Grand Prix Rejects

Hey, guys, I got bad news for those who use it: "Whine Bull" is not funny nor clever. Stop using it. Thank you very much.

Klon wrote:Hey, guys, I got bad news for those who use it: "Whine Bull" is not funny nor clever. Stop using it. Thank you very much.

I resent that!

Besides, it is meant to be neither of those. It is meant to be insulting to Red Bull and that was enough for me!

Klon wrote:Hey, guys, I got bad news for those who use it: "Whine Bull" is not funny nor clever. Stop using it. Thank you very much.

Couldn't agree more. Massively immature.

AndreaModa wrote:

Klon wrote:Hey, guys, I got bad news for those who use it: "Whine Bull" is not funny nor clever. Stop using it. Thank you very much.

Couldn't agree more. Massively immature.

Would people be cross if we started referring to them as Red Cow?

CarlosFerreira wrote:

AndreaModa wrote:

Klon wrote:Hey, guys, I got bad news for those who use it: "Whine Bull" is not funny nor clever. Stop using it. Thank you very much.

Couldn't agree more. Massively immature.

Would people be cross if we started referring to them as Red Cow?

It's just so childish. I can't take anyone's argument seriously if they're not prepared to be mature and form an argument that is based on facts and doesn't resort to petty name-calling and ill-informed opinions. And every time I see "Whine-Bull" or "Red Bull-shit" or anything else, I won't even bother attempting to debate with them, because I know I'm dealing with someone who has fewer brain cells than most.

AndreaModa wrote:It's just so childish. I can't take anyone's argument seriously if they're not prepared to be mature and form an argument that is based on facts and doesn't resort to petty name-calling and ill-informed opinions. And every time I see "Whine-Bull" or "Red Bull-shit" or anything else, I won't even bother attempting to debate with them, because I know I'm dealing with someone who has fewer brain cells than most.

I find that you are being very harsh about some light hearted comments people here did (speaking not only about myself), but it is OK, I will take it in the chin. It didn't crossed my mind that people could take it like this, specially in this forum with so many examples like this being used before.

As for the number of brain cells, I have never got them counted but thanks to you, I now know I am severely lacking them...

AndreaModa wrote:

Klon wrote:Hey, guys, I got bad news for those who use it: "Whine Bull" is not funny nor clever. Stop using it. Thank you very much.

Couldn't agree more. Massively immature.

Seconded, I am got tired of people using that word.

Klon wrote:Hey, guys, I got bad news for those who use it: "Whine Bull" is not funny nor clever. Stop using it. Thank you very much.

Who was saying it? Even as a proud RB hater that sounds very dumb...

I've never used it, but I have to say I've got no problem with people using it.

DanielPT wrote:

AndreaModa wrote:It's just so childish. I can't take anyone's argument seriously if they're not prepared to be mature and form an argument that is based on facts and doesn't resort to petty name-calling and ill-informed opinions. And every time I see "Whine-Bull" or "Red Bull-shit" or anything else, I won't even bother attempting to debate with them, because I know I'm dealing with someone who has fewer brain cells than most.

I find that you are being very harsh about some light hearted comments people here did (speaking not only about myself), but it is OK, I will take it in the chin. It didn't crossed my mind that people could take it like this, specially in this forum with so many examples like this being used before.

As for the number of brain cells, I have never got them counted but thanks to you, I now know I am severely lacking them...

But it isn't light-hearted is it? It's used precisely by people to vent their anger at a perceived Red Bull superiority or dominance in F1. Now more often than not I'm inclined to agree that Red Bull's behaviour in the media is pretty annoying, but I don't need to resort to silly name calling which belongs on a primary school playground when a bunch of 10 year olds are arguing over who their favourite team is.

Oh wait. This forum is full of 10 year olds...

AndreaModa wrote:
But it isn't light-hearted is it? It's used precisely by people to vent their anger at a perceived Red Bull superiority or dominance in F1. Now more often than not I'm inclined to agree that Red Bull's behaviour in the media is pretty annoying, but I don't need to resort to silly name calling which belongs on a primary school playground when a bunch of 10 year olds are arguing over who their favourite team is.

Oh wait. This forum is full of 10 year olds...

Since it was I who came up with it and almost any one else used it (from what I see on the posts with it, only jonnhycarwash and Kimi-ICE used it besides me), I can tell you those were indeed light-hearted comments and you will just have to take my word for it, for what it worth. Although I concede that it was some sort of venting anger but because I still think that Red Bull is taking a piss on fans and using them to go through their own agenda. It has nothing to do with dominance. Hell, I even defended F1 during the Schumi days and gladly watched those races despite what was Ferrari superiority and dominance which I clearly didn't wanted.

By the way, what are 'dumb', retarded, '10 year old' to someone who knowingly is more and massively immature if not insults? It is okay to insult fellow forum members but not to come up with some 'silly name calling' (which I think it isn't) to teams or drivers? I reckon it probably wasn't funny or clever, like Klon nicely put it, but I also think that it wasn't deserving of such attack as it was something harmless and even not that insulting to Red Bull. How this forum changed since the 'Ramilton' et al days.

I feel that perhaps is time move on...

Most puns used as insults, like Whine Bull, normally fall flat, as they aren't particularly funny, and make the author seem immature. It's difficult to actually find any decent ones (although Maldonado'H was one of the better ones I've seen.)

andrew2209 wrote:Most puns used as insults, like Whine Bull, normally fall flat, as they aren't particularly funny, and make the author seem immature. It's difficult to actually find any decent ones (although Maldonado'H was one of the better ones I've seen.)

Whine Bull isn't even a pun though, unless I've missed it entirely.

shinji wrote:

andrew2209 wrote:Most puns used as insults, like Whine Bull, normally fall flat, as they aren't particularly funny, and make the author seem immature. It's difficult to actually find any decent ones (although Maldonado'H was one of the better ones I've seen.)

Whine Bull isn't even a pun though, unless I've missed it entirely.

Red Bull-shit is, although maybe Whine bull isn't (Whine=wine?)

To be honest, even though I don't have too many positive impressions of Red Bull, I don't think they've done anything throughout the entirety of their existence to warrant a deprecating sobriquet like "Whine Bull" or "Red Bull****."

I think AndreaModa makes a good point. Teams and drivers, regardless of their integrity, conduct, or performance, at the very least deserve to have their actions discussed with a modicum of respect and civility. A large part of why I decided to sign up for these forums was because I was weary of the vitriol hurled around wantonly on the Autosport forums, the BBC Sport F1 page, and even JAonF1. Reflecting back on some of my posts here, I'm ashamed to admit that I myself am guilty of lambasting teams and drivers without sufficient regard to context nor decorum. After all, Formula 1, irregardless of the internecine politics surrounding it, is and always has been a very human sport. I suppose we'd do well in considering that when deconstructing a sporting scandal or a driver error.

I think I'll start to temper my opinions before typing in anger, even if Chilton manages to take out half the field whilst ignoring a blue flag.

Klon wrote:Hey, guys, I got bad news for those who use it: "Whine Bull" is not funny nor clever. Stop using it. Thank you very much.

Agreed, Klon.

AndreaModa wrote:It's just so childish. I can't take anyone's argument seriously if they're not prepared to be mature and form an argument that is based on facts and doesn't resort to petty name-calling and ill-informed opinions. And every time I see "Whine-Bull" or "Red Bull-shit" or anything else, I won't even bother attempting to debate with them, because I know I'm dealing with someone who has fewer brain cells than most.

I think you're right on this matter, AndreaModa. Yes, I don't like what Red Bull does and some of the things they've done have been just wrong and stupid. I mean, Horner didn't go up on the podium when Vettel won at Sepang this year, showing that he (in my opinion) is a weak leader. Mateschitz claiming that F1 is no longer about racing is just plain hideous (check the link in my sig). Also, Horner claimed that Red Bull would never use team orders in 2010 around Monza or so, and now (even with team orders allowed) are all about team orders. Possible hypocrisy?

Either way, I wouldn't use the terms "Whine Bull" or "Red Bull-shit" simply because it is immature and pointless. Yes, people want to think this, but think it, don't write it. I don't think this forum was created for being childish.

Another thing, I remember AndreaModa mentioning bad behavior on the forum lately. In a way, I have to agree with that.

kevinbotz wrote:To be honest, even though I don't have too many positive impressions of Red Bull, I don't think they've done anything throughout the entirety of their existence to warrant a deprecating sobriquet like "Whine Bull" or "Red Bull****."

I think AndreaModa makes a good point. Teams and drivers, regardless of their integrity, conduct, or performance, at the very least deserve to have their actions discussed with a modicum of respect and civility. A large part of why I decided to sign up for these forums was because I was weary of the vitriol hurled around wantonly on the Autosport forums, the BBC Sport F1 page, and even JAonF1. Reflecting back on some of my posts here, I'm ashamed to admit that I myself am guilty of lambasting teams and drivers without sufficient regard to context nor decorum. After all, Formula 1, irregardless of the internecine politics surrounding it, is and always has been a very human sport. I suppose we'd do well in considering that when deconstructing a sporting scandal or a driver error.

I think I'll start to temper my opinions before typing in anger, even if Chilton manages to take out half the field whilst ignoring a blue flag.

kevinbotz, you must be a smart cookie, as they say here in the U.S. I'd totally agree with that, as well as some other people here.

shinji wrote:

andrew2209 wrote:Most puns used as insults, like Whine Bull, normally fall flat, as they aren't particularly funny, and make the author seem immature. It's difficult to actually find any decent ones (although Maldonado'H was one of the better ones I've seen.)

Whine Bull isn't even a pun though, unless I've missed it entirely.

It isn't a pun at all. I've just refrained from using it altogether, for obvious reasons.

So now, Autosport want people to register if they want to read more than 20 news articles a month for free. The bonus for registering? A whole TEN extra articles a month, and then no more until the start of next month. That's ridiculous.

East Londoner wrote:So now, Autosport want people to register if they want to read more than 20 news articles a month for free. The bonus for registering? A whole TEN extra articles a month, and then no more until the start of next month. That's ridiculous.

I agree. The Autosport website has become a total utter farce it's unbelievable. I'm not paying just under a pound just to read their articles because it's ridiculous

Kimi-ICE wrote:

East Londoner wrote:So now, Autosport want people to register if they want to read more than 20 news articles a month for free. The bonus for registering? A whole TEN extra articles a month, and then no more until the start of next month. That's ridiculous.

I agree. The Autosport website has become a total utter farce it's unbelievable. I'm not paying just under a pound just to read their articles because it's ridiculous

Their "commitment to quality journalism" is a complete joke as well. They're dressing the paywall up as a way to maintain the high standard of Autosport journalism, when half the time the articles are full of typos and errors anyway. And the Plus section is mostly re-hashed articles from the previous month's F1 Racing.

The sad fact is, the revenue from the website is probably 70-80% driven by ad sales, and those companies are only going to keep renewing their contracts with Autosport if the website gets visitors, and by putting up paywalls they're only going to drive the visitors away. If they carry on this path, Autosport won't exist in 5 years time.

The thing is, the original metered access was for 50 articles a month, which I thought was fair enough for a paywall system. Somehere along the line, they've got greedy, cut the limit down to 30 articles, and now this silly arrangement.

AndreaModa wrote:

Kimi-ICE wrote:

East Londoner wrote:So now, Autosport want people to register if they want to read more than 20 news articles a month for free. The bonus for registering? A whole TEN extra articles a month, and then no more until the start of next month. That's ridiculous.

I agree. The Autosport website has become a total utter farce it's unbelievable. I'm not paying just under a pound just to read their articles because it's ridiculous

Their "commitment to quality journalism" is a complete joke as well. They're dressing the paywall up as a way to maintain the high standard of Autosport journalism, when half the time the articles are full of typos and errors anyway. And the Plus section is mostly re-hashed articles from the previous month's F1 Racing.

The sad fact is, the revenue from the website is probably 70-80% driven by ad sales, and those companies are only going to keep renewing their contracts with Autosport if the website gets visitors, and by putting up paywalls they're only going to drive the visitors away. If they carry on this path, Autosport won't exist in 5 years time.

I would have to agree that Autosport's current policy of continuing to cut the access to free articles is not working. Although I do still sometimes look at their website, I probably frequent it a good deal less than I used to and the restrictions have driven me away from the website rather than drawn me towards subscribing. As you say, at the moment the impression is that the quality of their journalism does not seem to adequately reflect their pricing strategy for their website, and unless they pick things up in that area, I would have to agree that it is not going to stand them in good stead for the long term.

I suppose that an analogy would be with The Times and their move to a paywall system too - although they have been reluctant to share the figures, some informal surveys do suggest that, at best, they are doing no better than before the paywall system (as the revenue from subscriptions seems to have come at the price of reduced advertising revenue due to a downturn in web traffic), and at worst may have actually lost out slightly due to that move. It certainly seems to be the case that no other newspapers want to follow them down that route, indicating that it is not viewed as a successful long term option.

Klon wrote:Hey, guys, I got bad news for those who use it: "Whine Bull" is not funny nor clever. Stop using it. Thank you very much.

Took the words right out of my mouth, good sir

Autosport are paywalling stuff I can get for free, and faster, elsewhere. The rate at which they post news is chronically slow compared to other outlets which get there faster. I remember when I used to do some writing, my WRC reports sometimes went live before Autosport's.

The saying "Autosport or it didn't happen" no longer has any validity.

Stramala wrote:Autosport are paywalling stuff I can get for free, and faster, elsewhere. The rate at which they post news is chronically slow compared to other outlets which get there faster. I remember when I used to do some writing, my WRC reports sometimes went live before Autosport's.

The saying "Autosport or it didn't happen" no longer has any validity.

So is it now "Stramala or it didn't happen"?

The one thing Autosport does have is prestige. You can take any other motorsport reporting website out there, and it won't have the same level of respect that Autosport is able to garner, as being a quality publication that only really bothers with confirmed stories and not hearsay. That has changed somewhat in recent times, and in an attempt to get more visitors I dare say they'll probably attempt more sensationalist, conspiracy based stories in an attempt to get a few extra clicks.

But the fact remains that for me, I only trust a handful of websites as I like to read stories that are structured properly and give me facts and not opinionated rubbish. So I'll continue to visit Autosport, and get double the number of stories as I use my work computer as well as my laptop at home, but I certainly won't be paying to read!

Would opening a story in incognito mode not overcome the limit?

Klon wrote:Hey, guys, I got bad news for those who use it: "Whine Bull" is not funny nor clever. Stop using it. Thank you very much.

It doesnt bother me that people use Whine-Bull but it does concern me that people think it works as a pun.

shinji wrote:Would opening a story in incognito mode not overcome the limit?

No - although Autosport has not fully outlined the methods that they use to keep track of how many articles you have read (given that outlining those methods would also make it easier to get around them), they have indicated that it does involve aspects like IP tracking.

mario wrote:

shinji wrote:Would opening a story in incognito mode not overcome the limit?

No - although Autosport has not fully outlined the methods that they use to keep track of how many articles you have read (given that outlining those methods would also make it easier to get around them), they have indicated that it does involve aspects like IP tracking.

I think they are bluffing. Clearing cookies for autosport.com every few days has led to me being able to view whatever I want.

Regarding the Autosport paywall, here's a very interesting article on the whole situation from Autosport themselves:

http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/kb/articles/the_autosport_paywall_journey.aspx

The crucial bit as far as I'm concerned are these facts:

Since 2006, Autosport.com has operated on a ‘freemium’ basis. Much of the site is free to access, including news stories, race reports and basic results: content that drives a monthly audience of 2.5m unique users.

Okay, so 2.5m unique visits a month, not bad you say.

The majority of our subscribers pay £50 for an annual subscription, with the rest on slightly dearer month-by-month packages.

So most of Autosport.com's subscribers are essentially paying the basic flat rate.

Only a small percentage of Autosport.com’s total audience subscribes. If site traffic continues to grow at its current rate, it is hard to imagine us ever getting that percentage into double digits.

Right. So we can therefore logically assume that fewer than 250,000 people are paying a subscription to Autosport.com. And judging by that comment it must be no-where near that, so if we take 5% as the middle ground and we assume all the subscribers are paying the £50 flat rate (I know not all will be, but for the ease of the argument I will), that's an annual revenue of £6.25 million. Not bad, but annual. When you add up all the associating costs, and tack on a print edition which is probably loosing money, I don't see how a quick few million in the bank when long term the visitor numbers are going to decline is really worth it at the end of the day. But there we go.

I have magazine subscription so that gives me unlimited access to the website and forix. Feels good man.

My rant today is aimed at DTM, especially the Mercedes team. They take promising junior drivers and ruin their chance at formula 1 (unless you are Paul di Resta.)
Daniel Juncadella is just the latest victim in their career destroying program.

Shadaza wrote:I have magazine subscription so that gives me unlimited access to the website and forix. Feels good man.

My rant today is aimed at DTM, especially the Mercedes team. They take promising junior drivers and ruin their chance at formula 1 (unless you are Paul di Resta.)
Daniel Juncadella is just the latest victim in their career destroying program.

How ironic that the Mercedes F1 cars can qualify well but race poorly and the Mercedes DTM cars can't qualify and can't race well either. How the Merc team has fallen

Kimi-ICE wrote:

Shadaza wrote:I have magazine subscription so that gives me unlimited access to the website and forix. Feels good man.

My rant today is aimed at DTM, especially the Mercedes team. They take promising junior drivers and ruin their chance at formula 1 (unless you are Paul di Resta.)
Daniel Juncadella is just the latest victim in their career destroying program.

How ironic that the Mercedes F1 cars can qualify well but race poorly and the Mercedes DTM cars can't qualify and can't race well either. How the Merc team has fallen

Well, without openings within the main Mercedes team and a reluctance to engage into a bidding war for placing a driver within a midfield team, it is hard to see where Mercedes can direct their drivers. Unlike outfits like Red Bull, who are involved in series like FR3.5, Mercedes doesn't really engage in that many other series than DTM, so it's perhaps not surprising that that team is where all of their drivers end up.

Not to mention that all of those drivers picked up already were at a dead end as far as their careers were concerned: Wickens wasn't going anywhere as was Vietoris - they simply lack the money to get anywhere and were not picked up by any other junior team.

Small rant: unoriginal and unfunny "nicknames" for drivers, especially in Predicament Predictions. Especially when you're posting the driver name right next to it. It's REALLY not worth the effort.

I don't care if I'm being grumpy, and I'm prepared for comments that Prematurely-Old "Grandad" Ataxia needs his Night Nurse/Werther's Originals, but I quite like to see what everyone's predicted. And when you've decided "The Man Who Ate An Ice Cream Once And This Must Become His Defining Trait Despite It Being Almost 4 Years Ago" will come 5th ahead of "That German Who Celebrates With One Finger And Must Therefore Be Called 'Finger Boy' Because I'm Not Mature Enough To Accept The Fact That He Likes This Celebration", immediately I start to cry a little.

If you're wanting some artistic license in these things, the title's there for you to be smart with.

Am I the only person that thinks "Finger Boy" sounds a bit inappropriate? Or do I just have the humour of a 16-year old. Which wouldn't be suprising, as I am 16.

Personally I don't mind. It can be funny..maybe not if you're a fan, but I don't think it's at all offensive.

The way Vettel sprints say like that at the front when he grabs pole.... How can he do that? I don't buy it's driver skill alone. It must be something to do with turning the wick up on the engine, or something like that. Why doesnt't anyone try and match him? It's frustrating - the other tams KNOW that he will do that, yet the still play the tortoise game like Hamilton has today, which as of writing (42 laps gone) hasn't worked. Why doesn't anyone ver try and match Vettel instead of letting him have a 27 second lead after 10 laps?

Obviously it isn't driver skill; it's just that Red Bull is so aero dependent it is 'only' very good in traffic, but significantly better than anything else in clean air.

What can you try if you're mercedes?