Donk Rim: 1.... BMW: 0

Actually not as random as you may think. Consider the number of cars on the road in the area, and then figure that all donks are poorly "engineered", and the fact that there are quite a few videos of donks losing wheels and axles...

I put "engineered" in quotes because the way these guys actually recommend lifting these cars to put the wheels underneath them is down right frightening.
Shit like this, you mean?
suzukithing4pc.jpg

attachment.php

jeep.jpg

If I was the driver of the BMW, I would redefine livid.
 
I guess where we differ is that I clearly view driving as a right, not a privelege to be bestowed upon me by the whims of some idiot politicians with their silly rule books. It may be a privelege the way the system stands right now, but I do not agree with it being considered a privelege AT ALL.

Well thats where our opinions are just going to have to differ.

I am very good friends with a guy from California who pretty much has his hands tied as far as doing any upgrades on his car because of hte stock equipment his car has. He has cylinder heads with an EGR crossover, and he can't swap to heads without an EGR crossover, despite the fact that contemporary cars to the one he has didn't always have them. Because of this he can't switch to L98 corvette heads, he's limited to iron L98 heads from 88-92 350 Camaros/Firebirds. He could choose to run Vortec heads, but again, he's limited because not only did they not have a crossover, but there is no intake that he can use that will be legal for it anyway. He cant switch to an external EGR system because it would cause him to fail the visual.

He doesnt seem to think it's nearly as draconian as I do, however.

Well I can tell you that if he's having trouble finding carb legal parts for a pre-LT1GM then he's likely not been bothered to look for more than about 15 seconds or is looking for something entirely way too specific. Brodix, AFR, Crane, Edelbrock the list goes on sells several heads for ANY pre-95 Chevy small block (search the page for "gm vehicles" or "General Motors").

There is always other options, do an "engine swap" to an engine that doesn't have the crossover. Go to the junkyard and pull the required emissions equipment with it and stick with his original block. Once he does that, take it to get checked by a smog ref and they'll sign off on it. Afterwards he's officially allowed to use any parts that works for the engine he "swapped." And that is a matter of finding a wrecked car of similar or newer vintage to pull the bits out of... can't be hard.

I know the above to be true because my friend has been involved for several years now in LSx swaps into RX-7's.

Just out of curiosity, why is he so set on sticking with factory heads?
 
Last edited:
Seriously, someone must've fucked up and not put the knock off on tightly enough. Idiots need to use the lead hammer more effectively.
It probably broke off at the hub. Those kind of rims are absurdly heavy, and when you stick one on the end of some 20 year old, light-duty axle (probably with C-Clips, no less :lol: ), you're just asking for trouble.

One thing I've noticed between Missouri (that has the safety inspection) and California (that doesn't) is that there are far less rusty, old piles of trash on the road in Missouri than in California.
That is something I like about Missouri's system. It may just be certified mechanics (not engineers) doing the inspections, but they normally have an excellent grasp of what's really safe or not. More so than just about any engineer I know.

I've had mechanics threaten not to pass a couple rusty unibody cars I've owned. More recently, my little brothers crazy V8 S10 failed to pass because of bad wiring. I couldn't see too many of them passing a "Donk". Come to think of it, I haven't seen any really tall Donks with Missouri plates. They've all had Wyandotte plates on them :lol:.

Kansas is the total opposite though. No vehicle inspections, unless you file for salvage title or try to register a 35 year old Yamaha :?. My Ford leaks a little gas, the exhaust is rusted out, and the rear brakes are crap. It could use new tires too. But I just walked right into the courthouse with a signed title, insurance and a valid drivers license and I got a plate. Fucking crazy.

Remember, driving is a privilege NOT a right. You're not surrendering any liberties.
Ask any Republican lawmaker and he'll say, "Well ... it's all in how you interpret the law ..." :p There's an argument to be made that simply, the vehicle is my property, and the government does not have the right to infringe upon my property rights. Of course, putting such a poorly 'engineered' vehicle on a public road and posing a threat to others could be considered infringing upon their liberties etc etc. The Bill of Rights doesn't put too much emphasis on property rights anyway.
 
Last edited:
That is something I like about Missouri's system. It may just be certified mechanics (not engineers) doing the inspections, but they normally have an excellent grasp of what's really safe or not. More so than just about any engineer I know.

I've had mechanics threaten not to pass a couple rusty unibody cars I've owned. More recently, my little brothers crazy V8 S10 failed to pass because of bad wiring. I couldn't see too many of them passing a "Donk". Come to think of it, I haven't seen any really tall Donks with Missouri plates. They've all had Wyandotte plates on them :lol:.

Well the inspections here in Missouri seem not to worry to much about the engineering so much as just anything that could cause an obvious wreck, I guess the Australian equivalent goes so far as to make sure the math works out. Probably need to find our resident super 7 builder from OZ.

Though I've had more problems passing inspection because of missing smog/screwed up smog equipment than anything. 1 case was the exhaust had some holes in it, and the next time was a missing heat riser.

Ask any Republican lawmaker and he'll say, "Well ... it's all in how you interpret the law ..." :p There's an argument to be made that simply, the vehicle is my property, and the government does not have the right to infringe upon my property rights. Of course, putting such a poorly 'engineered' vehicle on a public road and posing a threat to others could be considered infringing upon their liberties etc etc. The Bill of Rights doesn't put too much emphasis on property rights anyway.

The vehicle is your property, but you want to put it on publicly shared property, I think at that point it becomes a weapon of mass destruction. It's why I fully agree with the idea that driving is a privilege and not a right.
 
Has no one used the 'Truck wheel out of fucking nowhere' gag yet? No?

Well...

http://img237.imageshack.**/img237/3110/64931ru0.gif

:rolleyes:
 
I'm all for personal freedoms but I've got to side with fbc on this one, especially as a motorcyclist. Someone else's shoddy modification could quickly become my life-threatening problem. I would also feel much better about buying a used car if there was some regulation instead of god knows who doing god knows what to his car and not telling me about it.

The more I think of it the more I would like driving to be regulated with flying. Even with little Cessnas you have to get the plane inspected and okay'd for something as simple as changing a radio.

As a motorcyclist, I think you should keep quite about instigating laws for safety on public roads. You strap yourself to a ticking time bomb and want other people's vehicles to be heavily legislated on the grounds of safety? Not a good idea.

You can't legislate stupidity. You can try, waste time and money, but it won't ever work. Most of the cars and bikes on the roads wouldn't meet current safety requirements for new vehicles. Does that mean the government can deny you registration on your older vehicle? Force you to have the car seized or taken off the road permanently? Force you to buy a new vehicle with a giant soft hood so it doesn't hurt all those pedestrians you're bound to run over?

I hope I don't live to see the day.
 
I don't think older vehicles should be held to the same standards as new vehicles. That would be silly and impractical because we would all be forced to buy brand new vehicles every year. I'm just saying there should be some way of making sure they're safe to operate.

Funny you mention the "ticking time bomb" because I was thinking about that last night. I can't stand being in a moving car without a seatbelt on. But I'm more than happy to hop on something with nothing holding me there. There's a big difference between the risks of motorcycling and it's safety. I knowingly take a risk that I could be killed in a simple accident that would hardly damage a normal car. But that risk is minimized because of the safety precautions I take, both with the gear I wear and with the bike itself. Every time I ride (even just across town) I always check the bike to be sure it's as safe as it should be. I don't needlessly endanger others by knowingly riding an unsafe vehicle and I would really like others to do the same.

It boggles my mind that new cars have to be extensively tested to ensure they're safe before they're allowed to be sold, yet once they're on the public roads there are no checks to ensure they're kept up to those safety standards. But even the safest vehicles are only as safe as their drivers and far too many people have forgotten how to drive safely.
 
I don't think older vehicles should be held to the same standards as new vehicles. That would be silly and impractical because we would all be forced to buy brand new vehicles every year. I'm just saying there should be some way of making sure they're safe to operate.

Funny you mention the "ticking time bomb" because I was thinking about that last night. I can't stand being in a moving car without a seatbelt on. But I'm more than happy to hop on something with nothing holding me there. There's a big difference between the risks of motorcycling and it's safety. I knowingly take a risk that I could be killed in a simple accident that would hardly damage a normal car. But that risk is minimized because of the safety precautions I take, both with the gear I wear and with the bike itself. Every time I ride (even just across town) I always check the bike to be sure it's as safe as it should be. I don't needlessly endanger others by knowingly riding an unsafe vehicle and I would really like others to do the same.

It boggles my mind that new cars have to be extensively tested to ensure they're safe before they're allowed to be sold, yet once they're on the public roads there are no checks to ensure they're kept up to those safety standards. But even the safest vehicles are only as safe as their drivers and far too many people have forgotten how to drive safely.

As far as car safety goes, it's not black & white. There is no cut&dry measurement for what's safe and for what isn't safe. There is no instrument that you can connect to your car to measure it's safety. A car is only as safe as it's driver, like you said. And you can't always predict when something like that will happen. I've had 2 different friends that both lost wheels due to their lug bolts shearing off. And neither of their cars were modified and neither was more then 5 years old at the time. The only way to enforce the sort of law that you're imagining is to pull over and immediately impound any vehicle that appears "unsafe" in any way. That's not realistic.

As for bikes, can I ask you a serious question?

If you're riding down the road and someone pulls out in front of you causing a collision, would you make that person and/or that person's insurance company pay for your injuries and medical bills?
 
I partly agree with you. Thinking that inspections would make everyone completely safe would be insane. Vehicles are machines and machines break from time to time. Nothing can prevent that. They best you can hope to do is minimize risk. But if something is obviously unsafe then something should be done about it.

As for your scenario, yes I would make them pay. They broke the traffic law by not yielding to the vehicle with the right of way.
 
As for your scenario, yes I would make them pay. They broke the traffic law by not yielding to the vehicle with the right of way.

You see, that is something I have trouble with.

I like bikes and want to buy one. Probably end up getting a dirt bike or maybe a dual sport bike, if I could afford it. But I always think that if I get killed on the thing, I don't want anyone to be prosecuted for my death. I choose to ride a dangerous vehicle with nonexistent safety systems, I don't want anyone else's life ruined because of my choice, even if the collision was their fault.

They should definitely be forced to pay for your bike, but I'm not convinced about the medical bills. If you chose to ride a bike, you must accept the risks and take responsibility for it, FULL responsibility for it. Including any possible, and very likely, bodily injuries. IMO. Turn on the TV. Listen to the traffic report on the radio. People can't even avoid crashing their cars into other full size cars. You have a hope and a prayer of avoiding an accident on a bike. You get on your bike and you go out on those roads, you will have an accident some day, almost everyone does. You can't blame people for you getting hurt, because it was you who was driving a dangerous vehicle in the first place.

But I don't know. It's just something that's been on my mind since Blind's accident. Everyone says they know the risks and accept them, but so very often it's someone else who's forced to pay for them.
 
That's an interesting perspective and from what I've read there has been some debate about that in Canada with regards to universal healthcare and what should and shouldn't be covered. The way I see it is that motorcycles are considered motor vehicles just like cars so the same laws and consequences still apply. If I crash because of my own mistake (which I already have) I gladly accept the consequences. But I don't like the idea of holding responsibility because of someone else's mistake. What's even worse is that if drivers know they aren't responsible for riders' medical bills they'll be even less safe and that's no good for anybody.

Maybe we can work out a compromise? A driver's insurance covers a rider's medical bills only if that rider is wearing appropriate protective equipment? That way it sort of forces motorcyclists to accept at least some responsibility for themselves.

Nothing personal on this one (it's nice having a real debate instead of the usual arguments here) but it seems the danger factor always comes up at the mere mention of motorcycles. If motorcycles really were as dangerous as a lot of people make them out to be then they'd be outlawed. The last time I checked it was perfectly legal to ride. I'd rather die doing what I love than wishing I had done more and regretting missed opportunities. I know it's pretty cliche quoting Ghost Rider in a thread like this but one line sums up motorcycling, and life in general, pretty well: "You can't live in fear."

[offtopic] The John Deere comment made me :lol: [/offtopic]
 
You see, that is something I have trouble with.

I like bikes and want to buy one. Probably end up getting a dirt bike or maybe a dual sport bike, if I could afford it. But I always think that if I get killed on the thing, I don't want anyone to be prosecuted for my death. I choose to ride a dangerous vehicle with nonexistent safety systems, I don't want anyone else's life ruined because of my choice, even if the collision was their fault.

They should definitely be forced to pay for your bike, but I'm not convinced about the medical bills. If you chose to ride a bike, you must accept the risks and take responsibility for it, FULL responsibility for it. Including any possible, and very likely, bodily injuries. IMO. Turn on the TV. Listen to the traffic report on the radio. People can't even avoid crashing their cars into other full size cars. You have a hope and a prayer of avoiding an accident on a bike. You get on your bike and you go out on those roads, you will have an accident some day, almost everyone does. You can't blame people for you getting hurt, because it was you who was driving a dangerous vehicle in the first place.

But I don't know. It's just something that's been on my mind since Blind's accident. Everyone says they know the risks and accept them, but so very often it's someone else who's forced to pay for them.

The problem I see with your scenario is that the other driver should have looked to make sure no one was there, saw that someone was, and not moved over. It's one thing if the rider was in the wrong, but when another driver can't be bothered to pay attention and they injure kill a person, regardless of that persons chosen vehicle, should have to pay the damages.

Back on the inspections thing...

With the lugs sheering off, well shit happens, metal fatigues, and it could have been a poor batch of studs from the manufacturer (at which point they are liable). The idea of inspections won't obviously cure the problem, but when people do obviously stupid shit to their cars, something as simple as using the wrong wheel spacer on an aftermarket wheel that makes the lugs hold the weight of the wheel and car* then that could be caught, of course that could also essentially ban the production of poorly designed wheel spacers.

As far as the other inspections, like the one missouri has, they merely check to make sure that the seat belts are properly functioning, lights, noxious fumes aren't getting into the car, brakes are properly taken care of, tires aren't to far worn out, etc. IMO this type of inspection should be required by all states, it would get the junk off the road.



*For those that don't know, you may notice on your factory wheels that they not only fit properly on the lugs, but there is a nice lip on the hub that the center of the wheel sits on, this is what supports the weight of the vehicle on the wheels, the lugs are only meant to keep the wheel bolted to the hubs. Cheap spacers won't have this lip, or won't fit properly to the wheels and force the lugs to support the weight of the car on the wheels. It's actually quite possible that is what happened with the wheel that hit the BMW.
 
If you chose to ride a bike, you must accept the risks and take responsibility for it, FULL responsibility for it. Including any possible, and very likely, bodily injuries. IMO.

And people who drive old cars with no seatbelts, or airbags? Bicycles?

Riding a motorbike is legal, if someone else breaks the law and hits me why should I be punished by having to pay?

Legislating according to the cost to taxpayers seems reasonable to begin with, but where does it stop?

I've been hit twice and haven't claimed a cent for injuries BTW. Oh, and I don't believe in people being charged with manslaughter in the case of an accident either.

I look at it the other way, if everyone rode bikes, the roads would be safer, traffic would flow and never get jammed and we'd all be saving the environment. :D

Yay for bikes.
 
The vehicle is your property, but you want to put it on publicly shared property, I think at that point it becomes a weapon of mass destruction. It's why I fully agree with the idea that driving is a privilege and not a right.

What makes the roads public property again? Oh! Right! The fact that we all, as tax payers, pay to maintain it! I pay my taxes just like everyone else, therefore I have a right to use it.
 
What makes the roads public property again? Oh! Right! The fact that we all, as tax payers, pay to maintain it! I pay my taxes just like everyone else, therefore I have a right to use it.

You do have a right to use it, but no where is there a right that says WHAT you can use on it.

BTW, you only pay road taxes when you buy fuel, and you can buy fuel without the road tax on it. So if you decide to build a car that isn't able to be used on public roads then you don't have to pay taxes for using the roads and you then don't have a right to use said roads, otherwise you're just stealing :p
 
We'll just continue to agree to disagree then.

Just out of curiosity, why is he so set on sticking with factory heads?

Not everyone can afford $1500+ on cylinder heads, man. His options are either slow, old iron L98 083 heads, or AFR's or Edelbrokes. I dont like Edelbroke anyway, but he's in a situation where he has to spend $1500 on cylinder heads when all he wants to do is hit 300 rwhp. Which is absolutely insane.
 
The way I see it is that motorcycles are considered motor vehicles just like cars so the same laws and consequences still apply.
But that's just the thing, they're not. They don't meet the same safety standards or anything. They don't pass crash tests, they don't do anything. If bikes were held to the same standard as cars, they would be banned. No bike would pass the crash tests requirements required by law, whether it be US federal regs or the EU.

If I crash because of my own mistake (which I already have) I gladly accept the consequences. But I don't like the idea of holding responsibility because of someone else's mistake.
And I agree with that. My only problem is the extreme lack of safety with bikes. It would be no different if I poured gasoline all over the inside of my car and lit a few candles and then sued the shit out of someone who bumped into me and cause a candle to fall into the gas and burn me nearly to death.

You're putting yourself in harms way. It's 100 times worse then driving a car without a seatbelt. It's every bit as bad as car surfing. But no one will say that riding a bike is idiotic and irresponsible. Well, some people might.

Nothing personal on this one (it's nice having a real debate instead of the usual arguments here) but it seems the danger factor always comes up at the mere mention of motorcycles. If motorcycles really were as dangerous as a lot of people make them out to be then they'd be outlawed. The last time I checked it was perfectly legal to ride. I'd rather die doing what I love than wishing I had done more and regretting missed opportunities.
And I agree with that as well. I still want a bike. But I also accept the fact that my chances of getting in a collision are nearly guaranteed. You're more likely to get into a wreck on a bike then in a car, for obvious reasons. And even the most minor of wrecks can be potentially life threatening. I also accept that fact.

The wreck could be someone else's fault, while your injuries can be yours. If you put your small infant child in the front seat, right in front of the airbag, without a car seat or anything, who's fault will it be if that child is killed in an accident?

The problem I see with your scenario is that the other driver should have looked to make sure no one was there, saw that someone was, and not moved over. It's one thing if the rider was in the wrong, but when another driver can't be bothered to pay attention and they injure kill a person, regardless of that persons chosen vehicle, should have to pay the damages.

I think they should pay the damages too. And they should get a citation if they failed to yield or ran a red light, DUI, or whatever.

But accidents do occur. And you're putting your life in danger by riding a motorcycle on the streets. You ever hear the expression, "Go play in traffic"? That's a sarcastic way of telling someone to go get themselves killed. The streets are not safe. Period. You take a risk every time you go out there. Wearing your seatbelt, checking your brakes, buying a car because it scored well in IIHS tests and has 6 airbags etc, are all things you can do to protect yourself. But when you chose to ride a bike, you're throwing your personal safety out of the window. A nice helmet and full leathers only go so far.

And people who drive old cars with no seatbelts, or airbags? Bicycles?

Riding a motorbike is legal, if someone else breaks the law and hits me why should I be punished by having to pay?
To be honest, I'm surprised bikes are still legal. You'd think with all the "protect you from yourself" laws going into place all the time, motorcycles would be dead in the water. They certainly couldn't possibly pass any crash tests that cars are held to, like I mentioned earlier.

And the same goes for old cars. You want to drive around without a seatbelt? That's fine, but it's your own damn fault when some poor city worker is scraping your brains off your shattered windshield following an accident. You can only gamble with your life so much.


But just to clarify, I'm not trying to say that they should make laws about what I'm saying. I would be openly against that too. I'm just talking about your personal choice and how much personal responsibility you would take for your life. We live in a sue happy world where everyone is looking for easy money, no matter how stupid the lawsuit is. I think people should be allowed to do what they want, so long as they take the blame for what ends up happening to them as a result. Everyone will get in a car accident sooner or later, but choosing to drive an old beater car, not wearing your seatbelt, or riding a motorcycle are choices you have to make and you have to live with. You can't always blame someone else when you knew something like that could and will probably happen.
 
Last edited:
Well, considering all this, it's no wonder that the number of lethal car accidents on the interstates in the USA is nearly twice as high as on the Autobahns here, in proportion of the miles driven by people.

And there is no general speed limit here!

So... very good on emission laws over there across the Atlantic but when it comes to save people's lives, oh dear...
 
Last edited:
Well, considering all this, it's no wonder that the number of lethal car accidents on the interstates in the USA is nearly twice as high as on the Autobahns here, in proportion of the miles driven by people.

And there is no general speed limit here!

So... very good on emission laws over there across the Atlantic but when it comes to save people's lives, oh dear...

The reason so many people die is because people try to do as many things as they can at the same time, and don't concentrate on driving.
 
Top