SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:48AM
from the 3D-computer-modeling-for-the-win dept.
from the 3D-computer-modeling-for-the-win dept.
Hagerty are running a nice story, on the ramp-to-ramp spiral jump, 50th anniversary. The stunt was developed as part of validating a detailed math model for car accident reconstruction--including early computer graphics. After touring for several years as part of an auto thrill show, the stunt was eventually featured in the James Bond movie, The Man With the Golden Gun. The article also details a couple of recent copies of this stunt.
Your submitter knows someone that insures a classic car with Hagerty, but has no other connection with this specialized insurance company.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Astro Spiral: Revisiting the Greatest Car Stunt of All Time
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 13 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Nadia Comaneci, simple perfection.
-- '76 Olympics
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday March 17 2018, @10:06AM (5 children)
Gawd, it's amazing how soggy the suspension was on those cars, it's obvious even in the videos [youtube.com]. Back in the 1980s, I inherited an late 60's semi-sporty Pontiac from my grandparents. They had literally only ever driven it to the supermarket - it spent most of its life sitting, which is not good for a car. Anyway, driving it was just awful compared to more modern cars. Squishy steering, suspension that seemed to magnify the bumps in the road. American cars of that age were only good for one thing: going straight, on a nice, flat, smooth road.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @12:41PM (3 children)
Ever drive a '68 L71 Corvette or a '69 Dodge Polara CHP Special? How about a '69 Mustang GT?
I didn't think so.
Generalizations are inevitably wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:33PM (2 children)
60s American cars had awfully long wheelbases resulting in huge turning radius regardless of the stiffness or quality of the suspension. It was acceptable for the States since the roads were built to accommodate trucks with similarly large turning radii. But in some European and Asian countries, a "No Trucks" sign for streets and u turns applied to many American cars as well by law.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:07PM
Being a moderately strong car enthusiast I have to disagree; the wheelbase had nothing to do with it. Many cars have intentionally limited steering "bump stops" to try to reduce rollovers. In some cases they just didn't design in enough room between the frame and wheel, so they had to limit the steering travel to prevent the tires hitting the frame or inner fender (aka wheelwell).
Steering limits and turn radius aside, I certainly agree that a longer car won't do well in very tight turns right up against buildings or other obstructions. You'd need rear wheel steering to accommodate that.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @11:54PM
Because nearly all of the 60's American cars were rear-wheel-drive, it wasn't hard to have tight turning angles on the front wheels. You might be thinking of the wide turning circle of some early front-wheel-drive (long wheelbase) cars--the constant velocity joints in the front half shafts (drive shafts) limited the front wheel steering angle quite severely. Newer designs of CV joint allow larger steering angles.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:58PM
What particular model and year Pontiac was it?