Top Gear break a classic

[rdjones]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...io/2999634.stm

silly silly boys

[chezza]

Well that was a bit silly!

Wonder who was driving it?!

[ensign14]

According to the Telegraph, Perry McCarthy, one of the Stigs.

[ljakse]

Why silly?
Do you watch them regulary? Yes? Then you know what their test drives look like, and you know that if you give them your car it might get damaged.

[chezza]

Silly that they damaged the car, of course there is always a risk when they do that but with a classic you would have thought they might have been a bit careful!

Doesn't surprise me with Perry, he's a nutter!

[Cynic]

Perhaps he was so excited to get to drive a car befor Biela got hold of it, that he got a bit carried away!

[Mr V]

If i owned a £1 million pound car there is nooooooooooo way i'd allow one of those nutters to drive it, the owner has only got himself to blame

[garcon]

Right. Let's get this straight.

Mr Whingeing Fkwit, aka Adrian Hamilton, seems to be creating a whole fuss over nothing.

For a start, the "damage" is a worn out rear tyre, knackered clutch and (he claims) a twisted drive shaft.

The BBC said, "Production staff made clear to Mr Hamilton that the nature of the programme meant the car would be driven hard. Mr Hamilton readily agreed to this."

From the story, there is no suggestion that the BBC have refused to pay for any wear & tear or repairs. 'Hard driving' (as anyone who's done a track day will confirm) does involve a certain degree of wear and tear. If Mr Hamilton doesn't realise this, then perhaps he should sell his pride and joy to a more deserving enthusiast.

The BBC said "Top Gear had no intention of causing distress to Mr Hamilton and is currently in discussion with him about covering repair costs."

So obviously they're willing to at least help towards the costs, as I'm sure they do with every car they wreck... er, I mean feature. For kicking up such a stink, I hope they tell him to off.

[429CJ]

I would not borrow my car for somebody looking like it odd-named Mr. eye-bags, whatshisname.

[ensign14]

Driving hard is fair enough, that's what the car was built for. But doing doughnuts in a D Type? What does that achieve?

[garcon]

Didn't see that programme - is that what they did??

[rdjones]

As far as I know it hasn't been shown yet, maybe it's on this week......

[Ian Smith]

Having just read Perry McCarthy's book "Flat out-Flat Broke not only is he a nutter he is a whinging nutter, But it did have it's funny moments Ho-Hum.

[rdjones]

I have also read the book, which I dif enjoy, I have also heard speak at Le Mans over the last 2 years and I can confirm the guy is as mad as a hatter.......

[Cynic]

Perry seems to have a thing for breaking cars. He seemed to wreck every Formula Ford he ever drove, and I'm fairly certain he was responsible for the demise of the Panoz film car at last years LeMans. Maybe it's a good job he didn't get a chance to drive the car this year.......

[Craig]

That's too funny! What a miserable prat! What did he expect? If he was concerned about possible damage then he should have agreed a suitable compensation arrangement when offering the car.

[429CJ]

Anthony ffrench-Constant, that was the name I was after! That's the guy, I never'll borrow my car for.

[TimD]

Got to disagree with those who think it was part of the rules of lending a car out to expect that sort of thing. This is a fifty-year old historic racing car, and it is going to require a modicum of mechanical sympathy. It is not a toy to be hooned around for the sake of a couple of wacky camera shots and a bit of notoriety. Adrian Hamilton is hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to historic cars - his machines get raced regularly. But they get raced by people who know that in order to successfully compete, you don't knacker a driveshaft doing burnouts or something. I have to say, if Top Gear's producers can't tell the difference between a unique historic car and a motor out of some company's road test pool, then they have no business asking people to lend their cars for the sake of their television show.

In the old days, Tiff Needell used to get entrusted with peoples' cars for Top Gear - a Jim Clark Lotus 25, a Mercedes W154 silver arrow, the Rover BRM turbine Le Mans car spring to mind. He reported them fairly, gave them a hearty workout within the limits of the machinery, and made some great television in the process. He kept the manic driving for humble Ford Focuses and Rover Tomcats. I have to say, if Top Gear's policy is different now, as it seems to be from the evidence of recent programmes, I do not blame Adrian Hamilton for being a very aggrieved man indeed.

[Andrew Kitson]

Totally agree Tim!

[Lee Janotta]

Perry, Perry, Perry... Get some practice before you drive stick again!

You can hammer an old car around the track all day without causing a bit of damage. That sort of damage is just disgraceful. Was he trying to do burnouts?!

[garcon]

I have to say my little outburst higher up the page does kind of presume they weren't playing the hooligan with it. Causing some damage by perhaps accidentally overdoing it is one thing - doing donuts in a 50 year old classic is something else entirely. I guess we'll have to wait to see the programme before passing judgement on that.

However, if they did abuse it, then I agree, Mr Hamilton does have room for complaint (though if it was his idea to make such a fuss of it in the media I'm afraid I don't like his style).

[touringlegend]

Had this "Mr Hamilton" never watched Top Gear before? Surely he should of thought what they do before HE offered them the car.

In saying that though, whoever "drove" it should realise to be gentle with these cars (and I thought they built them better in those days!)

[Adam43]

Originally posted by garcon
Right. Let's get this straight.

Case settled then.

There is driving hard, but everything needs to be considered fairly.

Now I don't know how much the paper made of this for a story, but clearly a 1950s C was not designed for donuts.

You can drive a car hard in ways that it was designed for. Is this a misunderstanding about what that car can/should do? Shows a lack of knowledge to a certain extent.

Clearly a car like that should and can be shown on Top Gear because of it's inherent value. A car like that doesn't have to be donuted or destroyed to be impressive. After all it's not a Renault Clio.

TimD is spot on. There is a difference and it is so obvious it hurts.

Settled?

[EvilPumpkin]

Tim I do understand what you're saying, but I still have to question how this happened. If I had a car worth £1M - or even one worth £1 as long as I loved and cherished it - I would not offer it to anyone - least of all Top Gear unless a) I had a chance to talk to whoever was driving it and ensure they were aware of the care it needed and what was expected from them and b) I would expect to be there when it was being driven so I could intervene if I felt these conditions were not being met.

Clearly this wasn't done so the question has to be what did he think was going to happen? A lot of people here have made comments about how a car like this should be treated with the assumption that everyone knows that. I'm sure everyone here saw the program where Clarkson's car was given to the Stig? Did everyone see the very genuine "blood draining from the face" expression when he realised they weren't joking? Top Gear have a certain way of dealing with cars. If you don't want them to do that, then it is your responsibility to see that they don't.

I do sympathise with him, but at the same time, I really don't think the amount of media coverage that has been given to this issue depicts this gentleman in a very good light either.

[Nordic]

There was no reason to drive the car in the fashion done in the program, I however think the matter that irked Hamilton was Clarkson at the others refering to Hamiltons father being drunk when he was driving the car to its historic win.