James Allen Again
Discussion
Joe911 said:
DABOSS said:
Joe911 said:
DABOSS said:
hmmm, I wonder if he sucks his own C*CK like prince?
Prince who? Don't keep it to yourself
(actually, do)My name is prince... and I am funky!!!
Huh! You suck your own knob? Takes all sorts
Carry on with being funky though, I'm sure it's fun.
Prince the rock/pop short arse bloke...
Is it that hard....
DABOSS said:
Joe911 said:
DABOSS said:
Joe911 said:
DABOSS said:
hmmm, I wonder if he sucks his own C*CK like prince?
Prince who? Don't keep it to yourself
(actually, do)My name is prince... and I am funky!!!
Huh! You suck your own knob? Takes all sorts
Carry on with being funky though, I'm sure it's fun.
Prince the rock/pop short arse bloke...
Is it that hard....
thunderbell - when the normally aspirated engines were allowed again in 1987 they were actually 3.5 litres, not 3 litres. They remained 3.5 litre engines until the end of the 1995 season. The "new" 3 litre era began in 1996.
As for bombers needing "wind" to take off, total arrant nonsense uttered by a technical imbecile, I'm afraid.
Silverstone aerodrome was built where it is because the land is flat. Throughout most of WW2 is was used as a bomber training base, rather than a fuilly operational front line airfield. Its main resident was number 17 Operational Training Unit (17 OTU) who flew twin engined Wellington bombers. The base opened in 1943 and ended its RAF career in 1946 - so it had a very short active military life.
As for bombers needing "wind" to take off, total arrant nonsense uttered by a technical imbecile, I'm afraid.
Silverstone aerodrome was built where it is because the land is flat. Throughout most of WW2 is was used as a bomber training base, rather than a fuilly operational front line airfield. Its main resident was number 17 Operational Training Unit (17 OTU) who flew twin engined Wellington bombers. The base opened in 1943 and ended its RAF career in 1946 - so it had a very short active military life.
Well yet another anti Cock thread.
No complaints by me about that the bloke is a tosser.
But surely the fact that we are posting here is eveidence that we must have email.
ITV have an email address for "fans" (ugh! I hate that term). So why not email ITV about him, even during the race.
We need an "Stop the Cock Email Campaign".
No complaints by me about that the bloke is a tosser.
But surely the fact that we are posting here is eveidence that we must have email.
ITV have an email address for "fans" (ugh! I hate that term). So why not email ITV about him, even during the race.
We need an "Stop the Cock Email Campaign".
castex said:
Sorry to be so short, Robbiemeister.
I think the idea might be to have fun at his expense, rather than to actually direct the hate campaign to his or his employer's email inbox.
Then again, I do wonder sometimes.
I think the idea might be to have fun at his expense, rather than to actually direct the hate campaign to his or his employer's email inbox.
Then again, I do wonder sometimes.
Castex,
I would be the last to go out with the intention of getting someone the sack and certainly the word "hate" is something that rarely enters my head.
It just seems to me that so many people (and just not here) find this guy unworthy of the job that it would be better to direct the comments to ITV.
Surely they are interested in what thier viewers think of the presenters.
Whatever, if the idea doesn't float, no problem - untill the next race that is.
castex said:
Sorry to be so short, Robbiemeister.
I think the idea might be to have fun at his expense, rather than to actually direct the hate campaign to his or his employer's email inbox.
Then again, I do wonder sometimes.
I think the idea might be to have fun at his expense, rather than to actually direct the hate campaign to his or his employer's email inbox.
Then again, I do wonder sometimes.
He actually gives us something to talk about after the race, dog knows the races themselves aren't worth discussing.
Eric Mc said:
thunderbell - when the normally aspirated engines were allowed again in 1987 they were actually 3.5 litres, not 3 litres. They remained 3.5 litre engines until the end of the 1995 season. The "new" 3 litre era began in 1996.
Thank you for the trivia.
If you recall, naturally aspirated engines have always been "allowed" in F1, just that they were not competitive against the turbo machinery, unless the weather, or excessive fuel consumption intervened.
The incident I recall was pre 87, probably back as early as 81/82 when naturally aspirated F1 engines were 3 litres, and IIRC turbo's were running up to 4 bar boost.
The 3.5L era began when the FISA as it was then, upped the naturally aspirated capacity, and dropped the turbo boost to about (can't remember the exact) 1.4bar. If you remember your Mansell trivia, he drove a Williams-Judd V8 for one season when they lost the Honda turbo deal.
But this is all by the by. James Allen talks bollox, and continues a long line of F1 commentators who continually make complete arses of themselves on air.
And for those of you watching in black and white, the pink is behind the brown (classic snooker commentating gaff!)
Normally aspirated engines were actually BANNED completely for the year 1986. They were re-introduced in 1987 at 3.5 litres and remained 3.5 until 1996, when they dropped back down to 3 litres
When F1 regulations were originally drafted at the end of 1947, they allowed normally aspirated engines of 4.5 litres and SUPERCHARGED (not Turbocharged) engines of 1.5 litres.
F1 "died" in 1952 and 1953 and all GPs were run to F2 specs in those two years.
When F1 returned in 1954, the new F1 formula was 2.5 litres normally aspirated and 750 cc supercharged (still no mention of turbocharging).
F1 changed again in 1961 to 1.5 litres normally aspirated and NO supercharging (no mention of turbocharging).
Next change was 1966 when engines increased to 3 litres normally aspirated and 1.5 litres supercharged (and STILL no mention of turbocharging).
In 1977, Renault introduce a 1.5 litre turbocharged car claimimg turbocharging and supercharging are much the same and should therefore be allowed. FISA agree and turbocharging comes into F1 for the first time.
1986 - normally aspirated engines banned outright. All cars run to the 1.5 litre turbocharged formula.
1987 - normally aspirated engines allowed again at 3.5 litres.
1989 - turbocharging banned outright. All cars run to 3.5 litres normally aspirated
1996 - engines reduced in capacity from 3.5 to 3 litres.
There you are - the full history of the engine F1 capacity rules.
When F1 regulations were originally drafted at the end of 1947, they allowed normally aspirated engines of 4.5 litres and SUPERCHARGED (not Turbocharged) engines of 1.5 litres.
F1 "died" in 1952 and 1953 and all GPs were run to F2 specs in those two years.
When F1 returned in 1954, the new F1 formula was 2.5 litres normally aspirated and 750 cc supercharged (still no mention of turbocharging).
F1 changed again in 1961 to 1.5 litres normally aspirated and NO supercharging (no mention of turbocharging).
Next change was 1966 when engines increased to 3 litres normally aspirated and 1.5 litres supercharged (and STILL no mention of turbocharging).
In 1977, Renault introduce a 1.5 litre turbocharged car claimimg turbocharging and supercharging are much the same and should therefore be allowed. FISA agree and turbocharging comes into F1 for the first time.
1986 - normally aspirated engines banned outright. All cars run to the 1.5 litre turbocharged formula.
1987 - normally aspirated engines allowed again at 3.5 litres.
1989 - turbocharging banned outright. All cars run to 3.5 litres normally aspirated
1996 - engines reduced in capacity from 3.5 to 3 litres.
There you are - the full history of the engine F1 capacity rules.
Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 15th June 11:54
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff