Home | Wiki | Discord | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

Dumb questions someone else might answer


Is Autocross a reasonable and semi-cheap option to try performance driving after a few years experience of normal driving in the event that I get a vehicle that isn’t at much risk of flipping over?


Depends on the area, though. Autocross was regarded as probably the most reasonable entry-level activity provided the infrastructure for such (legal) events existed.


I was actually under the impression that Autocross would probably be cheaper than driving on a proper track, and it would also probably be safer and I think there are some events somewhat close


Paging Toyota man @adamd


that’s indonesia all year around except for the random 2 months where it rains everyday and nobody could make their loundry dry up.

i mean alice springs. not arizona. that’s hell on earth. someone needs to stop that hell fire leak


Do it, come on do it now! /arnie

Seriously, no such thing as a bad 70s Corolla of any variant. Seriously cool cars and something you can be mega proud of having worked on yourself, bonus points if you restore one in the run up to getting your license.

Also, gonna quickly weigh in on something mentioned earlier I don’t think was answered, which is:

To me, assuming the car isn’t “dead” (burnt out, completely crumpled, only panel without mega rust issues is windscreen etc.) I don’t think there is such a thing as a bad car. Perhaps with the exception of seriously overpriced cars, but even then there’s an argument that that isn’t the cars fault, and there are guaranteed to be people that think they’re excellent.

The definition of a shit car is often defined by sheer snobbishness, over everything else. You get the favourites that come often that “fit” the definition - things like Trabants, Yugos, Ladas, Daewoos, anything British. Hell, over here a lot of people think anything over 10 years old is crap.

Someone that owns a 1 year old Corsa will probably tell you the Lada Riva is a shit car. The old guy that owns the Riva, does all his own maintenance and has owned the car from new tells you it’s the best car in the world, and more than likely something along the lines of “it’s much better in the snow than these modern things.”

On the flip side, people calling a BMW M5 crap for any of the usual BMW rant reasons might not know that the owner is the most sane, quiet, level headed person who has saved for 30 years to buy something like that, and to them, that M5 is the best car in the world. They drive sensibly, are wary of others and shock horror - they indicate at roundabouts.

That BMW example is perfect for showing how people often judge the cars based on the stereotype of the owner and it’s often a case of reverse snobbishness. That’s nicer and faster than my old Fiesta so while you’ve done nothing wrong, your car is stupid.

I’ve got absolutely no idea where this ramble is going now but tl;dr - a car is essentially to serve a purpose, and everyone likes what they like. As car people we probably all have our own preferences, but there’s a difference between going “god that’s shit” and affectionately going “god, that’s shit” while secretly wanting a go. For every story of how fantastic the latest Ferrari is, there will be another of someone telling you how much fun it was hooning a Morris Marina they bought for 50 quid round some damp country lanes with their mates listening to Duran Duran.


People look at British cars the same way they see Ladas, Yugos, Deawoos, and TRABBYS? I’d honestly say they would fall more in line with your BMW analogy but without the stereotype of being a middle manager with anger issues and complete unawareness of the blinkers.


Aaand I’d say that car which fail to serve any purpose meant for a car to serve are shit cars. So sth that’s boring, not very cheap and breaking all the time - yeah, that’s clearly a bad car for me.


The luxury stuff maybe, but the mainstream stuff (which isn’t made anymore), pretty much all had a reputation for poor build quality.

They are obviously still not as bad as a lot of the USSR era eastern european stuff. The Trabant for example is just plain and simply a horrible car in pretty much all aspects.

Daewoo though isn’t THAT bad. They aren’t well made (I know because I have one), but in the end they are pretty much just your sadly common throwaway car that’s made to last the warranty. The brand still kinda exists as GM Korea, who builds a few of the current GM cars.


They looked at them as being shit, mostly in Britain so far as I can tell. We seemingly hated our car industry to death (we being the country as a whole, not enthusiasts). I mean they often didn’t do themselves any favours, stuff like the Rover K series springs to mind. A cracking engine ruined by cost cutting.

Yes, but as I said in the next bit, there are plenty of people that are more than happy to put up with those things, that alone prevents it being a shit car because it’s not universally accepted. You’ll probably struggle to find anything that again, universally meets your three requirements of a shit car.

They weren’t, even the earlier stuff that was just a cheap old Vauxhall in a slightly posher dress. They were fairly reliable and that was it. As you say, their main marketing was being very cheap and getting you about. Build quality and stuff was never a concern so long as it wasn’t dropping to bits.

Anyway, we’re derailing the thread. Back to questions!


Which doesn’t necessarily make them good cars either. They may be good “big toys”, but the primary purpose of a car is to transport people and things whenever one wants in a relative comfort and speed. For example I’d love to have a MR78 Polonez and I’d probably have fun with it, but I’d never name it a good car, because it isn’t one. It is a good collectible item, not a good car. That’s my point - not everything considered a nice thing by someone and being a car is a good car. AND the fact that SOMEONE likes something doesn’t mean that it can’t be named a bad thing. Cigarettes aren’t good, but there are completely normal and sane people smoking them.


I never said it made them a good car. I said it didn’t make them shit.

The point was it’s down to peoples opinions. There are leagues of people that will tell you the Polonez is an excellent car, it was a borderline people’s car as you’ll know. Same with cigarettes. Person 1 says they’re shit, Person 2 says they’re great. Neither is wrong.


Actually, both of them are right, in their own heads. Own opinion is the superior one. Has always been and will most likely stay that way. That’s why it’s useless to argue about opinions.


okay sorry I won’t derail the thread anymore :stuck_out_tongue:


One reasons I’d want to try autocross rather than proper track driving is just that I know I’d be a terrible driver so I’d be better off in an environment where the worst collisions you could reasonably get into would be like 30 mph into a rubber cone instead of 80 into a concrete barrier, my main concern is how rapidly they apparently send other cars out, and with my tendency to brake way too early in my experience I could see that causing some problems.


Defensive Driver Coarse! Or the equivelant in your Nation. Best thing you can do to start your driving journey…and go carts for motorsport


Go carts seem kinda dangerous as there’s no protection in the event of a roll over(which doesnt seem unlikely given their narrow wheelbase) other than a helmet and neckbrace, but I’ll look into it.


Have… have you ever been in a go kart? Do you understand what a centre of gravity is?


Yes, but it was years ago when I was a lot smaller and I’m also aware of what a center of gravity is and while yes go carts do have low centers of gravity at least when there is nobody in them. They’re also light weight and therefor the center of gravity is significantly changed by the weight of a person.


When weight is placed on an object such as when a person sits on a go-kart… does gravity suddenly push you upwards? How would the centre of gravity go up at all?