search results matching tag: Jalopnik

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (141)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (1)     Comments (50)   

newtboy (Member Profile)

FedEx Driver drifting a Jackknifed Truck like a boss

MilkmanDan (Member Profile)

oritteropo says...

Check out the Jalopnik article I linked above - http://jalopnik.com/the-complete-story-of-takata-airbags-and-the-biggest-re-1780143347 - and then you can call for their heads. The story quotes ex Takata engineer Mark Lillie as saying

“At the meeting, I literally said that if we go forward with this, somebody will be killed,”

MilkmanDan said:

As much as I'd love to pile more hate on some faceless / heartless corporate entity that doesn't care about anything other than profits, I find it somewhat unreasonable to be TOO hard on Takata here.

[...]

So, until/unless there is evidence that they used the Ammonium Nitrate while knowingly and intentionally ignoring the potential long-term risks as the stuff ages in some environmental situations, I would be very hesitant to call for their heads over this. I guess that is the purpose of a "criminal investigation", but I really hope that isn't code for "witch hunt".

Apparently The Greatest Airbag Crisis In History Is Upon Us

oritteropo says...

My car was affected, but has already been fixed.

Jalopnik had an article about this a few days ago - http://jalopnik.com/the-complete-story-of-takata-airbags-and-the-biggest-re-1780143347

Takata used to use a safer but more expensive propellant (car to guess why they changed?), and have now changed the formula to include a drying agent to help prevent the problem in new airbags. Their issues were also exacerbated by problems they had moving their production facility to Mexico on the cheap.

There seems to be a clear trend there: cost savings trump product safety.

Prince and the Revolution-Little Red Corvette-Live-1985

Ferrari F40 + Snow Chains + Snowy Mountain = Win!

oritteropo says...

The behind the scenes movie was just posted to Jalopnik with more details about that $2 million Ferrari (that they broke the suspension and gearbox, and almost crashed into a tree).

http://www.redbull.com/jp/ja/motorsports/stories/1331788598091/f40-behind-the-scene

Payback said:

As Chaosengine said, yes, the F40 does have a wing.

Part of my belief comes from the lights, but mostly it's the ride height. There's enough room under this car for a real F40 to drive under it...

Something yells "FIERO!!" and not "FERRARI!!"

Spacex - Successful Dragon orbit - Ocean Landing Stage 1 !!!

oritteropo says...

Two reasons - firstly and most importantly it would take too much fuel to return to the landing site from this mission's trajectory, and secondly using the barge “Of Course I Still Love You” means that they aren't risking the lives of their staff or the buildings around the launch facility. They actually discuss this in the video at one point.

The barge itself is pretty complicated too, using GPS and some nifty thrusters to stay within 3m of the intended landing site - http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/spacexs-landing-drone-ship-is-just-as-complicated-as-th-1769987148

transmorpher said:

If I didn't know better, I'd say they are playing the take-off footage in reverse so to make it look like a landing

Why do they land on water?

The Most Costly Joke in History

Mordhaus says...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogfight

Dogfighting first appeared during World War I, shortly after the invention of the airplane. Until at least 1992, it was a component in every major war, despite beliefs after World War II that increasingly greater speeds and longer range weapons would make dogfighting obsolete.

In the Gulf War of 1990–91, dogfighting once again proved its usefulness when the Coalition Air Force had to face off against the Iraqi Air Force, which at the time was the fifth largest in the world. Many dogfights occurred during the short conflict, often involving many planes. By the end of January, 1991, the term "furball" became a popular word to describe the hectic situation of many dogfights, occurring at the same time within the same relatively small airspace. Oh, fun fact, most of those planes 'dogfighting' in that 'relatively small airspace' were F15's...

But you can ignore that if you want. I mean, ACM schools that teach dogfighting even today probably don't exist...

I linked earlier the marine test that certified the F35 even though it failed the test pretty much completely. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/not-a-big-suprise-the-marines-f-35-operational-test-wa-1730583428

transmorpher said:

Dog fighting does not exist, and has not existed since WW1.

Even in WW2, planes attacked in passes. They start up high, fly down to pick up speed, attack and keep flying so that the enemy cannot catch them.

As that is happening, another pair of planes is already on it's way to make another pass.

Planes do not chase each other dodging around like X-wings and Tie Fighters. Because as soon as you do that their wingman shoots you down.

TopGun trains pilots in BFM and team work skills, not so much dog fighting. While one v one dog-fighting is part of learning good team work skills and becoming familiar with different scenarios, it isn't the focus.

In Vietnam, the missiles and radars were unreliable and missile had to be fired from a fairly close range. That hasn't been the case for some 30 years now, with missiles getting better all of the time with some insane ranges upwards of 80 miles. The plane is becoming more of a launch platform for missiles than anything else. That's why every fighter plane after the F-4 was designed that way primarily. The worlds best fighter is still the F-15 which has a massive radar and the best missiles. And less maneuverability than the F-16. Because they know dog fighting does not happen.



The scenario you mentioned where the planes are flying close together is not realistic - close in air to air combat is 100 miles.

Especially if the enemy plane has better maneuverability(which all Russian planes do already do anyway, apart from the F-16 if lightly loaded).
Pilots know very well the strengths of their planes, they would never put them in a position like that. They would be pinging each other to make their presence known (if a show of force was the desired effect) from over 100 miles away.


None of this makes the F-35 a good plane by any means. But I just don't agree with the reasoning in the comments here and in the media.

For example people keep mentioning the "Jack of all trades" issue. But they ignore the fact that ALL fighter planes built over the last 40 years have been turned into jack of all trades through necessity. Yet nobody criticizes them for it.

I mostly fly the same simulators as the US national guard does. So I'm hoping that it's accurate. But more than that I read a lot of books written by pilots about air to air and air to ground engagements. Which makes me more knowledgeable than 99.99% of the journalists reporting on the F-35. You'll notice that most aviation specific sites don't tend to bag out the F-35 because have a much better idea of how air combat works than the regular media sites.

EDIT: I was not aware they were ignoring failed tests. That's pretty worrying. Do you have more info on it I can read about?

The Most Costly Joke in History

Mordhaus says...

I've already discussed why helicopters and drones are good in areas of light cover while sucking in areas of high cover. They fulfill a role, but realistically they aren't always the best option.

I also explained what happens in real combat. So called fast movers end up being tasked to do roles that they were not designed for. No plan stays certain in the face of the enemy. There will come a time when the F35 is expected to provide the same type of support as the A-10 and it is going to suck hard at it, planes will be shot down and pilots will die or be captured. I suspect this will happen especially with the forces using the F35 that are not the Air Force, such as the Marines. Here is a link to the laughable failures that the Marines had with the plane, but due to the 'cannot fail' nature of the project, they certified it anyway. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/not-a-big-suprise-the-marines-f-35-operational-test-wa-1730583428

Finally, the A-10 was absolutely not designed initially to be a Soviet tank killer. The initial A-X program was created because of the DISMAL performance of the Air Force and F4 in providing close air support to troops.

The Secretary of the Air Force contacted Pierre Sprey and asked him to come up with a design spec for a close air support plane. After consulting with the pilots we had in Vietnam, mostly the successful ones that were flying the prop driven A-1 Skyraider (which btw, destroyed the F4 JET in CAS operations), it was indicated that the ideal aircraft should have long loiter time, low-speed maneuverability, massive cannon firepower, and extreme survivability. It was only later, after the plane had been mostly designed, that the USAF asked that it be also tasked to counter the Soviets.

As I said, the Air Force has always hated providing CAS to the other branches of the Armed Forces. They constantly forget that you need to make a multi-role fighter actually function in a multi-role environment, preferring to think that they can buzz in and buzz out while the rest of the military does the 'dirty' work. However, they always get burned for it. Just like now, when they were fighting as hard as possible to kill the A-10, they discovered that fighting a force that is mobile and that hides in cover/cities (ISIS) is damn near impossible with fast planes/drones. Which is why they changed paths and rescheduled the A-10 phase out to 2028 (or beyond).

transmorpher said:

I'm saying that the F-35 doesn't need to do the job of the A-10 in the same style, because helicopters and drones already fill that loitering style of close air support. And they fill it better than the warthog. Drones loiter better and longer, and helicopters are less vulnerable while having just as much fire power, with the ability to keep enemies suppressed without stopping to turn around and run in again. Helicopters don't even fly that much slower than the A-10 and they have the advantage of being able to stay on the friendly side of the battle-line while firing at the enemy, as well as being able to use terrain as cover.
And fast movers do a better job of delivering bombs.

The warthog was created as a soviet tank killer and hasn't been used in the role ever, since the cold war never became a hot war. It was created in a time where high losses were acceptable. You could argue it was made to fight a war that didn't happen either. But it's been upgraded with all sorts of sensors that are already in helicopters and drones to extend it's role into something it wasn't really designed for in the first place.

I'm not beating up the warthog, it's my 2nd most favourite plane. I've logged some 400+ virtual flying hours in the A-10C in DCS World. I know what every single switch does in the cockpit. And I've dropped thousands of simulated laser and GPS guided bombs, launched thousands of mavericks, and strafed thousands of BMPs. I love the thing really
But it's duties are performed better by a range of modern aircraft now.

eric3579 (Member Profile)

Verstappen's Kitzbühel F1 Race On Snow Covered Ski Slope

Strange engine swap gives 1970 Roadrunner a Detroit Diesel

oritteropo says...

Now I'm not 100% sure here, but I get the impression that 0-60 times weren't a major consideration in this engine swap. He sourced everything out of a junkyard he runs and built the car for next to nothing.

I did like the idea, from the comments, of chroming the part of the engine above the hood to make it look like a big blower

(bonus pic - http://jalopnik.com/holy-shit-this-car-lives-right-around-the-corner-from-m-1759322236 )

newtboy said:

Nice job, but what's the 0-60 now? Can it spin the tires? I get that it's now a torque monster that can go anywhere, but 100hp won't get you there very fast.

How To Crack An Electronic Safe With A Magnet And A Sock

oritteropo says...

There was an entertaining comment along those lines in a recent Jalopnik article, tell us about the worst car you ever owned, user bandi53 talking about a 1987 Volkswagen Fox that was a bit of a lemon:

[...]
Next was the ignition lock cylinder, which just entirely froze up one morning when I went to start the car. After that was the starter, which left me stranded at the gas station. The day after (Christmas Eve) I was heading back to visit my parents, the alternator light came on... So I figured I’d limp the car home. This would have been a great plan but unfortunately the car caught on fire.

I left it in a mall parking lot with the ownership on the seat, signed, and the keys in the ignition. I hoped I'd never see it again, but driving past two weeks later, it was still there. I came back that night with a trailer and scrapped it myself.

newtboy said:

I take the opposite approach. I drive a 46 year old, rusting, dented, beaten up Bronco. It's doors don't even lock. I've never had trouble with people trying to steal from me, it's fairly obvious I have nothing they want!

lurgee (Member Profile)

How to drift a bathtub on a Hillclimb Race!

oritteropo says...

The comments on the Jalopnik article are completely full of these:

  • We need to shower this guy in praise.
  • It's a pretty clean build, that's for sure.
  • I wonder if he drained his bank account on it.
  • It was probably a wash.
  • I soap-pose anything’s possible.
  • etc.

newtboy said:

He really drove a clean race.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon