[QUOTE=c_hunter]On what highway are two heavy lumbering SUVs traveling 90-110mph considered "responsible"? I am sorry, but this may just as well have been two pickup trucks racing, or two minivans, or two kids in Civics. This is not something I would brag about, the least of all reasons being that it is potentially unsafe to other drivers/vehicles and considered breaking the law. There is nothing "cool" about it at all in my opinion.

[QUOTE]


Hahaha. When was the last time you were on 264 between norfolk and virginia beach. that's the AVERAGE speed. You better come equipped with something serious, or you're about to get run over.

 

Just remember interstates were designed to land transport planes on them, so the speed that one can actually do on them is significantly higher then the posted speed.
As such, speed can be held quite safely if the environment and traffic allow it. The real danger comes when those speed or weave in and out of lanes or in heavily congested areas.

You shouldn't spin your tires at all Mickie, and if you do I would be concerned. The RDXs awd causes your tires to hook and at the worse you should only have a little wheel spin. Next time you are at a dead stop; try it -- you'll see what I mean. Your car will just accelerate like a shot! To do this horsepower is not the issue, it's the ability to get traction: something the RDX is superb at.

And you'd be surprised how fast you can go in the city. I was stopped for going 130+mph in a 35, but that's neither here nor there

 

You know, sometimes the information passed around on the internet is so retarded I get a chuckle out of it. In fact, it was worth suffering through this idiotic thread to get this level of entertainment.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/i....htm#question5

http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp

Now let's just forget how retarded and wrong this is and assume the interstates were in fact designed to land airplanes. How in the name of god would that have anything to do with the safe speed a car can be driven on them? Runways are designed to support heavy aircraft loads and high psi load concentrations (from the weight of entire aircraft pressing down on a few tires). That has nothing to do with speed at which cars can safely travel. Well, I take that back. If you dropped a car out of an airplane, it might punch through a normal road, but would probably not penetrate a runway. So if the speed of the car was assumed to be in the downward direction, from about 500ft, under the acceleration of gravity, maybe the runways would be better.

I think we have a winner in the "race" for the most amazing post in this most idiotic topic.

 

I bet if you took and RDX, and raced it by dropping it out of one plane, while you dropped a CX-7 out of another plane, the RDX would win. I think it looks a lot more aerodynamical and stuff, so it'd be faster heading straight down. The superhandling AWD might grip the air better, tho, so I guess maybe that's a place where not having it would let you go faster, and I guess the Mazda could win. Because the RDX is better in a crash, maybe it'd still be better to be in the RDX than the Mazda, even if you don't clock in as fast.

/going for most idiotic post in the thread.
//takes effort.

 

Sorry, I bow to your vast and far superior knowledge of all things.

Of course being the true academic (you know the type who can do more then just use google, but actually reads books and maybe even a primary source or two), you of course are aware that Interstates were built by the federal government. In fact if memory serves the creation of a national interstate system was one of the largest and most ambitious projects at that point in our history. Since it was funded by the federal government, President Eisenhower pushed it through Congress in large part by advocating the usefulness of a national highway system to national defense. As such, there were absolutely requirements in the original act that dictated the amount of straight stretches, curvatures and overall road design. Many of these requirements stemmed by the need to meet some military goals -- and, yes, I do remember reading that one of those was to land airplanes (as well as support tracked vehicles, etc,etc). The end result was that much of the country was forever changed (cities were bisected, and neighborhoods were bulldozed for the creation of the interstate), in what many contemporary American Historians believe was one of the most fundamental urban and rural re-designs of this country. So again, rather then just build on existing roads, much of these interstates were built to accomodate certain planning requirements as opposed to preserve existing neighborhoods and cities. But of course you knew this, having been the expert of all things...

Don't believe me? Go ahead google it. Use Wikipedia if you wish.

Regardless, my point still holds: interstates can certainly safely sustain a vehicle travelling considerably faster then the posted double-nickle (or even 65, or 75 mph). Can you land a heavy jet on them? I'll be damned if I know. Was there a requirement that interstates are straight for x miles before they curve? Yes. Was this in large part due to military requirements set forth by the federal act? Yes. Could one of those requirements have been to accomodate a circa-1950s plane (the time the interstates were built)? Yes.

Shall I go on, or do you just want to PM me your home address so I can drive over and slap you upside the head?

 

Man I would love 5 minutes alone with you.

Regardless as to whether it is in fact a myth that the "one-in-five" mile requirement (whether it exists or not) was proposed to accomodate landing airplanes, my logic still holds true: a straight road can safely sustain higher speeds then the posted speed limit. Furthermore, interstates are, for the most part, wide and relatively straight with long sweeping turns. As such, it is easier to get higher speeds on them then say parkways, assuming that the traffic and weather is accomodating.

Again this "myth" seems to prevailent enough that it is addressed head-on. So clearly it is something that has been tossed around for quite some time, so I am not alone in my initial belief of it's merit.

Finally, where are most standing miles held? Usually runways. The idea being that you have a nicely paved, smooth, and straight surface. Last time I checked runways were straight -- making them an excellent choice to try and go fast on. So yah, a roadway designed to accomodate landing planes would (and does) make an excellent surface to go fast with a car on.

So not to worry grandpa, you can still recline in your comfy chair and carefully calculate how much gas you saved by driving 40 mph with the proper air inflation in your tires. I prefer to feel the beat of my heart in my chest.

 

130+ in a 35?

You shouldn't even have a license.

Let me guess...it was 3:00 a.m. with no other cars on the road?

It always baffles me why people don't take their street racing crave to the track where it is MUCH safer for you and more importantly MUCH safer for the innocent bystanders who have to travel around you on a daily basis.

 

As previously mentioned, the best forums don't allow these stupid threads or the idiots that brag about their amazing ability to press the gas pedal to the floor on public roads.

1 vote for c_hunter for moderator, in the hope that this resource doesn't go down the road to becoming a baggy-pant civic streetracing forum.

 

My favorite fortune cookie of all time...
If we both agree on everything, one of us is unnecessary.

I understand being of the opinion that the behaviors discussed here (e.g. 135 mph in a 35 mph) are terribly irresponsible as it is an opinion I share. If you feel the need to express that opinion, by all means, post your disapproval of this behavior. If you find the conversation idiotic, ignore it. But, as a card carrying liberal, I feel compelled to ask that you accept the freedom of others to have ideas contrary to your own.

 

First off, moderators don't delete topics just cause they don't like them. They enforce the policies of the website. There is no policy against posting about street racing. People are going to drive however they drive. This website isn't going to change that one way or the other.

There is however a policy against personal attacks. Let's refrain from calling people idiots and physical threats. And again if you don't like the topic, then stay out of the thread, and maybe reconsider adding fuel to the fire which just keeps the thread alive.

One of the greatest things about AcuraZine is it's strong stance against censorship. Feel free to speak your mind, just don't cross the line into personal threats and attacks.

 

now thats truth...

for people that are not NEW to the site... this is how its always been here, and thats why acurazine is the best

 

you should gather your buddies and go back to the consumer report forums...

holla!

 

This is starting to feel like a road rage incident, and I think I need to hit the brakes and take a timeout for a while. My apologies to anyone I insulted. I simply do not condone getting a rush by breaking the law and/or compromising other people's safety. I would encourage people to pursue legal forms of excitement instead, where the only life you risk is your own. If anyone would like to join me for an auto-X event, a track event, or even just hucking a cliff with skis, I would be glad to share the excitement with you. Just provide your own transportation to/from the event, because carpooling is probably not a good idea!

 

HAHA ur absolutely right... but its so fun... owning those posers who think they fast

 

i raced against a chevrolet cavalier,bmw 3series,toyota celica
i won all =D

 

The only posers I can't stand are people who think they're fast driving a Honda Civic and one of those older Saturns.

 

Take it for what it's worth, I can't say I've been here "a long time", but I can say, I've been an avid fan for as long as I've owned this car. One thing I do know, is that I trust C-Hunter's judgement, and actually hope he might reply to a thread that is of intrest to me.

I may not agree, that the post should be wiped out, but I do understand his reasoning, that some folks have already crossed the line of personal blows. I'm going with Sasair with the group hug thing. Lets just all respect our own opinions, and not take shots at one another.