People seem to complain about the audio and the mic. If you're short on cash and need a solid audio setup I can't help but recommend what I am running - Get some Chinese BM800 microphone with an arm set. Then throw away the USB or minijack cable for the microphone and instead fish around Ebay or your country's equivalent marketplace for a second hand Audio Interface. I got a Behringer UMC22 but there are many different options, used or new. What you want is to have something with phantom power to plug the XLR cable into. This entire setup cost me about the half of what Blue Yeti mic costs and I get all the features of an audio interface on top of that too.
I just noticed I left the gain switch in its maximum position. I didn't notice whilst editing because my voice does naturally have a sort of roughness to it at higher or lower ranges than usual, but I'm guessing the microphone was clipping here, but I've put the gain switch back to where it usually is, so it should be back to normal for the next video
I wouldn't call the octavia a _failure_ per se. At the end of the day, manufacturers are in it to sell cars. The Octavia WRC car was a great underdog that showed how reliable a Skoda could be. It was also a great learning platform for them as a WRC team and stepping stone to greater things. I love the look of the Cordoba. It looks like an alternative universe Lancer Evo.
The reason the octavia had a 20v head is because its based on the 1.8t road engine. And regulations at the time dictated that the road engine block and cylinder head had to be used. For VW to shove a 20v head in the cordova they would have had to make and sell to the public 20v road going car for regulations thats why the cordova had the 16v head. The two engines come from the same family but one is the performance engine, which is the 1.8t which ended up being the 2.0 for the wrc car, and the other was an economy engine which was the 1.6 sri which they turned into the 2.0 wrc engine thats why the bores, strokes and valve train are different
If that is the case then it is amazingly bad communication. Seat put that same engine into Cordoba "Cupra" from 1999. And considering they started rallying in 1998 and stopped in 2000, it could have been much more successful.
Man, I HATE the term disruptive innovation these days. It used to mean innovative tech that did well in the consumer market, because it was cheap and effective, though maybe less capable than high end stuff (like comparing Honda motorbikes to Ducatti) Now it means "WE WANT TO BE THE NEW TESLA!!"
This is genuinely my favourite automotive history channel, youve found such a niche for yourself which is amazing because no one else coveres these failed cars in the same way you do and they have just of an interesting story to tell as the successful cars. You deserve way more than 8k subs im looking forward to watching this channel grow, good luch and can't wait until the next video 👍
Some people mention the bad audio, but tbh I appreciate when sometimes bit of audio breaks in videos in the natural human error way, gives it some more authenticity, a feeling that this isn't another of those channels that run everything on ai generated voice over
hey man could you make a video about the polonez in group B cuz i just love how you explain thing and im pretty sure this could be a good video concept
The failure of the Octavia (and Fabia) and the Cordoba was not engine, but their inability to make a working active diff system that the others mastered at the time
Yep, that too, I didn't want to give too much detail because I wanted viewers to watch the original videos on them, but there's a reason I brought up the engines. The reason is that it was financially inefficient to develop two engines, they could have developed one, sabed money, and then put that money into the transmission system.
Yea, the GT-R LM Nismo was a total failure but I for one wanted it to be somewhat successful even if just to see some variety in the basic design of Le Mans race cars. I mean how cool would it be to have cars with DIFFERENT drivetrains, shapes and engine configurations being relatively competitive with each others instead of every worthwhile race car sharing the same basic MR design with only worthwhile differences being found in engines, downforce levels and often very minor differences in suspension design? Still you gotta give Nissan props for attempting to do endurance racing with the worst possible drivetrain as far as tire wear and basic driving dynamics are concerned.
The idea was not stupid, it was promising. The car turned out to be a failure because it was not developed enough to race. The engine that was intended to be used in the car turned out to be prone to malfunctioning, so they used a different one that didn't fit the concept by which the bodywork was designed. And that's just one of the many hurdles associated with this project.
The Nissan GT-R LM Nismo concept wasn't stupid, but racing a car that only proves the validity of the concept was pure stupidity. In theory and according to the math, the GT-R LM idea was possible, only the time and money to seriously develop the car have run out. Edit: Brigstone tires were by no means inferior to Michelin tires, Vettel won at Mozna in 2008 in a bloody Torro Rosso on Brigstone tires. Toyota F1 team used Brigstone as a scapegoat to explain its spectacular and very costly debacle in making an F1 car.
Sometime while the maths may say something should work really well in reality that isn't always the case due to bumpy track surfaces, the car being hard to set up or the car being on the edge to drive. The theory often doesn't take factors like these into account. Also while most years Michelin and Bridgestone were fairly evenly matched there were some years where one was better than the other like the Ferrari years when the bridge stones where softer and offered more grip or 2005 when the Michelins were better due to the word tyre rules that year. The Michelin tyres are also a part of why Fernando Alonso was able to pull.of his very weird understeer technique while at Renault.
@@FailedRacers Hmm, let me try to put it another way, if the 2008 Trashzzo Rosso, a back-marker F1 car, was able to win on Bridgestone tires, I don't think the Bridgestone tires of previous years (except 2005) are the reason why Toyota was slower than a slug in molasses. And as for Michelin tires, the 2005 weekend at the U.S. Grand Prix is proof that their tires were not the best choice. Speaking of 2005, it's also hard not to mention how the FIA decided to end Ferrari's dominance by almost destroying their tire supplier..... Edit: If tires were really the cause of the Japanese team's embarrassment, Toyota would change suppliers. What is a greater embarrassment to the entire nation, tires not from a Japanese manufacturer, or the pity of other teams over Toyota's lack of performance? The "all japan team" image does not seem worth the downright stupid amount of money spent by Toyota on F1. I hope you now understand what I meant, I loved the video and as always I am eagerly awaiting the next one.
@@crdc9853 The math showed that the concept was theoretically feasible, and the Nissan GT-R LM Nismo showed that the concept works and has potential in real life, but further research and more funding were needed to determine how much potential there was, which Nissan didn't want to do at all. Nissan would never agree to spend money on an idiotic idea that had no potential, the people who manage such projects there are not fools.
@@helloScuffedI mean there was clearly potential there yesterday otherwise they wouldn't have committed to the project but once they actually had the car built they ran into all the problems that they likely wouldn't have known about when just looking at the car on a piece of paper. Cool idea though and I'm glad they gave it a go, kind of reminds me of the 2022 mercedes F1 car they clearly saw some aerodynamic advantage to the zero pod concept in the wind tunnel but in reality it didn't give them that advantage and they ended up abandoning it.
Thank you for this very informative and thoughtful video. Great summary! May we perhaps see more of that awesomely wacky simulated car? How about you call it a Walker? After Australia's worst Formula One racer, Dave Walker? 😅 Have you given more thought to the Larkham EF Falcon? Hint hint...
@@FailedRacers It promised much but delivered little. Consider: 1) A healthy sponsor! 2) A driver who should have, in a different world, gone to Formula One. 3) Mediocre performance, silly breakdowns and big accidents. 4) A driver who had very little experience in touring car racing and its politics who thought he could beat all comers in that category straight away but often got outrun by the privateers. 5) Amazing features - including the centralized driving position - that actually when developed over the years by better resourced and knowledgeable entities were proved to actually make touring cars safer and faster! Ironically the safety of the car was proven when it wrecked at Bathurst in 1996 and was then sold off to Danny Osborne and written off in the crash with Craig Lowdnes at Adelaide three years later! Cheers.
I don't know if the GT-R LM Nismo was that stupid of a concept. The team just didn't have enough time to iron out the concept because Nissan was adamant they needed to win Le Mans 2015. The car wasn't ready on time, the hybrid system didn't pass safety tests and the team wasn't allowed to use it so the car ran with a fully FWD layout. Then Nissan gave up on the programme out of shame. If they had been allowed to debut the car for the 2016 season, it probably wouldn't have been this bad. But the higher ups at Nissan were complete idiots.
It definitely had some untapped potential, but I think even at its best, it'd still be down on pace. I gave a more detailed explanation of why the car's underlying concept was flawed on the car's main video. ua-cam.com/video/uTsSiU3r-jM/v-deo.htmlsi=QTrCqRwuoiZ-NDqH
Subscribe to FR Daily!
youtube.com/@frdaily-bd1lv?si=voTLONbTeobDvNoZ
People seem to complain about the audio and the mic. If you're short on cash and need a solid audio setup I can't help but recommend what I am running - Get some Chinese BM800 microphone with an arm set. Then throw away the USB or minijack cable for the microphone and instead fish around Ebay or your country's equivalent marketplace for a second hand Audio Interface. I got a Behringer UMC22 but there are many different options, used or new. What you want is to have something with phantom power to plug the XLR cable into. This entire setup cost me about the half of what Blue Yeti mic costs and I get all the features of an audio interface on top of that too.
the mic is fine, I just had a bad setting that I only noticed after I uploaded it
@@FailedRacers Yeah, I checked the FR Daily videos and the sound there is ok
The audio is a little strange, as if you're shouting...
yea it's like his audio is boosted 10db
Shouting some truth
I just noticed I left the gain switch in its maximum position. I didn't notice whilst editing because my voice does naturally have a sort of roughness to it at higher or lower ranges than usual, but I'm guessing the microphone was clipping here, but I've put the gain switch back to where it usually is, so it should be back to normal for the next video
I wouldn't call the octavia a _failure_ per se. At the end of the day, manufacturers are in it to sell cars. The Octavia WRC car was a great underdog that showed how reliable a Skoda could be. It was also a great learning platform for them as a WRC team and stepping stone to greater things.
I love the look of the Cordoba. It looks like an alternative universe Lancer Evo.
The reason the octavia had a 20v head is because its based on the 1.8t road engine. And regulations at the time dictated that the road engine block and cylinder head had to be used. For VW to shove a 20v head in the cordova they would have had to make and sell to the public 20v road going car for regulations thats why the cordova had the 16v head.
The two engines come from the same family but one is the performance engine, which is the 1.8t which ended up being the 2.0 for the wrc car, and the other was an economy engine which was the 1.6 sri which they turned into the 2.0 wrc engine thats why the bores, strokes and valve train are different
If that is the case then it is amazingly bad communication. Seat put that same engine into Cordoba "Cupra" from 1999. And considering they started rallying in 1998 and stopped in 2000, it could have been much more successful.
Man, I HATE the term disruptive innovation these days.
It used to mean innovative tech that did well in the consumer market, because it was cheap and effective, though maybe less capable than high end stuff (like comparing Honda motorbikes to Ducatti)
Now it means "WE WANT TO BE THE NEW TESLA!!"
This is genuinely my favourite automotive history channel, youve found such a niche for yourself which is amazing because no one else coveres these failed cars in the same way you do and they have just of an interesting story to tell as the successful cars. You deserve way more than 8k subs im looking forward to watching this channel grow, good luch and can't wait until the next video 👍
Long boi will never disappoint me in looks
Some people mention the bad audio, but tbh I appreciate when sometimes bit of audio breaks in videos in the natural human error way, gives it some more authenticity, a feeling that this isn't another of those channels that run everything on ai generated voice over
I LOVED the 307 wrc as a kid, totally loved the way it looked. Probably because my dad had a 307 in the early 00s.
I've been watching you for quite some time. Underrated as hell, love the videos!
any plans to make a vid about the Mini JCW WRC
It's definitely one on my radar
hey man
could you make a video about the polonez in group B cuz i just love how you explain thing and im pretty sure this could be a good video concept
The failure of the Octavia (and Fabia) and the Cordoba was not engine, but their inability to make a working active diff system that the others mastered at the time
Yep, that too, I didn't want to give too much detail because I wanted viewers to watch the original videos on them, but there's a reason I brought up the engines. The reason is that it was financially inefficient to develop two engines, they could have developed one, sabed money, and then put that money into the transmission system.
Yea, the GT-R LM Nismo was a total failure but I for one wanted it to be somewhat successful even if just to see some variety in the basic design of Le Mans race cars. I mean how cool would it be to have cars with DIFFERENT drivetrains, shapes and engine configurations being relatively competitive with each others instead of every worthwhile race car sharing the same basic MR design with only worthwhile differences being found in engines, downforce levels and often very minor differences in suspension design? Still you gotta give Nissan props for attempting to do endurance racing with the worst possible drivetrain as far as tire wear and basic driving dynamics are concerned.
The idea was not stupid, it was promising. The car turned out to be a failure because it was not developed enough to race. The engine that was intended to be used in the car turned out to be prone to malfunctioning, so they used a different one that didn't fit the concept by which the bodywork was designed. And that's just one of the many hurdles associated with this project.
Babe wake up new Failed Racers video
1:14 the irony
10:32 i laughed at that because Panoz is very similar word to a Russian "ponos" which means "diarrhea" 😂
The Nissan GT-R LM Nismo concept wasn't stupid, but racing a car that only proves the validity of the concept was pure stupidity. In theory and according to the math, the GT-R LM idea was possible, only the time and money to seriously develop the car have run out.
Edit:
Brigstone tires were by no means inferior to Michelin tires, Vettel won at Mozna in 2008 in a bloody Torro Rosso on Brigstone tires. Toyota F1 team used Brigstone as a scapegoat to explain its spectacular and very costly debacle in making an F1 car.
Sometime while the maths may say something should work really well in reality that isn't always the case due to bumpy track surfaces, the car being hard to set up or the car being on the edge to drive. The theory often doesn't take factors like these into account. Also while most years Michelin and Bridgestone were fairly evenly matched there were some years where one was better than the other like the Ferrari years when the bridge stones where softer and offered more grip or 2005 when the Michelins were better due to the word tyre rules that year. The Michelin tyres are also a part of why Fernando Alonso was able to pull.of his very weird understeer technique while at Renault.
You'll find the 2008 win with Vettel was because Bridgestone were the only tyre manufacturer.
@@FailedRacers Hmm, let me try to put it another way, if the 2008 Trashzzo Rosso, a back-marker F1 car, was able to win on Bridgestone tires, I don't think the Bridgestone tires of previous years (except 2005) are the reason why Toyota was slower than a slug in molasses. And as for Michelin tires, the 2005 weekend at the U.S. Grand Prix is proof that their tires were not the best choice. Speaking of 2005, it's also hard not to mention how the FIA decided to end Ferrari's dominance by almost destroying their tire supplier.....
Edit:
If tires were really the cause of the Japanese team's embarrassment, Toyota would change suppliers. What is a greater embarrassment to the entire nation, tires not from a Japanese manufacturer, or the pity of other teams over Toyota's lack of performance? The "all japan team" image does not seem worth the downright stupid amount of money spent by Toyota on F1.
I hope you now understand what I meant, I loved the video and as always I am eagerly awaiting the next one.
@@crdc9853 The math showed that the concept was theoretically feasible, and the Nissan GT-R LM Nismo showed that the concept works and has potential in real life, but further research and more funding were needed to determine how much potential there was, which Nissan didn't want to do at all. Nissan would never agree to spend money on an idiotic idea that had no potential, the people who manage such projects there are not fools.
@@helloScuffedI mean there was clearly potential there yesterday otherwise they wouldn't have committed to the project but once they actually had the car built they ran into all the problems that they likely wouldn't have known about when just looking at the car on a piece of paper. Cool idea though and I'm glad they gave it a go, kind of reminds me of the 2022 mercedes F1 car they clearly saw some aerodynamic advantage to the zero pod concept in the wind tunnel but in reality it didn't give them that advantage and they ended up abandoning it.
10:42 what app or game is shown at the screen? im sooo curious!
Automation and then BeamNG Drive
What's the game you used to build your beloved Panoz GT1?
Automation
Thank you for this very informative and thoughtful video. Great summary! May we perhaps see more of that awesomely wacky simulated car? How about you call it a Walker? After Australia's worst Formula One racer, Dave Walker? 😅 Have you given more thought to the Larkham EF Falcon? Hint hint...
I'll definitely have to look into that Falcon
@@FailedRacers It promised much but delivered little. Consider: 1) A healthy sponsor! 2) A driver who should have, in a different world, gone to Formula One. 3) Mediocre performance, silly breakdowns and big accidents. 4) A driver who had very little experience in touring car racing and its politics who thought he could beat all comers in that category straight away but often got outrun by the privateers. 5) Amazing features - including the centralized driving position - that actually when developed over the years by better resourced and knowledgeable entities were proved to actually make touring cars safer and faster! Ironically the safety of the car was proven when it wrecked at Bathurst in 1996 and was then sold off to Danny Osborne and written off in the crash with Craig Lowdnes at Adelaide three years later! Cheers.
STOP SHOUTING AT ME.
Jokes asside, after lurking around a few of your videos, i finally subbed. Love the content!
I don't know if the GT-R LM Nismo was that stupid of a concept. The team just didn't have enough time to iron out the concept because Nissan was adamant they needed to win Le Mans 2015. The car wasn't ready on time, the hybrid system didn't pass safety tests and the team wasn't allowed to use it so the car ran with a fully FWD layout. Then Nissan gave up on the programme out of shame.
If they had been allowed to debut the car for the 2016 season, it probably wouldn't have been this bad. But the higher ups at Nissan were complete idiots.
It definitely had some untapped potential, but I think even at its best, it'd still be down on pace. I gave a more detailed explanation of why the car's underlying concept was flawed on the car's main video. ua-cam.com/video/uTsSiU3r-jM/v-deo.htmlsi=QTrCqRwuoiZ-NDqH
He’s back with another banger ‼️
please make a video on Suzuki SX4 WRC
Definitely planned
someone please get this guy a real mic
The mic is fine, the gain setting was wrong. I found this out after I already uploaded
But the next video will be with perfect sound quality so make sure to watch out for that 😁
Speak up cobber we can hardly hear ya!
Holy shit what is up with your audio my guy
!
You leave my gtr lm nismo alone. It failed yes, but it is so cool.
Please don't out yourself as a "Place, Japan" lover like that