which video are you watching right now?

[sub68]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

because the weapons were more or less uncontrollable that way with the large round.  It was also an issue with the m14.

762 isnt really a large round but at fullauto its a pain recoil wise from what I know most of the time its on semi

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The irony is the new round has a lot in common with what they changed from.

ish 762 is still a nato round

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, sub68 said:

762 isnt really a large round but at fullauto its a pain recoil wise from what I know most of the time its on semi

ish 762 is still a nato round

.762 linked is.  I forget what exactly the British, French, and Belgians had before their .556 guns.  My memory is that they were very very similar to each other. 
 

that spear stuff isn’t .762 though.  It’s something else.

[sub68]

8 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

that spear stuff isn’t .762 though.  It’s something else.

yes it isnt but can be easliy be chambared in 762

10 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

.762 linked is.

no same size

10 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

 I forget what exactly the British, French, and Belgians had before their .556 guns.  My memory is that they were very very similar to each other. 

mostly 7.62 nato FAL,M14 and G3

[Bombastinator]

31 minutes ago, sub68 said:

yes it isnt but can be easliy be chambared in 762

no same size

mostly 7.62 nato FAL,M14 and G3

That’s right the FAL and the G3 were very similar.  There was also a Spanish gun in that group.  Roller delay blowback. I remembered g3 but it confused matters because iirc there is also a .556 G3

Edited September 11, 2022 by Bombastinator

[sub68]

9 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

because iirc there is also a .556 G3

yeah but same platform

9 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

There was also a Spanish gun in that group.

this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CETME_rifle

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, sub68 said:

yeah but same platform

this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CETME_rifle

Yep.  That one.  I thought the g3 was based on the cetme rather than the reverse.  Maybe I’m thinking of the history of the action which is older than both guns.  Was a Spanish civil war thing.  Firearms history is something I haven’t paid attention to in a long time.

[MadAnt250]

 

[Bombastinator]

It’s all in fun until someone blows themself up. 

[xAcid9]

On 9/9/2022 at 10:32 PM, Bombastinator said:

Doesn’t look like a 70’s car it looks like an 80’s car.  Of course the 80’s cars were born in the 70’s

This smells really heavily of marketing. Diffusers aren’t for downforce.  Go ahead and spin that pig.

First thing in my mind when i saw the revealing is BMW M1 and that car is from the 70s.

Explain why diffusers aren't for downforce?

[Bombastinator]

29 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

First thing in my mind when i saw the revealing is BMW M1 and that car is from the 70s.

Explain why diffusers aren't for downforce?

M1 was 1978-81.  Not the car I would have picked. I would have picked the delorean.  There were a lot of cars that riffed off of that look.  The whole “sawn out of balsawood” aesthetic, as it came to be known, was prevalent primarily on 80’s cars.  70’s cars were a lot curvier generally.  Partially because they had to incorporate round headlights. The front grille for example looks nothing like the m1.  The m1 had flip up headlights.  Which were round.  The squared off motif that centered around the headlights is squarely 80’s. Look at chrystler’s stuff.  Look at Ford’s stuff.  Porche and other German car makers got square headlights later, but until they did their cars were curvy too.  Look at the 928 and the 944.

 

Diffusers are for straightening out the airflow under a car. There is some downforce created through reduced air pressure underneath the vehicle, but it wasn’t the original goal.  It was reducing aerodynamic drag.   In any case the vast majority of diffusers are purely cosmetic.  That one is waaaaay to far off the ground to actually do much of anything. They’ve become a “cars with fins but on the bottom because buyers realized that putting them on the top was silly” sort of thing in most cases.  There is such a thing as a functional spoiler just as there is such a thing as a functional diffuser but that doesn’t look like one.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Bombastinator

[xAcid9]

15 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

M1 was 1978-81.  Not the car I would have picked. I would have picked the delorean.  There were a lot of cars that riffed off of that look.  The whole “sawn out of balsawood” aesthetic, as it came to be known, was prevalent primarily on 80’s cars.  70’s cars were a lot curvier generally.  Partially because they had to incorporate round headlights. The front grille for example looks nothing like the m1.  The m1 had flip up headlights.  Which were round.  The squared off motif that centered around the headlights is squarely 80’s. Look at chrystler’s stuff.  Look at Ford’s stuff. 

The more i looked at it, the more it reminded me of BMW M1 specifically the M1 Procar front end, not the Delorean. The only thing that makes me think of the Delorean is the color. 1978/79 is still in the 70s.

 

Oh i agree the diffuser is more of an aesthetics but it still generating some downforce. It just a road car anyway.

 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, xAcid9 said:

The more i looked at it, the more it reminded me of BMW M1 specifically the M1 Procar front end, not the Delorean. The only thing that makes me think of the Delorean is the color. 1978/79 is still in the 70s.

 

Oh i agree the diffuser is more of an aesthetics but it still generating some downforce. It just a road car anyway.

 

This seems to be a war of definitions.  You’re talking college work.  I’m talking about what was on the street.  Go look at a ‘70s mustang some time.  Looks absolutely nothing like that. Then look at an 80’s mustang.  It kinda does.  You ever actually see an m1?  Not in pictures but driving down the street.  I haven’t.  I remember both the 70’s and the 80’s though.  You found a single car at the very end of the seventies.  A very trend setting car.  One that almost no one even owned. 70’s design was round and bouncy and brightly colored. 80’s design was squared off and sharp edged.  That car is squared off and sharp edged.  It practically scream s 80’s.  Little boys had posters of the m1 on their bedroom walls in the 80’s not the 70’s.  The countache also featured prominently.   They were not inspired by 70’s industrial design.  70’s industrial design was born in the 60’s.  It’s very much 80’s industrial design though.  Design tends to lag several years of course.  Students develop their artistic voice in art school and they have to get a job and then have the seniority to be able to actually design something that gets made.  So were art school students drawing pictures of cars that looked like that in the late 70’s? Sure. Battlestar galactica was out.  Star Wars had just come out.  They changed design.  My issue was the term “70’s” stuff wasn’t coming out that looked like that then, but it did in the 80’s.  So is it “70’s design”. No.  That wasn’t the language used in 70’s industrial design.  Did they maybe find some junger (because Germany) to do something ground breaking and different?  Apparently.  That doesn’t make it 70’s design though. 
 

As for the probability that that thing has “some down force” I strongly suspect physics disagrees with you.  Ground effect stuff doesn’t happen in cars till the floor pan is a few inches from the road at most.  It’s one of the big problems with splitters.  They have to be incredibly close to the ground to work.  So close they can’t be effectively put on anything but race cars.  People tried.  It went badly the ones on super cars had motors to raise and lower them and they still got broken while people who drove and tested the cars showed they did basically nothing by having them break off and the car actually handle better.  Putting stuff on cars that looks like it works is an old old practice. That one can’t.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Bombastinator

[xAcid9]

8 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

-snip-

Oh, i get your point. But he did said it look like something that was born in the 70s, not a mainstream in the 70s. Big different. Yeah, that design was born in late-60s mid-70s imo, except the square headlight. 

 

Also after some reading, the design cue was taken from the original Hyundai concept car back in the 1974 hence the Vision 74 naming. The guy that designed the concept car designed the M1 few years after that and then the DMC-12, i guess we're both right. 

 

8 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

As for the probability that that thing has “some down force” I strongly suspect physics disagrees with you.  Ground effect stuff doesn’t happen in cars till the floor pan is a few inches from the road at most.  It’s one of the big problems with splitters.  They have to be incredibly close to the ground to work.  So close they can’t be effectively put on anything but race cars.  People tried.  It went badly the ones on super cars had motors to raise and lower them and they still got broken while people who drove and tested the cars showed they did basically nothing by having them break off and the car actually handle better.  Putting stuff on cars that looks like it works is an old old practice. That one can’t.

I need to look at the underside of the car before i say physics disagrees with me. The car ride height is pretty low, not your typical road car height. Yeah you might not get an optimum ground effect but you did get some of it. It's not an on/off thing.  

 

 

[Bombastinator]

5 hours ago, xAcid9 said:

Oh, i get your point. But he did said it look like something that was born in the 70s, not a mainstream in the 70s. Big different. Yeah, that design was born in late-60s mid-70s imo, except the square headlight. 

 

Also after some reading, the design cue was taken from the original Hyundai concept car back in the 1974 hence the Vision 74 naming. The guy that designed the concept car designed the M1 few years after that and then the DMC-12, i guess we're both right. 

 

I need to look at the underside of the car before i say physics disagrees with me. The car ride height is pretty low, not your typical road car height. Yeah you might not get an optimum ground effect but you did get some of it. It's not an on/off thing.  

 

 

In the video I’m seeing a ground effect kit and wing spoiler added to the thing.  Basically all the black stuff. Seems someone agreed with me.  Even the wheel hubs are different.  think I read “inspired from 70’s designs”. It looks like an 80’s car not a 70’s car

[Quackers101]

aw yes, lets be a frog jumping through traffic the american way

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

kaboom.

[Bombastinator]

18 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

kaboom.

There’s an 80’s Bon Jovi parody in there somewhere.  
 

Throwing a rod is just about the most ebullient thing an engine can do.  It’s even more impressive than a really big backfire complete with fireball.   It’s so powerful it’s rarely really seen though.  You’re driving down the highway and poof there’s a hole ripped in your hood and your engine stops dead.  The rod goes so fast you don’t see it.  Under the hood is a gigantic mess of course. People have been killed by thrown rods punching right through the dash.   Not many of course. 

[Quackers101]

uh oh, sony

(also Sony and WS Audiology announce partnership for audio)

 

huawei having an audio test studio and going for buds that are "close to" apple buds pro?

 

Nvidia Studio, "omniverse essentials".

[sub68]

 

[Quackers101]

man the UI in some asian games are sooo bloated, and it being "normal". at least some functions and stuff is pretty cool tho.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

 

[sub68]

dirty jobs

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, sub68 said:

dirty jobs

The one of those that sticks in my mind is the rendering plant.  He apparently occasionally runs into machines that exist nowhere else in the world. People design and build them then just go into business with them and they never make it to the wider world.

[Bombastinator]

5 hours ago, NastyFlytrap said:

 

Blackout unmarked keys? Really?!  No more Neal Stephenson for you

[Quackers101]

1 hour ago, Max_YF said:

-link-

hoping for a part 2