The old Silverstone was a very fast flowing track that although flat as a pancake was up there with the best in the world, try the 1988 rF layout or even better with the old Woodcote, watch some onboard videos of the old circuit and come back saying it is dull and flat. The modern circuit is dull and flat with lots of dull corners connecting the brilliance that is Bridge and the run from Copse to Beckets.
Donnington should be plenty safe enough, it is safe enough for Moto GP and the only real dangerous spots are cars spinning at the upper Craner and crossing at the lower Craner (grass is still far safer than gravel there though), violent rolls (very rare) from cars digging in at the Craners (more a worry for trackdays/cars with limited roll protection) or going off where the bridge comes in at the Old Hairpin (the bridge isn't used and removing it would be a shame but wouldn't effect infrastructure or the circuit at all).
I also don't understand why F1 tracks need to be so long, I personally would rather they ran the National circuit, the whole Melbourne Loop is a horrible bit of circuit design only there to make it longer and it makes the paddock stupidly long and narrow. I see no reason why they can't run F1 cars on a track with 45 second laps, if one of the best circuits in the world happens to be rather short then what is the possible explination for adding a pointless extra length?
The Chinese might actually be able to claim an increase in build quality for once 
Hey Duke don't be silly it is only 682,633,355,351.07 ZWD according to XE.
Looking at the list today I've had:
3 cups of Nescafe coffee
A bowl of Shreddies
2 kit kats
A bottle of Vittel water
My dogs had Winalot
...and my cat has had Go-Cat
3 cups of Nescafe coffee
A bowl of Shreddies
2 kit kats
A bottle of Vittel water
My dogs had Winalot
...and my cat has had Go-Cat
Given your forum behaviour I doubt there was 'no reason for it' 
F1 cars (and some other serious single seaters) have very high profile tyres because most of the damping is done by the tyre, which allows very stiff suspension and chassis.
If there's a way of getting a US IP that works without downloading some dodgey program I'd like to watch South Park, which England is banned from because of exsisting contracts.
Link doesn't work for me (using OpenDNS).
Completely agree, I haven't touched it for a few days because it takes too long.
How many people have actually tried it though?
Not all of them by any means, a separate gear display is commonly used because it can be bigger and placed in a different place, often driven by the same system as the dash though.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't have a gear display on a sequential 'box, it is pretty standard stuff and like Tristan said with a wheel speed and rpm sensor already on the car there is no need for any extra sensors to get a gear display.
Ever thought it might just be a perceived advantage? Lots of people spend hours looking at their data logging in a totally nonconstructive illogical manner, just like people who will tell you a car feels better after you tell them you've changed it.
Maybe he should stick to driving them, very few drivers have the first clue how their cars work and couldn't set them up without an engineer interpreting their feelings, they certainly don't understand the workings of tyres well enough to diagnose what they are doing. Real drivers are a marketing tool and nothing more than that, they should not be given any control of inputting anything into the physics. Real mechanics and engineers could be far more useful as they understand how cars work and because they don't have some confused idea of what they think their real cars are like to drive they won't go and start botching things on 'feel'.
You're clearly not used to old 911s then, yes they can be tricky to drive and do have plenty of lift off oversteer and will bite if you try and throw them about but they are a joy to drive when you've got the hang of them. You are probably also using an unrealistically low steering ratio which makes them much more sensitive.
No the tyres are completely wrong, it does sound and look very nice though.
Onboard videos and a track walk are far more important tools for improving driving lines, data anaylsis tells you bugger all about how good particular lines are it is only really of any use as far as the driver is concerned to see where he is shifting and to check throttle, brake and steering inputs aren't doing silly things, but by a feeder series for F1 you should be well past that stage.
It is better than PCC in that it isn't front engined, not a lot better than that though. The only decent 911s you'll find in rF atm are in the Historic GT and CSGT HPM mods.
Waste of space, looks and sounds very pretty and like the Epsilon by the same team bellow the limit it seems quite good to drive at first, once you get near the limit though you find the weird suspension and tyres that are far worse than typical ISI tyres.
I'd stay away from fire unless it can be done properly, it just looks naff in rF. iRacing has by far the best smoke and dirt in any sim, would be great if LFS could do something like it.
Done. I agree it is completely pointless, I just ignore the requests myself.
Historic GT (you will need a GTL disc to install it) and VLM's Mid Ohio will keep you going for a while
The engine isn't the problem, it does have limitations, but if used to its full potential it is probably as good as LFS overall in terms of physics modeling, the problem is it is only after 10 years with the engine that people have started to use common sense and try feeding sensible inputs into rather than just botching for the correct result.
I think that figure may well be the amount for a fully prepared car to be brought to a circuit for drivers to race, with the exception of excessive damage, which could simply be solved by limiting the number of repairs a driver is allowed, if you make it so by being involved in too many crashes (regardless of fault or what session they happen in) means you are forced to miss races people will soon stop driving into each other so readily.
I don't think they are really, if the cars are prepared by the organiser there is no need to use exotic materials, a rev limited turbo charged production based V6 or 4 could provide plenty of power to be a handful in something relatively cheap and easy to repair, an aluminium honeycomb monocoque or even a spaceframe would be fine for a single make series. If they're all worked out well and designed to be easy and cheap to fix with a lowly stressed engine something that is capable of driving circles round an F3 car could be built for the kind of money people manage to spend on building Formula Fords.
The FIA can certainly stop testing and other race activities, even the UK Formula BMW championship stopped two drivers from competing in the Wilhire 24 hours in a saloon car despite the fact it was on a different layout of the track and a completely different car. You could buy a car and the FIA would probably struggle to stop you from testing it at a non-licensed venue, what use driving a different single seater round an airfield would be I have no idea. Back in the real world most aspiring racing drivers, sponsors and teams don't have limitless funds and will only choose to spend money if there is any percieved advantage. If people really have millions they can simply buy a seat in a back of the grid F1 team, as many have done in the past.
Firstly as I think you are still missing you could simply be banned from spending any extra money making the car faster or better prepared. I also don't think it is beyond even the FIA to ban or restrict testing and driver coaching in other cars.
More than two years, rF has clear routes in SCGT and all the ISI games that followed, ISI still haven't put logical data in and every ISI engine developer has fallen into the same traps again and again despite claims of real data from tyre companies, having said that I e-mailed several tyre companies asking some technical questions whilst doing the DBR9 tyres and Goodyear seemed to think that there was a curve of reaction force vs. slip angle printed on the side wall of their tyres and worse still Yokohama believe in the sudden drop off nonsense!
A quick google reveals the first go kart was built 52 years ago by Kurtis out of a few bits of old tube and an old lawn mower engine, to offer a cheap form of motorsport.
You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. FPA is run so you pay the amount (approx £60000 IIRC) and that is it, I think there is a certain level of damage repairs included in that but further repairs would be the only extra cost. Palmer Audi run the cars, you can't just buy extra testing or decide to replace tyres more often, or have bits re-made in exotic materials (I know a single seater team was spending 4 figures on each set of wheel bearings to lower friciton), you can't cheat either, which when all is said and done probably does happen quite routinely in current top level spec series, where you have independant teams with massive budgets and very little room for legal inovation to get the edge.
There is no reason why the Palmer Audi/Skip Barber model couldn't be used on a slightly larger scale, it seems pointless to have a one make tightly regulated series and then let a load of teams spend the same budgets they would spend in a technically open championship to achieve bugger all.
You also seem to have forgotten that Button (whom presumably you love on grounds he is British and once got in a kart) moved to FPA after he started in karts. The BRDC also offer scholarships and drives to karters to move up into FPA.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG