Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
It already is a "spec" formula -- why not accept it?
It already is a "spec" formula -- why not accept it?
Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
must knuckle down under it.
No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
demonstrate that.
Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
must knuckle down under it.
No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
demonstrate that.
Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
Re: It already is a "spec" formula -- why not accept it?
<brafield@hotmail . com > wrote in message
news:c20ec410-dfdc-431e-9650-0ff99b3c973e@i36g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
> Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
> Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
>
> With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
> suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
> now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
> must knuckle down under it.
>
> No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
> meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
> demonstrate that.
>
> Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
> rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
> driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
> drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
>
>
>
It does get really boring looking at cars that all look the same - and that
all look butt ugly with their short stubby sidepods, overly long snouts and
fungal growth all over the bodywork in the form of chimnneys, flipups, etc.
I definitely would like to see different styles of bodywork, as they had in
the 70's.
<brafield@hotmail . com > wrote in message
news:c20ec410-dfdc-431e-9650-0ff99b3c973e@i36g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
> Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
> Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
>
> With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
> suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
> now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
> must knuckle down under it.
>
> No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
> meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
> demonstrate that.
>
> Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
> rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
> driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
> drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
>
>
>
It does get really boring looking at cars that all look the same - and that
all look butt ugly with their short stubby sidepods, overly long snouts and
fungal growth all over the bodywork in the form of chimnneys, flipups, etc.
I definitely would like to see different styles of bodywork, as they had in
the 70's.
Re: It already is a "spec" formula -- why not accept it?
"aDog" <fake@fake.fake> wrote in message
news:yanRj.57$My1.102@nntpserver.swip . net ...
>
>
> <brafield@hotmail . com > wrote in message
> news:c20ec410-dfdc-431e-9650-0ff99b3c973e@i36g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
>> Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
>> Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
>>
>> With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
>> suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
>> now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
>> must knuckle down under it.
>>
>> No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
>> meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
>> demonstrate that.
>>
>> Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
>> rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
>> driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
>> drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
>>
>>
>>
>
> It does get really boring looking at cars that all look the same - and
> that all look butt ugly with their short stubby sidepods, overly long
> snouts and fungal growth all over the bodywork in the form of chimnneys,
> flipups, etc. I definitely would like to see different styles of bodywork,
> as they had in the 70's.
Thankfully (according to Brundle at the last race) all those silly cosmetic
things will be banned for 2009.
I guess that only stands if FIAerrari can't get their car to work without
them.
"aDog" <fake@fake.fake> wrote in message
news:yanRj.57$My1.102@nntpserver.swip . net ...
>
>
> <brafield@hotmail . com > wrote in message
> news:c20ec410-dfdc-431e-9650-0ff99b3c973e@i36g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
>> Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
>> Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
>>
>> With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
>> suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
>> now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
>> must knuckle down under it.
>>
>> No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
>> meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
>> demonstrate that.
>>
>> Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
>> rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
>> driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
>> drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
>>
>>
>>
>
> It does get really boring looking at cars that all look the same - and
> that all look butt ugly with their short stubby sidepods, overly long
> snouts and fungal growth all over the bodywork in the form of chimnneys,
> flipups, etc. I definitely would like to see different styles of bodywork,
> as they had in the 70's.
Thankfully (according to Brundle at the last race) all those silly cosmetic
things will be banned for 2009.
I guess that only stands if FIAerrari can't get their car to work without
them.
Re: It already is a "spec" formula -- why not accept it?
<brafield@hotmail . com > wrote in message
news:c20ec410-dfdc-431e-9650-0ff99b3c973e@i36g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
> Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
> Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
>
> With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
> suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
> now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
> must knuckle down under it.
>
> No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
> meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
> demonstrate that.
>
> Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
> rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
> driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
> drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
>
The most poignant and lasting impression of F1 in any spectator stand is the
awesome beyond description engines. Even the biggest piece of shit rattles
the grandstands and is great to watch and hear. You must've walked head
first into a steel I-beam mere moments before you wrote this.
<brafield@hotmail . com > wrote in message
news:c20ec410-dfdc-431e-9650-0ff99b3c973e@i36g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
> Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
> Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
>
> With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
> suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
> now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
> must knuckle down under it.
>
> No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
> meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
> demonstrate that.
>
> Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
> rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
> driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
> drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
>
The most poignant and lasting impression of F1 in any spectator stand is the
awesome beyond description engines. Even the biggest piece of shit rattles
the grandstands and is great to watch and hear. You must've walked head
first into a steel I-beam mere moments before you wrote this.
Re: It already is a "spec" formula -- why not accept it?
>
> > Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
> > rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
> > driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of=
> > drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
>
> The most poignant and lasting impression of F1 in any spectator stand is t=
he
> awesome beyond description engines. Even the biggest piece of shit ratt=
les
> the grandstands and is great to watch and hear. You must've walked head=
> first into a steel I-beam mere moments before you wrote this.- Hide quoted=
text -
---- so let them 'spec' ONE awesome loud engine to rattle the
grandstands, and stop wasting engineers' time and team money on
building copycat duplicates of each other under the orders of
Schoolmaster FIA --- I don't mind walking into RSJ's (what I call I-
beams: * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-beam) or having my ears bleed
next to a fuel dragster. Either that or a free-for-all and a 3.5
litre limit, and let the engineers do what they're born and bred to do!
>
> > Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
> > rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
> > driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of=
> > drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
>
> The most poignant and lasting impression of F1 in any spectator stand is t=
he
> awesome beyond description engines. Even the biggest piece of shit ratt=
les
> the grandstands and is great to watch and hear. You must've walked head=
> first into a steel I-beam mere moments before you wrote this.- Hide quoted=
text -
---- so let them 'spec' ONE awesome loud engine to rattle the
grandstands, and stop wasting engineers' time and team money on
building copycat duplicates of each other under the orders of
Schoolmaster FIA --- I don't mind walking into RSJ's (what I call I-
beams: * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-beam) or having my ears bleed
next to a fuel dragster. Either that or a free-for-all and a 3.5
litre limit, and let the engineers do what they're born and bred to do!
Re: It already is a "spec" formula -- why not accept it?
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:40:12 -0700 (PDT), "brafield@hotmail . com "
<brafield@hotmail . com > wrote:
>Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
>Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
>
>With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
>suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
>now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
>must knuckle down under it.
>
>No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
>meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
>demonstrate that.
>
>Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
>rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
>driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
>drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
It wasn't always a god damned bigoted spec sham, and some of us
remember when.
--
"Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:40:12 -0700 (PDT), "brafield@hotmail . com "
<brafield@hotmail . com > wrote:
>Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
>Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
>
>With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
>suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
>now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
>must knuckle down under it.
>
>No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
>meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
>demonstrate that.
>
>Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
>rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
>driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
>drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
It wasn't always a god damned bigoted spec sham, and some of us
remember when.
--
"Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
Re: It already is a "spec" formula -- why not accept it?
Raoul Duke wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:40:12 -0700 (PDT), "brafield@hotmail . com "
> <brafield@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
> > Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
> >
> > With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
> > suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have
> > one now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the
> > engineers who must knuckle down under it.
> >
> > No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
> > meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans
> > would demonstrate that.
> >
> > Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
> > rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
> > driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle
> > of drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
>
> It wasn't always a god damned bigoted spec sham, and some of us
> remember when.
ROFL, I had to do a double take. Thought it read "I wasn't always..."
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
Raoul Duke wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:40:12 -0700 (PDT), "brafield@hotmail . com "
> <brafield@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
> > Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
> >
> > With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
> > suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have
> > one now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the
> > engineers who must knuckle down under it.
> >
> > No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
> > meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans
> > would demonstrate that.
> >
> > Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
> > rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
> > driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle
> > of drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
>
> It wasn't always a god damned bigoted spec sham, and some of us
> remember when.
ROFL, I had to do a double take. Thought it read "I wasn't always..."
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
Re: It already is a "spec" formula -- why not accept it?
On Apr 28, 11:40 am, "brafi...@hotmail . com " <brafi...@hotmail . com >
wrote:
> Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
> Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
>
> With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
> suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
> now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
> must knuckle down under it.
>
> No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
> meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
> demonstrate that.
>
> Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
> rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
> driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
> drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
All the money saved by the teams can go back into FIA's pocket so Max
can pay for more hookers and Bernie can buy football teams and the
rest of the world he does not already own. F1 and FIA are like a
monopolistic police state. The EU is always all over Microshaft but
FIA/FOCA/F1/Bernie get a free pass.
On Apr 28, 11:40 am, "brafi...@hotmail . com " <brafi...@hotmail . com >
wrote:
> Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
> Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
>
> With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
> suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
> now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
> must knuckle down under it.
>
> No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
> meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
> demonstrate that.
>
> Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
> rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
> driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
> drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
All the money saved by the teams can go back into FIA's pocket so Max
can pay for more hookers and Bernie can buy football teams and the
rest of the world he does not already own. F1 and FIA are like a
monopolistic police state. The EU is always all over Microshaft but
FIA/FOCA/F1/Bernie get a free pass.
Re: It already is a "spec" formula -- why not accept it?
On Apr 28, 11:40 am, "brafi...@hotmail . com " <brafi...@hotmail . com >
wrote:
> Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
> Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
>
> With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
> suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
> now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
> must knuckle down under it.
>
> No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
> meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
> demonstrate that.
>
> Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
> rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
> driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
> drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
As Max goes, so will most of his stupid rules.
On Apr 28, 11:40 am, "brafi...@hotmail . com " <brafi...@hotmail . com >
wrote:
> Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
> Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
>
> With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
> suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
> now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
> must knuckle down under it.
>
> No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
> meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
> demonstrate that.
>
> Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
> rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
> driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
> drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
As Max goes, so will most of his stupid rules.
Re: It already is a "spec" formula -- why not accept it?
On Apr 28, 11:40 am, "brafi...@hotmail . com " <brafi...@hotmail . com >
wrote:
> Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
> Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
>
A spec series means allo cars run the same engines. Simply not the
case.
> With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
> suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
> now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
> must knuckle down under it.
>
> No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
> meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
> demonstrate that.
Sure we do. I root for Mercedes. Millions root for Ferrari.
>
> Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
> rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
> driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
> drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
On Apr 28, 11:40 am, "brafi...@hotmail . com " <brafi...@hotmail . com >
wrote:
> Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
> Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
>
A spec series means allo cars run the same engines. Simply not the
case.
> With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
> suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
> now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
> must knuckle down under it.
>
> No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
> meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
> demonstrate that.
Sure we do. I root for Mercedes. Millions root for Ferrari.
>
> Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
> rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
> driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
> drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
Re: It already is a "spec" formula -- why not accept it?
"brafield@hotmail . com " <brafield@hotmail . com > wrote in
news:c20ec410-dfdc-431e-9650-0ff99b3c973e@i36g2000prf.googlegroups . com :
> Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
> Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
>
> With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
> suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
> now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
> must knuckle down under it.
>
> No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
> meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
> demonstrate that.
>
> Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
> rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
> driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
> drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
>
Yup. Limit it to *only* 2.5l normally aspirated averything else is up
for grabs. I want to see a V16 one of these days or better yet an X16 - four
cylinders on a side.
"brafield@hotmail . com " <brafield@hotmail . com > wrote in
news:c20ec410-dfdc-431e-9650-0ff99b3c973e@i36g2000prf.googlegroups . com :
> Engines are handed over to the FIA. Engine development is frozen.
> Aerodynamics engineers and hours are COUNTED, for god's sake.
>
> With this nonsense going on, why do people object when someone
> suggests making F1 a transparent spec formula? In effect we have one
> now, but a obscenely expensive one that humiliates the engineers who
> must knuckle down under it.
>
> No-one gives a shit about what engine is under the cover, "no-one"
> meaning 5% of F1 spectators. A closed-book quiz of any 100 fans would
> demonstrate that.
>
> Have the engine built by any old outfit, and institute a "claiming"
> rule against winners. Then all F1 development would be chassis and
> driver. Guess what: 95% of F1 spectators go to enjoy the spectacle of
> drivers and cars (cars meaning chassis).
>
Yup. Limit it to *only* 2.5l normally aspirated averything else is up
for grabs. I want to see a V16 one of these days or better yet an X16 - four
cylinders on a side.
Re: It already is a "spec" formula -- why not accept it?
On 2008-04-29, APLer <APLer@floor.tilde> wrote:
> Yup. Limit it to *only* 2.5l normally aspirated averything else is up
> for grabs. I want to see a V16 one of these days or better yet an X16 - four
> cylinders on a side.
There's a W-12 (or is it a Y-12?) on my flickr page in the Sports cars
section, a Napier-Bentley vintage sports car, 24 litres, unsilenced,
sounds like war is breaking out when it starts. Skinny tyres make it
"challenging" to drive, and it has "The ultimate laxative" written on
the side..
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
* youtube . com /user/tarcus69
* w w w .flickr . com /photos/tarcus/sets/
On 2008-04-29, APLer <APLer@floor.tilde> wrote:
> Yup. Limit it to *only* 2.5l normally aspirated averything else is up
> for grabs. I want to see a V16 one of these days or better yet an X16 - four
> cylinders on a side.
There's a W-12 (or is it a Y-12?) on my flickr page in the Sports cars
section, a Napier-Bentley vintage sports car, 24 litres, unsilenced,
sounds like war is breaking out when it starts. Skinny tyres make it
"challenging" to drive, and it has "The ultimate laxative" written on
the side..
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
* youtube . com /user/tarcus69
* w w w .flickr . com /photos/tarcus/sets/
Re: It already is a "spec" formula -- why not accept it?
Ian Rawlings wrote:
>There's a W-12 (or is it a Y-12?) on my flickr page in the Sports cars
>section, a Napier-Bentley vintage sports car, 24 litres, unsilenced,
>sounds like war is breaking out when it starts. Skinny tyres make it
>"challenging" to drive, and it has "The ultimate laxative" written on
>the side..
This must be the same Napier Lion aircraft engine that powered John
Cobb's famous Napier-Railton which still holds the Brooklands Outer
Circuit lap record (and always will, of course). The engine had a bore
of 139.7 mm and stroke of 130.2 mm and apparently developed 600 bhp at
2200 rpm.
I saw the car at Goodwood last year. It certainly makes a horrendous
noise but I was surprised to see that it had rear disc brakes.
Apparently these were fitted after WW2 when the car was used for
testing parachute braking systems.
To say that it must have been hairy to drive around Brooklands at
speeds in excess of 130mph is an understatement to say the least!
--
Trevor
Ian Rawlings wrote:
>There's a W-12 (or is it a Y-12?) on my flickr page in the Sports cars
>section, a Napier-Bentley vintage sports car, 24 litres, unsilenced,
>sounds like war is breaking out when it starts. Skinny tyres make it
>"challenging" to drive, and it has "The ultimate laxative" written on
>the side..
This must be the same Napier Lion aircraft engine that powered John
Cobb's famous Napier-Railton which still holds the Brooklands Outer
Circuit lap record (and always will, of course). The engine had a bore
of 139.7 mm and stroke of 130.2 mm and apparently developed 600 bhp at
2200 rpm.
I saw the car at Goodwood last year. It certainly makes a horrendous
noise but I was surprised to see that it had rear disc brakes.
Apparently these were fitted after WW2 when the car was used for
testing parachute braking systems.
To say that it must have been hairy to drive around Brooklands at
speeds in excess of 130mph is an understatement to say the least!
--
Trevor
Re: It already is a "spec" formula -- why not accept it?
On 2008-04-30, Gongoozler <trevor@ladyelg.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> This must be the same Napier Lion aircraft engine that powered John
> Cobb's famous Napier-Railton which still holds the Brooklands Outer
> Circuit lap record (and always will, of course). The engine had a bore
> of 139.7 mm and stroke of 130.2 mm and apparently developed 600 bhp at
> 2200 rpm.
I don't think it's the same actual engine, as I believe the
Napier-Railton still exists and is in the Brooklands museum, whereas
the Napier-Bentley is at VSCC events being caned around the track. If
you do a google search for Napier-Railton and another for
Napier-Bentley, you'll get the gen on both cars as they're unique.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
* youtube . com /user/tarcus69
* w w w .flickr . com /photos/tarcus/sets/
On 2008-04-30, Gongoozler <trevor@ladyelg.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> This must be the same Napier Lion aircraft engine that powered John
> Cobb's famous Napier-Railton which still holds the Brooklands Outer
> Circuit lap record (and always will, of course). The engine had a bore
> of 139.7 mm and stroke of 130.2 mm and apparently developed 600 bhp at
> 2200 rpm.
I don't think it's the same actual engine, as I believe the
Napier-Railton still exists and is in the Brooklands museum, whereas
the Napier-Bentley is at VSCC events being caned around the track. If
you do a google search for Napier-Railton and another for
Napier-Bentley, you'll get the gen on both cars as they're unique.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
* youtube . com /user/tarcus69
* w w w .flickr . com /photos/tarcus/sets/
Re: It already is a "spec" formula -- why not accept it?
Ian Rawlings wrote:
>On 2008-04-30, Gongoozler <trevor@ladyelg.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> This must be the same Napier Lion aircraft engine that powered John
>> Cobb's famous Napier-Railton which still holds the Brooklands Outer
>> Circuit lap record (and always will, of course). The engine had a bore
>> of 139.7 mm and stroke of 130.2 mm and apparently developed 600 bhp at
>> 2200 rpm.
>
>I don't think it's the same actual engine, as I believe the
>Napier-Railton still exists and is in the Brooklands museum, whereas
>the Napier-Bentley is at VSCC events being caned around the track. If
>you do a google search for Napier-Railton and another for
>Napier-Bentley, you'll get the gen on both cars as they're unique.
Yes, I meant the same *type* (i.e. Napier Lion). I think the engine
was originally used in a flying boat.
You are quite right in saying that the Napier-Railton resides at
Brooklands. When it appeared at Goodwood it was being driven *very*
gently, certainly not 'caned' (if one is allowed to use that word in
the current climate ;-)
--
Trevor
Ian Rawlings wrote:
>On 2008-04-30, Gongoozler <trevor@ladyelg.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> This must be the same Napier Lion aircraft engine that powered John
>> Cobb's famous Napier-Railton which still holds the Brooklands Outer
>> Circuit lap record (and always will, of course). The engine had a bore
>> of 139.7 mm and stroke of 130.2 mm and apparently developed 600 bhp at
>> 2200 rpm.
>
>I don't think it's the same actual engine, as I believe the
>Napier-Railton still exists and is in the Brooklands museum, whereas
>the Napier-Bentley is at VSCC events being caned around the track. If
>you do a google search for Napier-Railton and another for
>Napier-Bentley, you'll get the gen on both cars as they're unique.
Yes, I meant the same *type* (i.e. Napier Lion). I think the engine
was originally used in a flying boat.
You are quite right in saying that the Napier-Railton resides at
Brooklands. When it appeared at Goodwood it was being driven *very*
gently, certainly not 'caned' (if one is allowed to use that word in
the current climate ;-)
--
Trevor
