point? What's Nissan's complaint about? What's Tesla's lawsuit about? You're ignoring the central issue of the dispute in order to make a "big picture" kind of point. From the article linked in the OP:

In Top Gear's most recent review, they made fun of the Nissan LEAF for dying on them in the middle of nowhere, but Nissan says they've got proof that Top Gear cheated.

...

Problem is, Nissan LEAFs are equipped with all kinds of fancy electronics, including a monitoring device which records the position of the LEAF along with the state of the battery. As it turns out, the car was only at 40% charge when it started on its 60 mile trip, and when it got to the spot that the producers had apparently decided that it would run out of batteries, it kept going. So, they drove the car around in circles for another 10 miles until it finally died, and which point they turned the cameras on, and shockingly, the car had run out of electricity. Shockingly.

Seriously, guys, it's not just me arguing for the sake of arguing. Top Gear lied about the LEAF's major selling point in an objective, measurable way. Why is it so hard for you guys to acknowledge that what Top Gear did was (a) wrong, and (b) probably illegal? It's not that big a deal guys; I still like the show, and I still watch it whenever I can. But this is a pretty douchey thing for them to do.

It's fine to pretend like there's some greater issue that Nissan and Tesla are missing, but the one thing that they can do to get around the infrastructure problem is pump up the range as far as they can. And they have. And now Top Gear is saying that they're lying about their range. Who's dodging the point?

[PoorManQ45]

Why is this thread still going?

Nissan is acting like a little b****.

Jeremy is an entertainer. He did his job.

End of discussion.

[IBCoupe]

Why is this thread still going?

Nissan is acting like a little b****.

Jeremy is an entertainer. He did his job.

End of discussion.

It was apparently the decision of the producers to lie about the circumstances and nature of the car's performance in measurable ways. You can still like Jeremy; it's okay.

[Red coupe]

Seriously, guys, it's not just me arguing for the sake of arguing. Top Gear lied about the LEAF's major selling point in an objective, measurable way. Why is it so hard for you guys to acknowledge that what Top Gear did was (a) wrong, and (b) probably illegal? It's not that big a deal guys; I still like the show, and I still watch it whenever I can. But this is a pretty douchey thing for them to do.

It's fine to pretend like there's some greater issue that Nissan and Tesla are missing, but the one thing that they can do to get around the infrastructure problem is pump up the range as far as they can. And they have. And now Top Gear is saying that they're lying about their range. Who's dodging the point?

See, here is the problem though....
What they did was not neither wrong, or illegal.
But after 2 pages, neither side has won the other over... so let us change our approach.

You seem to have a strong opinion on the segment, so we have to assume you have seen it... Go back an watch it, take notes.
You specifically stated that
" Top Gear lied about the LEAF's major selling point in an objective, measurable way."
If that is even remotely true it should be pretty simple to find at least one quote or example them doing so. At what points did they make any reference to total range at all?

While your watching please do note that:
- The segment begins mid trip. The first clips of the cars we see they are currently on the road, driving, with no mention of how far or long they have been doing so.
- at the beginning of the segment when Jeremy passes James, they directly show the dash board power meter of the leaf which clearly shows less then half of a charge.
- a while after pointing the camera at the fact that the Leaf had less then half a batter it is shown to only have 20 mi remaining, and James remarks he is down to only 19 left.
- After charging Jeremy reports range is back up to 100 mi. He does report a 40 mi reported loss of range after 20 mi of driving... but combine the idea of Jermey driving and the fact that nissan suggests 60-70 miles real world driving, sounds pretty accurate.

The range CAN'T have been made to look artificially short, because they didn't show the beginning of the trip. They made no mention of starting charge state, and interestingly enough never even criticized the total range of the car... In fact they made almost no mention of total range...

They picked up filming mid drive. They directly showed the dash boards charge state, and deliberately mentioned predicted range (clearly showing its not full, or enough)
When they specifically point out not only that the fully charged car reports 100 mi remaining, and the car currently only reports 20mi how in the world can you accuse them of trying to pass off the car as charged?

[IBCoupe]

Admittedly, I haven't seen the episode. I don't have BBC America, and they don't appear to have the episode online (or I'm just bad at searching). I'm going by the link. Did you read it?

In an episode of Top Gear broadcast just a week ago, Jeremy Clarkson attempted to drive a Nissan LEAF to the seaside (a distance of some 60 miles) as part of a "sensible test." Stop me if you saw this coming, but the car ran out of power halfway there (surprise!), Jeremy was unable to find a charging station, and had to wait overnight for the LEAF to complete a 13 hour charge...

Now, what was the test for? Was the distance mentioned? And, if you're curious:

So, they drove the car around in circles for another 10 miles until it finally died, and which point they turned the cameras on, and shockingly, the car had run out of electricity.

If that's what happened, that would be where the "range" is made artificially short.

Again, I love Top Gear. I'm going to continue to buy the DVDs twice, and I'm going to continue to be a fan. But this was d!ck.

[PoorManQ45]

Why is this thread still going?

Nissan is acting like a little b****.

Jeremy is an entertainer. He did his job.

End of discussion.

It was apparently the decision of the producers to lie about the circumstances and nature of the car's performance in measurable ways. You can still like Jeremy; it's okay.

Did anyone post a clip of this lie that occurred?

[IBCoupe]

Not unless I missed it.

[Red coupe]

lol, so wait, your arguing with us about something you haven't seen?

Admittedly, I haven't seen the episode. I don't have BBC America, and they don't appear to have the episode online (or I'm just bad at searching). I'm going by the link. Did you read it?

In an episode of Top Gear broadcast just a week ago, Jeremy Clarkson attempted to drive a Nissan LEAF to the seaside (a distance of some 60 miles) as part of a "sensible test." Stop me if you saw this coming, but the car ran out of power halfway there (surprise!), Jeremy was unable to find a charging station, and had to wait overnight for the LEAF to complete a 13 hour charge...

Now, what was the test for? Was the distance mentioned? And, if you're curious:

Will definitely admit i did not read the article, or even click the link. I really don't need the people who have a stake in one side of the argument describing the episode for me. I watched it myself and made up my own mind.
Test wasn't for anything. They were just reviewing them...
As they put it "We would simply get two of the cars that you can actually buy these days and take them on a perfectly ordinary run to the sea side"
Not a test of range at all, it was just an ordinary drive like they said... Not all of which start with a full tank (I don't think I have ever set off with a full tank actually lol)

So, they drove the car around in circles for another 10 miles until it finally died, and which point they turned the cameras on, and shockingly, the car had run out of electricity.

If that's what happened, that would be where the "range" is made artificially short.

Again, I love Top Gear. I'm going to continue to buy the DVDs twice, and I'm going to continue to be a fan. But this was d***.[/quote]I don't doubt for a second that that is what happened... Again, its a TV show so they want to control where the ultimate failure happens for entertainment, and because they are shooting the episode to prove a point.
The fact that they drove an extra 10 miles is completely irrelevant. The trip was not given a start point, we were never told how many miles the car stopped after, they made no mention of starting charge states or how long they had been driving.
They intro the segment with the quote about a drive to the beach I posted earlier in this post, then cut directly to a clip of Jeremy and James on the highway, complimenting the cars for being rather car like. What would appear on film to be about 10 miles down the road they make the first mentions of mileage/range/distance pointing out that Jeremy had a remaining range f 20 miles, and James had a remaining rage of 19.

The segment the becomes clear that it is about the lack of support for the cars and recharging, and the criticisms are mostly kept to that, short of a bit of math regarding the cost of electricity and your time....
They eventually find a place to charge at a school, charge the cars for the first time in the segment (for 13 hours, doing other boring stuff in the mean time to highlight the inconvenience), and it the morning set out, announcing a range of 100mi, making it to the beach no problem where they discuss the problems facing modern electric cars and the lack of proper support for charging.


Sure, they turned off the camera while they looped for 10 mi.... but the cars were just driving to begin with. Range was never giving or even mentioned for the first charge. We had no idea how far the cars had gone... so who cares if there was 10 minutes of boring unfilmed driving not included in the episode?

[IBCoupe]

lol, so wait, your arguing with us about something you haven't seen?

Yes. Is there a problem?

Will definitely admit i did not read the article, or even click the link. I really don't need the people who have a stake in one side of the argument describing the episode for me. I watched it myself and made up my own mind.
Test wasn't for anything. They were just reviewing them...
As they put it "We would simply get two of the cars that you can actually buy these days and take them on a perfectly ordinary run to the sea side"
Not a test of range at all, it was just an ordinary drive like they said... Not all of which start with a full tank (I don't think I have ever set off with a full tank actually lol)

Right, which misses the point of the complaint against them entirely. Which is easy to do when you ignore the complaint altogether. lol, so wait, you're arguing with me about a complaint you haven't read?

Did they state where they were driving and how far away it was? Did they misrepresent how far they actually got? If the answers to those questions are "yes," then they were wrong. Whether you care that they were wrong is another matter entirely, but you can't argue that they didn't lie.

I don't doubt for a second that that is what happened... Again, its a TV show so they want to control where the ultimate failure happens for entertainment, and because they are shooting the episode to prove a point.
The fact that they drove an extra 10 miles is completely irrelevant. The trip was not given a start point, we were never told how many miles the car stopped after, they made no mention of starting charge states or how long they had been driving.
They intro the segment with the quote about a drive to the beach I posted earlier in this post, then cut directly to a clip of Jeremy and James on the highway, complimenting the cars for being rather car like. What would appear on film to be about 10 miles down the road they make the first mentions of mileage/range/distance pointing out that Jeremy had a remaining range f 20 miles, and James had a remaining rage of 19.

So they did talk about range, then? Funny, that. And tell me, how is 10 miles measured on film? Did they announce how far they'd gotten?

The segment the becomes clear that it is about the lack of support for the cars and recharging, and the criticisms are mostly kept to that, short of a bit of math regarding the cost of electricity and your time....
They eventually find a place to charge at a school, charge the cars for the first time in the segment (for 13 hours, doing other boring stuff in the mean time to highlight the inconvenience), and it the morning set out, announcing a range of 100mi, making it to the beach no problem where they discuss the problems facing modern electric cars and the lack of proper support for charging.


Sure, they turned off the camera while they looped for 10 mi.... but the cars were just driving to begin with. Range was never giving or even mentioned for the first charge. We had no idea how far the cars had gone...

It obviously hadn't gone "60 miles." And if the circumstances were such that it could have gone 60 miles, then they lied. Here's the thing: if you're going to make a point about a car running out of fuel, either start out with a full tank, or announce that you didn't. If you don't do that, don't complain when you get caught messing with the data.

so who cares if there was 10 minutes of boring unfilmed driving not included in the episode?

Nissan and Tesla, the former having data that they staged the break-down when the car could have kept on going.

[Jesda]

Yes. Is there a problem?

GOD DAMN IT, ISAAC.

At the next meet I'm giving you a brutal noogie.

[PoorManQ45]

Yes. Is there a problem?

GOD DAMN IT, ISAAC.

At the next meet I'm giving you a brutal noogie.

You'd think he learned from reading my posts

[Jesda]

Yes. Is there a problem?

[Red coupe]

Yes. Is there a problem?

Problem is a bit of a weird word for it... but it doesn't really make sense for you to be caught up in calling out a film segment you have never even seen.

Right, which misses the point of the complaint against them entirely. Which is easy to do when you ignore the complaint altogether. lol, so wait, you're arguing with me about a complaint you haven't read?

Did they state where they were driving and how far away it was? Did they misrepresent how far they actually got? If the answers to those questions are "yes," then they were wrong. Whether you care that they were wrong is another matter entirely, but you can't argue that they didn't lie.

What if the answer to neither one was yes? They did not state how far they were driving or how far they actually got. As I said before, the segment begins with them behind the wheel of the car already on the journey with ~20 miles of range left on the batteries. They never showed the route, starting point or destination. They simply lead into the film saying "We would simply get two of the cars that you can actually buy these days and take them on a perfectly ordinary run to the sea side". I believe that is as much info as they ever really give on the route, starting or ending points and distance traveled (which is discussed the next day, and accurately represented). They did mention where they were when the batteries died, and how far away some charging stations were.

So they did talk about range, then? Funny, that. And tell me, how is 10 miles measured on film? Did they announce how far they'd gotten?

That was almost the only time they mentioned range, and it was not mentioning total range per charge... they were reading the remaining range on the dash board. This was also at the begining of the segment, clearly showing they were starting with very limited range remaining, likely meaning a battery that had not been recharged.
I said it apeared as if they had gone something like 10 miles... as in, in the clip they were driving along the road for what I could only guess to be 10 miles based on speed and time. They did not mention how many miles they had driven at any point in this...

It obviously hadn't gone "60 miles." And if the circumstances were such that it could have gone 60 miles, then they lied. Here's the thing: if you're going to make a point about a car running out of fuel, either start out with a full tank, or announce that you didn't. If you don't do that, don't complain when you get caught messing with the data.

How was it obvious? The film never even showed them setting off on the trip, just driving down the road with no real indication of where they were... they never showed the route, starting point or destination... never showed a map.

[IBCoupe]

Yes. Is there a problem?

GOD DAMN IT, ISAAC.

At the next meet I'm giving you a brutal noogie.

<3

[IBCoupe]

Problem is a bit of a weird word for it... but it doesn't really make sense for you to be caught up in calling out a film segment you have never even seen.

Think of me more as an advocate for the folks who are calling out the film segment.

What if the answer to neither one was yes? They did not state how far they were driving or how far they actually got. As I said before, the segment begins with them behind the wheel of the car already on the journey with ~20 miles of range left on the batteries. They never showed the route, starting point or destination. They simply lead into the film saying "We would simply get two of the cars that you can actually buy these days and take them on a perfectly ordinary run to the sea side". I believe that is as much info as they ever really give on the route, starting or ending points and distance traveled (which is discussed the next day, and accurately represented). They did mention where they were when the batteries died, and how far away some charging stations were.

Guy writing in the link seems to believe otherwise, but to be fair, I can't prove that he's seen the video.

That was almost the only time they mentioned range, and it was not mentioning total range per charge... they were reading the remaining range on the dash board. This was also at the begining of the segment, clearly showing they were starting with very limited range remaining, likely meaning a battery that had not been recharged.
I said it apeared as if they had gone something like 10 miles... as in, in the clip they were driving along the road for what I could only guess to be 10 miles based on speed and time. They did not mention how many miles they had driven at any point in this...

I understand what you're saying, but based on what you've said, and based on Nissan's statements and based on the article at the top of the thread, it seems like, at best, Top Gear was dishonest and misrepresented the car's range. The way you characterize it makes it seem like it could have been accidental, but that doesn't necessarily save them from liability in England; I'm not that familiar with English libel laws, though I do know they're very strict.

How was it obvious? The film never even showed them setting off on the trip, just driving down the road with no real indication of where they were... they never showed the route, starting point or destination... never showed a map.

Which is all terribly convenient for a misleading piece about the car's capacity you make it seem like they went out of their way, so as to even avoid some of their standard statements, to make a statement without actually making a statement. The 60 mile number didn't come from nowhere, and it was purportedly stated to establish a desired range. Then when they reached their actual "destination," they drove the car in circles until it ran out of charge. Then they said, "Oh darn, it ran out of charge."

One of those two sounds like the point Top Gear customarily makes, and the other does not.

[Bubba1]

GOD DAMN IT, ISAAC.

At the next meet I'm giving you a brutal noogie.

So your entire argument is based on hearsay by someone commenting on the show????

Following Jesda's noogie, I'm doing this to you, Isaac.....



I was about to label you a lawyer, but then I realized you'd take that as a compliment.