Will US version of Top Gear work?

Something I noticed was the sloppy looking handling. The lap times were very respectable but it was obviously a handful even for the Stig. It look like a very unforgiving car to push hard on the twisties. Making a Lotus handle like that is a travesty.

 

I agree. Colin Chapman did not say "simplify, add lightness and 500 lbs of batteries".

 

I think it's actually 800 lbs of batteries. The Tesla weighs 2700 lbs and a late model US spec Elise 2,000 lbs. 700 lbs of extra pork. the electric motor is probably lighter than the ICE which is why it isn't 800 lbs heavier.

 

Ugh, that sounds like a totally unappealing car to me. Too small, too heavy, too short-ranged.

 

Number one for me it's too expensive!

And one more

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718900859924733158#


TED

 

255 miles on the EPA combined city/highway test is too short range for you? Top Gear lied their asses off when they reviewed it. They admitted it later. Drive it gently, the way people do to maximize their mileage on the Prius, and you'll do even better. Drive it hard like it was intended to be driven and you might "only" get 150 to 200 miles. Top Gear is Fox News for cars.

Yes it's small. It's a roadster. Roadsters are small. And it's heavy because it's got 255 miles worth of laptop batteries in it, plus a liquid cooling system for them. The battery pack takes up most of the car. But you don't buy a Roadster because you want a cheap commuter car. You buy it because you're having a mid-life crisis and you want the fastest accelerating car you can get.

It's also awkward to get in and out of, and not all that comfortable. Again, that's because it's a roadster. That's what roadsters are.

 

I'd respect him - only if every time he reviews an ICE car - he also talks about how much pollution it spews and how much blood & treasure has been spilled in Iraq to secure the juice.

 

When you say that he "defends the troops," do you mean that he argues strenuously for bringing them home so they wont be killed or maimed or destroyed psychologically in a war we are bound to lose in the end, or do you mean that he defends the government policy of sending them overseas to be used as cannon fodder in unwinnable wars?

It used to be that when I was at a war protest, the people driving by who were in favor of the war would shout "Get a job." But ever since the first Gulf war the people who favor the war have been shouting "Support the troops." This phrase has become a formula that really means "Support the government in its decision to send soldier to wars on the other side of the world."

The irony was that at the time of the first Gulf war I was doing volunteer work at a local homeless shelter, where a high percentage of homeless men were Vietnam vets who the war supporters would not give a buck for a cup of coffee.

In the United States, the phrase "Support the troops" has actually meant just the opposite for about the last twenty years.

 

Off topic but this is the exact reason the war still goes on. If they brought home all the troops there would be no jobs for them to go to. The raise in the unemployment rate would look worse for the administration than keeping the war going. No excuse but this is my theory.

TED

 

I don't think that is the main reason, but it is certainly a factor. Capitalism is incapable of providing work for everyone who wants to work, so it seeks out expensive and destructive "solutions." Note that for the cost of the war, we could employ three times as many people in civilian work rebuilding our decaying infrastructure.

 

Yes, I am. But what you quoted was just reality. We could have made ourselves energy independent and rebuilt our crumbling infrastructure for the money we've spent on oil wars. But sadly, our political and economic systems make that impossible. A money-driven political system cannot elect anyone other than corporate pimps; and a profit-driven economic system, while it produces commodities more efficiently than any other, cannot meet the basic needs of the underclass.

It was a great tragedy for the human race when the Bolsheviks decided to misappropriate the words "communist" and "socialist" to describe their totalitarian system, because real socialism won't be given a chance as long as people think the USSR was socialist.

But I'm afraid we've gotten entirely off the subject of the fraudulent car TV program we were discussing.

:focus: