There are multiple contracts with requirements of both parties. We can't assume that Ferrari are necessarily the first to breach the terms of these contracts. Ferrari membership of the FOTA, which the FIA argues is a breach of contract, was as I understand it a response to the FIA's breach of its contractual obligations to Ferrari. Dates and times.. we'll just have to see who's broken which contract.
Prodrive can replace Williams in the breakaway series. Campos has also started asking about the possibility of joining in. Seems they'd rather race in the sun with Ferrari than under the Mosley cloud. 
Mosley's announced the FIA will be pursuing the breakaway teams in the courts.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76316
I don't think he's going to get anywhere. He himself is on record as SUGGESTING they form a breakaway series if they're not happy, and said that it would be fine by him if they did. Entrapment much?
"Start your own series, Mosley tells FOTA" - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/75796
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76316
I don't think he's going to get anywhere. He himself is on record as SUGGESTING they form a breakaway series if they're not happy, and said that it would be fine by him if they did. Entrapment much?
"Start your own series, Mosley tells FOTA" - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/75796
Well if you go that way, you could argue that CASE tractors has a racing pedigree, since they bought David Brown Tractors and that's where the "DB" in the Aton Martin brand comes from. You're not just in dirty waters when you talk about brand names having racing pedigrees.. you're in a flooded graveyard. With skellywobblies.
I'm pretty sure F1 aspires to making the grid at least a few times in the last 40 years or so.
Aston Martin don't really have racing pedigree. Not even the brand, really, having been more than just a little bit inconsistent for much of the 20th century, including whole decades of non-existence.
What Aston Martin has is James Bond. That's all, really.
It's a fair question, but so is the suggestion. If you review Mosley's plethora of ridiculous ideas of late - among them classics such as standard Cosworth engines across the board!? The question is more.. if NOT trying to destroy F1, what WAS the objective in making these devastatingly significant changes to F1 regulations?
Teams themselves wanted to reduce costs, just as Mosley did, but the rate of reduction that Mosley wanted was just not feasible. Ferrari aren't rejecting the €40 cap because they're bull-headed, their entire business model and sales strategy revolves around their F1 pedigree.
All the manufacturers in F1 were actively seeking to cut costs, but their multi-year involvement in the sport and the result of that involvement as it translated to brand status and car sales just couldn't be arbitrarily tampered with on-high by the FIA. Mosley simply couldn't dictate such mammoth corporate restructuring and he HAS to have known that.
If it was NOT a deliberate attempt to break F1's back, what WAS it?
Very good and interesting observation. Yeah... hmm... whichever series gets it will be the one regarded as the true inheritor of motorsports history.
FIA doesn't own "F1" and since Max accused Bernie of being behind the call-girl exposé I don't think there's much love lost there. This might just be a brief excursion away from the name while FOTA strikes a new, more equitable deal with Bernie. The concrete's not been poured yet, let alone given time to set.
I'm assuming that's to Becky. To my mind, there isn't an advantage to it being live, apart from instant gratification.
If anything, the deferred gratification of a delayed broadcast added to the anticipation on the forum, and the giddiness that ensued resulted in more watchers. That was a very healthy/hearty part of the STCC that can't be retained by a live broadcast. For the live broadcast, if you can't see the race as it happens, you perceive that you've missed it - even if it's an option to download in 100MB chunks later.
Ahh yes, Mr Rowe!
those were the days! 
As to the question would I watch it, it would very much depend on video quality and broadcast "watchability". The original STCC series was high quality downloadable, and it made watching the STCC easy.
I've enjoyed Mr Passingham et al's commentary on endurance races, but the system that's being used there is datacentre-oriented video streaming. That's very specifically the reason why it's watchable.
I guess it comes down to "suck it and see". There's not really much point asking me if I'd watch it because I don't know what I'd be watching yet. I can say "yes" now, but if I do watch it and it's crap quality, I won't watch more than one (or part of one) event. Similarly, I might say "no" but on hearing how spectacular it is, be irresistibly drawn to tune in to every subsequent event. Obviously, by "I" I mean "a voter".
I will say, though, that before I'd commit to support the series by watching it and giving it my time (and it sounds like a lot of time), I'd want to have some assurance that, barring earthquakes underneath or tornadoes overhead, the series would run its course to completion. It's essential, and even if it kicks ass from the start, if it kicks the bucket yards from the end I'd be a very unhappy patron.
I'd really like to see a return of the STCC. I'd be happy if it was in the same format it was last time, honestly. If it was, I'd be a regular fan. The STCC did truly set a new and significant standard in sim racing broadcasting, there was nothing like it before, and everything since has in some way or another mimicked its spectator-oriented format. I think it would be possible to raise the bar significantly without changing the delivery format or moving to a live show.
I'm also concerned that in raising the bar, a new and improved version may not be able to deliver on its promise - the bandwidth limitations, financial constraints (budget cap!?) and logistics involved are clearly massive hurdles which must all be cleared simultaneously.
I really would very much like for it to happen and for it to succeed in all respects, so I'm just going to keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best for you in the project
Closed this spam thread.
And given the problem we've been having this season with all this first-to-thread nonsense and fighting, I'm setting out the stall as to how it's going to be for the rest of the season:
The NEW race thread will be created on the Monday of the week before the race. It will not be created beforehand, and it will be created by either me or another moderator. Any more of this crap about starting a new thread will be met with infractions, both for those who start the thread and those that whine endlessly about it.
Until that time, the thread from the LAST race must be used for post-race discussions and any pre-race chat - even though I know from experience there is nothing that needs to be said that can't be said when the new thread opens.
It's time that some maturity returned to this forum, and if it has to start here, here is where it will start.
And given the problem we've been having this season with all this first-to-thread nonsense and fighting, I'm setting out the stall as to how it's going to be for the rest of the season:
The NEW race thread will be created on the Monday of the week before the race. It will not be created beforehand, and it will be created by either me or another moderator. Any more of this crap about starting a new thread will be met with infractions, both for those who start the thread and those that whine endlessly about it.
Until that time, the thread from the LAST race must be used for post-race discussions and any pre-race chat - even though I know from experience there is nothing that needs to be said that can't be said when the new thread opens.
It's time that some maturity returned to this forum, and if it has to start here, here is where it will start.
WTF?Unfortunately we were capable of delivering ICBMs 40 years ago
Specific to LFS, the licence is very generous because it allows you to install LFS on two computers on the same local area network. Your girlfriend CAN use your licence on the 2nd computer, in your house. The licence does not provide for your girlfriend using your LFS licence at HER house.
Other software almost never makes allowances for more than one user at any time. You buy a licence to use the software, and only you are licenced to do so. It's fair.. software companies are not in the business of giving away free software, they're in the business of licencing their software usually on a one unit : one user basis.
Yesterday was a good day for that, actually! I decided to drive the "Buttertubs Pass", which Top Gear fans will know is one of Clarkson's favourite roads in all the world!
(see attached image)Unfortunately, in a 2.0L Turbo Diesel estate, it's not so much fun as it is scary as shit! The car's weird.. it gets an oscillation going in the suspension and the front wheels spend way too much time in the air!
Haven't posted for a few days, so I thought I'd come and annoy you all again
I took a drive up into the Yorkshire Dales again yesterday, and had a good day taking photos and taking in the scenery. One of my favourite places to be.
Swaledale
Pendragon Castle
Above Hawes
Wainwath Force
And a pic of mah dawg, I took today (Deliberately induced grain, won't do that again!)
I took a drive up into the Yorkshire Dales again yesterday, and had a good day taking photos and taking in the scenery. One of my favourite places to be.
Swaledale
Pendragon Castle
Above Hawes
Wainwath Force
And a pic of mah dawg, I took today
(Deliberately induced grain, won't do that again!)Ugh.. I got no good arguments against. None at ALL. It looks like an awesome lens - everyone is saying the optics are way above normal Sigma standard, too. If you have $350, and it doesn't mean hurting an awful lot, I'd say it'll be money well spent! Especially since the limiter switch means it'll work perfectly as a portrait lens, too - 70mm=105mm in 35mm terms.
Umm.. doesn't the $800 price tag do enough to dissuade you!?
Nahh, similar/same purpose, different location. This is RAF Menwith Hill, just West of Harrogate.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps? ... mp;z=16&t=h&hl=en
ROFL!
I hit the Yorkshire Dales yesterday but I was enjoying myself so much, driving on the quiet roads, that I almost completely forgot to get out and take photos
Drove past Menwith Hill and decided to chance an encounter with the MOD's military police.. no takers
Meh.. if that's your idea of annoying advertising, you've been living in a bubble.
It seems to be a mix of Top Gear camera work and Brainiac-inspired marketing.
I think you'd have grounds for complaint, if you have any laws over there about advertising, because I don't think the "tests" are genuine. Can't do that over here.
It seems to be a mix of Top Gear camera work and Brainiac-inspired marketing.
I think you'd have grounds for complaint, if you have any laws over there about advertising, because I don't think the "tests" are genuine. Can't do that over here.
Half of it sounds like it was plucked out of zeitgeist 
You managed to shut 'em all up!
Meh.. I don't have much knowledge on this, but the camera's working distance is measured from the lens flange to the film plane. It's the area that the mirror (on SLR cameras) and the shutter mechanism (aka curtain) on film cameras occupy.
The minimum focusing distance, as far as I know, is the minimum distance from the subject to the front of the lens.
As for whether your camera will do it, if you set it up for a long exposure and set the aperture to minimum (f/22 or whatever it is) you might be able to get close to macro focusing. True macro is 1:1 or greater ratio, where a photo of a fly is at least as big on the film/sensor as it is in real life. A lot of cameras have macro modes that aren't true macro. Suck it and see
Meh.. I don't have much knowledge on this, but the camera's working distance is measured from the lens flange to the film plane. It's the area that the mirror (on SLR cameras) and the shutter mechanism (aka curtain) on film cameras occupy.
The minimum focusing distance, as far as I know, is the minimum distance from the subject to the front of the lens.
As for whether your camera will do it, if you set it up for a long exposure and set the aperture to minimum (f/22 or whatever it is) you might be able to get close to macro focusing. True macro is 1:1 or greater ratio, where a photo of a fly is at least as big on the film/sensor as it is in real life. A lot of cameras have macro modes that aren't true macro. Suck it and see
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG