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

[MWF]

The Interceptor is into S & M, necrophilia and bestiality. Sometimes he feels as if he is flogging a dead horse!!!!1

 

[skylock]

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.

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.

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?

 

[skylock]

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

Who is flogging a dead horse? If you are tired of reading what people have to say on this matter, skip this thread. (I know it is hard to do)

I thought that Chris guy was a lying bastard from his first post, then after you spoke to him, I was positive he was.

I am trying to read through that whole thread over on the SEC site. I am to the point the members are calling for jerk heads resignation. And he is strongly encouraging everyone to move it to a private forum. Hmmmmm, I wonder why he would prefer that. I have noticed all the "letters" that were available for viewing are gone, so I missed reading the "official" stuff. I was pleasantly surprised the guys who are in the know had pretty much the same impression as I did no the matter because I know nothing about the car, just that I thought it looked good in the rain.

I think we are having a civil conversation and maybe learning some things we didn't know. If the mods decide to close it down, well, oh well, but I do not think it is your place to decide the subject is done.

 

[MWF]

Hey it was only a suggestion. From re-reading the thread it appears to me that all the angles have been pretty much covered hence my suggesting the thread be closed. Of course it's up to the mods to make the decision and if people want to continue the discussion then it's no skin off my nose.

 

[skylock]

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.

Everyday, I see sick/injured people. I have to decide pretty fast if they are really sick/injured or am I being played for a work excuse/pain pills to sell on the street because they are out of cigarettes/gas (I can give out pain pills, but not cigarettes/gas money)/they are just bored/or a whole number of things you would never think of doing, because you are basically a decent human being.

My faith in humanity was almost blown for a long time, but then I learned to separate real life from work. And I am all the happier for it.

Just enjoy the show they give you. TV is fairy tale land for the most part. And Jeremy has said many many time they have not given out a fact in a lot of years.

 

[the Interceptor]

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[skylock]

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.

Yeah, it would have been cool if he had said that, and probably would have if he had thought of it.

For some reason, I pretty much knew it was not going to be a serious lap. Maybe it had something to do with body panels falling off the other car. I didn't expect the spins, but was delighted by them, but also just the fact it was a kit car, which from history, Jeremy is not that crazy about, I wasn't expecting a great deal.

I don't care about the lap times anyway of anything because there are too many factors of which none are considered. It is just a bit of fun and I cheer every time a car I like does well, but I don't bite my nails to the nubs if it doesn't.

 

[MWF]

Chris and Judy sitting in a tree,
A-R-G-U-I-N-G!


Should I book you a room?

 

[skylock]

Chris and Judy sitting in a tree,
A-R-G-U-I-N-G!


Should I book you a room?

Nah, but I do like a bit of intellectual stimulation.

Plus, I admit, I may be a little crabby. I have had the flu for the past several days and I have missed 3 days of work so far and I NEVER miss work.

 

[ninjacoco]

I have mixed feelings on this one. First off, I want to see a Stratos replica car get a fair lap. But that'd mean handing over a new one, IMHO. They test all kinds of "unreliable" cars out on the track, and since they're new, they're given a fair shot. An older, somewhat abused car is NOT going to behave like the new cars on the lap board. No way, no how.

Even on that, though: Stig should not have spun out like he did. That car seemed more than capable of taking on the track, and Stig has gone around it in all manner of cars--some with pretty atrocious handling. And a joke lap really doesn't belong on the board. I hope it's disqualified this week somehow.

Question for those in the know: when they've featured kit cars in the past, did they get a new one, or did they get ones from various people?

 

[skylock]

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.

I see the owner of the car is resigning as chairman of the club and again, at least on that forums, not a single person has said, you should rethink that decision. That tells me a whole lot.

The club members themselves seem unhappy with the drama and I think it was probably best summed up by one of the members:

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 would like to know if anyone was at the taping last wed and can verify the claim of the car's owner that the film that was shown on Sunday was altered. (it seems several of the club members think that claim is untrue, but no one seems to know for sure).

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. I bet he winds up wishing he had kept his stupid mouth shut and enjoyed it for what it was worth.

I am with one of the posters over there. How long do you think it will be before it is for sale with the caption of "as driven by The Stig and Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear".

 

[bwkrupp]

Does anyone else feel that they purposely spun it to give it a shit time because it was pouring with rain and didn't want to have the Lancia look slow? If it spins twice, its time is irrelevant. And its recovery on the spins makes me want it more.

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.

 

[narf]

Does anyone else feel that they purposely spun it to give it a shit time because it was pouring with rain and didn't want to have the Lancia look slow?

Nah, they purposely spun it to make it look comically undriveable.

 

[the Interceptor]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Me: "Yeah, I learned you make this specific thing? I'd love to get my hands on one, it would fit into the special we'll do in our next issue."

Guy: "Yes, we make that thing. And we have one here, I could send it to you right away. But be warned, it's not in perfect shape and thus probably won't survive your testing."

Me: "Hmmmm ... okay ..."

Now I have several choices:

a) I can thank him but decline the offer, since the thing is little use to me in the described state
b) I can accept and just use it for some still shots and general info, things where the reader won't see that it isn't working properly
c) I can accept, test it properly, rant about the lack of quality in the article and give a shit about the manufacturers opinion on that

I suppose we will agree that c) isn't a very nice option. It is the option the TG production team chose however. So how are they not at fault? Note that neither the car manufacturer of the Statos, nor the owner, complained that Top Gear damaged their car. It was the fact that they didn't tell the viewer that it wasn't in perfect shape from the beginning. With a kit car, every viewer could accept that. Yet, TG chose to demonstrate its state to make a point about the general quality of kit cars, even if this very car was not in the state to be used for that.

 

[scoops]

all i know is a huge company like the BBC wouldn't borrow peoples cars without having dotted all the I's and crossing all the T's. that would just be ignorant and waiting for a lawsuit.

the BBC's forms probably consist of all the parameters that the car will be put through and all they ways they will make it right knowing that they will do damage of some sort. After all, they have to protect themselves.

for example, when the borrow the ferarri enzo, they borrowed it from a very wealthy man who could probably have the show shut down completely because he can afford the best lawyers, so why would they just ask "can we borrow?" no, they are going to send about 20 forms to the guy saying "this is what we are going to do, you'll get the car back with petrol, new tires, a fresh oil change, and any damages that may occur if in a worst case senerio, taken care of"

this isn't a friend borrowing your car for a weekend, then giving it back to you crashed and saying "your problem you fix it"

BBC doesn't want bad rep.

and i'm sure the BBC had some lawyers go through everything with a fine tooth comb to make sure there's no loopholes for anyone to take advantage of.... this is a business and it's treated as such.

 

[sshack]

Looks dangerous. I want one.

 

[the Interceptor]

@ scoops: like I said, the damage isn't the problem. Even the car manufacturer of the Stratos said that they either have already paid or promised to pay for any damage which occured during testing. But they can still be rude about the car in the programme nonetheless.

 

[scoops]

have you ever seen an episode of this program where someone isn't insulted?

i sometimes wonder if others on here are watching the same program. Inappropriate things are said on average about once every 2-3 minutes during this show. If you're not used to it, i'm sure it can be a lot to handle.

 

[the Interceptor]

Insulting others is not the problem either. The gripe is that they fabricate facts and happenings which never occurred. That is all fun and games as long as it is clearly visible and done for the comedy factor. But when they seem to be serious and, probably even casually, show events which never really occurred like that, they're taking things that one step too far.

Mostly it doesn't matter. They're after the ratings and need to tickle the viewer to generate suspense - point taken. But they shouldn't carry it out on the back of an innocent guy (a liar probably, but still) and his product, just because they can.

Let's suppose they would've told the truth about the Stratos. That it had a brake failure because it wasn't in a good shape from the beginning. That getting in and out would be easier (mind you, still not easy). And that it isn't impossible to drive and clocked quite a respectable time in the hands of the Stig. Would that take so much away from what we saw in the 13x04? So much that it goes from funny to plain boring? Surely not. Yet, they would have been absolutely truthful, we would have all the great sound, the looks and the drama, and Mr. Hawk could be happy, too.

 

[conceptualman]

As P.T.Barnum would say , just spell the name right . H-A-W-K ... good !