Jump to content


Photo

London Grand Prix


  • Please log in to reply
203 replies to this topic

#101 Rob29

Rob29
  • Member

  • 3,097 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 25 January 2006 - 14:50

Originally posted by le chat noir
What is the Velo??

A bicycle race Mr.Black Cat.I added that in case anyone thought I meant the Tour de France Auto,which I don't think is run anymore.

Advertisement

#102 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,276 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 25 January 2006 - 15:14

Originally posted by Rob29
A bicycle race Mr.Black Cat.I added that in case anyone thought I meant the Tour de France Auto,which I don't think is run anymore.


But how can the tour de france come to london???

#103 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,276 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 25 January 2006 - 15:14

By pedalo?

#104 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 11,382 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 25 January 2006 - 15:20

Originally posted by le chat noir
But how can the tour de france come to london???

Le Tour routinely starts outside France. THis is an excellent notion and far more practical than a pie-in-the-sky London GP. It will be good top quality cycling sport, as opposed to a very compromised and restricted version of motor-racing. All it needs is a few barriers and some temporary grandstands. It is also hugely good value compared to paying Bernie's 30 (million) pieces of silver.

#105 RDM

RDM
  • Member

  • 2,112 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 25 January 2006 - 18:25

Originally posted by BRG
Le Tour routinely starts outside France. THis is an excellent notion and far more practical than a pie-in-the-sky London GP. It will be good top quality cycling sport, as opposed to a very compromised and restricted version of motor-racing. All it needs is a few barriers and some temporary grandstands. It is also hugely good value compared to paying Bernie's 30 (million) pieces of silver.

Indeed. Le Tour has visited the UK on previous occasions.

#106 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 25 January 2006 - 18:54

I get the feeling (as I have for the last 5 years), that F1's arrogance is going to price itself right out of the traditional markets which gave her the history and legacy it now holds on to today.

More and more races are moving to the Middle and Far East and in turn more sponsors and drivers from these areas are coming into the picture as well.

My personal opinion of this is not good. I like the older tracks - many of which have either been chopped off the calendar, dug under or threatened on what seems a yearly basis to either put up or shut up. IMO I am basically growing sick and tired of the attitude that 'if you don't like it we'll take our show to some Prince Mohammad what-ever in some Middle-Eastern land at a track surrounded by sand and designed no differently then every other Tilke circuit that's surfaced over the last 10 years.

No thanks I say. I think it's about time someone has decided to put the brakes on and say 'wait a minute, is this really cost effective any longer?' 'What are our alternatives?'

Time for perhaps Senior F1 league to start looking at taking over some of these venues??? They are worth the try as they come with (some) as much herritage as Indy themselves. I mean if the promoters/local governments are already shelling out millions pers year on multi-year basis and annually losing money, why not try something a bit different?

#107 aportinga

aportinga
  • Member

  • 7,793 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 25 January 2006 - 19:25

Hmm... I think I read this wrong. I never heard of a London GP before. I assumed that the London gov was assisting Silverstone.

My bad.

#108 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 25 January 2006 - 22:39

How does the increidbly stupid idea of F1 cars in London keep coming up?

#109 Rob29

Rob29
  • Member

  • 3,097 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 26 January 2006 - 08:18

Originally posted by Dudley
How does the increidbly stupid idea of F1 cars in London keep coming up?

It has'nt come up again,just the news that its off for the time being due to excessive demands of BE.Whystupid? Monaco,Melbourne,Montreal,Macau,Pau,Norisring,Long Beach ,Toronto,etc,all work very well.Good ol' Ken Livingstone is not one to submit to extortion. Hopefully the long awaited death of Mr.E will put things moving in the right direction?
What is stupid is building autodromes in the desert?

#110 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 26 January 2006 - 09:27

Originally posted by Rob29
It has'nt come up again,just the news that its off for the time being due to excessive demands of BE.Whystupid? Monaco,Melbourne,Montreal,Macau,Pau,Norisring,Long Beach ,Toronto,etc,all work very well.Good ol' Ken Livingstone is not one to submit to extortion. Hopefully the long awaited death of Mr.E will put things moving in the right direction?
What is stupid is building autodromes in the desert?


Well said. London would be a great idea for a GP, if not for the amount of moolah required to satisfy the diminutive one.

#111 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 26 January 2006 - 10:05

I'm with Dudley on this, what a ridiculous idea. Let's watch some cars designed for such as Silverstone strangled around some narrow City streets - great :rolleyes: .

Monaco as a one-off works, just because it's different. I'd much rather see F1 cars on circuits like Silverstone, Suzuka, Spa, Monza etc. , places where the cars can really stretch their legs (so to speak) than piddling little street circuits.

As for building circuits in the desert being stupid - well if Bahrain is the example then yes, but Dubai have, by all accounts, built a very good drivers track in the middle of the desert.

#112 Garagiste

Garagiste
  • Member

  • 3,791 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 26 January 2006 - 11:34

Whilst I agree that it's pie in the sky, there's no reason why it would have to take place on narrow streets. There are places that would make for a great race, and the very best historical circuits have come from public roads rather than being purpose built.

I'm going to have to link to this picture again. :cool:

Posted Image

#113 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 26 January 2006 - 11:42

Originally posted by Garagiste
Whilst I agree that it's pie in the sky, there's no reason why it would have to take place on narrow streets. There are places that would make for a great race, and the very best historical circuits have come from public roads rather than being purpose built.

I'm going to have to link to this picture again. :cool:


Nice picture. :)

Some of the best historical circuits have come from public roads, but usually not ones winding around a city centre. Spa, Rouen, Reims, Pescara - all great circuits, but not really confined by the nature of urban life.

And one of the greatest circuits of all, let's not forget, was purpose built - the Nurburgring. Others, such as Monza, are not too bad either.

#114 Garagiste

Garagiste
  • Member

  • 3,791 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 26 January 2006 - 11:53

True, and I think we're basically in agreement here.
I just think that if there was a way around all of the logistical nightmares, a London GP would be a nice thing to see. The onboard footage would be quite something, too - especially if we can waive the 20mph limit on Tower Bridge! ;)

#115 Terry Walker

Terry Walker
  • Member

  • 2,710 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 26 January 2006 - 13:33

Let's see: the S/F in The Mall, hang a right into Horse Guards, Birdcage Walk, Buckingham Gate, Grosvenor Place, Constitution Hill, a right and left around Queen Victoria to slow them down before the pits...

Bags of room.

#116 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,276 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 26 January 2006 - 13:43

Originally posted by Terry Walker
Let's see: the S/F in The Mall, hang a right into Horse Guards, Birdcage Walk, Buckingham Gate, Grosvenor Place, Constitution Hill, a right and left around Queen Victoria to slow them down before the pits...

Bags of room.


Ooh yeah! I live on Buckingham Gate, that would be cool!

The course suggested around Hyde Park is basically four long straights with one chicane. They are not tight, narrow streets and would allow F1 cars to open up fully. And there is plenty of space for grandstands inside the park. And plenty of space for a full sized paddock and even for concerts and other events.
The streets are not a problem.
True there are narrow winding streets in London, but is also one of the most open and green cities in the world. A shame they held the parade where they did really.

#117 grg

grg
  • Member

  • 208 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 26 January 2006 - 14:11

hyde park idea defeats the consept as it is not 'in the city' -- ie historic buildings/landmarks
arround the cars racing etc etc - it is just a ****ing park with a couple of frozen swans

i mean you need at least one landmark included in the circuit to make it worth the while

#118 Terry Walker

Terry Walker
  • Member

  • 2,710 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 26 January 2006 - 14:37

Buckingham Palace is a landmark of sorts. Don't know what HM would think: head for Windsor Castle probably, fingers in ears.

#119 RDM

RDM
  • Member

  • 2,112 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 26 January 2006 - 14:55

Live in London. Work in London. Love my F1. And just wish people would put any thought of this stupid idea behind them.

Britain isn't going to get 2 GP's a year, and if we move from actual race circuits like Brands, Donington or Silverstone for a year, and have some predictable processional unexciting race, we'll just end up with nothing.

It was great seeing the F1 cars in Regent St a couple of years ago, (nice to have F1 cars less than 10 seconds from my workplace), but London's roads are in quite shit conditions at the best of times, and the millions upon millions of pounds of taxpayers money required to bring any part of it up to F1 standards would make the whole project heavilly criticised in the press and population at large.

It's a nice idea at first thought, but in reality it could - for all the UK's "heart of the F1 industry" position - be the death-knell of racing in Britain. Forget it. Monaco has got this niche filled, and London ain't gonna do it any better.

Advertisement

#120 grg

grg
  • Member

  • 208 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 26 January 2006 - 15:05

maybe your right man

it wud be cool though

#121 RDM

RDM
  • Member

  • 2,112 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 26 January 2006 - 15:14

Originally posted by Terry Walker
Buckingham Palace is a landmark of sorts. Don't know what HM would think: head for Windsor Castle probably, fingers in ears.

OT: Ah yes, Windsor, where they "bravely" cleared off to in the war. Nice of them to head back to London for 5 mins when the bombs stopped falling to stand strong together with the people. Before getting the f*ck out again at the first sound of a siren.

#122 Rob29

Rob29
  • Member

  • 3,097 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 26 January 2006 - 15:26

Originally posted by RDM

OT: Ah yes, Windsor, where they "bravely" cleared off to in the war. Nice of them to head back to London for 5 mins when the bombs stopped falling to stand strong together with the people. Before getting the f*ck out again at the first sound of a siren.

Please don't use this thread to knock the Royal Family.Grandchildren seemed quite keen on the sport when they were seen at Silverstone with their late mother.
Seriously,the west end where they had the parade is not a likely site for a race. More practical would be Docklands where there are nice wide roads mostly uninhabited at weekends?

#123 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,276 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 26 January 2006 - 17:24

Originally posted by RDM

OT: Ah yes, Windsor, where they "bravely" cleared off to in the war. Nice of them to head back to London for 5 mins when the bombs stopped falling to stand strong together with the people. Before getting the f*ck out again at the first sound of a siren.


And I suppose that wasn't the Queen Mother walking around the eastend amongst all the destruction, immediatley after the bombs did damage on several occasions?

And I suppose you'd have liked the Germans to have killed them off? They'd have been a prime target if it was known they were there all the time.

#124 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,276 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 26 January 2006 - 17:31

Originally posted by grg
hyde park idea defeats the consept as it is not 'in the city' -- ie historic buildings/landmarks
arround the cars racing etc etc - it is just a ****ing park with a couple of frozen swans

i mean you need at least one landmark included in the circuit to make it worth the while


Marble Arch, Wellington Arch, Hyde Park corner, No1 London, the Serpentine, the Park itself, the Dorchester, the Serpentine Gallery, Harrods. Can't see any landmarks there.

May not be the City of London, but it is the City of Westminster, slap bang between Oxford St and the A4. Its the geographical centre of London. And you are never gonna get F1 in the City of London anyway - far too much disruption to city business and the roads are older and so windier.

#125 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,276 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 26 January 2006 - 17:37

Originally posted by RDM
Live in London. Work in London. Love my F1. And just wish people would put any thought of this stupid idea behind them.

Britain isn't going to get 2 GP's a year, and if we move from actual race circuits like Brands, Donington or Silverstone for a year, and have some predictable processional unexciting race, we'll just end up with nothing.

It was great seeing the F1 cars in Regent St a couple of years ago, (nice to have F1 cars less than 10 seconds from my workplace), but London's roads are in quite shit conditions at the best of times, and the millions upon millions of pounds of taxpayers money required to bring any part of it up to F1 standards would make the whole project heavilly criticised in the press and population at large.

It's a nice idea at first thought, but in reality it could - for all the UK's "heart of the F1 industry" position - be the death-knell of racing in Britain. Forget it. Monaco has got this niche filled, and London ain't gonna do it any better.


Could get 2 races in 2015 - who knows what F1 will look like then? Bernie may be gone, Max will be gone, manufacturers will have departed and perhaps returned, cigarette advertising may be banned in the middle east, the privateers may not want to travel so far or go to countries good for large sponsors but not so good for local sponsors (and who's to say who'll be sponsoring).

Why should the massive investment in the Olympics be any different to what would be a substantially smaller one for London GP? Pits, paddock, grandstands would all be temporary, would just be resurfacing roads - which needs doing anyway.
Monaco doesn't have this niche filled. Melbourne and Canada both have races around city parks, Monaco is around the town itself.

#126 RDM

RDM
  • Member

  • 2,112 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 26 January 2006 - 17:43

Some reasonable points raised, but you can wish all you like, it is simply not going to happen. You may as well wish for Gilles and Ayrton to be on the grid at the next GP.

#127 RDM

RDM
  • Member

  • 2,112 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 26 January 2006 - 17:45

Originally posted by le chat noir
And I suppose you'd have liked the Germans to have killed them off? They'd have been a prime target if it was known they were there all the time.

OT: Yes.

#128 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,276 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 26 January 2006 - 17:47

Originally posted by RDM
Some reasonable points raised, but you can wish all you like, it is simply not going to happen. You may as well wish for Gilles and Ayrton to be on the grid at the next GP.


Well Bruno might be!

Originally posted by RDM

OT: Yes.


OT: Nice man.

#129 RDM

RDM
  • Member

  • 2,112 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 26 January 2006 - 18:00

Originally posted by le chat noir
Nice man

OT (about as OT as it gets I spose). Not in so far as I want people dead, but in so far as there is an argument - and quite a strong one at that - that in a modern 21st Century society being ruled by people due to accident of birth seems somehow extremely undemocratic. The Government have been doing their best to get rid of hereditory peers - and rightly so - what do you think might be the reason for that?

#130 Rob29

Rob29
  • Member

  • 3,097 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 26 January 2006 - 18:10

Originally posted by RDM

OT (about as OT as it gets I spose). Not in so far as I want people dead, but in so far as there is an argument - and quite a strong one at that - that in a modern 21st Century society being ruled by people due to accident of birth seems somehow extremely undemocratic. The Government have been doing their best to get rid of hereditory peers - and rightly so - what do you think might be the reason for that?

Where have you been for the last 400 years? We are not ruled by them,HM is just a ceremonial head of state.Look what happens when you have an elected one-George Bush?

#131 RDM

RDM
  • Member

  • 2,112 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 26 January 2006 - 18:12

Originally posted by Rob29
Where have you been for the last 400 years? We are not ruled by them,HM is just a ceremonial head of state.Look what happens when you have an elected one-George Bush?

Yeah - but look at who elected him. :)

#132 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,276 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 26 January 2006 - 19:12

Originally posted by RDM

OT (about as OT as it gets I spose). Not in so far as I want people dead, but in so far as there is an argument - and quite a strong one at that - that in a modern 21st Century society being ruled by people due to accident of birth seems somehow extremely undemocratic. The Government have been doing their best to get rid of hereditory peers - and rightly so - what do you think might be the reason for that?


So OT well be told to go to the Paddock, but, as I see it, the reason Labour was removing the peers was because they were Tory and were blocking stupid Acts. Instead they wanted to replace it with members like them which would be elected - to become yes men. Then we'd only have one effective house, and thats not good.
However, its an entirely different point to the Royals.
They do not rule us. They have 'power' but they cannot use it (Did you see Johnny English last night by the way? Would never happen!). They bring in a load of money through tourism, give Britain a sense of difference from other countries, perform fantastic charity services, most of them now work, the future king's brother wants to go to afghanistan...
If you do want to rid them, as you're quite entitled to, I think a vote would be best, not having them killed by Germans during a war! It would have been devastating to national morale, like losing your king in chess!, and I'd have thought such a dip in morale may have led to quite a different outcome, not a happy one either.

#133 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,276 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 26 January 2006 - 19:13

Originally posted by RDM

Yeah - but look at who elected him. :)


He wasn't elected - Gore was. But all the guys in the Senate were of his type, so they said thats it, our man in. Much like Blair would like with the Lords!

#134 RDM

RDM
  • Member

  • 2,112 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 27 January 2006 - 13:41

Originally posted by le chat noir

However, its an entirely different point to the Royals.
They do not rule us. They have 'power' but they cannot use it (Did you see Johnny English last night by the way? Would never happen!). They bring in a load of money through tourism, give Britain a sense of difference from other countries, perform fantastic charity services

I wasn't aware tourism in France had ceased, despite getting rid of their royal family.

As for real power, you're right, but it seems a very expensive way of having a ceremonial ribbon-cutter. As for "difference", we're not alone in having a monarchy, so we're no different to several other countires in that respect. Charity - well, given the vast amounts of public cash they procure I think I'd probably stretch to a fair bit of charity work myself...not that I've spotted HM the Q shaking a collection tin outside my local supermarket recently.

Anyway, that's all I'm saying on the issue. I appreciate that even if we did get rid of them we wouldn't suddenly be any wealthier, but IMO a monarchy still remains an uncomfortable and unjustifiable anachronism in the 21st Century.

Very much 2 sides to this argument though, so I wouldn't claim to have exclusive rights to the moral high ground on this issue. :)

#135 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,654 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 27 January 2006 - 14:12

Originally posted by RDM

I wasn't aware tourism in France had ceased, despite getting rid of their royal family.

Bit warmer there. Where would you prefer to have a beach holiday? Nice or Skegness?

#136 Garagiste

Garagiste
  • Member

  • 3,791 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 27 January 2006 - 14:18

Don't make me quote Bert Baxter! :lol:

#137 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 27 January 2006 - 14:26

Originally posted by ensign14
Bit warmer there. Where would you prefer to have a beach holiday? Nice or Skegness?


Well Skegness doesn't have the civil unrest :lol:

#138 RDM

RDM
  • Member

  • 2,112 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 27 January 2006 - 14:31

Originally posted by ensign14
Bit warmer there. Where would you prefer to have a beach holiday? Nice or Skegness?

point taken :)

Posted Image

#139 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,654 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 27 January 2006 - 15:04

Originally posted by Garagiste
Don't make me quote Bert Baxter! :lol:

:lol:

Advertisement

#140 VAR1016

VAR1016
  • Member

  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 27 January 2006 - 19:29

Originally posted by RDM

Charity - well, given the vast amounts of public cash they procure I think I'd probably stretch to a fair bit of charity work myself...not that I've spotted HM the Q shaking a collection tin outside my local supermarket recently.


Not true:

The money is largely provided by the income from the Duchy of Lancaster. which was ceded to the State by George III in exchange for the Civil List.

PdeRL

#141 RDM

RDM
  • Member

  • 2,112 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 27 January 2006 - 23:55

Originally posted by VAR1016


Not true:

The money is largely provided by the income from the Duchy of Lancaster. which was ceded to the State by George III in exchange for the Civil List.

PdeRL

Perhaps...but care to quote the figure given to them in total by the "civil" list?

(I'm happy to answer if you can't/choose not to.)

#142 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,235 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 28 January 2006 - 00:23

Originally posted by RDM

Perhaps...but care to quote the figure given to them in total by the "civil" list?

(I'm happy to answer if you can't/choose not to.)


Do you know what the civil list is and how it came into being?

Shaun

#143 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,654 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 28 January 2006 - 07:58

Originally posted by RDM

Perhaps...but care to quote the figure given to them in total by the "civil" list?

I'm guessing it's a good deal less than the cost of, say, the Millennium Dome, Trident, the Newbury By-Pass, government spin and the University of Sussex.

#144 Terry Walker

Terry Walker
  • Member

  • 2,710 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 28 January 2006 - 09:28

And a lot less than the subsidy to the "privatised, efficient" rail operators...

#145 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 28 January 2006 - 09:47

Lol, even the government rail operators are extortionate :)

Hell everything in this city is, no wonder Bernie is so keen to get a race.

He could charge the moon, and we'd all think it was normal.

#146 VAR1016

VAR1016
  • Member

  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 28 January 2006 - 13:44

Originally posted by baddog


Do you know what the civil list is and how it came into being?

Shaun


Hello

See my post above - I have forgotten how the name came into being.

PdeRL

#147 VAR1016

VAR1016
  • Member

  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 28 January 2006 - 13:47

Originally posted by RDM

Perhaps...but care to quote the figure given to them in total by the "civil" list?

(I'm happy to answer if you can't/choose not to.)


Sorry I do not know this.

However as other posters have pointed out the Civil List is very small beer - and I repeat, largely met by the proceeds from the estates of the Duchy of Lancaster.

PdeRL

#148 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,654 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 28 January 2006 - 14:04

According to that bastion of royalty The Guardian, Her Maj got £36.7m last year of which a third came from the Civil List.

Which means she costs around 20p per person in Britain per annum.

And the article quotes someone saying the entire Royal Family cost around 61p per person per year.

About twelve bob a year. One of Britain's better investments.

#149 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,645 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 28 January 2006 - 14:15

Getting back to the silliness of racing cars in central London, my argument against consists of but two words.



CONGESTION CHARGE

#150 Rob29

Rob29
  • Member

  • 3,097 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 28 January 2006 - 14:24

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Getting back to the silliness of racing cars in central London, my argument against consists of but two words.



CONGESTION CHARGE

My answer to this is also 2 words;Public Transport