Jonmac,
I find Top Gear to more enjoyable because it DOESN'T focus on the
technical details. It ISN'T just a sheet of data for you to look at it and
compare numbers. It is biased...but it isn't biased by the manufacturers.
So many magazines these days get cash from certain manufacturers to make
their car look better than it really is. Clarkson tells it how it is. If
the car is dumpy...he will tell you it's dumpy but will show positives too
(Example - bashing the american muscle cars, yet he still owns one).
Showing accuracy and reality? How much more accurate and real can you get
than putting the car out on the track to see how it handles and how it does
against the competition? You can read articles in Road & Track until you
are blue in the face, but what good does that do if you can't see the cars
in action and seeing the cars pushed to the limit?
Just my $0.02.
Dave
>
>Clark, the important thing to remember with Clarkson, is that his programme
>researchers appear to be a pretty dumb bunch when it comes to UK auto
>industry history. Clarkson himself is one of the most arrogant TV
>journalists I've ever met and IMHO, if he tempered his shows with reality
>and accuracy instead of bull**** and his own personal biased opinions
>disguised as fact, they might be more entertaining.
>
>All that to one side, I suppose Top Gear is worth a look for those who
>don't know it. Personally, I change channels when it comes on. :)
>
>Jonmac
>
_________________________________________________________________
Turn searches into helpful donations. Make your search count.
http://click4thecause.live.com/search/charity/default.aspx?source=hmemtagline_donation&FORM=WLMTAG
=== This list supported in part by The Vintage Triumph Register
=== http://www.vtr.org
|