[12x07] December 14th, 2008

[stevanford1]

One of the touring cars tested is a Sierra cosworth.

[NooDle]

Originally Posted by Martin

I'm afraid Clarkson is going to tear it apart for no other reason than it's a non-petrol powered vehicle.

Actually I think JC will name it "the best electric car we've ever tested" simply because it is awesome. This is the sort of electric car people WANT to buy.

it's hilariously fast, has decent range AND it costs 3p to "fill up" (with electricity)

None of that GWiz rubbish that goes from 0-40 in an hour and has a range of 5 miles..

[robybobey]

Originally Posted by The Fishman

Are you allowed to say?

Tom Jones will be a hoot.

Do young women throw underwear these days?

Let's just say, it's going to be earlier than what series 11 was this year

[Labcoatguy]

Originally Posted by hemoh

I apologize in advance for anybody suddenly doing the Carlton Banks dance.

+ YouTube Video

[tonylightfoot]

I just wonder how he's gonna fit into the car - Jeremy can barely fit into it and Tom is taller than he is!

[robybobey]

Originally Posted by tonylightfoot

I just wonder how he's gonna fit into the car - Jeremy can barely fit into it and Tom is taller than he is!

Lol since when? After asking my good friend, Mr. Google, Tom Jones is 5ft 10in, Clarkson is 6ft 5in.

[Mr. Nice]

Originally Posted by Martin

I fear I already know where this power test is going to go. I think the Tesla is a pretty nice car. It's crazy expensive in comparison to other cars at that performance level. I'm afraid Clarkson is going to tear it apart for no other reason than it's a non-petrol powered vehicle.

It'd be a shame too because this is the first serious drivers car (that I know of) for those interested in avoiding petrol or other fossil fuels. I'm not an eco-mentalist, and I can't stand the Prius and other cars designed to be "green" that also suck the fun out of driving; though I'm concerned with the consumption of oil for other geopolitical reasons and those who are quick to dismiss the Tesla simply because its for green-freaks I feel are being too short-sighted.

I think it's good to be concerned about the environment without being an eco-mentalist. If we are to believe what a large number of geologists are saying, we could be facing anoxic oceans leading to mass extinctions in the next 100-200 years. The people who come at the statements made by said geologists, always say things like "10,000 scientists say" and it's just bullshit. Scientists say a lot, in fact, but that doesn't mean a scientist who is in a field that doesn't relate to geology, meteorology etc has anything of value to say that isn't just their own opinion. The "scientists say" crap is getting old fast. I watched Bob Lutz make a comment like that on The Colbert Report. Who are these "scientists"? And what are they scientists of exactly?

I hate eco-mentalists, as most of them just are jealous freaks who go around destroying things that they can't afford. Their desire for their neighbors Hummer, makes them decide to rally with others with similar feelings, then go and smash it, further polluting the environment. What hypocritical bastards!

It truly is imperative that we lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere, as we could be facing the end of life on earth as we know it. Not in my lifetime, but much sooner than we think. The fix is simple, but very complex. We need to lower our emissions of CO2, but we also need to work to keep the infrastructure that earth provided to convert it back into O2 going. This means keeping the rain-forests in tact, and seeing to it that our oceans CO2 levels don't get too high.

I don't need to worry about this in my lifetime, and as long as I don't have kids, I guess I will never really seriously care. But, as for the future of the planet, a lot more people out there should really be a bit more concerned.

Sorry for the diatribe, but it's worth it, as a lot of people choose ignorance over knowledge and intellect.

[Dsemaj]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nice

It truly is imperative that we lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere, as we could be facing the end of life on earth as we know it. Not in my lifetime, but much sooner than we think. The fix is simple, but very complex. We need to lower our emissions of CO2, but we also need to work to keep the infrastructure that earth provided to convert it back into O2 going. This means keeping the rain-forests in tact, and seeing to it that our oceans CO2 levels don't get too high.

I don't exactly have the numbers on me, but would it be crazy to argue that we've had far, far, far, far more CO2 being released into the environment than now. What about when there were volcanoes erupting every day? What about in the industrial revolution when there was thousands of smoke-bletching factories pumping out the stuff every day? I just don't buy that because of cheap energy that the globe is going to implode on itself and we're going to have to go live on mars or something.

I'm not saying it's false, all I want to see is some clear, unbiased truth on the subject. Not some stupid graph of CO2 and temperate over the past one hundred years, which is all about we've been shown lately.

[ahpadt]

I hope they do the Top Gear Awards

[Mr. Nice]

I don't think it'd be crazy to argue that at all. What we are experiencing is a large amount being released over a long period of time, and I think that must be reversible. I think that most people would agree that CO2 is naturally occurring, and that too much of it is harmful. I don't mind the idea of the earth warming up, quite frankly, I like it. What worries me is the possibility of the ocean becoming anoxic, which would spell extinction... even for the religious nuts! We know that oil was created by mass extinctions on this planet, and that the levels of sulfur and sodium hydroxide in the oceans and atmosphere at that time were caused by anoxic oceans causing mass die-offs, in which the dead things released these chemicals as a gas. We really need to do things to make sure that the plant life in the ocean continues to thrive, and we also need to preserve what is left of our forests by having sustainable logging and ending clear-cutting. So in short, it would be a positive thing to reduce our emissions of CO2, and increase the plant emissions of O2.

There is another problem with the question of oil. About 10%-15% of the oil we use right now goes to plastics and other such things. We will start running out of oil sometime in the next 50-150 years. Our infrastructure has to change in some way eventually, or we will have to do without things like plastic toothbrushes, IV's, soda bottles, and other such things that are used daily.

I'm not a geologist, I've just taken an interest in this topic. I'm also not what you'd call a "green" person, I'm just generally against things that harm humanity or the continued existence of life on earth.

[Topgearfanatic]

Um I think you forgot that there is such a thing as recycling. Whats that add being played by Brita right now, forever in a landfill? Which is why the practice of recycling plastic is being shoved into our heads. Just thought to point that out, unless the oil is used in some other way and I'm not realizing it.

[Labcoatguy]

Originally Posted by Topgearfanatic

Um I think you forgot that there is such a thing as recycling. Whats that add being played by Brita right now, forever in a landfill? Which is why the practice of recycling plastic is being shoved into our heads. Just thought to point that out, unless the oil is used in some other way and I'm not realizing it.

Recycling is only feasible and economical with a few types of plastic, usually the flimsy stuff like bags and bottles. To recycle some of the tougher and stronger stuff, like carbon fiber for example (it counts as a plastic), you'd need to pour lots of money into R&D. The processes for taking apart and rebuilding the chemical chains and arrays involved are difficult enough in a laboratory setting, let alone an industrial one. So much of it depends on when the prices for recycled materials are high enough to make it worth the investment, as opposed to just digging more.

[Smörgåsbord]

Originally Posted by ahpadt

I hope they do the Top Gear Awards

They will do (I was at filming). They filmed quite a lengthy segment, and Jeremy said to us that they'll edit out the stuff that isn't really funny.

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally Posted by Mineworksfine

Not so sure about the guest. Tom Jones FFS? Cliff Richard was bad enough.

Then we've had Nick Mason, Roger Daltrey, Ronnie Wood..........is there a "one aging rocker per series/annum" clause in a contract somewhere?

If that's the case why don't they go the whole hog, get a couple of shovels and some jumper cables and book Keith Moon or Elvis?

comon at least daltry was entertaining, least i thought so...his stories are ace

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally Posted by Labcoatguy

Recycling is only feasible and economical with a few types of plastic, usually the flimsy stuff like bags and bottles. To recycle some of the tougher and stronger stuff, like carbon fiber for example (it counts as a plastic), you'd need to pour lots of money into R&D. The processes for taking apart and rebuilding the chemical chains and arrays involved are difficult enough in a laboratory setting, let alone an industrial one. So much of it depends on when the prices for recycled materials are high enough to make it worth the investment, as opposed to just digging more.

dont forget you actually need a market for the recycled material at the end as well...or else you might as well of just chucked it in the landfill to being with. its probably worse than that, having expended lots of energy to end up with some shiny plastic no one wants

[WorldB]

With regards to Mineworksfine's posts - I agree

Tom Jones will not be too entertaining, although I do like looking at his large face, but my attention will only be kept for a short time anyway. Daltrey was ok, I must admit. The rest, Ronnie Wood, Cliff Richard etc, were high on 'celebrity-ness' but low on entertainment. Take Will Young and 'that guy from grand Designs' - both not really kick-ass celebs but a damn site more entertaining.

I hope I'm wrong, but IMo this will be the weak section of this episode.

[ahpadt]

Originally Posted by Smörgåsbord

*sigh*

Funny stuff is good in bite-size portions, and not overfilling whole segments with stuff they think are funny because they want big viewer numbers...

[MacGuffin]

Originally Posted by Lacrimosa626

looks to be a rather "green" episode. Though I am looking forward to the Tesla review... No one seems to have actually driven the damn thing. All the articles on it just talk about how it's such an amazing technical triumph etc. etc. no has actually dealt with it like an actual car...

That's because it tends to go up in flames, before anyone could thoroughly test it...

I have a feeling that it won't survive Jeremy's review either...

[Aston Martin]

Regarding the late start time.


The BBC did the same thing last year, it clashed with 'Sports personality of the year' and if you remember in 2006 Jezza ruined it for everybody.

Thats why it's an hour late this week.

[Smörgåsbord]

Originally Posted by ahpadt

*sigh*

If it helps, some of it was actually about cars. It wasn't all funny but pointless, though there was a fair bit of that too.