Jump to content


Photo

2nd British Race


  • Please log in to reply
137 replies to this topic

#51 postajegenye

postajegenye
  • Member

  • 1,139 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 05 February 2008 - 11:44

I'd rather have 3 races in Britain, France, Italy or Germany than one in Bahrein or in Singapore.

Advertisement

#52 Peter

Peter
  • Member

  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 05 February 2008 - 13:08

Originally posted by ensign14

Nothing inexplicable about it. Monaco is not de facto or de iure part of France, it's a sovereign country in its own right, the fact that it's close to France is irrelevant and would rule Brands Hatch out as a British GP venue (I'd rather try to get there from Paris than anywhere north of Watford). Plus it's had a Grand Prix since 1929, longer than almost any other country...of course one it does not beat is the country that invented the thing in 1906. Perfectly explicable that F1 should pay homage to the history of motor sport.


Which Watford is that, where Brands Hatch is North of it? :lol:

#53 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 February 2008 - 13:11

Originally posted by Peter


Which Watford is that, where Brands Hatch is North of it? :lol:


He's saying he'd rather go to Brands from Paris than anywhere north of Watford. Or something.

#54 Gregor Marshall

Gregor Marshall
  • Member

  • 1,249 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 05 February 2008 - 13:13

You could have a good GP circuit around the one way system at Watford!! There was once talk of a GP circuit in Pitstone, I have the drawings at home, great looking track.

It would be great to have another GP in the UK (Imagine at the old Snetterton!!) but I agree that no county should have two GPs. Maybe there could be a roving European GP that each year goes somewhere differant. You could also use it a test for new or old countries to keep the others on their toes.

#55 Bumper

Bumper
  • RC Forum Host

  • 1,967 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 05 February 2008 - 13:45

Originally posted by Stephen W
The only sensible suggestion so far is Rockingham, but NOT the oval tarck but the infield circuit a la Indy!




Infield circuits should be banned. On moral grounds. It's just....wrong.

Two GPs in Britain? We can barely afford one of 'em. I'd switch Silverstone for Brands Hatch any day though given the choice.

Spain has 2 GPs this year but Barcelona is not expected to have its contract extended when it runs out next (?) year.

#56 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,870 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 05 February 2008 - 13:51

Originally posted by Bumper

Spain has 2 GPs this year but Barcelona is not expected to have its contract extended when it runs out next (?) year.

They have a race contract to 2016

#57 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,654 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 05 February 2008 - 13:51

Originally posted by Lifew12


He's saying he'd rather go to Brands from Paris than anywhere north of Watford. Or something.

Exactly. The M25 is a mare at the best of times (and am I the only one that notices them dropping the speed limit to 40 at night when there's next to no traffic?), just imagine with 50,000 extra trying to get around it...

#58 Bumper

Bumper
  • RC Forum Host

  • 1,967 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 05 February 2008 - 14:16

Originally posted by Buttoneer

They have a race contract to 2016


Hmm, missed that bit. I thought they were only going to continue using that track as a testing venue after next year, but there you go.

#59 hobbes

hobbes
  • Member

  • 889 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 05 February 2008 - 14:19

Just so you know there was even talk about making a GP track in Cyprus (little island underneath Turkey) but im not sure what happened to that idea

Advertisement

#60 Andy Donovan

Andy Donovan
  • Member

  • 1,015 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 05 February 2008 - 17:31

For those with GTR etc. on their PCs, how about a Hitchin GP?

#61 F575 GTC

F575 GTC
  • Member

  • 921 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 05 February 2008 - 19:02

Originally posted by Andy Donovan
For those with GTR etc. on their PCs, how about a Hitchin GP?


:rotfl:

Now That would be something! Seeing F1's get stuck inside the front window of Woolworths or the Shopping Center would be differant! The UK's Extremely Budget version of Monaco! :lol:

I might just have to give this a go! It's tricky enough with a grid of GT's, let alone F1's!

#62 ehagar

ehagar
  • Member

  • 6,235 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 05 February 2008 - 19:22

Originally posted by jonpollak
London GP
Jp


Indeed, a street race in London is probably the only way there will be another race in the UK.

#63 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 11,812 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 05 February 2008 - 19:37

Originally posted by ehagar


Indeed, a street race in London is probably the only way there will be another race in the UK.


Just imagine the Congestion Charge bill! Ken Livingston will be laughing all the way to the bank! :rotfl:

#64 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 10,042 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 05 February 2008 - 20:01

It's just about the money.
OTOH, Germany only got its second GP after Schumacher was a champion and had done 3 full seasons. Spain is only getting the second GP after Alonso has become 2xWDC and done 7 full seasons. So maybe it's too early for a second British GP.


If Hamilton remains winning and possibly becomes a WDC, there just might be enough hype and interest to have 2 races in England. But then, where would this 2nd race ever be???

#65 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 05 February 2008 - 20:25

Originally posted by Dunc
It seems odd though that he's prepared to hold a new race in non-exotic Spain but not a new one in non-exotic Britain. And why oh why do the French get two races?


They don't.

#66 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 05 February 2008 - 20:32

If Hamilton remains winning and possibly becomes a WDC, there just might be enough hype and interest to have 2 races in England. But then, where would this 2nd race ever be???


Silverstone again.

;)

#67 Nitropower

Nitropower
  • Member

  • 1,218 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 February 2008 - 23:33

Originally posted by Dunc
In the years of Shumi, Germany regularly got two GPs. Italy had two GPs until recently, largely due to Ferrari's influence. France, inexplicably, still has two GPs if you include Monaco a de facto if not de jure part of France. Spain is now getting two due to Fernando Alonso.

Given that the biggest F1 star of the moment is British surely we deserve a second GP. Come on Bernie, drop Magny Cours and hold a race at Brands or Donnington instead.


Yeah.
But so far you have the biggest no one :p

#68 Rob29

Rob29
  • Member

  • 3,123 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 06 February 2008 - 09:04

The only previous times Britain got a second race was when one was needed at short notice.Brands 1983 & 85 Donington 93.France had one in 1982,but it was cancelled the folowing year as french TV would not not cover 2.

#69 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,787 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 06 February 2008 - 09:12

Forget a second Grand Prix in Britain. Have all the fans hop over that small pond to Zandvoort. :clap:

#70 Dalton007

Dalton007
  • Member

  • 3,032 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 06 February 2008 - 09:16

A Grand Prix in Poland, perhaps? ;)

#71 se7en_24

se7en_24
  • Member

  • 14,281 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 06 February 2008 - 09:29

Originally posted by Dunc


I don't want to get too arsey about this but de jure Monaco is a sovereign country but de facto it is very much part of France. Hence why French residents don't get any special tax priviledges.

Could any other circuits be easily upgraded to meet F1 standards? A street race would be cool but please not in London. There are lots of other places in this country that sporting events could be held in, why does everything in British sport have to gravitate towards London.

Because it's our capital. Because it's the easiest and cheapest place to travel to for most people. Because it's not Birmingham.

#72 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 06 February 2008 - 09:58

Originally posted by se7en_24
Because it's the easiest and cheapest place to travel to for most people.


You must have a limited knowledge of geography - half the population lives hundreds of miles from London. A more central location would be a better suggestion.

#73 djellison

djellison
  • Member

  • 1,726 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 06 February 2008 - 10:38

Bernie's doing his very best to ensure the UK doesn't have any F1 race at the moment (demanding new pit buildings etc. Has he not BEEN to Monaco / Interlagos ? ).

A second race? Forget it.

#74 Hacklerf

Hacklerf
  • Member

  • 2,333 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 06 February 2008 - 10:40

The idiots need to get Silverstone sorted first, stop ****ing with Bernie and do what he asks, its not rocket science

#75 wj_gibson

wj_gibson
  • Member

  • 2,326 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 06 February 2008 - 10:49

It's easy to forget that a number of drivers were unhappy about the prospect of going to Donington as far back as 1993, believing the track to be too short for contemporary F1, and borderline on safety even back then. I don't think that merely overhauling the pits complex is alone going to attract any propsect of a race unless serious and fundamental amendments are made to the corners and run-off areas (e.g. the run-off at both the Old Hairpin and McLean's is woeful by contemporary F1 standards).

Plus, there would be zero overtaking nowadays as the straights aren't long enough and the corners not sharp enough. The corners can be re-profiled but the straights can't be lengthened. I understand there was some talk of bypassing the chicane and making the back straight run all the way from McLean's to the Melbourne hairpin, with a very shallow kink in it reminiscent of the run down from the old pits hairpin to the final chicane at Montreal, but that hasn't happened, and with the pits being rebuilt in exactly the same location, there probably isn't a great deal of scope to do that now.

So I wouldn't be getting too excited about a Donington GP.

#76 wj_gibson

wj_gibson
  • Member

  • 2,326 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 06 February 2008 - 10:50

Originally posted by Hacklerf
The idiots need to get Silverstone sorted first, stop ****ing with Bernie and do what he asks, its not rocket science


The main sticking point with Silverstone has never been the paddock. It has always been the fact that Silverstone was on a lower "escalator" in terms of the fee Ecclestone wants to charge, and the fact that he just dislikes the BRDC since they've never been prepared to recognise him as a "real" contributor to motor sport and let him into their club. The paddock issue (along with the traffic issues) have always been trojan horses.

#77 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 06 February 2008 - 10:52

Originally posted by wj_gibson
It's easy to forget that a number of drivers were unhappy about the prospect of going to Donington as far back as 1993, believing the track to be too short for contemporary F1, and borderline on safety even back then.



yet when they got there they loved it - even in the rain....

#78 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 20,650 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 06 February 2008 - 10:55

2nd British race? - I'd be more worried keeping the one you have.

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/65000

So there are two things to overcome. First they need to build the facilities, and then they need to pay the market rate. There is no sentiment in this from my point of view.


Catch 22?

The matter looks even more complicated, however, with sources suggesting that the local authority approval for Silverstone's redevelopment was only given on the condition that Ecclestone guaranteed the future of the race.



#79 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 06 February 2008 - 11:00

Originally posted by Gilles4Ever
2nd British race? - I'd be more worried keeping the one you have.




Read the same story every year......

Advertisement

#80 Hacklerf

Hacklerf
  • Member

  • 2,333 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 06 February 2008 - 11:04

Originally posted by wj_gibson


The main sticking point with Silverstone has never been the paddock. It has always been the fact that Silverstone was on a lower "escalator" in terms of the fee Ecclestone wants to charge, and the fact that he just dislikes the BRDC since they've never been prepared to recognise him as a "real" contributor to motor sport and let him into their club. The paddock issue (along with the traffic issues) have always been trojan horses.


Yea but do you go to the shops and buy a tin of beans for 50p, when your mates go in and pay £1? Silverstone need to pay what the others pay, stop ****ing about trying to get it cheaper, the government should of course help if they are unable to raise the funds, but that is a different discussion.

#81 Red ITC

Red ITC
  • Member

  • 462 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 06 February 2008 - 11:04

What with, shirt buttons? Silverstone is a relic with no substantial income. When Ecclestone talks about "market rates" for hosting a race, he means the tens of millions per year certain nation states will pay for some TV prestige. There is no way a British F1 race can make this much profit per year, and Ecclestone bribing Gordon Brown and Tony Blair over tobacco means no central money.

The current plan seems to be to sell land to raise money to build a facility that cannot pay for its raison d'etre. No wonder Damon Hill has so much to say about Spain's right to have a GP, heaven forbid anyone should look at the slow motion disaster closer to home.

I'd rather watch the Moscow GP or the Korean GP on TV than see a small but well loved race track mortgage its future to compete with the hyper capitalists and vain world leaders in Ecclestone's address book.

#82 wj_gibson

wj_gibson
  • Member

  • 2,326 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 06 February 2008 - 11:05

Originally posted by Lifew12


yet when they got there they loved it - even in the rain.... [/B]


That doesn't mean their concerns were wrong, though. As it stands, the circuit is totally unsuited to the demands of contemporary F1. The cars would be lapping the present 2.5 mile circuit at not much more than a minute.

#83 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 06 February 2008 - 11:58

Originally posted by Hacklerf
The idiots need to get Silverstone sorted first, stop ****ing with Bernie and do what he asks, its not rocket science


Originally posted by Hacklerf
Yea but do you go to the shops and buy a tin of beans for 50p, when your mates go in and pay £1? Silverstone need to pay what the others pay, stop ****ing about trying to get it cheaper, the government should of course help if they are unable to raise the funds, but that is a different discussion.


Gosh, I didn't realize that Ecclestone posted here.....

#84 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 06 February 2008 - 12:19

Originally posted by wj_gibson


That doesn't mean their concerns were wrong, though.



But they were....

As it stands, the circuit is totally unsuited to the demands of contemporary F1. The cars would be lapping the present 2.5 mile circuit at not much more than a minute.


And so what? They were doing that at Dijon in the '80's, and Silverstone was a 70 second lap back then, too.

#85 wj_gibson

wj_gibson
  • Member

  • 2,326 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 06 February 2008 - 12:27

But the reason that Dijon was abandoned was precisely because it was too short. There were always complaints about the leaders constantly having to negotiate lapped cars more or less every lap from about one-fifth of the race onward. It has long been an unspoken aspect of F1 that the closer a lap time gets to the 1-minute mark, the less desirable it becomes. In the current climate, I don't think it is really viable to consider introducing a 2.5 mile circuit to the calendar.

#86 se7en_24

se7en_24
  • Member

  • 14,281 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 06 February 2008 - 12:45

Originally posted by Lifew12


You must have a limited knowledge of geography - half the population lives hundreds of miles from London. A more central location would be a better suggestion.

London has 5 international airports and the best rail and motorway links in the country. Plus who the hell would want to go to somewhere like Birmingham or Nottingham. At least having it in London would make it an attractive destination for tourists.

#87 Shockabuku

Shockabuku
  • Member

  • 132 posts
  • Joined: February 04

Posted 06 February 2008 - 12:56

Originally posted by Red ITC
What with, shirt buttons? Silverstone is a relic with no substantial income. When Ecclestone talks about "market rates" for hosting a race, he means the tens of millions per year certain nation states will pay for some TV prestige. There is no way a British F1 race can make this much profit per year, and Ecclestone bribing Gordon Brown and Tony Blair over tobacco means no central money.

The current plan seems to be to sell land to raise money to build a facility that cannot pay for its raison d'etre. No wonder Damon Hill has so much to say about Spain's right to have a GP, heaven forbid anyone should look at the slow motion disaster closer to home.

I'd rather watch the Moscow GP or the Korean GP on TV than see a small but well loved race track mortgage its future to compete with the hyper capitalists and vain world leaders in Ecclestone's address book.


Agreed. :up:

#88 Spunout

Spunout
  • Member

  • 12,351 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 06 February 2008 - 13:04

Originally posted by Hacklerf


Yea but do you go to the shops and buy a tin of beans for 50p, when your mates go in and pay £1? Silverstone need to pay what the others pay, stop ****ing about trying to get it cheaper, the government should of course help if they are unable to raise the funds, but that is a different discussion.


Uh, that is not a different discussion.

Silverstone cannot pay what Bernie asks. Nobody can, without govt handouts. The races Bernie and some of his minions call "unprofitable" are in fact far more profitable than new ones. Think: hundreds of millions for Tilkedrome + VIP facilities. Cheap ticket prices, half-empty grandstands.

Remove govt handouts from the equation and you´ll have no GPs left. And China, Bahrain, Malaysia etc would be the first ones to go. All these countries are underrated and sometimes seen as 3rd world nations, so the incentive to pay is there. Great Britain and Australia don´t feel they need to polish national image by spewing more and more cash to some annoying billionaire.

For Bernie, it´s business. For others, it´s charity. Race organizers struggle to live on, govt collects taxes for handouts. The only party that really benefits is Mr. Ecclestone. So if anybody is to blame for GPs moving to obscure places without fans, it is Bernie Ecclestone. Not govt or race organizers.

#89 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,636 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 06 February 2008 - 13:12

Originally posted by Spunout


Uh, that is not a different discussion.

Silverstone cannot pay what Bernie asks. Nobody can, without govt handouts. The races Bernie and some of his minions call "unprofitable" are in fact far more profitable than new ones. Think: hundreds of millions for Tilkedrome + VIP facilities. Cheap ticket prices, half-empty grandstands.

Remove govt handouts from the equation and you´ll have no GPs left. And China, Bahrain, Malaysia etc would be the first ones to go. All these countries are underrated and sometimes seen as 3rd world nations, so the incentive to pay is there. Great Britain and Australia don´t feel they need to polish national image by spewing more and more cash to some annoying billionaire.

For Bernie, it´s business. For others, it´s charity. Race organizers struggle to live on, govt collects taxes for handouts. The only party that really benefits is Mr. Ecclestone. So if anybody is to blame for GPs moving to obscure places without fans, it is Bernie Ecclestone. Not govt or race organizers.

:up:

#90 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 20,650 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 06 February 2008 - 13:15

The city of Valencia can see the value of a F1 race, surely the Government of the whole of GB can? Not to mention GB business.

#91 Hacklerf

Hacklerf
  • Member

  • 2,333 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 06 February 2008 - 13:23

The government and Bernie was behind the idea of the London Grand Prix, so surely there is some kind money available for the British GP?

#92 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,636 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 06 February 2008 - 13:32

Originally posted by Hacklerf
The government and Bernie was behind the idea of the London Grand Prix, so surely there is some kind money available for the British GP?


The goverment wasnt behind the London GP, it was Ken Livingstone.

#93 Chiara

Chiara
  • Member

  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 06 February 2008 - 13:37

It is rather irksome that the government won't just put their hand in their pocket and stump up some cash. If they could afford to waste millions of taxpayers money on building a glorified tent (the millenium dome) which serves no fundamental purpose, then I fail to see why they can't help Silverstone out.

All that tax they generate on cigarettes.....that would do for starters :stoned:

#94 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,636 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 06 February 2008 - 13:43

Originally posted by Chiara
It is rather irksome that the government won't just put their hand in their pocket and stump up some cash. If they could afford to waste millions of taxpayers money on building a glorified tent (the millenium dome) which serves no fundamental purpose, then I fail to see why they can't help Silverstone out.

All that tax they generate on cigarettes.....that would do for starters :stoned:


The goverment doesnt have money of it's own, it all comes from the taxpayer, and as there is already a budget shortfall (due to their mis-manaagement), I see no reason to expect them to furthur increase BE's retirement fund.

Rather than look to the goverment, it should be BE's greed that is investigated.

#95 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 06 February 2008 - 13:51

Originally posted by Chiara
It is rather irksome that the government won't just put their hand in their pocket and stump up some cash. If they could afford to waste millions of taxpayers money on building a glorified tent (the millenium dome) which serves no fundamental purpose, then I fail to see why they can't help Silverstone out.

All that tax they generate on cigarettes.....that would do for starters :stoned:

They're spending all their cash bailing out Northern Rock and supporting GWB's empire building. I can't see them forking out for F1 anytime soon.

#96 Chiara

Chiara
  • Member

  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 06 February 2008 - 14:02

Originally posted by Clatter


The goverment doesnt have money of it's own, it all comes from the taxpayer, and as there is already a budget shortfall (due to their mis-manaagement), I see no reason to expect them to furthur increase BE's retirement fund.

Rather than look to the goverment, it should be BE's greed that is investigated.


I'm well aware where the treasury gets its money from thanks I used to work for the Department of Inland Revenue and Customs :lol:

Having seen for my own eyes in the past some of the ridiculous projects they have frittered away taxpayers money on...I really don't see why they cant help out Silverstone a bit.

If other countries can manage Bernie's fee its a very sad state of affairs that a country with one of the longest working hours in a week, and highest level of taxation on its population and over 65 million residents can't.

#97 Hacklerf

Hacklerf
  • Member

  • 2,333 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 06 February 2008 - 14:06

Originally posted by Chiara


I'm well aware where the treasury gets its money from thanks I used to work for the Department of Inland Revenue and Customs :lol:

Having seen for my own eyes in the past some of the ridiculous projects they have frittered away taxpayers money on...I really don't see why they cant help out Silverstone a bit.

If other countries can manage Bernie's fee its a very sad state of affairs that a country with one of the longest working hours in a week, and highest level of taxation on its population and over 65 million residents can't.


But they don't mind spending it on some stupid Olympics that no one cares about and the stadiums which will be empty once its done :mad: :mad:

#98 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,636 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 06 February 2008 - 14:38

Originally posted by Chiara


I'm well aware where the treasury gets its money from thanks I used to work for the Department of Inland Revenue and Customs :lol:

Having seen for my own eyes in the past some of the ridiculous projects they have frittered away taxpayers money on...I really don't see why they cant help out Silverstone a bit.

If other countries can manage Bernie's fee its a very sad state of affairs that a country with one of the longest working hours in a week, and highest level of taxation on its population and over 65 million residents can't.


I agree the goverment waste a hell of a lot of our money, but that's another argument. I really see no reason why any private entreprise, which is what F1 essentially is, should expect to be propped up by the taxpayer.

As far as other countries go, perhaps someone should consider how they look after their citizens first, they are willing to throw money to look good on the world stage, but won't spend anything on their own people.

#99 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 10,717 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 06 February 2008 - 14:41

Originally posted by Clatter


I agree the goverment waste a hell of a lot of our money, but that's another argument. I really see no reason why any private entreprise, which is what F1 essentially is, should expect to be propped up by the taxpayer.

As far as other countries go, perhaps someone should consider how they look after their citizens first, they are willing to throw money to look good on the world stage, but won't spend anything on their own people.


I'd tend to agree. When it comes to spending government money (and trying to sort our problems in the UK), hosting a grand prix comes pretty low down the pecking order for me. There are clearly finite funds and more deserving causes.

Advertisement

#100 mursuka80

mursuka80
  • Member

  • 5,106 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 06 February 2008 - 14:46

Originally posted by micra_k10

Looking at the number of WDC's, it's time finland got a race. It would be sold out for sure...


Damn straight! Iwould be there no matter what the cost :clap: 150000 people would come im sure :up: