Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful?

#41

Luigi Topolino wrote:

Quote:

narrow-minded,
self-serving, jingoistic chauvinism over and over

Add "Ferrari know-nowt" and that describes Lardboy to a T

--
Paul-B Formula 1 - cheat-free version coming soon.

#42

Luigi Topolino wrote:

Quote:

The "argument" is snipped because it's the same narrow-minded,
self-serving, jingoistic chauvinism over and over: The gainsaying of
any thought that doesn't reinforce the opinion that whatever England
does to F1 in the foolish attempt to salvage some shred of national
pride if not dignity is jolly well played.

Bollocks. You have no evidence, not a shred, that the MIA is behind the
rule changes. Your one and only "proof" is the awarding of a puny
contract for ECUs to a company that isn't even in the MIA. The argument
you snipped is your own dogma - follow the money, or the lack of it. Who
wins big from spec F1? The manufacturers. Who are in bed the most with
the FIA? The manufacturers, first Ferrari and then the others when they
saw just how much they could save. They're lining up to sing the praises
of spec F1 because it means they don't have to throw money at stuff that
only benefits the racing - now they can have all that as spec and only
spend money on things they can use on the road. The economy that
surrounds F1 will get smaller as the manufacturers bring this
development in house for patent reasons, and the MIA will suffer the
most. The only reason the MIA is even discussed here is because you keep
blaming F1's problems on it without any proof or reference for your
claims whatsoever, despite being very quick to call for it from others
(duck/duct tape). PPOR, FFS.

--
Phil

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

#43

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:09:25 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>
wrote:

Quote:

Luigi Topolino wrote:
The "argument" is snipped because it's the same narrow-minded,
self-serving, jingoistic chauvinism over and over: The gainsaying of
any thought that doesn't reinforce the opinion that whatever England
does to F1 in the foolish attempt to salvage some shred of national
pride if not dignity is jolly well played.

Bollocks. You have no evidence, not a shred, that the MIA is behind the
rule changes.

Again: "Follow the money".

Quote:

Your one and only "proof" is the awarding of a puny
contract for ECUs to a company that isn't even in the MIA. The argument
you snipped is your own dogma - follow the money, or the lack of it. Who
wins big from spec F1? The manufacturers.

Nonsense.

When everything must be sourced from certified components
manufacturers, and we know they will be English, the only thing the
real manufacturers will make is their logos.

SEE NASCAR.

--

"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."

#44

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:50:30 +0100, address (AT) in (DOT) sig (ric zito) wrote:

Quote:

Luigi Topolino <tifoso (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote:
...Thank the bloody BMIA, kids.

...when you've lost,

Lost?

snip argument

"Argument"?

You fixed your position on this and all matters involving the British
reduction and desecration of Formula One years ago.

Sorry Mark, but "mwahahahahahahaha!"
If that isn't a P calling a KB, I'll eat my chapeau.

The none so subtle distinction being I have been opposed this vile
fascism all along: Formula England is NOT a good thing, foolish
jingoism and bigotry aside.

--

"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."

#45

Luigi Topolino wrote:

Quote:

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:09:25 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:
Luigi Topolino wrote:
The "argument" is snipped because it's the same narrow-minded,
self-serving, jingoistic chauvinism over and over: The gainsaying of
any thought that doesn't reinforce the opinion that whatever England
does to F1 in the foolish attempt to salvage some shred of national
pride if not dignity is jolly well played.
Bollocks. You have no evidence, not a shred, that the MIA is behind the
rule changes.

Again: "Follow the money".

Where is it going? Chapter and verse. And again, don't give me this ECU
crap, it's irrelevant.

Quote:

Your one and only "proof" is the awarding of a puny
contract for ECUs to a company that isn't even in the MIA. The argument
you snipped is your own dogma - follow the money, or the lack of it. Who
wins big from spec F1? The manufacturers.

Nonsense.

When everything must be sourced from certified components
manufacturers, and we know they will be English

Wrong, and wrong. "Everything" will not be spec, and we do not know
anything of the sort - only one contract has been awarded and not to a
member of the MIA.

<, the only thing the

Quote:

real manufacturers will make is their logos.

The real manufacturers have a vested interest in developing regenerative
braking systems etc. which is what they will do, themselves where
possible so they own the IP. Everything *else* may well end up being
spec in which case it will cost pennies not millions. This is where the
money you are claiming to be following is - the millions saved by the
manufacturers because they can buy spec parts. How much will it cost to
go racing in spec F1 vs. how much it does now? How much of the saving
will come from paying suppliers significantly less money over the course
of the season? Are you getting it yet?

--
Phil

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

#46

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:17:16 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>
wrote:

Quote:

Luigi Topolino wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:09:25 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:
Luigi Topolino wrote:
The "argument" is snipped because it's the same narrow-minded,
self-serving, jingoistic chauvinism over and over: The gainsaying of
any thought that doesn't reinforce the opinion that whatever England
does to F1 in the foolish attempt to salvage some shred of national
pride if not dignity is jolly well played.
Bollocks. You have no evidence, not a shred, that the MIA is behind the
rule changes.

Again: "Follow the money".

Where is it going? Chapter and verse. And again, don't give me this ECU
crap, it's irrelevant.

Into the hands of a group of fabricators and manufacturers who are in
the good graces of Bernie, MAx, Dennis, Williams, et al. The chosen
ones get stable and lucrative contracts and the team owners get a
windfall profit as costs plummet and ad revenues increase with Chinese
and Indian viewership.

Quote:

Your one and only "proof" is the awarding of a puny
contract for ECUs to a company that isn't even in the MIA. The argument
you snipped is your own dogma - follow the money, or the lack of it. Who
wins big from spec F1? The manufacturers.

Nonsense.

When everything must be sourced from certified components
manufacturers, and we know they will be English

Wrong, and wrong. "Everything" will not be spec, and we do not know
anything of the sort - only one contract has been awarded and not to a
member of the MIA.

Nonsense: Engines are already spec in all but name, dimensions
strictly dictated, materials strictly constrained. Customer tubs will
argue and urge spec transmissions and suspension componentry, and spec
brakes will be rammed through as a safety consideration.

Quote:

The real manufacturers have a vested interest in developing regenerative
braking systems etc. which is what they will do, themselves where
possible so they own the IP. Everything *else* may well end up being
spec

Might be your idea of heaven, but it's the hell I've been warning of
for years.

Quote:

in which case it will cost pennies not millions. This is where the
money you are claiming to be following is - the millions saved by the
manufacturers because they can buy spec parts. How much will it cost to
go racing in spec F1 vs. how much it does now? How much of the saving
will come from paying suppliers significantly less money over the course
of the season? Are you getting it yet?

I certainly do understand the economies of scale, along with the price
fixing "efficiencies" of monopolies: No one on the inside will go
hungry in Formula England, that's for damned sure.

....Pity about the racing, eh wot?

--

"...Luigi follow only the Ferraris."

#47

Luigi Topolino wrote:

Quote:

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:17:16 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:
Luigi Topolino wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:09:25 +0000, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:
Luigi Topolino wrote:
The "argument" is snipped because it's the same narrow-minded,
self-serving, jingoistic chauvinism over and over: The gainsaying of
any thought that doesn't reinforce the opinion that whatever England
does to F1 in the foolish attempt to salvage some shred of national
pride if not dignity is jolly well played.
Bollocks. You have no evidence, not a shred, that the MIA is behind the
rule changes.
Again: "Follow the money".
Where is it going? Chapter and verse. And again, don't give me this ECU
crap, it's irrelevant.

Into the hands of a group of fabricators and manufacturers who are in
the good graces of Bernie, MAx, Dennis, Williams, et al. The chosen
ones get stable and lucrative contracts and the team owners get a
windfall profit as costs plummet and ad revenues increase with Chinese
and Indian viewership.

The names of the manufacturers that you speak of are BMW, Mercedes,
Honda, Toyota, Renault and Ferrari. All else only exists in your mind.

Quote:

Your one and only "proof" is the awarding of a puny
contract for ECUs to a company that isn't even in the MIA. The argument
you snipped is your own dogma - follow the money, or the lack of it. Who
wins big from spec F1? The manufacturers.
Nonsense.

When everything must be sourced from certified components
manufacturers, and we know they will be English
Wrong, and wrong. "Everything" will not be spec, and we do not know
anything of the sort - only one contract has been awarded and not to a
member of the MIA.

Nonsense: Engines are already spec in all but name, dimensions
strictly dictated, materials strictly constrained. Customer tubs will
argue and urge spec transmissions and suspension componentry, and spec
brakes will be rammed through as a safety consideration.

And who makes these "spec" engines?

Quote:

The real manufacturers have a vested interest in developing regenerative
braking systems etc. which is what they will do, themselves where
possible so they own the IP. Everything *else* may well end up being
spec

Might be your idea of heaven, but it's the hell I've been warning of
for years.

I don't like it either, but I'm not spending my entire time pointing at
a blameless third party and ignoring Max and the manufacturers, lead by
your favourite team, leading the charge towards it.

Quote:

in which case it will cost pennies not millions. This is where the
money you are claiming to be following is - the millions saved by the
manufacturers because they can buy spec parts. How much will it cost to
go racing in spec F1 vs. how much it does now? How much of the saving
will come from paying suppliers significantly less money over the course
of the season? Are you getting it yet?

I certainly do understand the economies of scale, along with the price
fixing "efficiencies" of monopolies: No one on the inside will go
hungry in Formula England, that's for damned sure.

Economies of scale and price fixing are hardly relevant here; the
suppliers will be told what is required and asked to bid for the
exclusive contract, and the FIA will choose - there will be no excessive
profiteering when there are so many capable companies all chasing one
contract. Again you have it arse backwards - the driving seat here is
with Max, Bernie and the manufacturers, not the suppliers, who will be
asked politely to bend over and take it, or forget the contract, just as
the circuits are currently.

--
Phil

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

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? - 01-31-2007 , 04:01 AM

Re: Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful? - 01-31-2007 , 05:09 AM

Re: Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful? - 01-31-2007 , 05:12 PM

Re: Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful? - 01-31-2007 , 05:14 PM

Re: Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful? - 01-31-2007 , 06:17 PM

Re: Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful? - 02-02-2007 , 09:14 AM

Re: Ugly Cars are inherently slow and / or unsuccessful? - 02-02-2007 , 09:23 AM