|
This is without question one of the greatest uses of the .gif format I have ever seen.
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
kastein posted:From http://www.truckinweb.com/events/1303tr_31st_annual_4wheel_jamboree_nationals/ - there are a lot of horrible penis compensation brodozer trucks and other terrible things in there too. I find this one particularly amusing: http://www.truckinweb.com/events/1303tr_31st_annual_4wheel_jamboree_nationals/photo_11.html Among all their big jacked up full size pickups with mudding tires they were surprised that a subaru forester was the fastest on an autocross course? Considering it shares its chassis with the impreza that's hardly surprising. Edit: For content, I want this in a sexual way: 
Disgruntled Bovine fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Jul 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I'd do dirty dirty things for a modern Maserati. I don't understand why automotive journalists are so down on it in general. The consensus seems to be "It's an awesome technological achievement but it's not as interesting as a Ferrari". I guess I'd have to drive both to understand, but I think it's amazing. The suspension in particular is incredible. It's hardly a bad looking car either, though I will admit I like the 458 better in that regard. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Das Volk posted:The English don't have the different coverage levels with liability you see in the US. The default is £20M. Well that explains why insurance is so expensive in England. When Top Gear did the episode where they pretended to be teenagers buying their first car and they kept getting insurance quotes for 2-3X as much as the car cost I was pretty confused.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
The cheap insurance on Volvos thing is very true, I was surprised how cheap the insurance on my S60R is. Yeah, I have a good driving record and I'm over 30, but with comprehensive and collision it was only a couple hundred a year more than my old '96 Subaru Legacy without either. For content, pure pornography:    Edit: Am I doing it right? Disgruntled Bovine fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Aug 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
The way I see it, unless I plan to spend a lot of time at the track I'd never get my money's worth out of a proper high performance supercar like an MP4-12C, so why not go for a car that's still fast enough to get in plenty of trouble, but sounds and looks significantly better than cars costing 3x as much. Maseratis may not be performance monsters, but they have presense a lot of the performance monsters don't even come close to.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
Well I'm definitely going to have to buy a Maserati GranTurismo one day... I don't know where I'm going to get the money, maybe I can sell a few organs. But then how will I pay for the repairs? Regardless, I have to have one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9wvP3p56vc
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Now you just need to scrape together a couple hundred grand to turn it into this: http://www.speedhunters.com/2011/10/car_spotlight_gt_gt_1160hp_super_sleeper_nova/
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Rather looks as though he bent the plate to get the jack under it too. Though, front plates, especially ones as ugly as Massachusetts' deserve no better.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
I'm sorry but that's a terrible thing to do to a Maserati. Edit: Hell, I'd take this over it: 
Disgruntled Bovine fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Sep 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
"Do you know how fast you were going?" "Not really officer, somewhere between 50 and 75."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
LloydDobler posted:
This is the face I made:  That thing is loving amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Did you take those photos? Those are incredible  Do you have to composite a background shot with a separate shot of the cars in order to get both in focus? Disgruntled Bovine fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Oct 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
I don't have 2 million bucks, but that sounds like a pretty good deal to me. It's certainly better than the McMansions you could buy for that money.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:A C130H needs between 1400 and 3500 feet to take off, and air dropping your 5 tonner (would it fit?) would be badass. Maybe YOUR C130 takes 1400 feet to take off... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfJsMtOvUvk Of course your C130 probably hasn't been smashed and/or caught fire.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
You call that torque? THIS is torque: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q7yDsy96Fw
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
That looks like it belongs in an aircraft, not a car.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
I wouldn't say I love it, but I definitely like it. The back end is my favorite part. As for that vs the vette, I'd take that, but mostly because I hate the rear end of all vettes and the C7 really isn't an improvement.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Powershift posted:$12 grand. What the hell. How could that possibly be more expensive to build than a nissan versa. What Kastein said. In manufacturing volume and a guaranteed customer base makes all the difference in the world. That's why we made 50 specialized washers for one customer at a cost of $10 each, but if they bought enough that it justified making a tool and running them on a press we can make them for $10 per thousand. Assuming they're ordering at least 2 million of course.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Just about anything is awesome if it has a blown V8 in it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
88h88 posted:I've always thought this was hot. Is that really based on a Volvo? That looks amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Those are only 245s? Jesus, my car has 235's and it's awd and 1/3 the power.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
I want to see the back of it, it looks like those rear wheels are mounted pretty strangely. Also, not exactly a lot of ground clearance to speak of, but yes, it's awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:This popped up via Facebook: Clearly no one told him that a steam engines have enormous torque. Also, that steam tractor probably weighs at least 15 tons. One fun fact about steam: As long as a steam locomotive's boiler can supply enough steam, it can take any train which it can get moving up to its top speed. This was demonstrated in 1990 when the Union Pacific railroad used their 4-6-6-4 Challenger 3985 to pull a 147 car intermodal train which would normally be hauled by 3 diesels. Technically 3985 could "only" put out around 5000 hp, compared to the ~11,000 hp the 3 diesels were capable of, yet it pulled the train at the same speed the diesels could, over 65 mph. Yes, I know, this is locomotive insanity, but steam power is rather fascinating.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Isn't that because steam engines don't have a torque curve? As in peak torque is available from a total standstill; they don't have to deal with power bands and gearing and such. The main thing is that a steam locomotive is a constant torque machine, while diesel locomotives are constant horsepower machines. A steam locomotive puts out the same torque at 0 mph as 100 mph, while a diesel puts out far more torque at low speeds, and far less at high speeds. The result is also that a steam locomotive's horsepower output rises linearly as it accelerates. The real limiting factor is the boiler's steam generation capacity. The driver size is a factor as well, because smaller drivers mean the cylinders have to move faster, requiring more steam and using up the steam production capacity of the boiler faster, as well as causing problems with reciprocating forces. You can only swing a 20 ton main rod around in a circle so fast before any minor imbalance becomes amplified to ridiculous levels. In the end though the math generally works out in such a way that a diesel locomotive can get a train moving which it doesn't have the capability to get up to speed, while a steam locomotive has more trouble starting a heavy train, but once it does, it will take it up to high speed more easily. http://www.railway-technical.com/st-vs-de.shtml That goes into way more detail than you'll probably want to read, but it's interesting. It makes me wonder how all of this applied with steam powered cars, and what might be possible with one using modern technology.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
You call that a big radial? Try this 42 cylinder 143.6 liter radial diesel built for Soviet missile boats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zvezda_M503 Oh, and some Germans decided to fuel it with methanol and stick it in a tractor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPR8zBSNOgE
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
freelop posted:Visited the Heritage Motor Centre at Gaydon today on business, during lunch I took a 20 minute walk around taking random snaps as I went. What kind of jag is that on the right? It's gorgeous.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
xzzy posted:The 550 looks like an oversized Miata to me. Looks like a vette on a diet to me. Note: my least favorite thing about corvettes is the looks.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
I MUST JOIN MY BROTHERS!
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
The GTR has such ridiculously oversized tailpipes. Don't get me wrong, I think they look great, but also a little preposterous.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Aargh posted:Seeing the three of them together makes me think which I'd choose from an aesthetic or design view. The McLaren is too confused and catfish looking, the 918 may be too understated, so probably the Ferrari. Oh the 918 is understated is it?  I'd have the McLaren.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
I'm sorry, did someone say something about going overboard on a mini? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hCPODjJO7s
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Somewhat Heroic posted:I feel like when this thing will be in motion the downforce and power created is going to knock the earth out of its orbit. Those exhausts look like a couple of howitzer barrels. I know it's just a concept drawing but the drat things must be 8" wide.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
This is utterly ridiculous, and I love it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
I think it's partially down to the fact that the trucks are bagged, so they CAN lift up and drive over normal roads and actually be used for poo poo, but are also completely nuts. Stanced cars are generally on fixed suspension and therefor useless 100% of the time. Also I think it's partially because stancing is often done to cars which would have decent sporting credentials or at least be fun to drive before some idiot ruined them for the sake of appearances. A bagged dually wouldn't be fun on a track even if it wasn't bagged, so who cares?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
T1g4h posted:Well someone has certainly never seen the Roadkill ramp truck tackle an autocross course Alright, I have seen that, and you've got me there, but I think my point is still valid. Nobody's going to complain that someone ruined a dually by bagging it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Who cares if you're fast when you're stylish. Walking tractors are alright, but I prefer walking draglines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP4PuhywXm8
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
a primate posted:A true beauty I'm sorry, but I actually kind of like it. Sure, it's ugly, but interesting ugly. Though, in the realm of interesting ugly I'd far rather have a Gumpert. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
NitroSpazzz posted:This is extra fun in Europe on the autobahn. Right lane is trucks doing 100kph and cars sitting around 130kph, middle is around 150kph and left lane is occasional people doing 160kph jumping left to pass. Then there's the German wagons hauling along at 200kph+ and the random high end car doing 250+. From what I've heard Germany takes tailgating, staying right except to pass, and actually using your mirrors and signals seriously, which probably helps a lot in making the whole thing work safely.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 15:31
|
|