They didn't have 808's back in the day, so why would they compare a bike from back then with 808's on? The other thing is, you're not getting 808's on that Lotus - unless you go back and get the very first model that had rims with an outside width of 25mm and even then it'll be a squeeze. It's literally about comparing old kit that we once loved to the new kit that we may think is a bit silly.I said this a while ago: for at least a few years, GCN have mostly been a compromised infomercial joke, who are beholden to their sponsors. They escape too much flack because they seem like top blokes who present stuff pleasantly and with some humour. I don't believe for a second that their sponsor's "aero", regular road bike is faster than that Lotus. Hambini poked fun at it at the time.
Their bike comparison tests annoy me, because it's too much about the wheels and tyres. They compare modern bikes with super-aero wheels and fast tyres to old bikes with parachute wheels and **** tyres, then say, "see? This new Canyon is WAY faster". They're reluctant to compare an old bike with 808s to a new bike with 32-hole, round-spoked Open Pros and old Gran Prix tyres.
Sure, it's meant to be harmless entertainment, but plenty of newbies go away thinking they need to spend 6 grand on an aero frame to keep up with their plonker mates on their Sunday morning coffee shop ride.
My 2010 Cracknfail SuperSix HiMod maxes out at 25mm wide rims and 23mm tires. Not enough space in the forks to fit 25's on a 25mm outside width rim.
They have done tests with older TT bikes and newer wheels and kit. It recall they dug up a Hotta from somewhere and had some fun with it.