[raganwald]

I think everyone agrees that electric cars are associated with certain disadvantages with respect to the availability of recharging facilities. The issue raised in this post is not that Top Gear misrepresented how inconvenient running out of charge could be, but that by deliberately running out of charge, ignoring all of the warnings, and by concealing from viewers that they were ignoring all of the warnings, Top Gear misrepresented how easy it is to run out of charge during normal use.

All they had to do was say, “The Nissan does a good job of warning you not to run low on charge, but we all know how often people in the real world ignore the out of petrol warning on their cars and run out of fuel. Let’s see what happens if we ignore the warnings and try to drive to Lincolnshire anyways.”

Presto, they make their point without maliciously or inadvertantly making another and wrong point.

[georgieporgie]

"by deliberately running out of charge"

Which they did in order to show the obvious problem in a safe and entertaining way. It doesn't matter if the battery was going to die in 10 more miles, or 40 more miles on a highway. It would be just as inconvenient and less safe.

"ignoring all of the warnings, and by concealing from viewers that they were ignoring all of the warnings"

What warnings did they conceal? They were talking to each other over radios about how their cars said they were almost out of juice.

[raganwald]

Which they did in order to show the obvious problem in a safe and entertaining way. It doesn't matter if the battery was going to die in 10 more miles, or 40 more miles on a highway. It would be just as inconvenient and less safe.

Again, you’re entirely missing the point, namely that they decieved the viewer about how this came to be, not whether it was inconvenient to run out of charge. Imagine, for example, that I wanted to demonstrate the catastrophic dangers of Scuba Diving. I go on a tour with a noted guiding company. I am trained in my equipment’s features. I am outfitted with a mechanical gas gauge and an air integrated dive computer. I deliberately breathe my tank down to less than full capacity before submerging, and then I deliberately exhaust air on the bottom to run it out. Instant emergency.

This would be a fine way to discuss the dangers of being out of air at depth, but it would be ludicrous to stage the whole thing as if a diver would actually submerge on less than a full tank of air and would continue the dive even if his air integrated computer were to warn him that he could not complete the dive as planned.

I’ve seen tons of videos showing this kind of thing, but none have suggested anything other than human error is the problem. If what they want to do is say that petrol is more convenient because you can get gas even if you’re a complete idiot, they can make that point easily and entertainingly without deception.

[georgieporgie]

Again, you’re entirely missing the point, namely that they decieved the viewer about how this came to be, not whether it was inconvenient to run out of charge.

No, you're missing the point that it's a television show. As such, things must be done in a predictable, safe, and visually appealing manner. They can't have the crew sputtering to a stop on a blind crest or busy highway.

The show you want would go like this:

Clarkson: "Welcome to Top Gear. Tonight, our challenge is to drive electric cars from X to Y!

hosts climb into cars

May: "Oh, the on-board computer tells me I can't go that far."

Clarkson: "And on that bombshell, thank you for watching!"

That version communicates exactly the same point, but with zero entertainment.

Your SCUBA example is ludicrous, and completely the opposite of what happened here. i.e. increasing danger.

[raganwald]

I get that your point is that since it’s “entertainment,” they have a blank cheque to do whatever they like to make whatever point they like, and that misleading the viewer about something other than what they want to convey is fine.

Believe me when I say, I understand you, I just don’t agree with you.

[batasrki]

The overarching point is that there aren't recharging stations as ubiquitous as the fuel pumps and that it takes anywhere between 30 minutes and 12 hours to recharge the batteries. Was the point proven clumsily, yes, it's Top Gear, they're nothing if not clumsy especially Jeremy Clarkson.

The point still stands. Also note that Nissan itself says that repeated fast charging of the Leaf's battery will cause it to be unable to hold a full charge. The fast charge option being the 30 minute, 80% charge option which is the fastest you can charge a currently-in-production electric vehicle.

These are the facts and there's no agreeing or disagreeing with them. Top Gear presented them in a clumsy way, but they're still facts.

[georgieporgie]

No, you still don't understand me. Or, you want people to be endangered for the sake of... what, running out of electricity a few miles further down the road?

They didn't mislead the viewer about anything. Did you watch the show? They were very clear about how many miles were left. I fail to see what your problem is, beyond, "they did not promote the things I like, and they focused on issues which I want to ignore."

Edit: upon re-reading what you wrote, it's clear to me that you really don't understand what I'm saying. This isn't about freedom to do whatever they want to prove some point. This is about how a television show is made. Television is produced, deal with it.

[plamenv]

> Which they did in order to show the obvious problem in a safe and entertaining way

And the "obvious" problem is...? The car electronics was showing they had charge for 30 miles. Sat-nav was telling them their destination is 60 miles away. For me the conclusion is that for the math challenged, driving an electric car is an "obvious" problem.

[georgieporgie]

And the "obvious" problem is...?

Seriously? The problem is that range is rather limited, but more importantly, refill stations are hard to find and take a very long time to complete, compared to refilling a gas tank.

[goblgobl]

That is precisely why people in this thread repeatedly emphasize its an entertainment show first, car show second.

There is a story arc for the show and car reviews. Nissan may have a well designed system to limit blackouts, but in this case it didn't play well with the entertainment/comedic elements of the show.

Honestly, do you think this is playing to the facts? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrZy87TmDcs

Do you think afterwards they should mention it wasn't real?

They have a narrative, and entertainment/comedy takes priority over car reviews. It only seems to ruffle the feathers of electric car/environmental group - and I posit it has little to do with "presenting the facts" (where is their outrage about the claim that the stig can blink horizontally or is non-human?) and all to do with advancing their agenda.

[raganwald]

I do not consider “It’s an entertainment show” to be sufficent excuse for deliberately mileading people. If you find that satisfactory, that is your business.

[hcles]

> ... and I posit it has little to do with "presenting the facts" (where is their outrage about the claim that the stig can blink horizontally or is non-human?)

Just, wow. How does one even reply to a comment so profoundly stupid?