|
Random-rear end car show in town, found out about it when I went out for groceries: Also, a museum: Warcabbit posted:
No poo poo? I figured it was just a replica, had no idea that's actually the one from the film. Wow, I still have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that George Lucas once knew how to make movies. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Sep 5, 2012 |
# ? Sep 5, 2012 17:09 |
|
|
# ? Apr 28, 2024 04:03 |
|
Gotta remember to get eggs, milk, and some loving amazing impromptu pictures. Also toothpaste.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 17:14 |
|
Wait. Wait. Holy poo poo. That there was a historic hot rod. http://thehotrodshop.net/graffiti.html Yep. License plate matches. That's the American Graffiti Deuce!
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 17:18 |
|
It's way more likely he's just rocking one of Jim Shine's plates. I want every single one of those on a wall in my future dream garage. Oops, you're right. The '1' is different from the movie. Maybe an ebay plate, then? \/\/\/\/\/ Boomerjinks fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Sep 5, 2012 |
# ? Sep 5, 2012 17:25 |
|
Close-up of the plate from the fullsize pic on flickr.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 17:31 |
|
My apologies on mis-identifying the tank/tank killer and when it was used, I don't know Russian and it didn't look like it'd been sitting for that long Russian engineering and repairs are awesome in a "as a shadetree mechanic repairing things in my yard that's exactly how I'd go about fixing a tank in a field" sort of a way.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 17:39 |
|
I really liked that they just backed it into a (few) spot(s) at the shop like "Yeah, that's our tank, nbd"
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 17:51 |
|
Didnt we at one point have a Tank thread? Also technically its not considered a Tank in Russian since the turret doesn't move but instead a "Somahodnoya obstanovka" which translates literally into Self propelled [artillery] platform.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 18:44 |
|
I thought that distinction was universal?
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 18:48 |
|
Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:1950s GP cars aren't they? IOwnCalculus posted:Yeah, they look like front-engined F1 cars to me. The front-engined Indycars of the era were often referred to as roadsters. bennyfactor posted:Like others have said, these are open-wheel roadsters; the first one is a Maserati 250F, and the second is a Ferarri 340. They are F1 cars but both manufacturers made similar models for Indianapolis as well. Thanks a bunch peeps!
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 18:49 |
|
InitialDave posted:I thought that distinction was universal? I guess you would just call it a howitzer tank in English. All I know is that the Germans called it the Dosenöffner which as I'm sure you all know means can opener.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 18:52 |
|
InitialDave posted:I thought that distinction was universal? Not really. The Swedish S-tank didn't have a turret, but it's still called a tank. Back during WWII you didn't have main battle tanks intended for multi-role use. Broadly speaking, you had light tanks that had tiny little guns and thin armor for moving around fast and scouting and maybe shooting at infantry and other lightly-armored stuff. You had heavy tanks with heavy armor and large guns for standing there and getting shot at and shooting back and blowing poo poo up. You had medium tanks that were sort of a compromise between the other two. Some countries did things differently, they'd have infantry tanks which were slow but heavily armored that were supposed to operate and advance with the infantry, to open up a hole in the line and then a "cruiser" tank that could move much faster but had much thinner armor could race through the hole and get into the rear. And then you had tank destroyers, which unlike the others were designed for the specialist role of shooting at other tanks. They often didn't have turrets, they sometimes had completely open tops, and generally thin armor, because you then used all that weight savings and placed an unusually large gun in the thing. Again, that's broadly speaking, it's like "battleship" and "fast battleship" and "armored cruiser" and "battlecruiser," the definitions get really fuzzy around the edges and you can sit and argue about what's a heavy tank and what's a medium tank and what's a tank destroyer. Like the S-tank's a tank, but damned if I can tell you why it's not a TD, except that the concept of tank destroyer and all those other specialized things had been replaced in doctrine by the main battle tank and dammit that's what we're going to call this thing even if it doesn't have a turret. *Especially* with something like the ISU-152, you can call it a self-propelled artillery piece or you can call it a tank destroyer or you can call it an assault gun and you'll probably be right or wrong based upon the muzzle elevation.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 19:17 |
|
How have I never heard of this car before -- so amazing. http://www.supercars.net/cars/2063.html
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 19:25 |
|
Preoptopus posted:I guess you would just call it a howitzer tank in English. Phanatic posted:Not really. The Swedish S-tank didn't have a turret, but it's still called a tank. My catchall has always been that if it can fire the main gun while moving, it's a tank, if it's meant to be stopped and used as a field gun, it's an SPG.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 20:24 |
|
InitialDave posted:I would say "Self-Propelled Gun". SPG describes more of an artillery piece, like you said, stops and fires. Assault guns are mobile, often turretless, and capable of firing on the move. Its an Assault Gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_gun CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Sep 5, 2012 |
# ? Sep 5, 2012 20:31 |
|
I saw this mustang driving around, i can't identify the model, but i could tell it's a mustang from the tail lights.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 20:40 |
|
InitialDave posted:I would say "Self-Propelled Gun". Turreted tanks during WWII rarely fired while moving, it's next to impossible to hit anything that way. Until stabilized guns were developed tanks generally stopped to fire, at least at ranges where ramming wasn't an option. The Abbot could theoretically lower the gun enough to engage vehicles in direct-fire, but the sights coupled with the fact that gun elevation was a manual operation would make that pretty damned impractical and nobody was planning on doing it. The S-tank is designed to sit in defilade, kill some Soviet tanks, and then back up to the next prepared position. The gun can, theoretically, fire while moving, but the gun's fixed to the hull. Normally the thing uses a hydraulic system to make small adjustments to the suspension, and that's how the gun is aimed, so you obviously won't be able to fire with any sort of accuracy while on the move with that sort of system. It even has a second driver, with a second set of controls, at the rear of the tank, so it can drive at full speed in reverse. Fire, fire, back up, fire, fire, repeat. And yet the thing's called a main battle tank, not a TD or SPG. Weird. A few more from the Simeone Museum: Ferrari wallpaper if you're a fan: Stirling Moss's DBR9 Peugeot used to make pretty cars. Not sure about the leather straps though: Phanatic fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Sep 5, 2012 |
# ? Sep 5, 2012 21:09 |
|
Powershift posted:I saw this mustang driving around, i can't identify the model, but i could tell it's a mustang from the tail lights. I love playing the "Name that headlight/taillight" game with motorhomes.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 21:11 |
|
Phanatic posted:
Cool, thanks. Pininfarina fact: did you know they did the design on the Coke Freestyle machine's body?
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 21:56 |
|
MrSaturn posted:Cool, thanks. Pininfarina fact: did you know they did the design on the Coke Freestyle machine's body? That explains why I have the urge to hump those things every time I see them!
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 22:09 |
|
While running today, I saw a car I couldn't identify. I didn't have my phone on me and it was gone by the time I came back for pictures. So here is a lovely from-memory picture I drew: Really low to the ground, enough that the sideview mirror was comically high, racing slicks, four exhaust pipes, etc. What the hell was it?
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 22:55 |
|
If TVR made a conversion van, it would look like this.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 23:00 |
|
was it an invader GT?
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 23:19 |
|
Nope.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 23:28 |
|
0.0001% chance it was a Ferrari 250GTO Breadvan but they look like this:
|
# ? Sep 5, 2012 23:45 |
|
Well, that's about the right body shape but: -The front end didn't have all those vents and round holes in it, there was just this little slot vent on the bottom of the nose -There was like this wedge in the roof (which is flat in the breadvan) and there was some engine part sticking out of it (some disc-like thing) -Air intakes in front of the rear wheels It looks similar from the side though. The more I think about it, the more I'm sure it's some sort of kit on like, a fiero or something . No badges anywhere. The fairings seemed pretty flimsy and it seemed like there was a lot of space between them and the inner frame of the car. If that makes sense. I dunno, I'm more of a motorcycle gal. An observer fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Sep 6, 2012 |
# ? Sep 5, 2012 23:52 |
|
Replica Lola T70? http://bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/1969_Lola_T70_Mark_III_Race_CarReplica_Rear_1.jpg
|
# ? Sep 6, 2012 00:47 |
|
Lotus Europa? Actually, after your second description prolly not, but it was the first thing that came to mind from the drawing.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2012 01:03 |
|
echoplex posted:Replica Lola T70? Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was this. The cockpit was a little bit different, but everything else is a dead ringer. Thanks! Negromancer posted:
Nope, but that's nice as hell, I really like the rims.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2012 01:08 |
|
Phanatic posted:Not really. The Swedish S-tank didn't have a turret, but it's still called a tank. continuing tank derail... Separating "Light", "Medium", "Heavy", "Infantry" and "Cruiser" tanks really came down to how and what the country producing/fielding them called them. In WWII, it was really only the British who used "Infantry" and "Cruiser" tanks, but by late ware they were using the whole 'weight' designations (in part because of lend lease...) What gets confusing is different countries have different definitions of what is light, medium, and heavy. The Italians had the L3/35 (Light, 3 ton) tankettes and the L6/40 which were both by and far lighter than what anyone else was fielding. The Italians had medium tanks that were as light at 11 tons (M11/39), with the heaviest being 15 tons (M15/42). Compare this with the M3 Stuart "Honey" which weighed a whopping 16 tons and was classified a 'light' tank by both the US and British. And again, the built-but-never-used P26/40, Italy's only "heavy" tank weighed 4 tons less than the M4 Sherman medium tank. This sort of confusion continues, too, when separating spg, assault gun, tank hunter. During WWII, the US/UK were the only forces using turreted tank destroyers (M10, M18, M36), and before those a tank destroyer was a 37mm gun mounted on the back of a 3/4 ton truck. Really it comes down to what the intention of the user was, I think, rather than our own interpretations of what something is or isn't. After all, tank destroyers were used as spgs during the Italian campaign by all sides. In the case of the ISU-152, I could be wrong (I'm not history buff), but I've been under the impression that it's primary use was as an assault gun that could handily kill heavy tanks as well. To not deviate too far from the thread, here is a Porsche I think I stole from the first thread:
|
# ? Sep 6, 2012 01:11 |
|
I believe in tilt-shift photography but this HAS to be a model.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2012 03:17 |
|
Olivil posted:I believe in tilt-shift photography but this HAS to be a model. too much tire detail/blinker detail/rivets to be a model. You can't get the kind of metallic gloss off a model like a real piece of machined steel.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2012 03:43 |
|
This dude saw me snapping a pic while he was in the drive through next to my work so he cruised it on around to let me take more. ITS REAL
|
# ? Sep 6, 2012 03:56 |
|
Dr 14 INCH DICK Md posted:This dude saw me snapping a pic while he was in the drive through next to my work so he cruised it on around to let me take more. ITS REAL I love you, I love this car, I love that the driver was so cool about it. Drivers of old BMW's are 99% cool dudes.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2012 04:07 |
|
This one was a Euro spec that was sent to Japan, then he bought it. He loved it so much he bought a second real one as well. Apparently he owns 2 out of the 3 legit Turbos in Washington.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2012 04:12 |
|
There is only one thing to describe that 2002. That thing is
|
# ? Sep 6, 2012 04:50 |
|
Serious dreamcar status.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2012 06:03 |
|
Warcabbit posted:
drat that thing is beautiful. Remember when Ford was on their retro kick? I still pine for this car since I saw it at NAIAS 11 years ago. V8, RWD, two doors and the size of a small boat.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2012 06:07 |
|
SouthLAnd posted:drat that thing is beautiful. This car was loving glorious and I'm sad they only made the one. Also, Octopus Magic posted:You can't get the kind of metallic gloss off a model like a real piece of machined steel.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2012 14:11 |
|
|
# ? Apr 28, 2024 04:03 |
|
Dr 14 INCH DICK Md posted:This dude saw me snapping a pic while he was in the drive through next to my work so he cruised it on around to let me take more. ITS REAL
|
# ? Sep 6, 2012 19:31 |