There's no way of getting out of paying O2 I'm afraid. I moved house to a place with Sky already (not so bad), I got stung with £70 odd for leaving O2.

The same happened to me before I moved house. O2 were great for a while, but eventually they just got slower and slower at peak times.

There's no point complaining to them, because they don't consider it unsatisfactory until it's as slow as dial-up.

Further report on Autosport

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73809

Potentially some good news.

I really hope the FIA is forced to back down here.

Quote from JJ72 :

Actually it reminds me of a season where senna won the championship despite having less points, he won because the rule states that only a number of the best scoring races count towards the championship (I forgot how many), Prost was more consistent and Senna had more DNFs, however counting the best races only, Senna won, nobody seem to have a problem with that.

People did have a problem with that, a lot of people couldn't understand why someone with more points didn't win.

Think about points as a form of AVERAGE speed and you'll start to see that the person with the most points could be considered the fastest driver over the course of a year.

Quote from tristancliffe :

So would relying on a sensible points system that rewards winners without shutting the drivers that are not quite regular winners (e.g. Kubica 2008) out of the championship battle. Sure, statistically the consistent drivers rarely actually win the championship, but they are often an extra thing for the main protagonists to keep an eye on.

Remember Frentzen in the Jordan (in 2000?) sneaking up on the championship win without anyone noticing? Not going to happen anymore.

Remember Kubica or Coulthard or <insert an almost limitless number of drivers over the years that have scored a lot of points without a lot of wins> who have nearly upset the game? No longer.

Sure, once or twice you get the situation like Brazil where Hamilton was happy to flump around in 5th, but isn't that part of the strategy?

Would you like Tennis if only the aces counted, and normal points were, essentially, removed? No. Would you like Cricket if only boundaries counted? Would you like Snooker if only the Black counted?

It's a daft rule, and clutching a recent events (Brazil) to justify it as being okay is silly. They should have gone to 13,8,... or returned to 10,6,... points - a large incentive to win, a large points haul for the win, but an opportunity to still work towards the championship when wins aren't possible.

Good Lord, I've found myself agreeing COMPLETELY with Tristan.

I haven't found a single person here at work that agrees with it, I'd say any possible chances we had of a championship win are gone.

How it would have changed history - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73069

Can't say I like either of the new rules at all. Extra points for first place was a much better idea.

I'd love to see them try to police the cost cap. I predict every team signs up for it, because they know they'll be able to get around it.

I really would love to play those old versions. The screenshots remind me of Odyssey by Car, which is still a lot of fun.

What year was that video recorded?

If it was during the last traction control 'ban' then he definitely will have had traction control. It was only now the standard electronics have come in that there is really a lack of traction control.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Within the 'factors of ten' allowance I added? I don't think a chassis would cost £30m, so I'm okay

Ah, didn't see that clause.

Quote from Rocabiliz :

@DevilDare
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi ... /F1_team_budget_split.svg

Rough idea of how it is.

I don't really agree with that at all. For a start, Renault have claimed that their driver wages constitute almost 20% of their budget (which you can choose to believe or not. And I highly doubt the engine costs make up 50% of an F1 budget, when you consider that many of the teams have budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds and may buy their engines from other teams.

From experience, I'd say pretty much everything on that list costs considerably more. Unless perhaps you're on Force India's budget.

Quote from UncleBenny :

Yes, that last one is what I have been saying F1 needs all along. Fast cars are going to be fast and slow cars are going to be slow, I don't see how the new regulations are going to change that. If they had to pit more often because of smaller fuel tanks and the tires lost grip quicker, it would add some strategy that is missing from F1 right now..

No! They already have to pit, and consequently the only position changes are when people are pitting.

What F1 needs is a ban on pitstops. Do you drive like hell at the beginning of the race then try to hold your position on failing tyres and an empty tank, or do you drive conservatively then go crazy at the end?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72500

They'll be back.

This isn't because of the FIA. Prodrive would be happy to run an S2000 car on behalf of Subaru, but if the parent company isn't making money they have to cut back on unnecessary things.

Subaru haven't been doing well for several years now, so staying is just wasting money with no return. Like almost all the companies pulling out now while money is tight; they'll probably be back when the economic situation is a bit better.

The hugest things at work were the ban on in-season testing and the future limits on facilities.

It's going to affect more than just the large amount of people being laid off as teams consolidate their separate race and test groups.

It'll affect the amount of development that occurs in the year.

There's a lot more to cars than what you see on the outside, and all of those parts will have been run on a test car at some point. If teams will only be able to test on a Friday then they're going to have to commit to potentially ruining their whole weekend if they make a change for the worse that cannot be undone quickly.

Teams will even be scared to test insignificant things, for fear of anything going wrong.

Nothing yet. A new car was announced, but seems to have been forgotten about.

I wondered how many people would be on both forums.

I'm about to start a year's work placement at an F1 team, and I asked my boss if he recommended reading up on anything before I begin.

He's emailed me back telling me to read up as much on KERS and all the sensors/boxes on an F1 car as I can.

Has anyone got any links for good information sources on these things? All I've found about KERS so far has had such little substance, and I wouldn't really know where to start with sensors and boxes.

It would be pretty cool to get a big LAN meet-up somewhere, but it would have to be BIG for me to consider.

We got a Eunos in the end, but I'll never be able to drive it. My Dad's insurance company won't take an under 25 on it and he refuses to leave them because he's been with them so long, even though it would be cheaper to go ANYWHERE else.

The driver should constantly be driving one handed, just in case.

A modern live axle car is very different to how you may imagine live axle in the past. So don't be too quick to flame.

Thanks for the -ahem- advice, and the hijacking. Peugeots/Citroens get a bad rep, my Xantia cost me £130 and the only problem is a dead tacho. I think an MX-5 will probably win though

Seems like MX-5s are the most popular choice.

Anyone had any experiences with 306 cabriolets?

My mum currently has a Saab 900 Turbo S Monte Carlo . It's a great car, but it's getting on a bit and the roof leaks. She was recently offered £2k by someone who has been looking for a Monte Carlo (they're rare), and she's going to accept it.

I'm trying to help her find a replacement, the criteria are: Must be under or close to £2k, must be convertible, must be slightly reliable.

So far I've thought of:

Mazda MX-5
Toyota MR2 Mk2 T-Bar - she's not too keen on the looks
MGF - too unreliable
Alfa Spider - Too unreliable
Fiat Barcetta - quite expensive

Can anyone think of any other cars that fit in that catagory?

I don't read comics, and I've heard of Watchmen.