A friend sent me this link.
10 MB download.
Worthwhile.
Audi (he says) rally stage - all on seal.
2:38 stage time plus a few seconds startup.
Sound makes a vast difference.
Almost surreal without sound.
VERY impressive.
If on dialup and you are an occasional visitor ask to see it next time
you are here.
If not (as most recipients aren't) you'll have to download it for your
self :-).
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 23:07 +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:
> A friend sent me this link.
> 10 MB download.
> Worthwhile.
>
> Audi (he says) rally stage - all on seal.
> 2:38 stage time plus a few seconds startup.
> Sound makes a vast difference.
> Almost surreal without sound.
> VERY impressive.
>
> Nice black marks on the corners.
>
>
> RM
>
> > www.isellbendrealestate.com/video_clips/2005_gemenos_castellana.wmv
> >
Nice, although, personally I find less grippy surfaces MUCH more fun to
watch. Gravel is good, snow is the best.
Some of the in-car video from WRC events is really scary. Driving
200km/h on gravel "roads" that barely qualify as roads is truely
breathtaking.
And of course, I don't personally consider a race a rally unless the
co-driver is sitting next to the driver yelling out the pace notes! :)
But that's just me...
Herbert wrote regarding 'Re: [OT][WOT] Rally - Audi 4 wheel drive' on Sat, Nov 12 at 10:56:
> On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 23:07 +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:
> > Audi (he says) rally stage - all on seal.
>
> Nice, although, personally I find less grippy surfaces MUCH more fun to
> watch. Gravel is good, snow is the best.
What, you don't like the banjo music and cheap beer that go along
with NASCAR's "50,000 laps of the same unchallenging circuit all day
long"? :)
--Danny, who thinks of NASCAR as the pro wrestling of motorsports
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 20:00 -0600, Danny Sauer wrote:
> Herbert wrote regarding 'Re: [OT][WOT] Rally - Audi 4 wheel drive' on Sat, Nov 12 at 10:56:
> > On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 23:07 +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:
> > > Audi (he says) rally stage - all on seal.
> >
> > Nice, although, personally I find less grippy surfaces MUCH more fun to
> > watch. Gravel is good, snow is the best.
>
> What, you don't like the banjo music and cheap beer that go along
> with NASCAR's "50,000 laps of the same unchallenging circuit all day
> long"? :)
Hehe, that's probably one of the best descriptions of NASCAR I've ever
seen!
I don't personally respect a motor-sport where the vehicle is SO
specialized it can't possible run under "normal" conditions. That's why
rally cars impress me so much. They have heavily modified cars, that
have to run insane speeds on VERY bad surfaces, and all at the same time
must remain completely street legal (since they drive regular roads
between stages.
> --Danny, who thinks of NASCAR as the pro wrestling of motorsports
Now that sir is an insult to pro wrestling... :) TTYL
I'm not a NASCAR fan (have hardly seem more than glimpses of it out
here at the start of time) and it is not my favourite style of racing
BUT I've seen enough of it to know that you people are doing it a
disservice.
>> > > Audi (he says) rally stage - all on seal.
>> > Nice, although, personally I find less grippy surfaces MUCH more
>> > fun to
>> > watch. Gravel is good, snow is the best.
Gravel is my preferred personal medium. Grew up playing on gravel
roads (motorcycle and car). Alas they are far far rarer here now than
then.
BUT
>> ... NASCAR's "50,000 laps of the same unchallenging circuit
Clearly written by someone who has a different meaning of the word
"unchallenging: than I do :-). One may not find the sport interesting,
but ANY top competition is challnging by definition. You push the
driver and machine to the utter limts that will get you home fastest
or you don't win. If you don't do it, someone else will. And N others
will push past this illo defined limit and not finish, or finish
forever. From what I've seen of NASCAR those are very very very real
limits that they are seeking to just not exceed and it does a
disservice to their bravery (and stupidity :-) ) to say it is
unchallenging. Interesting is another matter, and a personal one. I'd
far rather watch a gravel rally, but not everyone would.
> I don't personally respect a motor-sport where the vehicle is SO
> specialized it can't possible run under "normal" conditions.
I can certainly respect such. It may not be interesting to watch, but
if the modifcations mean that it goes significanty faster in a
dedicated environment then it may have its place.
> That's why rally cars impress me so much.
And me.
> They have heavily modified cars, that
> have to run insane speeds on VERY bad surfaces, and all at the same
> time
> must remain completely street legal (since they drive regular roads
> between stages.
I just respect such even more than a decicated environment vehicle
;-).
>> --Danny, who thinks of NASCAR as the pro wrestling of motorsports
Pro wrestling is also far far from my favoutite sport, but it sound
slike you may need a session behind the wheel of a NASCAR car AND
another (if you survive the first) in a pro wrestling ring :-).
Russell wrote regarding 'Re: [OT][WOT] Rally - Audi 4 wheel drive' on Sun, Nov 13 at 00:34:
> >>... NASCAR's "50,000 laps of the same unchallenging circuit
>
> Clearly written by someone who has a different meaning of the word
> "unchallenging: than I do :-). One may not find the sport interesting,
> but ANY top competition is challnging by definition. You push the
> driver and machine to the utter limts that will get you home fastest
> or you don't win. If you don't do it, someone else will. And N others
> will push past this illo defined limit and not finish, or finish
> forever. From what I've seen of NASCAR those are very very very real
> limits that they are seeking to just not exceed and it does a
> disservice to their bravery (and stupidity :-) ) to say it is
> unchallenging. Interesting is another matter, and a personal one. I'd
> far rather watch a gravel rally, but not everyone would.
Perhaps I should qualify my statement, then. I drag race and do some
autocrossing. In both styles, there are classes that limit what one
can do, but there's quite a lot of freedom in the interpretation of
the rules. The challenge, from my perspective, is at least 2/3 in
building a machine that can do what the driver needs it to do, and do
it better than anyone else's machine. I've got friends that
circle-track race on local short tracks, and that's still somewhat
entertaining in some classes, but the spec classes aren't. The
popular NASCAR series are like that - the cars are artificially
limited to make the races "closer". Win a few races, and you car gets
detuned a little more, because the fans don't want to see one car just
beat the crap out of the others. Things like that totally take away
from the entertainment value, in my eyes, and put it up there with pro
wrestling where the fights are staged and it's all just a bunch of
posturing for the fans.
> >>--Danny, who thinks of NASCAR as the pro wrestling of motorsports
>
> Pro wrestling is also far far from my favoutite sport, but it sound
> slike you may need a session behind the wheel of a NASCAR car AND
> another (if you survive the first) in a pro wrestling ring :-).
We're not all "just programmers" here. ;)
I've spent time driving really fast in a circle on a closed track in a
car I built, and I did a little "real" wrestling in high school but
found that I enjoyed playing basketball more). Other people are free
to like NASCAR and Pro wrestling, but I see them as overblown fake
shells of real competition. Pro wrestlers are in impressive shape and
are generally pretty good athletes, but they're not really wrestling.
NASCAR drivers are in good shape and have impressive stamina, and it
definitely takes skill to drive one of those cars successfully - but I
have little respect for the sport. Motorsports, IMHO, should be a
competition on who can best drive the best car, with both the
engineering aspect and the driving aspect coming in to play. If
someone can build a faster car within the rules, great. Let the other
drivers catch up - but don't put in a restrictor plate to make it
"more fair". That's just BS. Even with a faster car, a bad driver
isn't gonna win.
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 19:28 +1300, Russell McMahon wrote: {Quote hidden}
> I'm not a NASCAR fan (have hardly seem more than glimpses of it out
> here at the start of time) and it is not my favourite style of racing
> BUT I've seen enough of it to know that you people are doing it a
> disservice.
>
> >> > > Audi (he says) rally stage - all on seal.
>
> >> > Nice, although, personally I find less grippy surfaces MUCH more
> >> > fun to
> >> > watch. Gravel is good, snow is the best.
>
> Gravel is my preferred personal medium. Grew up playing on gravel
> roads (motorcycle and car). Alas they are far far rarer here now than
> then.
>
> BUT
>
> >> ... NASCAR's "50,000 laps of the same unchallenging circuit
>
> Clearly written by someone who has a different meaning of the word
> "unchallenging: than I do :-). One may not find the sport interesting,
> but ANY top competition is challnging by definition. You push the
> driver and machine to the utter limts that will get you home fastest
> or you don't win. If you don't do it, someone else will. And N others
> will push past this illo defined limit and not finish, or finish
> forever. From what I've seen of NASCAR those are very very very real
> limits that they are seeking to just not exceed and it does a
> disservice to their bravery (and stupidity :-) ) to say it is
> unchallenging. Interesting is another matter, and a personal one. I'd
> far rather watch a gravel rally, but not everyone would.
Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion, and although I
didn't write the line you're quoting up there I think I should at least
clarify my position.
There is no doubt that alot of engineering goes into a NASCAR vehicle,
and there is no doubt that the drivers have a large amount of skill
(some would say a little insanity too). My problem with NASCAR is
twofold: specialization, and the rules.
First off, specialization: NASCAR vehicles are designed to do only one
thing: go fast in an oval. Even the suspension is tuned so that the car
can handle a left turn better then a right turn. These vehicles are so
low to the ground and geared in such a way that I don't believe you
could drive to a corner store in one for very long without either
getting stuck, or damaging the vehicle. Now, some consider this is fine:
that's what the vehicle was meant for. But for me reality of what a
vehicle is becomes quite important. If you have a really fast car, but
can't even drive it out of your driveway, what's the point?
Second off, rules: NASCAR rules are one of the most insane in my mind.
Basically (and I don't know all the details perfectly) the rules
consider it "bad" if a car starts winning to much, and does things to
the car to disable it to an extent. This is just insane in my mind. If a
car is "the best", let it be the best, let it kick the crap out of the
others, since that will propel the others to figure out why that car is
"the best", and to make their cars better. As it is the engineering of a
NASCAR vehicle basically stalls in my mind, since if you make your car
TOO good, you'll get penalized.
Now, to be fair, there is some rational behind the rule. The worry is
that if the same car wins too many people will get bored and stop
watching, and that's true to an extent. But consider this: the WRC this
year is in exactly this position. One car (the Citreon Xsara) and one
drive (Seb Leob) have won almost every race this year. He's broken
pretty much every record, won most of the stages (in one rally he won
the rally, and was fastest in EVERY stage, something never done before),
and there's little doubt in most people's minds he can win the last
rally.
The result? Fans start concentrating on second and third place. It's
just as fun, and it's just as interesting, for the TRUE fan.
I guess that's the difference. NASCAR is primarily a business. They
don't care about "true fans", they only care that the mass stays
interested. If putting in fake rules that basically stage wins
increasing ratings, so be it.
On 14/11/05, Herbert Graf <spam_OUTmailinglist2TakeThisOuTfarcite.net> wrote:
snipped---
> Second off, rules: NASCAR rules are one of the most insane in my mind.
> Basically (and I don't know all the details perfectly) the rules
> consider it "bad" if a car starts winning to much, and does things to
> the car to disable it to an extent. This is just insane in my mind. If a
> car is "the best", let it be the best, let it kick the crap out of the
> others, since that will propel the others to figure out why that car is
> "the best", and to make their cars better. As it is the engineering of a
> NASCAR vehicle basically stalls in my mind, since if you make your car
> TOO good, you'll get penalized.
>
I don't know the details of this - but doesn't crippling a good car
just put more emphasis on the skills of the driver?
Is the idea to show off the drivers skills by ensuring all cars have
similar capabilities?
And I was starting to get a bit tired of F1 up to this year when the
same car/driver kept winning.
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 08:02 +1300, Richard Prosser wrote:
> On 14/11/05, Herbert Graf <.....mailinglist2KILLspam@spam@farcite.net> wrote:
> snipped---
> > Second off, rules: NASCAR rules are one of the most insane in my mind.
> > Basically (and I don't know all the details perfectly) the rules
> > consider it "bad" if a car starts winning to much, and does things to
> > the car to disable it to an extent. This is just insane in my mind. If a
> > car is "the best", let it be the best, let it kick the crap out of the
> > others, since that will propel the others to figure out why that car is
> > "the best", and to make their cars better. As it is the engineering of a
> > NASCAR vehicle basically stalls in my mind, since if you make your car
> > TOO good, you'll get penalized.
> >
>
> I don't know the details of this - but doesn't crippling a good car
> just put more emphasis on the skills of the driver?
> Is the idea to show off the drivers skills by ensuring all cars have
> similar capabilities?
Well, that there is another question. What is "a race" in your mind? Is
it just the driver that counts, or is it the melding of driver and
machine?
For some the human factor is all that counts, and for those this rule of
NASCAR I suppose makes some sense (although consider this: what if all
the machine WERE the same? Would you then find it fair to penalize the
driver since he/she's better then the others?).
For me motor sports is about more then just the human in the driver's
seat, it's the machine, the co-driver, the mechanics, the engineers, the
tires, everything. Being an engineering it shouldn't be surprising that
to me the machine is just as important as the human driving it, in some
ways MORE important.
> And I was starting to get a bit tired of F1 up to this year when the
> same car/driver kept winning.
Well, like I said, in WRC this year the same driver HAS been winning
almost every race, and in no way has it been boring. Emphasis just moves
to those behind the leader.
Sometimes it less interesting following a leader who's got a 45 second
lead, and more interesting to watch the battle between 3rd and 4th when
they're only 2 seconds apart.
That all said, my FAVOURITE motor-sport is rally raid, the best example
being the Paris-Dakar rally every January. That race isn't so much about
the race itself, it's more about the endurance factor. To me, I don't
really care who finishes first in a Dakar, I care more about who can
manage to even finish the race! Attrition is usually more the 50%, often
much higher!
Here in North Carolina an attack on NASCAR is considered a religious
confrontation.
Here is a little of what makes it important:
It is clean. The players are polite, not rude. Like players in the NFL, they
all report to the mother organization. Unlike the NFL, they either respect
the rules or go away.
It is a team sport. Even pit crews have fans. Institutions of higher
education provide coursework in motorsports.
It contributes a great deal to the economy. It is designed as entertainment
and the spectator is king.
It is safe. In spite of past disasters, the greatest risk at a NASCAR race
is getting there and back.
It is ingrained in the southern US culture. I don't watch much racing
anymore but I have a lot of respect for the NASCAR Guys and their families.
I am not a big race spectator anymore but I have fond memories of the
past...
Like that Memorial Day holiday where I sat in my '66 Corvair on a hill at
Lime Rock watching a road race while listening to the 500 on the radio....
On Nov 13, 2005, at 1:04 PM, John Ferrell wrote:
>
> It contributes a great deal to the economy.
> It is designed as entertainment and the spectator is king.
>
> It is safe. In spite of past disasters, the greatest risk
> at a NASCAR race is getting there and back.
So you basically agree with the comparison to professional wrestling?
>I don't personally respect a motor-sport where the
>vehicle is SO specialized it can't possible run under
>"normal" conditions. That's why rally cars impress me
>so much. They have heavily modified cars, that have
>to run insane speeds on VERY bad surfaces, and all
>at the same time must remain completely street legal
>(since they drive regular roads between stages.
I was a little amused at the way the police stopped Marcos Gronholm at the
rally of Australia over the weekend. Jacked the car up and the front strut
is broken. I am always amazed at how much they do get away with travelling
the public roads between stages.
Alan (who has six F1 teams and the Prodrive company within a half hour
drive).
>Perhaps I should qualify my statement, then. I drag race
There is a new series of Fifth Gear TV program here in the UK. Those of you
who get to see it should keep a lookout for the one where they take a brand
new Bentley Flying Spur down the local drag race track ...
And in a program earlier in the series Tiff Needel and Vick B-H race a
Williams F1 car against a BMW M5. Not interesting for the race so much, as
the pre-race preparation and fitness test Tiff goes through. They do the
race at the Rockingham circuit which is a Nascar style oval, but they use
the inner race track which is a bit like the F1 circuit at Indy.
>Second off, rules: NASCAR rules are one of the most insane
>in my mind. Basically (and I don't know all the details
>perfectly) the rules consider it "bad" if a car starts
>winning to much, and does things to the car to disable it
>to an extent. This is just insane in my mind. If a car is
>"the best", let it be the best, let it kick the crap out
>of the others, since that will propel the others to figure
>out why that car is "the best", and to make their cars better.
>As it is the engineering of a NASCAR vehicle basically stalls
>in my mind, since if you make your car TOO good, you'll
>get penalized.
The British Touring Cars series has this down to a fairly fine art, and it
works really well. For a win you get to carry an extra 40 kg in the car in
the next race, reducing for the lower places. The "success ballast" is added
to every car in the top five, and IIRC those who are 7th and below get to
remove some ballast. Each race meet has three races, and in the third race,
the top ten places from the second race are reversed on the start grid.
produces some real exciting racing, and for 2005 a private team won the
series.
> who get to see it should keep a lookout for the one where they take
> a brand new Bentley Flying Spur down the local drag race track ...
Already seen James May get one to 185mph outside of Dubai (and
still hadn't hit the limiter). For a 2 1/2 ton sedan, not too shabby. But
as JC pointed out, maybe get a Phaeton for 30+kUKP less ?
>Already seen James May get one to 185mph outside of Dubai
>(and still hadn't hit the limiter). For a 2 1/2 ton sedan,
>not too shabby. But as JC pointed out, maybe get a Phaeton
>for 30+kUKP less ?
Yeah, that showed a while ago here. The new series of Top Gear started
yesterday. Have to watch the repeat on Tuesday, as 'er indoors wanted to
watch something else, and the recorders were all busy ...
Ah, that's good to know. Checked out the episode on
BBC World a couple of days ago but it was a repeat
from late in the last series (remember Davina McCall
as the Celebrity In A Cheap Car ?). Maybe the new
series will be up next week
BTW, whilst looking for something else the other day
found this
> >Second off, rules: NASCAR rules are one of the most insane
>>in my mind. Basically (and I don't know all the details
>>perfectly) the rules consider it "bad" if a car starts
>>winning to much, and does things to the car to disable it
>>to an extent.
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:49:10 -0000, Alan B. Pearce
wrote:
> ...
> The new series of Top Gear started
> yesterday. Have to watch the repeat on Tuesday, as 'er
indoors wanted to
> watch something else,
Heartbeat?
> and the recorders were all busy
Lord of the Rings: Two Towers, and Britain's Worst
Hairdresser? :-)))
It's handy living alone, and having plenty of VCR and
DVD recorders... I just wish the DVD recorder with a
hard drive had more tuners, so I could record several
things at once on it.
Did you see Scrapheap Challenge? I thought the idea of
huge wheels with a segment missing as a way of getting
over hurdles was ridiculous, and as it turned out it
was!
Nah, these seem a bit pointless to me. Have enough to watch without these.
We were catching up on some of the video from my being away in Kourou. Got
"up close and personal" with an Ariane 5 that should have been launched last
Thursday. Mine goes up somewhere mid December - finally.
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 09:46 +0000, Alan B. Pearce wrote:
> >I don't personally respect a motor-sport where the
> >vehicle is SO specialized it can't possible run under
> >"normal" conditions. That's why rally cars impress me
> >so much. They have heavily modified cars, that have
> >to run insane speeds on VERY bad surfaces, and all
> >at the same time must remain completely street legal
> >(since they drive regular roads between stages.
>
> I was a little amused at the way the police stopped Marcos Gronholm at the
> rally of Australia over the weekend. Jacked the car up and the front strut
> is broken. I am always amazed at how much they do get away with travelling
> the public roads between stages.
Ohh, please don't give too much away, haven't seen it yet! :)
I do remember in I believe Wales a couple years ago Marcus, despite his
pleading, was not permitted to continue, although his car could still
move under it's own power (with only three wheels...)!
This compared to Mexico this year where I believe it was Leob who got a
police escort! :) TTYL
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 09:52 +0000, Alan B. Pearce wrote:
> >Perhaps I should qualify my statement, then. I drag race
>
> There is a new series of Fifth Gear TV program here in the UK. Those of you
> who get to see it should keep a lookout for the one where they take a brand
> new Bentley Flying Spur down the local drag race track ...
You mean there's a new season of Fifth Gear coming? Sweet, can't wait
till it's carried on BBC World.
Top Gear is good, but I still always preferred Fifth Gear. TTYL
>You mean there's a new season of Fifth Gear coming?
Yes, we are about 4 weeks into it now.
>Sweet, can't wait till it's carried on BBC World.
Oh, carried by the opposition? My goodness.
>Top Gear is good, but I still always preferred Fifth Gear. TTYL
Well this is the BBC program, and most of the Fifth Gear presenters used to
be on it - which is why the play on the program name when they moved, and
partly why I am surprised BBC World shows it. Top Gear does appear to have
gone a bit "wild" where Fifth Gear seems to have kept to the "subject
matter" more.
Jeremy Clarkson does appear to have got the greenies more than somewhat
riled though. One of them threw a custard pie in his face when he got an
honorary degree a few weeks back.
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 13:44 +0000, Alan B. Pearce wrote:
> >You mean there's a new season of Fifth Gear coming?
>
> Yes, we are about 4 weeks into it now.
>
> >Sweet, can't wait till it's carried on BBC World.
>
> Oh, carried by the opposition? My goodness.
>
> >Top Gear is good, but I still always preferred Fifth Gear. TTYL
>
> Well this is the BBC program, and most of the Fifth Gear presenters used to
> be on it - which is why the play on the program name when they moved, and
> partly why I am surprised BBC World shows it. Top Gear does appear to have
> gone a bit "wild" where Fifth Gear seems to have kept to the "subject
> matter" more.
Doh, sorry about that, my mistake, Top Gear is carried on BBC World,
Fifth Gear is carried on the US network Speed Channel. Sorry about that.
farcite.net> wrote:
