How much does Jeremy Clarkson really know about cars?

[SirTony76]

Doesn't Jeremy have a PhD in Engineering? I think he knows alot about cars and has the occasional branfarts like all human beings. When ever they do a car modifing challenge or anything like that hes always looking after the mechanical parts of things.

Oh and i remember him saying something about his degrees in the old italian supercar challenge and during the amphibious vehicle episodes.

Doctor of Letters, Not Doctor of Philosophy

:lol:

TP

 

[sandor_]

He isn't entirely wrong.

A super or turbo charger forces air into the engine, but air doesn't make power. Fuel does. The reason we're adding more air is because the combustion of fuel requires air. The more air we have the more fuel we can have. A supercharger forcing air into the engine is making it possible to add more fuel.

He could have gone through that whole rigamaroll to say how more fuel is being added and how the supercharger is functioning. Its all just for TV.

exactly. in fact, i may say its not that he "isn't entirely wrong" but rather he is right.

if the supercharger is whacking fuel into the cylinder, air is simply the hammer.

 

[jtkellertx]

Well, it technically is wacking it in. The air is compressed in the supercharger and the fuel gets injected right before it gets to the cylinder, so technically it is being wacked in. He said the wacking thing about the GT and (I believe) the Koeniggzegg (newer one, sp?). He did have that conversation about a guest star about screw and turbine superchargers (I believe it was these two types.)

Clarkson knows quite a lot about cars, he just uses a deceptive facade to keep the audiences interested. It wouldn't be interesting if he went on about technical things (see episode with Porsche Carrera GT ex. silicon carbine). An example of his car knowledge would be the Porsche challenge episode, he explains how his Porsche didn't have cylinder liners and that the piston ring was eating at the cylinder.

 

[AstonMartin]

in the Anne Robinson episode (interview) there was JC asked about the difference between a turbo and a supercharger. He did not know it (neither did I and I went to get info!!!).

But as someone else cleverly posted you do not need to be a good cook to be a good food critic. I 130% agree with that.

and before you ask... I am useless in cooking and a very harsh critic about food :lol:

AM

 

[janstett]

I'm starting to wonder about his automotive knowledge lately too. Don't get me wrong, I find him entertaining and I'd love to have a beer with him, but some niggling things I've noticed:

He loves to bash the Corvette, but he can't get his facts right, these errors stuck in my mind:

- In his latest column in Top Gear Magazine, he went on about the Vette of the 70s with the giant screaming eagle on the hood. Umm, Jeremy, that was the Trans Am.
- In "Heaven and Hell" he complained about the live rear axle. Jezza, the Corvette has had an independent rear since 1963.
- He's always on about the leaf springs but never once mentions they aren't the kind the viewer is probably thinking of and they are like the ones F1 used not too long ago.

For a guy who is immersed in cars, I'd expect him to remember things a little better. For a guy writing a script, he or his staff should check his facts. The folks editing the video should know to get their facts straight too.

Really these kinds of things don't annoy me that much, but it makes me feel like they're slacking or that they're too bored with cars at this point to bother. The same things they complain about with American cars (only being 90% finished, lack of attention to detail) are starting to apply with Top Gear.

I used to like how they shielded viewers from the boring technical details, and how he purposely left it to magic behind the curtain. But you know what, sometimes we'd like to know how something works. Every car guy has talked about supercharges vs turbochargers, variable valve timing, DSG, CVT, et al.

So I wonder if the gang just sees this as a job and has lost some of the passion.

 

[tone76]

I find him entertaining and I'd love to have a beer with him

I dunno ... I'd rather have a beer with James or the Hamster.

That said, if I was holding a dinner party and I could have one famous guest, it would Jeremy. I think he'd be better at dinner party conversation than drunken rambling.

 

[the Interceptor]

Well, it technically is wacking it in. The air is compressed in the supercharger and the fuel gets injected right before it gets to the cylinder, so technically it is being wacked in.

Well, if we want to get picky: the air, which is accompanied by the fuel, is whacked into the cylinders by the supercharger. However, it never gets to see a single drop of fuel, so technically, it only whacks air into the engine, not "knowing" what happens to it afterwards. You can hardly define that as fuel being whacked in by the supercharger.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Jail80]

Well, I think he doesn't actually know that much about how the cars are built to work. Engines, suspentions etc. I mean, of course he knows what they do and how they work in general.

BUT

I don't care! I can figure it out my self, if I want to. Top Gear isn't about 0-60 times or top speeds. Well of course they mean something, since anything over 8 s. from nought to 60 and top speed under 150 just isn't any fun. Jeremy Clarkson gives you a totally different view about cars. How they make you feel and what's the "philosophy", if you may, behind every car.

There are hundreds of other car shows that are full of cars spec information (which you all ready know, as a petrolhead) but nothing else.

And that's just boring ass sh*t.

 

[bwkrupp]

Personally I think he knows more than you might think. However, as pointed out, its funnier when he pretends he doesn't. And I think its his way of reaching out to the average viewer saying "hey, I don't understand this either."

 

[eMKay]

He thinks he knows a lot more than he does.

 

[Peter3hg]

He thinks he knows a lot more than he does.

I don't agree at all with that. He admits he doesn't know how the technical side of things work.

 

[Wintermute]

Yes, that's correct.

I'm sure he knows plenty enough about cars. he also knows plenty about entertainment, which is why he said something about a supercharger "whacking the fuel in there" - because that sounds a hell of a lot more exciting and less dreary than "whacking a mixture of compressed air and atomized fuel in there" - Especially when the former is technically correct. Fuel is being "whacked in there"

 

[Vitamin J]

technically, oxygen is a fuel. so compressed air can be refered to as fuel. gasoline is also a fuel.

i love how he presents the show. and i absolutely love how he's mystified by torque.

it doesn't really matter if he knows a lot or doesn't. i think he knows more than the average guy, but not a lot more.


reference the "Supercar for under 10 grand" episode. he clearly was doing the oil change and spark plug change wrong.

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

technically, oxygen is a fuel. so compressed air can be refered to as fuel. gasoline is also a fuel.

Oxygen is not a fuel - you cannot burn pure oxygen. However, you need oxygen to oxidize (burn) hydrocarbons such as gasoline, so it is integral to the combustion process as the counterpart to the fuel.

 

[Blind_Io]

The burning of fuel is an oxydizing process resulting in heat, water, and other byproducts.

 

[Munoz]

Jeremy has a PhD in Engineering, and have been a petrol head all his life, he knows what he needs to know about how cars work

 

[optimusprime]

He loves to bash the Corvette, but he can't get his facts right, these errors stuck in my mind:

- In his latest column in Top Gear Magazine, he went on about the Vette of the 70s with the giant screaming eagle on the hood. Umm, Jeremy, that was the Trans Am.
- In "Heaven and Hell" he complained about the live rear axle. Jezza, the Corvette has had an independent rear since 1963.
- He's always on about the leaf springs but never once mentions they aren't the kind the viewer is probably thinking of and they are like the ones F1 used not too long ago.

It's not a terribly big mistake to confuse two similar American muscle cars. I mean his brain is filled with cars Americans don't even know about. Renault, Citroen, Fiat, etc. (Americans would also pronounce it "Re-nalt")

 

[the Interceptor]

he also knows plenty about entertainment, which is why he said something about a supercharger "whacking the fuel in there" - because that sounds a hell of a lot more exciting and less dreary than "whacking a mixture of compressed air and atomized fuel in there" - Especially when the former is technically correct. Fuel is being "whacked in there"

No, fuel is accompanying air, which is whacked in "there". However, when the supercharger "sees" the air, it contains no fuel. It would have been correct if he said "whacking the air in". Yes, it's nice to be enthusiastic about something, but that doesn't mean you need to twist facts to make it sound more enthusiastic.

technically, oxygen is a fuel. so compressed air can be refered to as fuel. gasoline is also a fuel.

I guess we both agree that he didn't mean oxygen when he said "fuel".

i love how he presents the show.

I do, too, and the hell do I want to discredit him. It's just that I noticed from time to time that there are some technical things about cars he doesn't really know about. That won't stop me watching Top Gear, but as we are here to discuss, I guess I'd bring it up.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[wooflepoof]

technically, oxygen is a fuel. so compressed air can be refered to as fuel. gasoline is also a fuel.

Oxygen is not a fuel - you cannot burn pure oxygen. However, you need oxygen to oxidize (burn) hydrocarbons such as gasoline, so it is integral to the combustion process as the counterpart to the fuel.

It would depend on the defenition of fuel you're using. If your reffering to fuel as a form of potential energy being used to create kinetic energy like a paintball gun or the little co2 powered cars, so long as you can use it to create energy

"Fuel is material with one type of energy which can be transformed into another usable energy. A common example is potential energy being converted into kinetic energy, (as heat and mechanical work). In many cases this is just something that will burn. "

-Wikipedia

 

[Raven18940]

Jeremy knows more than he let's on. I remember in one of his videos he was talking about the new sagaris and said, "my only complaint is that you slightly run out of suspension travel in the rear." Even I'm not sure what that would feel like.