Archive for June 4th, 2011

Rewriting history [updated]


They’ve done with WWII victor, Winston Churchill, and now they’ve done it with Alain Prost.

Back in 1985, the four-time world champion drove a Marlboro sponsored Honda McLaren.

Here it is.

And here’s the current picture on Wikipedia, and in many a google image search pic.

OK. So cigarette advertising has been banned on F1 cars since about 2007/2008.

But one just has to wonder, if history is re-written on something so frivolous as a F1 car – and unannounced, mind you – just what else are the powers, the Leftist powers that be, re-writing history on?

UPDATE

Just for the record…

UPDATE II

Are you shitting me a 1985 race in Germany disallowed Marlboro?

My Bad.

And then this: consider the BS engine’s being introduced in 2013…

A 1.6 litre four cylinder… on an F1 car…?

Arguments over the commercial structure and regulations in the sport re-started in the mid-2000s with McLaren and their part owner Mercedes again amongst teams threatening to start a rival series until 2009 when another Concorde Agreement that is effective until the end of 2012 was settled upon.

And that’s a good considering that engine crap.

A four cylinder on an F1 car????

That Concord agreement breaks in 2013, the same year FIA wants F1 cars to have four cylinder engines. Mclaren ain’t happy. You can bet your bottom dollar Ferrari is pissed. None of the drivers or fans want it.

Yet the FIA has pushed ahead its agenda for its beloved baby formula.

Make sense?

Of course not.

And give us a break. I was too young in 1985 to actually REMEMBER Prost’s car.

Any corrections in comments are most welcome.

UPDATE III

Tim Blair emails:

Easy mistake for young players. Germany was ahead of everyone when it came
to banning cig ads.

Some teams found better ways to get around it than McLaren’s simple
block-out technique. The
Zakspeed team of the mid-80s was sponsored by cigarette maker West, so in
Germany they just
changed the signage to East. Problem solved.

Cheers,

Tim

So there you go

Advertisements

Unlimited oil: the news is gaining traction


As blogged here back on April 18th, and again two days ago, the news that we could well be entering an Age of Fossil Fuels – that is, potentially unlimited oil (hydrocarbons) – has caught the attention of the Big Boys over at Hot Air*.

Ed Morrissey:

You’ve heard that we’re running out of oil. You’ve heard that natural gas has a finite and ever-shortening supply. The media has been reporting on Peak Oil for decades, and the peak has always been just around the next corner. But what if that weren’t true, and for practical purposes, the US has an unlimited supply of fossil fuel for its energy needs? Would that not undercut the entire notion of an energy crisis, except as self-inflicted?

Get ready for a paradigm change…

*Hey, ever since breaking the BER (despite what the Australian reckons), it’s rare this not-so-humble blogger gets a scoop on anything, so I’ll enjoy beating Hot Air to something (first and only time, lol?) for a little while, thank you very much.

Related: BER posts

*waiting for someone to find link proving no, Hot Air actually was on this first, lol*

Is that happy or hapless?


Just how happy are North Koreans? Why, they’re positively beaming!

H/T Hot Air

Man, who let off the nitrous?

When better safe than sorry isn’t


Via JM, Jonathan H. Adler:

It’s better to be safe than sorry. We all accept this as a commonsense maxim. But can it also guide public policy? Advocates of the precautionary principle think so, and argue that formalizing a more “precautionary” approach to public health and environmental protection will better safeguard human well-being and the world around us. If only it were that easy.

Simply put, the precautionary principle is not a sound basis for public policy. At the broadest level of generality, the principle is unobjectionable, but it provides no meaningful guidance to pressing policy questions. In a public policy context, “better safe than sorry” is a fairly vacuous instruction. Taken literally, the precautionary principle is either wholly arbitrary or incoherent. In its stronger formulations, the principle actually has the potential to do harm.

Read on.

Speaking of playing it safe rather than being sorry, Iowahawk’s take on perhaps when the precautionary principle should be applied.

They could try spending less, too


Obamanomics at it’s best:

Moody’s Investors Service warned Thursday that it may soon downgrade the U.S. credit rating because of mounting concerns that the government will default, adding new urgency to negotiations between President Obama and congressional Republicans over the nation’s debt.

Moody’s, one of the premier credit-rating agencies, said that political gamesmanship over raising the government’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling has been worse than expected. If progress toward increasing the limit isn’t made by mid-July, Moody’s said it would take another step toward reducing the country’s top-of-the-line AAA rating by putting the United States under review for a possible downgrade.

Oh noes!


Formula 1 moves one step closer towards any diehard fan’s nightmare.

Following a meeting of its World Motor Sport Council (WMSC) in the Spanish city of Barcelona on Friday, the FIA has released details of regulation changes which could come into force for the 2013 season. The sport’s governing body, however, also revealed that a vote could be taken to change the timing of their introduction.

One of the major revisions approved by the WMSC is the establishment of a new engine formula, which will see the current 2.4 litre V8s replaced with 1.6 litre four-cylinder units, with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar and extensive energy management and energy recovery systems. Rev limits on the new engines will be reduced from the current 18,000rpm to a maximum of 12,000.

Why would Formula One, of all sports, continue to pander to the Green Brigade? Just how many hippies does one see at an F1 event?

Memo to Jean Todt: the aging hippies and their useful idiot acolytes want F1 DEAD, and you’re doing their job for them.

And not only will the engines be smaller and most likely sound horrible compared to what we have now, but the cars will be 20kg heavier. Double Fail.

The only silver lining is that the 2013 date for the new engines (the car I’ll be driving to see the race in 2013* has a bigger engine) could be postponed. One can only hope by “postponed” they mean shoot the bloody engines out into space with Al Gore attached.

Bernie, who is known to be “anti, anti, anti, anti moving into this small turbo four formula”, had better think of something fast.

In other F1 news, the previously cancelled Bahrain F1 is back on again, with India’s race being pushed back a couple of weeks. Also, the US Grand Prix is on again for 2012.

*That’s a big maybe.

PS In case you missed it, although us Aussies love to hate Vettel, at least he has the right idea when it comes to engines.

Indeed. Bring back the V12s!

Seriously, why is the FIA doing this???

Why would they make such a drastic change that the boss doesn’t want, the drivers don’t want, and the fans don’t want?

Up next: The FIA requires drivers to do a silly walk to their cars.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: