How much does Jeremy Clarkson really know about cars?

Maybe that should be my design project for my B.S. :lol:
 
I got lostin the science of this thread...so we should all drive priuses because mini metros cant run withought air?
 
Before I add another two arguments to my list, I'd like to state that I do get your points guys, and that I hope you get mine. The things I'm listing here won't spoil Top Gear for me, and also not for you hopefully. And neither am I trying to bash Jeremy Clarkson, nor the show itself. It's just that I am stumbling over little bits all the time that make me think, just like the following two:

from s04e03: the "cars for less than 100 Pounds"-challenge:
They do a braking test from 60-0 mph in their cars. Jeremy with the Volvo claims that his car stopped earlier than Richards, cause his ABS works, where the Rovers doesn't. On dry tarmac, just like in that test, ABS doesn't shorten your braking distance though, it just keeps the car manoeuvrable during the process. Therefor, his Volvo didn't stop in a shorter distance because of ABS.

from s04e04: the "from London -> Edinburgh -> London on one single tank of fuel in an Audi V8 Diesel"-challenge:
Jeremy doesn't turn the heater on, cause according to him, it increases the fuel consumption. The heat from the "normal" heater (I'm not talking about heated seats or windows) is waste energy from the cooling system of the engine, which does not affect the mpg negatively. Therefor, he could turn it on without any disadvantages.

Those are two perfect examples which made me think if he really doesn't know this, if he just ignored or forgot about it, or if he acted differently cause of the script.
 
the Interceptor said:
from s04e04: the "from London -> Edinburgh -> London on one single tank of fuel in an Audi V8 Diesel"-challenge:
Jeremy doesn't turn the heater on, cause according to him, it increases the fuel consumption. The heat from the "normal" heater (I'm not talking about heated seats or windows) is waste energy from the cooling system of the engine, which does not affect the mpg negatively. Therefor, he could turn it on without any disadvantages.

Those are two perfect examples which made me think if he really doesn't know this, if he just ignored or forgot about it, or if he acted differently cause of the script.
Click to expand...
Not so fast professor, the heat is dissapated through the car via a fan or fans. These run off the electrical system which is charged by the alterbator via the battery from the engine using energy. See where I am going with this, so perhaps all is not as it seems. I will admit that your otherpoint is a puzzle, really the breaks were rubbish on the rover and for some reason they wanted to offer a strange explanation.
 
Cobol74 said:
Not so fast professor, the heat is dissapated through the car via a fan or fans. These run off the electrical system which is charged by the alterbator via the battery from the engine using energy.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but if you don't put it on the max. setting (which wouldn't be necessary here), I doubt it will use more than the radio.
 
Not with an alterbator, now with an alternator. ... Did you not see Apollo 13, turn it off, turn it all off now. ...
 
the Interceptor said:
from s04e03: the "cars for less than 100 Pounds"-challenge:
They do a braking test from 60-0 mph in their cars. Jeremy with the Volvo claims that his car stopped earlier than Richards, cause his ABS works, where the Rovers doesn't. On dry tarmac, just like in that test, ABS doesn't shorten your braking distance though, it just keeps the car manoeuvrable during the process. Therefor, his Volvo didn't stop in a shorter distance because of ABS.
Click to expand...

Actually, in most road conditions, ABS will stop you slightly faster. However, the reason he stopped faster was likely because of the Volvo's superior braking system.

the Interceptor said:
Cobol74 wrote:
Not so fast professor, the heat is dissapated through the car via a fan or fans. These run off the electrical system which is charged by the alterbator via the battery from the engine using energy.

Agreed, but if you don't put it on the max. setting (which wouldn't be necessary here), I doubt it will use more than the radio.
Click to expand...

I think the point of him switching everything off was to conserve as much as humanly possible. Watching the episode, you'll note that he BARELY made it. Chances are that even the heater on low would've made a difference.
 
Dano said:
Actually, in most road conditions, ABS will stop you slightly faster. However, the reason he stopped faster was likely because of the Volvo's superior braking system.
Click to expand...
... or just the better state of the Volvos brakes.

Dano said:
I think the point of him switching everything off was to conserve as much as humanly possible. Watching the episode, you'll note that he BARELY made it. Chances are that even the heater on low would've made a difference.
Click to expand...
Regarding the cold and wet weather he was driving in, he must have had the fans on a little anyway, cause the windows would steam up in no time if he wouldn't. Turning on the heater would make no difference in fuel consumption.
 
the Interceptor said:
Therefor, his Volvo didn't stop in a shorter distance because of ABS.
Click to expand...

Maybe Hammond's possibly ABS-less Rover locked its brakes up, taking longer to stop? While Jeremy's didn't?
 
i think i can settle this topic with: "he's good enough to be a bloody motoring journo, while the rest of us sit around pontificating about whether one incorrect statement made, while driving a bloody Koenigsegg brings his whole f***in career into question!!! I imagine the best most of us could manage whilst driving a Koenigsegg is: "rrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh *cough*choke*vomit*!!!!!". So in short, he's better than most of us, if not all."

Sorry, im finished being a prat now.
 
The first 3 places of my 10-most-silly-Clarkson-statements-list:

1. (To Ellen McArthur, who had asked if she had the same amount of fuel in the car as the others) "The Suzuki has ONLY XX bhp, it doesn't matter how much fuel it has in it!"
2. "The Nissan 350Z has a Renault engine."
3. In the winter olympics episode: "The Jaguar XK is faster than an AM V8 Vantage"

Apart from that, I think there is nothing wrong in simplifying things and making them funny. But a problem is that sometimes it seems that he is inventing his "jokes" independently from a specific car and later sticks them to any car, which he has nothing else to say about.

Another example that annoys me, is when a car is made from aluminium he always tells you that "it weighs as much as a shoe", or something like that. Is that funny? I would really be interested in how much weight could be safed, because of that.
And a Jaguar XK for example is NOT a very light car - especially considering its low power.
 
AndreasM said:
The first 3 places of my 10-most-silly-Clarkson-statements-list:

1. (To Ellen McArthur, who had asked if she had the same amount of fuel in the car as the others) "The Suzuki has ONLY XX bhp, it doesn't matter how much fuel it has in it!"
2. "The Nissan 350Z has a Renault engine."
3. In the winter olympics episode: "The Jaguar XK is faster than an AM V8 Vantage"

Apart from that, I think there is nothing wrong in simplifying things and making them funny. But a problem is that sometimes it seems that he is inventing his "jokes" independently from a specific car and later sticks them to any car, which he has nothing else to say about.

Another example that annoys me, is when a car is made from aluminium he always tells you that "it weighs as much as a shoe", or something like that. Is that funny? I would really be interested in how much weight could be safed, because of that.
And a Jaguar XK for example is NOT a very light car - especially considering its low power.
Click to expand...
Firstly the Nissan 350z engine is a Renault developed engine, secondly fuel won't make a lot of difference around the Top Gear track in that car and finally a Jaguar XK is a light car for its type and size so the comparison is justified.
 
peter3hg2 said:
Firstly the Nissan 350z engine is a Renault developed engine, secondly fuel won't make a lot of difference around the Top Gear track in that car and finally a Jaguar XK is a light car for its type and size so the comparison is justified.
Click to expand...
See, that's the problem with the jokes on TopGear. There are people, who believe that stuff actually.
Firstly - Nissan and Renault signed an alliance 7 years ago. The Nissan "VQ" engine is since 10 years elected among the "Ward's 10 Best Engines" (The only engine, that was among the 10 best every year).
Secondly - the LESS powerful a car is, the MORE difference an additional weight makes (it's scary I have to explain this)!
Finally the XK is heavier then a 350Z and has the same power. I admit the Jaguar has a far better interieur, but the 350Z is already considered "heavy". So the weight of the Jaguar is OK, but not especially light.
 
locking wheels VS ABS not locking wheels

ABS is going to win. 'the Interceptor' what are you talking about?
 
What's wrong with locking the wheels if you want to stop as quickly as possible in a straight line?
 
AndreasM said:
peter3hg2 said:
Firstly the Nissan 350z engine is a Renault developed engine, secondly fuel won't make a lot of difference around the Top Gear track in that car and finally a Jaguar XK is a light car for its type and size so the comparison is justified.
Click to expand...

Finally the XK is heavier then a 350Z and has the same power. I admit the Jaguar has a far better interieur, but the 350Z is already considered "heavy". So the weight of the Jaguar is OK, but not especially light.
Click to expand...

Niether Clarkson or Peter were comparing the XK to the 350Z in the performance/weight catagory.... the comparision was between the XK and the AM V8 Vantage.

the Interceptor said:
What's wrong with locking the wheels if you want to stop as quickly as possible in a straight line?
Click to expand...

And you need to read this link if you believe locking your wheels is the quickest way to stop in a straight line... http://auto.howstuffworks.com/anti-lock-brake.htm
 
the Interceptor said:
What's wrong with locking the wheels if you want to stop as quickly as possible in a straight line?
Click to expand...

whats wrong?

roads are crowned and a "straight line" is never really straight, so locking your wheels will veer you off course.

i, for one, still love my older non-abs cars for braking. i feel i can get closer to the threshold of wheel lock w/o abs (and in fact, i can) and thus lower my braking distance and maintain my ability to steer.


EDIT

Saying skidding is the fastest way to stop is also akin to saying burning out is the fastest way to accelerate. there is a decrease in friction when the contact patch is lost, so it will take longer to do what you want the car to do (accelerate or decelerate)
 
^

nice edit

"locking up on braking wouldnt do anything but give you flat spots on your tires" - sandor_

.....WRONG.... (as in you also increase breaking distance)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top