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.
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.