Comments by "Golden Croc" (@GoldenCroc) on "Top Gear" channel.

@taylor92493 Who cares if all it is, is a number on a paper? Is it a good thing to strive after "better" numbers that will not be used and cannot be used? I certainly dont think so, and if you truly do think so, I dont see why.
3
@dagnut Both true and not. The f80 is for sure more optimized than an e90, it is as you say bigger. But the marketing said it was 80kg lighter than the older one, which it did not seem to be. Also, I am sure they made an effort with this, but it is a bigger car again, it has an autobox which is heavier than a dct, and it is prepared for 4wd, something the old platform wasnt. Every car is heavy these days, I think the guilia QF was heavier than the f80 as well. The bigger M5 is well over 2 tonnes. BMWs were never light cars compared to other brands at the time, M3 has been said to be grossly overweight since the e36 back in 1993.. Bottom line, M3 is not a sportscar and never was. Its a sporty GT with 4 pretty good seats.
2
@dagnut f80 wasnt really lighter than e90 as far as I know, that was just marketing. So I guess you can say they are more honest this time?
1
@dagnut Depends on which standard you use to measure by. But real world on a scale next to a e90, they seem to be just about the same. As is an M2 as well, funnily enough. Of course some options such as sunroof can purportedly change the weight by as much as 25kg compared to a normal carbon roof by itself. Most commonly they weigh in at about 1650kg with full tank, no driver.
1
@dagnut Oh yeah, for sure. Not defending the new one, just saying the f80 weight savings compared to e90 seems to have been mostly a marketing fantasy.
1
I am wondering if a BMW M340i xdrive would not be faster (and cheaper) than both of them around this track, with this driver..... driveability counts for a lot with a lower skilled driver on track.
1
@taylor92493 No one said anything about you talking about paper. Its called a metaphor. Your reading comprehension seems sorely lacking at the moment. I see others have noted the same thing, when trying to explain your fallacy to you. I wish you good luck in the future with your studies, someday you may be able to read and comprehend the english language as well as the rest of us, even though I wont be holding my breath while waiting.
1
@taylor92493 It seems implausible that you are dense enough to miss the point so much, if not because of lacking english skills. But I will take you at your word. The only possible explanation that remains is that you are engaged in some kind of trolling, but surely there are better targets than trying to make people believe that you cant understand the simple fact that people complaining about things they have no experience of whatsoever, and never will, seems kind of stupid and is in itself pretty strange. On the flipside not many people will have the energy to reply to such an obvious "bad faith" take, which make the trolling less successful. Your reply lengths gives the game away a bit and they are also too long for most people to bother answering. May I instead suggest using shorter comments, and trying to get more of the "did too"-"did not" reply chain in motion. The only reason why I am even replying to such obvious nonsense as your comments above is that I like to practice my typing skills, but I am a bit lazy and a youtube reply is just about the right length before I lose interest.
1
@Qlicky Indeed, well put. In no place except a dragstrip is it really possible to use such acceleration. The cherry on the top is when they sometimes purport to be eco warriors, when fast acceleration means higher energy consumption and wear.
1
@taylor92493 1: What does G forces have to do with anything in this discussion. (I could go on a tangent on how rollercoasters are hilariously slow and low G here, built as they are for everyone to be able to ride them, but I will refrain.) 2: What perspective would that be? 3: Dragonball Z was a pretty good show, well the beginning was anyway. Multiple light speed typing sound pretty sweet, sign me up.
1
@taylor92493 I had another nice reply for you, but it seems like the gods of youtube put me on the naughty list for a while and removed it, guess the wording wasnt PG enough for them. 7: Hopefully the itemization will help you understand. One can only hope. Maybe even reply to the clearly defined questions I asked.
1
@taylor92493 It was quite long, and I am too lazy to type it all again. Adress the questions I had above, and maybe I will find some energy again. Oh, and if you truly would be interested in learning anything but some nice linguistics hop scotch, lets just say I know a bit about general science and vehicle kinematics... quite a bit in fact... But is there any point to me explaining anything, really? I doubt it.
1
@taylor92493 Again with the meaningless words. I really had some hope for you to go beyond idle trolling, guess I am just an eternal optimist that way. You have somewhat of a way with words, I will give you that, but it still begs the question why you talk about a subject it is obvious you know next to nothing about. Baffling, really. A good troll is more knowledgable than the one they troll, not less. Secondly, I simply asked you to define and substantiate your earlier claims. I even made a list out of them, so you couldnt pretend not to see them. But you failed even in that. Too obvious. Ever heard of FidoNet? I was trolling it when your dad was in diapers. Here is my rating for you: Language: Fair Stamina: Medium-low Offence cause: Very low. All in all, you need more practice.
1
@taylor92493 Dont see what is so funny about that comment, maybe you could explain? As someone who has studied and taught physics for decades, I am offering to help you understand the things you have gotten wrong. If you truly were interested in learning new stuff as you say you are, especially about physics, then you could have taken me up on it. But you clearly arent, you just want to write stuff. Fair enough, but its a bit transparent as I have said earlier. And no one else but me likes to reply to you any more, as you can see. You got to learn to read better: The comment was neither funny, nor did I delete it. It explained the physics of how things work one more time, since I am a nice guy. But it got deleted, probably youtube did it because it contained some kind of censored word, thats my best guess anyway. Sorry, but this has lost my interest quite a bit, I have other comments to reply to. Get back to me if you have something new to add. Or a reply to the simple things I asked earlier which are still nowhere to be found in the numerous comments you have made since.
1
@taylor92493 I am sorry, but I will have to insist on you being a bit more honest if you want any more attention. Just say the word, and I will try to help. As it is now, I cant do more than this for you. And of course my ego is large, that is a requirment of standing in front of hundreds of people having a monologue. No ifs or buts about it. Par for the course, really.
1
Isnt this the infamous guy who did the BMW M3 vs Tesla Model 3 track test? Credibility on par with spam mail from Nigerian Princes with a lot of cash...
1
@rhysholdaway Dont buy it. What about complaincy testing, how will they clear that hurdle without the massive resources of a major manufacturer. It seems unlikely that cars will be less regulated, instead of more.
1
@rhysholdaway I mean, dont get me wrong, its a nice thought, but there are binders of rules regarding bodywork and crash testing of it. Maybe they can get an exception for low volume manufacturing, as it is today. I hope you are right, I am just in a bit of pessimistic mood. Sorry.
1