[Series 11] Top Gear


Recommended Posts

In one of todays Sunday papers it was saying that Jeremy was on 2 Million for Top Gear whilst May and Hammond were only on 350 Grand, when Hammond complained they apparently told him that's what you're getting if you don't like it you know where the door is. I think it was the Sunday People, not sure which as I read it at my dads :(

In one of todays Sunday papers it was saying that Jeremy was on 2 Million for Top Gear whilst May and Hammond were only on 350 Grand, when Hammond complained they apparently told him that's what you're getting if you don't like it you know where the door is. I think it was the Sunday People, not sure which as I read it at my dads :(

I would not believe anything those sort of papers said.

Hammond and May do all kinds of other projects though. Clarkson does Top Gear, a couple of other BBC programs, his annual DVD (which he has been doing since before TG came back) columns for the Sunday Times and The Sun (which he's done for well over a decade now), and that's it. Don't forget also that he's the one that made the original Top Gear as good as it was (it instantly went downhill after he left and only lasted a couple of series) and is the one that brought the show back in its current format. If it wasn't for him, the other two wouldn't have this job at all, or any of the others which they've had since they became famous. They should be happy with ?350,000 if that's what they're getting.

They should be happy with ?350,000 if that's what they're getting.

I would be... It looks like the pay negotiations have been resolved now anyway, the Autumn / Winter series should still have the 3 presenters.

The bullet train race was great although I am sure there will be some complaints about encouraging speeding, careless driving etc (fiddling with SatNav, putting Bill Oddie mask on).

What has happened to the Top Gear stunt man? He's only been on 2 of the 4 shows so far...

So apparently, more GT-R next week I heard?

I thought he said "later in the series"?

Loved the GT-R. Was loving the race until Clarkson just turned the sat-nav off for 45 mins. No Clarkson of course it just happened to break for exactly long enough to make the race really close. Also loads of the signs were in Japanese and English. He could have kept going instead of the comedy bit with the traffic warden, but then there wouldn't have been an exciting finish.

Also on the pay and contracts thing; they should be throwing buckets of money at the presenters. Last week is was the third or fourth most watched program pulling in 6m+ viewers. The highest program had 8m. Top Gear is also the most watched program on iplayer.

I thought he said "later in the series"?

Also on the pay and contracts thing; they should be throwing buckets of money at the presenters. Last week is was the third or fourth most watched program pulling in 6m+ viewers. The highest program had 8m. Top Gear is also the most watched program on iplayer.

Time: 20:00 to 21:00 (1 hour long).

When: Sunday 20th July on BBC 2 London (2)

Jeremy and James show off the ageing but massive luxury cars they bought for the price of a new Ford Mondeo. Meanwhile, the Nissan GT-R is given a thorough work out around Japan's legendary Fuji circuit and, straight from the Dragons' Den, Peter Jones and Theo Paphitis are the stars in the Reasonably Priced Car.

(Stereo, Widescreen, Subtitles)

Anyone know much about their wages? 300k for 6 episodes seems a bit much :|

The GT-R v bullet train race was great. One of the closest races on TG, besides the Aston Martin one.

The Ferrari 612 vs. a jet plane was even closer. Jeremy overtook them on the road of their destination!

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!