EPTI understand the point of the 86(frz) and brz being cheap but when they reviewed the focus and even civic back in the day they would mention what I'm talking about.
Fuck almost bought one too.
[TV] Top Gear - Page 24
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
Check out their new show - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/entertainment/508970-tv-the-grand-tour | ||
|
Radioman
Canada904 Posts
I understand the point of the 86(frz) and brz being cheap but when they reviewed the focus and even civic back in the day they would mention what I'm talking about. Fuck almost bought one too. | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On February 12 2013 15:51 Radioman wrote: It was still weird. They completely disregarded the interior cabin and almost every review they have they make it an issue if the cabin in rubbish. Take a look at Clarkson in the mustang. I feel like it was every car review magazine/tv show to praise the 86 and overlook any faults. I understand the point of the 86(frz) and brz being cheap but when they reviewed the focus and even civic back in the day they would mention what I'm talking about. Fuck almost bought one too. Top gear is scripted they go for entertainment value. All of their reviews aren't really good reviews the only thing that is actually consistent is stig lap times those they aren't known to rig for entertainment value but actually are real lap times best of the day set by the driver although they don't wait for good conditions but that is hardly the worst quality of their reviews. Top gear is an entertainment show not a review show. | ||
|
Radioman
Canada904 Posts
On February 16 2013 05:04 semantics wrote: Top gear is scripted they go for entertainment value. All of their reviews aren't really good reviews the only thing that is actually consistent is stig lap times those they aren't known to rig for entertainment value but actually are real lap times best of the day set by the driver although they don't wait for good conditions but that is hardly the worst quality of their reviews. Top gear is an entertainment show not a review show. Ya but you realize they reveiw cars right. EDIT: Oh look.... an entertaining, informative, car review.... | ||
|
nitram
Canada5412 Posts
On February 07 2013 20:53 slytown wrote: Just realized there's a Top Gear thread. Love this show. I watched all the youtube clips before I actually bought a Netflix subscription and now I'm starting to watch the full episodes. Easily one of my fav shows of all time. Gotta say my fav bit is still them buying cars at the auction for the classic time rally in Majorca. And I'm still waiting for them to review my new car, the Honda CR-Z. Considering how much Clarkson likes hot-hatches I figured he'd look forward to reviewing the first hybrid with a 6-speed. ![[image loading]](http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a170/hooked7/100_0073.jpg) They reviewed this car long ago. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On February 16 2013 08:38 Radioman wrote: Ya but you realize they reveiw cars right. EDIT: Oh look.... an entertaining, informative, car review.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UwOBKSHl-c A proper review is unbaised and follows a system with repeatable methodology, top gear reviews things based on how well it works at a point of entertainment you saw this most prominently with their review of the tesla roadster to which tesla sued for malicious libel because they insinuate things happened like battery draining when it simply never did during their test, which was further backed up by getting their hands on the script for the review which was made before they ever obtained the car. Top gear didn't lose the suit because it's an entertainment show. At best top gear reviews car under a bais which makes it a bad review, i could call myself a professional chef but unless i actually cook and work as a professional chef i am not one. Top gear doesn't do reviews they do segments. | ||
|
Radioman
Canada904 Posts
On February 16 2013 09:28 semantics wrote: A proper review is unbaised and follows a system with repeatable methodology, top gear reviews things based on how well it works at a point of entertainment you saw this most prominently with their review of the tesla roadster to which tesla sued for malicious libel because they insinuate things happened like battery draining when it simply never did during their test, which was further backed up by getting their hands on the script for the review which was made before they ever obtained the car. Top gear didn't lose the suit because it's an entertainment show. At best top gear reviews car under a bais which makes it a bad review, i could call myself a professional chef but unless i actually cook and work as a professional chef i am not one. Top gear doesn't do reviews they do segments. From that video I learned that there are 2 different gas powered engines for the X6, It's off-road capabilities are somewhat bad, and the back seats are not that roomy for a big car. The quality of the cabin is that of any other BMW. I've gained knowledge from this "reveiw". I can now make a decision if I want to further look at the x6 or look for other vehicles similar to this. Don't try to tell me every segment is bias (because if you haven't noticed, most reviewers are extremely biased). Some are more for entertainment value. | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3368 Posts
Top Gear Season 19 Episode 4: February 17, 2013 Cars: + Show Spoiler + Kia Cee'd • Mastretta MXT • Ford Focus ST • Renault Megane RenaultSport Cup 265 • Vauxhall Astra VXR Description: + Show Spoiler + Jeremy takes the new Kia Cee'd on a thorough road test, including an unusual game of rugby involving James. • Richard is in Mexico for a road test of the Mastretta MXT. • A trio of hot hatchbacks are tested on the Top Gear track. • An F1 driver takes to the track in the old Suzuki Liana. Guest: + Show Spoiler + Lewis Hamilton | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3368 Posts
Top Gear Season 19 Episode 5: February 24, 2013 Cars: + Show Spoiler + Range Rover Description: + Show Spoiler + Jeremy and Richard design a vehicle exclusively for the elderly and then test it out in Dorset with the help of three pensioners. • James tests the new Range Rover in London and then heads to Nevada to challenge an autonomous military machine. Guest: + Show Spoiler + James McAvoy | ||
|
Jochan
Poland1730 Posts
On February 16 2013 09:48 Radioman wrote: From that video I learned that there are 2 different gas powered engines for the X6, It's off-road capabilities are somewhat bad, and the back seats are not that roomy for a big car. The quality of the cabin is that of any other BMW. I've gained knowledge from this "reveiw". I can now make a decision if I want to further look at the x6 or look for other vehicles similar to this. Don't try to tell me every segment is bias (because if you haven't noticed, most reviewers are extremely biased). Some are more for entertainment value. I think you are both wrong/misguided, Top Gear is not about proper reviews. It's like saying that FFA they do during breaks at major tournaments are representative of player skills/balance. Starcraft is the vessel to bring you content but it's all about fun and laughs. If you don't agree with that, another point can be that presenters themselves are bias as all people are. They always disagree and stated many times during long top gear history that there are 2-4?? ( I don't remember exactly) cars in the world they can all agree are good. It all depends on who makes the film/review. About episode no.4, it was good, I usually don't enjoy reviews and matches, but that rugby was glorious. Only TG can ask company for 12 cars to fuck up an a football/rugby field  | ||
|
m00nchile
Slovenia240 Posts
. The mexican sports car review was so-so, it was a bit more like a proper review and I would've liked it if the Stig would do a lap in it. All in all, a great episode. | ||
|
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
| ||
|
1Dhalism
862 Posts
On February 16 2013 09:28 semantics wrote: A proper review is unbaised and follows a system with repeatable methodology, top gear reviews things based on how well it works at a point of entertainment you saw this most prominently with their review of the tesla roadster to which tesla sued for malicious libel because they insinuate things happened like battery draining when it simply never did during their test, which was further backed up by getting their hands on the script for the review which was made before they ever obtained the car. Top gear didn't lose the suit because it's an entertainment show. At best top gear reviews car under a bais which makes it a bad review, i could call myself a professional chef but unless i actually cook and work as a professional chef i am not one. Top gear doesn't do reviews they do segments. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/23/top-gear-libel-case-tesla-struck-out http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2011/04/02/tesla-vs-top-gear-andy-wilman-on-our-current-legal-action/ Top gear didnt say anything about Tesla other reviewers didnt already. Just look at how TG treated diesel. It was the greatest evil up until the point car manufacturers started making good diesel cars, and now almost every diesel car on the show gets subtle praise. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On February 16 2013 09:28 semantics wrote: A proper review is unbaised and follows a system with repeatable methodology, top gear reviews things based on how well it works at a point of entertainment you saw this most prominently with their review of the tesla roadster to which tesla sued for malicious libel because they insinuate things happened like battery draining when it simply never did during their test, which was further backed up by getting their hands on the script for the review which was made before they ever obtained the car. Top gear didn't lose the suit because it's an entertainment show. At best top gear reviews car under a bais which makes it a bad review, i could call myself a professional chef but unless i actually cook and work as a professional chef i am not one. Top gear doesn't do reviews they do segments. To be fair here, Teslas "claims" were borderline stupid. The last weekend i spent on Nürburgring last summer, a Tesla managed to drive three laps. Three. Thats ~66km (less than 55 miles, but the Ring is also a bit harder to drive). Then it ran out of juice. It was capable of driving, if you call "crawling back in the pit" driving, but that's it (it also made weird noises, like a tram). And that's what i call "ran out of juice". If i need to drive 20kp/h because otherwise my engine would die because of little gas left, then i call it "empty". Same goes for electified cars. To sue someone because he said "well under racing conditions (which is Tesla-territory by their own claims) the Tesla manages 55 miles and then it's out of juice", which is entirely true, well.. Glad they lost. Justified. Top gear did not lose the case because they did nothing wrong, they did not lie. Look at what the judge said, you might be surprised. In europe we use common sense to judge things, and no one actually believes Tesla when they say "220 miles". That's like saying "well my 6,3l AMG does like 50 miles per gallon" - you might achieve that if you drive with an idling engine, but in real life you will never achieve that. And everybody knows that. | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On February 11 2013 12:53 tofucake wrote: ![[image loading]](https://tofucake.net/stupidsmile.gif) I prefer the "They're gonna cut in for a shot of the driver" gif from the Police Car Challenge. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On February 18 2013 12:14 m4inbrain wrote: To be fair here, Teslas "claims" were borderline stupid. The last weekend i spent on Nürburgring last summer, a Tesla managed to drive three laps. Three. Thats ~66km (less than 55 miles, but the Ring is also a bit harder to drive). Then it ran out of juice. It was capable of driving, if you call "crawling back in the pit" driving, but that's it (it also made weird noises, like a tram). And that's what i call "ran out of juice". If i need to drive 20kp/h because otherwise my engine would die because of little gas left, then i call it "empty". Same goes for electified cars. To sue someone because he said "well under racing conditions (which is Tesla-territory by their own claims) the Tesla manages 55 miles and then it's out of juice", which is entirely true, well.. Glad they lost. Justified. Top gear did not lose the case because they did nothing wrong, they did not lie. Look at what the judge said, you might be surprised. In europe we use common sense to judge things, and no one actually believes Tesla when they say "220 miles". That's like saying "well my 6,3l AMG does like 50 miles per gallon" - you might achieve that if you drive with an idling engine, but in real life you will never achieve that. And everybody knows that. Lol 6.3L yeah that'd go further going full out i doubt your amg will do more then 75 miles off one tank, good anecdotal experience at the nurburgring, you're right all cars are raited for MPG and range based off full out racing oh wait.... It's liable because they didn't imply it ran out of gas they didn't pose a proper hypothetical they flat out said it did to which it actually didn't at the time. Which is misrepresentation, top gear got away with it because they are a comedy show it's the common sense that no one would take this shows advice seriously because it's not it's platform. | ||
|
Mandini
United States1717 Posts
Bahahahaha | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
Lewis Hamilton, you complete and utter beast! taking 1.1 seconds off of Vettell around the track. What the actual fuck xD He was so calm as well so good! I liked the episode, was great and funny. Also the news of the Shelby coming to England with RH drive is actually FUCK!! for me, defo going purchase one or look into it depends on the pricing. Was a good episode though i liked it! | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On February 18 2013 14:15 semantics wrote: Lol 6.3L yeah that'd go further going full out i doubt your amg will do more then 75 miles off one tank, good anecdotal experience at the nurburgring, you're right all cars are raited for MPG and range based off full out racing oh wait.... It's liable because they didn't imply it ran out of gas they didn't pose a proper hypothetical they flat out said it did to which it actually didn't at the time. Which is misrepresentation, top gear got away with it because they are a comedy show it's the common sense that no one would take this shows advice seriously because it's not it's platform. I don't have an AMG. And yeah, it won't do more than 75mi on the Nürburgring flatout - AMG never sued someone for saying that, because everybody actually knows it. Also you seem to have no clue what you're talking about. "“We calculated that on our track it would run out after 55 miles”". Actual quote. Guess what, it's true, it ran out of juice after 41 miles of racing on the Nürburgring (three Laps). Of course the MPG-"rating" is not based off of racing, but that's the entire point. Tesla sued Top gear because they said it would do(would do) 55 miles on their track. Not 211, as Tesla stated. And the most hilarious thing is, the 55mi range wasn't calculated by Top gear, but by Tesla themselves. Well, they said "we" calculated, that may be not true, as it was Tesla themselves who calculated the 55mi range. But that does not matter in this case. | ||
|
Noonius
Estonia17413 Posts
| ||
| ||
