Even with this week's Top Gear, I totally forgot about the Robin Reliant. You'd have no chance of pulling an under 20 time in a Robin Reliant.
pretty much any supercar actually. Add up the time I took before I got to the carousel and crashed, plus the time it took for the ambulance/hearse to get there, to load the various pieces of me into a box and to cart me off the track and it would be around 25 minutes I think.
For a non-crash run though, I'd have to go with a H-body LeSabre. They're terrible in the corners, and lurch all over the place. They accelerate like barges and handle like them too. Heavy front-wheel drive cars with soft suspensions are virtually impossible to drive fast, 20 minutes would be an impressive time for a 1989 Buick LeSabre.
For a non-crash run though, I'd have to go with a H-body LeSabre. They're terrible in the corners, and lurch all over the place. They accelerate like barges and handle like them too. Heavy front-wheel drive cars with soft suspensions are virtually impossible to drive fast, 20 minutes would be an impressive time for a 1989 Buick LeSabre.
did anyone else cry when they showed the 323? So sad...
@Buckus: There isn't much difference between a CUV and a minivan in my book.
Why do we hate them? Because they're slow as hell, they're always clogging up the outside lane, if you get one on either side of you then backing out of a parking space becomes dangerous, because they're video screens draw your eyes away from the road, because they aren't safe, because they obscure your view of the traffic in front in a traffic jam, and because they're ugly as sin.
Most of all though? Because we all know that we only get to buy a few cars in our life, and that a minivan is the kind of car that you're forced to buy, not the kind that you want to buy. We could live with a station wagon, there's even a few that we'd like but they've been taken off the market in favour of minivans.
Most of all though? Because we all know that we only get to buy a few cars in our life, and that a minivan is the kind of car that you're forced to buy, not the kind that you want to buy. We could live with a station wagon, there's even a few that we'd like but they've been taken off the market in favour of minivans.
@Darkest Daze: It was on Bradley, or the other back dude and it happened before the ball was kicked. Edu and the guys at the front were being watched by the linesman, and since his flag stayed down it wasn't on them.
In soccer the field is divided up into quadrants, the ref runs on a diagonal and handles 2 quadrants and each linesman handles 1 quadrant. For a direct free kick, the ref watches the players at the back, and the linesperson watches the guys at the front. No one watches the kick-taker, they listen for when the ball is kicked.
The problem with the replays is that they don't show the foul. They are all watching the kick-taker, and then pan to the players. The foul itself could have occured at any time, all we know is that it occured before the ball was kicked, because the ref blew the play up the second the ball was kicked; the ref can't call anything when the ball is dead, so he has to wait until it's in play again.
Also, if it's 50-50 fouling then the referee will generally call it in favour of the defending team.
Don't expect an explanation though, that never happens. The refs are told not to make any statements on their calls. FIFA isn't a big fan of their officials being drawn into arguments with the press, so they ensure that they stay quiet.
In soccer the field is divided up into quadrants, the ref runs on a diagonal and handles 2 quadrants and each linesman handles 1 quadrant. For a direct free kick, the ref watches the players at the back, and the linesperson watches the guys at the front. No one watches the kick-taker, they listen for when the ball is kicked.
The problem with the replays is that they don't show the foul. They are all watching the kick-taker, and then pan to the players. The foul itself could have occured at any time, all we know is that it occured before the ball was kicked, because the ref blew the play up the second the ball was kicked; the ref can't call anything when the ball is dead, so he has to wait until it's in play again.
Also, if it's 50-50 fouling then the referee will generally call it in favour of the defending team.
Don't expect an explanation though, that never happens. The refs are told not to make any statements on their calls. FIFA isn't a big fan of their officials being drawn into arguments with the press, so they ensure that they stay quiet.
If the referee blows the whistle immediately after the ball is kicked, then it generally means that the foul happened before the ball is played. Check the replay, the referee blows up the play the second that the ball is kicked, and the foul he called wasn't seen on camera. Judging by his position I'd say it was on one of the back two players. The play was dead long before Edu headed the ball in.
As for video replays in general, never forget that the video camera doesn't offer a perfect image. It denies the viewer depth perception and gives them a false idea of what happened.
The thing that really drives me nuts about instant replay is that it's a 5 minute break in the middle of the play. In a free-flowing game like soccer it would dramatically alter the game by giving each team a couple of rest breaks per half. I don't want to think about the game turning into an affair where a team that's against the ropes can ask for a replay to give their guys a break. It's a free time-out, and it would ruin the game.
As for video replays in general, never forget that the video camera doesn't offer a perfect image. It denies the viewer depth perception and gives them a false idea of what happened.
The thing that really drives me nuts about instant replay is that it's a 5 minute break in the middle of the play. In a free-flowing game like soccer it would dramatically alter the game by giving each team a couple of rest breaks per half. I don't want to think about the game turning into an affair where a team that's against the ropes can ask for a replay to give their guys a break. It's a free time-out, and it would ruin the game.
The Edsel, its grill looks like a vagina. End story.
A Jaguar Mark II. It's incredibly good-looking so if she saw you cruising around in it she'd be jealous, and it helps to attract new women.
Plus, you'll be spending a fair amount of time working on it, which always helps with the post-breakup period (you can't hear the crying over the sound of power tools, and I've yet to find a problem that I can't resolve while sanding.)
Plus, you'll be spending a fair amount of time working on it, which always helps with the post-breakup period (you can't hear the crying over the sound of power tools, and I've yet to find a problem that I can't resolve while sanding.)
The Geo Tracker was pretty much the best Geo they made. It was fun, light, convertible and it surprisingly good off-road. I knew a couple of girls that had them and there wasn't a better car on a summer's day, riding in one up to the beach was just amazing.
The M-100 Elan is a pretty cold choice too, it's probably the best handling Kia ever made and while I've never been in one I've read that it is amazing for a front-wheel drive car. I could see it getting slagged for being an FR Lotus, but as a Kia it's all kinds of awesome.
The M-100 Elan is a pretty cold choice too, it's probably the best handling Kia ever made and while I've never been in one I've read that it is amazing for a front-wheel drive car. I could see it getting slagged for being an FR Lotus, but as a Kia it's all kinds of awesome.
Everytime I see something like this I'm reminded of that australian anti-hoon advert that was posted here a couple of years back. I just picture the girls waggling their little fingers.
If you do something like this, "no one thinks big of you."
If you do something like this, "no one thinks big of you."
That girl is really messed up. Sorry, I meant to say methed up. My mistake.
Sounds corny. Ridiculously corny actually.
A Rolls-Royce Phantom. Any other choice is ludicrous.
I would whisper along to work, in a powerful, spacious luxury car that was the size of a small train. Probably sipping fine wine in the back while gently laughing at all of the proles around me.
(If I was a CEO, I would definitely be a ridiculously corrupt Enron-style CEO, burning shareholders money at an obscene rate.)
I would whisper along to work, in a powerful, spacious luxury car that was the size of a small train. Probably sipping fine wine in the back while gently laughing at all of the proles around me.
(If I was a CEO, I would definitely be a ridiculously corrupt Enron-style CEO, burning shareholders money at an obscene rate.)
Is it just me, or has every BP plan for the spill so far followed the following format:
1. ???????????
2. Collect oil onto waiting tankers
3. Profit!
They need to be thinking about solutions that stop the flow instead of trying to save the well. In the words of Foch, "foutre le campe."
1. ???????????
2. Collect oil onto waiting tankers
3. Profit!
They need to be thinking about solutions that stop the flow instead of trying to save the well. In the words of Foch, "foutre le campe."
Are you sure that's a wagon and not a hearse? Certainly looks like a hearse to me...
@thetooth: That's due to a tunnel vision effect that happens when people are talking on their cellphone. That would occur at the start of the curve, not at the end of it.
bah, that sucks. I'll miss your reviews.
4 wheels good, 2 wheels bad.
4 wheels good, 2 wheels bad.
@fuhteng: cell phone/texting drivers don't leave their lanes like that, they crash into the cars in front of them.
$5 says they find alcohol in the sentra driver's blood. That is a perfect example of the characteristic style of crash resulting from alcohol/perscription drug impairment.
