Top Gear Is Back!!
- Thread starter Stellios
- Start date
Doesnt make it clear which measurement hes talking about either, if your even slightly interested in cars then you would want to know which, and for joe blogs even if he says it in lb/ft then it sounds like a big number through his emphasing of it!Lopéz said:
Last edited:
I think it might be because they think, possibly correctly, that most viewers have little interest in cars.volospian said:
Of the people I know IRL who watch Top Gear, I think one of them would understand what was meant by x lb/ft, and that's me.
I do wish they wouldn't do it, though. People who didn't know (or care) what the correct units are wouldn't know (or care) what torque is, so why dumb it down in that way? Anyone who cared and didn't know could look it up, or they could knock up some amusing quick explanation -remember the explanation of understeer and oversteer?
I agree with some of the sentiments on here that Top Gear is becoming slightly predictable and uninteresting. I would have traded that whole rocket thing in for a couple of reviews about affordable(ish) cars.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great the emphasis on supercars and the like because they make for good tv and anticipated track times, but throwing a few reviews of cars say £30k and under will do no harm. And will be a damn-sight more interesting than digging a 'trench'.
Top Gear has the ability to produce great TV - I thought last week's US special was a really good watch - but I'm not a fan of continually throwing away the ability to inform with the desire to amuse.
And if they're serious about going around in tractors next week (although I have no idea how long that segment will be), it doesn't sound too appealing. Watching 3 men in staged scenes fool around can only appeal for so long - basically I know my opinion is fairly worthless but please more car reviews and less nonsense!
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great the emphasis on supercars and the like because they make for good tv and anticipated track times, but throwing a few reviews of cars say £30k and under will do no harm. And will be a damn-sight more interesting than digging a 'trench'.
Top Gear has the ability to produce great TV - I thought last week's US special was a really good watch - but I'm not a fan of continually throwing away the ability to inform with the desire to amuse.
And if they're serious about going around in tractors next week (although I have no idea how long that segment will be), it doesn't sound too appealing. Watching 3 men in staged scenes fool around can only appeal for so long - basically I know my opinion is fairly worthless but please more car reviews and less nonsense!
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,222
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Dutch Guy said:Really, look at what other cars you can get for the money, I know I would not get that Brabus
Indeed, loads of better cars out for the same price
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Lee456 said:
Just remember Lamborghini started off with tractors, who knows the mechanical significance of next weeks segment
My local supercars dealership does in fact has a bright red tractor in prime place of the display window, for some reason.
The labour cost of the rockets would have exceeded any parts cost imo, nothing too expensive looking. I dont know how much 8 tons of liquid rocket fuel costs, probably nothing compared to what we pay for petrol. I think the real things use solid fuel and go far higher then 300 feet which is when it really gets expensive.
If they had gone any higher the simple answer would have been mounting it on a plane and taking off like they do with the real thing or have done. But that would be boring!
Last edited:
I recently had Virgin/Telewest cable installed and discovered the 'Catch up TV on demand' feature the other night, how happy was I to discover I can watch a missed episode Top Gear whenever I want !!
That space shuttle was truley the most entertaining thing I'd seen in a long time, what a shame the guy with the radio control didn't get a chance to land it.... I reckon he would have
That space shuttle was truley the most entertaining thing I'd seen in a long time, what a shame the guy with the radio control didn't get a chance to land it.... I reckon he would have
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,457
- Location
- between Blandford Street and Mars
[TW]Fox said:
I agree with that, TG is not a car review show, watch 5th gear (if you can stand it) for a review of the latest shopping cart
However, I still think that three guys (or in this weeks instance two guys as Clarkson wasn't there for some reason) just messing about is a bit pointless. Sometimes it can be quite informative (I thought the caravanning piece was informative, discussing towing vehicles, highlighting the difficulty of judging distance and gaps (crunch!) and so on). Even the road resurfacing was mildly interesting, but the rocket was completely pointless, and, while vaguely impressive at launch, was boring for the rest of the time.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,457
- Location
- between Blandford Street and Mars
Berger said:
Exactly. Torque is not measured exclusively in lb/ft, so a figure of 500 "torques", while sounding impressive, could mean 500Nm, which equates to a lesser (but still fairly impressive) 369lb/ft. It could also mean 500Kgf/m, which is a neck snapping 3,617lb/ft. Hell it could even be quoting in/ft, which is a feeble 42lb/ft
Under such circumstances quoting a figure of "500 Torques" is just wasting airtime.
Maybe the EU has outlawed using the heathen lb/ft measurement and everything is now quoted in foreign Nm, but Clarkson is too scared to say "500Nm of Torque" for fear of being ridiculed by the great British car enthusiast!
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Im sure he meant lb/ft
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,457
- Location
- between Blandford Street and Mars
silversurfer said:
Yes, but we don't know that for sure, and we don't know that future figures will also be lb/ft to compare.
Unless there is a qualification of the measurements used, giving out measurements is useless. If I asked you for a plank of wood 100 long. The first thing you would ask is "100 what? Inches, feet, metres, millimetres?"
In an effort to "dumb it down" they merely create an area ripe for confusion.
For example, Joe public could go and look at a car that he has seen on TG That Mr C has stated has "100 torques".
"Mmmm," replies slippery Steve the second hand sales guy, "100 isn't much. Have a look at this car. It's a bit more expensive, but it does have 110 torques, and that's 10% more than the one you wanted!"
"Wow," cries our hero, "110, that sounds great, I'll take it!"
Except the TG measurement is based in lb/ft and Slippery Steve's is in Nm, so poor Joe Public ends up paying more for the car the salesman wanted rid of, that has 20% less comparative torque than the one he wanted and he'll probably never know.
Lee456 said:
They are going "Green" in the next episode, by growing and making their own Bio-fuel, also they have Stig in a tractor round the test track as one item I know.
But the main draw (IMO) will be Kristin Scott Thomas as the star in a reasonably priced car.
I suspect the labour costs were less than might be expected.silversurfer said:Just remember Lamborghini started off with tractors, who knows the mechanical significance of next weeks segment
My local supercars dealership does in fact has a bright red tractor in prime place of the display window, for some reason.
The labour cost of the rockets would have exceeded any parts cost imo, nothing too expensive looking. I dont know how much 8 tons of liquid rocket fuel costs, probably nothing compared to what we pay for petrol. I think the real things use solid fuel and go far higher then 300 feet which is when it really gets expensive.
If they had gone any higher the simple answer would have been mounting it on a plane and taking off like they do with the real thing or have done. But that would be boring!
The Rocket Men make parts for the aerospace industry, if I recall correctly. Rocketry is their passion, not their profession. I wouldn't be surprised if they worked for minimal pay, or even free, in exchange for the chance to attempt such a big project without having to pay for it themselves.
It's true that 3000 feet isn't very high, but it was still a big project for the rocket enthusiasts to get their teeth into.
Whereas I found it both interesting and entertaining as an attempt, before during and after the launch.volospian said:I agree with that, TG is not a car review show, watch 5th gear (if you can stand it) for a review of the latest shopping cart
However, I still think that three guys (or in this weeks instance two guys as Clarkson wasn't there for some reason) just messing about is a bit pointless. Sometimes it can be quite informative (I thought the caravanning piece was informative, discussing towing vehicles, highlighting the difficulty of judging distance and gaps (crunch!) and so on). Even the road resurfacing was mildly interesting, but the rocket was completely pointless, and, while vaguely impressive at launch, was boring for the rest of the time.
The BBC are hardly likely to change the format of Top Gear when it's so successful as it is.
They did a more serious car program, with reviews of more affordable cars and no "guys just messing about". It was called "Top Gear" and it was quite successful in a low-key way. Then they hired Jeremy Clarkson to mess about, use hyperbole to a completely ridiculous extent and make silly analogies. Ratings shot up. After a while, he left. Ratings fell down. Shortly afterwards, the BBC "rested" Top Gear and it was moved, lock stock and barrel, over to another channel as 5th Gear. Top Gear was brought back with even more messing around, even more hyperbole and even silliier analogies (e.g. "It sounds like Tom Jones gargling a NASCAR"). It supports a successful magazine, various DVDs and merchandising. No doubt it makes a sizable profit. It's shown (and is popular) in many different countries. These things are not true for 5th Gear.
Having said that, I do think that a segment for more affordable cars could work. A new laptime board for this type of car, perhaps. Not useful (how many people are going to race these cars?), but good for a laugh. Reviews in the style of Top Gear for cars under £20K (or whatever figure was reasonable).
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,457
- Location
- between Blandford Street and Mars
Angilion said:
Yep, and it was great. Notice the word "was". You simply cannot do the same thing over and over and over again without it becoming old hat and boring. TG may still be attracting fans amongst those who think that the word "torques" is mysterious and interesting, but those who have watched it for years will get bored of the same type of things repeated in a similar fashion week in, week out.
TG is like Oasis. When they first came out they were like a breath of fresh air in the tedious world of music. They swaggered about in their parkas, shouting Manc at everybody and wishing they were the Beatles. Now every record just sounds the same as their last.
No, the BBC will never change TG, but that's because the BBC repeat everything, forever.