Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to groupPost Subject:
Engine freeze questions
How long for?
Does that mean zero development? Zero?
An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
Whose effing stupid idea was this?
--
ric at pixelligence dot com
Does that mean zero development? Zero?
An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
Whose effing stupid idea was this?
--
ric at pixelligence dot com
ric zito <address@in.sig> writes
>How long for?
>Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>
>Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>
FIA press release End of April 2006 re engine freeze.
MARTINELLI (Ferrari)
Q: You were all at the **Maranello** meeting that was held where the
2008 regulations were discussed. Can we have your reactions and
thoughts on those regulations working up to the homologation?
PM: It was an important meeting in Maranello, but it is not the only
meeting we are going to have. The aim is quite clear, and the aim is to
limit economic resources to put on the engine?s continuous development.
Q: But it?s something you are in favour of?
Marttinelli: Of course, yes. I am in favour
At the subsequent SWG meeting only the "Ferrari teams" voted for the
engine freeze. Everyone else voted against it.
--
Peter
>How long for?
>Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>
>Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>
FIA press release End of April 2006 re engine freeze.
MARTINELLI (Ferrari)
Q: You were all at the **Maranello** meeting that was held where the
2008 regulations were discussed. Can we have your reactions and
thoughts on those regulations working up to the homologation?
PM: It was an important meeting in Maranello, but it is not the only
meeting we are going to have. The aim is quite clear, and the aim is to
limit economic resources to put on the engine?s continuous development.
Q: But it?s something you are in favour of?
Marttinelli: Of course, yes. I am in favour
At the subsequent SWG meeting only the "Ferrari teams" voted for the
engine freeze. Everyone else voted against it.
--
Peter
peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>ric zito <address@in.sig> writes
>>Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>FIA press release End of April 2006 re engine freeze.
>MARTINELLI (Ferrari)
>Q: But it?s something you are in favour of?
>Marttinelli: Of course, yes. I am in favour
>
>At the subsequent SWG meeting only the "Ferrari teams" voted for the
>engine freeze. Everyone else voted against it.
14/05/2006 From Pitpass.com
"Looking around, one could easily draw the conclusion that this week's
inaugural meeting of the FIA's new Sporting Working Group (SWG),
described as one of the most important F1 meetings in years, went
swimmingly and that everyone is delighted with the results.
Indeed, speaking at yesterday's FIA press conference, both Ron Dennis
and Nick Fry were clearly happy with the progress that has (seemingly)
been made.
However, while Ferrari, Red Bull and Scuderia Toro Rosso always voted
with the FIA, occasionally joined by Prodrive, with vote therefore
usually going either 9-3 or 8-4, the remaining teams always voted
against the FIA.
In line with the process set out by the FIA, and backed by the fact that
highly-seasoned F1 experts, the members of the SWG, have placed these
votes, the teams (and pretty much the rest of the paddock) now expect
the F1 Commission and World Motor Sport Council to rubber stamp the
majority votes.
The end result is that that the regulations, which Max Mosley said had
to be agreed by 30 June have all been thrown out, which beggars the
question what will the FIA President do next, especially in light of the
fact that he previously declared that he would accept the Sporting
Working Group's vote. Will he respect his own process or will he argue
that these majority votes are not in line with the interests of F1 and
motor sport in general?
Time will tell."
--
Peter
>ric zito <address@in.sig> writes
>>Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>FIA press release End of April 2006 re engine freeze.
>MARTINELLI (Ferrari)
>Q: But it?s something you are in favour of?
>Marttinelli: Of course, yes. I am in favour
>
>At the subsequent SWG meeting only the "Ferrari teams" voted for the
>engine freeze. Everyone else voted against it.
14/05/2006 From Pitpass.com
"Looking around, one could easily draw the conclusion that this week's
inaugural meeting of the FIA's new Sporting Working Group (SWG),
described as one of the most important F1 meetings in years, went
swimmingly and that everyone is delighted with the results.
Indeed, speaking at yesterday's FIA press conference, both Ron Dennis
and Nick Fry were clearly happy with the progress that has (seemingly)
been made.
However, while Ferrari, Red Bull and Scuderia Toro Rosso always voted
with the FIA, occasionally joined by Prodrive, with vote therefore
usually going either 9-3 or 8-4, the remaining teams always voted
against the FIA.
In line with the process set out by the FIA, and backed by the fact that
highly-seasoned F1 experts, the members of the SWG, have placed these
votes, the teams (and pretty much the rest of the paddock) now expect
the F1 Commission and World Motor Sport Council to rubber stamp the
majority votes.
The end result is that that the regulations, which Max Mosley said had
to be agreed by 30 June have all been thrown out, which beggars the
question what will the FIA President do next, especially in light of the
fact that he previously declared that he would accept the Sporting
Working Group's vote. Will he respect his own process or will he argue
that these majority votes are not in line with the interests of F1 and
motor sport in general?
Time will tell."
--
Peter
peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>ric zito <address@in.sig> writes
>>>Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>>FIA press release End of April 2006 re engine freeze.
>>MARTINELLI (Ferrari)
>>Q: But it?s something you are in favour of?
>>Marttinelli: Of course, yes. I am in favour
>>
>>At the subsequent SWG meeting only the "Ferrari teams" voted for the
>>engine freeze. Everyone else voted against it.
>
>14/05/2006 From Pitpass.com
And 2 days later:
16/05/2006 Pitpasss.com
"As Pitpass revealed in its report on the inaugural meeting of the
Sporting Working Group, things did not go well for the FIA, indeed the
assembled teams voted out all of Max Mosley's proposals for 2008,
including a three-year engine 'freeze'.
At the time, Pitpass raised the question of how Mr Mosley would react,
to what is a democratic decision, even if it isn't the decision he
wanted. The answer wasn't long in coming, and just hours after we
appeared to have peace in F1, it seems as though a whole new argument is
about to break out.
In a faxed message to the teams, Mosley states that "the 2008 Formula 1
World Championship is a competition for cars with homologated engines",
adding that "in the absence of acceptable proposals for improvement to
the homologation regulations, the existing rule of total homologation
for three years will stand".
In other words, the democratic vote of the SWG has been thrown out by
the sport's governing body, even though the engine freeze proposal, like
many of the others, only ever had four teams in favour.
The contents of the fax sent to the teams can be seen below:
The 2008 Formula One World Championship is a competition for cars with
homologated engines. The purpose of homologation is to reduce
drastically the cost of engine development and prevent an unacceptable
escalation of performance. By entering the Championship, a team accepts
the regulations as published and, equally importantly, is entitled to
rely on them when deciding whether or not to enter. A major factor in
deciding whether or not to enter is the cost of competing. No
responsible governing body could agree to rule changes which increase
the cost of competing once entries have been accepted.
There can therefore be no question of abandoning engine homologation or
making any other change to the 2008 regulations which would
significantly increase the budgets of the teams which have agreed to
compete.
Fine tuning of the Sporting Regulations is possible on proposal of a
simple majority of competing teams, provided the process is complete
before 30 June 2006 in accordance with the published rules. Thereafter,
any change which could affect the design of the cars will require the
same unanimous agreement as a change to the 2008 Technical Regulations.
In the absence of acceptable proposals for improvement to the
homologation regulations, the existing rule of total homologation for
three years will stand. If the hoped-for reduction in costs does indeed
occur, it is self-evident that homologation will continue in 2011 and
beyond, subject to any minor modifications which may appear necessary in
the light of experience.
Without homologation, the engine suppliers and car manufacturers
involved in Formula One would continue to spend collectively in excess
of ?1 billion each year on development. This blatant waste of money is
clearly unsustainable, particularly when some of the enormous costs
involved are being passed on to the independent teams.
The FIA is always willing to listen to and implement constructive
proposals for improvement to the engine homologation or any other rules,
particularly any which promote useful research (for example the
so-called Maranello proposals), but only if budgets are not increased,
safety is not compromised and the agreed periods of notice are
observed."
--
Peter
>peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>>ric zito <address@in.sig> writes
>>>Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>>FIA press release End of April 2006 re engine freeze.
>>MARTINELLI (Ferrari)
>>Q: But it?s something you are in favour of?
>>Marttinelli: Of course, yes. I am in favour
>>
>>At the subsequent SWG meeting only the "Ferrari teams" voted for the
>>engine freeze. Everyone else voted against it.
>
>14/05/2006 From Pitpass.com
And 2 days later:
16/05/2006 Pitpasss.com
"As Pitpass revealed in its report on the inaugural meeting of the
Sporting Working Group, things did not go well for the FIA, indeed the
assembled teams voted out all of Max Mosley's proposals for 2008,
including a three-year engine 'freeze'.
At the time, Pitpass raised the question of how Mr Mosley would react,
to what is a democratic decision, even if it isn't the decision he
wanted. The answer wasn't long in coming, and just hours after we
appeared to have peace in F1, it seems as though a whole new argument is
about to break out.
In a faxed message to the teams, Mosley states that "the 2008 Formula 1
World Championship is a competition for cars with homologated engines",
adding that "in the absence of acceptable proposals for improvement to
the homologation regulations, the existing rule of total homologation
for three years will stand".
In other words, the democratic vote of the SWG has been thrown out by
the sport's governing body, even though the engine freeze proposal, like
many of the others, only ever had four teams in favour.
The contents of the fax sent to the teams can be seen below:
The 2008 Formula One World Championship is a competition for cars with
homologated engines. The purpose of homologation is to reduce
drastically the cost of engine development and prevent an unacceptable
escalation of performance. By entering the Championship, a team accepts
the regulations as published and, equally importantly, is entitled to
rely on them when deciding whether or not to enter. A major factor in
deciding whether or not to enter is the cost of competing. No
responsible governing body could agree to rule changes which increase
the cost of competing once entries have been accepted.
There can therefore be no question of abandoning engine homologation or
making any other change to the 2008 regulations which would
significantly increase the budgets of the teams which have agreed to
compete.
Fine tuning of the Sporting Regulations is possible on proposal of a
simple majority of competing teams, provided the process is complete
before 30 June 2006 in accordance with the published rules. Thereafter,
any change which could affect the design of the cars will require the
same unanimous agreement as a change to the 2008 Technical Regulations.
In the absence of acceptable proposals for improvement to the
homologation regulations, the existing rule of total homologation for
three years will stand. If the hoped-for reduction in costs does indeed
occur, it is self-evident that homologation will continue in 2011 and
beyond, subject to any minor modifications which may appear necessary in
the light of experience.
Without homologation, the engine suppliers and car manufacturers
involved in Formula One would continue to spend collectively in excess
of ?1 billion each year on development. This blatant waste of money is
clearly unsustainable, particularly when some of the enormous costs
involved are being passed on to the independent teams.
The FIA is always willing to listen to and implement constructive
proposals for improvement to the engine homologation or any other rules,
particularly any which promote useful research (for example the
so-called Maranello proposals), but only if budgets are not increased,
safety is not compromised and the agreed periods of notice are
observed."
--
Peter
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, address@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>How long for?
>
>Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>
>An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>
>Whose effing stupid idea was this?
Frank Williams.
--
"Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
>How long for?
>
>Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>
>An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>
>Whose effing stupid idea was this?
Frank Williams.
--
"Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
Raoul Duke wrote...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, address@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
> >How long for?
> >
> >Does that mean zero development? Zero?
> >
> >An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
> >
> >Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>
> Frank Williams.
>
>
He's never built an engine, of his own, in his life.
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, address@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
> >How long for?
> >
> >Does that mean zero development? Zero?
> >
> >An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
> >
> >Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>
> Frank Williams.
>
>
He's never built an engine, of his own, in his life.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:58:17 +0100, Jon <me@privvy.net> wrote:
>Raoul Duke wrote...
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, address@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>> >How long for?
>> >
>> >Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>> >
>> >An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>> >
>> >Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>>
>> Frank Williams.
>
>He's never built an engine, of his own, in his life.
Indeed.
Paid for every one of them, one way or another.
Thanks for reinforcing the point.
--
"Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
>Raoul Duke wrote...
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, address@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>> >How long for?
>> >
>> >Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>> >
>> >An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>> >
>> >Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>>
>> Frank Williams.
>
>He's never built an engine, of his own, in his life.
Indeed.
Paid for every one of them, one way or another.
Thanks for reinforcing the point.
--
"Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
Raoul Duke wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:58:17 +0100, Jon <me@privvy.net> wrote:
>> Raoul Duke wrote...
>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, address@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>>>> How long for?
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>>>>
>>>> An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>>>>
>>>> Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>>> Frank Williams.
>> He's never built an engine, of his own, in his life.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Paid for every one of them, one way or another.
>
> Thanks for reinforcing the point.
Yes, because speculative points are worth so much more than quotes from
Ferrari supporting the engine freeze when it was first mentioned, and a
complete lack of available supportive quotes from anyone else.
--
Phil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:58:17 +0100, Jon <me@privvy.net> wrote:
>> Raoul Duke wrote...
>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, address@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>>>> How long for?
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>>>>
>>>> An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>>>>
>>>> Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>>> Frank Williams.
>> He's never built an engine, of his own, in his life.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Paid for every one of them, one way or another.
>
> Thanks for reinforcing the point.
Yes, because speculative points are worth so much more than quotes from
Ferrari supporting the engine freeze when it was first mentioned, and a
complete lack of available supportive quotes from anyone else.
--
Phil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:49:27 +0200, Phil Newnham <pnewnham@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Raoul Duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:58:17 +0100, Jon <me@privvy.net> wrote:
>>> Raoul Duke wrote...
>>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, address@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>>>>> How long for?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>>>>>
>>>>> An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>>>> Frank Williams.
>>> He's never built an engine, of his own, in his life.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> Paid for every one of them, one way or another.
>>
>> Thanks for reinforcing the point.
>
>Yes, because speculative points are worth so much more than quotes from
>Ferrari supporting the engine freeze when it was first mentioned,
No such thing exists.
>and a complete lack of available supportive quotes from anyone else.
Who but a man who's always paid for engines would support such a
ridiculous scheme in the name of restricting costs?
--
"Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
wrote:
>Raoul Duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:58:17 +0100, Jon <me@privvy.net> wrote:
>>> Raoul Duke wrote...
>>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, address@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>>>>> How long for?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>>>>>
>>>>> An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>>>> Frank Williams.
>>> He's never built an engine, of his own, in his life.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> Paid for every one of them, one way or another.
>>
>> Thanks for reinforcing the point.
>
>Yes, because speculative points are worth so much more than quotes from
>Ferrari supporting the engine freeze when it was first mentioned,
No such thing exists.
>and a complete lack of available supportive quotes from anyone else.
Who but a man who's always paid for engines would support such a
ridiculous scheme in the name of restricting costs?
--
"Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
Raoul Duke <Owl.Farm@Woody.Creek> writes
>On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:49:27 +0200, Phil Newnham <pnewnham@yahoo.com>
>>Yes, because speculative points are worth so much more than quotes from
>>Ferrari supporting the engine freeze when it was first mentioned,
>
>No such thing exists.
>
Indeed...Aliens in the FIA press release department made it up.
Dammed body snatching bastards!
--
Peter
>On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:49:27 +0200, Phil Newnham <pnewnham@yahoo.com>
>>Yes, because speculative points are worth so much more than quotes from
>>Ferrari supporting the engine freeze when it was first mentioned,
>
>No such thing exists.
>
Indeed...Aliens in the FIA press release department made it up.
Dammed body snatching bastards!
--
Peter
Raoul Duke wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:49:27 +0200, Phil Newnham <pnewnham@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Raoul Duke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:58:17 +0100, Jon <me@privvy.net> wrote:
>>>> Raoul Duke wrote...
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, address@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>>>>>> How long for?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>>>>> Frank Williams.
>>>> He's never built an engine, of his own, in his life.
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> Paid for every one of them, one way or another.
>>>
>>> Thanks for reinforcing the point.
>> Yes, because speculative points are worth so much more than quotes from
>> Ferrari supporting the engine freeze when it was first mentioned,
>
> No such thing exists.
Oh come on, pull the other one, it has got bells on it.
>> and a complete lack of available supportive quotes from anyone else.
>
> Who but a man who's always paid for engines would support such a
> ridiculous scheme in the name of restricting costs?
If that's the case, why did he repeatedly vote against it?
--
Phil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:49:27 +0200, Phil Newnham <pnewnham@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Raoul Duke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:58:17 +0100, Jon <me@privvy.net> wrote:
>>>> Raoul Duke wrote...
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, address@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>>>>>> How long for?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>>>>> Frank Williams.
>>>> He's never built an engine, of his own, in his life.
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> Paid for every one of them, one way or another.
>>>
>>> Thanks for reinforcing the point.
>> Yes, because speculative points are worth so much more than quotes from
>> Ferrari supporting the engine freeze when it was first mentioned,
>
> No such thing exists.
Oh come on, pull the other one, it has got bells on it.
>> and a complete lack of available supportive quotes from anyone else.
>
> Who but a man who's always paid for engines would support such a
> ridiculous scheme in the name of restricting costs?
If that's the case, why did he repeatedly vote against it?
--
Phil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:38:36 +0200, Phil Newnham <pnewnham@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Raoul Duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:49:27 +0200, Phil Newnham <pnewnham@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Raoul Duke wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:58:17 +0100, Jon <me@privvy.net> wrote:
>>>>> Raoul Duke wrote...
>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, address@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>>>>>>> How long for?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>>>>>> Frank Williams.
>>>>> He's never built an engine, of his own, in his life.
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> Paid for every one of them, one way or another.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for reinforcing the point.
>>> Yes, because speculative points are worth so much more than quotes from
>>> Ferrari supporting the engine freeze when it was first mentioned,
>>
>> No such thing exists.
>
>Oh come on, pull the other one, it has got bells on it.
>
>>> and a complete lack of available supportive quotes from anyone else.
>>
>> Who but a man who's always paid for engines would support such a
>> ridiculous scheme in the name of restricting costs?
>
>If that's the case, why did he repeatedly vote against it?
Didn't go far enough.
--
"Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
wrote:
>Raoul Duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:49:27 +0200, Phil Newnham <pnewnham@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Raoul Duke wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:58:17 +0100, Jon <me@privvy.net> wrote:
>>>>> Raoul Duke wrote...
>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:40:01 +0200, address@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>>>>>>> How long for?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does that mean zero development? Zero?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An engine down on power has to stay that way ad infinitum?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whose effing stupid idea was this?
>>>>>> Frank Williams.
>>>>> He's never built an engine, of his own, in his life.
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> Paid for every one of them, one way or another.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for reinforcing the point.
>>> Yes, because speculative points are worth so much more than quotes from
>>> Ferrari supporting the engine freeze when it was first mentioned,
>>
>> No such thing exists.
>
>Oh come on, pull the other one, it has got bells on it.
>
>>> and a complete lack of available supportive quotes from anyone else.
>>
>> Who but a man who's always paid for engines would support such a
>> ridiculous scheme in the name of restricting costs?
>
>If that's the case, why did he repeatedly vote against it?
Didn't go far enough.
--
"Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
On Thu, 01 May 2008 00:00:46 GMT, Raoul Duke <Owl.Farm@Woody.Creek>
typed:
>On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:38:36 +0200, Phil Newnham <pnewnham@yahoo.com>
>>
>>If that's the case, why did he repeatedly vote against it?
>
>Didn't go far enough.
LOL. Bravo !
typed:
>On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:38:36 +0200, Phil Newnham <pnewnham@yahoo.com>
>>
>>If that's the case, why did he repeatedly vote against it?
>
>Didn't go far enough.
LOL. Bravo !
On Thu, 01 May 2008 00:00:46 GMT, Raoul Duke <Owl.Farm@Woody.Creek>
wrote:
>>>> and a complete lack of available supportive quotes from anyone else.
>>>
>>> Who but a man who's always paid for engines would support such a
>>> ridiculous scheme in the name of restricting costs?
>>
>>If that's the case, why did he repeatedly vote against it?
>
>Didn't go far enough.
>
Was it not V or eight enough ?
--
Regards, Frank
wrote:
>>>> and a complete lack of available supportive quotes from anyone else.
>>>
>>> Who but a man who's always paid for engines would support such a
>>> ridiculous scheme in the name of restricting costs?
>>
>>If that's the case, why did he repeatedly vote against it?
>
>Didn't go far enough.
>
Was it not V or eight enough ?
--
Regards, Frank
On Thu, 01 May 2008 11:31:47 +1000, Frank Adam
<fajp@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 May 2008 00:00:46 GMT, Raoul Duke <Owl.Farm@Woody.Creek>
>wrote:
>>>>> and a complete lack of available supportive quotes from anyone else.
>>>>
>>>> Who but a man who's always paid for engines would support such a
>>>> ridiculous scheme in the name of restricting costs?
>>>
>>>If that's the case, why did he repeatedly vote against it?
>>
>>Didn't go far enough.
>>
>Was it not V or eight enough ?
Iirc, he wanted to force all engine manufacturers to supply another
team; increase supply - lower price.
It's all about maximizing profits for the garagistes and their cottage
industrialists, old boy.
--
"Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
<fajp@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 May 2008 00:00:46 GMT, Raoul Duke <Owl.Farm@Woody.Creek>
>wrote:
>>>>> and a complete lack of available supportive quotes from anyone else.
>>>>
>>>> Who but a man who's always paid for engines would support such a
>>>> ridiculous scheme in the name of restricting costs?
>>>
>>>If that's the case, why did he repeatedly vote against it?
>>
>>Didn't go far enough.
>>
>Was it not V or eight enough ?
Iirc, he wanted to force all engine manufacturers to supply another
team; increase supply - lower price.
It's all about maximizing profits for the garagistes and their cottage
industrialists, old boy.
--
"Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
