Your opinions seem to be different to everybody on this forum. (it's not bad i like to have arguments every once ina while especially when people start getting roasted). Anyways on to my response. The track is nothing hard, watch some videos of it, there are plenty. The car i'm fairly sure it had a rollcage and you have you to be pretty special to be able to roll or even crash something that sporty. She had also raced before because i had friends that raced with her in a meeting months before. I'll respond in detail in about half an hour because it's recess time now and i'm hungry.
You don't have to be setting new lap records to be having fun. For some people its all about pulling g's in corners, others its speed and others acceleration. Fair to say that not everyone is a hardcore and that is fine.
Am I crazy to sell the Merc for like $2750 and buy this? https://www.carfax.com/vehicles/JT8BH28F4W0133115-used-1998-lexus-ls-400--fredericksburg Or this https://www.carfax.com/vehicles/JT8BH28F3Y0170854-used-2000-lexus-ls-400--chantilly
My argument was that she wouldn't let me past. She wouldn't even follow the rules of the form up and she was told by the marshalls twice and she still didn't listen. So when i went to go to form up i was meant to be in Pos 6 but instead she was there and because there were other car at form up in position 1-5 ther was absolutely no room for me to reverse into the position unless i attempt some stunt driving type shit and handbrake into the spot. She did this twice, also like i said before on my original post. i was clearly faster than her but she would not let me past. I would even attempt to pass her coming out of a turn and into braking where i was clearly trying to overtake her. but because her car has more power and better brake she would just block me or put her foot down a bit more. I don't know what the marshalls were looking at either because they should be able to clearly see that i am trying to go around the outside or overtake under braking but no blue flag was given to let me past. Also if i had a car that fast i would be pushing it a lot harder than she was so that blocks your argument. If you can't drive fast, let the faster ones past and if you can't follow the rules f*** off and go hang out with your rich friends and leave the ones that know what they are doing alone to have fun. (Form up is the order that you go onto the track).
I'm not saying she specifically wasnt an idiot, and people won't quit at something just because they are bad at it in addition to not following the rules, I'd honestly probably be the same way given the opportunity.
Panthers are way too heavy to make fast without dumping a lot of money into them. Economy cars are lighter and much "zippier" by nature. You are a sad, sad person. --- Post updated --- Nah. I'd approve. I'm selling the '06. It got boring. The '07 is much rattier and more fun. Panthers are boring if you baby them, and a gmq isnt really the type of car to thrash around.
Brought this over here so we wouldn't start a discussion in the Ideas and Suggestions area. I haul an excavator around on a trailer similar to that fairly often, if you get the weight distribution right it really isn't that bad. And there are a lot of guys that haul their 4x4 on a trailer like that if the wheeling location is far enough away. Ex:
I'll never understand why people like big cars. My dad has an LS430, and it's such a nice vehicle. I love riding in it, not driving it. It's too big and heavy. My Mustang tips the scales just over 3,300 pounds and it's a barrel of laughs to drive. It'll burn rubber and swing the tail out with ease, but it's a relatively small, relatively light car (compared to what else is out there), and has just enough power to be fun. You know, my Toyota Corolla was a shit ton of fun to drive. Skinny little tires and an engine that produced negative horsepower. And it weighed something like 2,800 pounds, maybe less. Point is, if it's a safety concern because I guess you like tin foil hats, big isn't always the answer. Big 1980's American, specifically, is idiotic.
Weight and size still has an important part in safety, crumple zones work both ways, but inertia only works in the favor of one, but that said I'm not overly concerned about safety as I dont plan on driving it much so less of a chance to get into an accident, and as you said your dads LS430 you love riding in... and thats exactly one of the reasons, comfort and space, and as for wanting an 80's american car thats partly because I feel like those were the last true american cars and i love the look of them or at least the closest I thought I would be able to get. Wanting a big car is less about wanting something enjoyable to drive and more about having something useful.
Roger freaking that. I work for minimum wage and... you know, life's not all that bad, really. Yes, I did just get done working 10 days straight, and yes, there are moments when I feel like I'm going to pass out from sheer rage, but it could be a lot worse. Gives me something to do, and even if my coworkers are more like co-irkers sometimes (on that topic: Ricer Boy won't be coming back), they just add something to my life and my days that I would miss.
You do realize that an 80's land yacht doesn't crumple and save you, right? It bends and kills you. And comfort and space is NOT the reason I like riding in my dad's Lexus. I like it because it was a $70k car new, and it's fancy with lots of buttons. You could argue space for my mom's SUV, but I hate driving or riding in it because it feels like it's going to tip over. The last true American car came before 1973, btw. Afterwards we got emissions control and our vehicles were strangled and became boring boats that murder you in a crash boringly. Go put your tin foil hat back on before the aliens start controlling your mind to make you think straight.
His point about weight is correct though. For example if you have two cars, travelling at each other at 10ms^-1 (22mph) as follows (and assume they collide and join into a single object): car a = 2000kg; car b = 1000kg; Momentum = mass * velocity; Therefore before the crash: m*v + m*v = Total momentum 2000*10 + 1000*-10 = 10000 Therefore after the crash (assuming mass is maintained) m*v = Total momentum 3000v = 10000 v = 3.33ms^-1 This means that car 'a' would still be moving forward by 3.33ms^-1 and car 'b' would be reversing at the same speed. Assuming the impact took place over 0.1 seconds (which means any combination of both cars crumpling for 0.1 seconds) v = u + at a: 3.33 = 10 + a * 0.1 Therefore Acceleration felt by car a = 66.7ms^-2 (6.8 g forces)b: 3.33 = -10 + a * 0.1 Therefore Acceleration felt by car b = 133.3ms^-2 (13.6 g forces) NOTE: THIS IS A MASSIVE OVER SIMPLIFICATION Essentially the long and short of it is, the passengers in car 'a' felt half the g forces as the passengers in car 'b'. Since all other variables remained the same the vehicle mass shows the direct ratio (2:1). Since modern cars are getting lighter in order to improve fuel economy (The Citroen cactus is fantastic example) this does leave them at a disadvantage. However, all the modern safety equipment and good design practices do make up for it (providing you are not head on into a lorry). However, if you are crashing into a solid unmoveable object such as a wall your weight is irrelevant. All that matters is how well the car absorbs the impact and how well it can keep the safety cell in one piece. So in this case the only important thing is speed and time taken to absorb the impact. To cut another long story short, if speed is a constant the longer the crumple zone (distance) the longer it will take assuming all of the crumple zone is used. Airbags and seatbelts also help by further increasing the amount of time it takes to stop your body inside of the car, essentially a second crumple zone before your reach the last crumple zone (also known as you). It is only physically possible to buy so much time in an impact of a set speed. Once again there is a load of maths that can be done here in order to calculate the maximum possible time for a given length of bonnet (suvat equations). This also means that there does come a point where if it is not possible to slow down slow enough within a cars crumple zone it is for the better of the passengers that the safety cell attempts to crumple too, since amputated legs are better that smushed everything. Old US cars tend to fail in crashes in a number of ways. The road handling wasn't always great, making a crash harder to avoid. They often had no side bars to absorb side impacts, making between the door and the chassis the crumple zone. They often had very little in the form of crumple zone in the front to absorb the impact. Depending on era seatbelts may have not been fitted. The interiors contained lots of very hard surfaces to splat against. The steering wheel may uppercut you in a head on crash if the steering column isn't designed to crumple. The roof pillars were often made out of tooth picks. The above are not just limited to old US cars. However most cars elsewhere were lightweight tin cans.
Was Luke that said people on minimum wage must hate life not me, just pointing out it was a dick comment