Quote from MadCatX :

Does anybody know how the YouTube creation and tagging time work? I find it rather odd that some of those allegedly intercepted phone calls uploaded by Ukrainian Intelligence seem to have been created the evening before this all happened. I'm not sure if timezones would account for the difference. I'm on a pretty slow connection now so I cannot check this against my own video.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5E8kDo2n6g)

I downloaded a video which I uploaded to YouTube this afternoon. The video files which went into the edit were created last night (the 18th July 2014) at between about 19:20 and 20:00 (all times are GMT). The edited video file was created this afternoon (19th July 2014) at about 12:48. The video was uploaded to YouTube starting at around 13:00. It finished processing and I got the "Congrats, your video's on YouTube" email at 13:53. This is the MediaInfo output for the video I re-downloaded from YouTube (using JDownloader):


As you can see, the 'Encoded data' and 'Tagged date' entries show one day earlier than they should. This looks like some configuration problem on YouTube's end.

Quote from Nilex :

The rest are speculations and assumptions used in information war and nothing else.

What do you think about the posting on social media by Igor Girkin where he claimed responsibility for downing what he thought at the time was a military plane? He was celebrating this achievement and posted a couple of videos. Then some time later the posting was removed, presumably when he/they learned that the plane which was downed was actually a civilian airliner? Do you think someone 'hacked' the account and faked a post?

Quote from danielroelofs :

The Ukraine alone not much perhaps... All this shit for the last decade or something.. Lybia, Jemen, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Egypt, Syria ( In which they failed luckily which might have hurt their feelings wonder what kind of influence that has on current situation..), Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and the many more I forget? Still not rining an alarmbell? Are caused by one nation.. who have nasty tactics to cause some kind of huge riots which must 'justify' Interventions.

Will be useless to say more unless the one talking to has done some historical research himself..

Ah, I see...well, that makes a lot more sense!

...ok

Quote from danielroelofs :

I feel for quite a time now that one party is trying to do so much to provoke war, and it is not Russia.

What exactly do the Ukrainian leadership stand to gain by provoking all-out war with Russia?

Quote from Mysho :

https://translate.google.com/t ... ids-624492&edit-text=

google translated, but still understandable and you can see the actual loss that came with this absurdity.

Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 ... and 100 top researchers?

English-language article on the same topic.

Quote from madcatx :

this is so much of a sick theory... Jesus

<snip>

do you actually spend any time thinking when you're concorting these theories or do you just empty a bottle of cheap liquor and type whatever happens to cross your mind?

+1

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

http://pressimus.com/Interpreter_Mag/press/3398

If this is a legitimate recording it brings up an interesting question: Were communications between Russian military intelligence and pro-Russian separatists being conducted in-the-clear (unencrypted) or do the Ukrainian security service (and their allies?) have the capability to decrypt intercepted Russian military encryption in (near) real-time?

Quote from MoMo92i :

The formula E development car made a lot of testings this winter without any troubles and made similar laptimes as FR2.0.

I just find that hard to believe, given the specs. Even in qualifying mode (~270bhp equivalent) the power-to-weight ratio of the Formula E car is just about the same as the FR2.0. Then you factor in the tyre+aero grip and weight and the FR2.0 seems like it should be significantly quicker. The only thing the Formula E has in its favour is a greater amount of immediate torque, but I'm not sure how significant that is when you factor in the weight of the FR2.0 car. With the Formula E car in race mode (~180bhp equivalent) things are obviously well in the favour of the FR2.0 car.

Quote from Intrepid :

My point is about the fallacy about racing drivers, in general, being fitness superstars

I don't think this exists in the minds of the general public. I think most people are more likely to see racing drivers as being less fit than 'proper' athletes like runners, tennis players etc. If you type "are racing drivers" into Google the top suggested search completion is "are racing drivers athletes". I personally believe that drivers involved in top level motorsports are athletes, but I don't believe they're the most athletic people in the world. Additionally, I don't think it's necessarily worthwhile to compare sports people across different disciplines for fitness. For instance, the requirements for a long-distance runner are massively different than those of a sprinter, and that's just staying within one particular area.

Quote from Intrepid :

Also, it proves my point

BTW, I wasn't actually saying you were wrong. Just questioning your (unsurprisingly) aggressive "kartors are gods!" type post.

Quote from Intrepid :

I've never ever seen a karter struggle getting to grips with any race car from a fitness standpoint - sprint race or endurance.

You should look into the fitness problems Senna had in his first season of F1.

Quote from Intrepid :

Karts are harder physically than a GT car to drive, anyone who says otherwise is stupid.

[citation needed]

Quote from MoMo92i :

Guys you all miss one thing.

This serie isn't make to attract motorsport fan in particular, but to bring new people in a new sort of motorsport. It's not about attracting new fans, just having different fans.

This is racing, yes but in the main this is a marketing thing especially in the first few years.

You seem to be contradicting yourself a bit here.

I realise that part of the point of Formula E is to attract people who aren't necessarily 'traditional' motorsport fans (hence my use of the term 'casuals'). My point was that casuals are more likely to stay engaged and return if the cars look spectacular on track. With the equivalent of 180bhp in the races, weighing around 800kg and not generating a lot of tyre or aero grip I'm not sure they will be.

Quote from MoMo92i :

The cars can't have as much downforce as a WSR car simply because it is electrical. The track, the car and everything around is made in order to keep quite a lightweight single seater that can do 20 minutes of racing on a city track. Spark, renault, Williams, McLaren could have probably done something electric that could have lapped as fast as an LMP1 car around Donington but nothing that could have done 20minutes stints.

Without proper competition we don't know what could have been possible in the first season. When things become more open we'll hopefully find out...

Quote from MoMo92i :

Plus the serie got other constraint such as having the same tyres for dry & wet conditions + 18" wheels which is new in single seaters. By the way this car have less technical troubles than half the F1 grid this year and the technology it has is really impressive. Nowadays you don't have any race car that have so many patterns on board. This car is also a work in progress laboratory for factories, which is one of the last excuses motorsport addict find to promote a costly motorsport marketing program to its finance department.

We'll see about the technical problems. There have been some already (e.g. overheating of the electrical system and wishbone failures) and they haven't properly tested in the sort of environments they'll be racing in yet (e.g. hot, humid enclosed spaces which they're likely to encounter in city centres).

Quote from MoMo92i :

By the way these cars are faster than Formula Renault 2.0 which was the target at the begining of the project.

Source?

Quote from MoMo92i :

One more thing, that's the only area of motorsport which isn't suffuring from lack of sponsors...

NASCAR (which is practically the antithesis of Formula E) doesn't seem to be struggling for sponsors...

Quote from PMD9409 :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXV24en7emE

Not bad...I guess this is in qualifying mode.

Quote from Anthoop :

...and you can do the same on real cars too by changing parts...no matter how much downforce it has or how fast it is travelling..

Nope. The rules in F1 are written in such a way that it's practically impossible (as in, impossible in practice) for a driver to lock the brakes at high speed (e.g. 180+ mph) in normal conditions because they simply can't apply enough pedal pressure to overcome the tyre grip at that speed.

Quote from Intrepid :

Why do they go so hard on fitness? Fitness can always be improved. It's not like driving a GT car requires Olympian athletic levels.

Keeping up the concentration levels during a 1 hour stint in a stinking hot GT car (cockpit temps of ~50 degrees C aren't unheard of) while lapping slower cars and potentially being lapped by quicker cars isn't exactly easy.

Quote from MadCat360 :

Do they require you to work the course at autocross over there? The clubs here make the game cheap by charging small entry fees, allowing 3-4 runs (5 mins track time), then have you work for 1.5 hours catching cones for other cars. I got fed up with it years ago and stopped doing autocross.

Nope, not at the 2 venues I've been to - just needed to pay an entry fee or be a member of the club running the event.

Quote from MadCat360 :

There is NO affordable motorsport.* That's how it is.

* well you could make a case for pocket bike racing, but that's still a much more expensive hobby than almost anything else

Autocross/autotesting is pretty cheap (here in Scotland at least). I've seen plenty of people drive their own cars to the tracks, thrash about for a few runs and drive home. Or you could go the other route and get a cheap trailer and tow vehicle (if your daily driver won't serve as one). Either of these options would be affordable for most people. Depending on your initial cost (which will depend on which route you go down) and how many events you attend a year, your cost-per-event can be very low (potentially <£100 per event (total cost) amortised over a few years). You're also more in control of your own destiny this way (less chance of being run into by someone else who doesn't care).

Last edited by amp88, Sun, 13 Jul 2014 16:40. Reason : missing bracket

Quote from Intrepid :

Proper racing doesn't attract new fans.

I'd argue that V8 Supercars is a series which still provides 'proper racing' and has been growing in popularity over the last few years. There are a wide variety of race formats (100km sprint races with 1 mandatory pit stop, 200km races with 2 mandatory pit stops, 250km, 500km and 1000km). All of the cars share quite a large number of common components (the engine and bodywork are different between the 5 manufacturers but things like brakes, transmission, suspension etc are either control items or heavily restricted), which is a decent attempt at a cost cap and means the field is generally very tight (it's not uncommon to have 20+ cars within less than a second in qualifying). There aren't too many gimmicks involved; for the most part it's proper racing with a pretty good level of driving talent and good, hard racing that isn't dirty. Track attendance for many of the events is 100k+ for a 3 day event and 200k+ for the larger endurance events. Many of the events feature large-scale concerts and other attractions at the venue, which attract people who wouldn't ordinarily have gone for just a motor racing event. The series is also shown within Australia (and possibly some surrounding countries) on free-to-air TV live. The quality of the TV production is excellent.

Quote from CodeLyoko1 :

they must have onboard camera's by fia regulations

No - they must have either onboard cameras or camera housings by the regulations. Not all cars are equipped with operational cameras.

Quote from F1 2014 Technical Regulations :

1.16 Camera housing :
A device which is identical in shape and weight to a camera and which is supplied by the relevant competitor for fitting to his car in lieu of a camera.

20.1 Presence of cameras and camera housings :
All cars must be fitted with at least five cameras or camera housings at all times throughout the Event.

It's also possible his car wasn't carrying any onboard cameras (I don't know whether it was, I'm just giving a possible reason).

Quote from GreyBull [CHA] :

BTW, I don't belive that the Andros electric cars have ever been a big draw to the public, even though they've had a few big name drivers at the wheel, and the occasional celebrity.

The TT Zero bikes at the Isle of Man aren't particularly popular either. They've seen consistent performance development since 2010, but they still look quite slow compared to the petrol-powered bikes and there doesn't seem to be a lot of engagement with the fans.

Quote from JackDaMaster :

Someone needs to ask Kunos on twitter if the 12C has all the electronic stuff. It's all fairly easy to model but you would need some supplied real life values and I'm not sure if the manufacturers would be willing to give that stuff away.

Quote from amp88 :

https://twitter.com/amp8888/status/484374594707791873

Quote from Stefano Casillo :

As with other cars, we always try to go the extra mile but it all depends on the data we receive from manufacturers.

Source

Perhaps not surprising, but disappointing anyway.

Quote from TexasLTU :

Probably won't follow it because of the reason of shit grid, but the whole idea is ok.

Apart from:

• Car changes during race (because of limitation in battery range) - terrible idea because range is probably the first problem most members of the public would name about electric cars. Having visual confirmation of that in every race (in the first season, at least, we'll see how the batteries get developed as time goes on).
  
• Mediocre performance - ~180bhp equivalent during the races in a car that weighs around 800kg means they won't be quick. In addition to that, they look like they won't have a lot of tyre or aero grip. In the clips we've seen so far (including the pre-launch testing and footage from the Donington test) they have yet to look fast. Unless the average viewer switches on and sees some excitement they're going to be turning off quite quickly. Visible speed (cars punching out of corners or having swift changes of direction at high speed) would be handy at keeping casuals engaged.
  
• 'Fanboost' - The most popular drivers will get free push-to-pass in the races (equivalent to roughly 90bhp extra over the ~180bhp normal race performance). I get the idea of trying to engage the audience on social media, but really?
  
• Spec series for first season - They had a great opportunity to actually have some real competition with technical development (since this series, perhaps more than any other major series could genuinely be a technology race). Instead they chose to have a spec series for the first season, meaning everyone's stuck with the same mediocre performance/range.
  

There are some other problems, but these are major ones for me.

Quote from TexasLTU :

I can't give a single **** about "I never made it/made it in F1 but failed" racing series around

So you don't have any interest in Formula E either then?

Quote from TexasLTU :

Heavy multi-litre V8/12 days is a thing of yesterday. Get over it.

Except in V8 Supercars...

edit: Oh, and various GT3 series.

Last edited by amp88, Thu, 3 Jul 2014 21:10.