|
All the sophistication you can expect from an Italian car with a 60s American V8 sixteen inches from your ear hole. Still owns HARD.
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
I saw a yellow one of those today, according to the license plate it was a '73. One of the few I've seen without a rear spoiler, but it sounded pretty healthy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:All the sophistication you can expect from an Italian car with a 60s American V8 sixteen inches from your ear hole. Corollary to "it's always a Fiero": When it looks vaguely like an Italian car but is unique enough to not be a Fiero, and has a Ford 351, it's a Pantera. The question comes up surprisingly often. I want one with a bigass stereo system in the frunk, just to drive around rocking out to the metal band of the same name all the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i97OkCXwotE
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 03:41
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Saw this in the local supermarket parking lot. Crazy paint jobs on vans are always awesome. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
I remember reading a story about a guy in NYC had a box truck that kept on getting vandalized. He finally had enough of repainting it, contacted one of the more famous street artists in the city, told him "please, tag my truck with your signature art", and his truck hasn't been touched since.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
iospace posted:I remember reading a story about a guy in NYC had a box truck that kept on getting vandalized. He finally had enough of repainting it, contacted one of the more famous street artists in the city, told him "please, tag my truck with your signature art", and his truck hasn't been touched since. Yeah that's been a thing with box trucks for decades, it's the same deal as getting a nice graffiti mural on a wall to discourage less polished graffiti. A lot of the time it's the graffiti writers approaching the truck owners for permission. I like box trucks either way, but I've only contributed tags and throw ups myself 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
 Gonna post a thing that came into work today, because I know this is AI's collective fetish. (And mine.) 1970 Ford Falcon on a bronco frame thats been stretched 11 inches. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
I can hear that tire whine from here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
That's a Torino, not a Falcon? Something around a 1970. Or am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
Its a falcon in 1970, torino in 1971. This is a 1970, so its a falcon.  Either way, its badass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:What happens at extreme droop on WRC suspensions? They keep camber? Lose it but not as much? Lose it.  Some cars go positive a lot more  But as I said, DONT mistake the camber changes for bad geometry. It's not. It's counter intuative but ... The full story here is that Subaru around the same time tried for the "perfect" geometry. The 05 WRC had basically what you would call about as good in theory as can get in a rally car while Malcom Wilson's engineers decided to go the other way (hugely long travel with ridulous camber changes and massive castor angles with the fornt axle line well forward - Subaru's was designed on a computer, Wilson himself tested his engineers ideas. Guess which one proved to be a loving pig and which one produced the prototype of all WRC cars goign forward? So thence Perfect geometry if it doesnt work is poo poo geometry. Really whacked out counter intuative geometry that on the other hand works is good geometry, wether it looks good on paper be damned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
Disgruntled Bovine posted:Saw this in the local supermarket parking lot. Crazy paint jobs on vans are always awesome. It's cool that he just went ahead and painted pedobear (with fangs) right onto the side of the thing, even if it doesn't say 'free candy'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
That's...not even close.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 09:56
|
|
|
Yeah there's a ton of super cool graffiti cars in Oakland  
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
Metal Geir Skogul posted:That's...not even close. It's a brown bear on the side of a van. Close enough! Edit: Also, good luck on the job!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
The Locator posted:It's a brown bear on the side of a van. Close enough! That’s a monkey.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
The Locator posted:It's a brown bear on the side of a van. Close enough! Thanks! No call back today, but it is Friday. She said a call back (either way it goes) would be either Friday or Monday. Gonna stay reasonably calm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
My ideal cruiser vehicle is a 70's Dodge Ram Van with a wizard and dragon painted on the side, but with a modern graffiti style to it. There was a picture of a pastel wizard drinking a 40 with a skateboard that basically fit my type but I lost the picture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
I don't know about that one but this will always be my favorite, with the "death is certain" wizard as a close second.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:Im sorry but Group B does NOT have better geometry. Not even slightly close... the modern WRC suspension came into being with the second Ford Focus WRC with the extreme castor and allowance for massive driop and the subsequent camber changes. Do not mistake the fact a WRC having struts and those massive camber changes as worse geometry Dude, we're actually arguing the same point here. First off, tt's not even about caster, it's about packaging - draw a line between the pivot points on the suspension and the caster isn't even that much. It just looks like a lot more caster than it is because the strut body is in front of the upright. So you have massive camber changes and poo poo... by definition that's worse geometry! Throughout its stroke the tire is moving in ways that you don't really want. It just doesn't matter because the effects of it pale in comparison to what was gained with shock/strut design. Go back to 80s vintage strut design and the whole concept wouldn't work, but all sorts of advancements in strut design mean that it's the dominant setup now - I forget what Reiger calls it but BOS's CAS (the big names all have the same major features) that lets the shock droop to full extension if weight is off the tire is a huge thing to use all of that travel you have now. Now, rallycross it sems there's still some debate about wishbones vs struts even with modern strut design... because unlike WRC they actually have the freedom to change. But they don't run as much suspension travel in rallycross anyway, so the big travel possible maybe isn't the same giant killer it is in WRC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
mekilljoydammit posted:Dude, we're actually arguing the same point here. No we arent quote:First off, tt's not even about caster, it's about packaging - draw a line between the pivot points on the suspension and the caster isn't even that much. It just looks like a lot more caster than it is because the strut body is in front of the upright. Your first point is wrong - the present WRC cars have massive caster and it's needed to add stability, let alone turn the car it. You want big numbers here and for examble the Fabia Skoda ran 20 degrees strut angle for a static 9 degrees caster. The Ford ran a bigger number for caster and other cars are in the 12 degree range, esp considering you road going STI is 5 degrees stock and 6 with caster mods. Second and this is where your argument just completely breaks down - camber changes =! worse geometry. That has NEVER has been the case especailly on gravel. A car that changes geometry is quite bluntly a better car and one that you can play some interesting driving tricks on, one that becoes very throttle sensitive and one that works best with left foot braking and weight shifting. It's not for nothing I disconnect sway bars, I WANT the geometry to change. One of the great gravel RWD's is a Datsun 1600 and that rear end ges through wild geometry changes - due to that you can throw it in backwards at just about any speed. The modern WRC cars do the same and it's no co-incidence Malcom Wilson came from that era and you see the Ford cars behaving like old Dattos at the rear. Becuase. It. Works. It does not matter what you think about the theorectical good geometry, the actual real good geometry is the one that works and the big changing geometry is the one that delivers the kind of corner speeds and ability to hit jumps that no theretical perfect geometry can handle. And you are actually wrong about WRC not havingthe freedom of wishbones - the teams wrote the rules for 2017, if they want wishbones they can get them. The truth is that anyone thinking about wishbones is a loving idiot plus big travel not working in real rallycross? LOL yes it does. Reconsider about not taking advanatge of how geometry changes make for a car you can throw in backwards and make it dance on the throttle and brakes. Low movement geometry is one of the most stupid things you can do on a gravel car as Subaru found out. If you want to go fast on gravel throw the perfect geometry theories out the window. Now. Becuase that poo poo does NOT work in practice and the proof is in how none of the really fast designs go anywhere near it... and the ones that did were utter failures. CAT INTERCEPTOR fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Jul 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
It's not anywhere near as much caster as it looks from looking at how the strut is laid back - the axis of rotation isn't down the strut body, and they didn't package things like that to get more caster. I haven't taken a tape measure to both cars but I'd wager that the caster isn't that different between the Focus and the Subaru. Rallycross is designing for less travel than WRC because they don't need as much, period - the designers have flat out said so in interviews. Some of the top cars there have converted to wishbones. Not all, true. But the fact that any have kinda suggests that if aren't designing the complete package around as much travel as WRC struts can get, maybe there's other factors in play. I'm honestly not up on the '17 WRC regs so whoops, my mistake if they allowed changing that. But it goes back to the fact that on rally stages, travel is trumping about everything else. Because you can't make wishbones have as much travel as the WRC style struts are now without basically having the pivot points meet close to the center of the car. And no poo poo you want everything able to move on gravel, which is what you're basically getting at. That's the whole point of all of this - travel trumps geometry because you can keep the tire on the ground more due to softer springs (FFS, look at spring rates between now and the Group A cars!) because you don't have to use spring rate to keep the car from bottoming out. And you can use hydraulic bumpstops to control the last bits of suspension movement so you can go softer on the springs. And you can let the suspension droop by letting off on the valving so you don't have to use stiffer springs to get it to extend or compromise the rebound valving (and make up the roll stiffness elsewhere) to get it to extend. I have no idea what you think I'm talking about when I say anything about geometry, or if you think going to positive camber is somehow a desirable thing. poo poo, ok, let's try a different tack. Look at any of the modern WRC poo poo (maybe not 2017 I literally haven't looked at it) and the Subaru WRC poo poo after S7 or so. Ignore the strut for a second. The top mount pivots are in basically the same place relative to the wheel - everyone tubs the things and welds in new strut tops. The lower pivot is in basically the same place relative to the wheel, a bit forwards of centered on the axle - so the caster is going to be about the same. No it doesn't matter if the strut doesn't follow the line between the pivots. Now, the control arms are going to be similar in length, so the camber curve's going to be about the same. In terms of kinematic geometry - how the wheel angles move if you stroke it through an arc - they're basically the same. Ford did nothing revolutionary in geometry in how the wheel changes angle along its travel - all the pivots are in the same places. They "just" figured out how to package a strut that's like, what, 4 inches or so longer into the same space and optimized around that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
 VW Polo WRC, or at least I think it is. Modern (or pre-2017) era anyway. An unusually clear view of what' going on there in that you can see the pivot points too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
This is horrendously technical conversation and I'm loving it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:This is horrendously technical conversation and I'm loving it. Oh, good. I wasn't sure if I should keep trying to explain or just STFU.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Post more photos and discuss ~*~Saturday rally day~*~
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
mekilljoydammit posted:
I've rehosted your image so everyone can see it: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
mekilljoydammit posted:Oh, good. I wasn't sure if I should keep trying to explain or just STFU. Please please keep on going.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Less arguing more awesome car poo poo:
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Please please keep on going. Two other things that I mentioned - hydraulic bumpstops and valves to figure out what's moving - well, here's some links talking about it, albeit in other disciplines. http://www.kingshocks.com/products/options/ibp-internal-bypass/ is for what rally strut makers call hydraulic bumpstops... implementation will be different but that's one way to do it. https://www.pinkbike.com/news/bos-fcv-idylle-2015.html shows some stuff that BOS (who were behind a lot of top flight WRC stuff, mostly Citroen IIRC) is doing to separate chassis from wheel movements. I can't quickly find another patent of theirs - basically it's set up so that if the wheel is moving downwards faster than the rebound valving lets it (like if it's off the ground) the bypass valving opens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
iospace posted:Less arguing more awesome car poo poo: But this arguing is awesome poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Can I argue that the front turn signals on that '7 got me like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalk-eyed_fly#/media/File:Teleopsis_dalmanni.jpg
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
iospace posted:Less arguing more awesome car poo poo: I don't know man, there's a whole lot of visible suspension pivots there
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Post awesome AI car poo poo: We can only get off if the suspension pivots are visible
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Rally photographers: perhaps the only people crazier than rally fans. (The drivers are third-craziest, they have rollcages and helmets.) Edit: somebody find that gif of the photog nonchalantly taking a step back and sucking in his gut as the rally car slides past inches from his belly. I've photographed car and motorcycle races, the #1 rule is to set up on the inside of the turn, so if a vehicle breaks/loses grip, it goes AWAY from you. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jul 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Every race I've ever had opportunity to shoot kept me 30+ yards away from the racing surface itself, regardless of it being inside the corner or outside.  There is a tiny family owned track about an hour away that is pretty old school, but they don't run many events there. Just one vintage race a year and the rest is SCCA stuff. And that stuff is cool, if you're a driver. Spectating SCCA is kinda dull.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
SCCA depends on the class, the track, and the race. It was fun spectating at the national championships for some of the faster classes... spectating at regionals races where half the field is concentrating more on just finishing is dull, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
A couple weeks ago MIL called to let me know about a car show on at the local park. Turned out to be lots of rad stuff there - tonnes of classic British sports cars (lotus/sunbeam/MG etc) and random French stuff). Citroen SM (never seen one IRL before - very cool).  Escort and Anglia.  One of 2 clean 205 GTi's  A Bentley with it's fancy frosted glass hood ornament.  Mini Moke.  Biiig old Rolls limousine (Silver Ghost? Not too good with this era - memory fails me.)  Morgan.  Aston DBS.  E Type.  Here's the Alpine A110 again I saw a few weeks back. Shows how tiny it is (That Peugeot 208 beside it is about the size of a Yaris/Mazda 2 for reference.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
mekilljoydammit posted:They're not used in motorsports basically anywhere. I came across a shock guy from McLaren talking about them once - apparently they couldn't get them to hold consistent forces for more than about half an hour because you're basically forcing abrasive through a small hole to make it work. He was of the opinion that OEM ones overcome that problem by just not holding consistent forces. What's more, all of the best-damped cars I've driven have all been valved dampers. No magnetorheological car I've tried has come close. (Best have been McLaren 650S, BMW i8, Cayman GT4 with DSC Sport's clever damper control unit.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 02:35
|
|