Overtaking test?

BMW has already done it, and Heidfeld reckons it's easier to close with another car now.

Quote from Lateralus :

First Force India, now USF1, could easily be China in a few years, Japan could throw support behind a rebuilt Honda or Toyota...

Force India is driven by a German and an Italian.

Super Aguri tried to be Japanese, but the best they got was Sato. Davidson wasn't much better, but it still shows how limiting it is to pick a driver from just one country.

That pie chart is like three years old. It's obsolete.

Quote from thatguy :

Front engine design? :P

Nope, the nose houses a GAU-8 Avenger 30mm gatling gun. Notice how it is perfectly aligned with the front-rear axis so that the chassis remains stable despite the massive recoil of firing such a gun.

You should also note the presence of golden chaff/flare launchers just above and to the rear of the sidepods. Brilliance.

Quote from [UKR] Race King :

I think its formula Nippon.

Correct

Quote from ATC Quicksilver :

The Virgin left a spillage on the rumble strip after an explosion half way through.

:biggrinfl That is terrible.

I sense some irony imagining Jensen Button wearing a suit with "VIRGIN" scrawled over it.

Here come the bad jokes...

"Button was just too quick in the Virgin!"

"The Virgin performed poorly during practice."

"Hamilton! Hamilton ran straight up the rear of the Virgin, and not for the first time this season!"

Reporter: "So Jensen, your first test with your new team, Virgin. What happened?"
JB: "Well, there were some teething issues..."

Coat... hat... out...

I like this one too:

If USF1 materialises, it will need sponsors. Considering how hard large sponsors are to get these days, I'll bet they'll be looking for money-haulers than truly talented drivers. Obviously any driver they get will need to be good enough for a Superlicense, but there are plenty of those around and not all are genuinely good enough for F1 (Yuji Ide, anybody?).

Quote from gezmoor :

It's a simple case of damage limitation IMO. Yes it would be traumatic for the mother to be. But I believe that's a fair price to pay in comparison with the trauma and anguish that will be experience by the mother and her family and most importantly the unborn child by being brought in to a world that is completely unable to deal with the situation. I just don't believe that any individual has the right to be that selfish.

...

You're right, with proper care and support the child may well turn out ok. The problem is that proper care and support just doesn't exist in these sitations.

a) The child having the baby is completely incapable to provide it.
b) The parents of that child are also completely incapable of providing it, as evidenced by the fact their own child is pregnant at that age.
c) Care homes are notoriously bad places for children to grow up and have a very bad record of bringing up well adjusted members of society.

Which leaves only one other option under these circumstance. Enforced Fostering. Problem there is the safeguards again aren't good enough to ensure a well brought up and adjusted individual.

I'm all for individual freedoms but there comes a point where it has to be balanced against the right of living in a society which doesn't have mal adjusted adults causing all sorts of problems.

But I come back to my main point and that being it's the unborn child that is the most important issue and kids just have no way of giving that child a fair "chance at life". Better that they don't see that life than have to live a sh*t one, (oh and for the benefit of any Pro-Lifers out there - a womans body terminates a potential life every month of their adult life from puberty to menopause).

I think you're generalising too much about the disadvantages faced by children brought up by teenage/adolescent parents.

Yes, statistically those children will end up with higher rates of child abuse, juvenile incarceration, among other things. But looking at raw statistics doesn't teach us anything about the reasons.

This is what I mean by society being critical and not doing enough to support children born to under-age parents (and the parents themselves). We look at statistics, make generalised assumptions about the unsuitability of the under-age parents to raise their child, and the later quality of life of that child, without really looking at the causes of why children born to under-age parents suffer from problems.

Children born to under-age parents don't suffer from problems purely because their parents are under-age. Otherwise, a large proportion of children born prior to the 1960s would have turned out to be just criminals, because in those days, being a parent at adolescence or even teenage years was not uncommon. One might even say it was more normal than not. In some cultures, it is indeed normal, but their children grow up just fine in those societies.

No. It's not just the age of the parents. Since around 1950, the age of parenthood has grown later and later. These days, most people have their first children at around the mid to late twenties or thirties. Careers, tertiary education, the desire to travel and have fun, etc., push parenting out of the way until later years in life than what was previously normal. What we consider normal age for parenting is governed not by mental capacity of the parents, but by artificial limitations imposed by social patterns. Age alone is not a root cause for under-age parenting problems - it's social perception.

Obviously it's necessary to be reasonable. I'm not advocating that ANY teenager should just go out and have a baby. In fact, I'd strongly discourage it. But not really because I consider teenagers to be unsuitable parents. The reason why I would personally discourage being a parent as a teenager or adolescent is because society does a horrifyingly poor job of dealing with the issue. My secondary reason is the capability of the under-age parents, but that difficulty is not nearly as difficult to overcome as my primary reason. As long as - and this is an important caveat - the under-age parents understand and accept the responsibility they have taken upon themselves, I see little reason why under-age parenthood should be considered an evil per se.

Instead of looking at all the failures, what we should be doing is examining the successful cases of under-age parenting, and what social services and parents (of the under-age parents) can do to ensure that under-age parents have the best means of raising their child. Acceptance, education, and support, is what's needed. Demonisation, painting under-age parents (and their parents) as mentally deficient, and stigmatising children born under such circumstances as bastards certainly doesn't help at all.

Under-age parenthood is not intrinsically bad (as long as the under-age parents understand and accept their responsibility). It's only as bad as what it is today, because modern social patterns make it so. Society can either do something proactive to solve the problem, or just try to cure the symptoms like squeezing pimples off an oily face. Too bad under-age pregnancies are not as simple as an acne problem.

Sorry for the rambling - I started typing and the thoughts just kept coming. Nothing personal.

==========================

Just to add something on-topic: I feel quite sorry for the poor boy in the article, Alfie. The girl seems to know what's going on, but the boy is just completely lost. In this situation, I think an abortion could have been justified. I have a feeling that the baby's not actually the boy's, but that's a whole new can of unholy mackerels!

Last edited by samjh, Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:54.

Quote from NSX_FReeDoM :

id love to see Danica Patrick in a F1 car.
just to see how good she really is.

Judging by her record, she will be a back-marker. Even in a championship-winning car, she will do well in mid-field.

I'd like to see Ryan Briscoe in it. Completely apart from being Australian, he is the only driver in the IndyCar top-6 to have had success in Europe (Euro F3 champ in 2003). Otherwise, Scott Dixon would be a promising bet too.

Quote from gezmoor :

I think the law is just crazy if it even entertains the idea that a 14/15 year old girl has any rights when it comes to keeping a child. It's below the age of consent. By definition that means she isn't psychologically or emotionally mature enough to make the choice to even consent to sex in LAW, let alone being pregnant and giving birth !!!

Like I said, IMO kids under 16 should have no rights in this matter, (as that is the age that our society has picked, if it wants to amend it lower that's another argument). Pregnancies should be terminated as a matter of course under the age of consent as far as I'm concerned. In fact I think it should be enshrined in law that this happens. They're just kids, they need to be protected from themselves, and pissing their lives up the wall before it's even started is about as important as it gets in terms of protecting them from themselves as far as I'm concerned. To say nothing of the shit life the child is going to have.

Age of consent is to protect minors from sexual improprieties by adults, not between two minors. If two minors want to "get it on", then that's their initiative.

As for forced abortions for under-age mothers, that sounds very oppressive to me. As much as I dislike the idea of a 15 year-old having to mother a baby, forcing them to undergo abortion (which is a very traumatising experience for many would-be mothers) just doesn't seem right. The mother's parent's should at least be consulted and consent to the abortion.

IMHO, everyone should be given a chance at life. Yes, under-age parents have made a very serious mistake in life, but they aren't the only ones. With proper care and support, their children can be raised well and turn out well. The problem is the tendency for society to be critical of them without really doing much to help their situation.

My vote is for Jordan F1's snake theme:

Quote from Sponge :

The KERS system should be interesting.. I've read somewhere a mechanic almost got electrocuted because KERS made the car electrically charged...

It's no more dangerous than having a battery hooked up to the car. That accident was an engineering flaw, not a fault inherent with KERS.

Quote from DratsaB :

Don't they have test tracks?

They do.

Development cars are tested on closed tracks first, improvements (if any) made, and then sent on live tests on public roads. So this car would have already been tested on the track.

Quote from MAGGOT :

In any case, the rail itself looks pretty high. I suppose that's the optimal position for a sedan or SUV?

The rail can have two barriers: one high and one low. This rail only has one barrier: high.

Last edited by samjh, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:16.

Yup, it wedged under the safety rail. There is another photo showing the car from the front, with the rail pushed all the way up against the front seats. The driver wouldn't have stood a chance. You'd think that Autobahns would have better contrived safety rails.

Here's the pic:
http://www.faz.net/m/%7B51181C ... 3B1E4658334%7DPicture.jpg

At the risk of sounding like a crank, I wouldn't have even THOUGHT about sex at 13. At that age, just kissing was pretty special.

Anyway, the boy will need to grow up mighty quick (the dad boy, not the baby). I'm afraid he probably won't get to enjoy his teenage and adolescent years as much as he should. Having said all that, the couple needs support now more than anything else. Scoldings and lectures aren't really going to teach them anything - they're about to learn their lessons the truly hard way.

As for the girl's looks, come on guys, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I suspect that her looks didn't really register in the boy's mind at the time of the... ahem... "incident".

Last edited by samjh, Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:48.

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=19373

R.I.P.

Mechanical failure?

Take care out there, folks.

I know that lap times during test sessions can't be relied on too much. But the relative speeds seem VERY consistent at Jerez.

1st day at Jerez:

Vettel Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:22.177 61
Hulkenberg Williams-Toyota (B) 1:22.443 82
Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:22.643 58
Piquet Renault (B) 1:23.313 35

2nd day at Jerez:

Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:20.799 110
Webber Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:21.321 83
Nakajima Williams-Toyota (B) 1:21.451 125
Piquet Renault (B) 1:21.908 49

3rd day at Jerez:

Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:20.737 93
Vettel Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:20.738 92
Nakajima Williams-Toyota (B) 1:20.898 92
Alonso Renault (B) 1:21.307 133

Clearly the McLarens are fastest, but those Red Bulls look dangerously close. Renault seems really lost - Alonso will not be happy.

All the front wings on this season's cars look like they'll drop off at a touch. So fragile... and big!

The stages in RBR are heavily shortened versions of real-life stages. However the Mineshaft has been dropped as of 2008 due to safety (obviously!).

Those of us who have played RBR will be familiar with the Mineshaft special stage in the Rally of Canberra.

Well, this is what happens in real life, when you get it WRONG!
Example 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F84qcuuARP0
Example 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-en3MgMDkHY

Quote from DieKolkrabe :

The number 0 is used (e.g. Hill in 93/94) if the previous WDC retires. Although, would they still use this, or not?

And yep, I'd push for a rule that has high contrast/visibility numbers personally

Interesting note about the number 0. Thanks.

Another thing: there is no number 13... bad luck.

Ah well, I was looking forward the S2000+, but Mosley is right for once: drivers and conditions make for spectacular rallying, not just car specs.

If a World Rally Championship comprised of S2000 rally cars results in more competitors, tighter competition, and better sport overall, then go for it!

Keep in mind that people used to complain when Group B was banned and Group A became the mainstay, but Group A ended up being a good spec anyway.

But still, don't count your chickens before they hatch. Mosley might want straight S2000 cars, but the WMSC is still set on S2000+.

Quote from amp88 :

Is that a recent change? Alonso won the Driver's Championship in 2006 with Renault then moved to McLaren for 2007 where he wore the number 1.

Brainfart.

Fixed.