I LOVE multiquote...
I agree with you, but generalizations are part of discussions...
It´s not everyone, just the vast vast majority.
Don´t get me wrong... Motorsports would be fun to watch if there is no danger... But not half as exciting as it is now to most ´fans´.
Soccer and Football have the aspect of danger (not lethal, but serious bodily damage)... Snooker, darts and other ´bar sports´ have their charm. But the ´bar sports´ variety never has, and never will attract the amount of viewers that the more dangerous sports do.
I love playing pool, and used to be pretty good at snooker...
Now you are overstretching my point to prove yours
There´s no difference in experiencing a fast ride on public roads with or without safety-belts? Which one would scare you most? Remember that a healthy dose of adrenaline will make you feel euforic and like enjoying yourself... Race drivers are adrenaline junkies (well, most of them), otherwise they would never get in the car.
Spectators know it is dangerous. Even if they don´t realise just how dangerous it is, they still know someone could get hurt. And give the viewers some credit... They can spot the difference in safety between Eau Rouge and the various newly implemented chicanes on tracks.
At least we agree to disagree on the oval/road course debate
I never said F1 was too safe... I keep saying they´re moving towards the point where it becomes too safe... I´m all for safety issues implemented on cars as long as it doesn´t take away from the needed expertise of the driver (so they should ban all driver aids). I am firmly against banning allegedly unsafe tracks, and replacing them with MM type Tilke Tracks, or changing the layouts because there ´might´ be a heavy crash.
For a driver to walk away from a crash he must first crash... F1 is moving towards a safety zone where crashing a car becomes next to impossible due to low speed turns. That´s when they will lose most viewers.
What I´m talking about is: Katherine crashed heavily and walked away...
For F1 to go there the track will need to be changed so that there´s a chicane at the kink (already there), and there will need to be 150 yards of run-off area. In other words... Take all the excitement out of the thrilling turn.
The driver SHOULDN´T be hurt... That´s a bit different from your statement that ´the driver MUSTN´T be hurt´. I loved Kat´s crash, mainly because she walked away from it unharmed. I hated the actual moment that she was crashing, and the minutes after it when everybody had to have thought she was dead. I would hate it even more if these crashes were impossibilities. Kat´s crash is a perfect example of "the driver shouldn´t be hurt", rather than "mustn´t".
I agree with you, but generalizations are part of discussions...
It´s not everyone, just the vast vast majority.
Don´t get me wrong... Motorsports would be fun to watch if there is no danger... But not half as exciting as it is now to most ´fans´.
Soccer and Football have the aspect of danger (not lethal, but serious bodily damage)... Snooker, darts and other ´bar sports´ have their charm. But the ´bar sports´ variety never has, and never will attract the amount of viewers that the more dangerous sports do.
I love playing pool, and used to be pretty good at snooker...
Now you are overstretching my point to prove yours
There´s no difference in experiencing a fast ride on public roads with or without safety-belts? Which one would scare you most? Remember that a healthy dose of adrenaline will make you feel euforic and like enjoying yourself... Race drivers are adrenaline junkies (well, most of them), otherwise they would never get in the car.
Spectators know it is dangerous. Even if they don´t realise just how dangerous it is, they still know someone could get hurt. And give the viewers some credit... They can spot the difference in safety between Eau Rouge and the various newly implemented chicanes on tracks.
At least we agree to disagree on the oval/road course debate
I never said F1 was too safe... I keep saying they´re moving towards the point where it becomes too safe... I´m all for safety issues implemented on cars as long as it doesn´t take away from the needed expertise of the driver (so they should ban all driver aids). I am firmly against banning allegedly unsafe tracks, and replacing them with MM type Tilke Tracks, or changing the layouts because there ´might´ be a heavy crash.
For a driver to walk away from a crash he must first crash... F1 is moving towards a safety zone where crashing a car becomes next to impossible due to low speed turns. That´s when they will lose most viewers.
What I´m talking about is: Katherine crashed heavily and walked away...
For F1 to go there the track will need to be changed so that there´s a chicane at the kink (already there), and there will need to be 150 yards of run-off area. In other words... Take all the excitement out of the thrilling turn.
The driver SHOULDN´T be hurt... That´s a bit different from your statement that ´the driver MUSTN´T be hurt´. I loved Kat´s crash, mainly because she walked away from it unharmed. I hated the actual moment that she was crashing, and the minutes after it when everybody had to have thought she was dead. I would hate it even more if these crashes were impossibilities. Kat´s crash is a perfect example of "the driver shouldn´t be hurt", rather than "mustn´t".
Right.. Instead of simply disagreeing with my statement that motorracing without any danger to anybody involved whatsoever is like watching a marathon, why don't you come up with a reason why it is not so?
I can win any discussion by simply saying "You can either agree with me, or be wrong" and run away, or I can try to make the other person see things my way... It's like religion really, except I won't start killing you for not seeing things my way (no offense to any christians, muslims, hindus, judeans, scientologists, or any other religious people out there).
It's called discussing... Which is what we do here, because these are called discussion forums.
Yeah, Carl Edwards rammed Dale Earnhardt Jr after the race because Dale Jr intentionally wrecked him to win...
here's the video of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwiczGMkdHw
Can we actually see the longest average post thread somewhere?
I believe it, though... But we´re bringing the average post size down... ssshhh
You enjoy watching a marathon?
Because without danger that is exactly what racing becomes.
Deny it all you want, but every motorsports fan likes the danger aspect of it, and every racecar driver would be bored if it weren´t dangerous.
Yes, and I would never deny that. They have their use.
Then again, asphalt runoff areas save lifes when it´s dry too... But gravel does a much better job in the rain.
There's a video in the OP in this thread... That's how. :P
They (as in formula series and chassis builders in general, not just FIA) are making the cars safer. FIA just takes the most effective methods and mandates those. Which is fine... I have no problem with the FIA trying to create as safe a car as possible. I do however have a problem with the FIA banning things which make the cars go faster and when that fails start mandating track changes to stop serious shunts from ever happening.
Most of the electronics that directly influence the handling characteristics of the car are allowed because they make driving safer. The semi-auto boxes are a bad example by the way, because A1 has them, and that is cool and exciting racing. There are many more reasons why F1 is boring, safety isn't the only issue (in fact, it is one of the minor issues). My point was that if F1 is going to continue it's current course of overboard safety measures, the masses won't watch it even if there is massive amounts of overtaking.
MTBF... Oval Racing is much bigger in the US, and road racing is much bigger in Europe... Then how come there's only 1 european road course series on there? The others are american series, oval series, or completely different types of racing.
The numbers here, no matter how you look at them, are biased.
If you want to have good numbers you'd have to look at each fatality seperately, and wonder if they could've happened at other tracks than the one they happened on. And take all fatalities into account. Not just the ones in bigger series. I can give you an example that could show that ovals are safer... Jeff Krosnoff died in a freak accident when his car was lifted into the air and hit a lamppost next to the track in Toronto. Kenny Brack had a very similar accident at an oval traveling much much faster, and lived. I can't remember who or where it was, but it was a very similar crash to Jeff's and the driver suffered only minor injuries.
Greg Moore's fatal accident was a freak incident where he jumped up on the grass and flipped his car right with the rollbar into a concrete wall...
Paul Dana's fatality would've happened had he driven on Spa and encountered a spinner at the top of eau rouge because he was just being insanely (and suicidally) stupid.
That's fine. But if your stats are not 'complete', they shouldn't be presented as fact. They are not a fact (well, the stats themselves are a fact, but they prove nothing).
No problem
EDIT: By the way, can we count someone being killed while painting the start line as a racing fatality? Because if we count that, we can add some fatalities to F1 (marshals in Monza 2000 and Melbourne 2001).
Yes, and instead of trying to move from "little" to "no" chance of getting killed, they should leave it at that. Basically it all comes down to the risk factor... Take the risk away and you lose viewers. What are the most exciting tracks to watch? The ones that are somewhat dangerous because of their layout.
Well, the poor F1 teams haven't been exactly going out of their way to deny the fact they hired someone with almost no experience because he could bring $5 million more to the team. Nor has the FIA gone out of their way to maintain a certain amount of profesional driving in their top series.
Which is exactly my point. Tracks like Road America, or even the old Hockenheim layout aren't really 'unsafe' in essence. However, there's a higher risk factor involved, which makes them just that bit more exciting to watch. No, people don't need to be killed, but a good wreck every now and then keeps people interested, how deranged that may sound.
(and F1 still is plenty dangerous enough, and there is the occasional big wreck, but they're reaching the break even point)
Last edited by TagForce, .
Don't twist my words around...
I never said drivers SHOULD get killed... But the danger that a driver COULD get killed should never be completely taken away. If there's no danger, there's no excitement. Sato would never have been in F1 a decade earlier because Sato never would've gotten his super license.
No, but they want to see drivers being in danger of getting killed... There's a fine line between being as safe as possible and boring.
Riiiight... They can design cars to be safe when crashing... That's what they're doing right now, nothing wrong with that. But you can go overboard and design racing so that it is not dangerous at all, which is what the FIA seems to be doing.
Right... So Chinese are the least healthy people on the planet? Of all the people dying the majority are chinese.
You're telling me these numbers are not biased? Only counting either fatalities in major series, or well known drivers... Would you mind adding all the national and amateur series and doing a recount? Or better yet... Add the number of races in the list above and calculate the MTBF (mean time between fatalities), and you'll see a different number.
By the way, that list has 13 oval fatalities and 5 normal track fatalities... Grand-am races the infield track at Homestead Miami, and he wrecked in turn 1 which is not the oval part.
Oh wow... They installed a high speed barrier a week ago...
Well, that puts an end to literally miles of 'unsafe' tire barriers at tracks like Spa (at raidillon and stavelot), yes... One right doesn't undo millions of wrongs... They're still lucky nobody got killed in a few years.
Ah... Under exceptional circumstances Appendix L also allows the FIA to award a Super Licence to a driver who does not meet the normal criteria if a vote reveals unanimous agreement by the members, and provided that the driver has completed 300 kilometres of testing at racing speeds in a current car.
In other words... Yes, EVERYONE can get a super license. There are plenty of examples. As long as you have the money, you can buy a license.
Half the F1 field was admitted using these 'exceptional circumstances', including Kimi Raikkonen.
Actually they haven't... Nor are they going to... They're just going to make sure stuff like that can't happen by adding crazy slow chicanes to any dangerous turns, like on Imola, Nurburgring, Hockenheim, Spa (new busstop), etc, etc. In other words, they're replacing exciting and cool tracks with dumbed down mickey mouse tracks to make the sport safer... Unfortunately also a lot more boring.
Whoever said skinning in PSP is not realistic should be shot on sight.
The only difference between PSP and RL is that instead of sticking the skin on a real car, we stick it onto a 3d model (I wonder if they used the NR2003 skin templates for this).
The only difference between PSP and RL is that instead of sticking the skin on a real car, we stick it onto a 3d model (I wonder if they used the NR2003 skin templates for this).
Yeah, maybe, but she had a point
Seriously though, if I disliked a race driver because he/she made a bad comment on something I'd be rooting for Robert Doornbos... Oh wait... I AM rooting for him Luckily she isn't the only one who does that in the USA formula series... I present to you: Paul Tracy... Now there's a guy that has NO talent, a mouth the size of mount st Helens, and an attitude that would make Schumacher cower.
Yes, she made some dumb moves. But she's shown that she learned from that as well. Remember that even though she's been racing for a while, that was her first year as a professional race driver. Sometimes she still looks like a complete rookie, but that's part of her charm, and her determined spirit. I like her for that, just like I like Montoya for his "no guts no glory" attitude.
hehe... No problem... She's a woman, and she never denied that fact (rather the opposite). She would just like to be seen as a racer on the track, like most LFS women do.
Danica is where she should be... Oval racing is her thing. She wasn't half bad on road courses, but ovals just fit her better.
Legge is better at road courses, and she's doing just fine there. She's still improving as well. I think if we give her another year, maybe two, and nothing bad happens to her we'll see her fighting for the championship and/or in F1. She's the only woman I can see having a fighting chance there. Much better chance than I would give either Sarah Fisher or Danica Patrick (maybe tinyk has a bit better chance
).Then recognizing both Patrick's and Legge's talent would be a good start...
Let's forget the whole incident, and cheer for both ladies (and hope someone will show them the way to Live For Speed heaven).
Yes it does... It's the constant threat of lives being lost that attracts so many people to racing. It also is the only reason why online racing will never ever be a huge spectator sport. It's just not dangerous. What fun is it to watch drivers battle it out on the track when there's no danger involved? The only thing it does is cause more extremely stupid moves and dirty driving.
The fact that most accidents caused by technical failures happen at high speed is because at high speeds stuff breaks easier... Simple rules of physics tell us that the higher the speed, the more force is applied to the car, the sooner stuff simply stops working, the harder the impact is, the more bits and pieces fall off the car to take away energy from the driver, the worse an accident looks.
And ovals are most definitely NOT the most dangerous place to race... Putting the wall back 20 yards from the track would in fact cause for worse wrecks because the angle at which cars impact will be higher causing more abrupt deceleration (which is what causes most major injuries in racing).
The dutch commentator (actually belgian) for the Champcar race last sunday was wondering why there weren't any tirestacks at that part of the guardrail... The reason is equally simple as effective and is the reason why there's a concrete wall around ovals... If there had been tires there, the car would've impacted and stopped so suddenly that the amount of G's would've instantly killed Katherine (in the range of 250+g's)... By NOT having these tires there, the car was allowed to change direction but keep a lot of momentum, massively reducing the amount of G's her body had to endure. Yes, it caused her crash to look much worse but it also saved her life. (in sharp contrast to the FIA's 'tire' happy safety measures, which eventually will kill a driver)
In F1, it has come to a point where indeed the safety rules are so mindbogglingly strict that designers are indeed very much capable of driving (and winning) races if they took a standard racing class. Just how safe it has become is proven by the amount of completely rubbish drivers that are granted a super license these days... Every other idiot can obtain one if they have enough money to buy themselves a 309km test in a recent F1 car. The main question is: "How long will it take the FIA to recognise their mistake and take it away again?"...
And before you bring up Ralf Schumi's crash at Indy as proof ovals are not safe... No, it proofs F1 cars are unsafe to back into a concrete wall. Most major accidents in Formula cars happen because cars back into something, which is the one place that does not properly absorb energy. Strangely enough, most high speed spins cause formula cars to back into something (they never keep on turning around). That would be a good place to improve safety further.
Oh, you mean like Alonso saying he's much better than Schumacher?
An ego is something that you need to have if you want to win races. Besides... She's right about that. Although Legge can be extremely girly off track, which is cute.
They're in different types of racing... Circuit racing versus Oval racing. Each of them is better at their own thing.
She mentioned the bruise in a jest. Just to stress the fact that she was absolutely fine after that horrific crash. Since she's a woman, her looks are an easy way to turn something serious into a joke. I thought that was a sweet and smart comment.
Right... Danica finished 4th in the IRL season in 2005... That shows her ability... She came in 4th in last year's Indy 500, 8th this year...
Katherine Legge won 3 Formula Atlantic races last season (and reached 2 more podiums), becoming the first woman ever to win a major US Open Wheel racing event (and repeated that feat twice). She came in 3rd in the season that year... She's won numerous pole positions and races in the lower classes, both in the US and the UK (and wrote off an F3 in a freak accident at Rockingham Speedway that reminds me of some 'hopping' setups in LFS).
They both have the ability to be where they are, and they didn't only get there because they are female. You just think they're not good enough because they are women.
Well... Have him send her my way then
Seriously though... There's nothing wrong with our girls... It's just that the ones I seem to like are like that... Quite possibly tells you more about the kind of guy I am than about our girls.
I'm one of those that's just unlucky in his choice of women. So I'll probably end up marrying the most beautiful LFS girl you've ever seen...
I gave up on women for now... I seem to attract the ones with serious issues... Either they end up being complete and utter b*tches, or they're just plain insane (but manage to hide that fact until after you sleep with them).
There's a few I'd want to try having a relationship with, but I'll make sure they're nothing like my ex-gfs in any way but looks.
There's a few I'd want to try having a relationship with, but I'll make sure they're nothing like my ex-gfs in any way but looks.
This is the worst thing that could've happened for us...
What happens when he gets bored at night after a GP? He'll get in LFS and think he's as dominant as he was in F1... He'll be banned for wrecking in no-time.
I never liked the guy, but what he did in his first 5 seasons demands respect.
What happens when he gets bored at night after a GP? He'll get in LFS and think he's as dominant as he was in F1... He'll be banned for wrecking in no-time.
I never liked the guy, but what he did in his first 5 seasons demands respect.
I've raced Annabelle a lot a year orso ago... Not even on the oval... Funny thing, I could never pass her although I was always the faster driver... Something about her made it impossible for me to get by.
You think I was flaming you for that storyline?
You completely misread that...
I'm not saying you're blatantly copying those books... In fact, I told you I even doubted you'd read those books. From the first 2 parts you just posted it just seemed that the ideas for the two seperate stories were very similar.
I like how you write, and what you write... I just wouldn't want you to write something that would later on cause you problems.
I don't know how your story continues, but I would like to find out. I was just alerting you to a story that might be similar to yours, so you could rethink your strategy if you deemed it necessary. You don't seem to think it's necessary, and you're free to continue writing whatever it is that you're writing. If you write something similar to Otherland, it just proves you've got talent, because that story is absolutely perfect. Unfortunately for a story similar to that story it means that you'll be competing with perfection, which is hard for a first time novelist. Hence my alert.
But please, do continue your story.
EDIT:
Every author takes his ideas from somewhere... Take an idea, change a few things here and there, and you've got a new idea. Nothing wrong with that. By trying not to copy it I merely meant writing a story that uses the same devices for telling the story. If you haven't read it, you're not going to be able to copy it. So no worries there, then. Just trying to give you a heads up, m8.
EDIT2: For those that wonder what perfection is: Take 'The Matrix', add about 15000 different matrices to the system, and imagine a perfect Matrix 2 and 3 and even a 4 movie... That's perfection.
Last edited by TagForce, .
So, what exactly is the problem? She's starting out in LFS, in a car that most people can't handle properly first time, and she's only 4 seconds slower than regular drivers... Sounds to me like she's going to improve all by her onesies without help.
There will come a time when she goes "Oh! NOW I get it!", and starts to be 2 seconds faster than you on every combo. I'd worry about that
There will come a time when she goes "Oh! NOW I get it!", and starts to be 2 seconds faster than you on every combo. I'd worry about that
If anything serious comes up then I'd prefer if they used real names instead of nicknames...
Nothing really serious has presented itself in LFS yet. So for now I don't see the need.
I have raced in serious leagues (but not in LFS) and have used my real name. If you're really that set on using a nick, you can always just create a team that is made up of "yournickgoeshere"-Racing.
When LFS presents something this serious, I'd want them to use real names.
PS. I wrote that article, so you know my real name
Nothing really serious has presented itself in LFS yet. So for now I don't see the need.
I have raced in serious leagues (but not in LFS) and have used my real name. If you're really that set on using a nick, you can always just create a team that is made up of "yournickgoeshere"-Racing.
When LFS presents something this serious, I'd want them to use real names.
PS. I wrote that article, so you know my real name
I frequent a forum and website that has been involved in a rather cool scandal concerning a cartoon contest. It was a contest for beginning cartoonists, and the first price was a cartoon published in a major newspaper in Holland (Algemeen Dagblad)... Well, when he needed a little bit of help, the site put up a small cartoon he does for them on a weekly basis asking for a little bit of help getting him through to the next round... Little did he know that that would raise his vote total by over 5000%. The site got e-mails from the newspaper to please not ever do that again or he'd be excluded from the rest of the competition. Most dutch peeps probably know the site... It's a very popular news site (Fok!).
I voted, and I would've voted for it anyway because it's the only state in the US I've visited.
I voted, and I would've voted for it anyway because it's the only state in the US I've visited.
First of all... 180mph != 240mph... And a 1400lbs F1 car != 3400lbs NASCAR.
They DO need to have rain tires, which simply are not supplied to teams when racing an oval...
Even with dry tires sometimes cars are not allowed to race at a track for safety reasons... Remember Indy?
The F1 track at Indy is clockwise because it was deemed too unsafe for them to be driving T1 of the oval in the correct direction...
http://www.champcarworldseries.com/News/Article.asp?ID=10825 <- non-oval race was postponed due to rain, and numerous F1 races have been postponed because of rain (although they were started later the same day).
As soon as LFS gets some more ovals and a late model stockcar I'll challenge all of you ovalhaters to a 250 lap race on a shorttrack... I promise you, you'll love it, even if you don't believe so now.
I was going to show him a picture from inside the total perspective vortex, but I ran out of fairy cake.
In the manual it lists all display modes it is capable of... All of those are default.
Default refreshrates are for videocards, not monitors. All monitors should be able to display 800x600@60Hz, which is the XVGA default (and what you get when booting in Safe Mode).
One thing about changing the resolution in Safe Mode... You need to actually CHANGE it for it to work. Just opening the tab and clicking ok won't do, because that is the XVGA default (svga on pre-2000) for safe mode. It needs a trigger to update the Windows settings.
Right... Then we'll just add a new definition for gravitational force: requires more than 1.5 m/s to escape its gravitational field. I'd like to see you try and sit on an meteoroid: Don't fart, or you'll take off like the spaceshuttle on steroids (<-- Maybe we can call planets the size of the sun that?)
BTW, I propose defining the entire asteroid belt as one planet. We should call it Tiamat. After all, it's pretty obvious that it used to be a planet, and that it fell apart due to some collision with a very large celestial body (Marduk if you're a religion freak) and created the asteroid belt (heaven) and the earth and moon.
Last edited by TagForce, .
Post here if you can't make a race...
Just nice to know beforehand so replacements may be entered by the organisation.
I won't make todays race because I just learned that my uncle of 52 has suffered a stroke and cardiac arrest last night. Seeing as this is SO Town we're driving I doubt I'd make it through turn 2 with my head screwed on backwards as it is, now.
I won't make todays race because I just learned that my uncle of 52 has suffered a stroke and cardiac arrest last night. Seeing as this is SO Town we're driving I doubt I'd make it through turn 2 with my head screwed on backwards as it is, now.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG