I find it rather bitter than funny, but you certainly are right.
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.
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. Maybe they knew it could be removed, and maybe they didn't, but you have to admit, it is more entertaining to see them climb in OVER the roll bar than not.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.
Where's the "flogging a dead horse" smiley when you need it?
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.
It is. But JC climbing into the car would have been hard enough for the stiff and tall man even without the strut in place. It made no sense whatsoever other than wordlessly demonstrating the impracticality of a caged car.the Interceptor said: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.Maybe they knew it could be removed, and maybe they didn't, but you have to admit, it is more entertaining to see them climb in OVER the roll bar than not.
It has been mentioned on several occasions that the Stig does a multitude of laps in every car they put on the track. It makes sense, too, since a driver will need a few laps to adjust to the car and the conditions to be quick. So if they were after a good laptime, the Stig should have done a few quick laps in the Stratos.Well actually, what we KNOW is The Stig does more than one lap with the camera being repositioned after every couple of laps to provide the best viewing montage of "the lap". We do not know how the lap time is done. We can make guesses, but we do not KNOW.
Point taken. I have nothing against spins. But then, for the love of god, they should say "We asked the Stig to do a proper lap, but he spun all the time, so we told him to ditch the serious business and drive it like he stole it!". Fun for everyone, and not pretending to do a laptime that means something.And as for the spins. I thought they were fantastic. Expertly done. I mean a 360 spin on a soaking wet track then keep going. I could have cared less what the so called time was, I wanted to see more spins.
A motorcycle does not normally jump over busses, but have you noticed how many people show up to see it when it does?
Point taken. I have nothing against spins. But then, for the love of god, they should say "We asked the Stig to do a proper lap, but he spun all the time, so we told him to ditch the serious business and drive it like he stole it!". Fun for everyone, and not pretending to do a laptime that means something.
Don't get me wrong Judy, I'm not trying to argue the fun out of Top Gear. I'm just asking them to either stick to the facts or to make fun of things, instead of pretending to do the former when they do the latter.
Chris and Judy sitting in a tree,
Should I book you a room?
All in all, nice one Nico, I'd say you have single-handedly done the most to destroy the 'Stratos Ethos' with all this overreaction and public drama.
I read the whole thread, too, and I came to the same conclusion: the absolute majority liked what they saw on Top Gear, only the Hawk Cars guy and the owner of the car were upset.I just finished reading that whole thread over there.
I did not see anyone over there taking the owner of the cars side and they are his club members unlike some of the people on this site who were siding with him even before more facts were known.
As analysed by me earlier in this thread, even if we conclude we don't believe any of the sides involved in this "affair", there is fault on TG's side - fault as in distorting the true happenings.Otherwise, I guess I am done. In my opinion TG did nothing wrong, however the cars owner and his "helpers" have been proved to be liars and has even resulted in the owner losing his prestigious position as chairman of the club.
Let's play a game. Let's say I'm on the phone with a manufacturer which makes a product I'd like to feature in the magazine I write for.Also, the owners knew their car was troublesome, and they should have just said no, but instead rushed the car down there and complain when things start to break.
I don't see Top Gear as being at fault, at least not intentionally.