McLaren MP4 'outperforms rivals'

VirginPower wrote:

Evo_ermine wrote:

Why is it biased advertising spin?

Well, it's subtle bias, borne, I suspect, of a mild over-excitement and favouring of the brand. It's not a big deal, except that the title is another example of Autocar's tendency to create tabloid headlines to either entice simple-minded readers, or dispense a bit of benign propaganda.

If you don't appreciate that, then either you are blind to the hyperbole that's sometimes contained within this website, or I'm imagining it.

Ideally a journalist purges his articles and their headlines of anything that exaggerates or hints at some substance contained within that turns out not to exist. There was a bit of substance in this, but, you see, poopie-plops, the 'outperforms' bit was the advertising bit, as it gave the impression to the simple-minded reader that on key figures such as acceleration, et cetera (all terribly important, I'm sure you'll agree), the McLaren Silly-Name was displaying a clear performance advantage over its competitors. It probably will do so, but you'll have to wait and see.

High-speed stability is not a 0-62 time, and as all we pals herein know, the latter is a very, very important parameter. Perhaps the most important ever in my whole life.

Call me an egotist and a patronising ***-face if you want, but one of us is right, and, in my humble opinion, it's always me. Having established that as immutable fact, I can now move on to your second pained petition.

It comes as scant surprise to one, considering the ministry I've had to provide regarding the principles of proper journalism, that you misquote my previous guidance as to the latest thinking on standing-start acceleration times.

I previously used the word 'hypercar' where you have naughtily, and deliberately (you buggering-smooshy-bum) replaced it with the word 'supercar'. Now, the more refined minds, using this website to either read or actually write what I write, will have accepted this as more of a bouncing-off point, one might coin: A bouncing-off point. We were - and I feel aggrieved to be forced to impart this so flagrantly - to take from this a new definition of a subset of variety - the hypercar - and then run with it while bouncing it.

This pointless argument, as you so sweetly call it at the end of your five-thousand-word paragraph regarding itself (that positively brimmed with delightfully forthright jellybeans) should not continue a moment more. Not a moment more! There are too many cars out there upon whom I must convey the exegesis of my fulgent scrutiny. Too many!

Indeed, this is one of the reasons why it is so vital that a car submitted before me for mine eye to rest upon its countenance should fulfil my briefs stoutly and do 0-62 very, very quickly. I have to get around at great speeds otherwise I could miss something, leaving gaps in the flow of information and analysis coming out of me and into you.

I'm afraid I will not be able to list for you the hugely increasing number of cars that achieve 0-62 in under 3 seconds until the 'wees' of whom you speak, who await my list, number, in total, not including women, at least ten wees. If you can prove to me that there are ten wees waiting, the list will follow almost immediately.

Don't in any way interpret this as an indication that the Koenigsegg E-T, Ultimo GTC 830, Maximillion G-Force, Bugatti Veyron, Capston TT, Dauerger 962 Le Champs, don't exist, as I promise you that I can prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that that they do. You, and ten wees remember, must first make up your mind whether you want me to one day provide that list, or if anyway it doesn't matter so sod it 'cause you don't care all of a sudden again.

Now, you bounce off and have a good think about that, fluffy-wind-tunnels, and don't hesitate to come a-moaning once more if you've still failed to grasp it in, shall we say, a fortnight?

We are very pleased with ourselves while saying nothing and amusing everyone with our frippery gayness.