greg1647545532

It'd be like if I was the fastest hurdler and I didn't knock over any hurdles but a panel of judges decided that I didn't clear the hurdles by as many inches as another guy who ran slower, so I lose. Not a race.

I specified that I wasn't disqualified in my scenario. So I was faster but I failed demonstrate enough skill, so I lose. Not a race.

I didn't say they were identical. Where did I say that? My drifting looked like shit and yours was beautiful and awesome and totally got you laid afterwards. I missed clipping points, my angles were awful, and I lacked control and whatnot. My speed was awesome, though, and technically I held my drifts well enough to satisfy the rules. I was faster. So I win. Right?

Outrageous scores in other areas? What's all this about? I thought you were saying it was a race to see who was fastest. What are these other areas?

100% of the time I'd get the win? There's no way that you could win with a slower time? Physically impossible under the rules?

I like how they mount all the accessories on the ground for a lower CG.

I don't know what you're going on about. Let's say it's you in me, in the Formula D finals. Qualification is over, we've already been matched up, this is the last run for all the marbles. I only have a vague notion of how drifting works but isn't it like 4 runs? Forward through the course with me in front, backwards through the course with me in front, forward through the course with you in front, backwards through the course with you in front. My sum total of times for those 4 runs is 2 minutes flat. Your sum total of times for those 4 runs is 2 minutes, 1 second. The judges have declared that neither of us are disqualified for failing to hold a drift. Can you still win based on style points? Or is that fact that I was faster the final determination?

If that's the case -- if it's really a timed contest of speed and the judging is there just there disqualify people who fail to hold a drift -- then I'll concede that it's racing. Much in the same way that hurdling is "judged" in the sense that the fastest person who doesn't skip any hurdles wins, and there are judges to disqualify people who skip hurdles. So can I have the lowest aggregate time between the start/finish lines while still meeting the standards of a "drift" and still lose? Because that's not the case in hurdling. If that's true, it's not really racing.

So the idea is to run the lowest slip angle possible that can still be considered a "drift" in order to run the fastest time and pass the car in front of you? The following car wouldn't ever do a big showy drift if he can do the bare minimum to avoid a DQ while attempting to pass the car in front, right? I assume there's lengthy discussions on the drift forums about how to accomplish this balance between appeasing the rule nazis who want to disqualify the non-drifters and running as fast as possible.

Congrats on the coverage! That's awesome.

If sliding sideways in rallying were actually slower, nobody would do it. Because there are no style points in rallying. eta: I see I'm just repeating everything that Draco says. Oh well.

So if I start out as the follower and I eschew any drifting in order to drive a proper racing line and pass the car in front of me, I still win because I crossed the line first? Why would anyone who starts out as the follower do any drifting then? Are they all tarded?

You completely ignored the relevant portion of Draco's statement, namely, "with getting to the finish line first as the primary goal." In drifting, is getting to the finish line first the primary goal?

Does the fastest time always win? No? Not a race then. The LEADER is trying to create distance from the FOLLOWER while actively engaging in an activity that's bound to reduce that distance (sliding sideways). If creating distance was his only goal, he wouldn't be sliding. Therefore, drifting isn't about creating distance.

If you expected us to correct your incorrect definition of "race car," then why not just be correct in the first place? Seriously, I have no problem with drifting, it seems fun as hell and it's gotta be more interesting to watch than a spec miata race. It's just not racing. Don't be offended.

This. The Civic Si when this thing came out was 106 hp, with no torque and no limited slip. The SE-R crushed it in every respect except handling. Remember also that this 140 hp was at a time when the 5.0 fox body was making 200. I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it a sleeper, but it's an under-appreciated car for sure. Nissan built a true enthusiast car and nobody wanted it.

I stopped reading there.

race - noun - a contest of speed. Drifting isn't racing. Drift cars aren't race cars. Therefore they are disqualified from the OP.

Top fuel cars are way impressive but something that can only go straight and only runs for 30 seconds between engine rebuilds truly stretches the definition of "car." The problem with F1 is that the cars are so ludicrously expensive and they're continually being neutered, that they're really not all that impressive "for what they are." In other words, they're certainly impressive, but you'd expect an impressive car when you're spending $100 million a year. My vote would go for LMP2 cars, which are still very quick but are cheap enough to be run by (extremely wealthy) privateers. But nobody gets excited about LMP2 cars so it's a pretty boring answer. When you think about it, they're spending a few million dollars a year and only running 15 seconds a lap slower than F1 cars (around Spa, as an example). That's a good bargain.

Damn, that's cookin'.

Oh, I forgot there was a 2nd generation. Pretty forgettable car, I guess.

I think you're being a bit unfair by trying to put a real productivity value on what's essentially become a commodity item. iOS deserves mad props for being the first (IMO) usable smartphone, but Android is just better now. A few key points: Google integration is obviously much better, and (again, my opinion) google cloud services are vastly superior. GMail on iOS + iCal or whatever is a poor substitute. If you're like me and basically structure your life around having access to gmail and google calender, then this is a big deal. YMMV. Google Maps is better. Google Maps on Android is better than Google Maps on iOS. Apple maps is utter trash. The Android browser is better than Safari, and better than Chrome on iOS. My iPhone looks so tiny compared to the new Android phones. Since I basically use my phone as a tablet in lieu of any of my actual tablets, I'm jonesing for a bigger screen. Typing on the Android keyboard is more pleasant. You don't have to context switch as much between all the different character maps. Just hold down the button. The cheap OBD-II reader the internet told me to buy doesn't work with iPhones. My bad for not checking, but that's sort of frustrating. Likewise for the cheap external GPS receiver, although that was supposed to be iOS compatible and I couldn't get it to work. Linked right up with my old Android phone, though. Voice recognition on Android is better. I think Littleguy really is the one guy who actually likes Siri. Now, I'm perfectly productive with my iPhone, so in that sense you win. But I totally intend to dump this thing when my contract is up, and it's not just change for change's sake. Although I will miss the Apple hardware. Battery life has been excellent for me, the camera is great, and I like the design. The size they could fix, but the software is lagging. Android running on a 5.5" iPhone would make me wet.

I have a personal theory. I used to work at a dealership and one of my tasks was helping sell people on brake jobs. I was told then, and I told lots of people, that rotors warped form panic stops or abuse when the brakes were overheated. And I believed that. But then in my own cars I would sometimes get a pulsating pedal when I knew I hadn't done any panic stops or abuse. And the only car that I never got any kind of brake shudder was my track car, where I regularly did threshold braking from north of 100mph, which should cook the shit out of the rotors. If that didn't warp them, then the overheating thing has got to be bogus. So my theory is that shitty pads can leave pad material behind (this can happen with shitty race pads too, like the link shows). Once a small amount of material has been deposited on a rotor, it starts to act like a washboard dirt road. The pad comes up to the lump of residue, gets launched off the rotor like a little ramp, them smacks back down. Where it smacks down it removes a little bit of extra rotor material, and where it flies off the rotor it removes a little bit less. That little variation then forms a feedback loop, creating more little hills and dips in the rotor surface, just like one little dip in a dirt road can eventually create a mile long washboard due to the feedback loop in the springs of the cars driving over it. Those variations are the runout you're measuring, and that's why the rotor needs to be turned. But my theory hypothesizes that the inner plane of the rotor is still true; that is to say, the rotor hasn't warped like you're thinking, like a soggy paper plate or something; instead, the surface has just worn unevenly. So when the guy says, "In fact every case of "warped brake disc" that I have investigated, whether on a racing car or a street car, has turned out to be friction pad material transferred unevenly to the surface of the disc. This uneven deposition results in thickness variation (TV) or run-out due to hot spotting that occurred at elevated temperatures." I agree 100%.

It's not they unibody that's a problem, it's the transverse engine and transaxle. I'm sure it's plenty capable down slick muddy roads, but so is a Rav4 for that matter, or a WRX. I don't think people will be lifting these with giant tires and two solid axles like they do with the XJ, mostly because I'm not sure how that would work. The Liberty seems like it was a better Jeep in every respect, but nobody ever seemed all that excited about those. I'm sure the new Cherokee will have no problems outselling it 2 to 1 by giving the masses what they really want. I just wish they wanted a Dart Wagon instead.

Not on my radar at all, so I looked it up on wiki. It's built on the Dart platform, which means it's an SUV in the same way as a RAV4, CRV, Escape, etc. I'm still mad that those cars killed off the Corolla, Civic, Focus etc wagons, respectively, so if this stupid fake Cherokee means that they won't make a Dart wagon because soccer moms want to sit high up for no good reason, then fuck the new Cherokee. I'm sure Chrysler is going to sell a shitload of them, though.