Clarkson Reviews the Stingray

Criticizing Jeremy Clarkson for his car reviews is kind of like criticizing Jon Stewart for his news coverage on The Daily Show.

It's entertainment, folks - either you think he's funny or he's not, but his car reviews are not serious journalism.

He's an entertainer. He's good at it since he made us talk about it. But this is a guy that evaluates the handling of a vehicle by how well it doesn't grip, so I take whatever he says with a grain of salt.

BTW, Clarkson has admitted more than once, on air, that people who buy cars based on the reviews provided by TopGear are morons.

It is an entertainment show about 3 middle aged school boys who enjoy arguing with each other in between driving expensive cars and poking fun at each other and everyone else. If you try to read more into it than that, you'll just end up frustrated because they constantly contradict themselves for the purposes of entertainment (whether to try and get a rise out of their target or just to be funny).

If you haven't noticed by now, Clarkson creates his reviews by starting with the end result he has come up with and working backwards to justify his bias.

I thought it was an amusing tongue in cheek review. Downright glowing coming from Clarkson. The C7 is the first Corvette I've actually wanted to spend my own money on.

turboswede wrote: BTW, Clarkson has admitted more than once, on air, that people who buy cars based on the reviews provided by TopGear are morons. If you haven't noticed by now, Clarkson creates his reviews by starting with the end result he has come up with and working backwards to justify his bias.

Ohh, I understand that... It's just that hearing the same song for 15 years gets boring somewhere along the line.

In reply to Duke:

I understand, but he's not writing for the American market, he's writing for the UK market. Also he likes to argue and get people joshing each other, so we would respond with pointing out the abismal quality control and build quality of most british cars and how easily they would rust away into oblivion.

On the subject of the leafspring used in the Corvette's for many years, how is a single, lightweight composite spring used to provide a lower center of gravity for a decently engineered independent rear suspension any different to the rather antiquated torsion bar/trailing arm rear suspension design used on the Porsche 911/924/944/968 series of cars? You know the 944S2 that he enjoyed driving in France? The one that has a strut based suspension in the front? Compared to the Corvette's double a-arm suspension?

Basically, he's an idiot who is supremely proud of his country, likes poking fun at other countries (especially when they take themselves too seriously) and is easily distracted by shiny things. How is his behavior any different then some of the 'Murica blow-hards that we as North American car enthusiasts run into fairly often? Ultimately you can either engage them and try to educate them and some might come around. Eventually. Or you can simply laugh at the nonsense and walk away. Personally, life is too short to get that stressed over it.

turboswede wrote: In reply to Duke: I understand, but he's not writing for the American market, he's writing for the UK market. Also he likes to argue and get people joshing each other, so we would respond with pointing out the abismal quality control and build quality of most british cars and how easily they would rust away into oblivion. On the subject of the leafspring used in the Corvette's for many years, how is a single, lightweight composite spring used to provide a lower center of gravity for a decently engineered independent rear suspension any different to the rather antiquated torsion bar/trailing arm rear suspension design used on the Porsche 911/924/944/968 series of cars? You know the 944S2 that he enjoyed driving in France? The one that has a strut based suspension in the front? Compared to the Corvette's double a-arm suspension? Basically, he's an idiot who is supremely proud of his country, likes poking fun at other countries (especially when they take themselves too seriously) and is easily distracted by shiny things. How is his behavior any different then some of the 'Murica blow-hards that we as North American car enthusiasts run into fairly often? Ultimately you can either engage them and try to educate them and some might come around. Eventually. Or you can simply laugh at the nonsense and walk away. Personally, life is too short to get that stressed over it.

Suspension designs are all antiquated in that there are no new ones. The question is how well the chosen design is adapted. Even struts are pretty dang good now.

bearmtnmartin wrote:

turboswede wrote: In reply to Duke: I understand, but he's not writing for the American market, he's writing for the UK market. Also he likes to argue and get people joshing each other, so we would respond with pointing out the abismal quality control and build quality of most british cars and how easily they would rust away into oblivion. On the subject of the leafspring used in the Corvette's for many years, how is a single, lightweight composite spring used to provide a lower center of gravity for a decently engineered independent rear suspension any different to the rather antiquated torsion bar/trailing arm rear suspension design used on the Porsche 911/924/944/968 series of cars? You know the 944S2 that he enjoyed driving in France? The one that has a strut based suspension in the front? Compared to the Corvette's double a-arm suspension? Basically, he's an idiot who is supremely proud of his country, likes poking fun at other countries (especially when they take themselves too seriously) and is easily distracted by shiny things. How is his behavior any different then some of the 'Murica blow-hards that we as North American car enthusiasts run into fairly often? Ultimately you can either engage them and try to educate them and some might come around. Eventually. Or you can simply laugh at the nonsense and walk away. Personally, life is too short to get that stressed over it.

Suspension designs are all antiquated in that there are no new ones. The question is how well the chosen design is adapted. Even struts are pretty dang good now.

No, struts aren't. They just narrowed the range where they "work" to an acceptable level and fine tuned the details, much like Porsche with the 911 with the engine in the rear (but they compound the issues by using struts in the front, but I digress). Really, they are a miserable solution for performance use without being locked into a narrow range with lots of static camber, but they are cheap, compact and work well enough for their intended use.

stuart in mn wrote: Criticizing Jeremy Clarkson for his car reviews is kind of like criticizing Jon Stewart for his news coverage on The Daily Show. It's entertainment, folks - either you think he's funny or he's not, but his car reviews are not serious journalism.

Well the problem is almost everyone who watches top gear takes him serious and his reviews as 100% truth.

It would be like if Jon Stewart made a joke that Obama is the skynet hive mind in control of the drones if it were Clarkson they would literally think he's the borg queen.

IIRC Clarkson bought a C6. He trashed it too,, then admitted he bought one.

kanaric wrote:

stuart in mn wrote: Criticizing Jeremy Clarkson for his car reviews is kind of like criticizing Jon Stewart for his news coverage on The Daily Show. It's entertainment, folks - either you think he's funny or he's not, but his car reviews are not serious journalism.

Well the problem is almost everyone who watches top gear takes him serious and his reviews as 100% truth.

I can honestly say that I don't know anyone who takes his reviews as 100% truth, and I have tons of "car people" friends who watch it, and tons of non-car people (like my wife) who watch it. First of all, the "car guys" who watch it already have their own biases about what they like. Second of all, most of Clarkson's reviews are about cars that at best 0.1% of his viewing audience can actually afford (and I would assume that these people aren't choosing their $50k+++ cars simply on the word of Top Gear). And third, nobody every really remembers what Clarkson says about the cars he reviews. IDK about you guys, but I remember the challenges and trips (whether they be towing a Caravan through the woods, going across the Deep South trying to get beat up, or going across Vietnam on mopeds, or crossing the Himalayas in a Jag XJ-S). I find the actual "car test" parts to be the boring part of the show. They're just an excuse to get some good tire-burning drift action on the track, not serious reviews about how good a car is. They could just test the size of a car's interior space by measuring its cubic volume with a tape measure. Instead they see which car can fit a Polka band with all their instruments best.

If you go into TG expecting to get an objective, factual review of something.....you're clearly doing it wrong. Most people who watch it realize it's a car-themed comedy/variety show, for the most part.

I doubt Brits think Clarkson is serious in his car reviews. They actually get the deadpan/dry humor. Many Americans seem to need it spelled out to them that something is supposed to be funny/satirical. Just look at the comments section of any Onion article and see how many people think it's real...

Then you have TGUS, which tries to be a bit more unbiased and serious about its car reviews (which still suck badly), but doesn't add in the actual funny/entertainment part, or when it does they make sure to let everyone knwo they're not serious, so as not to offend any manufacturers or viewers.

bravenrace wrote: He's an entertainer. He's good at it since he made us talk about it. But this is a guy that evaluates the handling of a vehicle by how well it doesn't grip, so I take whatever he says with a grain of salt.

This. The whole show is entertainment and to keep the pot boiling he says and does outrageous things. Not really different from Marilyn Manson in theory, just different execution.

It's British humor. Take it for its entertainment value. He's the Benny Hill of the car world.

In reply to irish44j:

I actually enjoy the car reviews. I loved it when he drove the Abarth 500. "I'm really a Ferrari, really I am".

I get the humor and am still as big of a fan as I ever was. Wish I was caught up but have missed the last few seasons, have to wait for Netflix to catch up.

irish44j wrote:

kanaric wrote:

stuart in mn wrote: Criticizing Jeremy Clarkson for his car reviews is kind of like criticizing Jon Stewart for his news coverage on The Daily Show. It's entertainment, folks - either you think he's funny or he's not, but his car reviews are not serious journalism.

Well the problem is almost everyone who watches top gear takes him serious and his reviews as 100% truth.

I can honestly say that I don't know anyone who takes his reviews as 100% truth, and I have tons of "car people" friends who watch it, and tons of non-car people (like my wife) who watch it. First of all, the "car guys" who watch it already have their own biases about what they like. Second of all, most of Clarkson's reviews are about cars that at best 0.1% of his viewing audience can actually afford (and I would assume that these people aren't choosing their $50k+++ cars simply on the word of Top Gear). And third, nobody every really remembers what Clarkson says about the cars he reviews. IDK about you guys, but I remember the challenges and trips (whether they be towing a Caravan through the woods, going across the Deep South trying to get beat up, or going across Vietnam on mopeds, or crossing the Himalayas in a Jag XJ-S). I find the actual "car test" parts to be the boring part of the show. They're just an excuse to get some good tire-burning drift action on the track, not serious reviews about how good a car is. They could just test the size of a car's interior space by measuring its cubic volume with a tape measure. Instead they see which car can fit a Polka band with all their instruments best. If you go into TG expecting to get an objective, factual review of something.....you're clearly doing it wrong. Most people who watch it realize it's a car-themed comedy/variety show, for the most part.

The people who take it the most seriously are the fake car guys the "how fast did you get it up to" crowd and being that I work with the military they are many and all around me. I also find people quoting clarksons rantings about panel gaps and american quality and plastic interiors non stop lately. Much of his memetalk has entered the hive mind, I see it all the time whenever I am discussing cars with anyone who is younger and especially younger people who are into VWs and somewhat with other europeon car fans. Before the show really took off i've never seen anyone talk about plastic interiors in cheap speed rice rockets or panel gaps on a viper as an excuse as to why (their wife forced them) to buy a GTI over a MS3 or WRX. When I was car shopping 3 years ago and discussing and reading automotive comparisons Clarkson/Top Gear memetalk was at a ridiculous high.

It's not prevalent here. It is, however, on magazine sites like motortrend, gawker sites like jalopnik, and talking to people in person. It's maddening.

I get really annoyed by repetitious memeing and parroting so maybe I just see it and remember it far more easily. I love Top Gear, don't get me wrong. Though the show has kind of stagnated into it's own memeing a bit. Once a segment begins and you get the general idea what it's about you can usually guess easily what is going to happen now. However it still manages to be entertaining.

berkeley Clarkson. I could take his reviews much more seriously but for the editorializing, which is just more of the same tired, faux-sophisticate, Euro superior-ism we've endured for ages. Thanks for the driver impressions, Jeremy; no thanks for the sociology.

novaderrik wrote: ... think of what a Countach was to the children of the 80's...

As you mention it, the Countach was at its best in original form without any fake aero aids - just a revolutionary sleek smooth body. Then Lamborghini started adding the frippery that they figured would appeal to American taste even though they marginally reduced top speed, and it worked - the more they looked like transformer toys, the more they sold.

IMHO the worst of these add-ons was the ludicrous nose spoiler they added for the US market that made it look like a Dachshund with a mustache.

If you don't remember it, see http://www.12ozprophet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132789&page=218

Eh, I'd much rather have the nicer interior of the GTI over a MS3/WRX anyday in my daily driver. Especially when you're plunking down large amounts of cash they cost new...

wspohn wrote: IMHO the worst of these add-ons was the ludicrous nose spoiler they added for the US market that made it look like a Dachshund with a mustache.

I remember the first time I saw that spoiler - on the car in the first (or second?) Cannonball Run movie. I'll also admit that as a pre-teen in the early 80's, I thought that nose spoiler was the sh1t.

Who would want to watch a show where everyone got a long anyways?

wspohn wrote: IMHO the worst of these add-ons was the ludicrous nose spoiler they added for the US market that made it look like a Dachshund with a mustache.

As I recall that thing was so they could meet US bumper height requirements, it wasn't done for style.

People from the land that brought you bagpipes should not make fun of Garth Brooks.

Unfortunately people take Clarkson’s reviews very seriously. I have a friend who worked for a certain German company that merged with a time for a certain American company who they later kicked to the curb. Said company had a sports car based on a prior sports car from the German parent. That car was originally sold here, then they were going to sell it in the UK. It was shaping up to be very popular with lots of pre orders, then Clarkson reviewed it on TG and panned it stating it was awful. The next day most of those pre orders were cancelled and the car was a total flop in the UK all based on 15 mins of Clarkson on Sunday night telly.

kazoospec wrote: People from the land that brought you bagpipes should not make fun of Garth Brooks.

Mr Clarkson will happily bash those from the land of bagpipes as they Scotish and not English!

And for those who get tired of him American bashing, he bashes the Germans, the Japanese, the Mexicans, the Italians and even the English with just as much relish. Think how many 'it broke down because it was built by a man in a shed' or 'unions killed the British auto industry' jokes he makes. People in this county have a very very thin skin.