Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Top Gear Megathread! Mark II
- Thread starter CortexRock
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Top Gear is not a car show anymore. Hasn't been for a while. It's a show about three older middle aged guys who happen to faff about doing car stuff.
I'd love to drive an Atom some day but I'd never buy one. I certainly don't really, really care that it's a little faster doing figure 8s on some abandoned airfield out in the sticks than a Veyron SS or an Enzo.
I was expecting one of the boys to knock themselves out ramming a building. If you've ever been in an APC/IFV that's on the losing side of a physics contest with a building, you figure out right away why their helmets are better than yours.
Also, totally awesome that they sprinkled music from Kelly's Heroes through the show.
Shame they had to do yet another hatchet job on EVs... 
And it's a shame James May, for a man who seems intelligent, is not able to understand that it takes more electricity per unit to produce hydrogen fuel than it generates, not to mention the additional risks in storing, transporting and refueling with the stuff.
How hydrogen fuel cells are a sensible alternative to an EV or hybrid engine when the average daily commuter journey in the UK is less than 30 miles I'm not quite sure.
And it's a shame James May, for a man who seems intelligent, is not able to understand that it takes more electricity per unit to produce hydrogen fuel than it generates, not to mention the additional risks in storing, transporting and refueling with the stuff.
How hydrogen fuel cells are a sensible alternative to an EV or hybrid engine when the average daily commuter journey in the UK is less than 30 miles I'm not quite sure.
The issues they brought up with plug-in EVs are legitimate. The current generation are effectively designed for urban use only both due to the maximum usable range per charge and that the batteries operate best when used within 50% of capacity before recharging.
True, most trips are well within the 50% range of plug-in electrics and if your workplace has a recharging facility, so much the better. But if you want to "get away" for the weekend, chances are you will need to rent a petrol-powered car.
The EVs I feel have a solid future are ones like the Chevy Volt. It has an onboard petrol engine to power a generator to extend the range, but because it is not a hybrid, that engine can be designed for maximum efficiency as a generator and you save the weight and complexity of having two propulsive units.
As for hydrogen, I see it having two big advantages over plug-in EVs. The first is that refueling works effectively the same as petrol. Yes, I understand the specifics are different (hydrogen needs to be stored under pressure or cryogenically in a liquid form), but the principle is the same. You have a tank and when it runs out, you refill it in a matter of minutes, not hours. And the second big advantage is that because it works like petrol, you don't have to adjust your driving style using hydrogen like you do with electric.
True, most trips are well within the 50% range of plug-in electrics and if your workplace has a recharging facility, so much the better. But if you want to "get away" for the weekend, chances are you will need to rent a petrol-powered car.
The EVs I feel have a solid future are ones like the Chevy Volt. It has an onboard petrol engine to power a generator to extend the range, but because it is not a hybrid, that engine can be designed for maximum efficiency as a generator and you save the weight and complexity of having two propulsive units.
As for hydrogen, I see it having two big advantages over plug-in EVs. The first is that refueling works effectively the same as petrol. Yes, I understand the specifics are different (hydrogen needs to be stored under pressure or cryogenically in a liquid form), but the principle is the same. You have a tank and when it runs out, you refill it in a matter of minutes, not hours. And the second big advantage is that because it works like petrol, you don't have to adjust your driving style using hydrogen like you do with electric.
Usual anti EV agitprop that we've come to expect from Top Gear.
Constructing a "legitimate test" to somewhere they know that the battery will run out & hasn't got any commercial charge points. Knowing that will take all day to charge.
That's its a real world test which is fair enough, but if you owned one of these vehicles you'd probably check that before you left on your journey. These cars clearly have range issues, again fair enough, but they don't bother to point out that 90% of car journey's are less than 100 miles.
But the thing that really gets on my nerves is that they see no future in electric Cars which you can buy now based on battery technology, that will evolve. Then bang on about hydrogen being the solution despite the total lack of commercially available hydrogen vehicles let alone hydrogen filling stations.
Anyway Putting that aside the film about the Afghanistan veterans was great, few awkward moments with the old Stig though.
Constructing a "legitimate test" to somewhere they know that the battery will run out & hasn't got any commercial charge points. Knowing that will take all day to charge.
That's its a real world test which is fair enough, but if you owned one of these vehicles you'd probably check that before you left on your journey. These cars clearly have range issues, again fair enough, but they don't bother to point out that 90% of car journey's are less than 100 miles.
But the thing that really gets on my nerves is that they see no future in electric Cars which you can buy now based on battery technology, that will evolve. Then bang on about hydrogen being the solution despite the total lack of commercially available hydrogen vehicles let alone hydrogen filling stations.
Anyway Putting that aside the film about the Afghanistan veterans was great, few awkward moments with the old Stig though.
Hmm... not the most fun episode, was it?
Wan't the first time TG ditched a new Lambo for being too "good". The last time JC described it for being to "Audi-ish".
The known limitations of the EV's exposed of course. TBO, it must be hell having to live with those battery powered cars.
I just wonder.. if all of the diesel an petrol powered cars were to be replaced by these batteries on wheels and all of these cars had to be charged up at night... where will all the electricity come from? The amount of electricity used must be huge! Best for all towns and cities to have their own nuclear power plant, eh?
Must say: Those Afghan veterans are very brave people! Hope they get to Dakar and back!
Wan't the first time TG ditched a new Lambo for being too "good". The last time JC described it for being to "Audi-ish".
The known limitations of the EV's exposed of course. TBO, it must be hell having to live with those battery powered cars.
I just wonder.. if all of the diesel an petrol powered cars were to be replaced by these batteries on wheels and all of these cars had to be charged up at night... where will all the electricity come from? The amount of electricity used must be huge! Best for all towns and cities to have their own nuclear power plant, eh?
Must say: Those Afghan veterans are very brave people! Hope they get to Dakar and back!
Really Anti-EV or realistic? How are you able to so accuratly check the range as you hope to make it between charging points. Getting stuck in traffic, having to take a diversion to avoid road closeure or simply taking the wrong turn may result in not getting to the next charge point. In the film it was not just somwhere without a charge point, it was the whole county.
They have still not made a good electric car. I can't wait to that day.
I don't think electric cars are cost-justified at the present time, even if they are practical for short journeys.
Personally, I hope that the range issues are solved, and fast charging stations become common - because I'd much rather own an electric than an internal combustion vehicle.
I just wonder.. if all of the diesel an petrol powered cars were to be replaced by these batteries on wheels and all of these cars had to be charged up at night... where will all the electricity come from? The amount of electricity used must be huge! Best for all towns and cities to have their own nuclear power plant, eh?
Use of electricity drops significantly during the night when everyone is asleep. There is a large amount of spare electricity generating capacity at that time, and using power stations for more hours of the day will make them more efficient.
You do realise that oil refineries are one of the largest users of electricity, don't you?
Like I said, I know what I'm getting into. I find the show entertaining more often than not. The SIARPC segment acutally touched on this point unintentionally...Clarkson asked Louis Walsh whether he listened to the music his boy bands produced. "No", replied Walsh, "that is what I sell". Same goes for Top Gear. They might be petrolheads at home, but their product is a moneymaker and for that they desire a broader appeal. Top Gear is the boy band of the automotive journalism world.
Shame they had to do yet another hatchet job on EVs...
I think Top Gear is biased against EVs, but I also think that being green is so faddish these days that some of the flaws in green autos are not treated seriously enough. The TG segment did highlight one very obvious problem with the EVs: current limitations on battery technology impose certain design penalties on current EVs, and this results in short range, long charge times, limited battery pack life and high cost versus gasoline and diesel designs. You may not like it, but these are totally valid points, although they shouldn't be news to anyone. At this time, EVs are still uncompetitive with respect to the petrochemical-powered automobile. They are carving out a niche, no more. And there is as yet no guarantee that batteries will ever be good enough to match the performance of gasoline/diesel cars. (The ultimate answer is probably changing our habits and driving less, thus adapting to the limitaitons of EVs).
Hydrogen holds some promise but suffers from almost the exact same problem as EVs - the "battery", in this case the fuel cell. They have a limited lifespan, are very expensive, and as yet are not even as commerically viable as the battery packs in hybrids and EVs.
I don't think Top Gear are out of line by pointing out that today's best alternative energy cars are still far behind the ideal. Their criticisms have been made before by much more objective and well-informed sources. This technology is still in its infancy and there is no guarantee that it will ever match the performance of fossil fuel-powered cars in terms of simplicity, reliability, range and cost. Also, until we make our electricity grids much cleaner, these EVs are still essentially coal-powered.
Top Gear's boys might hate the idea of a future of little EVs, but reality will probably be worse than they suspect i.e., far less cars and less driving in general.
Last edited:
Exactly. An EV might work if you can plan on getting from point A to point B with no traffic and no detours. Anyone who drives to and from work every day knows that's not always the case.
I know my daily round trip commute is X miles and takes Y minutes. If X is less than the range of an EV, that's all fine and dandy. But what if there's a bad accident on my route home and I have to take a detour (which happens once every couple months). Now my drive is longer. Now I might go beyond the range of my EV.
If I happen to check the traffic report before I leave work and know that the highway I take is closed, then perhaps I could stay at work until the accident is clear and the road reopens - but let's be honest, who wants to do that?
I don't think Top Gear is biased against EVs. If EVs could go as far as gas powered cars, could be charged in 5 minutes like gas powered cars, and didn't have to have expensive batteries replaced after 5 years like gas powered cars, I don't think they would have a problem with EVs (although Jeremy might complain about the lack of noise
). But yesterday's episode showed a very real problem with EVs that's going to prevent them from becoming mainstream.
EV range is around 120 miles. Most people seem to drive 30 miles or less to work. What is X in your case, and how much 'comfort factor' do you require?
The 'Y minutes' factor isn't as relevant as the distance. EVs are more efficient when they're going slower, and take little power when stuck in a traffic jam.
I don't think Top Gear is biased against EVs. If EVs could go as far as gas powered cars, could be charged in 5 minutes like gas powered cars, and didn't have to have expensive batteries replaced after 5 years like gas powered cars, I don't think they would have a problem with EVs (although Jeremy might complain about the lack of noise
I haven't seen the episode yet, but I understand that in the UK we'll soon have a network of fast chargers which will restore full charge in about an hour. I also understand that the battery life situation isn't anywhere near that bad.
I think it's a shame that Top Gear isn't excited about electric cars. They seem to have a lot of characteristics that are superior to petrol (potentially including speed and torque). They're certainly a lot simpler to run and maintain - and that can't be a bad thing. A lot of the exotic cars that TG love have their own share of impractical attributes.
Personally, I'm hoping to see range-extender cars become popular (an electric car with a small efficient petrol driven electric generator in the back). Seems like a good compromise of the two technologies... I don't like the drive train complexity of the current hybrid models.
They are certianly simpler in terms of numbers of moving parts. The problem lies with the fact that, though simpler, the electric drivetrain is still heavier, more expensive, and wears out much faster.
Diesel serial hybrids are probably the best technology compromise at the moment - very efficient, easy and quick to refuel when necessary, less complex than hybrid dual-drive and a smaller, cheaper battery pack than an EV. Still quite expensive though.
Though simpler the technology seems to need to be more advanced in terms of power management to get best efficancy.
In terms of driving to work, or just the shops, fair enough, but I want a car that can do more than that, visit friends or places that are more than 30 miles away.
I am still unsure about charing points, if you consider the amount of cars pulling into a petrol station on a major road/motorway and think if they all had to wait a very optimistic 1 hour charge (I do not mind waiting 1 hour if it is a pleasant location) how many charging points you would need.
Right now electric cars are a bit like the first petrol cars.
In terms of driving to work, or just the shops, fair enough, but I want a car that can do more than that, visit friends or places that are more than 30 miles away.
I am still unsure about charing points, if you consider the amount of cars pulling into a petrol station on a major road/motorway and think if they all had to wait a very optimistic 1 hour charge (I do not mind waiting 1 hour if it is a pleasant location) how many charging points you would need.
Right now electric cars are a bit like the first petrol cars.
They're not journalists. They're entertainment presenters. Jeremy even made a joke about it this episode.
Well, at least two of them are journalists. I like the show, I think they are up front about their format. Still won't stop me from criticizing on random forums though.
That got me questioning the claim, and lo, you are correct.
Here is a link to some full EV and dual cars. (Sorry, if this has already been posted.)
I like the Ford Focus Electric, both for range, charge time and 4-doors.
Fast chargers kill the battery though. So instead of having the battery lasting 10 years, it would last around 5 years as the episode stated last night. Which is why GM set it up where you can't charge the Volt via a fast charger to preserve the batteries longevity.
Yes, and their motivation for that is the battery warranty.
If it wasn't for that, they could care less about what method you use.
More replacement battery sales for them.
More replacement battery sales for them.
It wouldn't work that way though, because EV battery packs cost as much as the entire drivetrain of a gasoline or diesel-engined car. People would balk at a $3000+ battery pack replacement after just three to five years.
Still, if they were foolish enough to quick-charge, then rebuff the cost of a new battery as a result, they would be left with a pile of modern art.
And that is why few people are buying EVs in the first place - the initial cost is high, and manufacturers are being vague about the cost and lifespan of the battery packs. Consumers don't have a lot of confidence in this drivetrain yet.
Yes, and their motivation for that is the battery warranty.
If it wasn't for that, they could care less about what method you use.
More replacement battery sales for them.
Customers using fast chargers would probably be excluded under the warranty. Warranties cover defective parts and fast charging a battery would be considered normal wear and tear.
There is that, but even looking at those factors optimistically, the cost/benefit is still hard to justify. Buying an electric car, you're swapping a low initial cost/moderate running cost (petrol car) for a high initial cost/(hopefully) low running cost model (EV). The only way you'll achieve cost parity is if you do big miles, and the low fuel cost compensates for the high initial cost.
Yet big miles is the one thing it's difficult to do in an EV, or at least it will be if range issues are not solved.
Putting some concrete figures to this... I worked out that using £1.40/litre petrol in a 42mpg car (mine), I could buy over 95,000 miles worth of petrol for the £15,000 premium I'd have to pay for an electric vehicle. Even if electricity were free, that break even point would be difficult to achieve just doing short commutes.
That said, outside of the sensible family hatchbacks of this world, most people spend a lot more on their car than is strictly necessary to get from A to B, so cost/benefit isn't the only selling factor out there. I really like the technology.
If you're going to quote 'facts', it might be good to find a non-Top Gear source. I love the program, but I don't trust them on this subject. I think we've already established they were in 'entertainment' rather than 'journalism' mode during this segment.
(Not that I think fast charging has no impact... I'd just like to see the figures from an independent source)
Why then are a lot of the EV car manufacturers offering their customers free/no strings fast charging at their network of showrooms (Nissan most notably)? They recognize the 'range anxiety' issue, see a network of fast charging stations as the answer (helps them sell more cars too), and have set about providing what they can on their own premises.
Last edited:
Because all they are doing is offering a way for EV owners to charge up quickly. But, it doesn't mean they are going to replace the battery because owners killed it by fast charging it for free under warranty.
EDIT: I can't find any credible article that states the effect of fast charging on a batteries longevity. So I will retract that statement.
Last edited: