Builders of the "Hawk" Stratos replica hit out against TopGear!

[jack_christie]

Shame they didn't get Steve Perez's rally car for the power lap.

 

[film]

Hi all,

Had to comment as I feel for those involved.

Simple formula:
Production company + Vehicle owner = Potential disaster

Do yourself a favour - require the production company to pay an independent action/film vehicle coordinator of YOUR choice to be there to look after YOUR vehicle.

An experienced person will be firm with the production company if things are not as agreed. Any film production book/resource has a list of vehicle people in the industry. Speak with them about what the production company is requesting, and get an idea if they are going to suit the job, your vehicle, and your style of operating. If the production intends to use the vehicle in a way that's not appropriate for a privately owned vehicle, they just have to buy a vehicle instead.

All the best
Matt Worth

 

[the Interceptor]

if anyone cares HERE is a link to the original thread over at The Stratos Super Site where the Topgear request for a car was made. SSS a forum for original stratos owners as well as people building both the Hawk HF3000 and the Napiersport Corse (another stratos kit car)

here is the original request

Well, the "they asked me for static shots only" thing turned out to be bullshit.

Anyway, reading on in the linked thread reveals some more info:

Folks,
Just a little update on what the current situation on this for those that are interested....

- Agreed to lend them my car as they wanted race prepared Alitalia replica.
- Car had front brake problem and they also caused another mechanical problem with the car on the filming day (17th Sept) although they did get all their footage in before the mechanical problem started....
- Will get the car back today and see what the damage is....
- Have arranged in principle to have the car fixed and back to them before November 25th when they will put the car around the track on a power lap and put it on show in the story and live in the Studio.
- I have requested that the SEC is mentioned in the Show credits, and I'm trying to get as many tickets a spossible for the show itself on the day for Club Members, but can't commit to anything yet...

Will keep you posted on the outcome, but I'm a little disappointed I couldn't spend enough time in preparing the car before it need to go to them last week, and therefore they might mention the reliability of the car in the story.... Have told them I don't want them to feature the car if that is what they want to focus on....

Let's see what happens....

Cheers,
Nico/

Elliott et al,
Apologies again for the lack of updates on this one, but just not enough hours in the day at the moment, hence the 2.45am message...

Car is now sorted:

- New Engine, Gearbox and LSD
(Out of Ken Tomblin's Car, lower ratio Gearbox, and New Q2 LSD)

- Upgraded Replacement Front Calipers, new Pads and New Brake Servo

- New Coffin Spoke Wheels (Pained and Trimmed) and Tyres (Wet and Dry)
(Dunlop X22/ Michelin TBR mix: soft, semi-slicks, so should be fast in dry)

- New Light Pod and Auxiliary Spots Pods on front underside
(Makes it look much more Evil!)

- Bit of TLC on Bodywork, interrior, etc. to get it back to looking newish...

Gave the car a good "seeing to" at Bruntingthorpe Track for a couple of hours to test the engine, brakes, tyres, new fittings, etc. and all is running well....

So not sure it could be more ready than it is, but just want to make sure it's going to put on a good show for the club.

Chris Smith is dropping off the car on Wed morning (25th Nov) with the Power lap in the morning, and the Studio appearance in the afternoon when they film the show. (Don't know if anyone saw the clip of Steve Perez Car on the trailer tonight for new week's show?)

Show will be show next Sunday, 29th Nov, so should be interesting.... I know they might pick on my car for the Braking problems I had the first time they took the car, but I've warned the producers that I won't be happy if they make a big deal of it. As we keep telling people, these are handbuilt "dream" machines, not mass produced cars....

Let's see how it goes..... Will keep you posted, and thanks again to all the folks who have helped along the way (Ken Tomblin, Mel Lewis, Rob Sanderson, Phil Dolby, Dave Watson, Chris Richard, Dudley Sherman, and others, but most of all Gerry who started this whole event off....)

Cheers,
Nico/

EDIT: ooooookay, so I read the whole thread over there for whatever reason. Turns out that pretty much all the guys are very happy which how the review turned out, and that the only sour people are the handful of ladies and gentlemen who had direct contact with the BBC. Overall, the verdict seems to be that the cars did quite well, and that the few orchestrated things are kindly lit by the overall positive note of the review.

Seeing how this forum basically agrees with them with a few exceptions, I must ask myself whether I take these things too serious. I suppose that being a journalist, having to witness how Top Gear handles things nowadays, makes the difference for me. So, I've decided to take this matter with a grain of salt and let it go.

Nevertheless, after this, I will not give anything shown or said on Top Gear any credit anymore, even when being explicitly told that it is a fact. Also, I remain to have my problems with this type of "journalism", which, in my opinion, has veered away too far from being at least partially factual to being pure entertainment. That doesn't mean that I can't enjoy the show anymore, but it brings up awkward feelings once in a while.

 

[MWF]

Seems I must spread the good news of our Lord Jesus before praying for the Interceptor again. Oh well.

Reckon that last post pretty much wraps the issue up so I suggest we put this one to bed.

?????

 

[ninjacoco]

Haha, busted!

 

[narf]

Reckon that last post pretty much wraps the issue up so I suggest we put this one to bed.

?????

Indeed, together with the researcher looking for a car to be driven hard there's nothing much to add.

 

[skylock]

HA HA. I had this one pegged early on.

I can smell bullshit before it walks in the door. It is part of my job.

 

[the Interceptor]

Haha, busted!

HA HA. I had this one pegged early on.

I can smell bullshit before it walks in the door. It is part of my job.

Ladies, I'm not following you. Top Gear still misrepresented the true performance of this car to aid their script. The fact that the guy who complained overcooked his side of the story doesn't change that.

 

[maxtortheone]

Random thought coming from this: Kudos to Rover for not letting them test the City Rover. Who knows what they would have done to that?

Top Gear still misrepresented the true performance of this car to aid their script.

That's true. In the light of the obvious scripted recent episodes I wonder what will I think of earlier seasons.

 

[Derek]

Didn't this also happen with another car? They made it look alot worse than it actually was. (Was it the hybrid sportscar?)

 

[the Interceptor]

Yeah, the Tesla Roadster. Details, just as in this case, are open for discussion, but for my understanding, certain happenings were forged in order to paint a specific picture in both cases.

 

[ninjacoco]

Ladies, I'm not following you. Top Gear still misrepresented the true performance of this car to aid their script. The fact that the guy who complained overcooked his side of the story doesn't change that.

True, true. I think it deserves a fair lap regardless, but it's still funny to see the "they just wanted stills" thing debunked.

 

[skylock]

Ladies, I'm not following you. Top Gear still misrepresented the true performance of this car to aid their script. The fact that the guy who complained overcooked his side of the story doesn't change that.

The "guy" clearly lied on his end about the car. I knew it. The post that have now come to light prove that.

When someone starts out lying, there is more to the story than they are saying.

Again, you are mistaking TG as a factual show. I have known it wasn't for a long long time. But I still enjoy the hell out of it. If I wants "facts", I will look somewhere else for them. When I want entertainment, I will watch Top Gear. Cause it gives me that warm fuzzy feeling that I like.

I am not saying your interpolation is wrong, just different. I appreciate reading what you have to say, but I knew that guy was a lying bastard from that first post. Trust me, I have a lot of personal experience in knowing when someone is lying.

 

[flydiscovery]

Ladies, I'm not following you. Top Gear still misrepresented the true performance of this car to aid their script. The fact that the guy who complained overcooked his side of the story doesn't change that.

Because if you want to complain that someone stretched the truth, you can't go doing the same thing yourself or no one will believe you. Maybe they were totally screwed over, but at this point I can't tell because they're too busy embellishing the story to make it sound better.

 

[the Interceptor]

True, true. I think it deserves a fair lap regardless, but it's still funny to see the "they just wanted stills" thing debunked.

I find it rather bitter than funny, but you certainly are right.

The "guy" clearly lied on his end about the car. I knew it. The post that have now come to light prove that.

When someone starts out lying, there is more to the story than they are saying.

Again, you are mistaking TG as a factual show. I have known it wasn't for a long long time. But I still enjoy the hell out of it. If I wants "facts", I will look somewhere else for them. When I want entertainment, I will watch Top Gear. Cause it gives me that warm fuzzy feeling that I like.

I am not saying your interpolation is wrong, just different. I appreciate reading what you have to say, but I knew that guy was a lying bastard from that first post. Trust me, I have a lot of personal experience in knowing when someone is lying.

A useful ability I unfortunately am missing to a great extent. I found his remarks to sound quite alright.

As for Top Gear and its validity: I am aware that it's mainly an entertainment show. However, there was a time when one could distinguish clearly what is fact, and what is fiction. And Top Gear still looks like that nowadays, but obviously, it isn't anymore. Even the things that look like facts can be fiction. So since the last signs of how to weight a segment have gone, Top Gear has lost its last bits of credibility. Of course, there are other more factual car shows out there, nevertheless, it hurts to see that they trampled down all boundaries for the fame.

Because if you want to complain that someone stretched the truth, you can't go doing the same thing yourself or no one will believe you. Maybe they were totally screwed over, but at this point I can't tell because they're too busy embellishing the story to make it sound better.

True. So let's start with empty hands and see what we've got.

I think we will agree that the car was not in perfect condition when it was given to Top Gear. I think it's also safe to say that the TG crew was aware of that fact. Still, they decided to withhold that knowledge from the viewer and instead use it to demonstrate the lack of reliability of kit cars.

The manufacturer claimed that one can take out the side strut to allow easier access to and from the car, which sounds believable in my book. But neither Jeremy Clarkson, nor the Stig used it and therefore failed to show that even a caged car doesn't need to be impractical. It is possible that they actually didn't know about the removability, but that would hint towards a rather poor preparation on their side, which isn't exactly a compliment either.

Then, there was the Stig's lap. The manufacturer claims that he spun the car deliberately, which we don't know. What we know is that the Stig does more than one lap to extract the best possible laptime from any car. But the Stig spun it twice. That either means that the car is absolutely undriveable even by a pro and spins at least twice every lap, or that they fabricated the spins to make a point.

 

[valbowski1980]

I am not put off either.... If I could afford a second car/toy I would have one in a heartbeat!

 

[narf]

there was a time when one could distinguish clearly what is fact, and what is fiction.

The entire Lancia segment was riddled with obvious non-facts.

I've listed a few a couple of pages ago, for example no Lancia exploded because you turned the steering wheel.
Hard to distinguish factual from non-factual segment in this case? I think not.

 

[the Interceptor]

The entire Lancia segment was riddled with obvious non-facts.

I've listed a few a couple of pages ago, for example no Lancia exploded because you turned the steering wheel.
Hard to distinguish factual from non-factual segment in this case? I think not.

In this case: no. In other cases: yes.

Look, I'm not an idiot. I know a car won't explode when you turn the steering wheel. But when someone climbs into a car through a rollcage, I think the cage is not removeable since the driver would surely remove the cage to get in and out. And when brakes fail and lock up, I would think they would tell me when that is down to a not perfectly prepared car. So when they don't say a thing, I have to conclude it's caused by bad quality or a badly-assembled car.

Problem is that with the above, I now have to understand that every situation can mean anything, and that nothing they say/show or don't say/show doesn't mean that it's true. And for a fantasy-based entertainment show, Top Gear pretends to be factual in too many cases.

 

[MWF]

Where's the "flogging a dead horse" smiley when you need it?

 

[the Interceptor]

Where's the "flogging a dead horse" smiley when you need it?

Not a smiley, but...

http://pic.armedcats.net/t/th/the_interceptor/2009/12/06/BeatDeadHorse.gif