what with the monaco F1 race this weekend i thought you may enjoy this rather ood outing of mansell chaseing senna and trying to give him him bumlove
Watch highlights from the 1992 Monaco Grand Prix as Nigel Mansell and Ayrton Senna do battle in the closing laps on the streets of Monte Carlo.
also has several other race highlights personaly i prefer blonde high lights as they show my eyes of to there best
( , Thu 24 May 2012, 21:44, Share, Reply)
Watch highlights from the 1992 Monaco Grand Prix as Nigel Mansell and Ayrton Senna do battle in the closing laps on the streets of Monte Carlo.
also has several other race highlights personaly i prefer blonde high lights as they show my eyes of to there best
( , Thu 24 May 2012, 21:44, Share, Reply)
F1 back when it was raw.
Back when the only form of traction control you had was your right foot. When changing gear involved a gearstick and clutch pedal.
Today's cars are so technologically advanced, so aerodynamically critical that they're no longer able to work properly inches behind another car. Such racing is pretty much gone as a result - we're left with KERS and DRS in order to get any overtaking at all. The solution to 'too much technology' seems to be to add ever more technology.
F1 today is a poor imitation of that era.
( , Thu 24 May 2012, 23:02, Share, Reply)
Back when the only form of traction control you had was your right foot. When changing gear involved a gearstick and clutch pedal.
Today's cars are so technologically advanced, so aerodynamically critical that they're no longer able to work properly inches behind another car. Such racing is pretty much gone as a result - we're left with KERS and DRS in order to get any overtaking at all. The solution to 'too much technology' seems to be to add ever more technology.
F1 today is a poor imitation of that era.
( , Thu 24 May 2012, 23:02, Share, Reply)
Too true
Sure the advances are amazing in their own right but it's dangerously near the point where drivers don't matter anymore - Just the car
( , Thu 24 May 2012, 23:13, Share, Reply)
Sure the advances are amazing in their own right but it's dangerously near the point where drivers don't matter anymore - Just the car
( , Thu 24 May 2012, 23:13, Share, Reply)
As someone who only started watching F1 a little way into the 2010 season
I must say I rather enjoy the technical jiggery-fuckwhattery, and I'm loving F1 at the moment. 2011 was a great season if you ignored the presence of Sebastian Vettel, but 2012 so far is proving very unpredictable and close-cut, which I'm really enjoying.
Also I don't think I could've handled Murray. He sounds like a man having a permanent heart attack, and it's actually quite distressing to listen to if you're not used to it.
( , Thu 24 May 2012, 23:32, Share, Reply)
I must say I rather enjoy the technical jiggery-fuckwhattery, and I'm loving F1 at the moment. 2011 was a great season if you ignored the presence of Sebastian Vettel, but 2012 so far is proving very unpredictable and close-cut, which I'm really enjoying.
Also I don't think I could've handled Murray. He sounds like a man having a permanent heart attack, and it's actually quite distressing to listen to if you're not used to it.
( , Thu 24 May 2012, 23:32, Share, Reply)
You're shitting me, right?
The Williams FW14B as seen there was a technological powerhouse. Semi-auto gearbox, traction control, active suspension, and for a while anti-lock brakes. A monkey could have driven that car quick.
( , Thu 24 May 2012, 23:48, Share, Reply)
The Williams FW14B as seen there was a technological powerhouse. Semi-auto gearbox, traction control, active suspension, and for a while anti-lock brakes. A monkey could have driven that car quick.
( , Thu 24 May 2012, 23:48, Share, Reply)
Indeed...
...I often find myself wondering how it would stack up against the cars of the past few years on identical tyres. It's certainly one of the most mechanically advanced F1 cars there's ever been, although less so aerodynamically. Much more powerful engines in those days though...
(having just looked up the Monaco lap record in '92, Mansell clocked a 1:21:958, whilst last year the fastest lap was 1:16:234. However tyres make all the difference)
*edited: wrong decade...
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 0:09, Share, Reply)
...I often find myself wondering how it would stack up against the cars of the past few years on identical tyres. It's certainly one of the most mechanically advanced F1 cars there's ever been, although less so aerodynamically. Much more powerful engines in those days though...
(having just looked up the Monaco lap record in '92, Mansell clocked a 1:21:958, whilst last year the fastest lap was 1:16:234. However tyres make all the difference)
*edited: wrong decade...
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 0:09, Share, Reply)
Whereas the McLaren in front of it
was still a manual transmission at the start of that season.
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 7:31, Share, Reply)
was still a manual transmission at the start of that season.
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 7:31, Share, Reply)
...
I hear many people complaining about a dependency on aerodynamics and how they wish the sport could simplify, but the truth is if the aerodynamics are ditched then F1 would immediately cease to be the pinnacle of motorsport.
That's why I like DRS when many people despise it. It's a partial solution to the problem of turbulent air whilst not compromising the aerodynamic performance of the cars. After all, the 2009 aero reg changes utterly failed to solve the issues.
Personally though, I think the FIA should dictate that a car is not allowed to generate X amount of turbulence Y meters behind itself. See what the engineers can come up with.
( , Thu 24 May 2012, 23:58, Share, Reply)
I hear many people complaining about a dependency on aerodynamics and how they wish the sport could simplify, but the truth is if the aerodynamics are ditched then F1 would immediately cease to be the pinnacle of motorsport.
That's why I like DRS when many people despise it. It's a partial solution to the problem of turbulent air whilst not compromising the aerodynamic performance of the cars. After all, the 2009 aero reg changes utterly failed to solve the issues.
Personally though, I think the FIA should dictate that a car is not allowed to generate X amount of turbulence Y meters behind itself. See what the engineers can come up with.
( , Thu 24 May 2012, 23:58, Share, Reply)
Are you not completely wrong on this?
Wasn't Mansells car one of those quantum leaps forward in F1 technology and Senna's was miles behind. Didn't Mansells car have all that fancy supsension which predicted the corners which they then banned the next season? Isn't the whole point of how good this race is that Senna's car is technolgically miles behind Mansells but he still wins?
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 8:51, Share, Reply)
Wasn't Mansells car one of those quantum leaps forward in F1 technology and Senna's was miles behind. Didn't Mansells car have all that fancy supsension which predicted the corners which they then banned the next season? Isn't the whole point of how good this race is that Senna's car is technolgically miles behind Mansells but he still wins?
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 8:51, Share, Reply)
Box Rule
Your car will be X long, Y wide, Z high, and have 4 wheels. It must go around these tracks. Go.
This is what the F1 rules should be.
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 8:51, Share, Reply)
Your car will be X long, Y wide, Z high, and have 4 wheels. It must go around these tracks. Go.
This is what the F1 rules should be.
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 8:51, Share, Reply)
I'd add one other proviso
You're only allowed to spend £50 million a year running the team. Any time spending gets out of control in a series it collapses pretty soon after.
Oh, and any team who kills one of their drivers is out for the rest of the season.
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 9:24, Share, Reply)
You're only allowed to spend £50 million a year running the team. Any time spending gets out of control in a series it collapses pretty soon after.
Oh, and any team who kills one of their drivers is out for the rest of the season.
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 9:24, Share, Reply)
boring boring boring sport
the thrill of speed is the danger, if there is less danger, there is less thrill.
ramp up the danger and the glory days will be back again
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 8:18, Share, Reply)
the thrill of speed is the danger, if there is less danger, there is less thrill.
ramp up the danger and the glory days will be back again
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 8:18, Share, Reply)
Danger for who?
You made me think of this though so thanks.
'Shut up and get off the set. Action. Push her towards Chuck'
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 9:28, Share, Reply)
You made me think of this though so thanks.
'Shut up and get off the set. Action. Push her towards Chuck'
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 9:28, Share, Reply)
I agree to a point
The problem comes when safety is completely dispensed with. That's where you end up with three or four drivers dying a year.
Grand Prix: The Killer Years is well worth a watch if you can find it.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00z8v18
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 9:34, Share, Reply)
The problem comes when safety is completely dispensed with. That's where you end up with three or four drivers dying a year.
Grand Prix: The Killer Years is well worth a watch if you can find it.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00z8v18
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 9:34, Share, Reply)
Read that as 'Krillex Years'.... o_O
Good watch though, the same program for the Group B rally seasons also.
The current crop of F1 (you can read all race spec drivers here) have enormous balls to do what they do, but in the early years they were on a par with Buster Gonad.
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 9:54, Share, Reply)
Good watch though, the same program for the Group B rally seasons also.
The current crop of F1 (you can read all race spec drivers here) have enormous balls to do what they do, but in the early years they were on a par with Buster Gonad.
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 9:54, Share, Reply)
I hated the Group B one
It was clearly written by someone with little or no interest in the subject matter and utterly failed to grasp the reason people were turning out in hundreds of thousands if not millions to watch these races. Namely that it was really bloody exciting.
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 10:00, Share, Reply)
It was clearly written by someone with little or no interest in the subject matter and utterly failed to grasp the reason people were turning out in hundreds of thousands if not millions to watch these races. Namely that it was really bloody exciting.
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 10:00, Share, Reply)
Agree on both points.
I didn't really pay attention to the opinions levelled in the commentary.
Enjoyed watching the footage and hearing from the drivers.
Stuff like this makes me shiver. 200mph in a tin can with a manual, no tcs, no abs.
Balls. Big ones.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCG66il-d_Y&t=1m
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 10:19, Share, Reply)
I didn't really pay attention to the opinions levelled in the commentary.
Enjoyed watching the footage and hearing from the drivers.
Stuff like this makes me shiver. 200mph in a tin can with a manual, no tcs, no abs.
Balls. Big ones.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCG66il-d_Y&t=1m
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 10:19, Share, Reply)
but that's how it should be
at the moment its like watching a flat rollercoaster.
to be a multi-millionaire monaco dwelling daredevil motor racer you should have balls of steel and a devil-may-care attitude.
James Bond films are what they are because he goes out and risks his life, nobody would want to watch it if it was just him sitting in an office in vauxhall and typing out the odd report
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 9:57, Share, Reply)
at the moment its like watching a flat rollercoaster.
to be a multi-millionaire monaco dwelling daredevil motor racer you should have balls of steel and a devil-may-care attitude.
James Bond films are what they are because he goes out and risks his life, nobody would want to watch it if it was just him sitting in an office in vauxhall and typing out the odd report
( , Fri 25 May 2012, 9:57, Share, Reply)