PSA- Don't race on streets. Could Stance have created this crash?
 

There was a horrific accident in the Tampa area last night. This guy https://www.facebook.com/pablo.cortes.391 in a stanced Golf was coming back from a meet up (I think it was this ricer meet called Hot Tampa Nights), witnesses say he was racing 1 or 2 other cars, lost control went into oncoming traffic and caused a bad accident in which 5 people died, including 4 people 18 or younger.

Moral of the story: Don't race on public roads

Question- Is it possible he lost control because his car had stretched tires and extreme camber? We all know it is awful for car performance- could it also be dangerous?


Before all the stancetards comments come in and people get rowdy- remember that 5 people died. LAST NIGHT. One of the dead is this kid. Be respectful and let's have a serious discussion.

He lost control because he was a fucking tool and put his desire to be a jackass above the lives of the people around him. But yes, drastically decreasing the traction of his car probably contributed.

Really not sure what you hope to gain from this thread. Speculation is useless in this specific instance. And in general?

Anything that negatively impacts handling of a vehicle has the potential to exacerbate any bad situation, and becomes a contributing factor in the severity of any incident that might take place. That includes things like rain or snow, which is why you might slow down a little bit over your usual on corners, launches, even just driving straight (if it's bad rain or snow.)

"FHP said that alcohol nor street racing were factors in the crash"

There's no snow in FL and it hasn't rained for days in the Tampa area.

Speed was a factor

Those were examples of conditions that lead to a reduction in traction; the typical response by a driver in such conditions is to drive slower - which is good for safety. I guess I was implying that someone that has stanced their car may NOT follow similar safety guidelines despite the reduction in traction.

not ragging on you @guybo personally, but:

Florida man

is a meme for a reason.

There are a couple of argument rules broken here.
One can be stanced and not race nor crash.
One can be unstanced and race and crash.
Does A cause B? Well, sometimes.
You are using a leading questions. Is it possible? Of course it's possible but the article doesn't say. Could it be dangerous? Of course. But so is running on under inflated tyres. Once again we don't know. Until a statement is made from police and/or traffic forensics we don't know and speculation will be rife.

People crash and die on a regular bases. It is a sad fact of life.

Unless you where there and saw it, you can say it it was because of X or X.
Since we where not, I can't say what caused it.

That being said I personally seen stance cars, twice had blow outs on the freeway. Every one knew shit was about to go down because you can see the rubber chunks and the smell of burning tire right behind him.

Going back to the main topic, it's not the first time street racing end up killing some one.
You would figure how could shit go wrong while going in a straight line, right?

What a stupid facking thread.

Crash and death was a result of racing. Was the compromised suspension and tires a contributing factor? Does it matter? If this was on a race track we could probably have an academic and well informed discussion about this, but it was on a street, so the only thing that matters was that there were victims and then people driving in a reckless manner causing loss of life.

While I think stanced cars are dumb, the main cause of the accident here was irresponsible driving.

Can't blame it on the stanced set up. It would be like yelling at people for putting FI in their twins because it would lead to more dangerous crashes.

how did they die 5 people in yhat car and not 1 airbag?

Read the post again. It doesn't say 5 people died in one car.

Stance did not solely cause the crash, assuming it was a factor in the crash. It may have been a combination of speed, stance, and stupidity that has unfortunately taken five lives.

We weren't there for it, so who knows. Speed and stupidity are normally enough to cause a crash anyway.

Also, please don't do stupid shit on the streets. Mustangs have a shitty reputation now because of it; let's avoid having people think we'll all dipshits on this platform too.

He had four airbags. One on each corner. :lol:

I believe that the vehicle he hit, actually made a u-turn in front of him. But, I've heard multiple versions of the same story.

From all "official accounts", speed, nor alcohol was a factor. How about you stop being a **** head, get off your high horse and just contemplate the fact that 5 fucking people lost their lives because of this accident.

Too right!

Attachment 145179

Who are you telling to get off their high horse?
Engine blocks don't fly out of engine bays at legal speeds during traffic collisions.
115.6mph snapchat
http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/re...-investigation
RIP

Police say there's no evidence of racing. That just means they didn't catch who he was racing with. Eye witness says there was another vehicle also going fast down the street with him.

I know that area. 45 mph, lit in some areas, not well lit in others. Lots of side streets and traffic. Its normal to go 60 through there and I have had ricers rev at me in that area at lights. But I don't think I've ever seen anyone go over 60 through there that's just insane, 115

I read a couple times that his spacer was a factor.

Well, you're never really going in a perfectly straight line, although that's the goal. You're usually making minute steering corrections because no car goes perfectly straight and no road is perfect either. Over correct a little bit and it can snowball.
That's how people going seemingly 'straight' suddenly start swerving, losing control etc.

As you go over 60 MPH aerodynamics become more and more important. As speed increases, drag increases by the square. With a compromised suspension (less suspension travel from being lowered too much, less rubber on the road from camber exacerbated by the car going light from aero lift, extra stress on components operating outside of design specs) I can definitely see things going wrong fast at 115MPH, esp. on a public road that's not racetrack smooth and with debris on it. A slammed car has no room for error and can't pass over debris on the road.

What would a spacer do to cause a car going 115 mph to do wrong? They don't just unscrew off while you drive.

Maybe he wasn't racing anyone. It's not like you can't go 115.6mph by yourself. Maybe it was a female passenger he was trying to impress. It doesn't really matter as it is reckless either way and innocent people died and are in the hospital. RIP

Zero travel and any little bump the car will catch air or slam into the ground and lose control easily. Not to mention at slammed heights the geometry of the suspension is so out of wack it would act unpredictable.

http://www.duc-helices.com/client/ca...e1-100_336.jpg



"spacer"

I've done this before I went 100 thank God I am alive and never driving a stinking car ever again

The FR-S maintained balance but the speed is still a factor at that angle of a turn as well for a freeway exit.

:popcorn: he's back

But apparently not driving ever again.

Who is he?

Ah you've missed the era of SquadRon

There's a difference between stance causing a crash and stance not helping matters. You have two main factors to consider with stance:

1. Stretched tires: This one is pretty straight forward. Stretching a skinny tire onto a wheel means you will have less contact patch touching the ground simply because the tread isn't as wide. Additionally, tires aren't designed for this kind of stupid shit and when not mounted per the manufacturer's instructions, they are more likely to blow out. This is stupid at factory camber specs, albeit significantly less stupid than with excessive camber also thrown into the mix. Which brings me to my next point.

2. Camber: Camber is a good thing and a necessary thing, and increased negative camber can even bring you performance benefits if it isn't taken too far. However, "Stance" levels of extreme camber mean significantly reduced contact patch. When combined with excessive tire stretch, it also means you could be riding on the edge of the tread and possibly even on the upper part of the sidewall.

So, where does this get us? Well, tire companies spend large sums of money to design and test tires that are safe at speeds far higher than we are legally allowed to go. These guys are looking out for us, and this is the reason that tire blowouts, especially in the absence of some sort of object causing the puncture, are very uncommon occurrences. However, at no point during their design work do they consider that complete idiots are going to be stretch mounting tires outside the factory spec, riding on the edge of the tread or sidewalls, etc. Forget the simple fact that your braking distance skyrockets and your ability to perform an emergency avoidance maneuver is significantly affected when you're using a small fraction of your tire's tread. When you stance a car, you're not even using the f***ing tire in a way that it was designed to be used.

I've had a lot of idiots tell me that they've been driving a stanced car safely for years and nothing bad has happened so therefore, it is okay. The fact is when you design a tire that is tough enough for 200 mph or more, a side effect of that will be that idiots will probably be able to get away with using them improperly and only going 65. Also, we don't tend to use anywhere near the maximum performance capabilities of our tires in day to day driving so the detrimental effects of "stance" may go unnoticed.

It is also very difficult to prove that stance was the cause of an accident, especially without a video. I think it is realistic that a court could rule an accident caused by a tire blowout was caused by stance, even though those are possible without stance, but a good lawyer still might be able to get the person off. Maybe if you hit someone and the accident scene and ABS log showed that you couldn't stop in time somewhere that the known stopping distance of a stock car could have, they'd be able to get you on something. For the most part though, it is very hard to prove.

I think we should focus on the fact that science tells us stance is idiotic and that regardless of legality, anyone who still chooses to partake in it, deserves to have their stupid ass purged from the gene pool when something goes wrong. This doesn't mean you can necessarily go around assigning blame every time a stanced car gets in an accident.

Actually I think you COULD blame the stupid STANCE.
When you intentionally make the suspension in a car almost unuseable as the engineers intended, add some instability, compromise traction, then DRIVE ON The STREET, you should be held accountable for any accidents.
Wouldn't a person be held accountable if they thought "hey I think I want to put Teflon slicks on my car and take it out on the freeway" and then caused a major accident?

I would only blame stance here if it was the main factor. I.e. if another identical car was going down the same road at the same speed, but had stock suspension and wheels, would it have caused the same accident? If not, then yea blame stance.

Again, its like saying turbos are to blame for accidents because they cause our engines to produce more power than what the rest of the power train was designed for.

Bad analogy.
Sure turbos give more hp and therefore more possibility for someone to overdrive the car or drive faster on average.

But messing with the suspension in a way that is undeniably LESS SAFE than the stock setup is different.

Adding a Turbo is like having a giant barbecue on the tiny patio of your apartment. Sure it is more likely to cause a fire.
But messing with the suspension like the stance guys do is more like disabling all the smoke detectors in your apartment building - FAR more negligent than just having that barbecue on the patio.

Safe didn't happen.

You don't get it, and your analogy is wrong again, because it's saying that disabling the smoke detectors causes the fire.

Stance is not to blame. Racing is to blame.

This. ^^
You can stance a car and drive it correctly for what you have done or you can stance a car and try to drive it like you are trying out for F&F. If you crash while driving like an idiot on the street it isn't because the car was stanced but because you didn't drive it for what it was. I have seen loads of stanced cars (many of them I asked myself "why?") and since the guys were driving them appropriately not one of them went careening off the road for no apparent reason.

Contact means grip. Stance does not have contact, so it is a factor. Street racing is what ultimately cause the car to lose control, if he had stayed the speed limit, i'm sure it wouldn't have happened.

"Chasing speed with patience"

This is conjecture.
It is untestable.