Tuesday, October 26, 2010

EC Analysis of Top Gear

Top Gear Analysis
Emily Shaw
Professor Stokes
English 2010

Top Gear Analysis
In today's episode of Top Gear the guys were evaluating three old worn-out cars. Richard test drove and evaluated a Rover SD-1,  Jeremy a Jolley Sprint and James a 1978 Austin Princess. The evaluations were quite humorous incorporating several bizarre tests to determine durability and mechanical stability of these old clunkers. 
The 1978 British Austin Princess was by far the winner of the three. However, the validity of  the results is questionable because the tests were so random. One test, however, to monitor the hand brake seemed to be very effective. The cars were parked uphill and the hand breaks were pulled to see how well the cars would stay. The Princess did not roll back at all indicating an effective hand break while the Jolley Sprint rolled all the way down the hill immediately, indicating a complete failure of the hand break. In another test the cars were filled with water. The goal was to get as far as possible before the water level got below the steering wheel. The Princess again took the lead accomplishing 4,500 yards while the Sprint only went 10 yards and the Rover 1,500. This would speak volumes to how much weight the cars could hold and still accelerate. However, the holes in the Rover caused the water to leak out so fast the test could not be trustworthy to determine anything other than how airtight the vehicles were. Another test was to measure how well the cars handled vibration. Well, they all failed miserably. But this test didn't appear to be trustworthy in determining how smoothly the cars drove because regardless of the make/model the condition of any car could vary depending on how well kept it has been. 
Overall, the evaluation was not a matter of which car was truly a better vehicle. But more a competition to determine which car is the least clunkiest of these clunkers. It was extremely entertaining and fun but not a great evaluation to determine the best of the three.  

No comments:

Post a Comment