Reliability too good?

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules
Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

With all this cost saving and having to make engines last etc, it has made all the teams have Ferrari (2002) levels of reliability.

This means that if someone like Vettel is leading by a minute, he pretty much has the race in his pocket, whereas throughout the 90's and early 00's that could never be guaranteed, (just ask Jean Alesi in several GP's or Damon Hill in Hungary 1997). This meant that a runaway leader in the 90's never truly had a race won until he crossed the finish line. This made races that tad more on edge in my opinion.

It also allowed drivers like Mark Blundell to have his day in the sun, grabbing the occasional podium partly due to putting a solid race together and partly due to a race of attrition. That can't happen now unless someone gets a lot of luck from safety cars or whatever, (Nelsinho Piquet at Hockenheim one year benefitted from this BS and came an undeserved second if I recall correctly).

Even Minardi could score points if everything came together back then.

Now that cars are bullet-proof, this makes things less exciting.

Discuss.

Bollard
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Bollard »

Nothing to discuss really, you covered the basics and that's all that can be said.

They've been on these cars since 2009, so they understand the reliability. Just wait until next year though, I think they're could be some serious issues for some front running teams..
The above post may contain things you may not like!

Floppy_Boy
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Floppy_Boy »

Well, with the reliability so good now, at least the results are certainly less contrived.

Pedrosa_4_Ever
Posts: 2949
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:15 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Pedrosa_4_Ever »

Floppy_Boy wrote:Well, with the reliability so good now, at least the results are certainly less contrived.

:thumbup: :lol:

Anyway, I seem to remember that a runaway leader retired in the last but one race...
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."

"It's hammer time!"

British Driver Supporter (and Daniel Ricciardo)

Greg Moore - Dan Wheldon

User avatar
Banana Man
Posts: 2623
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:24 am

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Banana Man »

I wouldn't say mechanical issues provide for particularly entertaining races. I will always remember Luxembourg 1997 with the Mclarens leading 1-2 and wondering if they might just pull off their best result in years. Then within a lap of each other the engines blew and I was left watching Alesi casually following JV home. It wasn't exciting, if anything it was a complete anti-climax.

Personally I'm happier there are fewer 'tragedies' like that, Hungary '97, Frentzen and Badoer at Nurburg '99, Hill at Monaco '96 etc.

Abu Dhabi and Singapore last year weren't any more exciting because Hamilton retired. There was 30 seconds of drama, then the rest of the race was all the more dull for not having him in it.
I remember when this website was all fields.

mac_d
Posts: 4231
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by mac_d »

I somewhat dislike a driver being punished out of a race win due to something beyond his control.

And while I'm sure some faults are down to how the part is used and how the driver stresses it, sometimes it is basically dumb luck.

flyboy10
Posts: 5402
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by flyboy10 »

I used to like how the fastest cars (Renault turbo) would run away in the early laps and you never knew if they were going to win or break down. Now if a car gets an early break and runs away (Vettel) you may as well turn the TV off and go home.

User avatar
Black_Flag_11
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Black_Flag_11 »

flyboy10 wrote:I used to like how the fastest cars (Renault turbo) would run away in the early laps and you never knew if they were going to win or break down. Now if a car gets an early break and runs away (Vettel) you may as well turn the TV off and go home.

Whose TV do you use to watch F1? ;)

flyboy10
Posts: 5402
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by flyboy10 »

Black_Flag_11 wrote:
flyboy10 wrote:I used to like how the fastest cars (Renault turbo) would run away in the early laps and you never knew if they were going to win or break down. Now if a car gets an early break and runs away (Vettel) you may as well turn the TV off and go home.

Whose TV do you use to watch F1? ;)


The pub. No point relying on the BBC to provide live coverage of every race.

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

Floppy_Boy wrote:Well, with the reliability so good now, at least the results are certainly less contrived.


You seem to be missing the fact that if a car retires due to poor reliability it is the team's fault and so they are legitimately and fairly losing the race, so there is nothing contrived at all if an engine blows late on and a driver has to pull up...

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

mac_d wrote:I somewhat dislike a driver being punished out of a race win due to something beyond his control.

And while I'm sure some faults are down to how the part is used and how the driver stresses it, sometimes it is basically dumb luck.


By that logic you shouldn't like that Button is being denied the chance to compete for the Championship this season due to his car being slow, surely that is unfair?

F1 has always been about the driver/car combo, the overall package and so a driver losing a race late on due to car failure is fine considering he was gaining the benefit of that quick car in the first place...

flyboy10
Posts: 5402
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by flyboy10 »

I'd rather have more unreliable cars and fewer unreliable stewards!!

Blinky McSquinty

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Blinky McSquinty »

Geez, I could swear there were quite a few races in the last couple of years when the leader or someone in strong contention had a major mechanical failure.

2012 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
2012 European Grand Prix

Just wait until next year and we all get to enjoy watching turbo engines expire with much greater regularity.

Floppy_Boy
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Floppy_Boy »

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:
Floppy_Boy wrote:Well, with the reliability so good now, at least the results are certainly less contrived.


You seem to be missing the fact that if a car retires due to poor reliability it is the team's fault and so they are legitimately and fairly losing the race, so there is nothing contrived at all if an engine blows late on and a driver has to pull up...

Aaaaah, but you see, when cars retire due to engine blows up, they have a tendency to then go rolling down a hill...

User avatar
Black_Flag_11
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Black_Flag_11 »

flyboy10 wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
flyboy10 wrote:I used to like how the fastest cars (Renault turbo) would run away in the early laps and you never knew if they were going to win or break down. Now if a car gets an early break and runs away (Vettel) you may as well turn the TV off and go home.

Whose TV do you use to watch F1? ;)


The pub. No point relying on the BBC to provide live coverage of every race.

Touche :thumbup:

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

Blinky McSquinty wrote:Geez, I could swear there were quite a few races in the last couple of years when the leader or someone in strong contention had a major mechanical failure.

2012 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
2012 European Grand Prix

Just wait until next year and we all get to enjoy watching turbo engines expire with much greater regularity.


Lol, these days there are maybe 1 to 3 mechanical retirements maximum per race.

In the 1990's it was almost half the field retiring with car trouble, so what you're saying can't hold up, there were more leaders retiring due to mechanical failure in the 90's and early 00's than there is now, simple.

Also, the loss of gravel traps doesn't help either, since back in the 90's a small spin could leave you beached, but nowadays you just have a concrete run-off that you can escape.

scuderia_stevie
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:39 am

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by scuderia_stevie »

Black_Flag_11 wrote:
flyboy10 wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
flyboy10 wrote:I used to like how the fastest cars (Renault turbo) would run away in the early laps and you never knew if they were going to win or break down. Now if a car gets an early break and runs away (Vettel) you may as well turn the TV off and go home.

Whose TV do you use to watch F1? ;)


The pub. No point relying on the BBC to provide live coverage of every race.

Touche :thumbup:

Crapola. So you turn off the TV in the pub, ruining it for everyone else in there and then *inaudible* off? While they can turn it back on, imagine you're engrossed in something and somebody else turns it off as they can't stand something you can. I'm sure you don't turn off the TV, if you did you'd probably be barred.

That aside, wait for 2014 more a little more unreliabilty. But it seems strange to me the same people usually screaming about cars being too reliable are those wanting F1 to become effectively a spec series. I was always heartbroken when my car/team broke down but semi-rejoiced when reversed.

If reliability had never been a problem, over half the podium finishers, and certainly every race, would have finished differently. In fact, I'd predict 25%+ of WDCs would be different. But had Schumacher not broke his leg in 1999 he'd probably be an 8x WDC and, as I often quoted IF is F1 spelled backwards (cheers Murray GWS).
"We can not drive slower, just to make the races more exciting." Alain Prost

Siao7
Posts: 9048
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Siao7 »

Floppy_Boy wrote:
Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:
Floppy_Boy wrote:Well, with the reliability so good now, at least the results are certainly less contrived.


You seem to be missing the fact that if a car retires due to poor reliability it is the team's fault and so they are legitimately and fairly losing the race, so there is nothing contrived at all if an engine blows late on and a driver has to pull up...

Aaaaah, but you see, when cars retire due to engine blows up, they have a tendency to then go rolling down a hill...


Ha, I was expecting that, only last race we saw an engine blowing! To have a thread arguing about reliability sounds a bit ironic.

I think the OP sees it only from his/hers POV, we should be looking in the greater picture here, namely the teams. Should the teams not try to perfect their cars? F1 is already one of the (if not THE) most expensive sports in the word, every component failure/engine blowout/you add your own, means time and a lot of extra money spent for the teams. The regs themselves are now very tight, with parts of the car having to last for a long time, not just a couple of GP's. So why wouldn't they strive to finish? Remember the old mote, to finish first, first you have to finish. That's what they're trying to do

Siao7
Posts: 9048
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Siao7 »

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:Geez, I could swear there were quite a few races in the last couple of years when the leader or someone in strong contention had a major mechanical failure.

2012 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
2012 European Grand Prix

Just wait until next year and we all get to enjoy watching turbo engines expire with much greater regularity.


Lol, these days there are maybe 1 to 3 mechanical retirements maximum per race.

In the 1990's it was almost half the field retiring with car trouble, so what you're saying can't hold up, there were more leaders retiring due to mechanical failure in the 90's and early 00's than there is now, simple.

Also, the loss of gravel traps doesn't help either, since back in the 90's a small spin could leave you beached, but nowadays you just have a concrete run-off that you can escape.


So I take it you loved Monaco 1996?

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

SchumieRules wrote:
Floppy_Boy wrote:
Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:
Floppy_Boy wrote:Well, with the reliability so good now, at least the results are certainly less contrived.


You seem to be missing the fact that if a car retires due to poor reliability it is the team's fault and so they are legitimately and fairly losing the race, so there is nothing contrived at all if an engine blows late on and a driver has to pull up...

Aaaaah, but you see, when cars retire due to engine blows up, they have a tendency to then go rolling down a hill...


Ha, I was expecting that, only last race we saw an engine blowing! To have a thread arguing about reliability sounds a bit ironic.

I think the OP sees it only from his/hers POV, we should be looking in the greater picture here, namely the teams. Should the teams not try to perfect their cars? F1 is already one of the (if not THE) most expensive sports in the word, every component failure/engine blowout/you add your own, means time and a lot of extra money spent for the teams. The regs themselves are now very tight, with parts of the car having to last for a long time, not just a couple of GP's. So why wouldn't they strive to finish? Remember the old mote, to finish first, first you have to finish. That's what they're trying to do



LOL

One engine blow-up in the last grand prix fits in with my 1 to 3 mechanical failures per race instead of the 6 to 12 mechanical failures in most grand prix's in the 1990's. Look at the 1995 Australian Grand Prix for instance, only 5 or 6 finishes from 26 starters and that was a dry race throughout. Obviously that is an extreme example but it is still fun to get races like that.

As for the bolded bit, mega LOL since teams were actually trying hard in the 90's you know, they were doing everything they could to push performance whilst trying to keep reliability reasonable as well.

User avatar
AngusWolfe
Posts: 3796
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:58 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by AngusWolfe »

That's a point, if the turbo engines blow up with the regularity of swiss fireworks, what happens if they go past their allowed 8? (Is it still 8?) I know they usually get a fine, but how many times can a team get fined in a season if their engine keeps blowing up? Especially if it's the fault of the engine manufacturer?
IV
Image

User avatar
POBRatings
Posts: 3199
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Contact:

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by POBRatings »

Floppy_Boy wrote:Well, with the reliability so good now, at least the results are certainly less contrived.


Agreed. I prefer the reliability as it provides more comparative racing. Someone retiring is a disappointment to me, no matter who.

Khazrak134
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:40 am
Location: Canada

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Khazrak134 »

i have a feeling that next year there will be alot more reliability problems with the new rules and with the teams not completely getting to grips with the new engines

User avatar
POBRatings
Posts: 3199
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Contact:

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by POBRatings »

:thumbup: even more reliability will surely suit drivers and teams! And tv viewers.

Siao7
Posts: 9048
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Siao7 »

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
Floppy_Boy wrote:
Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:
Floppy_Boy wrote:Well, with the reliability so good now, at least the results are certainly less contrived.


You seem to be missing the fact that if a car retires due to poor reliability it is the team's fault and so they are legitimately and fairly losing the race, so there is nothing contrived at all if an engine blows late on and a driver has to pull up...

Aaaaah, but you see, when cars retire due to engine blows up, they have a tendency to then go rolling down a hill...


Ha, I was expecting that, only last race we saw an engine blowing! To have a thread arguing about reliability sounds a bit ironic.

I think the OP sees it only from his/hers POV, we should be looking in the greater picture here, namely the teams. Should the teams not try to perfect their cars? F1 is already one of the (if not THE) most expensive sports in the word, every component failure/engine blowout/you add your own, means time and a lot of extra money spent for the teams. The regs themselves are now very tight, with parts of the car having to last for a long time, not just a couple of GP's. So why wouldn't they strive to finish? Remember the old mote, to finish first, first you have to finish. That's what they're trying to do



LOL

One engine blow-up in the last grand prix fits in with my 1 to 3 mechanical failures per race instead of the 6 to 12 mechanical failures in most grand prix's in the 1990's. Look at the 1995 Australian Grand Prix for instance, only 5 or 6 finishes from 26 starters and that was a dry race throughout. Obviously that is an extreme example but it is still fun to get races like that.

As for the bolded bit, mega LOL since teams were actually trying hard in the 90's you know, they were doing everything they could to push performance whilst trying to keep reliability reasonable as well.


Nope, LOL all you want, doesn't necessarily make you right. The teams always tried to get the cars to the finish line. What was the old moto, that the best cars were the ones that finished and then broke down? Know that one?

To have a race with half the cars finishing is nice for you, don't try to push it to other people. I prefer having 20 cars finishing rather than 5. I prefer a run-off area (the driver is penalised, as he does lose some time in most cases) than a gravel trap that will reduce the number of cars. But it's only my opinion. And if you want to have a discussion here, it would help not laughing or mega-laughing on other people's comments, especially the ones who disagree with you

User avatar
runningman67
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:36 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by runningman67 »

The reliability factor is part of the thrill. There is no greater disappointment than seeing a car break down.
As it is the 'pinnacle of motorsports , the mechanics are most likely the pinnacle of mechanics' and its a bit naff when a car breaks.
I want to be in awe of the whole thing.
Thats why I hope the tyre thing is sorted, as its a bit of a carbuncle spoiling the show. looks like that issue is on the mend.

Explorer1800
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:59 am

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Explorer1800 »

flyboy10 wrote:I'd rather have more unreliable cars and fewer unreliable stewards!!



Agree
One is caused by pushing the boundaries of technology, the other the boundaries of reality...

User avatar
Alienturnedhuman
Posts: 4106
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Alienturnedhuman »

Bahrain 2010
Korea 2010
Abu Dhabi 2011
Brazil 2011
Europe 2012
Singapore 2012
Abu Dhabi 2012
Britain 2013

That's 8 out of the last 67 races, a 12% chance of it happening. How much more often would you like it?

scuderia_stevie
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:39 am

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by scuderia_stevie »

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Bahrain 2010
Korea 2010
Abu Dhabi 2011
Brazil 2011
Europe 2012
Singapore 2012
Abu Dhabi 2012
Britain 2013

That's 8 out of the last 67 races, a 12% chance of it happening. How much more often would you like it?

I think some want 1-3 times a race, every race. Plus, drivers crashing, slow pit stops and running out of fuel (although, I'm partly with the last one as there's too much telemetry for fuel levels compared to the 1980s). I bet a lot here and wider wet themselves with excitement when they witnessed Webber's pit stop in Germany. Sounds sick, but too many see it as purely excitement.

I think this season has been exciting, albeit sometimes for the wrong reasons. I'm not hoping for a failure, if it happens it happens, as shameful as it is for true racing.
"We can not drive slower, just to make the races more exciting." Alain Prost

User avatar
Toby.
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Toby. »

Is there any complaint? Better reliability is better for the sport. Suggesting frequent mechanical failures makes the racing more interesting is odd - who wants to see a driver be forced to retire from a race after having driven well?

Strong reliability is good for everybody. You can say the backmarkers aren't getting points because the people in front of them aren't retiring, but there was a time when the minnows of the grid would retire a lot more than anybody else, thus removing any possible chance of scoring points.

It's good how it is.
Image

User avatar
Toby.
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Toby. »

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Bahrain 2010
Korea 2010
Abu Dhabi 2011
Brazil 2011
Europe 2012
Singapore 2012
Abu Dhabi 2012
Britain 2013

That's 8 out of the last 67 races, a 12% chance of it happening. How much more often would you like it?


Did Vettel not suffer a brake failure while in a race-leading position at the 2010 Australian Grand Prix?

13%, but apparently not enough.
Image

flyboy10
Posts: 5402
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by flyboy10 »

It gives some of us hope if our favourite driver is second and the only thing that can help him win is a mechanical failure for the leader. I've been on the receiving end a few times - most memorably at Barcelona when Mika lost on the last lap to Schumacher :(

User avatar
Laura23
Posts: 8767
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Location: London

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Laura23 »

Toby. wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:Bahrain 2010
Korea 2010
Abu Dhabi 2011
Brazil 2011
Europe 2012
Singapore 2012
Abu Dhabi 2012
Britain 2013

That's 8 out of the last 67 races, a 12% chance of it happening. How much more often would you like it?


Did Vettel not suffer a brake failure while in a race-leading position at the 2010 Australian Grand Prix?

13%, but apparently not enough.

Use the last race of 2009, Abu Dhabi, too and that percentage goes up a shade again. Hamilton retired with brake failure.
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...

Grand_Prix_Fan
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Grand_Prix_Fan »

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Bahrain 2010
Korea 2010
Abu Dhabi 2011
Brazil 2011
Europe 2012
Singapore 2012
Abu Dhabi 2012
Britain 2013

That's 8 out of the last 67 races, a 12% chance of it happening. How much more often would you like it?


It happened more in the 90's and again, you're assuming I'm just talking about 1st place specifically retiring, when actually I'm on about all positions and all retirements in general. It was nice to see 7th place rise to 6th on the last lap and gain a much needed point for his team because the guy ahead of him retired with a gearbox problem etc.

I'm not sure how you can argue when in the 90's mechanical retirements clearly happened more often.

User avatar
Toby.
Posts: 2834
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Toby. »

Nobody is going to disagree it happened less in the 1990s and before, but I don't see what your point is. You seem to want more "pure" racing, with no safety cars and the unlapping rule gone, yet it's supposedly exciting for legitimate front-runners to drop out and allow slower ones to take their place. There's nothing wrong with reliable cars and having them so doesn't take away any of the excitement. The more cars you have on the track, the more opportunities you'll have to see on-track battles and not positions being given to those who weren't fast enough. That's exciting.
Image

scuderia_stevie
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:39 am

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by scuderia_stevie »

flyboy10 wrote:It gives some of us hope if our favourite driver is second and the only thing that can help him win is a mechanical failure for the leader. I've been on the receiving end a few times - most memorably at Barcelona when Mika lost on the last lap to Schumacher :(

How about Japan 1998? Schumi's clutch got stuck on pole, so he had to start at the back of the grid. Then the tyre went handing Häkkinen the title without him having to finish (he won anyway). In retrospect, 2nd would have been enough on count back. Both earlier had retired in Belgium, Häkkinen through his own mistake, Schumi through Coulthard's. Had both stayed in Schumi looked odds on to win that, but it may still have not been enough for the title.

Point is, apart from some exceptional seasons where one car/driver had a substantial number of failures at the front, failure did roughly even out most of the time. Had the McLaren been more reliable in 1997, it would have been more successful for example. Last year, Vettel retired twice both with alternator failures, Alonso once due to Grosjean's recklessness and once arguably his own. Vettel still won the title even though it could be argued his car was statistically less reliable.
"We can not drive slower, just to make the races more exciting." Alain Prost

packapoo
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:46 am

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by packapoo »

Discuss? What?

Seems rather pointless on the downhill run to the V6's coming next season?
Things are likely to be rather different reliability wise.

User avatar
Covalent
Posts: 10218
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Covalent »

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:LOL

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:Lol,

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:Lol,

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:. Lol

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:Lol,

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:Lol,

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:Lol

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:, lol.

And that's only a small portion of yesterday's posts alone.

You really must have aching stomach muscles and annoyed neighbours!

Siao7
Posts: 9048
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Siao7 »

Covalent wrote:
Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:LOL

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:Lol,

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:Lol,

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:. Lol

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:Lol,

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:Lol,

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:Lol

Grand_Prix_Fan wrote:, lol.

And that's only a small portion of yesterday's posts alone.

You really must have aching stomach muscles and annoyed neighbours!


You forgot the mega-lol he offered me yesterday! Funny chap

User avatar
Covalent
Posts: 10218
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm

Re: Reliability too good?

Post by Covalent »

SchumieRules wrote:You forgot the mega-lol he offered me yesterday! Funny chap

As I said, that was only a part of the posts :)

Post Reply