Quote from NitroNitrous :

Actually is more entertaining than F1, at least they overtake and seem to be kinda aggressive. I wonder why all of them become pussies when they arrive to F1.

Bigger stakes in F1: higher speeds, more cost for repairs, and much more difficult to overtake due to aero.

A season for injuries. First Massa, now Glock.

Quote from speedykev :

This is my dog. and Her name is cher.

Does she sing?

Quote from NSX_FReeDoM :

I just realised Andy Priaulx, Ben Collins and James Thompson are racing at Bathurst 1000 this weekend

Priaulx = 25th
Collins = 24th
Thompson = 17th

Not bad for a bunch of aliens.

Quote from Stefani24 :

And they're cute as hell.

Only when they're kittens. The cuteness of cats are inversely proportional to their age.

Dogs for me. They're loyal, because they like being in l33t clanz.

Depends on the car and environment, but as a general rule of thumb: more revs and less throttle. This is both more efficient and economical (in terms of fuel used vs work done).

I used to drive a minibus across the hinterland. With a vehicle like that, you learn to love torque and lower gearing.

Very nice comparison, Amp888!

Instead of spinning in little circles before crashing into a wall, he can now spin in big circles.

Quote from Mustafur :

indy is filled with alot of ex f1 drivers these days.

Eh? If you mean ex-F1 test drivers, then there are a few. But ex-F1 race drivers?

Quote from Falcon140 :

Only Senna could kick so much ass wearing loafers.

Did they stick a picture of an ass on that accelerator pedal?

I read a rumour that Honda engineers had to modify their F1 engine's throttle to accommodate Senna's unusual pedal manipulation. Anyone know if that's true?

Oh, a video (Senna at Monaco 1987): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si1vHHOP14A

Quote from Minimaxman :

... and despite having a bus pass, he could still drive like the wind.

That reminds me. In one of his posts at motorsport.com, he told a story about how as a youngster, he used to drive his church bus to pick up parishioners for church services. He would take the bus out on icy days and drift it around empty lots, sparking his later talent as a rally driver.

Interesting old geezer.

F1 on-board footage of the Nordschleife circuit in the 1960s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xez2zks5Rxw

Gilles Panizzi at the Nordschleife in a Peugeot 206 WRC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBt4EETtaF0

Gigi Galli doing a crazy drift:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewxrNSOKFow
(Ex-Grp.B driver, Pentti Airikkala -- who passed away last week with cancer, RIP -- commented on motorsport.com forums that this was the fastest way to take such a corner. Insane.)

And speaking of Pentti:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY6_FwXSMU4

Quote from NotAnIllusion :

I'm curious about the specifics. I found that (paraphrased): It's illegal because the viewer ought reasonably to know that an unauthorised decoder is being used to give someone else access to encoded content (The BBC stream, before it reaches the TV station).

My take is that watching unlicensed content via a pirate medium is illegal if the viewer knows or has reason to believe that the broadcaster is not licensed to show it. Whether it is prosecutable, is a different matter.

Quote from NotAnIllusion :

It's a bit confusing, as I'm not sure what "reasonably" constitutes to. A person with little technical knowledge could well not be aware that an "unauthorised decoder" is required to provide the pirate stream of a free-to-air broadcast.

It depends on whether the reasonable-ness test is objective or subjective. An objective test is: "would a reasonable third-party person have known?", whereas a subjective test is: "should the defendant have reasonably known?".

The difference is subtle and significant. A reasonable third-party person might know that an illegal decoder is being used, but the defendant may be too ignorant or not be in a position to know that the decoder is illegal. Which is more just?

Quote from Storm_Cloud :

And so they should. F1 is a valuable commodity to them, as witnessed by the large TV contracts that exist.

Watching "pirate" feeds is a bit like stealing your neighbour's car. Just because you don't like him and you really want to drive his car doesn't make it right.

Indeed, F1 is a valuable commodity.

However, your analogy with a neighbour's car is... unfitting. It's more like watching a DVD being played on your neighbour's television through your window, without your neighbour's permission.

Quote from NotAnIllusion :

A Swiss person who has paid their TV fee can freely watch a pirate stream of a Swiss TV broadcast. They cannot legitimately watch a pirate BBC stream, because they have not paid the BBC TV fee.

The Australian scenario is more interesting.

F1 coverage in Australia is provided by Channel Ten, a commercial free-to-air television broadcaster. They have a digital channel, One, which provides live coverage of the F1 races. The source of their coverage? The BBC!

So... is it legal for an Australian person to watch a pirate stream of the BBC coverage? Is it legal to watch a pirate stream of One's coverage, remembering that it is basically a live relay of the BBC feed?






(The answers to both questions are: illegal and illegal.)

Last edited by samjh, Fri, 2 Oct 2009 13:58.

Quote from Noccy :

edit : meh just as I post this all channels seem to have died...hope it comes back up as I managed to watch last weekends race and todays FP1 on it without a problem

It's probably the FIA Gestapo. They're extremely efficient at sniffing out F1 live feeds and assassinating them with a high-powered shot of Cease and Desist.

Quote from chrissawyer21 :

Lewis Hamilton is far better than any other driver in Formula One. He is ridiculously good.

Hamilton is ridiculously good. But you went out on a very long and slender limb when you said he is "far better than any other driver in Formula One".

Congratulations on a good test. Hopefully you can make the move up sooner, rather than later.

Quote from tristancliffe :

It'll be quite amusing if Ferrari are off the pace next year, and Renault are challenging for the title...

With Symonds and Alonso both out, I think the chances of Renault doing better than Ferrari are quite slim.

Quote from Intrepid :

McLaren LOVE Kimi so that'll be interesting as well.

But Kimi hated McLaren's corporate dictatorship over his personal life. If Haug and Whitmarsh can resist the temptation to dictate Kimi's choice of hair-style, the amount of drink he consumes at parties, or his choice of pole-dancer, then they'll get along just fine. Ron Dennis was unable to control those urges, hence the break-up.

Alonso at Ferrari... hmmm. He and Massa aren't exactly bum-buddies. But I'm sure that Montezemolo would have made it very clear to Alonso what his place is in the team. That was the problem at McLaren - promise of #1 status which never came.

OK. I see what happened now. I suppose he overestimated the speed difference and thought he was clear of the Porsche.

What happened there? Did he hit a bad bump? It looks like that car went spontaneously airborne.

Quote from ATC Quicksilver :

Numero uno baby!

You usurping sod!

Oh well, I'm still second, and well within reach of your buttocks. :fence:

Driver of the Race? Me says Glock. Runner-up, Alonso. Honourable mention to Vettel.

Dufus of the Race? Me says Sutil. Runner-up, Trulli. Honourable mention to Rosberg.

Quote from AjRose :

Hoping Vettel can pull something off tomorrow

Considering how heavily-fuelled Lewis is, and the fact he is armed with KERS, I think the best Vettel can do is play catch-up. That doesn't mean Lewis can't be passed via pit stops, but I won't be holding my breath for it.

Just what happened to Jenson Button?!

You wouldn't want to live right next to a race track, no matter how much of a car freak you are. I live within 100m of a major arterial road, and it often gets quite noisy just from ordinary traffic. The constant growls of racing engines would be extremely irritating.