GTPNewsWire
Contributing Writer
- 21,591
- GTPHQ
This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:
This article was published by Andrew Evans (@Famine) on July 23rd, 2017 in the Car Culture category.
The road version sits like half an inch higher than the race version McLaren linked above. There are some videos of them on YouTube and the like of them failing to properly navigate out of McDonald's parking lots; so I imagine if you came up on one on a glass smooth highway and waved to the driver, he would smile at you and all of his teeth would rattle out.I always wondered how would be like seeing one of these driving on the road along with traffic?
If TaxTheRich can have a tug of war with a pair of F50s and set an XJ220 on fire doing a burnout, then caning a CLK-GTR down a back lane around a mansion shouldn't be much more of a problem.
Remember nothing is stopping those idiotic ***** from donating their tax free money to something worthwhile,
Seconded. There is no point in owning a car like this if you don't take it for a drive every once in a while. That's same as buying a rare, factory sealed black label PS1 quality game with manual and everything, and then keep it on your shelf for eternity.They weren't built to sit in a garage
Some of the comments amuse me. The car is scraping or being abused on bumpy roads which... is the same thing cars do on a race track.
I fully support flogging cars like this. They weren't built to sit in a garage, they were built to drive stupidly fast.
articleWith a 604hp, 6.9-liter V12, the race-derived CLK was a homologation special; Mercedes had to deliver 25 road cars in order for the vehicle to qualify for FIA GT1. In fact it went one better and produced 26, with AMG creating 20 coupes and HWA building the 6 convertibles.
The processes used to create the stupid car are still in use today and therefor anything lost (not that anything was) can be made new again. Get over it.
Don't tell me; tell the ones whining and crying about it being used "improperly."Did someone say otherwise? The car is worth $6M,if it was reduced to a smoldering pile of metal it would still be rebuilt.
Don't tell me; tell the ones whining and crying about it being used "improperly."
I don't know...that "Did someone say otherwise?" "argument" has always struck me as awful whiny. Also...Pretty sure I'm one of the people you're talking about... despite the "whining", "crying" and "improper" being incorrect characterizations.
I'll concede that any other complaints of improper use appear to have been backed up with an acknowledgement that others' opinions may differ.This car belongs on a track, not this.
It probably shouldn't be driven like that but at least it's being driven. Wonderful.
I see, you're trolling.I don't know...that "Did someone say otherwise?" "argument" has always struck me as awful whiny.
I'll concede that any other complaints of improper use appear to have been backed up with an acknowledgement that others' opinions may differ.
Not at all. No, nobody ever said anything contrary to my comment prior to my comment. What does it matter? My statement was correct and was used to preface the subsequent "Get over it" comment. To play your game; did I say anyone said otherwise?I see, you're trolling.
You appeared to imply my statement regarding claims of improper use was false, I merely provided an example and acknowledged that there was actually only one such claim. See, I like to make worthwhile arguments and back them up rather than simply ask if anyone said otherwise, and I felt it necessary to acknowledge my own mistake because those who ask if anyone said otherwise strike me as the sort who would also throw such mistakes in others' faces.This is important to you for some reason?
Not at all. No, nobody ever said anything contrary to my comment prior to my comment. What does it matter? My statement was correct and was used to preface the subsequent "Get over it" comment. To play your game; did I say anyone said otherwise?
You appeared to imply my statement regarding claims of improper use was false, I merely provided an example and acknowledged that there was actually only one such claim.
See, I like to make worthwhile arguments and back them up rather than simply ask if anyone said otherwise, and I felt it necessary to acknowledge my own mistake because those who ask if anyone said otherwise strike me as the sort who would also throw such mistakes in others' faces.
Then again, it occurs to me you may be the one doing the trolling, seeing as you've made no genuine effort to defend your "arguments."
Oh and just FYI, I went ahead and edited my initial response to the whole "Did anyone say otherwise?" to include the complete quote, as I wouldn't put it past someone who would ask that to edit their own comment so that the question is omitted.
For the record, that comment was directed at those clearly complaining about improper use (having since read your latest post not part of this utterly useless string that I'm now so very bored of, I still don't see any such complaint--unless I'm not getting the point of that champagne analogy), only one of which I've since seen as not possessing the aforementioned personal opinion qualifier. This is the mistake I made; I used a plural when the singular was appropriate.That comment was directed at MY statement. See the part where I said "pretty sure I'm one of the people you're talking about". Then I put "despite" because those things didn't apply to me.
Clearly you and I have different definitions of trolling. My "trolling" remarks were made toward you only in that you were the one who asked "Did someone say otherwise?" It's that half-assed argument that I resent because those who use it don't have any reasonable argument and only aim to disqualify statements. Why didn't you ask McLaren (not tagged as I'm not trying to drag anyone else into this useless conversation) if anyone said race cars don't incur damage on the track? (That was rhetorical.)It's the ad hominem followed by another ad hominem that makes your response "trolling".