Sure you can do it wth a buggy but lets see you try it with a 72 Plymouth Fury Wagon.

That was really . . . kind of boring. I'm not trying to be snarky and don't know what in the hell I expected to see but vrooom...loop...loop....just wasn't very exciting.

Yeah....I always love me some Top Gear, but this was pretty yawn-worthy. Could have at least done it in a reliant robin; would have been far more their style.

Roller coasters have been doing this since at least 1977.

I guess this is supposed to be more thrilling because the driver might have driven off the side of a loop. Otherwise it is about as thrilling as watching a roller coaster, not riding one.

A double loop the loop...

...that's shorter than 30 feet...
...with rails on the sides....
...so he cant fall of the side of the loop...
...with a big flat part to gain speed in between the loops...
...in a specifically designed buggy...
...at 20mph....


Not really that impressed.

/cool idea, just not the most.....interesting

a scalectrix game

Whosajiggawha?

KidneyStone: That was really . . . kind of boring. I'm not trying to be snarky and don't know what in the hell I expected to see but vrooom...loop...loop....just wasn't very exciting.

I'm sorry to agree; it was so quick and drama-free. The least he could have done was gotten a real, haulin' ass run-up to the stunt, just to throw in some more palpable danger.

The internet has ruined me for "wow" moments.

Hahaha that was cute. Loved the wimpy little pyrotechnic at the end.

He was going a lot slower than I expected. Also, I thought cars needed a spoiler and significant under-drag to stick to the ground upside down, is that only if they aren't being carried through a loop?

exick: a scalectrix game

Whosajiggawha?

Dude really?! Electric racing cars. There were games prior to Playstation you know.

faultytower: exick: a scalectrix game

Whosajiggawha?

Dude really?! Electric racing cars. There were games prior to Playstation you know.

I remember a time before Atari and I have also never heard of this "scalectrix game" Slot cars yes but not this I am guessing name brand thing.

When I was a kid, the most adventurous thing you could do with a scalextrix set was a figure-8. That was before all this zero-G crap, driving up the walls and shiat.

And don't get me started on TCR, where the cars could actually switch lanes.

Should have included the vid

Link

Needs more flaming travel trailer (caravan).

lokisbong: faultytower: exick: a scalectrix game

Whosajiggawha?

Dude really?! Electric racing cars. There were games prior to Playstation you know.

I remember a time before Atari and I have also never heard of this "scalectrix game" Slot cars yes but not this I am guessing name brand thing.

Yeah, Scalectric is ok I guess. I lkie AFX personally. HO scale - 1/64 racing is a blast! The cars they have nowadays are much better than when I was a kid. The magnet tech has gotten much better and the cars don't fly off the track as easily. And you can get into the hobbie fairly cheaply.

stupiddream: lokisbong: faultytower: exick: a scalectrix game

Whosajiggawha?

Dude really?! Electric racing cars. There were games prior to Playstation you know.

I remember a time before Atari and I have also never heard of this "scalectrix game" Slot cars yes but not this I am guessing name brand thing.

Yeah, Scalectric is ok I guess. I lkie AFX personally. HO scale - 1/64 racing is a blast! The cars they have nowadays are much better than when I was a kid. The magnet tech has gotten much better and the cars don't fly off the track as easily. And you can get into the hobbie fairly cheaply.

I still liked trying to time it and have the car fly off the track right into my little brother's head when he was laying down next to the track to watch the cars whiz by. He was 7 at the time and I was 10, oh childhood memories.

I had the 1979 Aurora AFX track. The flexible section fascinated me.

It's Scalextric, not Scalectrix. It's just as easy to get these things right, you know!

How was that dangerous? The installed guide rails and put the monkey in a go kart. Scary tag is a bit of melodrama.

I agree with everyone here who says that it was, at best, a boring stunt. Truth is, if the guy has enough ramp at the bottom of the loop to regain his top speed, he could do a hundred in a row.

I'd like to see that same stunt done with a loop that is 60 feet tall. That would require major speed and would be a lot more interesting...

jonjr215: I agree with everyone here who says that it was, at best, a boring stunt. Truth is, if the guy has enough ramp at the bottom of the loop to regain his top speed, he could do a hundred in a row.

I'd like to see that same stunt done with a loop that is 60 feet tall. That would require major speed and would be a lot more interesting...

On a motorcycle with a sidecar and a chimpanzee.

Smeggy Smurf: jonjr215: I agree with everyone here who says that it was, at best, a boring stunt. Truth is, if the guy has enough ramp at the bottom of the loop to regain his top speed, he could do a hundred in a row.

I'd like to see that same stunt done with a loop that is 60 feet tall. That would require major speed and would be a lot more interesting...

On a motorcycle with a sidecar and a chimpanzee.

Would you settle for the LTP Lion?

Uchiha_Cycliste: He was going a lot slower than I expected. Also, I thought cars needed a spoiler and significant under-drag to stick to the ground upside down, is that only if they aren't being carried through a loop?

Notsureifserious, but all you need is sufficient speed going into the loop so that the centripetal acceleration at the top is greater than the gravitational accleration; no special spoilers or downforce required. It's pretty basic freshman physics.

StrangeQ: Uchiha_Cycliste: He was going a lot slower than I expected. Also, I thought cars needed a spoiler and significant under-drag to stick to the ground upside down, is that only if they aren't being carried through a loop?

Notsureifserious, but all you need is sufficient speed going into the loop so that the centripetal acceleration at the top is greater than the gravitational accleration; no special spoilers or downforce required. It's pretty basic freshman physics.

Yeah, my mind was pre-coffee scrambled. I was thinking of cars that stick to the ground at sufficient speeds and downward drag. Supposedly if you get them going fast enough they can drive upside down.

lokisbong: faultytower: exick: a scalectrix game

Whosajiggawha?

Dude really?! Electric racing cars. There were games prior to Playstation you know.

I remember a time before Atari and I have also never heard of this "scalectrix game" Slot cars yes but not this I am guessing name brand thing.

Scalextric is more like the US Strombecker from the early 1960s but Scalextric did not fold when HO came out. 1/32 is much more fun. There is also Carrera and SCX.

Maybe a dash cam would have given this a pulse I dunno. The idea is sound.

Sliding Carp: Smeggy Smurf: jonjr215: I agree with everyone here who says that it was, at best, a boring stunt. Truth is, if the guy has enough ramp at the bottom of the loop to regain his top speed, he could do a hundred in a row.

I'd like to see that same stunt done with a loop that is 60 feet tall. That would require major speed and would be a lot more interesting...

On a motorcycle with a sidecar and a chimpanzee.

Would you settle for the LTP Lion?

[farm4.staticflickr.com image 500x400]

Nope. It's pooflingers or nothing. Although I might be willing to entertain the idea of komodo dragons for some extra money.

Stantz: When I was a kid, the most adventurous thing you could do with a scalextrix set was a figure-8. That was before all this zero-G crap, driving up the walls and shiat.

And don't get me started on TCR, where the cars could actually switch lanes.

Oh hell.....you have no idea the damage a Lionel train can do full throttle on 20 feet of track. Goes thru walls.

proteon: Maybe a dash cam would have given this a pulse I dunno. The idea is sound.

Did you not watch the last 45 seconds of the video??

Uchiha_Cycliste: StrangeQ: Uchiha_Cycliste: He was going a lot slower than I expected. Also, I thought cars needed a spoiler and significant under-drag to stick to the ground upside down, is that only if they aren't being carried through a loop?

Notsureifserious, but all you need is sufficient speed going into the loop so that the centripetal acceleration at the top is greater than the gravitational accleration; no special spoilers or downforce required. It's pretty basic freshman physics.

Yeah, my mind was pre-coffee scrambled. I was thinking of cars that stick to the ground at sufficient speeds and downward drag. Supposedly if you get them going fast enough they can drive upside down.


You mean like this? Action starts at 2:04

Link

Simpsons did it.

Meh?

I had a HUGE Aurora AFX collection when I was a kid. About a dozen cars (the UOP Shadow was my favorite) and more pieces/types of track than I could probably count at the time.

Mom was thrilled.

Ford did it* Pops


*in a Tempo

Just did it a minute ago in track mania. I love top gear but this was weak sauce. More fun with hotwheels. And 1/32 slot cars. Oh and my lawn ? Get off. Now.

Badfysh: Uchiha_Cycliste: StrangeQ: Uchiha_Cycliste: He was going a lot slower than I expected. Also, I thought cars needed a spoiler and significant under-drag to stick to the ground upside down, is that only if they aren't being carried through a loop?

Notsureifserious, but all you need is sufficient speed going into the loop so that the centripetal acceleration at the top is greater than the gravitational accleration; no special spoilers or downforce required. It's pretty basic freshman physics.

Yeah, my mind was pre-coffee scrambled. I was thinking of cars that stick to the ground at sufficient speeds and downward drag. Supposedly if you get them going fast enough they can drive upside down.


You mean like this? Action starts at 2:04

Link

Still not downforce...if it was even real, which I'm questioning, because it had those firefighters standing right in his path for one thing and he had to swerve right at the last moment to miss them.

The only way you're going to get enough downforce to stick a car upside-down is by attaching some sort of aircraft wing design, and then you're not really generating downforce, you're creating lift. You would have to be able to achieve at least 2g's of downforce so that after you hit the ramp and go inverted you are still pushing 1g against the surface and can maintain enough traction to keep your speed up. You would basically be flying a plane upside down, but instead of the thrust of a propeller providing your forward force, you would be relying on maintaining enough speed to maintain enough lift to maintain enough traction with the "ceiling" to continue maintaining your speed. Theoretically possible, but pulling it off would be another matter.

Badfysh: You mean like this? Action starts at 2:04

Link


Misleading and bisexual.

StrangeQ: Badfysh: Uchiha_Cycliste: StrangeQ: Uchiha_Cycliste: He was going a lot slower than I expected. Also, I thought cars needed a spoiler and significant under-drag to stick to the ground upside down, is that only if they aren't being carried through a loop?

Notsureifserious, but all you need is sufficient speed going into the loop so that the centripetal acceleration at the top is greater than the gravitational accleration; no special spoilers or downforce required. It's pretty basic freshman physics.

Yeah, my mind was pre-coffee scrambled. I was thinking of cars that stick to the ground at sufficient speeds and downward drag. Supposedly if you get them going fast enough they can drive upside down.


You mean like this? Action starts at 2:04

Link

Still not downforce...if it was even real, which I'm questioning, because it had those firefighters standing right in his path for one thing and he had to swerve right at the last moment to miss them.

The only way you're going to get enough downforce to stick a car upside-down is by attaching some sort of aircraft wing design, and then you're not really generating downforce, you're creating lift. You would have to be able to achieve at least 2g's of downforce so that after you hit the ramp and go inverted you are still pushing 1g against the surface and can maintain enough traction to keep your speed up. You would basically be flying a plane upside down, but instead of the thrust of a propeller providing your forward force, you would be relying on maintaining enough speed to maintain enough lift to maintain enough traction with the "ceiling" to continue maintaining your speed. Theoretically possible, but pulling it off would be another matter.

I'm with you on all points. It's fake, ad uses centripetal force ( to an extent) I was taught that a car's spoilers, on real cars with real spoilers, create a downward that helps the car stick to the ground. Further, that without the spoilers, a car's rear end would fly up off of the ground at sufficient speeds and that the spoilers create enough force to stick a car to a ceiling at high enough speeds. Is part or all of that non true?

A few notes about the commercial. There was barrier in front of the firemen. The turn he made was part of his approach to the wall, he made it to follow the barriers. If anything it's an ad for the car's suspension or tires. Not really the car.

StrangeQ: You would have to be able to achieve at least 2g's of downforce

Weight (i.e. force), not acceleration.

Meh, they had calculated the speed the car needed and everything.

/It would have been more entertaining if they went "How hard can it be?" before trying it

Bah... I could do it no problem - many years of practice.

OMG, TCR racing! your extracting memories deep from inside my childhood brain

faultytower: exick: a scalectrix game

Whosajiggawha?

Dude really?! Electric racing cars. There were games prior to Playstation you know.


I had electric cars but I don't recall the term "scalectrix ".

Could have been worse, I suppose.

Link

I did not know what scalextric game was. I used to do this with orange Hot Wheels track though.

Also I gotta wonder what else happened that day - or did Jeremy Clarkson think it would be hilarious to fill a stadium up with people for a 2 minute show?

Uchiha_Cycliste: I'm with you on all points. It's fake, ad uses centripetal force ( to an extent) I was taught that a car's spoilers, on real cars with real spoilers, create a downward that helps the car stick to the ground. Further, that without the spoilers, a car's rear end would fly u ...

Partially. Spoilers do only become effective above certain speeds, usually high speeds, and a truly functional one will then begin to apply additional force down on the back of the car to help maintain traction. The thing is, you gotta be going at a pretty good clip for them to start having an effect, and really their primary purpose is for rear-wheel driven cars at autocross events where you're trying to negotiate lots of turns at speed. Without a spoiler your rear-end isn't going to just lift up off the ground, unless you have some really wierd aerodynamics going on or you're going really damn fast, like 150mph+ fast, and then it's still more that imperfections in the road will cause instabilities that will be amplified by your speed and cause loss of control; the additional force provided by the spoiler gives more traction and helps to mitigate those instabilities.

But in no case will a spoiler or front and rear diffusers provide enough force to stick a car to the ground while inverted; the physics just isn't there. To do that you would pretty much have to integrate an inverted wing design into the entire body of the car, but even then I have my doubts if you would be able to generate enough. Would be cool to see someone try though.

Best part of that video was seeing a NY Yankees cap at about the 27 second mark.

Rest of it was a yawner.

Trackmania laughs at you: Link

Uchiha_Cycliste: He was going a lot slower than I expected. Also, I thought cars needed a spoiler and significant under-drag to stick to the ground upside down, is that only if they aren't being carried through a loop?

No. That is why the car in question failed.