It took a while.
Poll up!
PS: I mixed up Formula Un and Formula Uno. Formula Un was the Ricky Bobby reference (when the French guy can't pronounce "one").
Poll up!
PS: I mixed up Formula Un and Formula Uno. Formula Un was the Ricky Bobby reference (when the French guy can't pronounce "one").
Name the FOTA breakaway series
Having looked at a few threads about this in other forums, I've compiled a list of suggested names. Some fun, some serious. 
What would you name the new FOTA breakaway series (if it materialises)?
What would you name the new FOTA breakaway series (if it materialises)?
Last edited by samjh, .
Oh, I'm not "dissing" Boeing. As I pointed out in my previous post, their 777 has a good safety record (it's statistically better than the A330).
What I am saying is that Racer X NZ is blowing the A330 incidents out of proportion. Relatively speaking, the A330 is a safe plane, as is the 777, when compared with other aircraft of similar category.
You're over-reacting. There are other planes which better fit the "Ford Pinto of the sky" mantle, like the MD-11.
Having a quick look at its incident records, not counting criminal incidents and a pre-production test flight, I see that only 2 of its 5 major incidents were with reputable operators (Qantas and Air France), with the remainder run by Malaysia Airlines, Philippine Airlines, and Air Transat (a convicted shoddy maintainer). A good record given its popularity and age.
If I compare it to the Boeing 777, I can see that 4 of 5 major incidents (except hijackings) were with reputable airlines (Emirates, two BA, and United). Fortunately, the 777 has suffered only one fatality. Another good record.
But if you compare the A330 to the other major competitor in the market, the Boeing 767, the Airbus wins hands down by a factor of more than 2. In other words, the 767 has twice as many incidents per aircraft in service, and more than twice as many incidents per year in service. Even considering that the 767 is a decade older, it's an alarming rate of incidents (not to mention fatalities!).
The A330 could have a problem with its flight control software, but there is no substantive evidence for that. It's true that such ideas are speculative. What do you expect? Ground one of the most popular passenger jetliners in the world because of a dubious diagnosis? Particularly considering that it is an aircraft with a highly-regarded safety record in the industry?
Investigate the problems and fix them. I say "yes" to that. Witch-hunting? No, thank you.
Personally I'd rather fly in an A330 than a 767, 757 (another safety shocker), MD-11, or A340.
Last edited by samjh, .
It's not over until the spanked man sings.
It will be very tough to arrange a new championship in just six months, but I guess FOTA has the strings to pull for that. FOTA will just need to steer clear of the contracted F1 tracks.
The remaining question is the legal battle between Ferrari and Red Bull on one side of the bar, and CVC and FIA on the other. Mosley insists that Ferrari and RBR are contractually obliged to compete, while Ferrari insists the contract has been voided. Even if the legal battle is lost by Ferrari and RBR, it probably won't dint their intention to compete in a break-away series.
Hamilton has already expressed his exasperation at the politics of F1. If there is a racing series of similar standards and less politics, I think he will step away from F1 and do the alternate series.
It will be very tough to arrange a new championship in just six months, but I guess FOTA has the strings to pull for that. FOTA will just need to steer clear of the contracted F1 tracks.
The remaining question is the legal battle between Ferrari and Red Bull on one side of the bar, and CVC and FIA on the other. Mosley insists that Ferrari and RBR are contractually obliged to compete, while Ferrari insists the contract has been voided. Even if the legal battle is lost by Ferrari and RBR, it probably won't dint their intention to compete in a break-away series.
Hamilton has already expressed his exasperation at the politics of F1. If there is a racing series of similar standards and less politics, I think he will step away from F1 and do the alternate series.
Yes, there was the controversy. But not everyone has followed F1 that long.
Quite a tough one this time!
May your 100 scandinavian women all look like... Helga:
Great idea.
Or they could title-sponsor the new FOTA breakaway series, which will be called, iFormula Nano -- featuring all-aluminium and glass bodies available in nine different colours (which must be interchangeable by snap-on bodywork). All races will be televised live via iTunes.
That explains their plain-white paint job, then.
I would love to see the Brawn painted completely winter-white, with a small black Mac logo on the nose, and only one huge button on the steering wheel.
A bit hard to hear, but here's a YouTube video of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkD35mz8Rxg
The incident was during qualifying at the Spanish GP last year. Nick was forced off the track by Timo Glock.
I think perhaps even McLaren might forgive him for swearing on radio.
Some years ago, I seem to remember Nick Heidfeld giving someone a finger (JPM?), then his engineer comes on radio and says, "Err.. Nick, you're on TV".
Some years ago, I seem to remember Nick Heidfeld giving someone a finger (JPM?), then his engineer comes on radio and says, "Err.. Nick, you're on TV".
No-one's suggesting it's Button's fault.
The problem isn't Button's performance, or even the Brawn's performance. It's the lack of performance from the other cars. There are lots of drivers pushing their cars to the thin edges of their performance envelope, but no other car is fast enough to mount a firm challenge against the Brawns.
The problem isn't Button's performance, or even the Brawn's performance. It's the lack of performance from the other cars. There are lots of drivers pushing their cars to the thin edges of their performance envelope, but no other car is fast enough to mount a firm challenge against the Brawns.
I don't fancy seeing that many 908s, but some hybrids should be nice to see. A much better contribution to the development of alternative propulsion than F1's ridiculous KERS poop.
Interestingly, I've just found out that Panoz ran a hybrid in the Petit Le Mans (the Panoz Q9) in 1998, qualifying and finishing second. Battery technology wasn't good enough back then, so the cockpit was half filled with batteries.
Be fair on the FIA. They've ruined a lot of things, but they have done much to enhance motorsport safety (partly due to pressure from prominent campaigners like J Y Stewart).
That is the craziest wall layout I've seen since the 1980s. Surely even Mexico can afford water barrels and plastic barriers? The track surface looked really rough and uneven too.
That is the craziest wall layout I've seen since the 1980s. Surely even Mexico can afford water barrels and plastic barriers? The track surface looked really rough and uneven too.
Barrichello has the experience and consistency to stick to 2nd. Vettel is still testing his own limits, and will definitely make more mistakes.
Brawn and Button like to understate their car's performance, always saying something like how the rest of the field isn't so far behind, how Button isn't happy, etc. It's a BS ploy for their future sponsors. The Brawn is comfortably superior to any other car on the grid, and every driver and team knows it. Only wet races give it any trouble, but even in the wet, it's still faster than all but the RBR.
Brawn and Button like to understate their car's performance, always saying something like how the rest of the field isn't so far behind, how Button isn't happy, etc. It's a BS ploy for their future sponsors. The Brawn is comfortably superior to any other car on the grid, and every driver and team knows it. Only wet races give it any trouble, but even in the wet, it's still faster than all but the RBR.
They didn't actually. It was the 009 Aston Martin. Stewart Hall was excluded for crashing another car, which left only Harold Primat and Peter Kox to drive. Then Primat spun and crashed out. Result: DNF on lap 252.
David Richards is not happy about the situation: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76192
Congratulations!
Now be prepared. Your life as you know it, is over!
It might be just the way that American media portrays violence. I sometimes get the impression that Hollywood and others of similar ilk present violence as a "cool" thing in itself. That's not a recent phenomenon. It's been going on for decades. I haven't seen anything similar in other countries or cultures.
In the US media, good guys are often just as reckless and destructive as the bad guys. But I can't recall any major movies or TV shows in other countries which show the good guys using as much mindless violence as those featured in US media (except comedies or war movies).
There has to be a source for that. And I think that source is not one particular "thing", but a cumulation of factors over the course of American social development.
Although I admire America's pride in being "the land of the free", I think American people are generally prone to the "I'll do whatever the **** I want" type of attitude, moreso than people from other countries. If you combine such an attitude with all the social woes of today, plus alchohol and drugs, and finally, weapons (including firearms), the result doesn't look nice.
I also wonder about America's firearms culture. In the days of the colonies, firearms were undoubtedly essential for agriculture, self-defence, and defence of communities. But as law and order, and military organisation grew, firearms would have had less utility as essential tools. Perhaps over time, the firearm was turned from being a tool of defence and hunting, and more as a tool of leisure. Did this bring about a more blase attitude toward firearms and their usage? Although I agree with the principles behind the Second Amendment, I wonder if America was too free about firearms?
I bring up Switzerland again. It's a country with a staggering number of firearms. Many of those firearms are automatic rifles for military service, the type that even most avid American gun-nut wouldn't be able to own. Yet the rate of gun-related violence is very low there. Is it because the Swiss have a stronger sense of purpose about firearms and take them more seriously than Americans? After all, in Switzerland, dad's SIG550 is a tool for national defence, not a play-thing.
In the US media, good guys are often just as reckless and destructive as the bad guys. But I can't recall any major movies or TV shows in other countries which show the good guys using as much mindless violence as those featured in US media (except comedies or war movies).
There has to be a source for that. And I think that source is not one particular "thing", but a cumulation of factors over the course of American social development.
Although I admire America's pride in being "the land of the free", I think American people are generally prone to the "I'll do whatever the **** I want" type of attitude, moreso than people from other countries. If you combine such an attitude with all the social woes of today, plus alchohol and drugs, and finally, weapons (including firearms), the result doesn't look nice.
I also wonder about America's firearms culture. In the days of the colonies, firearms were undoubtedly essential for agriculture, self-defence, and defence of communities. But as law and order, and military organisation grew, firearms would have had less utility as essential tools. Perhaps over time, the firearm was turned from being a tool of defence and hunting, and more as a tool of leisure. Did this bring about a more blase attitude toward firearms and their usage? Although I agree with the principles behind the Second Amendment, I wonder if America was too free about firearms?
I bring up Switzerland again. It's a country with a staggering number of firearms. Many of those firearms are automatic rifles for military service, the type that even most avid American gun-nut wouldn't be able to own. Yet the rate of gun-related violence is very low there. Is it because the Swiss have a stronger sense of purpose about firearms and take them more seriously than Americans? After all, in Switzerland, dad's SIG550 is a tool for national defence, not a play-thing.
LOL @ three posts with same content.
Leave off Ferrari, RBR, and STR. The FIA reckons they're contractually bound. The teams don't think so.
Equating Mosley with Hitler is a bit harsh. Yes, his father was a card-carrying fascist, but that doesn't necessarily mean Mosley is a Nazi.
He has an odd taste in sexual fantasies, however.
F1's future lies in the hands of Herr Spank and the Poison Dwarf.
Newsflash! The day has come: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76045
It looks like the FIA and most of the FOTA teams are going to dispute the list on the basis of contractual obligations. Ouch! This could be a very lengthy battle.
He has an odd taste in sexual fantasies, however.
F1's future lies in the hands of Herr Spank and the Poison Dwarf.
Newsflash! The day has come: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76045
It looks like the FIA and most of the FOTA teams are going to dispute the list on the basis of contractual obligations. Ouch! This could be a very lengthy battle.
Last edited by samjh, .
Nice try but no cigar.
Australia has not had a civil war. Australia became a federation and achieved independence from Britain via the mighty pen and some political defiance.
QUITE different from the US.
You show a distinct lack of knowledge of the subject matter. The Second Amendment wasn't added to "strengthen the Americans in their struggle for independence from the British Empire". The Second Amendment was first penned four years after the Treaty of Paris and the end of the American War of Independence! The US Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, eight years after the war. You're way off the mark.
The real reason for the Second Amendment was to deter the federal government from tyrannical rule. The Anti-Federalist proponents specifically worded it to enable individual citizens (as opposed to "people" as a collective) to possess and bear firearms to enable resistance against tyranny. The "individual rights" interpretation was most recently affirmed by the US Supreme Court in the case of DC v Heller. There are certain permissible restriction to the Second Amendment, such as prohibition against military-style parades and open carriage of firearms, restrictions against convicts and mentally ill, etc. And in most US states, gun control laws are quite stringent, requiring criminal history checks, appropriate licensing and tracking of firearms, and prohibitions against high-capacity or "assault"-type weapons.
As I pointed out earlier, the proliferation of firearms does not equate to high incidences of homicides. Even in the US, there is no definitive cause-and-effect between stringent gun laws and rates of homicide. Don't confuse correlation with causation.
PS: I did not say "history". I said "culture". They are not necessarily related, although I took to the liberty to answer your demand with some historical statements.
Last edited by samjh, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG