It's a fact that most people (not all) are reluctant to change. It's human nature. Take people out of their comfort zone, and they feel unbalanced: that's human nature. The reasons why these changes were made must also be examined. Finally, I keep repeating that change doesn't always mean progress; it's often a side step or worse in some case a step backwards.
+1 You don't see any Concorde flying anymore! Remember the big argument in the US. congress over funding of the US version? I would guess we wont see any commercial flying above the speed of sound in the near future?
Personally I love high Tech, and I would like to think F1 still has it's purposes for trying out/inventing new cutting edge stuff, that could be used/filtered down into main stream use...but that's just me ..
Agreed, But those who could afford, it sure was a time saver. Somewhere I read years ago that it wasn't that inefficient, whatever they were trying portray?
If they were still heavily involved and invested as a company, it was incredibly counter productive to sell their tech and intellectual rights to that very hybrid technology. They may still be involved in various ways but to describe them as 'heavily invested' given the sale in 2014 just doesn't wash. As long as they understand the KERS aspect of any cheaper engine offered to them I really think they will be more than happy to wave goodbye to Mercs expensive hybrid at the first contractual opportunity.
Mayor: I absolutely LOVE you commenting on Martini right next to a picture of Dean Martin! Made me laugh my (donkey) off!
Concorde was undeniably masterpiece of aeronautic engineering in my view and way ahead of its time. But the aircraft was doomed because it was commercially unprofitable. My main gripe was that because it was financed and built by British and French nationalised companies at state expense, us taxpayers bore the brunt of its building cost. But it didn't end there. Because it was only operated by 2 nationalised airlines (British Airways and Air France) and made commercial loss for each flight, here again, British and French taxpayers were subsidising each ticket sold for Concorde!
Who needs to be in New York in 2 hours anymore when you can Skype from your toilet seat? You even get the same smell!
It was too ahead of its time, and fell victim of jealousy mostly. The US and the Soviets wanted to built something similar. But because Lookheed and Conkordski failed to emulate it, both the US and the SU tried to prevent it from flying. Concorde never obtain landing rights on some US airports, and it wasn'y allowed to fly supersonic over US territory. It was also banned from some air corridors over the Soviet Union on the Eastern routes. That limited its exploitation.
Wasn't the proposed Boeing SST a larger plane? Concorde profits were limited by the size of the plane. Perhaps the US version might have been viable. Perhaps with a US interest in the market the restrictions wouldn't have been so severe. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
