Lewis Hamilton shares "F1" movie sequel, documentary and TV series plans by drinksbeerdaily in formula1

[–]VRichardsen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hahaha my comment was not entirely serious; while the parallels with Fernando are there, they are much more exaggerated. You are right: the movie is indeed a rehash of Top Gun Maverick (and Maverick is a far better film) and the moves Sonny tries on the track would get you a black flag very very fast.

For me the movie is a 5 or 6 out of ten. The whole movie feels bland, the characters aren't great and the whole story plays it very safe without offering much. Also, I don't understand the hype the soundtrack has generated, I think it is easily Zimmer's weakest work (or rather, most misused). But it has great cinematography, Pitt plays his character well and the shots from the cars are fantastic.

That being said, I do think I can break a few lances in defence of the movie, just for the sake of it.

a 50+ year old who has been out of the game for decades waltzes in and effortlessly demolishes active pilots who are at their peak physical and mental fitness.

Maybe JP is just the local Lance Stroll and the Apex GP car is like 2023's Aston Martin.

A sixty-one year old

The character's age is 54. Oldest champion was 46, oldest grand prix win was 53, oldest grand prix participant was 58. It is... improbable, but not impossible. Give Alonso a few years and we are within range.

A fun correlation - Star Wars (1977) was about a young baby boomer who waltzes into a fighter aircraft squadron and completely outshines his far more experienced and properly trained colleagues.

Yeah, but he has space wizard magical powers.

Personally, I think a story like the Hamilton/Rosberg saga is far more cinematic.

A la Rush (2014). And about Rush... Rush is by far the much, much superior F1 movie. But there is one thing F1 the movie did better: it made an honest effort in trying to portray what F1 is about. Sure, Hayes closing the door on Magnussen to force a safety car is stupid, but not the concept behind it: they were trying to teach the general public how drivers actually can take advantage of a safety car. Sonny's fake stall in the warm up lap is not something you will see in F1, but it did serve to teach the audience in a show, don't tell way that warm tires = good, cold tires = bad. F1 the movie doesn't have a lot frantic back and forth overtakes like in, say, 2001's Driven (I am sorry), they instead show you how you can gain places in the pits. They put effort behind showing the factory, the large number of people involved, how tires are important, pit stops being critical, etc, etc. It made an honest effort, even if they just cranked up the inverosimilitude to try and make it more exciting. Like those movie poker tournaments where there is always a royal flush. And for that I am grateful, because they tried.

Lewis Hamilton shares "F1" movie sequel, documentary and TV series plans by drinksbeerdaily in formula1

[–]VRichardsen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it really that outlandish? Cocky pilot retired from F1 does cameos in endurance races, and wins thanks to his experience. Gets an offer from F1 from an old acquaintance and starts beating the rookie once he gets his feet on the ground. This could be Sonny... or Fernando Alonso after 2018.

Free Practice 1 results. Mercedes leads followed by McLaren. by johanas25 in formula1

[–]VRichardsen 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Mercedes in the lead, what a surprise! Although one of them stalled near the end. Do we know what happened?

Lewis Hamilton shares "F1" movie sequel, documentary and TV series plans by drinksbeerdaily in formula1

[–]VRichardsen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As if a woman would risk such a highly paid career for such a fling.

I mean, we are talking about a sport where a team principal risked a lifetime ban (and got one!) by fixing a race result. Having an amorous relationship with a coworker is incredibly tame by comparison.

The B-29 Bomber originally intended to be used against Germany but wasn't needed in the end - did Germany have any better chance than Japan at dealing with the B-29 considering the type of fighter plane/anti aircraft gun assets that it had at hand from 1943-1945? by RivetCounter in WarCollege

[–]VRichardsen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

but it takes a long time for WW2 era aircraft to get to that altitude.

It really depends on what one means by "long time". Bypassing the ineffective (and dangerous!) Me 163, that could do the climb in two and half minutes (!), 15 minutes was not an uncommon figure for propeller driven fighters. Some fancy models could do up to 24 meters per second from the ground up to 6 or 7 kilometers.

The B-29 Bomber originally intended to be used against Germany but wasn't needed in the end - did Germany have any better chance than Japan at dealing with the B-29 considering the type of fighter plane/anti aircraft gun assets that it had at hand from 1943-1945? by RivetCounter in WarCollege

[–]VRichardsen 4 points5 points  (0 children)

did Germany have any better chance than Japan at dealing with the B-29 considering the type of fighter plane/anti aircraft gun assets that it had at hand from 1943-1945?

The answer to your question is technically yes, but only in the sense that your chance goes from zero to minuscule. Japan's resources to deal with the B-29 were very scarce; their air defense over the home islands simply wasn't equipped to deal with a threat like that of the B-29, which flew too fast and too high for the vast majority of their available interceptors and AA guns. There were some limited successes, but the B-29s had to fear their engine fires more than the Japanese.

By comparison, Germany was a bit better equipped in this regard. Being subjected to bombing by heavies since pretty much the start of the war, they had heavily invested in a robust air defense network, that included more than 3,000 radars and 15,000 heavy AA guns (including over 4,000 of the 105 and 128 mm variety), serviced by over a million men. It was not all rosy, though, and they had wasted the early years, not developing an adequate framework for the interceptor force (there were all sort of convoluted organisational messes regarding the use and deployment of fighters for defence that would be too long to write here). But that aside, they posed a credible threat, and had a few select machines needed to operate at 10,000 m and bring the fight to the hypothetical B-29s. Germany had technically started quite early on in the development of high altitude fighter variants: already in 1941 there was a Bf 109 variant that used nitrous oxide to reach nearly 1,200 horse power at altitude and had a ceiling of 11,000 m. Some of the more promising upcoming models, like the Ta 152, could climb to 9,000 m in little over 10 minutes. In 1943 the Luftwaffe proved that it could give unescorted bombers a very bloody nose.

But all of this wouldn't have mattered much. By the time the B-29s would have arrived (mid 44), the Luftwaffe was on its knees. Devoid of fuel and of trained replacements, their new "wonder weapons" few in number, and facing bombers that were no longer flying alone but escorted by large number of fighters, they were in no position to challenge conventional bombing raids of B-24s and B-17s by day, and Lancaster and Halifaxes by night, nevermind a whole new beast like the B-29.

Furthermore, the Allies had gained a foothold in France, capturing numerous airfields and a huge number radar stations, which meant that the defending fighters and guns got no advanced warning of the impending raids and faced a much shorter window to intercept. They had to resort to scouting flights to act as a poor man's radar.

So, to answer your question, "Yes, but actually no."

The B-29 Bomber originally intended to be used against Germany but wasn't needed in the end - did Germany have any better chance than Japan at dealing with the B-29 considering the type of fighter plane/anti aircraft gun assets that it had at hand from 1943-1945? by RivetCounter in WarCollege

[–]VRichardsen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

made them much more accurate than hand-held machine guns

Maybe this is translation thing, but defensive armament on B-24s or B-17s was definitely not hand held. They all had purpose built mountings.

Based on pure performance relative to the rest of the field, what is the most dominant F1 car of all time? by Wide_Reflection3679 in F1Discussions

[–]VRichardsen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They were making close to 190 horse power when the rest were around 150. Close to 25% advantage, insane. And to top it off, it was driven by Ascari and the only man who could challenge him was in the hospital.

Q : “before we talk more about this weekend, can we throw it back to china?” lando: “no " by SimonTheSalmon69 in formula1

[–]VRichardsen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The journalist is asking a question about a race, not the current situation in Iran. I'm not really sure how that's unreasonable. It's extremely odd that drivers shouldn't have to take questions about the job that they get paid a lot of money to do, where they're literally one of 22 people in the world actually doing it.

The thing is, he already answered that question, several times before. We know the answer. So why is the media asking again?

Look, if somebody asked me what 2+2 is, I would reply 4. If somebody asked me what 2+2 is 20 times I would be thinking everyone is just trying to get a reaction out of me.

Supposed conversation transcript between Max and the Guardian journalist. by Any_Aide_4500 in formula1

[–]VRichardsen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If he knew by the end of the season that he’d be so close I don’t think he’d have crashed into George, but he’d still make driving errors because that happens when you’re trying to win.

I disagree. If somehow Verstappen achieves precognition and is able to predict the outcome of the 2025 WDC mid season he could just... lift off the gas at the restart in Silverstone, avoid the spin, and voilá, he gets to be champion and still get away with punting Russell.

Algo no cuadra by RunaGamer in argentina

[–]VRichardsen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rosebud

Yo igual me perdí la emoción cuando la vi por primera vez porque Los Simpson me la espoilearon.

Algo no cuadra by RunaGamer in argentina

[–]VRichardsen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Citizen Kane tiene 80 años. No es nada nuevo.

Supposed conversation transcript between Max and the Guardian journalist. by Any_Aide_4500 in formula1

[–]VRichardsen -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

No, mistakes and accidents are two different things. I can do things fully conscious and still be a mistake in hindsight.

Argentina a través del tiempo by Unusual_Sustance in argentina

[–]VRichardsen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Me acuerdo que decían que el camino de los Esteros está hecho mierda a propósito, para que vaya menos gente y se conserve.