Escapade Silverstone Weekend
Discussion
bergclimber34 said:
For those who are interested, they are opening/ building another of these cheap, affordable complexes at Spa.
Am sure you will all be queuing up to invest.
Sorry, forgot to add, 2 more in the pipeline in Southern Europe, possibly Catalunya or a new track. And one in Asia, clearly a not at all profitable venture then.
Lol
Wow! I think I've finally discovered a communist in the wild!Am sure you will all be queuing up to invest.
Sorry, forgot to add, 2 more in the pipeline in Southern Europe, possibly Catalunya or a new track. And one in Asia, clearly a not at all profitable venture then.
Lol
Edited by bergclimber34 on Thursday 13th August 11:39
How dare a business provide a product or service, which people want and are happy to pay for, and make a PROFIT!!
StevieBee said:
bergclimber34 said:
People are prepared to pay, that is great, but what precedent does that set, what does that say about 'people'
That they are very easy to push, exploit, squeeze more from.
Society, government, advertising have been doing it for a long time
Some of us rebel against it where possible. There are lots of things I try not to pay for where possible, or do without. If enough people did this, perhaps things could change.
Sadly the norm is to shrug your shoulders and roll over like a sheep and be fleeced, companies know this and push it ever more. Fuel, water, utilities, broadband, food, etc etc.
I just find that a bit sad, and am fortunate enough to not have to comply as some of you do, am I missing out, maybe, but I can accept that.
Sports are very for this. Fomo has huge, huge power
I've been resisting the temptation to join the bergclimber-bashing bandwagon so please read the following as an attempt at enlightenment rather than criticism.....That they are very easy to push, exploit, squeeze more from.
Society, government, advertising have been doing it for a long time
Some of us rebel against it where possible. There are lots of things I try not to pay for where possible, or do without. If enough people did this, perhaps things could change.
Sadly the norm is to shrug your shoulders and roll over like a sheep and be fleeced, companies know this and push it ever more. Fuel, water, utilities, broadband, food, etc etc.
I just find that a bit sad, and am fortunate enough to not have to comply as some of you do, am I missing out, maybe, but I can accept that.
Sports are very for this. Fomo has huge, huge power
What you've described is capitalism, or more precisely, free-market-economics. In simple terms, the customer sets the price, not the company. People are not being fleeced, exploited or ripped off because the companies selling have found a price that sufficient people are willing to pay.
You may feel this disadvantages you. But consider that if you have savings, a pension or similar then you are benefiting from this because the profits these companies make eventually trickles through the markets and translates into higher interest returns on your savings. Even if you have none of those things, those profits also translate to higher levels of corporation tax, VAT collections, employment, etc, creating economic growth which you benefit from in many ways including keeping the tax you pay, in check.
So in many ways, it's in your best interests that there are large numbers of people happy to pay big-ticket prices for things because you benefit from this. That benefit whilst very real is indirect so the relevance is not always apparent - it's very much there.
All told, this is a good thing - but there is a trade-off.
If you are not one of those 'sufficient numbers of people' able or willing to pay the price others are, then of course you are excluded from accessing that thing. Unfortunate, but that's the system. The alternative is communism. Show me a booming, vibrant communist nation where everyone regardless of income has affordable access to top-flight live sport and entertainment.
There's also a slightly more abstract notion of price-perception; we 'feel' that something is too expensive when in reality, the price is actually quite fair.
Take concerts - a lot of discontent is aired around ticket prices for big acts. Putting aside the dynamic-ticket-price issue (which is open to debate), it's often the case that the ticket price is not significantly more expensive than it has ever been. I have a ticket stub for Bruce Springsteen's Born in the USA tour in the early 80s at Wembley Stadium (brilliant concert by the way). It shows I paid £28 for the ticket. Taking into account inflation, that ticket would today cost around £120 but when he toured last year, to see him play Wembley then would have cost around £100. So in real terms, the cost has actually fallen but our perception is that it has increased.
And finally we have the concept of value - as in the value you attribute to something which determines how much you are willing to pay. Let's say that the total, minimum, cost of attending the GP on the Sunday is £500 - that includes ticket, travel, food, booze, bit of merch', etc...If you like F1 and like the idea of watching it live, enjoying a day out to soak up the atmosphere on and off track, then that £500 is good value to you. Between now and next year, it equates to £1.30 a day which all but the most destitute could muster. So the non-financial value (the enjoyment you get, the memories you make and the overall experience) equates to the financial value of attaining those things. If you're not bothered about those things then it becomes very poor value.
So what does this all tell us?
Despite appearances, free market economics dictate that people have the power (or at the very least, far more of it than you might imagine).
The system works - sold out, high-priced events being one example of evidence.
And even if those events are currently out of your reach, you still benefit from the economic activity they generate.
Rather than criticise those that do pay these prices, you should actually be thanking them!
StevieBee said:
I've been resisting the temptation to join the bergclimber-bashing bandwagon so please read the following as an attempt at enlightenment rather than criticism.....
What you've described is capitalism, or more precisely, free-market-economics. In simple terms, the customer sets the price, not the company. People are not being fleeced, exploited or ripped off because the companies selling have found a price that sufficient people are willing to pay.
You may feel this disadvantages you. But consider that if you have savings, a pension or similar then you are benefiting from this because the profits these companies make eventually trickles through the markets and translates into higher interest returns on your savings. Even if you have none of those things, those profits also translate to higher levels of corporation tax, VAT collections, employment, etc, creating economic growth which you benefit from in many ways including keeping the tax you pay, in check.
So in many ways, it's in your best interests that there are large numbers of people happy to pay big-ticket prices for things because you benefit from this. That benefit whilst very real is indirect so the relevance is not always apparent - it's very much there.
All told, this is a good thing - but there is a trade-off.
If you are not one of those 'sufficient numbers of people' able or willing to pay the price others are, then of course you are excluded from accessing that thing. Unfortunate, but that's the system. The alternative is communism. Show me a booming, vibrant communist nation where everyone regardless of income has affordable access to top-flight live sport and entertainment.
There's also a slightly more abstract notion of price-perception; we 'feel' that something is too expensive when in reality, the price is actually quite fair.
Take concerts - a lot of discontent is aired around ticket prices for big acts. Putting aside the dynamic-ticket-price issue (which is open to debate), it's often the case that the ticket price is not significantly more expensive than it has ever been. I have a ticket stub for Bruce Springsteen's Born in the USA tour in the early 80s at Wembley Stadium (brilliant concert by the way). It shows I paid £28 for the ticket. Taking into account inflation, that ticket would today cost around £120 but when he toured last year, to see him play Wembley then would have cost around £100. So in real terms, the cost has actually fallen but our perception is that it has increased.
And finally we have the concept of value - as in the value you attribute to something which determines how much you are willing to pay. Let's say that the total, minimum, cost of attending the GP on the Sunday is £500 - that includes ticket, travel, food, booze, bit of merch', etc...If you like F1 and like the idea of watching it live, enjoying a day out to soak up the atmosphere on and off track, then that £500 is good value to you. Between now and next year, it equates to £1.30 a day which all but the most destitute could muster. So the non-financial value (the enjoyment you get, the memories you make and the overall experience) equates to the financial value of attaining those things. If you're not bothered about those things then it becomes very poor value.
So what does this all tell us?
Despite appearances, free market economics dictate that people have the power (or at the very least, far more of it than you might imagine).
The system works - sold out, high-priced events being one example of evidence.
And even if those events are currently out of your reach, you still benefit from the economic activity they generate.
Rather than criticise those that do pay these prices, you should actually be thanking them!
A really interesting and articulate post, thank you!What you've described is capitalism, or more precisely, free-market-economics. In simple terms, the customer sets the price, not the company. People are not being fleeced, exploited or ripped off because the companies selling have found a price that sufficient people are willing to pay.
You may feel this disadvantages you. But consider that if you have savings, a pension or similar then you are benefiting from this because the profits these companies make eventually trickles through the markets and translates into higher interest returns on your savings. Even if you have none of those things, those profits also translate to higher levels of corporation tax, VAT collections, employment, etc, creating economic growth which you benefit from in many ways including keeping the tax you pay, in check.
So in many ways, it's in your best interests that there are large numbers of people happy to pay big-ticket prices for things because you benefit from this. That benefit whilst very real is indirect so the relevance is not always apparent - it's very much there.
All told, this is a good thing - but there is a trade-off.
If you are not one of those 'sufficient numbers of people' able or willing to pay the price others are, then of course you are excluded from accessing that thing. Unfortunate, but that's the system. The alternative is communism. Show me a booming, vibrant communist nation where everyone regardless of income has affordable access to top-flight live sport and entertainment.
There's also a slightly more abstract notion of price-perception; we 'feel' that something is too expensive when in reality, the price is actually quite fair.
Take concerts - a lot of discontent is aired around ticket prices for big acts. Putting aside the dynamic-ticket-price issue (which is open to debate), it's often the case that the ticket price is not significantly more expensive than it has ever been. I have a ticket stub for Bruce Springsteen's Born in the USA tour in the early 80s at Wembley Stadium (brilliant concert by the way). It shows I paid £28 for the ticket. Taking into account inflation, that ticket would today cost around £120 but when he toured last year, to see him play Wembley then would have cost around £100. So in real terms, the cost has actually fallen but our perception is that it has increased.
And finally we have the concept of value - as in the value you attribute to something which determines how much you are willing to pay. Let's say that the total, minimum, cost of attending the GP on the Sunday is £500 - that includes ticket, travel, food, booze, bit of merch', etc...If you like F1 and like the idea of watching it live, enjoying a day out to soak up the atmosphere on and off track, then that £500 is good value to you. Between now and next year, it equates to £1.30 a day which all but the most destitute could muster. So the non-financial value (the enjoyment you get, the memories you make and the overall experience) equates to the financial value of attaining those things. If you're not bothered about those things then it becomes very poor value.
So what does this all tell us?
Despite appearances, free market economics dictate that people have the power (or at the very least, far more of it than you might imagine).
The system works - sold out, high-priced events being one example of evidence.
And even if those events are currently out of your reach, you still benefit from the economic activity they generate.
Rather than criticise those that do pay these prices, you should actually be thanking them!
I don't see it, but fair play for spending half an hour trying to convince people you know what you are talking about.
I could easily afford any of these things, but I choose not to, why, because in my view they do not offer value for money in terms of my spend over and above the entertainment return I get from what I am paying for, it really is that simple.
If people choose to spend a lot of money to see things, what happens, that cost never drops, despite what you say, attending F1 at Silverstone is now considerably more expensive, why? Because they can, the demand is there, I don't get why, but it is. But the price does not drop as a result, they have been caught out with reactive ticketing etc, that is never a good thing.
I suppose you agree that motorway services, garages are perfectly entitled to charge 50% more for food than a supermarket, just because of convenience? I argue that is a rip off and never buy any food if at all possible at these places, millions do, does that make it right? No it is just exploitation.
It's the same thing, at a different level. And it works because of one factor, people are lazy and desperate, EXACTLY the same as event ticketing.
I could easily afford any of these things, but I choose not to, why, because in my view they do not offer value for money in terms of my spend over and above the entertainment return I get from what I am paying for, it really is that simple.
If people choose to spend a lot of money to see things, what happens, that cost never drops, despite what you say, attending F1 at Silverstone is now considerably more expensive, why? Because they can, the demand is there, I don't get why, but it is. But the price does not drop as a result, they have been caught out with reactive ticketing etc, that is never a good thing.
I suppose you agree that motorway services, garages are perfectly entitled to charge 50% more for food than a supermarket, just because of convenience? I argue that is a rip off and never buy any food if at all possible at these places, millions do, does that make it right? No it is just exploitation.
It's the same thing, at a different level. And it works because of one factor, people are lazy and desperate, EXACTLY the same as event ticketing.
bergclimber34 said:
II could easily afford any of these things, but I choose not to, why, because in my view they do not offer value for money in terms of my spend over and above the entertainment return I get from what I am paying for, it really is that simple.
That is exactly part of the point I made. To you the value is poor. To others it is good. Value is in the eye of the beholder!bergclimber34 said:
If people choose to spend a lot of money to see things, what happens, that cost never drops, despite what you say, attending F1 at Silverstone is now considerably more expensive, why? Because they can, the demand is there, I don't get why, but it is. But the price does not drop as a result, they have been caught out with reactive ticketing etc, that is never a good thing.
A weekend general access ticket to the British Grand Prix in 1990 cost £60. Taking into account inflation, that's £177 in today's money.A weekend general access ticket this year cost £230. So, an increase of £53 in real terms over a 36 year period.
So whilst you are correct that the price has increased, I wouldn't say it has increased 'considerably'. Added to which, compared to 1990, the overall experience has improved greatly. There's better infrastructure, better viewing opportunity, better entertainment.... Whether you think F1 has improved or not is subjective but overall, it would be difficult for anyone to argue that the experience today is worse than in 1990.
So the issue circles back to the first point; perceived value. To you the value is poor. To others, it is not. Prices will not drop because the cost of supply will always increase. And companies that drop their prices when demand is high tend not to last too long.
bergclimber34 said:
I suppose you agree that motorway services, garages are perfectly entitled to charge 50% more for food than a supermarket, just because of convenience? I argue that is a rip off and never buy any food if at all possible at these places, millions do, does that make it right? No it is just exploitation.
It's the same thing, at a different level. And it works because of one factor, people are lazy and desperate, EXACTLY the same as event ticketing.
It's not a rip-off or exploitation because, as you have demonstrated, people have choice. If you don't want to pay an extra 50p or a £1 or whatever for a sandwich, you can come off at the next junction, drive into the nearest town, park up and grab a Greggs. Or not bother. Nobody is forcing you.It's the same thing, at a different level. And it works because of one factor, people are lazy and desperate, EXACTLY the same as event ticketing.
The premium you pay is convenience and if you value convenience then you're happy to pay that premium.
And if you're interested, the average service station premium added to goods sold there compared to high street outlets is 15% but the operating costs to the service station outlets is around 12% higher compared to other locations. So again, in real terms, the 'convenience premium' is only around 3%.
Digga said:
Capitalism is all about choice; individuals, companies, products, services. Simple.
To a degree, broadly speaking. There are monopoly laws and market price regulators for a reason; companies do tend to up the price if they think people will (or will be forced to more likely) pay for it.It depends on lots of factors does the effect of capitalism, I certainly do not think it brings down costs as suggested earlier.
I think it largely brings different things to each social and class level at both home and work.
Something like Escapade is aimed largely at a certain person. Will F1 go this way as football is? Look at the Euro athletics currently, very much criticised for the cost of tickets and dair play punters have said no.They do not with F1 which is the fascinating part for me.
I think the British GP is becoming a little festival like, when you look at the entertainment etc which possibly explains part of it. It ne er used to be that and still got a crowd which shows how events have changed, people want more fir their cash
Would be interesting if there was no music and prices stayed the same 8f crowds decreased.
I think it largely brings different things to each social and class level at both home and work.
Something like Escapade is aimed largely at a certain person. Will F1 go this way as football is? Look at the Euro athletics currently, very much criticised for the cost of tickets and dair play punters have said no.They do not with F1 which is the fascinating part for me.
I think the British GP is becoming a little festival like, when you look at the entertainment etc which possibly explains part of it. It ne er used to be that and still got a crowd which shows how events have changed, people want more fir their cash
Would be interesting if there was no music and prices stayed the same 8f crowds decreased.
F1 at Silverstone's always been rammed.
In my 20's, early 1990's, I can remember 4 of us, me, mate and our girlfriends, driving straight from a wedding reception party to the circuit. We queued up on foot, general admission, at the old Club Corner with our deck chairs and cooler boxes and were let in at whatever ungodly hour the gates opened.
It was a mad rush to the fence. We pitched-up about 3 rows back and by the time we'd got chair up and everything set out, there were about 5 rows behind us and growing, rapidly. Mental but a lot of fun.
There's a place for all the big budget and corporate stuff and the circuit that's there for the rest of us to enjoy other racing and track days at, needs the revenue to survive as it is.
In my 20's, early 1990's, I can remember 4 of us, me, mate and our girlfriends, driving straight from a wedding reception party to the circuit. We queued up on foot, general admission, at the old Club Corner with our deck chairs and cooler boxes and were let in at whatever ungodly hour the gates opened.
It was a mad rush to the fence. We pitched-up about 3 rows back and by the time we'd got chair up and everything set out, there were about 5 rows behind us and growing, rapidly. Mental but a lot of fun.
There's a place for all the big budget and corporate stuff and the circuit that's there for the rest of us to enjoy other racing and track days at, needs the revenue to survive as it is.
bergclimber34 said:
It depends on lots of factors does the effect of capitalism, I certainly do not think it brings down costs as suggested earlier.
I think it largely brings different things to each social and class level at both home and work.
Something like Escapade is aimed largely at a certain person. Will F1 go this way as football is? Look at the Euro athletics currently, very much criticised for the cost of tickets and dair play punters have said no.They do not with F1 which is the fascinating part for me.
I think the British GP is becoming a little festival like, when you look at the entertainment etc which possibly explains part of it. It ne er used to be that and still got a crowd which shows how events have changed, people want more fir their cash
Would be interesting if there was no music and prices stayed the same 8f crowds decreased.
The Europeans are pretty much sold out. I just went on to get tickets for tomorrow evening and I reckon there are around 50 seats left, from £150 to £29. It's been a success. Sure , the front row seats are pricey, but standard seats are not over priced. I think it largely brings different things to each social and class level at both home and work.
Something like Escapade is aimed largely at a certain person. Will F1 go this way as football is? Look at the Euro athletics currently, very much criticised for the cost of tickets and dair play punters have said no.They do not with F1 which is the fascinating part for me.
I think the British GP is becoming a little festival like, when you look at the entertainment etc which possibly explains part of it. It ne er used to be that and still got a crowd which shows how events have changed, people want more fir their cash
Would be interesting if there was no music and prices stayed the same 8f crowds decreased.
Ricky Gervais is playing Brum. Tickets start at £90 and the best blocks are £150 plus (now sold out).
Personally, I would rather nail my cock to a barn door and immolate myself than go see him, but hundreds seem to think £100 plus and £150 plus are good value. You get 1.5 hours of him and 3 hours trying to get out of the car park at Brindley Place, plus the added fun of being mugged.
And this is the aspect I dont get.
DO people forget how much it was to go to gigs less than a few years ago, I have seen big bands in London in the last 20 years for 30 quid. Now it is 60 to 100. So I don't go anymore,.
This is what I don't understand, people just accept it and pay. Maybe they have no choice they HAVE to do it, no you do not!!
It seems to me that you could almost put any price out there and people will pay it, which to me is borderline staggering.
Maybe I am weird, old fashioned, or just tight. But some of the prices quoted for very average experiences are mind blowing to me.
DO people forget how much it was to go to gigs less than a few years ago, I have seen big bands in London in the last 20 years for 30 quid. Now it is 60 to 100. So I don't go anymore,.
This is what I don't understand, people just accept it and pay. Maybe they have no choice they HAVE to do it, no you do not!!
It seems to me that you could almost put any price out there and people will pay it, which to me is borderline staggering.
Maybe I am weird, old fashioned, or just tight. But some of the prices quoted for very average experiences are mind blowing to me.
This thread is still being debated. Some are even espousing the benefits of trickle down economics nonsense.
In my opinion people “waste” money on expensive things for the exclusivity of said product. They can afford something that others can’t so they are more successful, “richer than y’all” as Harry Enfield would say. The more expensive a product is the more rich folk will spend on it because, in their minds, it elevates their social status.
No, for some products, the customer doesn’t determine the price, the producer does. The Ferrari Luce is a case in point but I digress.
I go back to my earlier point, Paul didn’t have to introduce money into this discussion, because it is a vulgar way of showing off. But I’m not sure he meant it in that way, but the whole topic is about nothing really.
Spending that sort of money for a fleeting experience is “ballin” in my view. It’s like booking a table at a night club and ordering bottles of Champagne and expensive cognac, it is to show others that you’ve made it. Look at me. I’ve been there.
All that said though, for this experience, all publicity is good publicity and I’m sure there’ll be some that have already pencilled in the experience for the future, but I’m not sure they’ll be sharing the costs with the internet.
In my opinion people “waste” money on expensive things for the exclusivity of said product. They can afford something that others can’t so they are more successful, “richer than y’all” as Harry Enfield would say. The more expensive a product is the more rich folk will spend on it because, in their minds, it elevates their social status.
No, for some products, the customer doesn’t determine the price, the producer does. The Ferrari Luce is a case in point but I digress.
I go back to my earlier point, Paul didn’t have to introduce money into this discussion, because it is a vulgar way of showing off. But I’m not sure he meant it in that way, but the whole topic is about nothing really.
Spending that sort of money for a fleeting experience is “ballin” in my view. It’s like booking a table at a night club and ordering bottles of Champagne and expensive cognac, it is to show others that you’ve made it. Look at me. I’ve been there.
All that said though, for this experience, all publicity is good publicity and I’m sure there’ll be some that have already pencilled in the experience for the future, but I’m not sure they’ll be sharing the costs with the internet.
maz8062 said:
This thread is still being debated. Some are even espousing the benefits of trickle down economics nonsense.
In my opinion people waste money on expensive things for the exclusivity of said product. They can afford something that others can t so they are more successful, richer than y all as Harry Enfield would say. The more expensive a product is the more rich folk will spend on it because, in their minds, it elevates their social status.
No, for some products, the customer doesn t determine the price, the producer does. The Ferrari Luce is a case in point but I digress.
I go back to my earlier point, Paul didn t have to introduce money into this discussion, because it is a vulgar way of showing off. But I m not sure he meant it in that way, but the whole topic is about nothing really.
Spending that sort of money for a fleeting experience is ballin in my view. It s like booking a table at a night club and ordering bottles of Champagne and expensive cognac, it is to show others that you ve made it. Look at me. I ve been there.
All that said though, for this experience, all publicity is good publicity and I m sure there ll be some that have already pencilled in the experience for the future, but I m not sure they ll be sharing the costs with the internet.
I think Mr Guitar’s whole point about the price, was that if you’re going there for something other than the F1 it’s actually pretty reasonable at £160/person/night for six of you, and you get one of the best views in motorsport out of your window in the morning. In my opinion people waste money on expensive things for the exclusivity of said product. They can afford something that others can t so they are more successful, richer than y all as Harry Enfield would say. The more expensive a product is the more rich folk will spend on it because, in their minds, it elevates their social status.
No, for some products, the customer doesn t determine the price, the producer does. The Ferrari Luce is a case in point but I digress.
I go back to my earlier point, Paul didn t have to introduce money into this discussion, because it is a vulgar way of showing off. But I m not sure he meant it in that way, but the whole topic is about nothing really.
Spending that sort of money for a fleeting experience is ballin in my view. It s like booking a table at a night club and ordering bottles of Champagne and expensive cognac, it is to show others that you ve made it. Look at me. I ve been there.
All that said though, for this experience, all publicity is good publicity and I m sure there ll be some that have already pencilled in the experience for the future, but I m not sure they ll be sharing the costs with the internet.
Yes the F1 is crazily-priced, but so is everything else that weekend. Go to a different event and the experience is much more reasonable.
What I think is "vulgar" is to repeat the same post again, when it did not float the first time - Paul is far too level-headed to post an experience, and cost of that experience, to glean any "ballin'" points IMHO. I am reasonably confident to suggest he would do that is just absurd.
People may be interested in things that people experience and it may be helpful to know their cost
Things cost something, and people may or may not purchase those things if they are interested.
It is simply an insight into what people are prepared to pay for things other find OTT.
It clearly works as several of the things are being designed and built worldwide, there is a market for it.
Is that a good thing, is also part of the debate, and instead of endlessly moaning about it, try and support or rubbish either argument. Nobody forces anyone to post.
It clearly works as several of the things are being designed and built worldwide, there is a market for it.
Is that a good thing, is also part of the debate, and instead of endlessly moaning about it, try and support or rubbish either argument. Nobody forces anyone to post.
maz8062 said:
I go back to my earlier point, Paul didn t have to introduce money into this discussion, because it is a vulgar way of showing off. But I m not sure he meant it in that way, but the whole topic is about nothing really.
We spent £900 each for the entire weekend including lunches and dinners, taxis and race weekend tickets.Give it a rest with the 'showing off' accusation. It's the exact opposite; if anything, most people have been surprised at how little we spent to do what we did.
PhilAsia said:
What I think is "vulgar" is to repeat the same post again, when it did not float the first time - Paul is far too level-headed to post an experience, and cost of that experience, to glean any "ballin'" points IMHO. I am reasonably confident to suggest he would do that is just absurd.
Personally Id like to thank Paul for sharing this, Ive seen these when at Silverstone and I'd often wondered what was involved and what they were like as we might be tempted in the future.
Pistonheads would be a sad place if everybody had green eye, drove knackered old jalopies and simply came on here to throw rocks at anybody doing better than them.
bennno said:
Personally Id like to thank Paul for sharing this, Ive seen these when at Silverstone and I'd often wondered what was involved and what they were like as we might be tempted in the future.
Pistonheads would be a sad place if everybody had green eye, drove knackered old jalopies and simply came on here to throw rocks at anybody doing better than them.
^This.Pistonheads would be a sad place if everybody had green eye, drove knackered old jalopies and simply came on here to throw rocks at anybody doing better than them.
Often thought it’d be a good call if a few of you were all on a track day there too. So it’s good to know whether the accommodation’s any good.
tty AirBnB places priced higher! 
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff