Illegal? Or just fun?

[TMRNetShark]

Seeing other people drive like idiots, doesn't mean you should drive like an idiot.

2 idiots = potential disaster.

Like the two people driving separate cars who thought it would be funny to drive down the freeway 20k under the limit, each in a different lane, thereby blocking 2 out of three lanes, on a FRIDAY NIGHT.

Then, having caused a pile of frustrated people to group up behind them, take off down the freeway at full speed, only to do exactly the same thing a few k's further down the road.

Really, really annoying and stupid.

I'm totally guilty of doing this with my housemate. Sometimes we try to have conversations and we are usually on two lane roads... we don't do it as bad as 20 km/h... but we do maybe 2-5 mph under the speed limit.

[metro.]

Seeing other people drive like idiots, doesn't mean you should drive like an idiot.

2 idiots = potential disaster.

Like the two people driving separate cars who thought it would be funny to drive down the freeway 20k under the limit, each in a different lane, thereby blocking 2 out of three lanes, on a FRIDAY NIGHT.

Then, having caused a pile of frustrated people to group up behind them, take off down the freeway at full speed, only to do exactly the same thing a few k's further down the road.

Really, really annoying and stupid.

I'm totally guilty of doing this with my housemate. Sometimes we try to have conversations and we are usually on two lane roads... we don't do it as bad as 20 km/h... but we do maybe 2-5 mph under the speed limit.

That's fucking hilarious!

[azazeldeath]

Me and my mates do it alot, but we always do the speed limit. Speed limit is always too slow so why go slower?

[TMRNetShark]

Me and my mates do it alot, but we always do the speed limit. Speed limit is always too slow so why go slower?

So people start honking.

[houkouonchi]

I would never race at a track simply because I am putting myself at risk of other people possibly hitting my car/causing an accident with no interaction from myself.

Insurance does not cover you at all (at least here in the U.S.) if your car gets fucked on the track. I have heard of people whos car got totaled when it was parked (totally not their fault) but insurance still wouldn't cover it. I wouldn't bitch about not being covered if say I fucked up my own car while at the track but if they aren't even gonna cover you if you get hit by someone else then why take the risk? At least even if you fuck up the car and it *is* your own fault on the open road you will at least be covered.

Granted its not everyday I go fast like that. I have only gotten that fast twice and gone over 100 MPH maybe 10 times and that was for very short periods of time (a second or two).

HAHA, WHat? You are not covered if the Police figure out you were speeding well past the speed limit. Then the insurance company will deny your claim.

eh my insurance company doesnt give a shit if you were doing something illegal when it happens. Only thing that matters is at fault or not and whether you fucked it up in a way your coverage handles.

About the rev limiter and all that wonderful nonsense, if you dont comprehend the difference between a limiter placed on rpms vs speed governors your a damn fool tmr. I dont know or care exactly how or why the fuck they are in there but many cars have speed limiters on them completely seperate of the rpm limitations and its usually on vehicles that can easily exceed any and all legal speeds, and the whole tire bullshit is in there too.

Back to what i was saying referencing the speed limiter on my car, i know its at the 144 or 145 i dont remember which but thats the programed limit in there that i was reading about on forums.I dont know or care if there is a secondary limiter @ 155 nor do i really care. Im waiting till my warranty is over before i void it chipping the thing to exceed that. 

And that's why you'll always be wrong... because you don't know.

I don't get why people are so thick about this. It's a simple question. The computer in a modern car controls the Revs so the engine doesn't blow up... but that same computer controls the Revs from exceeding a certain RPM in a certain gear. It's a unified system that controls everything from the fuel maps to the ignition timings all the way to error codes like a misfire. So it's not a different part, it's the same part and/or piece of hardware that controls all of those things. One might say, it's "two" separate things that do the same thing. How is that possible? It was never "two" separate pieces of hardware in non-computer controlled cars... but now that it is in a unified "computer system" it is now two things? Logically it doesn't fit. In a non-computer controlled car, not one person has pointed out where a Rev limiter is and that isn't the governor. Calling me a fool and then saying "I don't know and don't care" doesn't make you look any smarter. If I'm a fool:

PROVE ME WRONG.

Oh, and if your car is already electronically limited to 144 or 145... there wouldn't be a "secondary" limiter at 155. Just 155 mph is the speed that the car's governor is required to kick in by US law. Reprogramming the ECU removes the limiter and you can take your nice Ferrari up to the 200 mph top speed.

Its not like the speed governor is set by limiting a specific RPM in a specific gear. I can hit the speed governor in my car in both 5th and 6th gear. Its set by speed not RPM/gear.

[TMRNetShark]

Its not like the speed governor is set by limiting a specific RPM in a specific gear. I can hit the speed governor in my car in both 5th and 6th gear. Its set by speed not RPM/gear.

Uh-huh... ever run over a slippery patch of ice or a puddle of water? Ever see your "speed" jump up and then back down? Relying on the speedo versus the tac is stupid. What happens when you put bigger wheels on your car? You are increasing the distance traveled now for every time that the axles turn once. That's now not relative to what your speed is (only off by at most, a 1/2 mph)... but at 155 mph, that's a lot of revs. What about those small donut tires people have (they look like go-kart tires)? Their top speed is knocked off? Why? Because the car is programmed to have the stock tires and knows the circumference/rotation ratio to figure out speed. Going by "wheel" or "flywheel" speed is unreliable. Going by RPM/gear is better.

[azazeldeath]

The speed governor is usually located in the cars differential for RWD/4WD and located at the end of the gear box on FWD cars. This means it is measuring the 'true speed' of the car. Though that is only true if you keep the stock size rims (profile plays a role in it too).

The best way to overcome the speed limiters on cars is to remap the BCM (many people still know it as a ECU). Though if the car is older a chip will be an easier alternative, though if your involved in a crash due to high speeds, and the cops decide to investigate it is alot easier to find a chip (usually piggy backing off the BCM) then it is to search the coding on the BCM and find a few lines of coding amongst thousands of pages of coding.

I know some car insurance companies actually have special cover for club and track cars (or street cars used occasionally on the track). My insurance company is actually one of them. Though I live in Australia so I cannot say for sure that the States has it over there.

The reason I know this stuff, I used to be a mechanic, I am still a car enthusiast and I also race my car (which is heavily modified).

And the tyres you are talking about are known normally as track tyres. Used alot on drag cars for the higher torque situations. The wheels travel less distance on a higher RPM meaning the power of the car is utilised more (less loss from the flywheel to the rear wheels, or front wheels as it may be).

[TMRNetShark]

And the tyres you are talking about are known normally as track tyres. Used alot on drag cars for the higher torque situations. The wheels travel less distance on a higher RPM meaning the power of the car is utilised more (less loss from the flywheel to the rear wheels, or front wheels as it may be).

Not those... Like 10" rims they usually put on lowered 80's and 90's GTIs.

(click to show/hide)

[metro.]

And the tyres you are talking about are known normally as track tyres. Used alot on drag cars for the higher torque situations. The wheels travel less distance on a higher RPM meaning the power of the car is utilised more (less loss from the flywheel to the rear wheels, or front wheels as it may be).

Not those... Like 10" rims they usually put on lowered 80's and 90's GTIs.

(click to show/hide)

Why would you ever lower a GTI?

I am disappoint.

[TMRNetShark]

Why would you ever lower a GTI?

I am disappoint.

Because it looks cool? I think those mini donut rims/tires look retarded on everything except Japanese cars.

[metro.]

Why would you ever lower a GTI?

I am disappoint.

Because it looks cool? I think those mini donut rims/tires look retarded on everything except Japanese cars.

I have a love/hate relationship with tuners, while I think some of what is done is pretty cool, some of it is like wow that's just silly.

[TMRNetShark]

Why would you ever lower a GTI?

I am disappoint.

Because it looks cool? I think those mini donut rims/tires look retarded on everything except Japanese cars.

I have a love/hate relationship with tuners, while I think some of what is done is pretty cool, some of it is like wow that's just silly.

I don't understand why people who modify Japanese cars are called "tuners".... Can't European and American cars owners also "tune" their European and American cars? Not all American cars are big hulking V8's (SRT-4 anyone?) nor are all European cars just all about the "engineering" (Ariel Atom anyone?)...

[Ixarku]

Speaking of soccer moms, I almost got hit while in my car once by a woman driving an SUV who ran a stop sign while talking on a cell phone.  If she had been Asian and was also putting her makeup on at the same time, I would've had all of the cliches there at once.

Best one I saw was someone changing clothes while driving down the road. Just lol.

Would've been exciting to tailgate her then lay on the horn for 10 continuous seconds just to provoke a reaction.  Of course, there's a good chance that no one in the vicinity would survive the reaction.

Seeing other people drive like idiots, doesn't mean you should drive like an idiot.

2 idiots = potential disaster.

I wasn't being serious.

[metro.]

Why would you ever lower a GTI?

I am disappoint.

Because it looks cool? I think those mini donut rims/tires look retarded on everything except Japanese cars.

I have a love/hate relationship with tuners, while I think some of what is done is pretty cool, some of it is like wow that's just silly.

I don't understand why people who modify Japanese cars are called "tuners".... Can't European and American cars owners also "tune" their European and American cars? Not all American cars are big hulking V8's (SRT-4 anyone?) nor are all European cars just all about the "engineering" (Ariel Atom anyone?)...

Oh sorry I was using short hand. Yes I suppose they can be. Sorry, I have a love/hate relationship with modified cars regardless of country of origin. See how much less of a ring that has?

[TMRNetShark]

Oh sorry I was using short hand. Yes I suppose they can be. Sorry, I have a love/hate relationship with modified cars regardless of country of origin. See how much less of a ring that has?

Yeah, but there is a lot of connotations in the automobile world. There are those that are biased against certain cars purely because of their origin. For example, I think Italian cars are unreliable. Is that a fact (Alfa Romeo) or a baseless opinion (Fiat)? My grandpa owns a Fiat that has well over 350,000 miles on it and it's STILL going. The engine was never rebuilt, the transmission and clutch still work (clutch has been replaced only 3 times), and he only has to clean the carb before every winter. Does this stop me from thinking Italian cars are unreliable?

[fohfoh]

Do whatever the fuck you want, but only on open roads. Dont fuck around when other people are trying to drive normally.

Fixed... I wouldn't even suggest doing it all on public roads at all. There are too many factors for you to fuck up... and without doing it at a track, then you just run even a greater risk.

The only tracks here are ovals, that's just boring. However I do have to agree, it is safer and smarter.

Makes me wonder how fast a brain is going that wouldn't be able to enjoy F1 racing vs Nascar.

"Hey pops, he's on the 100th lap, I finally figured out the track is almost the shape of a tire!"
"THATS ME BOY! SMART LIKE ME!"

[TMRNetShark]

Makes me wonder how fast a brain is going that wouldn't be able to enjoy F1 racing vs Nascar.

"Hey pops, he's on the 100th lap, I finally figured out the track is almost the shape of a tire!"
"THATS ME BOY! SMART LIKE ME!"

*Deep breath*

Formula 1 cars are built to have the ultimate downforce. A Formula 1 car is almost 3 times it's own weight at 160+ mph. Comparing an open wheel race car to say... a Sprint Cup Series Car... is like comparing Apples to Oranges. But since you think Nascar is inferior to Forumula 1... Remember Juan Pablo Montoya who raced for Williams/McLaren from 2001 to 2006? He was a good racer, won 7 races. In Nascar, he has struggled on most types of 1.5-2.0 mile super speedways. Why? Because all that "downforce" that Formula 1 cars had made it easy to drive into corners. With Nascar, you overdrive a corner and you'll kill your tires and/or go right into the safer barrier.

So Formula 1 drivers are smarter? Yeah, I don't think they have the skills to exercise caution when entering corners and saving tires/brakes and learning that balance is vastly different from the balance that the Formula 1 cars have. Then again, current Formula 1 cars have 740-800 hp with enough downforce in the world while Nascars still maintain 900 hp in cars with far less aerodynamic properties (with pure ethanol gasoline too! So we are more green!).

"Whose the dumb one now?" 

[JoonasTo]

Formula 1 cars are built to have the ultimate downforce.

No they're not. They're built to have just enough downforce for the current track to get through it the fastest.

Remember Juan Pablo Montoya who raced for Williams/McLaren from 2001 to 2006? He was a good racer, won 7 races.

How about Räikkönen who went to race NASCAR with just one test drive before and finished above average? Against guys who have been doing the sport for their wholes lives I think that calls for something. So either NASCAR isn't really that hard or over half of the guys are total losers.

Current Formula 1 cars have 740-800 hp with enough downforce in the world while Nascars still maintain 900 hp in cars with far less aerodynamic properties

Formula 1 cars are limited in power, downforce and pretty much everything by rules to their current level.
Not to mention NASCARs drive ovals compared to something like Monte Carlo or Suzuka. Take away their tilted speedways and they're toast. 

[TMRNetShark]

Formula 1 cars are built to have the ultimate downforce.

No they're not. They're built to have just enough downforce for the current track to get through it the fastest.

Remember Juan Pablo Montoya who raced for Williams/McLaren from 2001 to 2006? He was a good racer, won 7 races.

How about Räikkönen who went to race NASCAR with just one test drive before and finished above average? Against guys who have been doing the sport for their wholes lives I think that calls for something. So either NASCAR isn't really that hard or over half of the guys are total losers.

Current Formula 1 cars have 740-800 hp with enough downforce in the world while Nascars still maintain 900 hp in cars with far less aerodynamic properties

Formula 1 cars are limited in power, downforce and pretty much everything by rules to their current level.
Not to mention NASCARs drive ovals compared to something like Monte Carlo or Suzuka. Take away their tilted speedways and they're toast. 

I would go ahead and have you look up some of those facts you claim. If even the slightest wing or fin on a F1 car is damaged, the car cannot keep up with the other driver's undamaged cars. They spend months in wind tunnels figuring out the best aero packages to be the fastest. The engines can be tuned wirelessly without ever needing to go to the pits. Lastly, the element of winning doesn't rely on the skills of the driver... But with the equipment that you have that gives you the edge.

In Nascar, to win requires strategy, the skill of the driver to pass other cars (it's harder than it looks), and know how of changing the car's attributes during pit stops (adding tire pressure is an example). The entire field of Nascar is only split by maybe 5 mph because all the equipment is reletively the same. It's cool if you think Nascar is easier than F1. No skin off my nose, seeing as how an F1 car costs upwards of 6 million dollars when a stock car only costs around 250,000 dollars. I've been to both 61 and Nascar races... In F1, you just see the cars go by whatever section your at. In Nascar, if you sit anywhere above the 10th row at ANY speedway, you will see the entire race then entire time.

So not only is Nascar more fun to watch, it's cheaper and the competition is closer. In F1, it's not uncommon at all to see the first place car have a 30 to 60 second lead over second place. That's boring.

So, hater... Hate all you want... F1 is a boring type of racing.

[Supai]

All car racing is boring, just sayin'.