Every week I read posts from people criticizing F1.
The cars aren't what they used to be.
The tracks aren't what they used to be.
The drivers are prima donnas, and aren't as good as they used to be.
The people who run F1 (like Ecclestone) are greedy bastards and only care
about money.
I'm GLAD things aren't the way they used to be. I (and probably every driver
from the past) would much rather drive the amazing machines of today. There
was a few nice old tracks, but many are boring IMO. The one's that were nice
(like the old Spa) were ridiculously dangerous. A driver hasn't been killed
in modern F1 since 1994. The drivers today are better than ever. There is
not one sport where the athletes of the past (+20 years) can compete with
those of today. It's the same for F1. I know people have their favorite
heroes from the past (me too), but knowledge, training, and a much larger
talent pool makes the athletes of today superior. I also like the driver's
attitudes, the money and glamour surrounding F1, and of course.....the
women. :-)
As for Ecclestone and the others who run F1 and make huge amounts of money,
they DESERVE it. Like Bill Gates, if you are in charge of delivering a
product everbody wants, then YOU deserve the riches that come your way, and
owe no one apologies for cashing those checks. F1 is probably the most
watched sport in the entire world. They are doing it RIGHT, or no one would
be watching the races and opening their wallets. If someone here can put
together a better racing organization, you're certainly free to do so. Do
it, and stop the whining. Make that perfect sim while you're at it too.
People who always think it was better in "the good 'ol days" can be very
boring.
David G Fisher
Defending modern F1 against nostalgic critics
David G Fisher argued that complaints about modern F1 were nostalgia and that greater safety was progress. Bruce Kennewell, Jan Verschueren and others countered that aerodynamics, carbon brakes and circuit design had killed overtaking. The debate grew heated when Fisher called past drivers foolish rather than brave, and later turned to drivers like Jim Clark racing across many series.
real motorsport
Automated summary.
--
Citylab Durban
www.citylab.com
Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Chris, it's "Grands Prix".
I thought it looked a bit odd!
> And the incidence of overtaking prior to aerodynamics was higher than
since
> the introduction of same. Not only in F1 but in all forms of high-speed
> motor-sport.
I won't argue that point with you. Is it not also possible though that
another reason there is less overtaking is because of the design of the
circuits? Look at the old Spa, with those long straights there was plenty
of space and time to carry out a manouvre. Another example of this would be
the 1971 Monza race where there were plenty of lead changes even with "Aero"
cars.
Chris
> --
> Regards,
> Bruce Kennewell,
> Canberra, Australia.
> ---------------------------
>
> Chris Bloom <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> > >
> > I don't believe overtaking has ever been that common (apart from the old
> > Monza) in Grand Prixs.
>
>
>I agree.
And people who agree with each other can be very boring too :-)
--
Cheers!
Graeme Nash
Bruce Kennewell wrote in message <[email hidden]>...
>You sure they aren't the lines from that Seinfield episode when he had to
>appear non-funny for George's sake? Reads very much like it, Lee.
Inevitably, irrevocably...
Bendito;
I like F1 the way it is and the way it was, to me it is the pinnacle of all
motorsport and it is a combination of lots of things that make it exciting.
An overtaking manouvre in F1 is so much more exciting because it is so
difficult, if you want to see constant overtaking then try Nascar or bikes,
not that there is anything wrong with these forms of motorsport.
I don't believe overtaking has ever been that common (apart from the old
Monza) in Grand Prixs. Maybe if someone has got some old Autosports they
could check the lap charts of those old races against the some more recent
races and see if there was considerably more passing.
Chris
--
Citylab Durban
www.citylab.com
David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:FsTv5.24341$[email hidden]...
> Every week I read posts from people criticizing F1.
>
David G Fisher wrote in message ...
>F1 is probably the most watched sport in the entire world.
Really?
>People who always think it was better in "the good 'ol days" can be very
>boring.
I actually agree with most of your post. But, on the other hand, F1
*does* deserve some criticism. To me, all of this criticism that you see of
F1 is actually a healthy sign. It's the same with racing games. You seem to
think the opposite, as I've noticed above, and also when people criticise
your favourite racing sim. Criticism is good. Criticism leads to excellence.
Criticism doesn't mean that I wish that the developers of your favourite
sport/game spend eternity with Beelzebub and all his hellish instruments of
death.
Bendito;
Fortunately, you can always be shown to prove your own antithesis.
"No F1 driver has been killed since 1994"... exactly. What sets the legends
apart from the majority of modern day drivers is the fact they took it to
the very edge knowing full well they'd die if they got it wrong. Please
note, I do not put it beyond some F1 drivers to face up to similar odds; The
names Schumacher (M&R), Villeneuve, Button and Verstappen spring to mind.
But, IMO, there's no denying the lack of "natural selection" (to use a very
crude term) and corporate backing have put some drivers where they are now.
Back in the olden days, if you didn't cut it, you ran out of money or died,
simple as that.
Otherwise a well constructed post. I have no bones with having the people
who "make F1" earning the kind of bucks they do. I do strongly object to the
"character" stiffling corporate attitude which prevails throughout F1
though.
You'll have trouble convincing most people of your relative driver merit
analisys though. Especially, Mark Seery and Greg Renner, who last year
witnessed Sir Stirling Moss OBE leave drivers 40 years his juniors eating
his spray. I hope the master continues to enjoy good health, so I can
witness him practising his craft at next years revival.
Jan.
=---
David G Fisher wrote...
> <snip>
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote
> F1 is probably the most watched sport in the entire world.
I think your forgetting the round-ball game... you know, Football ;)
--
-- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.WeRace.net
-- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.
"Bendito" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8pp1m3$nmi$[email hidden]...
> David G Fisher wrote in message ...
> I actually agree with most of your post. But, on the other hand, F1
> *does* deserve some criticism. To me, all of this criticism that you seeof
> F1 is actually a healthy sign. It's the same with racing games.
Constructive criticism, backed by facts, is a good thing.
>You seem to
> think the opposite, as I've noticed above, and also when people criticise
> your favourite racing sim.
My favorite sim is GP3. I didn't say a word in the weeks after the warez was
leaked, and this place was going nuts in a way not seen for a long time.
I've barely said a word regarding GP3 in the weeks since. Kind of disproves
your above statement.
Before GP3, F12000 was my favorite sim. I defended it for a short time after
it's release, and then moved on.
I have a feeling you are referring to RC2000. You may be very surprised by
how many threads I've started referring to RC2000, or how many posts which
I've given any opinion at all on RC2000. There have been a lot more posts
from my critics on this board accusing me of hyping RC2000, then there are
actual posts of mine discussing it at all. Compared to many of the fans of,
say, GPL, my posts discussing my favorite sims are a mere fraction of
theirs.
David G Fisher
"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:FsTv5.24341$[email hidden]...
driver
> from the past) would much rather drive the amazing machines of today.There
> was a few nice old tracks, but many are boring IMO. The one's that werenice
> (like the old Spa) were ridiculously dangerous. A driver hasn't beenkilled
> in modern F1 since 1994. The drivers today are better than ever. There is
> not one sport where the athletes of the past (+20 years) can compete with
> those of today.
Just to be a smartbutt, the drivers in NASCAR are competing with the drivers
of the "past." I.E. Earnhardt is darn old (45?) and Casey Attwood is only 19
(or 20) years old. Sorry, just being sarcastic today (more so then normal),
and thought that that was in the general visinity of sarcasm.
-Stuart Becktell
It's the same for F1. I know people have their favorite
> heroes from the past (me too), but knowledge, training, and a much larger
> talent pool makes the athletes of today superior. I also like the driver's
> attitudes, the money and glamour surrounding F1, and of course.....the
> women. :-)
>
> As for Ecclestone and the others who run F1 and make huge amounts ofmoney,
> they DESERVE it. Like Bill Gates, if you are in charge of delivering a
> product everbody wants, then YOU deserve the riches that come your way,and
> owe no one apologies for cashing those checks. F1 is probably the most
> watched sport in the entire world. They are doing it RIGHT, or no onewould
Quoted text (12 lines)
> Every week I read posts from people criticizing F1. > > The cars aren't what they used to be. > > The tracks aren't what they used to be. > > The drivers are prima donnas, and aren't as good as they used to be. > > The people who run F1 (like Ecclestone) are greedy bastards and only care > about money. > > I'm GLAD things aren't the way they used to be. I (and probably everyQuoted text (15 lines)
> be watching the races and opening their wallets. If someone here can put > together a better racing organization, you're certainly free to do so. Do > it, and stop the whining. Make that perfect sim while you're at it too. > > People who always think it was better in "the good 'ol days" can be very > boring. > > David G Fisher > > > > > > >I agree that complacency leads to death of everything. A
constructively critical life is healthy for all of us. Times change
and so do the points of reference people use. Some get left behind;
some only know the present. The new is always tinged with sadness for
some and excitement for others. It life, Jim - and as we know it!
"Bendito" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8pp1m3$nmi$[email hidden]...
> David G Fisher wrote in message ...
> >F1 is probably the most watched sport in the entire world.
>
> Really?
>
> >People who always think it was better in "the good 'ol days" can bevery
> >boring.
>
> I actually agree with most of your post. But, on the other hand,F1
> *does* deserve some criticism. To me, all of this criticism that yousee of
> F1 is actually a healthy sign. It's the same with racing games. Youseem to
> think the opposite, as I've noticed above, and also when peoplecriticise
> your favourite racing sim. Criticism is good. Criticism leads toexcellence.
> Criticism doesn't mean that I wish that the developers of yourfavourite
> sport/game spend eternity with Beelzebub and all his hellishinstruments of
> death.
>
> Bendito;
>
>
David G Fisher wrote:
>
>...The drivers today are better than ever. There is
> not one sport where the athletes of the past (+20 years) can compete with
> those of today. It's the same for F1. I know people have their favorite
> heroes from the past (me too), but knowledge, training, and a much larger
> talent pool makes the athletes of today superior...
So does that mean in another 20 years, today's athletes' performances
won't mean anything?
> As for Ecclestone and the others who run F1 and make huge amounts of money,
> they DESERVE it....
OK, Bernie -- quit using David Fischer's email address, OK?
> If someone here can put together a better racing organization, you're certainly free to do so.
Well, not exactly "free" to do so, as Ecclestone has a pretty good
stranglehold on the pertinent contracts, and "Son of Oswald" shewed last
week that HE has a pretty good chokehold on the FIA.
As for your other points, some seem quite valid, but the primary one --
that F1 is perfection itself -- is difficult to support: while the
numbers for F1 could hardly be better, the actual *racing* is a cheesy
bore, and has been for some time. Out of nearly thirty drivers, there
are about four who can reasonably be expected to win a race. Except for
the start -- usually a fiasco -- and pitstops, there is very little
opportunity to better your grid position; a single actual on-track pass
in F1 (videlicet Hak and Schumi at Spa) is such a world-shaking event
that it gets talked about for weeks. There are perennial backmarkers
like Minardi who seem to exist only to be the butt of various race
commentators' jokes. Some tracks are monitored with a hawk's eye while
others are run like county fair bullrings. F1 used to be the pinnacle of
technology, but with their goonball tires and technology restrictions
that can hardly be said anymore -- supertouring and WSC cars are far
more technologically sophisticated in certain critical areas.
That doesn't sound like the pinnacle of racing -- or racing at all -- to
me. I wish I could get enthused about NASCAR, because those guys know
how to put on a race. On any given raceday, there are a LOT of Cup
drivers who could win, and not through some fluke, but because over the
last 50+ years, NASCAR has learned how to slide the regs around so that
no one make of engine or body profile has a decisive advantage for too
long -- granted, that's easier to do with silhouette steel bodies and
stock-block engines than with autoclaved carbon fiber and 18,000 RPM
V10s. It's just too bad NASCAR's become such a squeaky-clean,
stage-managed smarmfest. And that the cars are such a bore -- though
they're much more ferocious in the V8-induced quivering flesh than they
appear on TV.
I truly hope F1 sorts their problems out someday, and returns to an
actual contest among a significant percentage of the field, and not just
a Mika & David & Michael & Rubens shootout. You may think I'm an old
wheeze, but it sure was exciting back in the days before radio was
invented to see privateers (!) like Hesketh/Hunt, Wolf/Scheckter,
March/Anybody racing (and passing! A LOT!) for wins against Ferrari,
Lotus, and Tyrrell. The closest thing we have to that today is Jordan,
and Jordan is heartening (except for HHF, who seems a rather ripe
disappointment after all the hype since his junior days at Mercedes).
IMHO, the only REAL racing going on these days is Touring Cars and Rallying.
Ah, well ... I'll just take some more medicine and go back to my cell now....
BB
David G Fisher wrote in message ...
>Constructive criticism, backed by facts, is a good thing.
This would be a boring old world if facts were the only thing on which we
based our criticism. Another thing, at least as important, is taste, in the
aesthetic sense of the word (the ancient Greeks knew this!) Am I the only
one who believes that computer games, even racing sims, can be viewed, at
least partially, as works of art? In many ways, they are part science, part
art. We judge them on facts, we can judge them on aesthetics, too.
And even if we use only facts as a basis to judge racing sims, there is
still much room for argument and disagreement. Why? Because, when you get
down to it, much of what we take to be fact is only the interpretation of
our sense data.
>My favorite sim is GP3. I didn't say a word in the weeks after the warezwas
>leaked,
Neither, almost, did I.
> and this place was going nuts in a way not seen for a long time.
Yep, sign of a quality product. Also, sign that even quality products
need improvement. Also, sign that some people can't see past their nose.
Also, sign that taste, or the lack of it, can turn people off a relatively
accurate racing sim.
>There have been a lot more posts from my critics on this board accusing
>me of hyping RC2000
Well, you deserved most of the criticism in that particular case, IMHO.
The mere fact that RC2000 was generating that volume of critical response
shows that, actually, there was much that the developers did right. By
fawning over the game and ignoring its deficiences, you actually did the
game a disservice. Developers, if they have any self-worth, are partly
spurred on by criticism.
Now before you respond, "Yeah, but only if it's constructive criticism",
let me add that it shouldn't matter. Much of what you might call
"destructive" criticism, is the result of a crudely expressed (some might
say "eloquent and to the point") impression or gut-feeling based on that
critical sense of aesthetics I described above. Speaking as a developer
myself, I say bring on the criticism, whether it's a mealy-mouthed
one-liner, or a logical argument as tight as a mermaid's brassiere.
Bendito;
I agree.
David G Fisher
"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Equally so, David, people who always think that is better *now* can bejust
Quoted text (20 lines)
> as boring. > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:FsTv5.24341$[email hidden]... > > Every week I read posts from people criticizing F1. > > (Then lot's of stirring stuff which I've snipped to save bandwidth, ending > with.....) > > > People who always think it was better in "the good 'ol days" can be very > > boring. > > >On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:45:57 GMT David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote:
% Every week I read posts from people criticizing F1.
What? couldn't catch enuff trout trolling GPL subjects?
--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.
[email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Chris Bloom wrote:
>
>the 1971 Monza race where there were plenty of lead changes even with"Aero" cars.
What they knew about aerodynamics in 1971 were the barest rudiments of
downforce and drag. There was absolutely *no* undercar air management,
and the lumbering old codswallops had the ride height of an SUV.
Probably the closest thing to "aerodynamic" cars in 1971 were the
various incarnations of the Porsche 917 Langheck, and even *they* were
clueless about undertray design for increased downforce.
Then there was the late '70s-early '80s era of extreme
inverted-wing-skirted-sidepod cars (Lotus 78 springs to mind) that stuck
like a booger on the end of your finger, until there was even a minor
disruption in the seal to the track surface, and then they were off like
a prom dress. That this stage of aerodynamics also overlapped the turbo
era just made matters worse, as the herky-jerky turbo throttle lag just
unbalanced the car even more. Niki Lauda's book on the subject is
instructive, once you climb over his towering ego...
But speaking of aerodynamics, I was re-reading a Bob Judd "Forrest
Evers" epic the other night (plumb ran out of Tolstoi), and there was an
interesting observation about why modern F1 cars don't
"four-wheel-drift" like in the halcyon days of Black Jack Brabham: once
the cars get much off-axis to the direction of travel, the whole
aerodynamic package is compromised in its designed-angle-of-attack, and
downforce drops off at a precipitous rate. This make sense to anyone else?
BB
Do you have any clue what the h*ll you are talking about?
:-)
David G Fisher
"Graeme Nash" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > >I agree. > > And people who agree with each other can be very boring too :-) > > -- > Cheers! > Graeme NashHey, we agree on something! Yea, the last concept makes sense. The air that
goes over the car on a turn is basically from the right front or left front.
Now you add air that is coming from the sides, and the car loses downforce.
Then the car goes into a spin. The old cars (Lotus 49...) were setup more
aerodynamically for the sides then the front, and the drivers were used to
not having ridiculous amounts of downforce either.
-Stuart Becktell
"Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (30 lines)
> Chris Bloom wrote: > > > >the 1971 Monza race where there were plenty of lead changes even with > "Aero" cars. > > What they knew about aerodynamics in 1971 were the barest rudiments of > downforce and drag. There was absolutely *no* undercar air management, > and the lumbering old codswallops had the ride height of an SUV. > Probably the closest thing to "aerodynamic" cars in 1971 were the > various incarnations of the Porsche 917 Langheck, and even *they* were > clueless about undertray design for increased downforce. > > Then there was the late '70s-early '80s era of extreme > inverted-wing-skirted-sidepod cars (Lotus 78 springs to mind) that stuck > like a booger on the end of your finger, until there was even a minor > disruption in the seal to the track surface, and then they were off like > a prom dress. That this stage of aerodynamics also overlapped the turbo > era just made matters worse, as the herky-jerky turbo throttle lag just > unbalanced the car even more. Niki Lauda's book on the subject is > instructive, once you climb over his towering ego... > > But speaking of aerodynamics, I was re-reading a Bob Judd "Forrest > Evers" epic the other night (plumb ran out of Tolstoi), and there was an > interesting observation about why modern F1 cars don't > "four-wheel-drift" like in the halcyon days of Black Jack Brabham: once > the cars get much off-axis to the direction of travel, the whole > aerodynamic package is compromised in its designed-angle-of-attack, and > downforce drops off at a precipitous rate. This make sense to anyone else? > > BB
"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Fortunately, you can always be shown to prove your own antithesis.
>
> "No F1 driver has been killed since 1994"... exactly. What sets thelegends
> apart from the majority of modern day drivers is the fact they took it to
> the very edge knowing full well they'd die if they got it wrong.
Yes, I've often hear these drivers referred to as brave. I think many of
them were foolish people who simply didn't value their lives very much, for
whatever reasons. The willingness to die for your sport sounds nice and
melodramatic, but it's really just bullshit. They weren't forced to race.
They did it because they wanted to, and were having fun.
A brave person, or animal for that matter, will go ahead and do something
they don't want to do even though they are fearful. Huge difference.
I used to ride motocross motorcycles off road at ridiculous speeds, high
through the air, over unknown terrain, with trees just a few feet on either
side, and all kinds of body splattering obstacles all around me. What I was
doing was no less dangerous than those drivers from the past. Actually, it
ws more dangerous. The only protection involved was my body protecting the
bike. I never once felt brave. I did it because I was having fun. Looking
back on it now, it was extremely stupid behavior.
>Please
> note, I do not put it beyond some F1 drivers to face up to similar odds;The
> names Schumacher (M&R), Villeneuve, Button and Verstappen spring to mind.
Schumacher is very safety conscious, and I doubt very much he would race if
the same poor safety conditions existed today as in the past. He's too smart
to bother with that nonsense.
David G Fisher
Oh certainly, yes. Too often we hear Murray or Martin tell us that
overtaking opportunities on this or that circuit are rare. It's only
necessary to look at Monaco itself, one of the few circuits being used now
which was also in use back in 1950 in the same basic shape and length.
Overtaking locations, almost non-existent now, were limited even back then.
When the "swimming pool" complex was built, changing the harbour-front
section, it took away what was the only decent length of uninterrupted
"straight".
The high-speed circuits, such as Monza, Reims, original Spa etc certainly
allowed for greater closing-up and then overtaking manouvres.
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
Chris Bloom <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
>
>
> I won't argue that point with you. Is it not also possible though that
> another reason there is less overtaking is because of the design of the
> circuits? Look at the old Spa, with those long straights there was plenty
> of space and time to carry out a manouvre. Another example of this would
be
> the 1971 Monza race where there were plenty of lead changes even with
"Aero"
> cars.
Yep.
It's why aircraft fall out of the sky if they exceed their maximum designed
angle of attack, although in their case the reverse applies ("upforce" drops
off at an alarming rate), because the airfoil is up the other way!
Witness the Sukhoi Su-27 at the Paris Air Show some decades back (not that
long, but it feels like it!). This aircraft had/has an *amazing* angle of
attack, allowing it to perform what became to be called the "Cobra".
However, as soon as that angle is exceeded, it drops like a stone.
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> once
> the cars get much off-axis to the direction of travel, the whole
> aerodynamic package is compromised in its designed-angle-of-attack, and
> downforce drops off at a precipitous rate. This make sense to anyone else?
Equally so, David, people who always think that is better *now* can be just
as boring.
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:FsTv5.24341$[email hidden]...
> Every week I read posts from people criticizing F1.
(Then lot's of stirring stuff which I've snipped to save bandwidth, ending
with.....)
> People who always think it was better in "the good 'ol days" can be very
> boring.
You sure they aren't the lines from that Seinfield episode when he had to
appear non-funny for George's sake? Reads very much like it, Lee.
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
Lee <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8ppfve$2m8$[email hidden]...
> I agree that complacency leads to death of everything. A
> constructively critical life is healthy for all of us. Times change
> and so do the points of reference people use. Some get left behind;
> some only know the present. The new is always tinged with sadness for
> some and excitement for others. It life, Jim - and as we know it!
(And a round of applause wafts on the southern breeze towards the higher
latitudes, eventually passing across the Equator, the International Date
Line, through the northern tropics, and landing with a muted, lingering,
hand-clap on the shores of the Northern American continent.)
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> Well, not exactly "free" to do so, as Ecclestone has a pretty good
> stranglehold on the pertinent contracts, and "Son of Oswald" shewed last
> week that HE has a pretty good chokehold on the FIA.
>
> As for your other points, some seem quite valid, but the primary one --
> that F1 is perfection itself -- is difficult to support: while the
> numbers for F1 could hardly be better, the actual *racing* is a cheesy
> bore, and has been for some time. Out of nearly thirty drivers, there
> are about four who can reasonably be expected to win a race. Except for
> the start -- usually a fiasco -- and pitstops, there is very little
> opportunity to better your grid position; a single actual on-track pass
> in F1 (videlicet Hak and Schumi at Spa) is such a world-shaking event
> that it gets talked about for weeks. There are perennial backmarkers
> like Minardi who seem to exist only to be the butt of various race
> commentators' jokes. Some tracks are monitored with a hawk's eye while
> others are run like county fair bullrings. F1 used to be the pinnacle of
> technology, but with their goonball tires and technology restrictions
> that can hardly be said anymore -- supertouring and WSC cars are far
> more technologically sophisticated in certain critical areas.
>
> That doesn't sound like the pinnacle of racing -- or racing at all -- to
> me. I wish I could get enthused about NASCAR, because those guys know
> how to put on a race. On any given raceday, there are a LOT of Cup
> drivers who could win, and not through some fluke, but because over the
> last 50+ years, NASCAR has learned how to slide the regs around so that
> no one make of engine or body profile has a decisive advantage for too
> long -- granted, that's easier to do with silhouette steel bodies and
> stock-block engines than with autoclaved carbon fiber and 18,000 RPM
> V10s. It's just too bad NASCAR's become such a squeaky-clean,
> stage-managed smarmfest. And that the cars are such a bore -- though
> they're much more ferocious in the V8-induced quivering flesh than they
> appear on TV.
>
> I truly hope F1 sorts their problems out someday, and returns to an
> actual contest among a significant percentage of the field, and not just
> a Mika & David & Michael & Rubens shootout. You may think I'm an old
> wheeze, but it sure was exciting back in the days before radio was
> invented to see privateers (!) like Hesketh/Hunt, Wolf/Scheckter,
> March/Anybody racing (and passing! A LOT!) for wins against Ferrari,
> Lotus, and Tyrrell. The closest thing we have to that today is Jordan,
> and Jordan is heartening (except for HHF, who seems a rather ripe
> disappointment after all the hype since his junior days at Mercedes).
>
> IMHO, the only REAL racing going on these days is Touring Cars and
Rallying.
>
> Ah, well ... I'll just take some more medicine and go back to my cell
now....
>
> BB
Please hold that thought while I figure out whether it's worth trying to
explain.
Jan.
=---
David G Fisher wrote...
> <snip>
Andre Warringa wrote...
> <snip>
> Should I cancel your 'Official David G. Fisher Fan Club ' membership
> Jan?
>
> Andre
Is there a refund policy? ;-)
Jan.
=---
David G Fisher wrote...
> LOL.
Glad I could brighten up your day.
> First, you insult me with the following comment:
>
> "Please hold that thought while I figure out whether it's worth
> trying to explain.
>
> Jan"
Exactly, we have "discussed" (for want of a better term) things before and
in all previous encounters we have never even reached the point of agreeing
to disagree because you apparently lose interest or couldn't think of
something to reply. This has made me think twice before even attempting to
get my point across and investing some time/effort in producing a post.
> Then, you cry in the post below about my response to that
> comment.
That wasn't crying... that was mock indignance. I thought it was obvious
enough not to have to mark it with a smiley.
> Grow up.
Oh, I think I do ok in that respect, thanks all the same for the suggestion.
;-)
Jan.
=---
That, apart from being completely unwarrented, is an insult. But it tells me
that I indeed shouldn't bother. You sir are incapable of understanding. I
pitty you, as you have no clue whatsoever about racing, be it real or
simulated.
Jan.
=---
David G Fisher wrote...
> Don't bother Jan.
>
> If your manhood depends on believing you could do the same as those"brave"
> drivers of the past (your skill with GPL proves to you that you could if
> juuuuust given the chance), then so be it.
>
> David G Fisher
> <snip>
Spot on.
Certain other forms of technological advancement, while fascinating (a good
for slow-mo TV shots), have also detracted from the ability to close up and
race with an opponent. I speak of carbon-fiber brakes. Between their
tremendous heat dissipation capabilities (quicker braking), and the higher
cornering speeds allowed by aerodynamic management (less braking needed),
braking zones are shrinking dramatically.
An oft-repeated refrain: shrink the wings, eliminate undertray diffusers,
and maybe even eliminate carbon brakes (or set a max rotor radius?).
Instead we get grooved tires . . . .
--DK
"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> And the incidence of overtaking prior to aerodynamics was higher thansince
Quoted text (7 lines)
> the introduction of same. Not only in F1 but in all forms of high-speed > motor-sport. > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > ---------------------------Don't bother Jan.
If your manhood depends on believing you could do the same as those "brave"
drivers of the past (your skill with GPL proves to you that you could if
juuuuust given the chance), then so be it.
David G Fisher
"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (9 lines)
> Please hold that thought while I figure out whether it's worth trying to > explain. > > Jan. > =--- > David G Fisher wrote... > > <snip> > >David G Fisher wrote:
>
> A brave person, or animal for that matter, will go ahead and do something
> they don't want to do even though they are fearful. Huge difference.
Are you making this up as you go along?
Chris, it's "Grands Prix".
And the incidence of overtaking prior to aerodynamics was higher than since
the introduction of same. Not only in F1 but in all forms of high-speed
motor-sport.
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
Chris Bloom <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> >
> I don't believe overtaking has ever been that common (apart from the old
> Monza) in Grand Prixs.
HAAAA!
That's the one, Bendito. :-)
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
Bendito <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8pq2v3$45d$[email hidden]...
> Bruce Kennewell wrote in message <[email hidden]>...
> >You sure they aren't the lines from that Seinfield episode when he had to
> >appear non-funny for George's sake? Reads very much like it, Lee.
>
> Inevitably, irrevocably...
>
> Bendito;
>
>
What the fuck are you smoking? You don't understand the difference?
David G Fisher
"Pierre Robitaille" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> David G Fisher wrote:
> >
> > A brave person, or animal for that matter, will go ahead and dosomething
> > they don't want to do even though they are fearful. Huge difference.
>
> Are you making this up as you go along?
In article <8prs2h$qea$[email hidden]>,
"David Karr" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Spot on.
>
> Certain other forms of technological advancement, while fascinating(a good
> for slow-mo TV shots), have also detracted from the ability to closeup and
> race with an opponent. I speak of carbon-fiber brakes. Between their
> tremendous heat dissipation capabilities (quicker braking), and thehigher
> cornering speeds allowed by aerodynamic management (less brakingneeded),
> braking zones are shrinking dramatically.
>
> An oft-repeated refrain: shrink the wings, eliminate undertraydiffusers,
> and maybe even eliminate carbon brakes (or set a max rotor radius?).
>
> Instead we get grooved tires . . . .
>I think that the FIA and FOCA have lost sight of the *racing* aspect of
F1. This involves the technique of either passing under brakes or
overtaking at speed. Watching 22 cars touring around a Mickey Mouse
circuit is not entertaining and is certainly not *racing*.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8ps8pi$m6q$[email hidden]...
> In article <8prs2h$qea$[email hidden]>,
> "David Karr" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> I think that the FIA and FOCA have lost sight of the *racing* aspect of
> F1. This involves the technique of either passing under brakes or
> overtaking at speed. Watching 22 cars touring around a Mickey Mouse
> circuit is not entertaining and is certainly not *racing*.
Here we go again. The old days were better.
It is entertaining or the millions, and millions, and millions, and millions
of fans who watch each F1 race and make it probably the most watched sport
in the world would find something else to do.
It is racing because the best drivers in the world are competing against
each other while driving the best cars in the world.
There is plenty of passing in F1 for people like me who can appreciate and
understand a pass that actually means something (as opposed to NASCAR).
There's less passing at the front of the pack in F1 for one very simple
reason. The best drivers manage to amaze us by completing lap after lap in
cars that can't get much quicker or faster, within a few tenths of the
previous. Get a mediocre field of drivers and you'll see a lot more passing,
just like in the old days. You may want that, but I and a few hundred
million other F1 fans do not.
David G Fisher
Not conscious plagiarism. I might have watched that episode in the UK.
Whatever, like all good humour, there is truth at its heart... :-( :-)
Lee
Liverpool, UK
"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> You sure they aren't the lines from that Seinfield episode when hehad to
change
> > and so do the points of reference people use. Some get leftbehind;
> > some only know the present. The new is always tinged with sadnessfor
> > some and excitement for others. It life, Jim - and as we know it!
>
>
>
Quoted text (12 lines)
> appear non-funny for George's sake? Reads very much like it, Lee. > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Lee <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8ppfve$2m8$[email hidden]... > > I agree that complacency leads to death of everything. A > > constructively critical life is healthy for all of us. TimesDavid G Fisher wrote:
>
> What the fuck are you smoking? You don't understand the difference?
Obviously not. Last time I checked, my dictionnary didn't have such
restrictions on being brave. Do you not consider astronauts as brave?
AFAIK, they're doing exactly what they want to be doing.
BTW, that was a rather brave reply on your part. :)
Quoted text (9 lines)
> "Pierre Robitaille" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > David G Fisher wrote: > > > > > > A brave person, or animal for that matter, will go ahead and do > something > > > they don't want to do even though they are fearful. Huge difference. > > > > Are you making this up as you go along?
"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> (snip)
> I think many of them were foolish people who simply didn't value theirlives
> very much, for
> whatever reasons.
> (unsnip)
>
> You really do type some silly statements at times, David.
You never do, Bruce.
> What you are doing is using the wisdom of hindsight....some 30 + yearsworth
> of hindsight and, depending on your age, 'x' years of wisdom.
>
> Thirty years ago the circuits and cars and technology that existed werethe
> norm.....for circuits and cars and technology at the time. Nobody knew any
> different; how could they possibly know what technology would bring?
> They were no more "willing to die for their sport" than the professional
> drivers of today. They did recognise that the sport was dangerous and, at
> times, life-threatening, just as drivers today recognise that the sport is
> dangerous and, at times, life-threatening.
Simple math could of told them what their chances of surviving the season
was. Compared to the average person, they were putting themselves at
tremendous risk of death. If someone was willing to take such a high risk of
losing their life just to race a car, then they were either foolish or
didn't value their lives very much. Not knowing what the future would be
bring in terms of safety is irrelevent.
I said they weren't brave, and I wasn't brave. I said they were, instead,
foolish. I also said I was foolish.
David G Fisher
Quoted text (9 lines)
> (snip) > What I was doing was no less dangerous than those drivers from the past. > Actually, it > ws more dangerous. The only protection involved was my body protecting the > bike. I never once felt brave. I did it because I was having fun. Looking > back on it now, it was extremely stupid behavior. > (unsnip) > > See how wise YOU are with the benefit of hindsight, David?(snip)
I think many of them were foolish people who simply didn't value their lives
very much, for
whatever reasons.
(unsnip)
You really do type some silly statements at times, David.
What you are doing is using the wisdom of hindsight....some 30 + years worth
of hindsight and, depending on your age, 'x' years of wisdom.
Thirty years ago the circuits and cars and technology that existed were the
norm.....for circuits and cars and technology at the time. Nobody knew any
different; how could they possibly know what technology would bring?
They were no more "willing to die for their sport" than the professional
drivers of today. They did recognise that the sport was dangerous and, at
times, life-threatening, just as drivers today recognise that the sport is
dangerous and, at times, life-threatening.
(snip)
What I was doing was no less dangerous than those drivers from the past.
Actually, it
ws more dangerous. The only protection involved was my body protecting the
bike. I never once felt brave. I did it because I was having fun. Looking
back on it now, it was extremely stupid behavior.
(unsnip)
See how wise YOU are with the benefit of hindsight, David?
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:lvbw5.25955$[email hidden]...
"Pierre Robitaille" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Exactly, they want to do the things they do. They enjoy it. No, I don't
consider them brave. A hardcore drug dealer/user has a high morality rate. I
don't consider them brave though. I don't consider drunk drivers brave even
though they are very close to death or serious injury every time they get
behind the wheel.
> BTW, that was a rather brave reply on your part. :)
Your sarcastic reply, "Are you making this up as you go along?" was slightly
offensive so I thought I'd return the favor.
David G Fisher
Quoted text (7 lines)
> David G Fisher wrote: > > > > What the fuck are you smoking? You don't understand the difference? > > Obviously not. Last time I checked, my dictionnary didn't have such > restrictions on being brave. Do you not consider astronauts as brave? > AFAIK, they're doing exactly what they want to be doing.
"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> David, let me get try to get one thing perfectly clear for you, if it's at
> all possible for you to understand: I don't have any objection at all to
> you, and millions of others, finding modern F1 enjoyable. None whatsoever.
> Go for it, to your heart's content.
>
> You don't have to explain to me why you salivate at the thought ofwatching
> 22 cars zoom around the Hungaroring. You don't have to justify to me, or
> anyone else, why you are turned on by the modern equivalent a Spa orMonza.
> That is your bag and you enjoy it and that's the way it should be. I
> certainly won't deny your right to enjoy it.
> I wouldn't be arrogant enough to try and convince you that you shouldn't,or
> couldn't, become excited by watching a modern F1 event.
>
> By the same token, I would appreciate some tolerance from you towards my
> preferences. I don't want to be assailed by your zealous argument as towhy
> I am wrong in preferring what used to be rather than what is.
>
> To each his own. Okay? so can you PLEASE stop trolling? It *is* rather
> childish.
You want to post opinions in a newsgroup, but you don't want anyone to reply
unless they agree with you?
Ok.
Have you noticed which thread you are in, what it's about, and who began the
thread? I started this thread for a reason, and that was to finally (after
three years of reading complaints here at r.a.s. about modern F1) express my
opinions on the state of F1. You've posted very strong, critical, opposite
opinions such as "Watching 22 cars touring around a Mickey Mouse
circuit is not entertaining and is certainly not *racing*.", and yet you say
I'm "trolling" by replying.
Since I've never debated with you or anyone else about old F1 vs. new F1 in
any of the other many threads this topic was brought up, I thought it would
be ok to do it in my own thread, yet I find out tonight I'm trolling.
Love your logic.
David G Fisher
David G Fisher wrote:
>
> Exactly, they want to do the things they do. They enjoy it. No, I don't
> consider them brave. A hardcore drug dealer/user has a high morality rate. I
> don't consider them brave though. I don't consider drunk drivers brave even
> though they are very close to death or serious injury every time they get
> behind the wheel.
I agree with David here. But consider another aspect. There's a point
where bravery ends, and stupidity begins.
--
Chuck Kandler
Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses
Registered Linux User #180746
http://counter.li.org
LOL.
First, you insult me with the following comment:
"Please hold that thought while I figure out whether it's worth trying to
explain.
Jan"
Then, you cry in the post below about my response to that comment.
Grow up.
David G Fisher
"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> That, apart from being completely unwarrented, is an insult. But it tellsme
Quoted text (19 lines)
> that I indeed shouldn't bother. You sir are incapable of understanding. I > pitty you, as you have no clue whatsoever about racing, be it real or > simulated. > > Jan. > =--- > David G Fisher wrote... > > Don't bother Jan. > > > > If your manhood depends on believing you could do the same as those > "brave" > > drivers of the past (your skill with GPL proves to you that you could if > > juuuuust given the chance), then so be it. > > > > David G Fisher > > <snip> > > >On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:52:18 +0200, "Jan Verschueren"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>That, apart from being completely unwarrented, is an insult. But it tells me
>that I indeed shouldn't bother. You sir are incapable of understanding. I
>pitty you, as you have no clue whatsoever about racing, be it real or
>simulated.
>
>Jan.
Should I cancel your 'Official David G. Fisher Fan Club ' membership
Jan?
Andre
Quoted text (13 lines)
>=--- >David G Fisher wrote... >> Don't bother Jan. >> >> If your manhood depends on believing you could do the same as those >"brave" >> drivers of the past (your skill with GPL proves to you that you could if >> juuuuust given the chance), then so be it. >> >> David G Fisher >> <snip> > >David, let me get try to get one thing perfectly clear for you, if it's at
all possible for you to understand: I don't have any objection at all to
you, and millions of others, finding modern F1 enjoyable. None whatsoever.
Go for it, to your heart's content.
You don't have to explain to me why you salivate at the thought of watching
22 cars zoom around the Hungaroring. You don't have to justify to me, or
anyone else, why you are turned on by the modern equivalent a Spa or Monza.
That is your bag and you enjoy it and that's the way it should be. I
certainly won't deny your right to enjoy it.
I wouldn't be arrogant enough to try and convince you that you shouldn't, or
couldn't, become excited by watching a modern F1 event.
By the same token, I would appreciate some tolerance from you towards my
preferences. I don't want to be assailed by your zealous argument as to why
I am wrong in preferring what used to be rather than what is.
To each his own. Okay? so can you PLEASE stop trolling? It *is* rather
childish.
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:aaiw5.27512$[email hidden]...
>
LOL!
Not wrong...a splendid episode, that one.
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
Lee <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8pseb0$kfg$[email hidden]...
> Not conscious plagiarism. I might have watched that episode in the UK.
> Whatever, like all good humour, there is truth at its heart... :-( :-)
>
> Lee
> Liverpool, UK
>
>
> "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> > You sure they aren't the lines from that Seinfield episode when he
> had to
> > appear non-funny for George's sake? Reads very much like it, Lee.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Kennewell,
> > Canberra, Australia.
> > ---------------------------
> >
> > Lee <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:8ppfve$2m8$[email hidden]...
> > > I agree that complacency leads to death of everything. A
> > > constructively critical life is healthy for all of us. Times
> change
> > > and so do the points of reference people use. Some get left
> behind;
> > > some only know the present. The new is always tinged with sadness
> for
> > > some and excitement for others. It life, Jim - and as we know it!
> >
> >
> >
>
>
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:21:30 +0200, "Jan Verschueren"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
No, but you can keep the 'I don't brake for DGF' bumper sticker.
Andre
>Jan.
>=---
>
Quoted text (8 lines)
>Andre Warringa wrote... >> <snip> >> Should I cancel your 'Official David G. Fisher Fan Club ' membership >> Jan? >> >> Andre > >Is there a refund policy? ;-)David G Fisher wrote:
Of course I don't consider drug dealers and drunk drivers to be
brave, there is a question of morality involved (or rather lack of
in this case). I've always thought of astronauts as being a brave
kind, risking their lives for technological advancements.
I guess we disagree on where the fine line between foolishness
and bravery is.
But I digress, I was trying to point out that doing what you want to
do has absolutely nothing to do with being brave or not, as you tried
to put it. Are you suggesting that firefighters don't enjoy their
jobs?
Quoted text (13 lines)
> > "Pierre Robitaille" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Obviously not. Last time I checked, my dictionnary didn't have such > > restrictions on being brave. Do you not consider astronauts as brave? > > AFAIK, they're doing exactly what they want to be doing. > > Exactly, they want to do the things they do. They enjoy it. No, I don't > consider them brave. A hardcore drug dealer/user has a high morality rate. I > don't consider them brave though. I don't consider drunk drivers brave even > though they are very close to death or serious injury every time they get > behind the wheel.hehehe...this is my favorite subject and one that I have contrary
thoughts on.....first off I pretty much stopped watching F1 when Senna
and Roland were killed.
>
>Yes, I've often hear these drivers referred to as brave. I think many of
>them were foolish people who simply didn't value their lives very much, for
>whatever reasons. The willingness to die for your sport sounds nice and
>melodramatic, but it's really just bullshit. They weren't forced to race.
>They did it because they wanted to, and were having fun.
If you take 33 drivers from each series....and ask them to race in the
other time. I bet that all the drivers from the 60's for instance
would show very well while many of the newest drivers would back away
from the chance to race around the Ring in the rain. Futhermore I
would bet that the newest drivers would be put to shame in the older
cars while the older drivers would have a much better go of it in the
new cars.
PAPA DOC
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Voodoo 5 vs Geforce 2 shootout...
Flanker Target
GPL Crash Dummy
Video Card Wizard
www.papadoc.net
FALCON 4 Benchmarks
Rants, Bullshit and Reviews
All your points are valid to you...
Only problem is I find modern day racing boring....they race on
modified Kart tracks with no overtaking because of too much downforce.
Big deal....
PAPA DOC
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Voodoo 5 vs Geforce 2 shootout...
Flanker Target
GPL Crash Dummy
Video Card Wizard
www.papadoc.net
FALCON 4 Benchmarks
Rants, Bullshit and Reviews
Quoted text (12 lines)
> >People who always think it was better in "the good 'ol days" can be very >boring. > >David G Fisher > > > > > > >
David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:%Akw5.27758$[email hidden]...
<snip>
> Have you noticed which thread you are in, what it's about, and who beganthe
> thread? I started this thread for a reason, and that was to finally (after
> three years of reading complaints here at r.a.s. about modern F1) expressmy
> opinions on the state of F1. You've posted very strong, critical, opposite
> opinions such as "Watching 22 cars touring around a Mickey Mouse
> circuit is not entertaining and is certainly not *racing*.", and yet yousay
> I'm "trolling" by replying.<snip>
But you are ALL Off-Topic, and would've been better off posting to a
different ng
--
-Ace-
(GPLRank -1.77)
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand wrote:
> snip
Ignoring the fact that most older drivers would puke on their knees
after
a couple of fast corners. Well, they would not be able to handle the
g-forces,
as they never trained for them. Of course, I agree that today's drivers
would have a tough time to adjust to the old cars, too.
--
l8er
ronny
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
to take effect. Reboot now?
|\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > If you take 33 drivers from each series....and ask them to race in the > other time. I bet that all the drivers from the 60's for instance > would show very well while many of the newest drivers would back away > from the chance to race around the Ring in the rain. Futhermore I > would bet that the newest drivers would be put to shame in the older > cars while the older drivers would have a much better go of it in the > new cars.Whatever you say, David.
Live your dream.....far be it for me to risk bursting your bubble.
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:bbkw5.27754$[email hidden]...
>
"From a foolhardy deed, bravery doth flower"
Anon.
I don't know who said it, but it certainly sums up the difference between
foolishness and bravery. For me, anyway.
Also for an awful lot of now-dead (and some still living) service men and
women.
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
Pierre Robitaille <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> > I guess we disagree on where the fine line between foolishness
> and bravery is.
[email hidden] (Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand) wrote:
And *I* bet the inhabitants of the planet Qwetzalquatl will have blue skin with
red stipes.
JoH
------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 --------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted text (7 lines)
>If you take 33 drivers from each series....and ask them to race in the >other time. I bet that all the drivers from the 60's for instance >would show very well while many of the newest drivers would back away >from the chance to race around the Ring in the rain. Futhermore I >would bet that the newest drivers would be put to shame in the older >cars while the older drivers would have a much better go of it in the >new cars.In article <[email hidden]>, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]>
writes:
>Witness the Sukhoi Su-27 at the Paris Air Show some decades back (not that
>long, but it feels like it!). This aircraft had/has an *amazing* angle of
>attack, allowing it to perform what became to be called the "Cobra".
>However, as soon as that angle is exceeded, it drops like a stone.
I've seen that maneuver on film, and I *still* don't believe it...<g>
Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPL hcp. +50.77
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
In article <aaiw5.27512$[email hidden]>, "David G Fisher"
<[email hidden]> writes:
David, this argument means the *cars* are more important. Meaning that there's
no passing simply because the leader has a better car. Not necessarily because
he is a better driver...
Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPL hcp. +50.77
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Quoted text (13 lines)
>It is racing because the best drivers in the world are competing against >each other while driving the best cars in the world. > >There is plenty of passing in F1 for people like me who can appreciate and >understand a pass that actually means something (as opposed to NASCAR). >There's less passing at the front of the pack in F1 for one very simple >reason. The best drivers manage to amaze us by completing lap after lap in >cars that can't get much quicker or faster, within a few tenths of the >previous. Get a mediocre field of drivers and you'll see a lot more passing, >just like in the old days. You may want that, but I and a few hundred >million other F1 fans do not. > >David G FisherIn article <lvbw5.25955$[email hidden]>, "David G Fisher"
<[email hidden]> writes:
I don't think it was 'foolishness'. Just an 'acceptable' risk.
>
>A brave person, or animal for that matter, will go ahead and do something
>they don't want to do even though they are fearful. Huge difference.
This I can agree with. Such as a soldier in wartime performing some heroic
act...
When you're younger, you feel that you'll live forever. The thought of being
hurt or even killed (usually)never enters your mind...<g>
Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPL hcp. +50.77
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Quoted text (10 lines)
>> "No F1 driver has been killed since 1994"... exactly. What sets the >legends >> apart from the majority of modern day drivers is the fact they took it to >> the very edge knowing full well they'd die if they got it wrong. > >Yes, I've often hear these drivers referred to as brave. I think many of >them were foolish people who simply didn't value their lives very much, for >whatever reasons. The willingness to die for your sport sounds nice and >melodramatic, but it's really just bullshit. They weren't forced to race. >They did it because they wanted to, and were having fun.Quoted text (9 lines)
> >I used to ride motocross motorcycles off road at ridiculous speeds, high >through the air, over unknown terrain, with trees just a few feet on either >side, and all kinds of body splattering obstacles all around me. What I was >doing was no less dangerous than those drivers from the past. Actually, it >ws more dangerous. The only protection involved was my body protecting the >bike. I never once felt brave. I did it because I was having fun. Looking >back on it now, it was extremely stupid behavior. >Yeah....incredible, isn't it?! :-)
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>, "Bruce Kennewell"
<[email hidden]>
> writes:
>
> >Witness the Sukhoi Su-27 at the Paris Air Show some decades back (not
that
> >long, but it feels like it!). This aircraft had/has an *amazing* angle
of
> >attack, allowing it to perform what became to be called the "Cobra".
> >However, as soon as that angle is exceeded, it drops like a stone.
>
> I've seen that maneuver on film, and I *still* don't believe it...<g>
>
> Eldred
> --
> Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
> Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
> GPL hcp. +50.77
>
> Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats
you
> with experience...
> Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Looks terrifying when you stand directly underneath it.
MS
"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (35 lines)
> Yeah....incredible, isn't it?! :-) > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > In article <[email hidden]>, "Bruce Kennewell" > <[email hidden]> > > writes: > > > > >Witness the Sukhoi Su-27 at the Paris Air Show some decades back (not > that > > >long, but it feels like it!). This aircraft had/has an *amazing* angle > of > > >attack, allowing it to perform what became to be called the "Cobra". > > >However, as soon as that angle is exceeded, it drops like a stone. > > > > I've seen that maneuver on film, and I *still* don't believe it...<g> > > > > Eldred > > -- > > Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 > > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > > GPL hcp. +50.77 > > > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats > you > > with experience... > > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply. > >Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand wrote:
>
> hehe...I knew that I should have been more clear. I meant that if you
> were able to get Jim Clark, Sterling Moss, Fangio and others in the
> prime of their driving careers and match them up to the current crop
> in their prime.
I knew what you meant...
Nevertheless, I think you're just an old fart believing the old days
were a lot better, including the old F1 drivers. ;)
--
l8er
ronny
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
to take effect. Reboot now?
|\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!
hehe...I knew that I should have been more clear. I meant that if you
were able to get Jim Clark, Sterling Moss, Fangio and others in the
prime of their driving careers and match them up to the current crop
in their prime.
PAPA DOC
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Voodoo 5 vs Geforce 2 shootout...
Flanker Target
GPL Crash Dummy
Video Card Wizard
www.papadoc.net
FALCON 4 Benchmarks
Rants, Bullshit and Reviews
Quoted text (18 lines)
> >Ignoring the fact that most older drivers would puke on their knees >after >a couple of fast corners. Well, they would not be able to handle the >g-forces, >as they never trained for them. Of course, I agree that today's drivers >would have a tough time to adjust to the old cars, too. > >-- >l8er >ronny > >Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change >to take effect. Reboot now? > |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, > ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. > |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, > '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!Yep. Standing on Southwood golf course (directly adjacent to the airfield)
at the Farnborough airshow a few years ago. It was a hairy sight to say the
least. In terms of unorthodox flying, I guess you can compare it to the guy
who can pull a handbrake turn / parallel parking manoeuvre into a parking
space with 8 inches clearance either side. I also remember almost having my
eardrums perforated when the pilot applied full military reheat ;-)
MS
"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
(not
> > > that
> > > > >long, but it feels like it!). This aircraft had/has an *amazing*
> angle
> > > of
> > > > >attack, allowing it to perform what became to be called the"Cobra".
> > > > >However, as soon as that angle is exceeded, it drops like a stone.
> > > >
> > > > I've seen that maneuver on film, and I *still* don't believeit...<g>
Quoted text (32 lines)
> What?!!!! > You've actually been underneath that whilst it was in "Cobra" mode?!! > YIKES! > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Mark.seery <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8g7y5.1305$[email hidden]... > > Looks terrifying when you stand directly underneath it. > > > > MS > > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Yeah....incredible, isn't it?! :-) > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Bruce Kennewell, > > > Canberra, Australia. > > > --------------------------- > > > > > > EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > In article <[email hidden]>, "Bruce Kennewell" > > > <[email hidden]> > > > > writes: > > > > > > > > >Witness the Sukhoi Su-27 at the Paris Air Show some decades backQuoted text (18 lines)
> > > > > > > > Eldred > > > > -- > > > > Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 > > > > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > > > > GPL hcp. +50.77 > > > > > > > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then > beats > > > you > > > > with experience... > > > > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply. > > > > > > > > > > > >In article <XQny5.585$[email hidden]>, "Mark.seery"
<[email hidden]> writes:
Jealous = me.
So...where are the pictures???? :)
Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPL hcp. +49.67
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Quoted text (7 lines)
>Yep. Standing on Southwood golf course (directly adjacent to the airfield) >at the Farnborough airshow a few years ago. It was a hairy sight to say the >least. In terms of unorthodox flying, I guess you can compare it to the guy >who can pull a handbrake turn / parallel parking manoeuvre into a parking >space with 8 inches clearance either side. I also remember almost having my >eardrums perforated when the pilot applied full military reheat ;-) >What?!!!!
You've actually been underneath that whilst it was in "Cobra" mode?!!
YIKES!
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
Mark.seery <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8g7y5.1305$[email hidden]...
> Looks terrifying when you stand directly underneath it.
>
> MS
> "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> > Yeah....incredible, isn't it?! :-)
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Kennewell,
> > Canberra, Australia.
> > ---------------------------
> >
> > EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:[email hidden]...
> > > In article <[email hidden]>, "Bruce Kennewell"
> > <[email hidden]>
> > > writes:
> > >
> > > >Witness the Sukhoi Su-27 at the Paris Air Show some decades back (not
> > that
> > > >long, but it feels like it!). This aircraft had/has an *amazing*
angle
> > of
> > > >attack, allowing it to perform what became to be called the "Cobra".
> > > >However, as soon as that angle is exceeded, it drops like a stone.
> > >
> > > I've seen that maneuver on film, and I *still* don't believe it...<g>
> > >
> > > Eldred
> > > --
> > > Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
> > > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
> > > GPL hcp. +50.77
> > >
> > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then
beats
> > you
> > > with experience...
> > > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
> >
> >
>
>
> So...where are the pictures???? :)
Alas, no pictures without scanner. After leaving Dublin as a kid I have
spent many years in Farnborough , the birthplace and one time premier
research centre for aviation and jet engines in the UK. The dambusters
bouncing bomb was actually developed here amongst other things and many
significant breakthroughs in technology have come out of this place. Several
SO's (Scientific Officers) have gone on to work in the motorsport industry.
Off the top of my head, Robin Herd springs to mind.
Interestingly enough TAG aviation (of which Maclaren is a part), actually
bought the airfield a couple of years ago when the place was put up for
tender and the Maclaren team often fly out from here. Indeed, this is where
Coulthard took off from when he crashed this year. One of the most bizzare
sights at recent airshows here was David in his F1 car taking on a Bae Hawk
jet along the runway in a drag race. This was a publicity stunt for Bae who
are a sponsor for the race team.
I have seen virtually every airshow since the early 70's and most of the
wierd and wonderful stuff. I'm actually an airframe fitter by trade having
served my apprenticeship here.
MS
you
> with experience...
> Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > Eldred > -- > Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPL hcp. +49.67 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beatsThat's an argument that's always baffled me. If you get Clark in his prime
(a man with a sense of balance perfectly suited to a 1967 F1 car) and Senna
in his (a man with a sense of balance perfectly suited to a 1991 F1 car) and
stick them in 2000 F1's we may not see the result we're after. It's quite
possible that Shoe Jr. wipes up the pavement with both. Granted, both men
were extremely focused and able and probably good at most everything they
tried. I think both would be wicked fast in the 2000 F1's, but we are
talking about the top 0.0000007% of people on the earth. Those fractions are
hard enough to come by without have a physical/mental/"chemical" deficit.
Would be *very* interesting to see.
--
"Stay loose - Stay alive."
mark
"Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> hehe...I knew that I should have been more clear. I meant that if you
> were able to get Jim Clark, Sterling Moss, Fangio and others in the
> prime of their driving careers and match them up to the current crop
> in their prime.
>
> PAPA DOC
>
> >
> >Ignoring the fact that most older drivers would puke on their knees
> >after
> >a couple of fast corners. Well, they would not be able to handle the
> >g-forces,
> >as they never trained for them. Of course, I agree that today's drivers
> >would have a tough time to adjust to the old cars, too.
> >
> >--
> >l8er
> >ronny
> >
> >Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
> >to take effect. Reboot now?
> > |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
> > ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
> > |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
> > '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!
>
> Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
> Voodoo 5 vs Geforce 2 shootout...
> Flanker Target
> GPL Crash Dummy
> Video Card Wizard
> www.papadoc.net
> FALCON 4 Benchmarks
> Rants, Bullshit and Reviews
My GOD!
What I would've given to have experienced that, Mark!
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
Mark.seery <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:XQny5.585$[email hidden]...
> Yep. Standing on Southwood golf course (directly adjacent to the airfield)
> at the Farnborough airshow a few years ago. It was a hairy sight to say
the
> least. In terms of unorthodox flying, I guess you can compare it to the
guy
> who can pull a handbrake turn / parallel parking manoeuvre into a parking
> space with 8 inches clearance either side. I also remember almost having
my
> eardrums perforated when the pilot applied full military reheat ;-)
They WERE, Ronnie!
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
Ronald Stoehr <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> > Nevertheless, I think you're just an old fart believing the old days
> were a lot better, including the old F1 drivers. ;)
>
"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
From www.forix.com
1966 - 9 F1 GP (Lotus), 16 points, 6th. 1 win (US). (3rd Holland, 4th GB).
Nascar (Holman-Moody Ford): 30th in American 500 at Rockingham
--
don
New GPL Programs for the Converted Tracks:
http://www.ianparker1.plus.com/gpl/bapom/
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be
misquoted, then used against you.
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Which year, which team and in what races did he drive for NASCAR? > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > ---------------------------
Well you will not see drivers now competing in multiple formulas anymore.
Gone are the days where guys like Clark, Stewart, Andretti and Gurney ran
and won in Sports Cars, Formula One, Sedans and Nascar. It will not happen
anymore due to money. Too bad too since I felt that was really the measure
of a great driver someone who could jump from car to car on a given weekend
and win races.
Dave
Bad-Boy <[email hidden]> wrote in article
<n52z5.18704$[email hidden]>...
> "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:8qgnjj$h7v$[email hidden]...
> > That's an argument that's always baffled me. If you get Clark in hisprime
> > (a man with a sense of balance perfectly suited to a 1967 F1 car)
>
> Feel compelled to point out that at his "prime" Jim Clark was
> *SIMULTANEOUSLY*
> racing saloon cars, GT cars, F1, F2, Indy, NASCAR *AND* rallying.
> He competed in events all over the world and especially enjoyed theTasman
> Cup in Oz/NZ.
>
> To know the measure of the man, watch film of him racing the LotusCortina
> in the
> British and European saloon car championships - the epitome of carcontrol.
> And remember that the next day he may well be competing in an F2 race !!
>
> It was this enjoyment (and success) at all levels that sadly led to hisloss
> in
> a race many say he didn't need to do. He was a racer and would always
> race if he had the choice. ( This really struck home for me personally at
> the
> loss of Joey Dunlop - the parallels of this great motorbike road racerand
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Jim are too close :-( ) > > Peter > > > >"mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8qgnjj$h7v$[email hidden]...
> That's an argument that's always baffled me. If you get Clark in his prime
> (a man with a sense of balance perfectly suited to a 1967 F1 car)
Feel compelled to point out that at his "prime" Jim Clark was
*SIMULTANEOUSLY*
racing saloon cars, GT cars, F1, F2, Indy, NASCAR *AND* rallying.
He competed in events all over the world and especially enjoyed the Tasman
Cup in Oz/NZ.
To know the measure of the man, watch film of him racing the Lotus Cortina
in the
British and European saloon car championships - the epitome of car control.
And remember that the next day he may well be competing in an F2 race !!
It was this enjoyment (and success) at all levels that sadly led to his loss
in
a race many say he didn't need to do. He was a racer and would always
race if he had the choice. ( This really struck home for me personally at
the
loss of Joey Dunlop - the parallels of this great motorbike road racer and
Jim are too close :-( )
Peter
No Im still not being clear...<VBG> I mean that the older drivers have
balls of steel....the race Im talking about would be 5 races in 67 car
at Spa, The Ring, Zandefort (sp), Watkins Glen, Roen, then they change
cars and race the same tracks in the Modern Cars....I suspect that the
older drivers would adapt far more quickly to the new cars then the
younger drivers would adapt to the older cars...as well the older
drivers (figuratively since they are both in the prime in this wish)
would have an easier time of facing the sheer magnitude of what an
error would mean at those old tracks.
And yes I respect very much that the older drivers were able to face
the fact of how severe penalties were for mistakes...indeed that
made/makes the old races so incredible and makes modern day racing so
incredibly boring....I may as well be watching slot cars racing for
all the meaning. Racing to me is supposed to be about bravery in the
face of danger...one of the most noble things is facing up to ones
fears and overcoming them.
PAPA DOC
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Voodoo 5 vs Geforce 2 shootout...
Flanker Target
GPL Crash Dummy
Video Card Wizard
www.papadoc.net
FALCON 4 Benchmarks
Rants, Bullshit and Reviews
Quoted text (15 lines)
> >I knew what you meant... >Nevertheless, I think you're just an old fart believing the old days >were a lot better, including the old F1 drivers. ;) > >-- >l8er >ronny > >Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change >to take effect. Reboot now? > |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, > ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. > |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, > '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!Which year, which team and in what races did he drive for NASCAR?
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
Bad-Boy <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:n52z5.18704$[email hidden]...
> "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:8qgnjj$h7v$[email hidden]...
> > That's an argument that's always baffled me. If you get Clark in his
prime
> > (a man with a sense of balance perfectly suited to a 1967 F1 car)
>
> Feel compelled to point out that at his "prime" Jim Clark was
> *SIMULTANEOUSLY*
> racing saloon cars, GT cars, F1, F2, Indy, NASCAR *AND* rallying.
> He competed in events all over the world and especially enjoyed the Tasman
> Cup in Oz/NZ.
>
> To know the measure of the man, watch film of him racing the Lotus Cortina
> in the
> British and European saloon car championships - the epitome of car
control.
> And remember that the next day he may well be competing in an F2 race !!
>
> It was this enjoyment (and success) at all levels that sadly led to his
loss
> in
> a race many say he didn't need to do. He was a racer and would always
> race if he had the choice. ( This really struck home for me personally at
> the
> loss of Joey Dunlop - the parallels of this great motorbike road racer and
> Jim are too close :-( )
>
> Peter
>
>
>
It will not happen anymore due to CONTRACTS, David.
(In normal circumstances there is no way in the world that an F1 team would
allow one of their drivers to compete in anything other than F1).
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
David <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:01c02539$c7fa3100$3fd3fc3f@packardbell...
>
> Well you will not see drivers now competing in multiple formulas anymore.
> Gone are the days where guys like Clark, Stewart, Andretti and Gurney ran
> and won in Sports Cars, Formula One, Sedans and Nascar. It will not
happen
> anymore due to money. Too bad too since I felt that was really the
measure
> of a great driver someone who could jump from car to car on a given
weekend
> and win races.
>
> Dave
>
> Bad-Boy <[email hidden]> wrote in article
> <n52z5.18704$[email hidden]>...
> > "mark jeangerard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:8qgnjj$h7v$[email hidden]...
> > > That's an argument that's always baffled me. If you get Clark in his
> prime
> > > (a man with a sense of balance perfectly suited to a 1967 F1 car)
> >
> > Feel compelled to point out that at his "prime" Jim Clark was
> > *SIMULTANEOUSLY*
> > racing saloon cars, GT cars, F1, F2, Indy, NASCAR *AND* rallying.
> > He competed in events all over the world and especially enjoyed the
> Tasman
> > Cup in Oz/NZ.
> >
> > To know the measure of the man, watch film of him racing the Lotus
> Cortina
> > in the
> > British and European saloon car championships - the epitome of car
> control.
> > And remember that the next day he may well be competing in an F2 race !!
> >
> > It was this enjoyment (and success) at all levels that sadly led to his
> loss
> > in
> > a race many say he didn't need to do. He was a racer and would always
> > race if he had the choice. ( This really struck home for me personally
at
> > the
> > loss of Joey Dunlop - the parallels of this great motorbike road racer
> and
> > Jim are too close :-( )
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
I seem to remember it stemming from Clark's work at Indy with Holman/Moody.
I've searched the NASCAR.com archive and have turned up zip.
don
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Thanks, Don. > Do you know the story of how he came to appear in that race? was it a > promotional thing (I assume it was something to do with Ford). > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > ---------------------------don hodgdon wrote:
>
> From www.forix.com
>
> 1966 - 9 F1 GP (Lotus), 16 points, 6th. 1 win (US). (3rd Holland, 4th GB).
> Nascar (Holman-Moody Ford): 30th in American 500 at Rockingham
I could be wrong, but I think I have a picture somewhere of Clark also
running the '63 Ford Galaxie at Crystal Palace -- Gurney came over and
ran Galaxies quite successfully against the Jaguars in Saloon races, as
did local (Sir) John Whitmore. The British-run Galxies were just a
little different than the NASCAR counterparts, as they were required to
run full chrome trim!
Thanks, Don.
Do you know the story of how he came to appear in that race? was it a
promotional thing (I assume it was something to do with Ford).
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
don hodgdon <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8qjfd6$k5j$[email hidden]...
>
> "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> > Which year, which team and in what races did he drive for NASCAR?
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Kennewell,
> > Canberra, Australia.
> > ---------------------------
>
> From www.forix.com
>
> 1966 - 9 F1 GP (Lotus), 16 points, 6th. 1 win (US). (3rd Holland, 4th GB).
> Nascar (Holman-Moody Ford): 30th in American 500 at Rockingham
>
> --
> don
>
> New GPL Programs for the Converted Tracks:
> http://www.ianparker1.plus.com/gpl/bapom/
>
> You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be
> misquoted, then used against you.
>
>
>
>
>
And the air-conditioner had to remain connected.
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> The British-run Galxies were just a
> little different than the NASCAR counterparts, as they were required to
> run full chrome trim!
"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Which year, which team and in what races did he drive for NASCAR?
1966, Holman-Moody, hmm not sure. Anyone ???
Confirmation of the partnership is at http://www.holmanmoody.com/
but no photos or race details ( I've asked them to add it ).
Surprised that the www.nascar.com site doesn't have historical results :-(
Peter
I think there's some info on it in "Ford: The Dust and the Glory" --
lemme check it out and get back to youse...
don hodgdon wrote:
Quoted text (11 lines)
> > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Thanks, Don. > > Do you know the story of how he came to appear in that race? was it a > > promotional thing (I assume it was something to do with Ford). > I seem to remember it stemming from Clark's work at Indy with Holman/Moody. > I've searched the NASCAR.com archive and have turned up zip. > > donOkay....thanks for looking.
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
don hodgdon <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8qkbl0$7hu$[email hidden]...
>
> "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> > Thanks, Don.
> > Do you know the story of how he came to appear in that race? was it a
> > promotional thing (I assume it was something to do with Ford).
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Kennewell,
> > Canberra, Australia.
> > ---------------------------
>
> I seem to remember it stemming from Clark's work at Indy with
Holman/Moody.
> I've searched the NASCAR.com archive and have turned up zip.
>
> don
>
>
Thanks.
Amazing that there is little reference to this anywhere.
I'm damned if I can find anything in the tonnes of stuff I have here!
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
Bad-Boy <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:W2mz5.649$[email hidden]...
> "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> > Which year, which team and in what races did he drive for NASCAR?
>
> 1966, Holman-Moody, hmm not sure. Anyone ???
>
> Confirmation of the partnership is at http://www.holmanmoody.com/
> but no photos or race details ( I've asked them to add it ).
>
> Surprised that the www.nascar.com site doesn't have historical results :-(
>
> Peter
>
>
Thanks, Barton.
Ewes are wait'n pashently!
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> I think there's some info on it in "Ford: The Dust and the Glory" --
> lemme check it out and get back to youse...
>
> don hodgdon wrote:
> >
> > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:[email hidden]...
> > > Thanks, Don.
> > > Do you know the story of how he came to appear in that race? was it a
> > > promotional thing (I assume it was something to do with Ford).
>
> > I seem to remember it stemming from Clark's work at Indy with
Holman/Moody.
> > I've searched the NASCAR.com archive and have turned up zip.
> >
> > don
That information does change my perspective considerably. Senna drove
'around' quite a bit less than that. The Shoe's even less. But I still think
the exercise would yield different results than we might expect. Kind-a nice
that way if you think about it. There is a definite individuality to the
memories of each of the greats. Their personalities almost shine above their
achievements but are formed by our memories of their achievements. (If that
makes any sense.) If it were all the same, all quantifiable, some of our
heroes would have to be knocked off the charts.
--
"Stay loose - Stay alive."
mark
"Bad-Boy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:n52z5.18704$[email hidden]...
> Feel compelled to point out that at his "prime" Jim Clark was
> *SIMULTANEOUSLY*
> racing saloon cars, GT cars, F1, F2, Indy, NASCAR *AND* rallying.
> He competed in events all over the world and especially enjoyed the Tasman
> Cup in Oz/NZ.
>
> To know the measure of the man, watch film of him racing the Lotus Cortina
> in the
> British and European saloon car championships - the epitome of car
control.
> And remember that the next day he may well be competing in an F2 race !!
>
> It was this enjoyment (and success) at all levels that sadly led to his
loss
> in
> a race many say he didn't need to do. He was a racer and would always
> race if he had the choice. ( This really struck home for me personally at
> the
> loss of Joey Dunlop - the parallels of this great motorbike road racer and
> Jim are too close :-( )
>
> Peter
>
>
>
