Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful?

#21

Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Again: there are no major British motor manufacturers in F1.

Phil, you could delete the last two words of that sentence and it'd
still be correct.

pete
--
pete (AT) fenelon (DOT) com "it made about as much sense as a polythene sandwich"

#22

Pete Fenelon wrote:

Quote:

Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
Again: there are no major British motor manufacturers in F1.

Phil, you could delete the last two words of that sentence and it'd
still be correct.

Did you stop reading at that point? Because that was the next thing I
wrote ;p

--
Phil

http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html

#23

AC <alancx (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

And wasnt it Ron Dennis who says that if it looks right it will go
right. (Actually I think he was quoting someone like Ken Tyrrell.)

And I think it was Denny Hulme who said "mate, if she wins she'll be
the most beautiful bloody car in the world".

pete
--
pete (AT) fenelon (DOT) com "it made about as much sense as a polythene sandwich"

#24

On Jan 25, 2:17 pm, Pete Fenelon <p... (AT) fenelon (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Phil Newnham <pnewn... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
The way the rules are stacking up, unless there's a change of plan the
aerodynamicists will all be clutching P45s in a couple or three years
anyway.
Well it'll be a virtual spec-car formula soon, the main differentiators
were tyres, aero and electronics and they're all going to be rigidly
controlled!

Now some of the best single-seater series are spec-car (GP2, Champcar
now, Atlantic, A1GP...) but F1 damn well should *not* be.

It won't be - because of the amounts of money involved. Rich teams will
always be able to afford research, and if there's not much room for
play in aerodynamics or tyres then they'll look at reliabilty,
rigidity, preparation, efficiency of weight saving in the energy
recycling systems or in using IT systems for simulation to supplement
their testing.

Besides, CART for some years has been very restrictive in terms of
regulations, but at different times we have seen Penkse, Lola and
Reynard gain the upper hand.

#25

Luigi Topolino wrote:

Quote:

...FAH, LOW, THE, MUH, KNEE.
Isn't there a SOL between FAH and LOW?

--

"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."
Even if a Finn is driving?

#26

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:46:43 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>
wrote:

Quote:

Luigi Topolino wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:33:23 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:
Pete Fenelon wrote:
Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
The way the rules are stacking up, unless there's a change of plan the
aerodynamicists will all be clutching P45s in a couple or three years
anyway.

Well it'll be a virtual spec-car formula soon, the main differentiators
were tyres, aero and electronics and they're all going to be rigidly
controlled!
...and replaced with regenerative braking systems. *Yawn*.

Now some of the best single-seater series are spec-car (GP2, Champcar
now, Atlantic, A1GP...) but F1 damn well should *not* be.
F1 has always been about how to go as fast as possible within the rules,
and if the rules get closer and the racing gets closer, people probably
won't object to that. But if there's no real difference between one team
and the next, I'd hope that people would complain en masse. Perhaps too
much to hope for, though.

...FAH, LOW, THE, MUH, KNEE.

The rules changes are being driven by Mad Max, who has some idea of F1
that matches up with just about no one else, and the manufacturers, who
can see a way to do a load of R&D work on stuff they'll have to do soon
anyway, and get free advertising as a payoff. If nobody watches it,
though... how long will they remain interested?

Pull your head out already, Phil: The rules changes have driven by an
insular manufacturing cabal that stands to profit greatly by Ye Olde
Royale Spec Formula One Flying Circus.

--

"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."

#27

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:50:08 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>
wrote:

Quote:

Luigi Topolino wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:17:01 +0000, Pete Fenelon <pete (AT) fenelon (DOT) com
wrote:
Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
The way the rules are stacking up, unless there's a change of plan the
aerodynamicists will all be clutching P45s in a couple or three years
anyway.
Well it'll be a virtual spec-car formula soon, the main differentiators
were tyres, aero and electronics and they're all going to be rigidly
controlled!

Now some of the best single-seater series are spec-car (GP2, Champcar
now, Atlantic, A1GP...) but F1 damn well should *not* be.

Agreed.

...Thank the BMIA, kids.

Again: there are no major British motor manufacturers in F1.

There are dozens of major component manufacturers who stand to profit
very handsomely from Ye Olde Royale Spec Formula One, who indeed have
a powerful lobbying association and who have successfully dictated the
horrific descent of F1 into just another yabbo spec series.

....Bloody tossers.

--

"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."

#28

Luigi Topolino wrote:

Quote:

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:46:43 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:
Luigi Topolino wrote:
...FAH, LOW, THE, MUH, KNEE.
The rules changes are being driven by Mad Max, who has some idea of F1
that matches up with just about no one else, and the manufacturers, who
can see a way to do a load of R&D work on stuff they'll have to do soon
anyway, and get free advertising as a payoff. If nobody watches it,
though... how long will they remain interested?

Pull your head out already, Phil: The rules changes have driven by an
insular manufacturing cabal that stands to profit greatly by Ye Olde
Royale Spec Formula One Flying Circus.

How? When the contract workers, suppliers and consultancies all survive
because the constant high pace of development throws so much work in
their direction, what value a spec formula? Bugger all - a paltry ECU
contract that will result in the construction of about 50 per season.
The BMIA is an association of small companies that make parts for the
motorsport industry and it is in no way in their favour to make fewer
parts. If you really think that the awarding of a couple of small
contracts to make spec bodywork in any way makes up for the loss of
constant making and remaking of parts, then you don't understand the
economics at all. Not really surprising, given that you've never been to
the Autosport International show and seen what these companies actually do.

--
Phil

http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html

#29

Luigi Topolino wrote:

Quote:

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:50:08 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:
Luigi Topolino wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:17:01 +0000, Pete Fenelon <pete (AT) fenelon (DOT) com
wrote:
Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
The way the rules are stacking up, unless there's a change of plan the
aerodynamicists will all be clutching P45s in a couple or three years
anyway.
Well it'll be a virtual spec-car formula soon, the main differentiators
were tyres, aero and electronics and they're all going to be rigidly
controlled!

Now some of the best single-seater series are spec-car (GP2, Champcar
now, Atlantic, A1GP...) but F1 damn well should *not* be.
Agreed.

...Thank the BMIA, kids.
Again: there are no major British motor manufacturers in F1.

There are dozens of major component manufacturers who stand to profit
very handsomely from Ye Olde Royale Spec Formula One, who indeed have
a powerful lobbying association and who have successfully dictated the
horrific descent of F1 into just another yabbo spec series.

No, they don't. They will lose. The fact that they are already queuing
up for contracts is just an indication that they know they're about to
lose, and they want whatever scraps remain when the rules change. What
do you think they do, currently?

--
Phil

http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html

#30

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:58:28 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>
wrote:

Quote:

Luigi Topolino wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:46:43 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:
Luigi Topolino wrote:
...FAH, LOW, THE, MUH, KNEE.
The rules changes are being driven by Mad Max, who has some idea of F1
that matches up with just about no one else, and the manufacturers, who
can see a way to do a load of R&D work on stuff they'll have to do soon
anyway, and get free advertising as a payoff. If nobody watches it,
though... how long will they remain interested?

Pull your head out already, Phil: The rules changes have driven by an
insular manufacturing cabal that stands to profit greatly by Ye Olde
Royale Spec Formula One Flying Circus.

How? When the contract workers, suppliers and consultancies all survive
because the constant high pace of development throws so much work in
their direction, what value a spec formula?

No development costs plus increased volume = greater profit.

Quote:

Bgger all - a paltry ECU
contract that will result in the construction of about 50 per season.

Conspicuously directed to one of the ailing UK competitors.

Quote:

The BMIA is an association of small companies that make parts for the
motorsport industry and it is in no way in their favour to make fewer
parts. If you really think that the awarding of a couple of small
contracts to make spec bodywork in any way makes up for the loss of
constant making and remaking of parts, then you don't understand the
economics at all.

"Bodywork"? WTF ...Transmissions, calipers, disks, clutches,
pistons, cranks, valves, cams, shocks, tubs, wheels, fuel injection
systems, cells, looms, undertrays, wings and HRH underwear.

Quote:

Not really surprising, given that you've never been to
the Autosport International show and seen what these companies actually do.

Under the current scheme eventually everything but the engine blocks
and heads, and Ferrari's tubs will be sourced with designated
manufacturers in England, or be banned.

....Thank the bloody British, kids.

--

"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful?

Formula 1 Formula 1 motor racing discusions (rec.autos.sport.f1)

Re: Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful? - 01-25-2007 , 01:28 PM

Re: Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful? - 01-25-2007 , 02:14 PM

Re: Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful? - 01-25-2007 , 04:53 PM

Re: Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful? - 01-26-2007 , 08:42 AM

Re: Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful? - 01-26-2007 , 08:52 AM

Re: Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful? - 01-26-2007 , 12:24 PM

Re: Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful? - 01-26-2007 , 12:28 PM

Re: Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful? - 01-26-2007 , 12:58 PM

Re: Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful? - 01-26-2007 , 01:02 PM

Re: Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful? - 01-26-2007 , 01:17 PM