Support NeoGAF

[Foliorum Viridum]

NO NO NO NO NO NO.


I will try to phrase this as simply as possible for the folk who are being either deliberately stupid or deliberately ignorant.


-The range of the cars was never questioned

-The start point of the test was never mentioned

-The distance of the test was never mentioned

The test was about 1/one/uno/ thing, practicality of the electric battery.

It was about what happens if you get a low charge, what happens when you recharge, the effects of recharging and the cost implications of the battery.

"A sensible test" "No cocking about" "Get two cars ... take them on an ordinary run..."

Then, before they run out they ask each other how much life they have left. But what use is this information without the starting point, amount of charge, distance traveled etc? They give the audience the fact that the cars are out of juice but with no context. The fact they sound surprises gives the illusion that this was much less distance than they thought they would cover.

They way it was structured implied we'd see them go on a full journey to the beach and the fact it failed was because it ran out of power too early. Never once did they say "we're going to run them down to see how easy they are to manage then!"

It was misleading.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

This would be perilously close to defamation in the U.S.


Where are you going to get hydrogen from? The magic hydrogen mine? Also, hydrogen explodes.

LPG gas does too. As does gasoline. Next.

 

[Casp0r]

Where are you going to get hydrogen from? The magic hydrogen mine?

... are you serious?

Hydrogen comes from water, it's all around us. Setting up a hydrogen plant powered via solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal etc etc and you split water.

It's so easy it's stupid.

Also, hydrogen explodes.

Newsflash ... petrol burns ... long and slow. It can also explode.

Hydrogen in the event it's storage is compromised, can vent in seconds. Hydrogen is incredibly light and will dissipate away before exploding, petroleum is a heavy dense liquid that sticks around and has a habit of burning.

Hydrogen you get no prolonged fire, no explosion, no problem.

Enjoy getting toasted.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I'm devastated. Not heard anything as shocking since I learned that wrestling was fixed.

 

[Ponti]

"A sensible test" "No cocking about" "Get two cars ... take them on an ordinary run..."

Then, before they run out they ask each other how much life they have left. But what use is this information without the starting point, amount of charge, distance traveled etc? They give the audience the fact that the cars are out of juice but with no context. The fact they sound surprises gives the illusion that this was much less distance than they thought they would cover.

They way it was structured implied we'd see them go on a full journey to the beach and the fact it failed was because it ran out of power too early. Never once did they say "we're going to run them down to see how easy they are to manage then!"

It was misleading.

So what your saying is that Morris Marinas don't fall from the sky?

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

So what your saying is that Morris Marinas don't fall from the sky?

Sigh. Because that segment was presented as a serious look at the cars.

This thread is infuriating. I love TG, but even I'm not going to defend this. I'm out.

 

[pj]

Its only unrealistic if you think people are never forgetful or make false assumptions, or misjudge the total mileage of a trip they're on.

Once Quick Charge stations become more common, this will be less of an issue but the point of the review is that the electric cars are not as flexible as a petrol one right now. Three Years from now? Sure maybe. But right now they don't want to recommend it.

Of course they're not as flexible right now. Was anyone saying they are before top gear blew the lid off that hot button issue? No, they weren't.

Yes, people will have to use a little forethought before they take their 2011 electric car on a trip. Put the destination into the car's GPS and see if it says you can get there, a task which I guess was too difficult for the top gear guys.

 

[enzo_gt]

"A sensible test" "No cocking about" "Get two cars ... take them on an ordinary run..."

Then, before they run out they ask each other how much life they have left. But what use is this information without the starting point, amount of charge, distance traveled etc? They give the audience the fact that the cars are out of juice but with no context. The fact they sound surprises gives the illusion that this was much less distance than they thought they would cover.

They way it was structured implied we'd see them go on a full journey to the beach and the fact it failed was because it ran out of power too early. Never once did they say "we're going to run them down to see how easy they are to manage then!"

It was misleading.

And here is where we discover you don't understand Top Gear humour, which the rest of the show's audience does. They always say something of the sort before their manipulated group tests. I'm sure you took the "factual" American Muscle Car test to heart too.

There is no illusion, nor was there any misdirection.

 

[Subliminal]

I also hate the idea of electric cars, One of the very viable alternatives to petrol, is made a laughing stock on national TV by some dicks who think they're cool, funny and clever.

 

[Angry Grimace]

LPG gas does too. As does gasoline. Next.

Gasoline isn't under pressure the way hydrogen would have to be. And again, where's this magic source of fuel ready hydrogen?

... are you serious?

Hydrogen comes from water, it's all around us. Setting up a hydrogen plant powered via solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal etc etc and you split water.

It's so easy it's stupid.



Newsflash ... petrol burns ... long and slow. It can also explode.

Hydrogen in the event it's storage is compromised, can vent in seconds. Hydrogen is incredibly light and will dissipate away before exploding, petroleum is a heavy dense liquid that sticks around and has a habit of burning.

Hydrogen you get no prolonged fire, no explosion, no problem.

Enjoy getting toasted.

Yeah, except getting hydrogen from water isn't a free action. You have to burn non-renewables to obtain hydrogen from water, and in the end it neither frees you from by-products nor reduces your dependance on non-renewable resources.

 

[Casp0r]

Hilarious in that it would require an entirely new distribution and dispensation infrastructure, not to mention the inefficient way in which hydrogen fuel is created.

You'll need a whole new infrastructure for electric cars, unless your happy waiting for 10 hours to recharge on your next road trip.

Hydrogen can be efficiently produced once scaled up. However at the moment there are very little direct industrial processes dedicated to hydrogen production.

Just look at how we get petrol, gotta mine it from the crust out in the middle of the ocean, that a couple billion already gone, then you got to ship the crude oil to processing plants, another couple billion, then you got to ship and distribute the cleaned fuel.

Hydrogen you set up a plant in the country, nuclear powered, geothermal, solar, wind, make the hydrogen directly, then distribute it directly.

Shit you could make hydrogen in your house if you wanted.

 

[Walshicus]

Top Gear is shit. Jeremy Clarkson is a slimy fuck. Is anyone surprised by this?

I wish the BBC would let these pricks go.

 

[dalin80]

"A sensible test" "No cocking about" "Get two cars ... take them on an ordinary run..."

Then, before they run out they ask each other how much life they have left. But what use is this information without the starting point, amount of charge, distance traveled etc? They give the audience the fact that the cars are out of juice but with no context. The fact they sound surprises gives the illusion that this was much less distance than they thought they would cover.

They way it was structured implied we'd see them go on a full journey to the beach and the fact it failed was because it ran out of power too early. Never once did they say "we're going to run them down to see how easy they are to manage then!"

It was misleading.

If they gave that information then the point of the article would be about questioning the manufactures stated range of the vehicle, they didn't in order to avoid that implication, a point which seems to be beyond the time newspaper.

The range was never under question the only relevant context is what happens when you run out or find yourself in a area that doesn't have charging points.

 

[Dude Abides]

Watching Top Gear for car information is like watching Law & Order for legal information.

 

[Nappuccino]

Of course they're not as flexible right now. Was anyone saying they are before top gear blew the lid off that hot button issue? No, they weren't.

Yes, people will have to use a little forethought before they take their 2011 electric car on a trip. Put the destination into the car's GPS and see if it says you can get there, a task which I guess was too difficult for the top gear guys.

Was anyone saying the new Lambo was super slow before Hammond took it on the and showed everyone that it was fast? I doubt it. TG doesn't exactly make revolutionary, groundbreaking statements (although they do try sometimes, like the Greenhouse exhaust attachment [though when they try it is often just for laughs]).

 

[B_Rik_Schitthaus]

Top Gear is a shitty comedy that pretends to be a factual/review show.
Anyone who thinks any of it is real is a fucking moron.

 

[Angry Grimace]

You'll need a whole new infrastructure for electric cars, unless your happy waiting for 10 hours to recharge on your next road trip.

Hydrogen can be efficiently produced once scaled up. However at the moment there are very little direct industrial processes dedicated to hydrogen production.

Just look at how we get petrol, gotta mine it from the crust out in the middle of the ocean, that a couple billion already gone, then you got to ship the crude oil to processing plants, another couple billion, then you got to ship and distribute the cleaned fuel.

Hydrogen you set up a plant in the country, nuclear powered, geothermal, solar, wind, make the hydrogen directly, then distribute it directly.

Shit you could make hydrogen in your house if you wanted.

The problem is that your argument about how to produce this fuel relies on the assumption that we could just solve the global problem of non-renewable energy.

 

[J-Rzez]

Meh, Top Gear basically jizzed all over the 2012 GT-R (rightfully so I may add). They don't like electric cars, they're "petrol heads" after all. They said the Leaf was a "good car", they just went out to show what kind of fiasco's it can be to charge up the cars. They maybe good for a short daily commute, but they can't replace the range of liquid fueled cars yet, due to the lack of "quick charge" stations and the sort.

Electric cars will be the future, I think they even alluded to that, it's just not now, nor in the immediate future. The tech is still too infantile, and needs some major hurdles to be jumped.

That all said, Top Gear UK is still the best show on "the telly". Haters gonna hate.

 

[Takao]

Didn't they do something similar to another car and the company who made that car sued them?

 

[Angry Grimace]

Meh, Top Gear basically jizzed all over the 2012 GT-R (rightfully so I may add). They don't like electric cars, they're "petrol heads" after all. They said the Leaf was a "good car", they just went out to show what kind of fiasco's it can be to charge up the cars. They maybe good for a short daily commute, but they can't replace the range of liquid fueled cars yet, due to the lack of "quick charge" stations and the sort.

Electric cars will be the future, I think they even alluded to that, it's just not now, nor in the immediate future. The tech is still too infantile, and needs some major hurdles to be jumped.

That all said, Top Gear UK is still the best show on "the telly". Haters gonna hate.

The problem is that being technically not full of shit doesn't mean that most people don't draw the obvious conclusion.

Seems like it would be better to just not cover electric cars at all.

 

[Ponti]

Didn't they do something similar to another car and the company who made that car sued them?

Yep, Tesla. Exact same thing pretty much, ran it out of charge well before it should have. Same aftermath too, people didn't realise that they weren't testing them and were just doing an entertainment piece.

 

[ag-my001]

I don't follow Top Gear. Does the show hold itself out as parody, or do you fans just "get it," like with pro wrestling? It seems to me that if they are not holding themselves out as a parody show of some kind (and that official response suggests they take themselves quite seriously), it is fucked up to be misleading viewers. And it's only made worse that they are misleading the public about something that is critical to the future of the western world, IMO.

More the Pro Wrestling. The 'quality' of a review is typically inversely proportional to the likelihood of someone actually buying the car. So $200,000+ cars and rare, special editions will get a thorough review, while affordable, practical cars get sent off on challenges. Compare this Ford Fiesta review to this one for an Audi R8 and Porsche 911.

Where are you going to get hydrogen from? The magic hydrogen mine? Also, hydrogen explodes.

Actually, even something as basic as the Water-Gas shift reaction can produce enough pure hydrogen while keeping us on the right side of energy efficacy. The real issues are storage (both physisorption and chemisorption have some drawbacks, and no one really likes the thought of compressed tanks) and catalysis (both for kinetics, poison-resistance and availability)

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Gasoline isn't under pressure the way hydrogen would have to be. And again, where's this magic source of fuel ready hydrogen?


Yeah, except getting hydrogen from water isn't a free action. You have to burn non-renewables to obtain hydrogen from water, and in the end it neither frees you from by-products nor reduces your dependance on non-renewable resources.

That's like going to Saudi Arabia and saying "where will you get the gasoline from? Magic gasoline mines?"

No but it's very simple to get it from the oil. Hydrogen is also simple to get from water, and I believe there is 80% efficiency in that. You should think of hydrogen more as a battery than a fuel source, it essentially is storing electricity in another form.

To actually produce it, you could use any variety of renewable energy plants like nuclear in France, geothermal in iceland, or maybe even eventually wind power in new zealand. The best part is that any country with an electricity grid can basically make their own hydrogen.

To produce a battery like is in the Nissan Leaf requires tons of resources/manufacturing and transportation over thousands of miles. Yet it only goes about 75 miles before needing to be recharged for several hours. The Honda FCX Clarity, a hydrogen powered car, can do 240 miles and takes 5 minutes to refuel. It'll probably be at least 5 years before the hydrogen powered cars are down to the Leaf's price range but once they are at a similar price, it is a no brainer which one any consumer would choose.

 

[WJD]

It was entertaining so I don't really care.

 

[PflargBlarg]

Top Gear is shit. Jeremy Clarkson is a slimy fuck. Is anyone surprised by this?

I wish the BBC would let these pricks go.

Yes, I think it is very likely that the BBC will change the hosts on what is one of the most popular shows in the world and makes them a huge amount of money.

 

[pj]

You'll need a whole new infrastructure for electric cars, unless your happy waiting for 10 hours to recharge on your next road trip.

Hydrogen can be efficiently produced once scaled up. However at the moment there are very little direct industrial processes dedicated to hydrogen production.

Just look at how we get petrol, gotta mine it from the crust out in the middle of the ocean, that a couple billion already gone, then you got to ship the crude oil to processing plants, another couple billion, then you got to ship and distribute the cleaned fuel.

Hydrogen you set up a plant in the country, nuclear powered, geothermal, solar, wind, make the hydrogen directly, then distribute it directly.

Shit you could make hydrogen in your house if you wanted.

You don't need a new infrastructure at all for electric cars. The charging limitation is due to current battery technology, not power delivery. Every gas station in the country has electricity, and they could incrementally add charging stations and increase their service level as demand increased. For hydrogen there would be a giant upfront cost of installing pumps and storage tanks for a demand that might not be there for years, if ever.

 

[Angry Grimace]

That's like going to Saudi Arabia and saying "where will you get the gasoline from? Magic gasoline mines?"

No but it's very simple to get it from the oil. Hydrogen is also simple to get from water, and I believe there is 80% efficiency in that. You should think of hydrogen more as a battery than a fuel source, it essentially is storing electricity in another form.

To actually produce it, you could use any variety of renewable energy plants like nuclear in France, geothermal in iceland, or maybe even eventually wind power in new zealand. The best part is that any country with an electricity grid can basically make their own hydrogen.

To produce a battery like is in the Nissan Leaf requires tons of resources/manufacturing and transportation over thousands of miles. Yet it only goes about 75 miles before needing to be recharged for several hours. The Honda FCX Clarity, a hydrogen powered car, can do 240 miles and takes 5 minutes to refuel. It'll probably be at least 5 years before the hydrogen powered cars are down to the Leaf's price range but once they are at a similar price, it is a no brainer which one any consumer would choose.

Yeah except you could also use this argument to solve the world's renewable energy crisis, but you don't see that happening on a global scale. It's entirely aspirational and unrealistic that you could set up a bunch of green energy sources to get all the hydrogen.

You're going to be burning coal and oil, which defeats the purpose of switching to hydrogen. All you're doing is switching the point of consumption.

 

[Joel Was Right]

TG has been hit with a few of these claims in recent times. That in itself is disappointing

 

[Ponti]

TG has been hit with a few of these claims in recent times. That in itself is disappointing

Normally I'd agree. The stuff about Clarkson is most likely true, but these electric car stories are just bullshit from journalists looking to make a name for themselves.

 

[Garjon]

So can batteries, and the chemicals left afterwards are hell of a lot more toxic.

Except batteries don't explode in sunlight. Also it is very difficult to transport and the extraction process produces a shit-ton of CO or CO2, depending on the process employed. It's gaseous state also brings out obvious problems in getting the gas from the 'pump' to the car. It probably will eventually replace oil based fuels, but we probably won't see it available for cars in a mainstream sense in our lifetimes. For now, the only solution, other than a massive upgrade in battery technology, is some sort of super-efficient hybrid, though again, this is reliant on battery technology improving.

 

[JonathanEx]

I get annoyed by the amount of "TOP GEAR HAVE AN AGENDA", going how DARE A SHOW REVIEWING THINGS HAVE AN OPINION, essentially as it doesn't match theirs. Anyway. Overgeneralisation out the way before I now be a hypocrite and attack such comments.

This problem means that when there are questions to be asked on a Top Gear review, it quickly leads to two overly dramatic sides being taken. Read the comments section of the Guardian article. Good god. It's madness. From everyone involved.

As I said in the TG thread, I think there are ways they could have framed the film to avoid some of the complaints, giving a hint to that the cars had already been used, pointing out that it wasn't a test on "one charge", but was it really full of outright, deliberate lies to slander electric cars?

They showed that in areas like Lincolnshire, you can't charge without a faff publicly as there are no charge points. The good news is that as a response to this, we're getting a quick charge point in Lincoln from Nissan paid for by them. But if you need a huge TV show to make electric cars more feasible for an entire county by installing ONE single charge point, there are limitations for cars being sold as being comparable to normal cars.

...but here I make the disclaimer saying well yes in other places you wouldn't get this problem and fine for runarounds and short journeys and blah blah blah.

 

[Souldriver]

Normally I'd agree. The stuff about Clarkson is most likely true, but these electric car stories are just bullshit from journalists looking to make a name for themselves.

Soooo.... Top Gear fakes car test... Car manufacturer has proof of that and are pissed... Journalists report on this... And it's those darn journalists trying to make a name for themselves that are the culprit of this fiasco? Sound reasoning, my man.

 

[Pachinko]

I don't see what the problem is, the point they were trying to show wasn't that the electric car sucks , it's that having to wait 13 hours to charge the battery sucks.

Whether the battery is full or empty is completely besides the point. It's information the viewer doesn't need to know. Top Gear is something I've only been watching for about half of it's current incarnation and to call it parody isn't quite correct, it's more like, they look at cars next to no one will ever be able to afford , destroy old used vehicles and generally have a fun time. It could be argued that they focused on the negatives and failed to mention any positives about this car outside of passingly noting you get "5000 £ refund from the green initiative". Really though, what good can you say about a car that uses batteries that generate just as much waste in their shipment and construction as oil and gas , if not more AND take too long to recharge to be of any use outside of a metro area (for example, I'd say that either of those cars would work fine if you lived and drove ONLY in the London metro area ) but even if charging failed to be an issue you'd still have to replace the battery for 30% of the cost of car within 10 years of ownership.

I think the technology is a great idea on paper but until they can cheaply and cleanly make a battery that lasts much longer and charges much faster it's a dead end. Only rich pompous douchebags will bother buying them to make themselves feel better about the environment.

 

[Nappuccino]

Soooo.... Top Gear fakes car test... Car manufacturer has proof of that and are pissed... Journalists report on this... And it's those darn journalists trying to make a name for themselves that are the culprit of this fiasco? Sound reasoning, my man.

But it wasn't a test and it wasn't faked?

They took the cars for a drive and showed what happens if you let the car run out of electricity too far from a charging station.

 

[Ponti]

Soooo.... Top Gear fakes car test... Car manufacturer has proof of that and are pissed... Journalists report on this... And it's those darn journalists trying to make a name for themselves that are the culprit of this fiasco? Sound reasoning, my man.

IT WASN'T A FUCKING TEST.

Those journalists do love them some TG though.

 

[B_Rik_Schitthaus]

But it wasn't a test and it wasn't faked?

They took the cars for a drive and showed what happens if you let the car run out of electricity too far from a charging station.

Is that how they framed it or did they act surprised when it ran out of power.

 

[SapientWolf]

But it wasn't a test and it wasn't faked?

They took the cars for a drive and showed what happens if you let the car run out of electricity too far from a charging station.

They could have done the same thing with a gas powered car if they wanted to.

 

[Ponti]

Is that how they framed it or did they act surprised when it ran out of power.

Nah that's how it was framed. That evil Top Gear program and it's ilk are out to get those poor electric car manufacturers for making, cars with... electricity in them. Or something.

 

[ViperVisor]

I don't see what the problem is

If you were me reading the rest of your post it would be clear.

It is a shades of gray argument but what you did is brown smearing over everything in your post.

Factual information with context matters.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Yeah except you could also use this argument to solve the world's renewable energy crisis, but you don't see that happening on a global scale. It's entirely aspirational and unrealistic that you could set up a bunch of green energy sources to get all the hydrogen.

You're going to be burning coal and oil, which defeats the purpose of switching to hydrogen. All you're doing is switching the point of consumption.

Well yeah but you could say that about electric cars too, we are moving our power grids in that direction though so the next step is looking at using that renewable electricity in some way to power our cars which are still stuck on gas/diesel.

In that case the hydrogen car looks a lot more practical than the battery powered car although it'll be at least a decade or two before either one becomes practical. Also, France is already all nuclear so if you have an electric/hydrogen powered car over there, you won't need to burn any fossil fuels to power it.

Soooo.... Top Gear fakes car test... Car manufacturer has proof of that and are pissed... Journalists report on this... And it's those darn journalists trying to make a name for themselves that are the culprit of this fiasco? Sound reasoning, my man.

Well the car manufacturer AND Top Gear were aware that the car was going to be keeping track of how much charge it had at any point in time. The point of this test wasn't to show that the car wouldn't meet it's published range, although you could argue that maybe the test was edited or worded in a way to deceive people into thinking that (I don't know, I haven't seen this episode yet).

What this test did show was the huge practical limitations of electric cars. That for a lot of people who do anything other than driving within large cities that have charge stations, an electric car wouldn't be an option.

 

[Screenboy]

I ONLY WATCH THINGS THAT ARE TRUE.

 

[giri]

Wasn't there some controversy between this show and the Volt a while back as well?

I think volt claimed TG drove the car too hard, wasting down the battery too fast? or something like that.

Can Nissan take legal action over this? Cause this is a case where I'd say its justified.

Over what? correctly stated pitfalls of their electric car? Your response is utter nonsense.

From the TG thread:

I don't give a shit about cars either. I watch it for entertainment and nothing else.

However, that segment was filmed to be misleading and the fact they omitted certain facts just gives less credibility to their ability to fairly review a car. That cannot be disputed.

Oh, good, so your bias is already shown.

It doesn't give them less credibility. In fact, it probably gives them more. Flying in the face of over whelming publicity and market pressure to make sure they keep getting cars to test, they went out and showed clear pitfalls with the electric car. It's also not a very popular stance politically either.

Sure, they could've done a cutesy review and said "it's a nice car" instead, they delivered in their entertaining way, extremely valid points that most car companies (and politicians) are going out of their way to hide or gloss over about owning electric cars.

Nissans respone of "you didnit run the test in the absolute most perfect way to make our car look good!" is extremely childish. What would that review have given you? what extra information as a consumer would that have provided that you didnt already know?

 

[Betta Lines]

For goodness sake, the Leaf and iOn are incredibly dull cars. No doubt in a proper Autocar-style Road Test they would have been able to drive to Lincoln and back without needing to muck about charging them, but what kind of television would that be?

That would be like 'old Top Gear'.

In fact they made a reference to it when they were looking around the two cars.

Top Gear don't do dull cars anymore, whether they are electric or otherwise. It's just not good telly. The Leaf and iOn are so bloody boring they don't even deserve a mention on their 'The News' section. Nissan should be grateful their car got any airtime at all.

 

[Az]

I say charge them !!!

 

[Angry Grimace]

Well yeah but you could say that about electric cars too, we are moving our power grids in that direction though so the next step is looking at using that renewable electricity in some way to power our cars which are still stuck on gas/diesel.

In that case the hydrogen car looks a lot more practical than the battery powered car although it'll be at least a decade or two before either one becomes practical. Also, France is already all nuclear so if you have an electric/hydrogen powered car over there, you won't need to burn any fossil fuels to power it.



Well the car manufacturer AND Top Gear were aware that the car was going to be keeping track of how much charge it had at any point in time. The point of this test wasn't to show that the car wouldn't meet it's published range, although you could argue that maybe the test was edited or worded in a way to deceive people into thinking that (I don't know, I haven't seen this episode yet).

What this test did show was the huge practical limitations of electric cars. That for a lot of people who do anything other than driving within large cities that have charge stations, an electric car wouldn't be an option.

It wasn't a defense of electric cars, it was a criticism of the theory that hydrogen is some kind of heir apparent technology when it has just as many problems as gas or electric.

 

[HAL_Laboratory]

Geee, I wonder if anyone from the oil industry was behind this...

Spoiler

of course they were

 

[Burli]

Lots of opinions masquerading as facts in this thread.

 

[mightynine]

I'll just go ahead and quote myself from the official thread, since this one's picking up more steam.

Are we really getting upset about an entertainment show doing an entertainment based segment?

I mean, look at when they take a supercar out for a spin - they don't make their decision based on how the car performed around the track, they base it on some vague gut feeling that has nothing to do with nothing.

And as for their "agenda", it's been blatantly obvious the hosts are no fans of electric cars. The whole point of that segment was to show these cars command a premium price for a car that while it has premium technology powering it, it also has average to above average creature comforts, and a lackluster infrastructure for powering said device. And on those points, they are spot on.

Electric cars are a fine idea - but these cars are more for show than a practical transportation option at this time. Anyone buying one is paying a high early adopter price, but I don't have any sympathy for them when there are other options (hybrids, diesels) that cost less and do more, and have a far better infrastructure behind them.

TLDR: Top Gear has not been a car review show in quite some time. Stop treating it like one.

 

[megamerican]

I used to be a big fan of Top Gear, but I stopped watching because it eventually started feeling too over-produced and canned.

This is a grey area. I don't think "journalistic ethics" necessarily apply. But I think it's disrespectful to your viewers to mislead them the way they did.

 

[Betta Lines]

I saw nothing misleading about the segment.