|
FuzzySkinner posted:There's posts in this thread literally blaming the loving victim. there's posts in this thread blaming the victim because the victim was a dumb poo poo who put himself in a dangerous situation needlessly what he did was Darwin Award level stupid and he should be blamed
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:17
|
|
.
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 02:01 |
|
|
also in that bullshit articlequote:He can barely bring himself to drive his Ford Taurus I'm sure the career Chevy driver totally drives a Taurus in his off time
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Haha yeah shoulda caught that, but the "informed the Associated Press" part is what duped me at first, how can they cite the AP if it's bullshit?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
how can they quote Rusty or anything satire!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
That is fake? But I really wanted to believe that police if Ferguson had fired laughing gas at protesters and a fake Wal-Mart greeter was soliciting sex. Ok, maybe that last one is real.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:how can they quote Rusty or anything More like horse poo poo riding the Onion's coattails
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
well yeah humor has no bearing on what's considered satire
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
So what happened to all the people calling Tony Stewart a murderer? The tonal shift from the first few pages to the last is incredible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
You got caught linking to a fake news site, it happens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Ostentatious posted:So what happened to all the people calling Tony Stewart a murderer? the educated loaded the uneducated onto trains
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Ostentatious posted:So what happened to all the people calling Tony Stewart a murderer? Keeping in mind the first few pages occurred right after the news broke, and given Tony Stewart's temperament, it was easy to judge right away. Of course, over the course of the week we've all had time to look back and understand the situation more. Of course, the staunch Stewart fans never doubted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:the educated loaded the uneducated onto trains  Gawd drat. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
animeliker posted:It was Katawa Shoujo you stupid loving oval office. I am so sick and tired of trolls. No need for this in the NASCAR thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
fuseshock posted:Of course, the staunch Stewart fans never doubted. tbh my gut reaction was that he totally killed a guy in a fit of rage
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
There's only two drivers who I'd say that about, and one of them would be Stewart. (The other one is Edwards)
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Edwards would have pummeled Ward to death with his bare fists and then flex above his lifeless body
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Tim Richmond prolly woulda killed a dude eventually he might've, anyway
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Tim Richmond prolly woulda killed a dude eventually With how NASCAR white washes poo poo, they thought he would've killed a guy by simply being in a garage having AIDS. VikingSkull posted:tbh my gut reaction was that he totally killed a guy in a fit of rage Same here. I've calmed down and see it's just a tragic accident. I still want to wait until what all the videos and evidence have to say that we can deduct if Ward was an idiot trying to do some GTA type of poo poo or they were both staying too close to each other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
[quote="fuseshock" post="433580171" Of course, the staunch Stewart fans never doubted. [/quote] Tony's my second driver behind Gordon,and I was afraid Tony had gone off the deep end, wondering what the hell had gotten into his head. A very "Wait, what?" moment not seen in the NASCAR world since 2-18-01.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Fag Boy Jim posted:There's only two drivers who I'd say that about, and one of them would be Stewart. (The other one is I'd have to say Kurt Busch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
If you're new to NASCAR, the rule considers smoke in the cockpit as an extenuating circumstance which allows a driver to get out of the car. In theory, tire smoke could count, which is common in crashes. This is an example of how NASCAR has mastered the art of "taking action" while not actually taking action.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:If you're new to NASCAR, the rule considers smoke in the cockpit as an extenuating circumstance which allows a driver to get out of the car. In theory, tire smoke could count, which is common in crashes. Someone does a burnout intentionally to get out and throw a helmet at someone, that'll be great and I want someone to do that. Come on a week from now someone does that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Another thing to consider that I just read. Winged sprint cars are much more difficult to drive at 40 mph (the approximate speed that Stewart was traveling when he struck Ward) than at, say 100mph because of the lack of down force. So despite many peoples claims that the race was under caution and therefore Stewart should have been under complete control of the car, it's just not supported by facts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:
Obviously you have not read this thread. Magugu posted:Ive drove 360 sprints with ASCS. I think I know a thing or two about racing cars. At medium to high speeds, yes, you have to use the throttle to get through a turn. At low speeds they turn very easily, its just wobbly as hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Drunk Canuck posted:Obviously you have not read this thread. It's like pushing a shopping cart with a bad wheel wobbly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Drunk Canuck posted:Obviously you have not read this thread. I have, I'm just more willing to believe the people quoted in the article I read. It was a lot more technically and scientifically detailed than "Trust me, I've driven these things. Thing I say is true."
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Turning and swerving to avoid something are two different things. Just look at the cars for Christ's sake. Giant rear tires and skinny little motorcycle tires on the front. Jerking the wheel left or right trying to swerve on a dirt track isn't going to do jack poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:I have, I'm just more willing to believe the people quoted in the article I read. It was a lot more technically and scientifically detailed than "Trust me, I've driven these things. Thing I say is true." Please post the article, I'd love to read it 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:I have, I'm just more willing to believe the people quoted in the article I read. It was a lot more technically and scientifically detailed than "Trust me, I've driven these things. Thing I say is true." You are seriously trying to say throwing one of these cars into a corner at 160 kph is easier than tooling around at 65kph? And you are trying to say a guy that has actual experience knows less than some article? Or the current or retired motorracers that know a thing or two also are wrong? Yeaaaah no. Wobbly and dont want to track straight at low speeds? Absolutly. More difficult? Think about how utterly absurd that claim is for a moment. You as some random person could drive them at 65kph. Now. what do oyu think the chances are of you making one lap at 160kph?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Some cars only work well when at race speed. Take a high level formula car. You can trundle it around slowly or you can drive it really fast. There's no in between. If you don't go fast enough for the aero to work, then it won't turn very well. If you don't go fast enough to get heat in the tires in the corners, you won't have any grip. If you aren't going fast enough when you use the brakes, they won't ever heat up and they won't work. You have to drive faster than what you think is safe to be safe. I've never driven a sprint car, but I'd assume it's about the same. When it's not doing the thing it was intended to do, it doesn't handle well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Some cars only work well when at race speed. Take a high level formula car. You can trundle it around slowly or you can drive it really fast. There's no in between. If you don't go fast enough for the aero to work, then it won't turn very well. If you don't go fast enough to get heat in the tires in the corners, you won't have any grip. If you aren't going fast enough when you use the brakes, they won't ever heat up and they won't work. You have to drive faster than what you think is safe to be safe. I've never driven a sprint car, but I'd assume it's about the same. When it's not doing the thing it was intended to do, it doesn't handle well. Read what I was responding to. And yes, there is an absolutle world of difference between 65kph and 160 kph in one of those things esp on a oval. What IS correct to say is that trying to half arse it wont go well and that's whats the discussion about race car dynamics refers to wether a car is a bitch to drive at less that 100%, not wether you can tool around. There is zero denying you have to really go hard to generate the maximum, but to say that at a slow cruise they are more difficult to drive is BS. Try throwing any car in at 160kph and..... well.... You'll see my point pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:You are seriously trying to say throwing one of these cars into a corner at 160 kph is easier than tooling around at 65kph? And you are trying to say a guy that has actual experience knows less than some article? Or the current or retired motorracers that know a thing or two also are wrong? The people quoted in the article were experienced sprint car drivers. Edit: as soon as I find the article I'll post it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:You are seriously trying to say throwing one of these cars into a corner at 160 kph is easier than tooling around at 65kph? And you are trying to say a guy that has actual experience knows less than some article? Or the current or retired motorracers that know a thing or two also are wrong? does a car with no power steering turn easier or harder at speed
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
It doesn't really matter how the car turns because homeboy jumped in front of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
one thing I kinda feel like pointing out that got brought up in conversation with my dad last night, Stewart doesn't have all that much experience in a winged sprint car. I know it feels like he probably has a ton, but his sprint car days were spent in USAC running non-wing sprints and those handle completely different he only has a handful of wins and if I had to guess, much less than 100 starts in one, his first win came in 2011 IIRC now he's still a better driver than just about anyone, but it's not like he has decades in a winged sprint, Ward probably had more sprint starts than Stewart does
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
If you're good enough to win, you probably good enough to know how the car handles. It's not like he bought a car that night and went out to race. He's a professional race car driver, he's able to grasp how they handle after a few years of practice and "less than a hundred" starts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
absolutely, but people who don't know racing hear he has a bunch of sprint car championships and assume he's been running winged sprints his whole life
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:does a car with no power steering turn easier or harder at speed I've found there isn't much of a difference when you're moving. The only time power steering makes a big difference is when you're maneuvering in a parking lot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
A little off topic, but the steering gets real light at speed on cars with no downforce. On cars with downforce, the weight of the steering is going to increase just like downforce does. Back to topic, I don't think anybody in any racing series sets up their car to handle well during cautions. They set them up to handle well on the limit according to the driver's style. I think Tony was trying to get away, but it was obviously a split second decision that turned out bad. Just hitting him might have been better- he would have got sucked in but maybe he would have been only maimed not killed. Or maybe there were no good maneuvers in the time he had.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 02:01 |
|
|
I don't know anything about racing or whatever, but is this thread's consensus that he tried to kill the guy or was it an unfortunate (though avoidable) accident?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 00:15
|
|
