Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Looks like someone went to an awful lot of trouble to give no f**ks. :rolleyes:

awful lot of trouble = 2 years of delivering pizzas.

im not bagging the kid out. good on him. i really want to like the car, but i cant for some reason. i appreciate the work and love he put into it though

Here's a kid who looks like a total hippie, who has never had a drop of alcohol nor a puff of weed. He makes a shitty living and lives in his parents house while he goes to enginering school. And yet he was able to save up $13,000 to put into go-fast shit for his car. All the mechanical bits on the car are totally legit stuff that you'd see on a proper track or project car, and not a dime was spent where it didn't need to be spent. It runs cool and smooth. It required no fine-tuning at the last minute like all these "pro" tuner shops do before we film their cars. It's fast as f**k. 2400 lbs and 330 whp is no joke. And the kid knows the car inside and out, can fix anything with basic tools very quickly, and drives it ridiculously fast and with skill. One of our cameramen, Zack, took a ride with Corbin up Stunt Rd, where Corbin does his "testing," and said that he had never been up Stunt that fast, in any car, at any price, with any driver.

its kinds cool, a bit try hard, theirs plenty of f**ks given trying to look cool but atleast hes taking the piss a bit.

supprised how many times i have seen this posted though, i sont see the huge big deal. still good on him, hope he gets lots of love and hate and keeps going.

This thing is the epitomy of all internet car fashion and related memes. Pedo bear sticker, V8 conversion, rusted look, steelies, etc. It's like he put together a shopping list of shit that was cool in the last 3 years on speedhunters and built it.

  • 2 weeks later...

This thing is the epitomy of all internet car fashion and related memes. Pedo bear sticker, V8 conversion, rusted look, steelies, etc. It's like he put together a shopping list of shit that was cool in the last 3 years on speedhunters and built it.

He forgot the roof racks with a bmx and some fuel cans, random stickerbombing, and of course a bushy hipster beard for himself. Probably too young to grow one

Can't grow one, he clearly has a giant gaping vagina

He forgot the roof racks with a bmx and some fuel cans, random stickerbombing, and of course a bushy hipster beard for himself. Probably too young to grow one

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...