P4N Lotus Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 What's he playing at Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_edeson Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 And where has he done this then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4N Lotus Posted May 22, 2013 Author Share Posted May 22, 2013 See his top gear column Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_edeson Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 http://www.topgear.com/uk/jeremy-clarkson/jeremy-on-fixing-lotus-column-2013-04-22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin R Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Normal Clarkson trying to be controversial. Drumming up interest for the new series of Top gear? However a fair bit he says about Chapman is correct. He was a genius. he also turned this into tax avoidance. He should maybe have worked for Google? Clarkson should stick to just reviewing cars. However this is the last thing Top Gear is actually about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stik Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Pffft, Clarkson is good at writing things in a blunt and convincing manner that still manages to be entertaining, i don't think you can ever believe much of it though. Suspect in all his work he leaves out a lot of the facts for the purpose of making the piece simple and coherent (and amusing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Chapman was ahead of his time. He invented tax avoidance before it became popular with all the major companies. Genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scuffers Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Well, you can argue semantics and some of the finer detail, but essentially, he is correct. Lotus is dead in the water unless somebody does something bold (and finds a very large bag of money from somewhere) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyfox Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Well, you can argue semantics and some of the finer detail, but essentially, he is correct. Lotus is dead in the water unless somebody does something bold (and finds a very large bag of money from somewhere) I don't see how it can be taken any other way, especially with Caterham, Renault and Alpha now joining the fray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanP Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Top gear - oh, that's the tv program I used to watch before all the YouTube channels started producing better information and more entertaining content. Is it still going? That's quaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chorton_1 Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 I quite liked the article - basically true and a bit of a wry line at the end about yet another series of top Gear in a similar format.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the DustRoom Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 They kept on making the Elise in various guises until it started to feel old-fashioned and a bit rubbish. Then they kept making it some more. I really don't see how the Elise is old-fashioned at all and it's certainly not rubbish. I find this comment really quite odd given that every time JC takes an Elise/Exige out he says it's incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveW Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 The Morgan business model works well enough, and is based on low volumes driving demand. Lotus appears to have (has) unsustainable overheads so will only survive in the longer term with serious trimming and realistic production numbers. I really hope that Lotus does survive though, and despite what Clarkson thinks, the Elise is still a modern chassis design, even by todays standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.