Some good points in this thread - I gotta say, watching the highlights of the record when it was on Gravel was a lot scarier, partly because of the gravel, but also because of the camera angles. As @rancor says, would be nice to have had some helicopter shots, especially near the top. Really well controlled run though, and the amount of power/torque that car has... is just ridiculous.

Just an educated guess but I suspect it's a tiny correction for wind drift which has been exaggerated by the camera angle.

The effects I think your referring to are called the "Coriolis" effect and "Gyro drift" and while they would have a similar effect this is seems like far too short of a range for them to come into play even at the relatively low velocity of that shell. That said its possible that with such a big round like that sabot "gyro drift" and maybe some sort of torque effect from leaving the barrel might be at work...

Gyro drift is due to the fact that the spinning bullet/shell starts to be pulled out of line by gravity causing the originally stable oscillation to slowly get knocked out of whack dragging the nose of the round out of line causing the round to pull slightly towards the direction it's spinning (though with a stable modern round this is very very subtle and only really comes into play at at least 1-2mile plus ranges).

The Coriolis effect is due to the fact that the earth itself is spinning. Over very long ranges the earth itself moves relative to the path of the round and so for 1-2mile plus shots one may need to compensate depending on the velocity and ballistic properties of the round. (this is why snipers tend to operate as a team because the maths and reference material necessary to account for all this plus standard bullet drop, variable wind conditions, atmospherics etc. etc. as well as maintaining situational awareness is a big ask for one person.)

Like I said though it seems unlikely they would have such a pronounced effect at such a relatively short range, the camera angle is definitely exaggerating what ever is going on there.


EDIT: I just watched it again, pretty sure it's just the camera angle (camera is slightly off to the left) I think the shell looks like it's actually travelling dead straight.

I feel like if you have a good grasp of all the concepts involved...gravity, conservation of angular momentum, torque, etc...then this kind of is intuitive. It just takes an understanding of physics as a whole to make the leap. (Then again, maybe that base of understanding makes it not intuitive?)

Bet it's a bitch when you want to take something apart and they get stuck.
...really, what is the point? Screws are good because 1) you can really torque them down to hold joints tightly, which does not look possible with the magnoscrew, and 2) because these strong joints are easily disassembled.
If you don't want to take the thing apart, use dowels, a mallet and some glue - cheaper, stronger, and fewer moving parts. If you want to take the thing apart, bite the bullet and use a regular screw, cause mangoscrew is going to get stuck.

Isn't FSI simply the 2.5 fuel injected engine?
They might be bringing the superior 1.4 TSI engine to replace the standard 2.5 here (same power and torque but torque peaks at a wider and lower range. And it'd be more fuel efficient. Plus the supercharger and turbocharger sounds bring out the kid in me).

I'd been thinking about the TDI, but for the cost you can get a better equipped petrol engine version. I don't believe I drive enough (not on these quebec roads) to warrant a diesel engine for me

I believe the Golf Mk7 is all FSI and TDI, yes.

The 2.0 TDI has made the 2.5 obsolete. The TDI has an 81 ft-lb torque advantage, a weight advantage, and gets about +10mpg.

I picked up a JSW TDI 2 months ago and, while it's not quite as flashy as a GTI, it's a damn nice drive. It's my second TDI in a row and I don't see any reason to go back to gasoline any time soon.

They forgot to add that in top of all that torque, the gearbox is part of chassis. The rear suspension arms are all connected to it.

rear wheel drive, high-torque sports cars do this more often than you'd think, especially when the driver hasn't bothered to learn the specifics of the car and/or respect its power.

This doesnt happen if you have at least a little experience.
First off you will notice it quickly enough to get your foot off of the gas pedal.
But secondly, you will never get into a situation like that because you know how lots of torque to the rear wheels will do exactly this.

This guy simply didnt know how to handle this car, and the description supports this (he just got this car from the dealer). You simply dont drive like that in the rain.

If you want to see another cool Hybrid look here
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/03/05/subaru-viziv-concept-geneva-2013/
The Subaru Viziv runs a diesel through a CVT to drive the front wheels and a separate electric setup to drive each rear wheel so Its still AWD with variable torque all over.

" By independently controlling the drive power applied to the left and right rear wheels, the rear drive system provides more torque to the outside rear wheel and less to the inside rear wheel when cornering to generate inner-directed yaw momentum on the vehicle and achieve extremely quick and smooth "on-the-rail cornering". Besides helping acceleration and all-terrain performance, this groundbreaking AWD system also uses drive power to help turn the vehicle. Along with its thrilling handling and cornering that responds faithfully to driver operations, it also offers outstanding handling stability that ensures a high level of secure feeling and confident drive."

Pretty much exactly. With an MR transmission, and a super powerful motor, if you goose it and spin the wheels even a bit, that's what happens. You have to respect the torque that a car like that can create, and in the wet, you really, really have to be careful with your right foot.

If all you ever drive are FF cars it's hard to understand the physics, but it's basically the difference between pushing and pulling. If you push something heavy without being perfectly balanced in your force, then it wants to slide left or right. If you pull, of course, it's totally fine.

My guess as to why the driver lost control is that it was raining lightly. When it starts to rain, small amount of water mixes with the oil that is on pretty much every road and creates a slippery mixture. I'm sure many of you have been told when it starts to rain, expect a longer stopping distance then when the road is completely soaked.

Take that and add the fact that the amount of torque on the rear wheels of a 458 and that Ferrari's come with tires more akin to commercial racing tires than all season radials, and mama mia, you are going to have one expensive crasha!

Well, I only have a basic understanding of vehicle engine mechanics, but knowing the kw/hp is some idea of what you're going to get out of the car's performance. That and the torque, and the torque peak was the same on the 1.4TSI as it was on the 2.5, but supposedly across a wider rev range.

Of course you also have to count for weight, but since they're the same car, that doesn't really matter in this case

That's generally how limited slip differentials work, it keeps a wheel with no traction from getting all the torque as would happen with an open differential, but the wheel would still spin, just at a speed no greater than the other one (I think). This must be some kind of design particular do doing this sort of thing. It would be interesting to know exactly.

edit: Of course, the question is, why is it so important that the free wheel doesn't spin? If it's not, then I'm just totally misunderstanding the mechanics of it.

Welcome to Ameriguns!
Puns set aside..
You all seem to miss (If my short memory recalls correct) that the old man was a vietnam vet. So he's probably not dera.. oh wait no war can quite fuck you up, and make you paranoid. And he was old, oh.. probably not a suitable gun owner. And he used to shoot foreigners like them in his youth so perhaps it was a "flashback" moment he had and just pulled the trigger.
Blahblah, I would more like to reply to dirk.
1. Emergencies requires speed. (That inclued both ambulance & private)
2: I think the discussion to regulate torque/horsepower has come up somewhere before. But if you think long about it.. it ends up quite uneccesary (if you follow the next points) to limit this
2.1 Just see to the whole history and scale of motor vehicles. There's probably alot of engineering, problem of controlling, bad fuel consumtion (low gear vs high gears etc) that makes implementation of limits a bad idea. Cars are, much more than guns, an actual symbol of mans (modern) freedom. Freedom to travel, move, explore and work, transport and evolve. It's also a passion for so many people. Racing and amateur racing.
2.2 So no chance people would obey or accept somthing limiting their horsepowers.
2.3 Not really a big problem. Yes, some people speed and some die as a result. Atleast to be qualified for a license you HAVE to learn, pass an exam and have a license.
2.4 The US state does alot to "nanny" the traffic and highways already.
-----Reply to your second segment----
First I think comparing guns to any other item of possesion is just going down a route of stupid argumentation. I'd rather see 99% of all arguments and discussion stay on-topic instead oft taking the try-to-win-a--point-with-farfetched-comparisons turn.
But. Already said, vehicles and cars most often requires licenses, are monitored, regulated, taxed and enforced etc. Also, could I turn this steak over 180? As cars are taxed, registries are of them and police can force you to show license/revoke/stop you when drunk etc. Shouldn't all the same things they do here also apply to guns?
--Third segment--
A. Removing all guns would be great, but not possible as that just is not the world we live in (Or as for USA, the country they live in). So the question is rather: Who shall be allowed to buy them? B (to answer the actual and sole question I could read): They Kill people, alot easier than cars (and what dangerous hobbies are you thinking of?), so we are less inclined to ban fast cars. But sure, we could ban fast cars as well, which leads to
C: Invalid argument. Let's just say the actual sequence of events would be: "Yes, now we are banning guns, and you are right about fast cars as well. They are to be forbidden next month. Oh, I see some argue that if no fast cars, then why sharp knives - they kill as well. That's correct, next month they will be banned as well." And then it just rolls on.. down to forks and metal cutlery. See the fallacy?
--Final part--
I'm not going into what I believe a state should, or should not do. And how ignorant and missing the point of the point of having a state in the first place, there is to ... saying that it should either completely be THIS - or completely do THAT. It's not a do-or-don't; black-and-white way, that state, laws and regulations work (or is meant to work).
I will go on your "OR we have to accept" since that's more sensible way to have a society. Then I have
To be clear: My opinion is that I see no point in civilian ownership of HIGHLY lethal weaponry. Guns are not comparable to anything else (almost) that exists. Everything else that is as potentially lethal is already forbidden or reduced. A gun can so ridiculously easy destroy so much, so fast. I simply see no point in any-one and everyone able to own one. Yes, hunters (limited to rifles) and hobby marksmen (limited to X mm gun/rifle - controlled and licensed and trackable etc) I believe should be able to use or practice their livelyhood or passion. But as easily as it is now, no way.

---
I think alot of this problem is simply the fact that it's written clearn in your constitution - the right to bear arms. Was written very long ago, or more so: so much has gone so fast and evolved since then. It's not a necessity now; as it was then, they were sure not as effective then as now, and several other things that has evolved and made the reasons for bearing arms (lacking a huge law enforcement agencies as no#1) seem good then: just be stupid theese days.