Better Car guy/reviewer - Leno or Clarkson?

[SVX]

That's a gross understatement. Any car reviewer who doesn't appreciate the McLaren F1, or any of Gordon Murray's work at that, isn't to be taken seriously IMO.

So he has to like a car to be called a good journalist?

So what you are saying, hes got rubbish views yet the cars he drives have to have the same conclusion as fans that probably have never even drove the car?

 

[the_stig_1]

That's a gross understatement. Any car reviewer who doesn't appreciate the McLaren F1, or any of Gordon Murray's work at that, isn't to be taken seriously IMO.

I'm not a big fan of the F1.

 

[Ibonibo]

Well there is Clarkson TV and Clarkson.

Clarkson on TV is funny and entertaining but not a source of serious information.
But Clarkson writing are much better than his TV presentations.

Leno, (which I saw again in a re run of home improvement, made me chuckle) brings the comedian quality on the table.

So tough choice indeed.

Apart from this 2, and only taking the english speaking ones, Tiff is really good in his test. His tweets are awesome too.

 

[Tornado]

That's a gross understatement. Any car reviewer who doesn't appreciate the McLaren F1, or any of Gordon Murray's work at that, isn't to be taken seriously IMO.

Once again, how does this mean anything? He doesn't like the car that he has driven (as opposed to, say, you or Kent), but that somehow means something in regards to his credibility?

 

[SVX]

Once again, how does this mean anything? He doesn't like the car that he has driven (as opposed to, say, you or Kent), but that somehow means something in regards to his credibility?

This. 👍

 

[niky]

That's a gross understatement. Any car reviewer who doesn't appreciate the McLaren F1, or any of Gordon Murray's work at that, isn't to be taken seriously IMO.

The F1 is arguably a good car. Is it perfect? A recent EVO article in which they took to the track with it on modern tires revealed that it was as fast as an Enzo around the track, but hairy, wild and prone to ridiculous snap-oversteer. Some old road-tests indicate that it wasn't perfect, either. There's a reason that the racing versions had a longer tail and a wing...

Just because someone doesn't like it doesn't mean they don't know anything...

I personally don't know much about driving, but it's pretty obvious that this is true. When he's driving the tyres are shredded before the conclusion of the afternoon review. Ridiculous.

It's called TV. They're hotdogging it for the camera.

"Rubbish" is an inadequate description. Anyone who makes the fun of disabled children should be shunned from any sort of praise.

Disabled kids, nuns, dead prostitutes, the poor... it's satire. It boggles the mind when people take those off-the-cuff comments seriously.

It seems that Clarkson is lacking every aimable quality of what I'd like to see on my rare evenings watching television. Thankfully, James May makes TopGear what it should be.

Aside from his hosting, I like James May's writing, too... but I don't own a single book written by James, whereas I have a number of publications by Clarkson... again... not the best car reviewer on the planet, but a good read... especially if you get books from his early years.

 

[homeforsummer]

That's a gross understatement. Any car reviewer who doesn't appreciate the McLaren F1, or any of Gordon Murray's work at that, isn't to be taken seriously IMO.

Since when does everyone have to like the F1? Clarkson has, y'know, driven one, at speed, which how many people can say?

I personally don't know much about driving,

...

but it's pretty obvious that this is true. When he's driving the tyres are shredded before the conclusion of the afternoon review. Ridiculous.

And yet Chris Harris has never shredded a set of tyres, right? The man spends his life sideways. And since we're all aware that Top Gear isn't about serious reviews - we are all aware of this, yes? - what's wrong with shredding a set after a bit of fun on a big, empty airfield?

"Rubbish" is an inadequate description. Anyone who makes the fun of disabled children should be shunned from any sort of praise.

Let me make this very clear: There is no human right that protects us from being offended by something. Nor should there be. Announcing out loud that you're offended by a joke about disabled kids is effectively like asking other people to control your emotions for you, since you can't yourself. Or perhaps that you can't find the "off" button on the remote.

Yes, maybe it's a bit tasteless, but really, why is it a big deal?

And what does it have to do with him being either a) a car guy (which he clearly is) and b) a reviewer (which he is, even if his style is unorthodox)?

 

[Tyger]

In general terms I like Tiff (although he's a bit weird sometimes, like when he got in the F1 GTR), and Chris Harris is awesome, I need to track down all of his videos.

One guy I dislike is the smug Autocar guy who does a lot of videos on Youtube, the one who is a little chubby.

Back on topic though, Clarkson is bullish and partisan, but he is an entertainer above all, not always in himself but more so what he puts into the show (I think he co-produces it IIRC) and how he works with the other presenters.

Leno's little videos are something else entirely, not journalistic either (incidentally Clarkson is still also a journalist, more so in other media, and regardless of whether you agree with him) but endearing, and the guy clearly loves his cars.

The argument about Clarkson not liking the F1 is kinda facile, and his opinion on it makes me respect him a little more if anything. It's a little lame to say it's a given that any "car guy" should instantly like that car. And there is a fair amount of evidence that it's a bit of a handful to drive, to say the least, which isn't surprising given the performance, but there seems to be this assumption that it's perfect. If GT5 gets the F1 anywhere near right, it can be a bit of a pig.

 

[White & Nerdy]

I don't know much about Leno, but Clarkson is annoying. He constantly makes immature jokes, has America-bashing as a large part of his TV persona (though probably not willingly, as he seems to like the general American style of car design otherwise), and seems to try harder to offend people with every series. Yes, mods, I know I have a 10 point infraction for something that was apparently offensive, but at least I'm not trying to offend everyone I can, all the time.

 

[homeforsummer]

has America-bashing as a large part of his TV persona

I wouldn't take that too personally to be honest. As you mention, he seems to enjoy the cars, and the country too, and he spends as much time taking the mick out of Wales, or Birmingham, or Germany, or several other places as he does the U.S.

 

[TankAss95]

Once again, how does this mean anything? He doesn't like the car that he has driven (as opposed to, say, you or Kent), but that somehow means something in regards to his credibility?

...

The F1 is arguably a good car. Is it perfect? A recent EVO article in which they took to the track with it on modern tires revealed that it was as fast as an Enzo around the track, but hairy, wild and prone to ridiculous snap-oversteer. Some old road-tests indicate that it wasn't perfect, either. There's a reason that the racing versions had a longer tail and a wing...

Imperfections make cars perfect. I remember that editor of EVO magazine once compared his reviewing strategies of a car review to an aeroplane review. A Cessna aircraft would be horrible if it had sudden, dangerous rotation in mid flight! Meanwhile, a Honda S2000's unstable performance while driving at higher RPM makes the car what it was. It's called "character". It's highly subjective, and somehow a particularly more evident or important vector to consider when reviewing automobiles rather than, say, aircraft or boats.

Lots of things influence the character of a car. Sometimes virtually everyone loves the character or presence a car expresses, while a tiny fraction of people despise it. That's what makes me love discussing cars with friends. Discussing the cold mechanics of a car of interest is great, but it's the character that surpasses all of this and makes us love or hate it.

If there is one thing that seems to change the character of a car more than anything is it's history or achievement. This is so strong that cars such as the GT40 are almost considered objectivly good or legendary. In the same way, what the McLaren F1 was, what it achieved, made it a piece of automotive history. It pivoted the viewpoint of what a focused sports car should be. It was a pure driving car and nothing else.

Just because someone doesn't like it doesn't mean they don't know anything...

True, but that's not my point. I couldn't take an aircraft engineer seriously if he called the Concorde disappointing.

It's called TV. They're hotdogging it for the camera.

Disabled kids, nuns, dead prostitutes, the poor... it's satire. It boggles the mind when people take those off-the-cuff comments seriously.

I take offensive jokes seriously in their context. I would be very disappointed in a person who went over to somewhere deeply catholic like Brazil and mock the blessed virgin Mary.
When speaking to a wide audience you've got to consider how far you have to go to get your joke or point across. There's a very fine like between between being mere offensive and being plain evil. Now, saying that a group of people that are protesting about something are being unjustified in their behaviour is fine (maybe even the right thing to do in some cases), and adding a little humour to your point is totally fine - but saying that these people whom you disagree with should be shot in front of their families is purely stupid and begging for attention. It's wrong wether it's a serious statement or not.

Aside from his hosting, I like James May's writing, too... but I don't own a single book written by James, whereas I have a number of publications by Clarkson... again... not the best car reviewer on the planet, but a good read... especially if you get books from his early years.

I don't really see your point here. Sorry.

Since when does everyone have to like the F1? Clarkson has, y'know, driven one, at speed, which how many people can say?

...

In the same way nobody has to like the D-Type Jag.

And yet Chris Harris has never shredded a set of tyres, right? The man spends his life sideways. And since we're all aware that Top Gear isn't about serious reviews - we are all aware of this, yes? - what's wrong with shredding a set after a bit of fun on a big, empty airfield?

Ofcorse Chris Harris has shredded plenty of tires. In the process he actually tells you something relevant and related about the car in general. Clarkson just blurts out random drivel where Harris tells you a selection of stuff that you really want to know. I'm fine with a bit of silliness, but in not fine with inconsistentency.
It about a fine balance. Sometimes TopGear does give a genually great review about a car every now and again.

Let me make this very clear: There is no human right that protects us from being offended by something. Nor should there be. Announcing out loud that you're offended by a joke about disabled kids is effectively like asking other people to control your emotions for you, since you can't yourself. Or perhaps that you can't find the "off" button on the remote.

Yes, maybe it's a bit tasteless, but really, why is it a big deal?

And what does it have to do with him being either a) a car guy (which he clearly is) and b) a reviewer (which he is, even if his style is unorthodox)?

It my opinion about Clarkson. Nothing else. I'm not even asking for him to change at all - I'm just giving my opinion. He can keep his attitude all he likes, but that won't stop me from having my opinion about him.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Imperfections make cars perfect. I remember that editor of EVO magazine once compared his reviewing strategies of a car review to an aeroplane review. A Cessna aircraft would be horrible if it had sudden, dangerous rotation in mid flight! Meanwhile, a Honda S2000's unstable performance while driving at higher RPM makes the car what it was. It's called "character". It's highly subjective, and somehow a particularly more evident or important vector to consider when reviewing automobiles rather than, say, aircraft or boats.

Lots of things influence the character of a car. Sometimes virtually everyone loves the character or presence a car expresses, while a tiny fraction of people despise it. That's what makes me love discussing cars with friends. Discussing the cold mechanics of a car of interest is great, but it's the character that surpasses all of this and makes us love or hate it.

If there is one thing that seems to change the character of a car more than anything is it's history or achievement. This is so strong that cars such as the GT40 are almost considered objectivly good or legendary. In the same way, what the McLaren F1 was, what it achieved, made it a piece of automotive history. It pivoted the viewpoint of what a focused sports car should be. It was a pure driving car and nothing else.

How does any of this factor into liking a car on a subjective level? Especially one that feels actually dangerous to drive. I think you are trying to make a case for respecting the F1 for what it is. If you think Jeremey doesn't respect the F1, you have really no clue.

 

[andrewjameswatt]

Clarkson is a fool and a slanderer!

 

[homeforsummer]

It my opinion about Clarkson. Nothing else. I'm not even asking for him to change at all - I'm just giving my opinion. He can keep his attitude all he likes, but that won't stop me from having my opinion about him.

We welcome opinions, but too often "it's just my opinion" is used as a byline for spouting voluminous quantities of crap as if it's somehow justified as long as you use the phrase.

My point is, you have two choices if you don't like the stuff that Clarkson says:

1) Turn the TV off and ignore him
2) Go on the internet and moan about him/call up the BBC and moan about him and how offended you get about his jokes and how he should be taken off the air.

One of these things is the correct thing to do. The other is a bit whining-gittish.

Funnily enough, neither of them still have anything to do with whether he's a) a car guy and b) a reviewer or not, both of which he is in actuality, rather than in my opinion.

* "It's just my opinion" ranks up there with "yeah, but it's just scientific theory" and "I have dyslexia, that's why my spelling is poor" as the most over-used phrases on the internet.

 

[Zenith]

I wouldn't say that Clarkson is biased towards British cars (at least not them in particular) but his chauvinism can be quite irritating when he constantly tries to award credit to his own country for everything. I believe when reviewing the Ford GT he said that "the body is British" because the Ford GT looks similar to the GT40 which was built in a shop in Britain.

Even for someone who adores British ingenuity in the automotive world as much as I do, it gets tiresome very quickly.

I simply can't take anything Clarkson says without a grain of salt. Not even basic info like horsepower numbers can be trusted.

Either way, I'm an avid Top Gear viewer. The show's opinions just have little weight in a serious discussion about cars.

 

[TankAss95]

We welcome opinions, but too often "it's just my opinion" is used as a byline for spouting voluminous quantities of crap as if it's somehow justified as long as you use the phrase.

My point is, you have two choices if you don't like the stuff that Clarkson says:

1) Turn the TV off and ignore him
2) Go on the internet and moan about him/call up the BBC and moan about him and how offended you get about his jokes and how he should be taken off the air.

One of these things is the correct thing to do. The other is a bit whining-gittish.

Funnily enough, neither of them still have anything to do with whether he's a) a car guy and b) a reviewer or not, both of which he is in actuality, rather than in my opinion.

* "It's just my opinion" ranks up there with "yeah, but it's just scientific theory" and "I have dyslexia, that's why my spelling is poor" as the most over-used phrases on the internet.

So should I just keep any negative opinions about someone/something to myself? I'm happy to do that.

 

[homeforsummer]

So should I just keep any negative opinions about someone/something to myself? I'm happy to do that.

Negative opinions are equally as valid as positive ones. Trying to justify them with rubbish is not.

"I don't like Clarkson because he doesn't review cars properly" is fine. "I don't like Clarkson because he doesn't like the McLaren F1" isn't - because the latter is effectively, "I don't like him because his opinion is different from mine and others", which is the very thing you're trying to justify by using "this is my opinion" in posts. It's hypocritical.

Likewise, the offensiveness thing is tiresome. If I'm offended by someone - and it takes a lot - I simply have as little to do with them as possible.

It certainly doesn't give me the grounds to denounce someone's profession based on comments they make outside their professional capacity (i.e, saying Clarkson isn't a good car reviewer because he makes comments about shooting people on a non-car program).

 

[TankAss95]

Negative opinions are equally as valid as positive ones. Trying to justify them with rubbish is not.

"I don't like Clarkson because he doesn't review cars properly" is fine. "I don't like Clarkson because he doesn't like the McLaren F1" isn't - because the latter is effectively, "I don't like him because his opinion is different from mine and others", which is the very thing you're trying to justify by using "this is my opinion" in posts. It's hypocritical.

Likewise, the offensiveness thing is tiresome. If I'm offended by someone - and it takes a lot - I simply have as little to do with them as possible.

It certainly doesn't give me the grounds to denounce someone's profession based on comments they make outside their professional capacity (i.e, saying Clarkson isn't a good car reviewer because he makes comments about shooting people on a non-car program).

I didn't affirm that Clarkson wasn't a good car reviewer because he makes comments of poor taste at all. My comments about Clarkson's behaviour originated through a response to niky's post as a sub-issue.

 

[TyrrellRacing]

In response to the "Families should be shot" comment you've got that quite wrong. Clarkson was saying the BBC had to give an alternative view to be impartial which was that. He was poling fun at the BBC's neutrality.

 

[1241Penguin]

[videos]

Because every single journalist in the entire world must share one common opinion about cars.

I take offensive jokes seriously in their context. I would be very disappointed in a person who went over to somewhere deeply catholic like Brazil and mock the blessed virgin Mary.
When speaking to a wide audience you've got to consider how far you have to go to get your joke or point across. There's a very fine like between between being mere offensive and being plain evil. Now, saying that a group of people that are protesting about something are being unjustified in their behaviour is fine (maybe even the right thing to do in some cases), and adding a little humour to your point is totally fine - but saying that these people whom you disagree with should be shot in front of their families is purely stupid and begging for attention. It's wrong wether it's a serious statement or not.

In that case probably 99% of all things entertainment must be banned because there is bound to be something in there to offend somebody or some people. And that example you gave, he clearly said just one second before making the statement that "we have to balance it though, don't we, because this is the BBC", a clear indication that it was a joke.

It my opinion about Clarkson. Nothing else. I'm not even asking for him to change at all - I'm just giving my opinion. He can keep his attitude all he likes, but that won't stop me from having my opinion about him.

Then what's stopping you from changing the channel whenever Top Gear comes on?

 

[homeforsummer]

I didn't affirm that Clarkson wasn't a good car reviewer because he makes comments of poor taste at all. My comments about Clarkson's behaviour originated through a response to niky's post as a sub-issue.

*Sigh*

Clarkson isn't the best car reviewer... isn't nearly the best driver... and some of his views are, frankly, rubbish... but he's wonderfully entertaining.

"Rubbish" is an inadequate description. Anyone who makes the fun of disabled children should be shunned from any sort of praise.

What relevance does comments on disabled kids have to Niky's comments about Clarkson's views on cars?

 

[Ven0m]

I rarely agree with Clarkson, but he is hilarious. Leno's car collection is stunning, I just can't stand the denim shirt.

 

[niky]

Imperfections make cars perfect. I remember that editor of EVO magazine once compared his reviewing strategies of a car review to an aeroplane review. A Cessna aircraft would be horrible if it had sudden, dangerous rotation in mid flight! Meanwhile, a Honda S2000's unstable performance while driving at higher RPM makes the car what it was. It's called "character". It's highly subjective, and somehow a particularly more evident or important vector to consider when reviewing automobiles rather than, say, aircraft or boats.

Lots of things influence the character of a car. Sometimes virtually everyone loves the character or presence a car expresses, while a tiny fraction of people despise it. That's what makes me love discussing cars with friends. Discussing the cold mechanics of a car of interest is great, but it's the character that surpasses all of this and makes us love or hate it.

If there is one thing that seems to change the character of a car more than anything is it's history or achievement. This is so strong that cars such as the GT40 are almost considered objectivly good or legendary. In the same way, what the McLaren F1 was, what it achieved, made it a piece of automotive history. It pivoted the viewpoint of what a focused sports car should be. It was a pure driving car and nothing else.

And yet, there are people who don't like a car's character.

Sudden mid-corner rotation? Sounds exactly like the Genesis Coupe. A car that I think is decent, but which I dislike because I don't like its... character.

I think the Ford Focus RS is the bee's knees. Yet there are motoring writers I respect who hate it. And there are a number who hate the S2000, too. And a lot of people whom I respect who hate the MX-5.

True, but that's not my point. I couldn't take an aircraft engineer seriously if he called the Concorde disappointing.

What about the Veyron? I think it's an ugly looking pig of a car, but it's undeniably an engineering masterpiece.

-

Should point you to Chuck Yeager's autobiography... he's flown a lot of engineering marvels over the past few decades... but some of them were outright dogs.

It doesn't matter if a car or plane is historically significant, amazing or whatnot. If you don't enjoy the subjective experience of driving or flying them... you don't. It's that simple. Now the criticism of the person missing the point would be valid if they simply took a Nissan GT-R or a MiG 15 for a simple drive around the block, but if they were doing track time or aerobatic maneuvers? Not so much.

(Mind you... the only problem with the MiG 15 was that it wasn't a very stable gunnery platform)... but it was clearly just as good as the F86 Sabre... as Chuck narrated in a mock dogfight they conducted with the two jets... the better pilot always won...