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

[86Boyz]

Originally Posted by PandaSPUR

he's back

Who is he?

[yelsew]

Originally Posted by 86Boyz

Who is he?

Ah you've missed the era of SquadRon

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by 86Boyz

Who is he?

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81548

[Yardjass]

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.

[justatroll]

Originally Posted by PMPB

so the only thing that matters was that there were victims and then people driving in a reckless manner causing loss of life.

Originally Posted by PandaSPUR

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.

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?

[PandaSPUR]

Originally Posted by justatroll

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.

[justatroll]

Originally Posted by PandaSPUR

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.

[krayzie]

Safe didn't happen.

[PMPB]

Originally Posted by justatroll

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.

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.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by PMPB

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.

[MurderousPandas]

Originally Posted by guybo

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.

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"

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by MurderousPandas

if he had stayed the speed limit, i'm sure it wouldn't have happened.

This is conjecture.
It is untestable.

[guybo]

Of course it's all conjecture and of course speed caused the accident. Don't be dumb. This thread is about discussing whether it's possible that stance caused the accident when at speeds like that, a normal car would have been fine. Could something have been in the road? Yup. Could he have been messing around with the radio or getting a hummer from his girl? Sure.

I think it's more likely that his lowered car with retarded wheels bottomed out and a cheap or poorly installed suspension setup failed though. That road is not perfectly flat either- it's not a terrible road but it is a public road.

[MurderousPandas]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

This is conjecture.
It is untestable.

True. But as we have seen, stanced cars are fine at the speed limit. As long as there are no abrupt movements, like acceleration, cornering, or dodging, the car should maintain itself.

"Chasing speed with patience"