So exactly what is this fad called?

I like the most of the Hellaflush cars, however, the holier than thou douchebag attitude that comes with it is what turns me off.

Didn't this all start in Germany back in the late 80s/early 90s because of some TUV reg requiring the tire tread to be inside the fender, but the wheel didn't have to be?

MadScientistMatt wrote: I like the way a wire tucked engine bay looks, but I've lost count of the number of customers I've worked with whose mysterious electrical gremlins were the result of a wire tuck gone horribly wrong. Is the rusted hood thing mostly a West Coast trend? I don't see very many rusted hoods in Atlanta, even of the non-ironic variety.

Burroughs is in TN I believe and he has done a lot to further the trend, including starting Stanceworks and even coming out with a limited edition run of AST coilovers meant to be run low but still have travel.

Let me see if I can find the pic/vids of his S54 swapped E36, badass car.

Wireless engine bays, 50 gazillion lights on a motorcycle, and rusted hoods are all personal choice. To each his own.

Additionally, show cars can look like whatever the owner wants AT A SHOW.

However, when you permanently install wheel knuckles which have been carefully manufactured to destroy the handling of a multi-thousand pound chunk of steel, and then put it on the street amongst hundred of unsuspecting innocent by-drivers and drive it at highway speed, it is reckless endangerment.

Arrest the ba@#$ds. If they come near my kids, I will consider my reaction self-defense. Perhaps justifiable homicide.

If that makes me a grumpy old man in knee socks, so be it.

^grump

SVreX wrote: However, when you permanently install wheel knuckles which have been carefully manufactured to destroy the handling of a multi-thousand pound chunk of steel, and then put it on the street amongst hundred of unsuspecting innocent by-drivers and drive it at highway speed, it is reckless endangerment. If that makes me a grumpy old man in knee socks, so be it.

forillydoh

grimmelshanks wrote: ^grump

That's "Mr. Grump" to you.

Mr. Grump in knee high black socks standing on the lawn yelling, that is.

I'm gonna vote foul on the "OMG they are gonna kill the children!" sentiment. Is it going to handle well? No. Is it going to handle worse than a 300K mile Geo Metro with worn out $29 special tires and dead ball joints, which doesn't look as retarded but is more common on the road? No.

Perhaps worded strongly.

However, no foul. I stand by the perspective that intentional modifications which seriously diminish the safety of a vehicle should be able to be restricted by law, and enforced by law enforcement.

There is a big difference between intentionally causing a hazard and normal wear and tear.

Besides, state inspection systems should already restrict the worn out Geo in most places, and those that do not don't change the responsibility the driver has if they operate a faulty vehicle which endangers others.

So, I counter your "foul" with calling foul on the comparison between legitimate wear and tear conditions and unsafe modifications.

I see no difference between these modifications and street racing, from a public safety perspective.

In some ways, this is worse, because the modifications are intentional and premeditated. It is completely known to the person doing the modifications that they are creating a hazard.

SVreX wrote: Perhaps worded strongly. However, no foul. I stand by the perspective that intentional modifications which seriously diminish the safety of a vehicle should be able to be restricted by law, and enforced by law enforcement. There is a big difference between intentionally causing a hazard and normal wear and tear. Besides, state inspection systems should already restrict the worn out Geo in most places, and those that do not don't change the responsibility the driver has if they operate a faulty vehicle which endangers others. So, I counter your "foul" with calling foul on the comparison between legitimate wear and tear conditions and unsafe modifications.

Hard to draw the line there.... with more performance, comes more danger.

I'd say these cars are less dangerous than a new ZR1 in the same hands, and you know they aren't driving fast in them because they might chip their paint or get their wheels dirty.

Every modification i've done to my car makes it significantly more dangerous. It's now making more power than the chassis was ever designed to handle.

Ok to B-swap and turbo an EG hatch on a worn-out suspension, but not to re-do the entire suspension with new parts, albeit in a way that the factory never intended, though?

Just playing devil's advocate, here... i hate the excessive camber as much as anyone.

93celicaGT2 wrote: Every modification i've done to my car makes it significantly more dangerous.

I really hope that is not true.

Have you increased the power without also addressing the braking distance? Shame on you.

Have you made the car excessively powerful without enabling it to handle the corners quicker? Shame on you.

Have you built something that you are not capable of handling? Shame on you.

Have you made it too fast for the tires it has, or pushed it past the stress levels the vehicle is capable of handling? Shame on you.

If you have, then you are liable for the risk you are taking and the danger you are exposing other drivers to.

Modifications do not necessarily equate to higher levels of danger. I installed disk brakes on my 1960 El Camino. Definitely made it safer. I install roll cages and safety harnesses in race cars, which definitely make them safer.

The goal of modifications should be improvements, not increasing danger for the sake of increasing danger.

Decreasing the contact patch to 10% of it's original is not an improvement (from a safety perspective). Riding the rubber on the corner in violation to the way the tire was designed to be used is not an improvement (from a safety perspective). Changing the suspension geometry to intentionally limit the capabilities is not an improvement (from a safety perspective).

For the record, I don't really care what folks do. I happen to enjoy the low rider scene. But that doesn't mean I think a car that has been fitted with hydraulics so it can jump 10' in the air is appropriate for the street. My opinion of the appearance is completely irrelevant. But no one can argue that these cars have not been compromised from a safety perspective.

The photos clearly show vehicles being driven on public roadways which appear to be interstate grade (which would imply high rates of speed). They also clearly show other vehicles using the same public roadways at the same time.

Cars that have been modified for show with significant compromises to their handling and safety should not be driven at speeds on public roadways risking innocents.

If they are, the owners should be prepared for the consequences. Fines, lawsuits, and financial penalties are certainly some of the potential consequences.

Driving on a public roadway (at least in the US) is not a right, it is a privilege. I have no problem taking that privilege from people who abuse it and endanger others.

DILYSI Dave wrote: . Is it going to handle worse than a 300K mile Geo Metro with worn out $29 special tires and dead ball joints, which doesn't look as retarded but is more common on the road? No.

See, this is why I don't mind living in a salt-encrusted hellhole for vehicle enthusiasts. At the same time, cars don't generally last long enough to become safety nightmares.

SVreX wrote:

grimmelshanks wrote: ^grump

That's "Mr. Grump" to you. Mr. Grump in knee high black socks standing on the lawn yelling, that is.

lol! i wanna share a beer with you

If you are buying, I only drink those expensive imported micro brews.

If I am, sorry. It's Bud Light.

"NOW YOU KIDS STAY OFF THE LAWN NOW, YOU HEAR?"

z31maniac wrote:

MadScientistMatt wrote: I like the way a wire tucked engine bay looks, but I've lost count of the number of customers I've worked with whose mysterious electrical gremlins were the result of a wire tuck gone horribly wrong. Is the rusted hood thing mostly a West Coast trend? I don't see very many rusted hoods in Atlanta, even of the non-ironic variety.

Burroughs is in TN I believe and he has done a lot to further the trend, including starting Stanceworks and even coming out with a limited edition run of AST coilovers meant to be run low but still have travel. Let me see if I can find the pic/vids of his S54 swapped E36, badass car.

This is the car and it is pretty fantastic/game-changing/trendsetting IMHO:

That said, the hater in me has to wonder where a 20-year-old gets the green to do this.

SVreX wrote: Perhaps worded strongly. However, no foul. I stand by the perspective that intentional modifications which seriously diminish the safety of a vehicle should be able to be restricted by law, and enforced by law enforcement. There is a big difference between intentionally causing a hazard and normal wear and tear. Besides, state inspection systems should already restrict the worn out Geo in most places, and those that do not don't change the responsibility the driver has if they operate a faulty vehicle which endangers others. So, I counter your "foul" with calling foul on the comparison between legitimate wear and tear conditions and unsafe modifications.

I completely agree with your sentiment about demon camber cars being dangerous. And yes, I would support the cops ticketing them.

However, there seems to be a strong anti-young bias. For example, T-buckets with no front brakes and 454s seem much more dangerous than a demon camber Rabbit. And yet nobody raises hell about t-buckets.

Machiavelli, I think, was right about people opposing whatever is new because it is new.

gamby wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

MadScientistMatt wrote: I like the way a wire tucked engine bay looks, but I've lost count of the number of customers I've worked with whose mysterious electrical gremlins were the result of a wire tuck gone horribly wrong. Is the rusted hood thing mostly a West Coast trend? I don't see very many rusted hoods in Atlanta, even of the non-ironic variety.

Burroughs is in TN I believe and he has done a lot to further the trend, including starting Stanceworks and even coming out with a limited edition run of AST coilovers meant to be run low but still have travel. Let me see if I can find the pic/vids of his S54 swapped E36, badass car.

This is the car and it is pretty fantastic/game-changing/trendsetting IMHO: That said, the hater in me has to wonder where a 20-year-old gets the green to do this.

One rumor I read was that his dad is big shot at HRE wheels? He also shoots professionally, I think, no idea what kind of money is in it though.

That car is nasty.. I still cant see why people cant pick wheels that fit right. lol

SVreX wrote: Wireless engine bays, 50 gazillion lights on a motorcycle, and rusted hoods are all personal choice. To each his own. Additionally, show cars can look like whatever the owner wants AT A SHOW. However, when you permanently install wheel knuckles which have been carefully manufactured to destroy the handling of a multi-thousand pound chunk of steel, and then put it on the street amongst hundred of unsuspecting innocent by-drivers and drive it at highway speed, it is reckless endangerment. Arrest the ba@#$ds. If they come near my kids, I will consider my reaction self-defense. Perhaps justifiable homicide. If that makes me a grumpy old man in knee socks, so be it.

So...

What's your stance on Pro Street drag racers?

SVreX wrote: Wireless engine bays, 50 gazillion lights on a motorcycle, and rusted hoods are all personal choice. To each his own. Additionally, show cars can look like whatever the owner wants AT A SHOW. However, when you permanently install wheel knuckles which have been carefully manufactured to destroy the handling of a multi-thousand pound chunk of steel, and then put it on the street amongst hundred of unsuspecting innocent by-drivers and drive it at highway speed, it is reckless endangerment. Arrest the ba@#$ds. If they come near my kids, I will consider my reaction self-defense. Perhaps justifiable homicide. If that makes me a grumpy old man in knee socks, so be it.

So...

What's your stance on Pro Street drag racers?

SVreX wrote: If you are buying, I only drink those expensive imported micro brews. If I am, sorry. It's Bud Light. "NOW YOU KIDS STAY OFF THE LAWN NOW, YOU HEAR?"

a kind word and a gun get you further than a kind word alone, my friend

anyway, I seriously can't see ANY draw to demon camber, to me it just makes the car look like the lower ball joint let go and they let it stay that way. like I said, stupid. Hellaflush does LOOK nice, admittedly, but it's only good if the whole suspension was moved relative to the body, and then you run into massive tire rub problems unless you have a REALLY crazy camber curve. that S54 swapped E36 did cause a cleanup on isle 3, however

MrBenjamonkey wrote: I completely agree with your sentiment about demon camber cars being dangerous. And yes, I would support the cops ticketing them. However, there seems to be a strong anti-young bias. For example, T-buckets with no front brakes and 454s seem much more dangerous than a demon camber Rabbit. And yet nobody raises hell about t-buckets. Machiavelli, I think, was right about people opposing whatever is new because it is new.

No anti-young bias here.

The difference is that very few people can look at a T-bucket with no brakes and identify it visually as being hazardous. Not so with the demon camber cars.

If there is any bias, it is perhaps based on the youthful inability to understand to importance of appearances, and the in-your-face attitude that self-proclaims themselves as better than the rest of everyone who is playing by the rules (or at least appearing to).

Old guys with a lot of change tied up in a big block T-bucket don't flaunt their illegalities. Young people do. Then they get upset when bad stuff happens (or when people don't appreciate their "style").

It's kind of self-inflicted.

ScottRA21 wrote: So... What's your stance on Pro Street drag racers?

Are you asking my stance on powerful cars on the street, or on street racing?

Street racing is an abomination. Fun though it may be (and yes, I've done it), it is still abomination.

Most of the Pro Street cars I know are very expensive street legal cars which are also driven on the drag strips. There's usually a lot of money tied up in braking systems, handling packages, cages, etc. I'm not convinced they are necessarily built unsafe as a class.

I understand there are exceptions. There are plenty of unsafe vehicles on the street, and I am not excusing them.

However, as I understand it, Pro Street cars as a class are not inherently more hazardous. Demon camber cars are.

gamby wrote: This is the car and it is pretty fantastic/game-changing/trendsetting IMHO: That said, the hater in me has to wonder where a 20-year-old gets the green to do this.

Not bad looking, although from experience with accidentally getting too much camber from a botched tire store alignment, I'm wondering where he gets the green to buy new tires. I had less than half that negative camber on one of my tires and it was corded within a year.

I have seen that sort of thing - too much camber for my commute, but not so much they had to weld up new axles - around here. Just not the intentional hood rust crowd. I've seen a couple examples of unintentional hood rust, including on my Suburban (well, it's mostly unintentional peeling paint, with a few spots of rust), but not somebody who's gone and rusted his hood on purpose or on an otherwise clean car.

SVreX wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote: Every modification i've done to my car makes it significantly more dangerous.

I really hope that is not true. Have you increased the power without also addressing the braking distance? Shame on you. Have you made the car excessively powerful without enabling it to handle the corners quicker? Shame on you. Have you built something that you are not capable of handling? Shame on you. Have you made it too fast for the tires it has, or pushed it past the stress levels the vehicle is capable of handling? Shame on you. If you have, then you are liable for the risk you are taking and the danger you are exposing other drivers to. Modifications do not necessarily equate to higher levels of danger. I installed disk brakes on my 1960 El Camino. Definitely made it safer. I install roll cages and safety harnesses in race cars, which definitely make them safer. The goal of modifications should be improvements, not increasing danger for the sake of increasing danger. Decreasing the contact patch to 10% of it's original is not an improvement (from a safety perspective). Riding the rubber on the corner in violation to the way the tire was designed to be used is not an improvement (from a safety perspective). Changing the suspension geometry to intentionally limit the capabilities is not an improvement (from a safety perspective). For the record, I don't really care what folks do. I happen to enjoy the low rider scene. But that doesn't mean I think a car that has been fitted with hydraulics so it can jump 10' in the air is appropriate for the street. My opinion of the appearance is completely irrelevant. But no one can argue that these cars have not been compromised from a safety perspective. The photos clearly show vehicles being driven on public roadways which appear to be interstate grade (which would imply high rates of speed). They also clearly show other vehicles using the same public roadways at the same time. Cars that have been modified for show with significant compromises to their handling and safety should not be driven at speeds on public roadways risking innocents. If they are, the owners should be prepared for the consequences. Fines, lawsuits, and financial penalties are certainly some of the potential consequences. Driving on a public roadway (at least in the US) is not a right, it is a privilege. I have no problem taking that privilege from people who abuse it and endanger others.

I should have clarified.

"Makes it significantly more dangerous in the wrong hands."

I've addressed the braking. I've somewhat addressed the suspension (though it's not really to the same level as the rest of the car), It is probably too fast for the tires on it, for sure.

But i'm aware of these things, and i wouldn't push it on public streets anyways, because it's capable of going from a stop to the point where the police just beat you with a rubber hose in a ludicrously short amount of time for a 20 year old Japanese street car.

The "Hellaflush" kids are NOT hooning around. They know the limitations of their cars, and even if they don't, they didn't build them to drive fast. That's the point i'm making.

Any car is dangerous in the wrong hands. My car, being capable of higher speeds/velocity (faster = more dangerous, no matter how you slice it), is more dangerous end result than the hellaflushmobiles.

To a point, (The earlier posted Rabbit being an exception) it's the driver you should worry about more than the car.

Do i think that Hellaflush is stupid? Yeah. Somewhat. Would i rather have a sanely-driven Hellaflushmobile in the lane next to me than a ratty old Cavalier shimmying like a dumptruck with a bent rim? Absolutely. E36 M3boxes are all over the place where i live. Hellaflush is the least of my worries.