If you must install to C:/Program Files you can elevate the privilege of the LFS installer (by running it as an administrator). However, if you do this you'll need to run LFS as an administrator too (otherwise it won't be able to write files in C:/Program Files).

Also Johnny Herbert never really recovered from his massive shunt at Brands Hatch in F3000.

Quote from jibber :

Hell yes!

I've heard many examples from people who use tape machines like this as a final recording stage for their hip hop beats. I love the sound they achieve doing this.

A possible (somewhat commercially successful and definitely interesting) example being Jay Dee's Ruff Draft EP. I don't know what he used to make that, but it definitely has that kind of sound to it (I think he actually mentions something about tapes in the intro but I haven't listened to it for a while).

Quote from Mustafur :

being in a bad car means unless half the feild retires and you somehow score points no one notices if you are good or not.

The people who matter notice. The fans may not analyse the performance of every driver in every race (things like laptime stability and in- and out-lap times), but the teams do.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Well, obviously there was oil in there, or his box would be in pieces. Use logic, it wasn't a big enough problem that with a **** tonne of torque input it didn't break for like a 200km race.

Obviously there was some oil left (or there would have been a catastrophic failure...). The point is that if Vettel had not been forced to nurse the problem (by short-shifting) then he would likely have run out of oil. This is, of course, subject to us believing what Red Bull tell us. However, in the past when there have been team orders at Red Bull they have been open about it. Think back to Silverstone where there was a clear message on the radio. It doesn't make any sense for Red Bull to try and disguise team orders by inventing a phantom problem.

BBC reported there was almost no oil left in Vettel's gearbox. No oil -> catastrophic failure.

Check out the CPU Support List on the product page. Note that you may need a BIOS upgrade to support some of the processors on that list.

Sorry for the delay; I hadn't been checking the thread. Someone else can take my turn because I can't find any new funny images.

Closer.

On a similar theme...

What do you call a Russian with three balls?

Who'dyounickabollockof

Also SO4 looks like a duck and Spa looks like an Uzi.

There has been a new round of leaked eMails, thought to have been obtained at the same time as the ones leaked originally, leaked.

Slashdot.org

Guardian UK

There are download links to the eMails contained within the links from the Slashdot article, but I won't post a direct link here.

"golf sale ->"

Quote from BlueFlame :

If something is necessary then it's most definately one of the most important things in the design.

Yes, I agree. But it isn't necessarily the "most critical and important thing in any car". Do you understand the distinction here?

Quote from BlueFlame :

Example would be touring car series for one

I agree, to an extent. However, when Alfa started putting bigger and bigger aero kits on their BTCC cars in the '90s they dominated and forced everyone to follow suit. If that isn't a clear example of aero being the critical factor in touring cars (when other aspects are less open to exploitation) I don't know what could convince you.

Quote from BlueFlame :

NASCAR to a small degree.

Perhaps in the past, but with the regulations so closed now (COT aero, for example) there aren't many aspects of car design open for exploitation, so it's a bit of a moot point.

Quote from BlueFlame :

GT1 and GT2 classes also.

GT1 has artificial balancing performed on the cars to equalise performance across makes. With GT2 the wide variance in car layouts (e.g. MR for the Ferraris and RR for the Porsches) makes isolation and comparison of engines difficult. For example, the extra traction inherent in an RR solution might appear to make the Porsche engine better than the Ferrari engine in low speed driveability.

Quote from BlueFlame :

And even in P1 and P2, if your engine brakes you won't finish the race regardless of performance, knock of some aero winglets and you're still in the game.

Again, this ignores the distinction between a necessary component and the "most critical and important thing in any car".

Quote from BlueFlame :

If you don't have an engine, you ain't racing. If the car ran without aero it would still be able to go around a circuit.

The only thing as important as the engine, are the wheels. Without these it's not a motorcar.

Just because an engine is necessary doesn't mean it's the "most critical and important thing in any car". If that logic were true there would be several things which were the "most critical and important thing in any car".

Quote from BlueFlame :

Interms of performance you'd be correct in regards to F1, other open-spec disciplines engine is more important than aero, infact, in most other disciplines.

For example?

Quote from BlueFlame :

Well if you think about it, the engine is the most critical and important thing in any car

Nope. The engine hasn't been the most important aspect of the car in F1 for a long time now. Aerodynamics play a MUCH bigger role in overall car performance than engine performance does. Ask a team whether they'd rather have a 1% increase in downforce at 200kph (with no extra drag) or a 1% increase in peak power (with no extra mass) and they'd bite your hand off for the downforce. Of course, there have been times in F1 where the engine was probably the most important aspect (especially before the introduction of wings and other downforce generating parts and during the turbo power with fuel restrictions period). Tyres (in an era of multiple tyre suppliers) also play a larger part in overall performance than the engine.

Quote from Hyperactive :

Goes both ways.

Well, my arguments don't need a re-definition of the word "thoroughbred"

Quote from Hyperactive :

I definitely say there are degrees and also room for interpretation.

This is where we have a fundamentally different definition of the word thoroughbred and why no amount of debate will resolve it. Unless you want to re-define thoroughbred I don't think any of your arguments are really valid. If we don't have the common ground of the definition of the word we're arguing over what point is there in even trying to?

Quote from Hyperactive :

There is a lot of room for interpretation.

With respect to the term "thoroughbred" I disagree. A racing car either is a thoroughbred or it isn't. If it's comprised of parts designed purely for racing (i.e. it does not have crossover or common parts with a road car) it's a thoroughbred. As soon as you introduce a common part (e.g. an engine block or floorpan from a road car) it isn't a thoroughbred.

Quote from Hyperactive :

What a race car needs or does not need to go racing is not always based on whether that piece of equipment or design choise is required for the car do better. It is usually required to meet the rules of a series.

A gt car has certain requirements like air conditioning among others (being based on a road car, restricted engines) that don't make it any faster. With lemans prototypes certain technical designs are encouraged and made faster by rules. Diesels versus petrol. Pure petrol/diesel versus hybrids. It is restricted in its thoroughbred ability to race. Does it matter if a race car is slower because of comfort, traffic laws or rules of the racing series?

Every race car has a certain starting point. That starting point is not usually a design goal of being just fast but being in accordance to a set of rules. Do those kind of rules make a race car less thoroughbred? In the most purest sense yes of course but then where do you draw the line? If the only thing that makes a car a thoroughbred race car is its ability and purpose to race then even the most basic daily road car with a roll cage and a sweaty swearing englishman inside it is a thoroughbred race car right? Does it become more thoroughbred if you remove the rollcage and replace the englishman by a flying finn it it?

Yes, most racing cars are required to meet the rules and restrictions for the series they're intended to compete in. However, this compliance does not necessarily mean the cars cannot be thoroughbred. If the rules only aspects such as permitted dimensions, minimum masses of components, permitted materials and other restrictions of the kind they still allow a thoroughbred racing car to be designed to meet those rules. A current F1 car, for example, must use a 2.4 litre V8 engine and must have a usable reverse gear. It is still a thoroughbred racing car. If, however, the F1 rules were changed such that the engine block had to come from a road car of the engine supplier the overall car (using the road-based engine) would no longer be a thoroughbred.

Quote from Hyperactive :

There is a distinction between being a thoroughbred race car and thoroughbred fast car.

If there is such a thing as a thoroughbred road car it would have to be a thoroughbred with respect to being a road car. The two (i.e. thoroughbred with respect to racing and thoroughbred with respect to road use) are not the same. This is the same reason why a thoroughbred racing horse is not the same as a thoroughbred showjumping horse.

Quote from Hyperactive :

What is the most thoroughbred race car? Is it a dragster with most hardcore approach to its design goal or is it a gt4 race car? Both are still as thoroughbred race cars as the rules allow. Is the most thoroughbred race car racing in a series where there are least amount of rules even if they don't have the budgets to maximise that freedom? Is the "thoroughbredness" of the race car more about what it tries to achieve than what it is?

As I said before, something either is or isn't a thoroughbred; there aren't degrees. You could debate the purity of certain racing cars (e.g. GT1 car is more pure than a V8 Supercar but neither are thoroughbred racing cars) though.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Well if you take a thoroughbred race car like McLaren F1 for example, it was made as both road and track excursions, to be honest, any race car is a thouroughbred in a one dimensional sense, in it's road form it's just a foal and during the building process is 'bred' to be a race-car.

In terms of cars like Ferrari, Lamborghini and Porsche to name a few, they are pretty much race cars for the road anyway but it's a tough subject to classify as alot of race cars had to be built as road specials aswell to conform to regulations. Such as Group B.

No...just no. Put the shovel down and back away.

Quote from BlueFlame :

I was eating and thinking bread.

Apparently for you it's unacceptable to type a mistake though. Not everyone has a silver spoon in their draw.

I don't care about the spelling mistake; I'm talking about the definition. Taking a road car (i.e. a production car designed for use on the roads) and turning it into a racing car will never produce a thoroughbred racing car. A thoroughbred is something designed solely for one purpose (e.g. a thoroughbred racehorse is bred to race). An example of a thoroughbred racing car would be something like Formula 1 or GP2. They are designed, from the start to the end, to be racing cars. Even if the racing car only has a small crossover in parts when compared to the road car (e.g. floorpan, engine block) it cannot, by definition, be a thoroughbred.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Agreed. Race cars are supposed to be thouroughbread version of the comparable road car.

Look up the definition of thoroughbred.

Are you asking for a rewind facility when viewing replays? If so, that's impossible because the replay is shown as the result of inputs to the physics engine. The replay file contains the instructions needed to repeat what happened - you cannot go back in time.

Quote from rageshgr :

hotlap is offline :P

I think the point was that there's no reason for beginners to use the hotlapping mode when they should be using the single player mode for practice.

Quote from Cornys :

Already putting his moderator status to good use I see

+1

Good to see, though. Much better to have someone wisely using mod powers than not using them at all