> I realise this is getting picky now :-)
The story about the Rover V8's demise sort of went off on a tangent instead of a detailed history of a great engine we ended up with a glorified banger race that had nothing to do with the engine except the SD1 'may' have had a V8 in it.
The 747 clip was predictable but very watchable. I'm very surprised that they did get permission for that from the CAA.
Obviously Virgin got a free advert.
Advert free public service broadcaster? hmmmm..
|
|
Did anyone else notice that the item which embarrassed box junction violators was filmed in what should be the most likely place in the country to get nicked , ie on the junction of Victoria St right next to New Scotland Yard, home of the Metropolitan Police.
|
|
|
I certainly would not have wanted to be the crew responsible for taking the 747 out of there. A lot of the debris was blown into the grass and would have taken some finding afterwards. The area was still well within range of the engine intakes, even though it looked as though it was done at almost the extreme end of a runway. The whole thing was just more silliness on the part of a once watchable programme - thought I would watch it again just for once, but no, it's as puerile as ever. A sensible use of the licence-payers hard-earned? No. It long ago lost it's ability to 'inform', and in my view even fails to 'entertain'.
CG
|
Pedant mode on
FOD starts out as Foreign Object Debris, and if it causes damage it's only then that it becomes Foreign Object Damage.
|
|
|
Oh lighten up a bit..:-)
The entire programme is all a bit of fun whilst, as far as I'm aware, Richard Branson's 747 fleet is not missing one of its aircraft.
As no one is aware of who paid what for the virgin territory segment of the programme, we are not in a position to categorically state whether licence payers' money has, or has not, been wasted.
|
I dont understand why everyone has such a downer on Top Gear.
It's just a bit of fun - a light-hearted car based entertainment programme. If thats not your bag, then why waste an hour watching it only to complain about every feature afterwards?
You all KNOW what its like, you know what sort of show it is so why do you continue to watch it?
Yes, it would be nice to have a car programme on television which gives unbiased, sensible reviews of the cars we'd like to buy, but that is not the current Top Gears place. Top Gear is there to entertain.
A GT40 flying around a runway will entertain more people than a bloke driving around in a Vectra 1.8LS giving a comprehensive review on cabin noise and cup holder locations.
|
hear hear Michael - everyone stop whining. Its a lot better than pretty much most car related tv programmes. More entertaining, more uptodate and more varied.
|
Its a program based on cars, it makes me laff, its entertaining and sometimes informative.
Whats wrong with that?
You want I should watch \"where the heart is\" or \"f***beat\"*
No thanks
(* Rhymes with \"heart\", not the other one. ND)
|
Anyone remember "Driven"? I quite enjoyed that show in its earlier format, although I didn't always agree with the outcome of their comparison reviews. Still, it wasn't done in a boring, solely fact-based style - I remember they compared the handling of a few hot hatches by getting them to follow a lorry at speed and chucking large cardboard boxes out for them to dodge.
Then they dispensed with that and attempted "motoring-related entertainment", apparently with little or no budget, and it plummeted in terms of programme quality and ratings. Car Sumo, pallet racing, "zany" camerawork. So, why do I like Top Gear while I hated the last series of Driven?
One thing is that while car sumo is just naff, at least features such as banger darts on Top Gear were amusing because they're a bit outrageous - who wasn't entertained by what they did to prove the durability of that Toyota Hilux? However, the key difference for me is that these items were also entertaining because in some way they demonstrate an admiration, respect and enthusiasm for engineering excellence (like the machine they shot the cars off for banger darts, or the 747 backdraft blowing cars to bits, or the engine & chassis of the Toyota, or even the Humber Bridge!). It says to me, "look what we are capable of achieving, look what we can do if we put our minds to it". I won't pretend that Top Gear is in any way cerebral, but I think that love of engineering is still a feature of the show which prevents it from descending into farce.
--
andymc
|
How about a comparative road test of TV motoring journalists?
Cheers, SS
|
How about a comparative road test of TV motoring journalists?
wot, make 'em run in front of a hot hatch while people in a lorry throw cardboard boxes at 'em?
|
wot, make 'em run in front of a hot hatch while people in a lorry throw cardboard boxes at 'em?
LOL! I'd pay to see that!
|
|
Richard Branson's 747 fleet is not missingone of its aircraft.
'Coincidentally' Virgin aircraft also seemed to out feature everything else in Clarkson's History of the Jet.
|
>>'Coincidentally' Virgin aircraft also seemed to out feature everything else in Clarkson's History of the Jet.
Probably because Branson is immensely aware of the value of publicity.
However, some of it was library stock and seen in other programes in the past.
No doubt Jeremy will be scraping and bowing to Ford again when the first jet powered GT40 hits the design board...:-)
|
|
If you noticed only two of the 747 engines were spooled up - what would have happened with 4 doesn't bare thinking about!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
