On February 18 2013 23:37 Noonius wrote: Lewis' time almost makes me want to put on my tinfoil hat and start thinking about different fuel loads and tire pressures etc when compared to Vettel's run. Lewis just probably ran on fumes.
Well...if you look at the time he did on a wet and oily track, you will see he was like 1.5seconds of Vettels lap time anyway. So picking up 2.5 seconds on a dry track after being around it before doesn't seem that hard to believe for me. Vettel if he went back would get a better time than that too, won't be near Lewis' though
WE WANT ALONSO ON IT NOW THOUGH! Would love to see Fernando go round it, he and Lewis my favorite and most skilled drivers imo (in the world)
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.
Ya but you realize they reveiw cars right.
EDIT:
Oh look.... an entertaining, informative, car review....
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.
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.
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.
Ya but you realize they reveiw cars right.
EDIT:
Oh look.... an entertaining, informative, car review....
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.
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.
Says the guy who doesn't understand the 211 mile range is for regular driving it was the first EPA calculated range for the roadster, the point is no car will go very far flat out racing. The point is why say the range is a flaw when all cars don't really have massive range when racing at least cars meant to go fast. It's like saying this range for car A is a lie because it was calculated for regular driving and i sped it around for an hour and it ran out long before the calculated range. When the calculate range was never meant for racing.
Learn to make the implication between two statements brah.
Yes the car is not meant for endurance racing if that was the point why not make it explicit. Instead they took a range calculated for regular driving and said it was a lie because they didn't do regular driving and it failed to go that far. It is exactly like using the Big AMG then speed it around for an hour then getting pissed off when it's out of gas so quickly when they advertise a much larger range.
Top gear review structure is absurdity for views not reproducibility and factual end points for informed opinion formed by an audience. Some how you've taken that as top gear is a bad show so now i must deny everything and call everything a falsehood, perpetrated by a person who knows nothing. It's a fine show it just not a good place for reviews.
Instead of still insist top gear is a valid and credible review show for cars when it's simply not it's just a silly show meant to get views. If the joke is there they will go for it, if the anger or shock is there they will go for it.
Semantics, please explain to me why if Top Gear lied about the car being out of juice, as you stated:
On February 16 2013 05:04 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.
Well, just happens that an oil journalist for NYT did a review of the same car, and Tesla is now suing him and the magazine, but this time they have a case, witch they backed up by pulling actual car logs and data witch proves that they lied, however in TG-s case they did none of that and failed to prove in front of the court that Top gear did anything malicious towards Tesla, while NYT and the journalist have agreed to back down.
1. We never said that the Tesla’s true range is only 55 miles, as opposed to their own claim of 211, or that it had actually ran out of charge. In the film our actual words were: “We calculated that on our track it would run out after 55 miles”.
The second point is that the figure of 55 miles came not from our heads, but from Tesla’s boffins in California. They looked at the data from that car and calculated that, driven hard on our track, it would have a range of 55 miles.
2. We never said that the Tesla was completely immobilized as a result of the motor overheating. We said the car had “reduced power”. This was true.
a) The truth is, Top Gear had already driven the car prior to filming, to enable us to form a view on it in advance
b) Our primary reasoning behind the verdict had nothing to do with how the Tesla performed; our conclusion was based mainly on the fact that it costs three times more than the petrol sports car upon which it’s based. It takes a long time to recharge, so you can’t use it as easily for the carefree motoring journeys that are a prerequisite of sports car driving. You can actually reach that conclusion without driving the car. As it happens, when it did come to the subjective area of how the car drove on the track, we were full of praise for its performance and handling.
c) Just so you understand there’s nothing devious going on, you need to know how this filming business works. When you film a car review, the reviewer is only the tip of the iceberg. Behind the lens is a film crew, and only a day’s worth of light to shoot the eight minute film. This means we have to prepare in advance a treatment – a rough draft of a script so that the director and film crew can get to work right away, knowing what shots they will need to capture. It will contain the facts about a car, and what we think of its looks and so on, but how well the car actually drives is added on the day.
edit: Just so there is no doubt. Top Gear review cars. They have a whole team working on the reviews every day, and a magazine covering that which doesn't make the show. What you see on the show are reviews, with added entertainment. Basic knowledge of how sarcasm work is also needed.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i692.photobucket.com/albums/vv286/Body_Shield/New%20Album%202/jYiPl1l_zps1a82caf1.png)
![[image loading]](http://i692.photobucket.com/albums/vv286/Body_Shield/New%20Album%202/it2ezOVjloX3K_zps10beacf9.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i692.photobucket.com/albums/vv286/Body_Shield/New%20Album%202/L3xQKUk_zps254430a8.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i692.photobucket.com/albums/vv286/Body_Shield/New%20Album%202/LTIGihV_zpsac9da1da.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i692.photobucket.com/albums/vv286/Body_Shield/New%20Album%202/ySS1w64_zpse2f2546e.png)
![[image loading]](http://i692.photobucket.com/albums/vv286/Body_Shield/New%20Album%202/LtwJh7t_zps290222f9.jpg)
