Just watching the run-up to the W Series motor racing, and yet again I'm hearing racing drivers starting replies with 'For sure ...'
It's a verbal tic that's been around in F1 for years, and it either has to be a joke, or the result of some form of moronic and robotic media training.
Ha, hadn’t noticed that before. There’s a lot of people around WS with F1 backgrounds in the various aspects of human performance though, so it’s probably something they’ve been taught in media training classes. I guess they want to initially agree with a journalist asking a question, and that phrasing works for them, many of whom are not speaking their native language.
One of the huge advantages of the WS setup is that there’s no teams, so a lot fewer people are needed to work with the car itself. This has freed up budget for the aforementioned personal trainers, physiotherapists, nutritionists, media trainers etc, which are rarely seen at this level. Most are from a company called Hinsta Performance, who also work with a lot of the F1 teams.
Yes, 'For sure' has been in F1 for years. I think Red Bull / Ferrari were particularly bad for it, but the commentarors also use it when asked questions by each other.
It's weird. I now mentally change it to 'To be sure' in an Irish accent, which makes me smile.
On the whole, I've enjoyed W Series. I was not a fan of Jamie Chadwick in junior formulae, but her GT championship win and other performances have been impressive. And the fact she's used to F3 cars, and is being pressed by women who have not, shows that the standards are reasonable.
I'd like to see Chadwick, Visser and Powell have at least a chance to test an F1 car. I've fancied Powell (as a driver, I hasten to add) for years. She's a classic example of the way women hit a glass wall when trying to go into higher formulae. She's won two championships, and yet essentially got dropped the year after winning Asian Formula Renault.
At this level of motorsport, the only thing that really matters is how much money you can bring to the team you race for - unless you’re a Lewis Hamilton or Seb Vettel who get signed as a school kid by an F1 team.
Jamie Chadwick now has a development contract with Williams, which alongside her $500k WS prize money should see her into an F2 drive next year. Visser should also be able to get an F2 drive, and hopefully the likes of Powell, Kimilainen and Garcia have a good shout at an FIA F3 or European F3 race seat next season - which will be the acid test of how good these drivers really are.
Yes, 'For sure' has been in F1 for years. I think Red Bull / Ferrari were particularly bad for it, but the commentarors also use it when asked questions by each other.
It's weird. I now mentally change it to 'To be sure' in an Irish accent, which makes me smile.
On the whole, I've enjoyed W Series. I was not a fan of Jamie Chadwick in junior formulae, but her GT championship win and other performances have been impressive. And the fact she's used to F3 cars, and is being pressed by women who have not, shows that the standards are reasonable.
I'd like to see Chadwick, Visser and Powell have at least a chance to test an F1 car. I've fancied Powell (as a driver, I hasten to add) for years. She's a classic example of the way women hit a glass wall when trying to go into higher formulae. She's won two championships, and yet essentially got dropped the year after winning Asian Formula Renault.
At this level of motorsport, the only thing that really matters is how much money you can bring to the team you race for - unless you’re a Lewis Hamilton or Seb Vettel who get signed as a school kid by an F1 team.
Jamie Chadwick now has a development contract with Williams, which alongside her $500k WS prize money should see her into an F2 drive next year. Visser should also be able to get an F2 drive, and hopefully the likes of Powell, Kimilainen and Garcia have a good shout at an FIA F3 or European F3 race seat next season - which will be the acid test of how good these drivers really are.
Money is important, but what matters as much is who your management is. Nicolas Todt, for instance. I wonder what connections he has with F1?
Oh indeed, but why would Todt Jr want to take you on unless you had some big money on which he can take his cut?
Yes, 'For sure' has been in F1 for years. I think Red Bull / Ferrari were particularly bad for it, but the commentarors also use it when asked questions by each other.
It's weird. I now mentally change it to 'To be sure' in an Irish accent, which makes me smile.
On the whole, I've enjoyed W Series. I was not a fan of Jamie Chadwick in junior formulae, but her GT championship win and other performances have been impressive. And the fact she's used to F3 cars, and is being pressed by women who have not, shows that the standards are reasonable.
I'd like to see Chadwick, Visser and Powell have at least a chance to test an F1 car. I've fancied Powell (as a driver, I hasten to add) for years. She's a classic example of the way women hit a glass wall when trying to go into higher formulae. She's won two championships, and yet essentially got dropped the year after winning Asian Formula Renault.
At this level of motorsport, the only thing that really matters is how much money you can bring to the team you race for - unless you’re a Lewis Hamilton or Seb Vettel who get signed as a school kid by an F1 team.
Jamie Chadwick now has a development contract with Williams, which alongside her $500k WS prize money should see her into an F2 drive next year. Visser should also be able to get an F2 drive, and hopefully the likes of Powell, Kimilainen and Garcia have a good shout at an FIA F3 or European F3 race seat next season - which will be the acid test of how good these drivers really are.
Money is important, but what matters as much is who your management is. Nicolas Todt, for instance. I wonder what connections he has with F1?
Oh indeed, but why would Todt Jr want to take you on unless you had some big money on which he can take his cut?
All very well and seat predictors will never be 100% accurate but they are likely to be not too far off as are at least 1 or 2 polls they draw data from.
Overemphasing tactical voting is also not wise as most voters are not that politically astute, they will vote for the party they support or have always supported, only a minority of generally highly educated voters will tactically vote
I probably agree with your point re tactical voting, but haven't you missed the whole point of the article otherwise.
There is rarely a point that HY doesn't miss. He simply posts whatever factoid best suits his preconceptions without thinking about the article or preceding arguments at all.
Patronising as ever, not that your 'superior analysis' has ever proved of much use
What is the point in a discussion if you just ignore what others are saying.
HYUFD is only interested in spinning for the Conservative Party, usually by bombarding us with often unconnected factoids as Ian says. He does not seem interested in engaging in debate. That's fair enough, plenty do that if not with quite the same zeal but it doesn't often make for an interesting discussion.
Advertising doesn't require giving equal weight to your competitor's product. It's hard enough finding a USP let alone one a day. I think HYUFD is making a good fist of selling a very testing product. Of course he'd prefer to be doing a sun lotion-wouldn't we all.
Thanks for that. He's right that advertising should be at the cutting edge of the of the time but he's wrong to think that to day's zeitgeist is right wing populism. In fact the mood of the age is extreme political correctness and these are our new parameters. If you look at ads from as recently as five years ago some of the sexism makes you wince.
That Saatchi arrived on the scene at the same time as Thatcher and both profited by promoting rampant consumerism tells you nothing other than Saatchis knew how to reflect the the mores of the age not that advertising is a promoter of right wing Thatcherite values.
Comments
That Saatchi arrived on the scene at the same time as Thatcher and both profited by promoting rampant consumerism tells you nothing other than Saatchis knew how to reflect the the mores of the age not that advertising is a promoter of right wing Thatcherite values.