I think Elon is a genius. He actually sells his cars in a crowded market, he has a space rocket company and he's a very successful businessman. Disagreeing with this is just having a dumb superiority complex. I don't particularly enjoy his Teslas, but the man will be remembered. I watch Doug because he talks about American cars I'll never drive or see IRL. So… Yeah. I like the guy.

None of them

Just the AE86 bit (just because it looks good in black and white).

>>16933 >Safety "advancements" So where do you draw the line? Is a HANS device already pozzed to you? Do you want racing drivers to die every now an then?

>>16953 A sport just isn't interesting without the constant threat of death for both athletes and spectators

>>16953 I've said it in the past for car safety and I'll say it again for race safety: There was a point when safety was the utmost necessity. When drivers were getting killed every second race. Hence we saw the gradual introductions of full-face helmets, fireproofing, 5-point harnesses, carbon fibre tubs and yes, HANS. However, since 2000 there have only been four fatalities in top-level open wheel competition. Paul Dana, Dan Wheldon, Jules Bianchi and Justin Wilson. In the 1958 F1 season there were that many deaths alone. Crumple zones absorb impact and ensure you get out of a crash without your spine shattering into a million pieces. Airbags stop you from facial disfigurement. As a result cars from the late 70s - mid 90s are far safer than cars made earlier. You shouldn't want, need, or have to buy a new bumper every time you accidentally clip a curb. You shouldn't automatically expect to write off your car from a frontal impact of less than 25 MPH. Accidents can and will happen. Bianchi died from sheer inertia over anything else. A closed cockpit would not have saved him, if not killed him sooner. You shouldn't have to sacrifice the quality of racing in order to shave off that extra 0.1% chance of fatality.

>>16933 >destroyed car suspension through "stanced" >one moment later… oh god I thought you were joking

I'm going to say Bangers race is the same as a Demolition Derby which I've seen a few of. Only thing on the card I can tick. But are there seriously people who put "Scrap me" STICKERS on other's cars? >>16988 >He didn't know Stance was thing I'm envious, but now you're tainted with that knowledge too.

>>17012 >But are there seriously people who put "Scrap me" STICKERS on other's cars Yup, on one of Scotty Kilmer's show-off videos, a guy who owns a mint-condition first gen Acura Legend (his name was Alex something), he mentioned that someone had slid a note to this effect under his windshield. It's bad enough what they took from our roads with Cash 4 Clunkers, but I guess that's just not enough for these "people".

>>17013 It reminds me of that old Road & Track story, 'A Nice Morning Drive', about a guy with an MGB who is confronted by and effectively run off the road by two hulking behemoths known as Modern Safety Vehicles. It's the same story that Rush's 'Red Barchetta' is based off of, only the song has a much happier ending. Normalfag NPCs will stop at nothing until every car not in a museum is new, safe, fuel-efficient, and eventually totally autonomous.

>>17012 >But are there seriously people who put "Scrap me" STICKERS on other's cars? Depending on how your local/state laws read, that could be considered vandalism, and could be considered grounds for the use of reasonable force.

>>17014 They want us to be a dying breed.

>>17024 >Fitting classic cars with batteries I honestly don't understand this one. Half of the appeal of any old car is the engine. They're piss easy to maintain thanks to carburetors, which is no excuse to remove it. Most popular old engines (396, 302, etc) have big followings of boomers with lots of disposable income, too, which makes parts for maintenance and repair plentiful. Take away the engine and you've got a shittier Tesla, which is already shitty enough. I can understand heretical normalfag shit like LS swapping RX7s (BeCaUsE iTs UnReLiAbLe), but bringing modern unreliability into the equation is fucking stupid. The most powerful electric motor in a car should be the starter. Full stop.

>>17025 >LS swapping Fuck, I knew I forgot something on that bingo card. Ah well, from here on in just pretend the electric shit also says "would replace a bespoke engine with an LS". It's still automotive cultural marxism regardless of how you look at it.

>>17025 Fitting classic cars with batteries will be a great idea in 200+ years when we've used up all the oil but now it's just cruel. Like cutting up a 100 year old rifle to put plastic and lasers on it.

>>17029 A better idea would be to stick a wood syngas generator in the trunk and run it off of literally anything that burns. Attached images are examples from The War, when they were used due to fuel rationing / scarcity. This is of course assuming we never figure out how to make a biofuel that doesn't destroy engines not specifically designed for it. Looking at you, ethanol gas.

>>17030 Why not just make the gas at home and then compress it into canisters? Seems easier and more efficient

>>17031 they didn't know how to do it back then.

>>17031 Because no goverment will ever be happy with you running your car on the same thing you cook your food on. You can, and many do. The main issue is the motorists: gas can be used as regular fuel, but it delivers half the power. If a car had 100hp, when running on gas it produces 50hp. Not everyone wants to trade half of their power and boot space for double the engine lifetime and gas costs about one third of gasoline. Aaaaand gas will never take off in the states because gasoline is dirt cheap there.

>>17033 Is it really 50%? I've read that you only lose about 3-5% using CNG in new bifuel engines. Is syngas so different?

>>17033 >double the engine lifetime I highly doubt less power makes an engine last that much longer. The revs are still the same.

>>17035 Revs are the same, but the combustion in ignition chamber happens slower and with less pressure. >>17034 Maybe in new engines it's not that bad. My dad drives a 1st gen Seat Toledo with gas system, and that thing loses at least 1/3rd of any power it had when switching to gas. On gasoline it has no prolem towing a ton of sand uphill. On gas it can hardly tow the same ton of sand above 70 km/h.

>>17036 Seems as if the solution to this performance loss would be a good turbo setup. I'm still not sold on the longevity increase. Even if your engine can theoretically last for a million miles on propane, a minute portion of drivers will actually drive their vehicles for that long.

>>17038 And besides, most cars "fail" because they rack up on repair bills that are not directly related to power output. Chassis corrosion, bushings going bad, brake lines corroding, electric stuff breaking, …

>>17039 This. I'd rather replace the heads on a car ten times than have to replace every electronic component once.

>>17042 If you have to replace your heads ten times there's something seriously wrong with your engine and propane ain't gonna fix it.

>>17043 I was using hyperbole. I mean I prefer to fix mechanical problems rather than electrical ones.