Skip to comments.How Much Can CNN Get Wrong About F1 Engines, Physics In One Article?
Posted on 08/15/2013 1:15:27 PM PDT by ZirconEncrustedTweezersEdited on 08/15/2013 2:19:50 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I think CNN must be hiring Amish kids on Rumspringa for its motorsports writers. That's really the only way you could explain the rich, lavish ignorance as demonstrated in this article about turbo engines returning to F1.
The basic facts are there F1 regulations are calling for a return to turbocharged engines, which will be returning to F1 after 26 years, and that first Renault RS01 back in '77 certainly did have its share of teething issues, and would often dramatically blow its engine, like many of the other early turbocharged cars.
Excerpt, read the rest at jalonik.com
I forgot to note that the above is an excerpt.
I am speechless.
F1 flubs...heh, let us all remember global warming...er...climate change...er...carbon pollution.
All reported to you by folks who found high school algebra to be beyond their diminutive abilities.
AND THEY SAY CONSERVATIVES ARE DUMB WHEN IT COMES TO SCIENCE.....
CNN is as good at reporting F1 as they are about reporting any other news story.
I do not watch CNN but this level of stupidity must break new boundaries.
“Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article contained a number of inaccuracies, for which we apologise. Christina Macfarlane and Rachel Wood, who prepared the television story, were in no way responsible for those inaccuracies. You can watch their report at the top of this article.”
"Indeed, throughout the 1980s, the powerful turbo was the F1 engine of choice, able to perform at high altitudes and grip onto steep angles."
Ya gotta love those Journalistic engineers!
Sounds like their ‘physics’ was enacted by the US Congress.
>> “but this level of stupidity must break new boundaries” <<
See! Obama is inspiring America.
I actually consider them first choice during breaking international news developments. Fox News is a joke.
This story obviously comes from their domestic retard department.
I was at Watkins Glen in 1977 when the 1.5 liter Renault turbo was the first and only turbo in the field. It sounded awful compared to the 3.0 liter normally aspirated engines. At the top of the esses where I was sitting it backfired whenever the driver upshifted, which was cause for a lot of derisive laughter from the crowd (this was when drivers moved a shift lever and worked a clutch).
Of course in a few years turbos were dominating F1. They were technological marvels, but nothing ever sounded as good as those naturally aspirated engines, particularly the V12 Matra.
How Much Can CNN Get Wrong About F1 Engines, Physics In One Article?
All of it. What else would one expect of the Communist News Network?
Journalism remains a viable choice for failed education majors.
I dunno... I’ll agree with you on the turbo motors, especially the BMW/Megatron which sounded like it ran on Taco Bell burritos, but as for normally aspirated motors I’m rather partial to the Cosworth DFV.
As long as the story is either between, say midnight and 8 am when the editors start to drift in to work, or is a live feed that bypasses the editor/propagandists, CNN does an acceptable job.
Let’s feed ‘em the story about the amazing 1,000mpg carburetor!
F1 did not get their money’s worth from this story.
Check out the hilarious Chrysler Turbo Encabulator video at the linked site.
They hire the same sorts of cretins who can’t properly locate Buffalo, NY on a map over at MSNBC.
“I actually consider them first choice during breaking international news developments. Fox News is a joke”
If I wanted to listen to people who hate the USA I’d listen to Obama and his fellow communist travelers.
No surprise. Based on this, how factual do you think the rest of their reporting is?
Oh - “that” F-1.
I thought this was a story about the Saturn V engines.
When he was on Jeopardy, Wolf Blitzer thought Jesus was born in Jerusalem.
I am talking about live, onsite video coverage and analysis.
Not debate on political talk shows.
No one had that on Benghazi.
CNN International — anytime. Even the standard CNN will cut to an international affiliate during non-prime North American hours. Sometime Fox will go to Sky News also which is good, but seems to happen less often.
Here’s a link to a short, accurate description of the new F1 engines.
760 horsepower out of less than 100 cubic inches seems pretty amazing to me!
Thanks for the picture and info at what WAS at the site. CNN has since changed the article with this note at the end
‘Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article contained a number of inaccuracies, for which we apologise. Christina Macfarlane and Rachel Wood, who prepared the television story, were in no way responsible for those inaccuracies. You can watch their report at the top of this article’
I think CNN runs on its own exhaust steam..../s
“I am talking about live, onsite video coverage and analysis.”
I’d agree they have more cameras onsite than FOX but their dishonesty renders them useless as journalists.
According to the article, the engine itself produces 600hp; the rest comes from the KERS.
And as impressive as either figure sounds, back in the original F1 turbo era BMW engines were making as much as 1,500hp in qualifying trim from 1.5L. Of course, with that much boost running through it, the engine was only good for about three laps.
Is that a real screen shot? I was watching the NASA feed at work when Columbia was destroyed had no idea that CNN had that as a liner feed
That's easy to answer. All of it.
Wi Too Lo
LOLOL... there's no need for the /s it's true!!!
Someone needs to pass the original article onto BBC’s “Top Gear” and let them roll with it. Given their natural tendency to snub the Yanks and their usual reaction to F1 anyhow, this could very well lead to a true piece of Hunter Thompson Gonzo scream till you die piece.
Just a suggestion, but no matter what I do want to find the original uncorrected article!
"Editor's note: An earlier version of this article contained a number of inaccuracies, for which we apologise. "
Sounds like the word got out they were being laughed at once again............
IIRC, at the height of the turbo era for F1 they made 1200HP from a 1.5 liter engine for qualifying and raced with 900HP. The qualifying motors were good for 1 lap only at speed, leaving 1 lap for mild warm up and 1 lap for cool down.
They made sooooo much HP that the fuel was quaintly called “rocket fuel” because it was so exotic to run under so much boost pressure. I think the fuel cost back then (1980’s) was 40 dollars/gallon or so.
I was crying I was laughing so hard. Kind of like when Obama tries to explain anything except his golf score.
I think it is a masterpiece of techo-babble satire.
I’m trying to find and obtain an actual copy of the video file instead of just a link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.